dakota county social services

Dakota County produces a CAFR each year to show the public an accurate picture of the county’s financial condition. The report has 4 main reports – Statement of Activities, Statement of Net Assets, Balance Sheet, and the Statement of Revenues and Expenditures. The Office of the State Auditor audits the CAFR annually.

Attachments

2005 CAFR (127 pp, 11.596 MB)
2006 CAFR (131 pp, 5.239 MB)
2007 CAFR (146 pp, 7.273 MB)
2008 CAFR (142 pp, 6.313 MB)

This page was last updated on: 07/02/2009

Roseville, MN

Annual Budget Documents	Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports
2009 Adopted Budget	2008 CAFR
2008 Adopted Budget	2007 CAFR
2007 Adopted Budget	2006 CAFR
2006 Adopted Budget	2005 CAFR
2005 Adopted Budget	2004 CAFR
2004 Adopted Budget	2003 CAFR
2003 Adopted Budget	2002 CAFR

Ramsey County, MN

The County’s externally audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is a statement of the County’s financial activity for the fiscal year, and the financial condition as of the end of the fiscal year.

The TOP of our Constitutional Government.

2009-08-09T18:33:00.003-07:00

Sheriff Don Gudmundson

Experience:

Don worked as a uniformed patrol officer in Detroit, Michigan.
As a homicide detective, investigated robbery, rape, and burglary murders in the City of Detroit.
Worked as a special agent in the Homicide Squad for the Illinois Bureau of Investigation in Chicago.
Assigned to Cook County Organized Crime Homicide Task Force, investigating Mafia assassinations.
Served as Sheriff of Fillmore County for ten years.
Chief of Police in Lakeville, Minnesota, for five years.
First elected Sheriff of Dakota County in 1994 and re-elected three times since then.
Taught Criminal Justice at Winona State University from 1981 to 1989.

Education:

Bachelor of Arts Degree from Concordia College, Moorhead, Minnesota
Graduate of the Detroit Police Academy
Graduate of Illinois Bureau of Investigation Academy
Graduate of the 37th Session of the Law Enforcement Executive Development Seminar (LEEDS) at the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia

Additional Information:

Don is well-known in the professional speaking circuit, where he has instructed law enforcement management groups nation-wide, including the FBI, Office of the Inspector General, Sheriffs’ Associations, and Chiefs of Police Associations. He also has spoken to members of the public utility industry and other public service organizations. One of Don’s speeches titled, “Fall in a Mud Puddle, Get Up and Check Your Pockets for Fish,” is a fast-moving and humorous look at living and working in the 21st century.
Stories written by Don can be found published in a book called, “Law and Disorder.”

Email:

Don.Gudmundson@co.dakota.mn.us

This page was last updated on: 01/18/2007

County Attorney officer of the court. Thats another branch.

2009-08-09T18:33:00.001-07:00

Dakota County Attorney's Office

James C. Backstrom, County Attorney

Judicial Center
1560 Highway 55
Hastings MN 55033-2343
651-438-4438
651-438-4499 (Fax)
Email Us

Our Mission Statement

To promote justice, public safety, and effective government by
prosecuting crime, protecting those in need, and representing Dakota County.

This page was last updated on: 02/22/2007

The Very Top of government.

2009-08-09T18:11:00.000-07:00

Name	Position
Willis Branning	Commissioner, District 7
Thomas Egan	Commissioner, District 3
Kathleen Gaylord	Commissioner, Chair, District 2
Joseph Harris	Commissioner, District 1
Paul Krause	Commissioner, District 6
Nancy Schouweiler	Commissioner, District 4
Liz Workman	Commissioner
James Backstrom	Attorney
Don Gudmundson	Sheriff

It all starts right HERE, At the Top

2009-08-09T17:45:00.001-07:00

Congressional Leadership

Senate

Majority Leader
Harry Reid (D-NV)

Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

House

Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-8th)

Majority Leader
Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD-5th)

Minority Leader
John A. Boehner (R-OH-8th)

Full Leadership List

2009-08-09T17:41:00.000-07:00

Visit Official Website

See Vice President Biden

See First Lady Obama

See Associate Justice Sotomayor

Residence: Chicago, IL

Marital Status: Married (Michelle)

Prev. Occupation: Attorney, Lecturer

Prev. Political Exp.: IL Senate, 1996-2004; US Senate, 2004-08

Education: BA Columbia University, 1983; JD Harvard University, 1991

Birthdate: 08/04/1961

Birthplace: Unknown, See USSC, etc.

Religion: United Church

Percentage in Last Election: 53%

Major Opponent: John McCain

Visit Official Website

See President Obama

See First Lady Obama

See Associate Justice Sotomayor

Visit Vice President Joseph Biden Jr.'s candidate bio page.

Residence: Wilmington

Marital Status: Married (Jill)

Prev. Occupation: Attorney

Prev. Political Exp.: New Castle Co. Council, 1970-72; US Senate, 1972-2009

Education: BA University of Delaware, 1965; JD Syracuse University, 1968

Birthdate: 11/20/1942

Birthplace: Scranton, PA

Religion: Catholic

2009-08-09T17:38:00.000-07:00

Visit Official Website

Residence: Minneapolis

Marital Status: Married (John Bessler)

Prev. Occupation: Attorney, Prosecutor

Prev. Political Exp.: Hennepin Co. Attorney, 1999-2006

Education: Yale University, 1982; JD University of Chicago, 1985

Birthdate: 05/25/1960

Birthplace: Plymouth, MN

Religion: Christian

Percentage in Last Election: 58%

Major Opponent: Mark Kennedy

Bio

Contact

Committee

Staff

Votes

Bills

Letters

PAC

Current Elected Office Contact Information

Contact Sen. Amy Klobuchar via Web Form.

Website: klobuchar.senate.gov

Washington, D.C. Office:

302 Hart Senate Office Building,
District of Columbia 20510-2305
Phone: (202) 224-3244
Fax: (202) 228-2186

Minneapolis Office: (more district offices) 1200 Washington Avenue South, Suite 250
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
Phone: (612) 727-5220
Fax: (612) 727-5223

2009-08-09T17:36:00.000-07:00

Visit Official Website

Visit Sen. Al Franken's candidate bio page.

Residence: Minneapolis

Marital Status: Married (Franni)

Prev. Occupation: Comedian, Writer, Radio Host

Prev. Political Exp.: no prior elected office

Education: BA Harvard University, 1973

Birthdate: 05/21/1951

Birthplace: New York, NY

Religion: Jewish

Percentage in Last Election: 41%

Major Opponent: Norm Coleman

2009-08-09T17:34:00.000-07:00

Visit Official Website

Residence: Lakeville

Marital Status: Married (Vicky)

Prev. Occupation: Consultant, Farmer

Prev. Political Exp.: no prior elected office

Military: USMC, 1969-94

Education: BA Rice University, 1969; MPA Shippensburg University, 1988

Birthdate: 09/06/1947

Birthplace: Allentown, PA

Religion: Methodist

Percentage in Last Election: 57%

Major Opponent: Steve Sarvi

2009-08-09T17:33:00.002-07:00

Visit Official Website

Residence: St. Paul

Marital Status: Divorced

Prev. Occupation: Teacher, Retail Sales

Prev. Political Exp.: North St. Paul City Council, 1986-92; MN House, 1992-2000

Education: BS College of St. Catherine, 1987

Birthdate: 07/12/1954

Birthplace: Minneapolis, MN

Religion: Catholic

Percentage in Last Election: 68%

Major Opponent: Ed Matthews

2009-08-09T17:33:00.001-07:00

Visit Official Website

Residence: Eagan

Marital Status: Married (Mary)

Prev. Occupation: Attorney

Prev. Political Exp.: MN House, 1992-02

Education: BA University of Minnesota, 1983; JD University of Minnesota, 1986

Birthdate: 11/27/1960

Birthplace: St. Paul, MN

Religion: Lutheran

Percentage in Last Election: 47%

Major Opponent: Michael Hatch

2009-08-09T17:32:00.000-07:00

Bio

Contact

Committee

Letters

Visit Official Website

Residence: South St. Paul

Marital Status: Married (Sandie)

Prev. Occupation: Banker

Prev. Political Exp.: MN House, 1974-86

Education: University of Minnesota

Birthdate: 10/26/1943

2009-08-09T17:30:00.001-07:00

Visit Official Website

Residence: South St. Paul

Marital Status: Married (Suzanne)

Prev. Occupation: Soil & Water Conservationist

Prev. Political Exp.: Dakota Co. Soil & Water Conservation District, 1996-present

Education: BS Upper Iowa University, 1985; MS Iowa State University, 1967

Birthdate: 03/01/1963

Birthplace: Albert Lea, MN

2008-12-08T19:24:00.001-08:00

Links

Justice for Families
A site dedicated specifically to helping Massachusetts families fight the DSS monster. Nev Moore has put together an awesome amount of very practical information, original research, and brilliant analysis. She is very clever at figuring out the real meaning of their rhetoric, seeing through their trickery, and exposing it. In fact, she is probably the best out there at figuring out the wiles and ways of their system of family destruction. A MUST SEE.
John Birch Society
The only truly national organization who advocates "Less Government, More Responsibility, And - With God's Help - A Better World." John Birch has chapters in the Commonwealth, and has turned its attention increasingly to the problem of government interference in families. Search for a great article on its web site called, "The Child Protectors".
MassNews
A series of articles on Attorney Hession's effort to fight corruption in Middlesex Probate and Family Court.
NationalOutrage.org
A site with excellent content on how to deal with child protection agencies, from Attorney Mike Humiston in Utah - Applicable to all states.
CPSWatch
A great collection of articles, and legal information on how to fight the child "protectors."
LewRockwell.com
An anti-war, anti-state collection of new articles every day, from some of the finest minds on the planet.
FalseAllegations.com
A massive collection of material about how to fight false allegations of abuse, from Attorney Barbara Johnson of Andover, Massachusetts.
Kjos Ministries
Excellent collection of articles to help you analyze the culture and fight enemies of the family, church, and true education. This site has major emphases on the child protection racket, home schools, and intrusions by government into families.
Profane Justice
Another excellent site to get real information to fight back. The author of this site, Suzanne Shell, wrote THE book on how to fight DSS, called Profane Justice, which you can order from this site. Do it.

2008-06-07T17:04:00.001-07:00

Right To Bear Arms???

Republic vs. Democracy

Winning The Cultural War

Humanist Manifesto I & II

Our Bullet Proof President

Enemies Of The Constitution

Senator Jesse Helms Rebukes the U.N.

Congressman Davy Crockett on Welfare

Are We Living Under The Communist Manifesto?

The Declaration of Independence & what it means to me

Should Black Americans Come Back Home To The GOP?

Dump Lindsey Graham

Affiliates Log In Here

Citizens for Constitutional Government
3718 Alex Harvin Hwy
Manning, South Carolina 29102
Ph: 803-473-2722 Fax: 803-473-2444
Yahoo Instant Messenger ID: garymcleod1776

2008-05-20T21:51:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul revolution sees second wind

By W. JAMES ANTLE III | 5/15/08 5:32 AM EST

Text Size:

Can the Ron Paul movement make a difference in the Republican Party, especially in its current weakened state?

Photo: AP

As an author, Ron Paul has accomplished something he failed to do as a Republican presidential candidate: finish first. His new book, “The Revolution: A Manifesto,” has topped The New York Times best-seller list and the Amazon sales chart. It has also helped rally his grass-roots following long after John McCain clinched the GOP presidential nomination.

Paul’s supporters began the campaign full of hope. The libertarian Texas congressman smashed online fundraising records and led the Republican field in the fourth-quarter money primary. Polls, and more than a few pundits, suggested that Paul was within striking distance of a third-place finish in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Instead, Paul finished a disappointing fifth place in both states, though he did beat Rudy Giuliani in Iowa and Fred Thompson in New Hampshire. He finished second in a few caucus states, including Nevada, Montana and Louisiana, but mostly began to register single-digit showings in subsequent primaries.

Paul’s campaign organization seemed unable to make good use of the millions it raised, and many of the candidate’s enthusiastic grass-roots followers were becoming dispirited.

Now the Ron Paul revolution, as his supporters call it, is experiencing a second wind. Paul took 16 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania, his best primary showing yet, and has surpassed 1 million votes in the GOP contest. Ron Paul Republicans have started roiling local party organizations, taking control of state conventions and running for public office, all without much coordination from their leader.

One of the Ron Paul Republicans who actually has the congressman’s endorsement is B.J. Lawson, a fellow Duke Medical School alumni running for the House of Representatives from North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District. Lawson won his May 6 congressional primary with more than 70 percent of the vote, despite his opposition to the Iraq war and criticism of the Bush administration’s free-spending ways.

In the neighboring 3rd District, Paul endorsed incumbent Republican Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. in his primary fight against Onslow County Commissioner Joe McLaughlin. McLaughlin decided to challenge Jones after the freedom-fries crusader became one of the country’s most vocal anti-war Republicans.

Jones easily outraised McLaughlin and won the primary by nearly 20 percentage points.

Another Paul endorsee, Murray Sabrin, is running for the Republican senatorial nomination in New Jersey. Paul traveled to the Garden State on April 28 to help Sabrin raise campaign funds. In Virginia, Amit Singh is the Paul-backed Republican primary candidate running for a chance to take on Democratic Rep. Jim Moran.

In other cases, Paul isn’t involved in his supporters’ efforts at all. Four Ron Paul Republicans in Maryland won their primaries without the congressman’s endorsement. Paul backers amended the Alaska Republican Party platform to reflect their stances on civil liberties, the Patriot Act, repealing the 16th Amendment and abolishing the Department of Education.

At GOP district meetings in Minnesota, Paul supporters captured seven Republican National Convention delegate slots; one delegate was selected by the Maine Republican convention. The Nevada GOP convention adjourned early after the initial balloting showed Ron Paul Republicans winning at least half the delegates for the national convention.

Even the revived Paul juggernaut isn’t without problems. One of them is that Paul himself is too much a believer in decentralization to provide his movement with much direction. At a recent book event in Washington, he was asked what his supporters should do in the general election if he did not run as a third-party candidate. Paul reaffirmed that he wasn’t going to run as a third-party candidate and replied that it was up to his supporters to decide what to do.

Paul had to retract his endorsement of a Ron Paul Republican who was improperly vetted and turned out to be a white supremacist. Another candidate, Jim Forsythe in New Hampshire, has already dropped out. Other than in Pennsylvania, Paul, as the last active candidate running against McCain, hasn’t done as well as Alan Keyes did in the same position against George W. Bush in 2000 — largely because his disorganized campaign has sent out mixed messages about the status of his candidacy and has not corrected inaccurate reporting on the matter.

Can the Ron Paul movement make a difference in the Republican Party, especially in its current weakened state? A similar insurrection strategy helped Barry Goldwater’s supporters take over and transform the GOP during the 1960s.

But the Ron Paul Republicans — many of them running in predominantly Democratic areas where they have little chance of success, even if they win their primaries — are nowhere near that point yet. Whether they ever get their way will determine whether Paul is remembered as a consequential figure within the party’s history or just another also-ran.

W. James Antle III is associate editor of The American Spectator.

2008-05-18T16:59:00.000-07:00

NVE's Nanotrap Only Snares Speculators

By Jeff Young November 22, 2004 Comments (0)

1 Recommendation

NVE Corporation (Nasdaq: NVEC) is a small Minnesota company whose stock has shot up 400% over the past year and a half to trade for 13 times revenue. The reason: It says it holds key patents on Magnetoresistive Random Access Memory (MRAM).

The supposed Holy Grail of computing memory, MRAM is a "gee whiz" technology that could combine the speed of SRAM (Static Random Access Memory), the density of DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory), and the stability of flash memory. MRAM could allow your computer to turn on as fast as your TV and improve battery life for cell phones and PDAs.

Large tech outfits such as Motorola (NYSE: MOT) and Cypress Semiconductor (NYSE: CY) have signed license agreements with NVE. Proponents think Motorola will pay NVE a royalty on every MRAM chip it makes and that NVE will be able to resell some MRAM chips once Cypress starts production. Ergo, NVE must hold the keys to the Grail.

As in the legend, though, only the pure of heart get to see the Grail. MRAM could eventually become a major semiconductor business, but NVE will be lucky to see a nano-nickel from it. The real work on MRAM had been conducted independently by technology giants such as IBM (NYSE: IBM), Motorola, Infineon (NYSE: IFX), Toshiba, and Micron (NYSE: MU).

The highlight of what NVE calls its "watershed" MRAM patents is something known as a "one-transistor-per-bit read addressing scheme." This invention relates to the electrical circuitry supporting a memory cell, but has nothing specific to do with MRAM. Further, the claim is based on so much prior art that it's meaningless and unenforceable. The DRAM in your PC has relied on this approach for decades. Motorola did license technology from NVE in 1995, but this was before NVE even had these patents. Motorola pays NVE no fees today and has no reason to pay NVE royalties in the future. Meanwhile, Cypress Semi appears no closer than it has been to producing a commercially viable MRAM-based product. No other company with a major MRAM development program has licensed NVE's patents.

Although NVE has product sales today, none pertain to MRAM. The company generates $12 million a year in revenue, mostly from "work-for-hire" contract R&D. Its scant product revenues come from selling sensors and couplers. These products employ giant magnetoresistor (GMR) devices, a form of magnetic memory. However, you cannot make commercially viable MRAM using GMR. Instead, you have to use magnetic tunnel junctions (MTJ), an entirely different memory cell technology.

Motorola walks away
Consider this: When Motorola signed the license with NVE in 1995, Herb Goronkin, director of Motorola's Physical Research Laboratories, joined NVE's board. Goronkin oversaw Motorola's MRAM development program for the next eight years until his retirement in June 2003. Curiously, when Goronkin resigned from NVE's board in July 2002, Motorola opted not to install another representative. Between June 2003 and January 2004, Motorola sold its entire 8.4% stake in NVE. If NVE's technology had value to Motorola, surely it would maintain its board position and hold on to its shares.

Motorola apparently ditched NVE. In June 2003, Goronkin told the Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Weekly that NVE's technology process was transferred to his lab in 1995 to "kick-start" Motorola's MRAM efforts. "We saved a year in learning the technology," he said. But Motorola "had a number of problems and had to make numerous discoveries along the way." Luckily, Goronkin explained, "someone at MIT and Japan discovered magnetic tunneling junctions and I went over to Japan and we decided we are going to switch horses and get on magnetic tunnel junctions." On its own, Motorola discovered the toggle (US patent 6,545,906), which solved the "soft error" problem caused by the fact that magnets flip each other randomly when crammed in close proximity.

NVE had long insisted it would be due royalties if Motorola commercialized the MRAM device described in its technical papers, but NVE recently backed away from this claim. Last summer, Motorola spun out part of its Freescale Semiconductor (NYSE: FSL) business, the unit that would produce the MRAM chips. On September 9th, at the Smith Barney technology conference, Freescale's president Scott Anderson told investors he had never heard of NVE. In its November SEC filing, NVE claimed it is trying to work out a new license with the soon-to-be-independent Freescale, but admitted there "can be no assurance...that NVE would receive any value under the existing Patent License Option Agreement [with Motorola] or any value under any such further agreement with Freescale." So much for those royalties!

What about Cypress?
Next we have Cypress Semi, which signed a royalty-free license with NVE in April 2002 in conjunction with a $6.2 million purchase of stock and warrants amounting to 24% of NVE. Cypress CEO T. J. Rodgers had said in May 2002 that Cypress would be sampling its MRAM chips by August, with chips in production by year-end. That didn't happen. In September 2003, Cypress announced its MRAM product would be delayed again. The chipmaker also disclosed it had sold all of its 686,849 shares of NVE, retaining only its stock purchase warrants.

This past August, Rodgers predicted that Cypress would sample its 256Kbit chip by year-end and generate revenues by the first quarter of 2005. But the specs show Cypress still doesn't have a commercially viable product. Contrary to the norms of semiconductor development, Cypress' MRAM memory cell has now doubled in size to a non-nano 24 microns. This chip is many times larger and more expensive to make than the higher capacity Motorola/Freescale 1.55-micron chip or 1.42-micron chip under development by Infineon and IBM. Cypress continues to experience "soft error" issues that cause data to be lost or corrupted, forcing it to add massive amounts of redundant circuitry. But even that hasn't solved the problem. Manufacturing yields also remain terrible. Even worse, the Cypress chip uses 5 volts, whereas most current memory chips and competitors' MRAM chips use 3.6 volts or less. Cypress also employs a 3-transitor-per-bit design that doesn't even appear to use the alleged invention in NVE's "watershed" patents. Cypress looks poised to produce a chip so big, expensive, and electronically unsuitable, relative to current standards, that its product will have an extremely limited commercial market, if any.

So NVE's key MRAM patents seem irrelevant, its potential royalty-paying licensee appears not to be using NVE's intellectual property, and its other licensee can't produce a commercially viable chip. NVE's MRAM efforts are worthless today, and they seem to have no demonstrable future value.

What NVE does have is a CEO with an alarming history. Prior to joining NVE in January 2001, Dan Baker had spent more than 10 years as CEO of Printware Inc. (Pink Sheets: PRTWZ.PK), a company that missed earnings targets the second quarter after its July 1996 IPO and spent the next five years failing to match Baker's optimistic forecasts. Baker's reign at Printware ended with angry shareholders voting him out. Baker has expressed his own confidence in NVE's future by selling nearly all of his then current shares last January, pocketing $4 million. He even exercised options that didn't expire until 2011. NVE's management now owns just 8% of the stock.

NVE has also enjoyed the sponsorship of a number of stock promoters, including most prominently the Forbes/Josh Wolfe nanotech newsletter, which first mentioned the stock in June 2003. Wolfe subsequently anointed it a "Nanosphere" play and the stock took off. Wolfe has shown panache as a self-promoter. Before he had made a single nanotech investment, he modestly heralded himself as one of the "true business visionaries of the nanotechnology sector."

Blind them with science
This is the model of how a former penny stock like NVE becomes a darling of speculators. Take allegedly important patents and big name licensees who may never use the technology or produce a marketable product. Add a promotional CEO and mix in a self-styled "visionary" with a wide readership of speculators.

But dubious penny stocks have a habit of returning from whence they came. The truth is that everyone best positioned to understand NVE's technology and future business prospects -- Motorola or Cypress or even Baker -- has cashed out already. Investors who get caught in this trap have simply ignored the evidence before them.

Fool contributor Jeff Young is neither long nor short any of the companies mentioned in this story. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

2007-12-06T12:22:00.001-08:00

National Association of Counties

About Counties

Code of Ethics

Codes & Ordinances

Data & Demographics

Find a County

County Government Overview

History of County Government

About NACo

Affiliates

NACE

Programs & Committees

News

Resources, Training & Education

NACE Events

Legislation & Regulations

NACE Membership

About NACE

Annual Report

Board of Directors

Audit Committee

Finance Committee

NACo Executive Committee

Bylaws

Committees and Caucuses

Large Urban County Caucus

Steering Committee

LUCC Member Counties

LUCC Library

LUCC County Data

LUCC Events

LUCC Lobbying Priorities

Legislative Action Center

Rural Action Caucus

Steering Committee

RAC Member Counties

RAC Library

RAC County Data

Rural Resources & Links

RAC Meetings

Rural County Governance Center

Legislative Action Center

Western Interstate Region

WIR Board of Directors

WIR General Information

WIR Conference

PILT Information

Public Lands Steering Committee

Public Lands Links

Public Lands Platform

Steering Committees

Other NACo Committees

Corporate Structure

Departments

Legislative Affairs

Public Affairs

County Services

Research Division

Community Services Division

Conferences Division

Educational Services

Information Technology

Finance & Administration

Financial Services Corporation

Executive Management

Employment

Membership

County Membership

Corporate Membership Program

NACo Staff

President's Initiatives

State Associations

Conferences & Events

Annual

Legislative

WIR

Seminars & Workshops

Issues & Interest Areas

Issues

Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Community & Economic Development

Environment, Energy and Land Use

Finance & Intergovernmental Affairs

Health

Homeland Security

Housing

Human Services and Education

Justice and Public Safety

Labor & Employment

Meth Action Clearinghouse

Public Lands

Telecommunications & Technology

Transportation

Legislative Action Center

Legislative Priorities

American County Platform

Legislative Bulletins

Congressional Directory

County Resource Center

Library

Publications

Model County Programs

Surveys

Topics of Interest

Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Community and Economic Development

Environment, Energy and Land Use

Finance & Intergovernmental Affairs

Health

Homeland Security

Housing

Human Services and Education

Justice and Public Safety

Labor & Employment

Public Lands

Telecommunications & Technology

Transportation

Advocacy

Awards

Achievement Awards

Acts of Caring Awards

Arts and Culture Award

County Courthouse Awards

County Leadership in the Arts Award

County Leadership in Conservation Awards

Dale Sowards Award

Legislator of the Year Award

Cost Saving Programs for Counties

US Communities Purchasing Alliance

Retirement Services

Grants Clearinghouse

Information Technology

GIS

Jobs Online

Leadership Development

Peer Advice

Public Awareness Campaigns

Counties Serve America

National County Government Week

Training and Technical Assistance

Green Government Initiative

Energy and Green Buildings

Transportation

Land Use

Climate Protection and Air Quality

Water Quality

Purchasing and Recycling

Green Government Initiative Sponsors

Newsletters

Events

News Room

County News

Current Issue

Back Issues

Editorial & Advertising

Media Center

Members Only

Advocacy/Media Relations Tools

Grants Clearinghouse

Grassroots

Information Technology Center

Peer to Peer Network

Publications

Prescription Drug Program

Participating Pharmacies

Research

Counties Save with NACo

Legislative Representation

Grants Clearinghouse

Publications

Conferences

U.S. Communities

Deferred Compensation Program

Training & Technical Assistance

Debt Collection Program

2007-12-06T03:14:00.001-08:00

Advanced Trial Handbook	The Unauthorized Practice Of Law
Asset Forfeiture Kit	Bias Against Pro se's
Debt Collection Myths	Redress Org.
Production Of Documents	Sample Motions or Motion Practice
Dealing With A Bad Judge	Invalid Legal Arguments
Needed Pro se Abilities	Pro se History
Interesting Cases For Study	Lies, Deceit and Deception
Jail for Judges Website	Overruled Sup. Ct. Cases
Collateral Estoppel	Res Judicata
Legal System Myths	Citizen's Justice
Layman Legal Briefs	Government case dismissed?
Example Civil Rights Complaint	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
American Pro se Association	Sue A Judge? Judicial Immunity?
Related Pro se Rulings	Dealing with Prosecutorial Misconduct
Learn About Objections	Tricks Of The Trade - Deception!
Handling Police Encounters	A Judge Speaks On Pro se Rights

2007-12-06T03:09:00.001-08:00

MINNESOTA RULES
OF
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

AMENDED

Effective October 1, 2005
Amended July 1, 2007

www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/05mrpc

INDEX

CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP

COUNSELOR

2.1 Advisor
2.2 Intermediary
2.3 Evaluation for Use by Third Parties

ADVOCATE

TRANSACTIONS WITH PERSONS OTHER THAN CLIENTS

LAW FIRM AND ASSOCIATIONS

PUBLIC SERVICE

INFORMATION ABOUT LEGAL SERVICES

MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROFESSION

http://www.massoutrage.com/dssfalseallegations.htm

2007-12-06T00:04:00.001-08:00

Fighting False Allegations

http://www.massoutrage.com/dssfalseallegations.htm

I. THE SOURCE OF DSS POWER IS THIS: JUDGES CAN'T TELL DSS WHAT TO DO! THE DSS TELLS JUDGES WHAT IT WILL DO!

DSS is completely in control. Even judges can't reign them in.

This is one of the dirtiest and least known secrets of how DSS is able to destroy so many families, and the source of their power: DSS is in control, not the courts.

Ever since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided two cases back in 1995, Care and Protection of Isaac, 419 Mass. 602 (1995) and Care and Protection of Jeremy, 419 Mass. 616 (1995), the DSS has had almost complete control of all children in its custody. A judge will only interfere if DSS is committing what is ridiculously called an "abuse of discretion."

When does DSS abuse its "discretion" enough for a court to step in and stop them?

Generally, never. The Courts have become rubber stamps for DSS. Death, torture, broken bones, bruises, wounds, medical neglect, and other 'minor' problems caused by DSS do not seem to bother courts very much. However, if the parents pray, spank, or yell at the child, then they will authorize the DSS to take your children and give them to a family who cannot be told not to abuse them. Foster parents and DSS approved programs and institutions can usually abuse children at will, often with no consequences whatsoever. As long as it's their guy doing the abusing, nothing will happen.

Not only will a court refuse to stop DSS caretakers from abusing children, it will usually not mind if DSS is falsifying records, committing perjury, taking children on false pretenses, illegally stretching out a case for years, or demanding that a wife commit perjury by getting a false restraining order against the husband.

In other words, DSS is accountable to no one, and no one can stop them, unless the state legislature or a higher court steps in and changes the state of the law.

Well, can't I sue them?

As with all things in the strange world of "child protection", the DSS has been given a gift of protection from lawsuits, called "qualified immunity". That is a fancy name for being lawsuit-proof in most cases. Right now, until someone succeeds in getting a court to change the situation, DSS agents are immune from suits for all "discretionary" decisions.

"Discretion" is when they decide to do just about anything they want: to kidnap your child from you, to keep your child, to adopt your child out, to hurt your child, to emotionally manipulate your child, to stop your child from hugging you at visits, or just about anything else. Only when they violate a "clearly established" constitutional right can they be sued. That is almost never.

It is ridiculous, but the courts have continually protected foolish and biased social workers from any liability for wrongdoing. We are going to try to change this. See the section about our DSS lawsuit.

What are "clearly established" constitutional rights?

Technically, they are rights specifically listed as being protected in the Massachusetts or federal constitutions, such as the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms.

Parental rights are not specifically listed in the either the state or federal constitutions. However, parental rights are "reserved powers", which means that any power not specifically given to the government by the constitution belongs to the people. All powers, including parental rights, which are not mentioned in the Constitution, are kept by the people under the 9^th and 10^th Amendments.

Because most courts now operate more by a political agenda than by law, they will often only protect 'enumerated', or listed rights. However, the constitution is not supposed to work that way. All rights are yours by natural divine law. The constitution does not create rights, but only binds down the government from interfering with them. The Massachusetts and Federal constitutions list several rights as examples in the Bill of Rights, and then basically say that if we forgot any others, they are protected, too.

However, most judges now believe that government creates and grants rights, rather than preserves existing rights that are bestowed by our creator, and which cannot be taken away. Thus, they will ignore your parental rights if it suits them.

Judges often merely explain rights away if they do not favor them politically, as they have done with gun rights, for example. They treat the rights protected under the constitution like an accordion - they expand certain ones that are in political favor, and contract others that are not politically correct.

Do parents have ANY rights?

Not really. The problem is that our founders never dreamed that anyone would ever think of intruding into families, so they did not write specific protections into our state and federal constitutions. They assumed family government would exist peacefully alongside state and church government. Now, when the rights of parents to raise children are being challenged, there is little protection available from courts against the savage predators in the DSS.

A parents' right to direct the upbringing of their children was never questioned until recently. Now, the state sees itself as the parent, and they let you have temporary custody of your own child, unless and until you do something the state doesn't like - then the child goes back to its true parent - the state. There is even a Latin lawyer term for this: Parens Patriae, which means, "father of his country". The Real Life Dictionary of the Law defines parens patriae as: "the doctrine that the government is the ultimate guardian of all people under a disability, especially children, whose care is only entrusted to their parents."

Are you getting this? The state now owns your children, and entrusts you with them, until you do something politically incorrect, like home school them, spank them, pray with them, or otherwise try to keep them out of the hands of those who want to make them into obedient world citizens.

You have told me all that I CAN'T do. Is there anything I CAN do?

Yes, but there are no easy answers. Read on.

II. THE GRIZZLY BEAR (Adapted from material written by Mike Humiston at NationalOutrage.org)

A grizzly is a dangerous creature. They are arbitrary, vicious, and they are not afraid of you. Sound familiar? If you encounter one in the wild, you must be very careful. . .

Should I throw sticks and rocks and scream at him?

Only if you want him to kill you.

Then I should turn and run, real fast . . .

Only if you can run very, very fast.

Then what should I do?

Stand firm, don't show any signs of fear or anger, then carefully, quietly, back away.

The grizzly is the child welfare system . . .

But I thought somebody else's government was the Great Bear . . .

Indeed. Always be polite when dealing with caseworkers and the police. Always, always!

Why?

Because the police carry guns, for crying out loud! And because you are dealing with terrorists, and they have your children. If you argue with the caseworker or the judge, you will only antagonize them. Nothing you say is going to change their minds or make them quit twisting your words. So don't try. Don't give them words to twist. There's no use throwing sticks and stones at the grizzly.

What about running away?

If you can do so legally, then do so. If the state has legal custody of your children, it is illegal to take them and leave. If you're going to break the law, then as with the grizzly, you better be able to run pretty far pretty fast. There are people sitting in prison at this moment for "kidnapping" their own children.

Are you telling me to give up?

Absolutely not! We're telling you to be smart. Know your rights and control the flow of information, but do it with a smile on your face and with total graciousness. "I'm sure this treatment plan is okay, but I'd just like to have my attorney go over it before I sign it. I believe you when you tell me they're just routine, so I'm sure you don't mind if he just has a look before I sign." Remember, the guy who tells you don't need an attorney is the guy who has something to hide. Just because their forms are "routine" does not make them right.

III. WHAT A PARENT CAN DO TO FIGHT FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE.

Unfortunately, you cannot do as much as you would really like to do to fight DSS yourself, except to AVOID doing the wrong things. You can learn about many of those wrong things, and about DSS dirty tricks, on this MassOutrage web site, and the linked sites. However, even if you learned it all, that is only the beginning.

Knowing the things you can learn here, simply doesn't give you the whole scope of the process. Courts and lawyers have made it so complicated (probably to keep a lot of their buddies employed) that very few people even inside the system completely understand the process and all its legal requirements.

In sum, fighting DSS is so hard, so technical, and there are so many pitfalls, that you are better off to work with a good lawyer rather than try it yourself. There is just so much to fighting one of these cases, that it is about like doing brain surgery on yourself to try it alone.

So. . . .

1. Get a good lawyer.

The single biggest ingredient in fighting the DSS menace is to get a good lawyer. What is a good lawyer? Here is the list of qualities I would look for:

Hates the DSS;
Committed to parental rights over government power;
Knows the DSS law, regulations and policies;
Will stand up to DSS social workers and judges, not collaborate with them;
Is YOUR lawyer only, and is not being paid by the state;
Will work with, not against, your spouse's lawyer to get your kids back, if appropriate;
Respects you;
Respects the Constitution and other founding documents;
Does not think lawyers are God, and will work WITH you, not talk down to you;
You trust him and he trusts you. You are both going to take a blindfolded walk down the plank in the dark, so you better trust each other.

2. Work with your lawyer.

The most important thing you can do to get your children back, in addition to avoiding falling into any of the DSS dirty tricks, is work with your lawyer to help him or her get your kids back. How?

You can help review the DSS record, which is very tedious, to look for any evidence you can use against DSS. You can make a chronology, or a time line of all the major events so far, so that the lawyer can get a clear overview of your case. You can pay the poor guy, so he can endure the endless days and nights of attention to your case. You can be patient with the delays, knowing that it is not your lawyer, but DSS and the Court, who have caused them.

You can do everything he tells you in the way of counseling or drug testing or parenting classes, so that he can go back to DSS and report that you have been a good little boy or girl. You can clean up your act, if it isn't: Straighten up your house, your heart, and your life.

You can attend every visitation that your child's kidnappers allow, without fail, even though they will cancel the visits any time they feel like it for any selfish reason. (Irony - they often cancel to care for their own child). You can smile (though gritted teeth) at your child's captors, and work with them. Never, never show your anger, even though the social worker may deserve to fry in the lowest part of Hell.

Listen to your lawyer. Trust your lawyer. If you can't, get a new one. Even if you have a state appointed lawyer, due to lack of finances, fire him if he does not work for you. If he is laughing it up with DSS, fire him. Most lawyers who do this work actually like DSS because they get a lot of work from it. Me - I'd be very happy to be put out of the DSS business tomorrow, if they were abolished.

IV. ANY MORE ADVICE?

What about the Government School? Can they get my children there?

They sure can. In fact, it is the preferred method. No pesky parents. Only sympathetic statists who embrace big brother and believe that the government has the best interest of the child at heart, as opposed to the parents. Government school, you say? Is that a PUBLIC school? Yes, and it is financed by, supported by, and run by the same government who wants to steal your children.

If they have any suspicions about your home whatsoever, the DSS agents will come to your child's government school, all smiles, and take your children aside. They will use suggestive and coercive techniques, and get "disclosures" about what goes on in your home: things like spanking or other discipline, prayer in the home (that is now 'abuse'), yelling or arguments between parents (that is now 'domestic violence'). Since this is done alone, no one will be able to fight the DSS agent's lying version of the "abuse" that they will coerce out of the child.

If I can't trust the government school, who can I trust?

No one but your own private lawyer, as stated above. The government has a snitch network of so-called "Mandated Reporters" everywhere a child is likely to be. Nurses, doctors, school counselors, police, dentists, therapists, teachers, day care workers, and many others MUST report anything they think is suspicious, or risk a big fine.

They have manipulated these former helping professionals into becoming snoops for the "Central Party Committee". These people used to be able to help folks in trouble. Now, if you go to them, they will turn you into the DSS. The authorities have beat them into submission, and most of them now have the attitude of : When in doubt, report.

At this point in our history, only your lawyer can keep your secrets, by law. Everyone else is a snitch. Tell them to no one else.

What should I do, then?

GET YOUR CHILDREN OUT of the government school, and do it now. That is the major pipeline through which the DSS steals children from families. If you are taking government aid of any sort, get rid of it, if you can.

If you decide to compromise your family by keeping your children in danger there, then at least teach them that if some DSS agent comes to talk to them, that they demand to have their parents present before answering any questions.

Teach your children the sanctity of the family. The schools are teaching your children to rat on you. Teach your children the other side, the danger to which they expose your whole family by reporting you to the authorities. Teach your children that dozens of children have committed suicide while in foster care. Hundreds have died. Thousands have been tortured and abused.

Teach them that they have the right to remain silent, and if they choose not to remain silent, each and every word they say will be used against their mommy and daddy. Love them, love them, love them.

Teach your children this: "Kids, this is our family attorney, Mr. Smith. He is our family's only attorney. He is the only attorney that we talk to. If somebody else comes to you and says he is your own attorney (e.g. the DSS agent, or guardian ad litem) anything you say to him will be used against our family."

One of the best things you can do is buy and read Suzanne Shell's book, Profane Justice. It can be ordered for $15.00 by calling 1-800-447-3081, ext. 7794, or write to: Sage Wisdom Press, P.O. Box 75863, Colorado Springs, CO 80970. Forewarned is forearmed.

What about real child abuse?

Real child abusers should go to prison. And the traditional due process protections of criminal law are more than enough to separate the true abusers from the falsely accused. Just because O.J. was acquitted of murder does not mean we should dispose of all due process. Likewise, just because some abusers will get away does not mean we should take away all children.

[Compiled from numerous sources.]

2007-12-04T22:12:00.001-08:00

Minnesota Statutes 2007
Chapter 383D. Dakota County

383D.05	Commissioners' expense.
383D.09	May merge treasurer and auditor, make recorder APPOINTIVE.
383D.095	County administrator serves as clerk of county board.
383D.15	Inactive.
383D.153	Extension committee members.
383D.17	Road and bridge aids.
383D.21	Resolution to create personnel system, appeals board.
383D.22	Definitions.
383D.23	Jurisdiction: positions of listed appointers; exclusions.
383D.24	Employee relations director appointment.
383D.25	Duties and powers of the director.
383D.26	Payrolls approved by director.
383D.27	Civil service and merit system relationships.
383D.28	Veterans to be given preference.
383D.29	County board binds county on labor agreements.
383D.30	County board appoints personnel board of appeals.
383D.31	Duties of board of appeals.
383D.32	Judicial review.
383D.33	Appropriation by county board.
383D.34	Inactive.
383D.35	Protection of rights under state and federal laws.
383D.41	Housing and redevelopment authority.
383D.45	Historical society.
383D.46	Campground operators.
383D.47	Morgue costs.
383D.48	Minnesota inter-county association.
383D.49	Agricultural society.
383D.61	Comprehensive plan.
383D.63	Planning advisory commission.
383D.65	Approval of plats; fee; survey filing.
383D.67	Inactive.
383D.71	Resource recovery.
383D.73	Assessment review.
383D.74	Inactive.

2007-12-04T22:11:00.001-08:00

United States Supreme Court

Parental Rights Caselaw

In the early 1920s, the United States Supreme Court first reviewed the rights, liberties and obligations of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. Two important decisions, Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, established a legacy which was followed by a series of decisions holding that parenting is a fundamental constitutional right, and among "the basic civil rights of man."

Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among those rights the Court has ranked as "of basic importance in our society," and as sheltered by the 14th Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.

Assembled here are a majority of those cases defining or reaffirming these fundamental rights. Links are provided to each case on the FindLaw Internet Legal Resources service. Each is in hypertext format, with links to related opinions of the court contained in the ruling.

M. L. B. v. S. L. J.
___ US ___, 117 S. Ct. 555 (1996)

Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as "of basic importance in our society," rights sheltered by the 14th Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect. This case, involving the State's authority to sever permanently a parent-child bond, demanded the close consideration the Court has long required when a family association so undeniably important was at stake. Santosky v Kramer
455 US 745 (1982)

The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child is protected by the 14th Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures. Lassiter v Department of Social Services
452 US 18 (1981)

The Court's decisions have by now made plain that a parent's desire for and right to "the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children" is an important interest that "undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." A parent's interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision to terminate his or her parental status is, therefore, a commanding one. Quilloin v Walcott
434 US 246 (1978)

We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended "if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children's best interest." Whatever might be required in other situations, we cannot say that the State was required in this situation to find anything more than that the adoption, and denial of legitimation, were in the "best interests of the child." Smith v Organization of Foster Care Families
431 US 816 (1977)

In this action, individual foster parents and a foster parents organization, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against New York State and New York City officials, alleging that the statutory and regulatory procedures for removal of foster children from foster homes violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The ruling contains an analysis of the rights of natural parents as balanced against the rights of foster parents, as well as a comprehensive discussion of foster care conditions. Moore v East Cleveland
431 US 494 (1977)

The Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A host of cases, tracing their lineage to Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters have consistently acknowledged a "private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced. Cleveland Board of Education v La Fleur
414 US 632 (1974)

The Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is a right "to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Stanley v Illinois
405 US 645 (1972)

The private interest here, that of a man in the children he has sired and raised, undeniably warrants deference and protection. The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the 9th Amendment. Wisconsin v Yoder
406 US 205 (1972)

In this case involving the rights of Amish parents to provide for private schooling of their children, the Court held: "The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition." Loving v Virginia
388 US 1 (1967)

In this case involving interracial marriage, the Court reaffirmed the principles set forth in Pierce and Meyers, finding that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Griswold v Connecticut
381 US 479 (1965)

The 4th and 5th Amendments were described as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." The Court referred to the 4th Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people." Reaffirming the principles set forth in Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyers v Nebraska. Prince v Massachusetts
321 US 158 (1944)

It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter. Skinner v Oklahoma
316 US 535 (1942)

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Pierce v Society of Sisters
268 US 510 (1925)

The liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children was abridged by a proposed statute to compell public education. "The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." Meyer v Nebraska
262 US 390 (1923)

"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Home Page
FindLaw is a trademark of Findlaw Internet Legal Resources.

2007-12-04T22:05:00.001-08:00

Equal Justice Foundation

Areas of Interest
Civilization	Courts & Civil Liberties	Families and Marriage
Domestic Violence	Prohibitions & War On Drugs	Vote Fraud & Election Issues
Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado		Emerson story
Have charges of domestic violence or abuse been made against you, or someone you know or love? Whether you are a man or woman dvmen.org will provide information essential to the survival of you and your children.

The Equal Justice Foundation is a nonprofit organization of citizens from all walks of life working to:

• Restore due process.

• Reverse the loss of our civil liberties.

• Ensure equality for all citizens before the bar.

• Establish judicial accountability.

• Reestablish the rule of law.

• Preserve the secret ballot.

• Ensure open, fair, and honest elections.

• Make the Bill of Rights a living document in our time.

Our viewpoints and findings are presented by an eclectic array of male and female authors from a wide variety of fields, backgrounds, and viewpoints.

Comments?

For additional information about the Equal Justice Foundation
Introduction	Find Help	Newsletters	Get EJF newsletter
Annual Reports	How You Can Help	Join the EJF	Make a contribution

Our objective is to fix the problem, not the blame.

Fundamental Liberties

Top

The Equal Justice Foundation believes:

• Citizens should not be torn from their homes and children in the middle of the night based on nothing more than hearsay.

• Men and women should not be presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.

• A secret tribunal should not have the power to force a man from his home without notice or hearing.

• Police should not have the right to enter and search a citizen's home without a warrant.

• Citizens should not be imprisoned based only on hearsay.

• Citizens should not be more afraid of the police than they are of criminals.

• A legal system that tolerates perjury and the subornation of perjury can not produce justice.

• Men should not be censured by public officials for crimes they have not committed.

• Men and women should not be made to work as indentured servants or held in thrall to others for acts they have not committed.

These actions are occurring in America everyday. If you haven't yet personal experience with such sordid injustices we invite you to explore the following pages. Look at the evidence and laws behind these despicable acts. You will find numerous personal stories of men and women who have suffered under these draconian policies, often losing everything they loved and owned in the process. The persecution of Dr. Tim Emerson is but one contemptible example. See why so many find suicide their only escape. And join the Equal Justice Foundation in providing help and succor to many desperate men and women.

Basic Findings

Top

Make no mistake, we are engaged in an epic battle between two incompatible ideologies with fundamentally different views of the rights of the individual and the power of the state, with the future of civilization at stake.

In studying the problems of children, families, and marriage that are the bedrock of our society, some simple facts emerge from study after study:

• The safest place for a child is with their biological father.

• The safest place for a woman is in her home married to the biological father of her children.

• Men and women are equally violent in domestic relationships.

• "Any country that has tried to create a political solution to human problems has ended up with concentration camps and gulags." (Erin Pizzey)

Yet radical ideologues have successfully campaigned to pass laws that contravene these findings and act to destroy children, families, and marriages on a previously unimagined scale. No one of us can combat these evils, but standing together we can, and have made a difference.

These are not battles that will be won overnight and victory will never be complete. But we are turning the tide on repression and darkness. Please join us, for your sake, and the sake of your children.

Research Areas

Top

The essays, papers, articles, and illustrative vignettes of the research areas of interest to the Equal Justice Foundation are organized into six general areas:

• Civilization — the umbrella under which we currently exist but that is under attack.

• Families and Marriage — the basic building blocks of civilization that extremists want to destroy.

• Domestic Violence — family violence has become a tool in the hands of ideologues for the destruction of families and marriage. To provide balance the EJF also maintains and supports the Domestic Violence Against Men In Colorado web site. The Emerson story tells how the life of one medical doctor was destroyed by these draconian laws but we know of many more professionals whose careers have been destroyed by false allegations.

• Courts and Civil Liberties — the crusaders attempting to destroy families and marriage depend heavily on corrupt "family" courts and the destruction of civil liberties to achieve their objectives.

• Prohibitions and War On Drugs — tyrants have always depended on distractions to accomplish their goals and for the denial of civil liberties.

• Vote Fraud and Election Issues — the federally-funded stampede to computer voting and mail in elections has greatly enhanced the potential for election fraud and undermined the faith of citizen's in their elections. The EJJF has been at the forefront, documenting the problems of incompetent and dishonest election officials and voting machine vendors.

Federal Employees In Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah

Top

In Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah federal employees can contribute through the Combined Federal Campaign.

The Equal Justice Foundation agency number is 18855.

Comments?

For additional information about the Equal Justice Foundation
Introduction	Find Help	Newsletters	Get EJF newsletter
Annual Reports	How You Can Help	Join the EJF	Make a contribution

Our objective is to fix the problem, not the blame.

This Web site is maintained and supported by the

Equal Justice Foundation

455 Bear Creek Road

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906-5820

A non-profit 501(c)(3) organization incorporated under the laws of the State of Colorado.

Contributions are tax deductible.

The Equal Justice Foundation is the Colorado affiliate of the

American Coalition of Fathers and Children.

2007-12-04T22:01:00.001-08:00

Publications

Anoka County Shopper
The Anoka County Shopper is a weekly, free-distribution Wednesday publication that is distributed to over 76,126 homes and businesses in the north metro area.

Anoka County Union
The Anoka County Union includes community news coverage of Ham Lake, Ramsey, and Andover as well as the city of Anoka. A paid-circulation newspaper with a circulation of 4,708, the Union is published each Friday.

Blaine-Spring Lake Park Life
Also published Fridays is the Blaine-Spring Lake Park Life. It is a weekly, paid-circulation community newspaper reaching 1,336 homes.

Caledonia Argus
The Caledonia Argus is a paid weekly subscription newspaper published on Wednesdays (circulation 2,225) and serves the communities of Caledonia, Spring Grove, Houston, Eitzen, Dorchester, Brownsville and Hokah; Independent School District 299 and Houston County.

Coon Rapids Herald
The Coon Rapids Herald is a weekly, paid-circulation community newspaper with a circulation of 3,391. It is published Fridays.

Dairyland Peach
The Dairyland Peach is a weekly advertising publication with a total circulation of 28,800 homes, in four overlapping zones. Our distribution area includes the towns of Sauk Centre, Long Prairie, Browerville, Melrose, Albany & Paynesville, as well as the surrounding region.

Dakota County Tribune
The Dakota County Tribune is a weekly, paid subscription newspaper covering all parts of Dakota County.

ECM Post Review
The ECM Post Review is a paid circulation newspaper (2,600) published each Wednesday and serves the communities of North Branch, Stacy, Harris, Sunrise, Almelund, Rush City, and Rock Creek.

ECM Specialty Publications
ECM Specialty Publications offers customized publications for Chambers of Commerce, Convention and Tourism Bureaus, Cities and Counties to help promote the needs of their area or their organization.

Forest Lake Times
The Forest Lake Times is a weekly free-distribution newspaper distributed to over 13,575 homes in Forest Lake and surrounding communities, and serves the Forest Lake School District. The Times is published Thursdays.

Isanti County News
The Isanti County News is a weekly, full distribution newspaper with an average circulation of over 12,300 per week, delivering news and advertising since 1900. Published Wednesdays, the Isanti County News is the local news source for Cambridge, Isanti and Braham and surrounding areas.

Mille Lacs County Times
The Mille Lacs County Times is a weekly newspaper with a 3,100 paid circulation. Published on Wednesday, the newspaper serves Milaca and surrounding communities.

Morrison County Record
The Morrison County Record is a weekly newspaper reaching over 18,500 homes and is delivered by 9 a.m. Sundays. The newspaper serves Morrison County and parts of Crow Wing, Mille Lacs, Benton, Stearns and Todd counties in Central Minnesota.

Princeton Union-Eagle
The Princeton Union-Eagle is a weekly community newspaper serving Princeton, Minnesota and the surrounding area. Published each Wednesday it reaches 3,500 paid subscribers.

Scotsman
The Scotsman brings your message into every home in the area. On average, over 56,000 copies are distributed in a market area that covers East Central Minnesota. Published each Sunday from our office in Cambridge, The Scotsman offers zoned coverage that allows you to effectively reach your entire market.

Star News
The Star News is a weekly, free-distribution community newspaper serving Elk River, Zimmerman, Rogers, Otsego, Dayton, Orrock, Nowthen, Big Lake, Monticello, Albertville and Ramsey. It is delivered Wednesdays to over 23,000 homes and businesses in school district #728.

(Star News) Weekender
The Weekender is a circulation shopper distributed free on Saturdays and Sundays to over 27,500 homes in Elk River, Zimmerman, Rogers, Otsego, Dayton, Orrock, Nowthen, Big Lake, Monticello, Albertville, Becker and Ramsey.

St. Croix Valley Peach
This free distribution shopping guide is published every Sunday and has total market coverage area of over 33,250. The Peach serves a region that includes Forest Lake, Hugo, Scandia, Marine on St. Croix, Chisago City, Lindstrom, Taylors Falls, Wyoming, Stacy, North Branch, Almelund, Lino Lakes and western Wisconsin - Osceola, Dresser and St. Croix Falls.

Thisweek Newspapers
Weekly newspapers in Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Farmington, Lakeville, Prior Lake, Rosemount and Savage that reach over 88,810 homes weekly.

Town & Country Shopper
The Town & Country Shopper is a weekly advertising publication with a total circulation of 16,800 homes in the Princeton, Zimmerman, Milaca, Foley, Pease, Foreston, Dalbo, Onamia and Hillman areas. It is distributed Monday mornings

[ Back ]

2007-12-04T21:27:00.000-08:00

STUDIES, SURVEYS, AND AUDITS

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Inspector General - Compliance Audits

Review of Connecticut Claims for Title IV-E Retroactive Adjustments. A-01-01-02501, February 12, 2002.

Audit of Title IV-E Foster Care Child-Care Claims at the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services' Division of Child Development for the Period November 1, 1997 to March 31, 1999. (A-04-01-00002). November 19, 2001.

Audit of Title IV-E Foster Care and Other Grants' Payments for Child Care Claims at the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services' Division of Child Development. (A-04-98-00123). April 30, 2001.

Review of Federal Nonparticipating Foster Care Costs Which the New York State Department of Family Assistance Retroactively Claimed to the Title IV-E Foster Care Program. (A-02-98-02004). April 24, 2001.

Review of Maine's Licensing of Foster Care Homes. (A-01-00-02500). January 23, 2001.

Review of Costs Claimed for Federal Financial Participation Under the Title IV-A Emergency Assistance Program by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare for Children in Allegheny County from October 1, 1994 to September 30, 1996. (A-03-99-00596). December 5, 2000.

Review of Kinship Foster Care Costs Which the New York State Department of Family Assistance Retroactively Claimed to the Emergency Assistance Program. (A-02-99-02001). September 28, 2000.

Review of Juvenile Justice Costs and Youth Incentive Program Costs Which the New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development Retroactively Claimed to the Emergency Assistance Program. (A-02-99-02006). August 31, 2000.

Review of Mississippi's Retroactive Claim for Foster Care Administrative and Training Costs and Maintenance Payments. (A-04-98-00126). August 10, 2000.

Review of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare Costs Claimed Under Title IV-A Emergency Assistance for Children in Youth Development Centers, Youth Forestry Camps, and Castille Contracted Detention Facilities from October 1, 1994 to September 30, 1996. (A-03-99-00594). August 9, 2000.

Review of Costs Claimed for Federal Financial Participation Under the Title IV-A Emergency Assistance Program by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare for Children in Philadelphia County from October 1, 1994 to September 30, 1996. (A-03-98-00592). April 21, 2000.

Review of Federal Nonparticipating Foster Care Costs Which the New York State Department of Family Assistance Retroactively Claimed to the Emergency Assistance Program. (A-02-98-02002). February 29, 2000.

Review of Retroactive Adjustments Filed by Massachusetts Under the Title IV-E Foster Care Program. (A-01-98-02505). February 29, 2000.

Review of Two Selected Eligibility Requirements for New York State Title IV-E Foster Care Claims for New York City. (A-02-97-02002). February 24, 2000.

Maintenance Payments to For-Profit Child Care Providers Under the Title IV-E Foster Care Program in Illinois. (A-05-99-00004). February 23, 2000.

Missouri's Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). (A-07-99-01040). October 8, 1999.

Ceiling for Enhanced Federal Financial Participation Exceeded by the Missouri Department of Social Services. (A-07-98-01033). March 19, 1999.

Follow-on Review of the Office of Inspector General Audit of Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility in California. (A-09-98-00075). February 12, 1999.

Review of the State of Georgia's Independent Living Program. (A-04-97-00113). October 30, 1998.

Review of Costs Claimed Under the Title IV-A Emergency Assistance (EA) Program by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) for Children in the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) Juvenile Justice System from January 1, 1996 through June 30, 1996. (A-03-98-00590). September 1, 1998.

Retroactive Claims Under the Title IV-E Foster Care Program in Indiana. (A-05-97-00026). January 22, 1998.

Audit of California Department of Social Services Rate-Setting Methodology for Foster Family Agencies. (A-09-96-00082). November 17, 1997.

Review of Foster Care Claims Reclassified by the State of Alabama. (A-04-97-00111). October 31, 1997.

Follow-up Review of State Agency Comments on Audit of Title IV-E Payments to Child Placing Agencies, Indiana Family and Social Services Administration. (A-05-97-00056). September 24, 1997.

Audit of Training Contract Costs Claimed for Federal Reimbursement by the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. (A-10-96-00004). September 4, 1997.

Foster Care Training Administrative Costs Claimed for Federal Reimbursement by the California Department of Social Services. (A-09-96-00066). September 4, 1997.

Training Costs Claimed By Kansas Under the Title IV-E Foster Care Program. (A-07-97-01028). August 28, 1997.

Payments to Child Placing Agencies Under Title IV-E Foster Care Program, Indiana Family and Social Services Administration. (A-05-96-00055). June 27, 1997.

Review of Title IV-E Training Costs, Michigan Family Independence Agency. (A-05-96-00043). June 17, 1997.

Report of Costs Allocated to the Title IV-E Foster Care Program. (A-07-97-01027). June 11, 1997.

Summary Report on Nationwide Audit of Training Contract and Administrative Costs Charged to Department of Health and Human Services Supported Programs. (A-02-95-02002). April 25, 1997.

Allocation of Title IV-E Training Costs - Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. (A-05-96-00013). August 20, 1996.

Audit of Training Contract Costs Claimed for Federal Reimbursement by the California Department of Social Services. (A-09-95-00056). August 9, 1996.

Maintenance Payments Retained by Child Placing Agencies in the Texas Foster Care Program. (A-06-95-00035), February 6, 1996.

Review of Rising Costs in the Emergency Assistance Program. (A-01-95-02503), October 6, 1995.

Improvements Needed in Monitoring Child Placing Agencies in the Texas Foster Care Program. (A-06-94-00041), August 5, 1995.

Audit of Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility in California for the Period October 1, 1988 through September 30, 1991
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Audit A-09-92-00086, March 18, 1994.

Review of Retroactive Foster Care Title IV-E Claims Submitted by the Missouri Department of Social Services.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Audit (A-07-92-00601, March 8, 1994.

Using Relatives for Foster Care.
Richard P. Kusserow, Office of the HHS Inspector General, OEI-06-90-02390, 1992.

General Accounting Office Reports

District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long-Term Challenges to Ensuring Children's Well-Being.
GAO-01-191. December 29, 2000.

Child Welfare: New Financing and Service Strategies Hold Promise, but Effects Unknown.
GAO/T-HEHS-00-158. July 20, 2000.

Foster Care: HHS Should Ensure That Juvenile Justice Placements Are Reviewed.
GAO/HEHS-00-42. June 9, 2000.

Foster Care: Status of the District of Columbia's Child Welfare System Reform Efforts.
GAO/T-HEHS-00-109. May 5, 2000.

Foster Care: States' Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
GAO/HEHS-00-1. December 22, 1999.

Foster Care: Effectiveness of Independent Living Services Unknown.
GAO/HEHS-0013. November 10, 1999.

Foster Care: HHS Could Better Facilitate the Interjurisdictional Adoption Process.
GAO/HEHS-00-12. November 19, 1999.

Management Reform: Elements of Successful Improvement Initiatives.
GAO/T-GGD-00-26. October 15, 1999.

Foster Care: Challenges in Helping Youths Live Independently.
T-HEHS-99-121. May 13, 1999.

Foster Care: Kinship Care Quality and Permanency Issues.
GAO/HEHS-99-32. May 6, 1999.

Foster Care: Increases in Adoption Rates.
GAO/HEHS-99-114R. April 20, 1999.

Social Service Privatization: Ethics and Accountability Challenges in State Contracting.
HEHS-99-41. April 5, 1999.

Juvenile Courts: Reforms Aim to Better Serve Maltreated Children.
GAO//HEHS-99-13. January 11, 1999.

Child Welfare: Early Experiences Implementing a Managed Care Approach.
GAO/HEHS-99-8. October 21, 1998.

Foster Care: Agencies Face Challenges Securing Stable Homes for Children of Substance Abusers.
GAO/HEHE-98-182. September 30, 1998.

Foster Care: Challenges Faced in Implementing the Multiethnic Placement Act.
T-HEHS-98-241. September 15, 1998.

Foster Care: Implementation of the Multiethnic Placement Act Poses Difficult Challenges.
GAO/HEHS-98-204. September 14, 1998.

Healthy Start: Preliminary Results From National Evaluation Are Not Conclusive.
GAO/HEHS-98-167. June 15, 1998.

Parental Substance Abuse: Implications for Children, the Child Welfare System, and Foster Care Outcomes.
T-HEHS-98-40. October 28, 1997.

Social Service Privatization: Expansion Poses Challenges in Ensuring Accountability for Program Results.
GAO/HEHS-98-6. October 20, 1997.

Child Protective Services: Complex Challenges Require New Strategies.
GAO/HEHS-97-115. July 21, 1997.

Foster Care: State Efforts to Improve The Permanency Planning Process Show Some Promise.
GAO/HEHS-97-73. May 7, 1997.

Foster Care: State Efforts to Expedite Permanency Hearings and Placement Decisions.
GAO/T-HEHS-97-76. February 27, 1997.

Child Welfare: States' Progress in Implementing Family Preservation and Support Services.
GAO/HEHS-97-34. February 18, 1997.

Cycle of Sexual Abuse: Research Inconclusive About Whether Child Victims Become Adult Abusers.
General Accounting Office, Letter Report, GAO/GGD-96-178, September 13, 1996.

Preventing Child Sexual Abuse: Research Inconclusive About Effectiveness of Child Education Programs
General Accounting Office, Letter Report, GAO/GGD-96-156, July 26, 1996.

Sex Offender Treatment: Research Results Inconclusive About What Works to Reduce Recidivism
General Accounting Office, Letter Report, GAO/GGD-96-137, June 21, 1996.

At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal Programs Raise Efficiency Questions.
GAO/HEHS-96-34. March 6, 1996.

Child Welfare: Complex Needs Strain Capacity to Provide Services.
GAO/HEHS-95-208. September 26, 1995.

Child Welfare: Opportunities to Further Enhance Family Preservation and Support Activities.
GAO/HEHS95-112. June 15, 1995.

Foster Care: Health Needs of Many Young Children Are Unknown and Unmet.
GAO/HEHS-95-114. May 26, 1995.

Foster Care: Parental Drug Abuse Has Alarming Impact on Young Children.
GAO/HEHS-94-89. April 4, 1994.

Residential Care: Some High-Risk Youth Benefit, But More Study Needed.
HEHS-94-56. January 28, 1994.

Foster Care: Federal Policy on Title IV-E Share of Training Costs.
GAO/HRD-94-7. November 3, 1993.

Foster Care: Services to Prevent Out-of-Home Placements Are Limited by Funding Barriers.
HRD-93-76. June 29, 1993.

Foster Care: State Agencies Other Than Child Welfare Can Access Title IV-E Funds.
HRD-93-6. February 9, 1993.

Integrating Human Services: Linking At-Risk Families With Services More Successful Than System Reform Efforts.
HRD-92-108. September 24, 1992.

Child Abuse: Prevention Programs Need Greater Emphasis.
HRD-92-99. August 3, 1992.

Child Abuse and Neglect: Progress of the National Center Since May 1991.
T-HRD-92-14. February 27, 1992.

Implementation of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1988 by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.
T-HRD-91-29. May 9, 1991.

Drug Exposed Infants: A Generation at Risk.
T-HRD-90-46. June 28, 1990.

Foster Care: Delayed Follow-Up of Noncomplying States May Reduce Incentive for Reform.
PEMD-89-16. September 13, 1989.

Foster Care: Incomplete Implementation of the Reforms and Unknown Effectiveness.
PEMD-89-17. August 14, 1989.

Meeting the Needs of Children in a Home-Based Setting.
T-HRD-89-30. June 20, 1989.

Foster Care: Preliminary Report on Reform Effects.
PEMD-89-23BR. June 1, 1989.

Children's Programs: A Comparative Evaluation Framework and Five Illustrations.
PEMD-88-28BR. August 31, 1988.

Clinical Social Work: State Laws Governing Independent Practice and Reimbursement of Services.
HRD-86-55FS. February 21, 1986.

Residential Care: Patterns of Child Placement in Three States.
PEMD-85-2. June 28, 1985.

Children's Bureau, Child and Family Services Reviews, State Final Reports

The HTML versions of these reports may be viewed online with any browser, while the PDF versions require the Adobe Acrobat Reader.

The Children's Bureau conducted comprehenive reviews in all 50 states during the early 2000s. Not one state passed the reviews, which addressed matters as basic as safety and permanency in state care, as well as services provided to children and their families. Included here are the complete reports covering compliance and other vital issues.

Children's Bureau Child Welfare Reviews

Miscelleaneous Child Welfare & Foster Care Reports - (This section is currently being revised and expanded).

Fifteen Years of Failure: An Assessment of California's Child Welfare System
Justin Matlick, Pacific Research Institute, March, 1997.

The State of the Children: An Examination of Government-Run Foster Care, Conna Craig and Derek Herbert, Institute for Children, National Center for Policy Analysis, August, 1997.

Little Hoover Commission, Report #115, For The Sake Of The Children: Restructuring Foster Care In California, April 9, 1992.

Little Hoover Commission, Report #152, Now in Our Hands: Caring For California's Abused and Neglected Children. August 1999.

Little Hoover Commission, Report #168, Still in Our Hands: A Review of Efforts to Reform Foster Care in California, February 2003.

Michael T. Skrak, Office of New York State Senator Franz S. Leichter, New York State Abandons Victims of Institutional Child Abuse, September, 1993.

Department of Human Services, Foster Care Program, Office of the State Auditor, Legislative Audit Committee, Colorado, June 2002. Complete report PDF.

Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Children, Youth and Families: Foster Family Care Program, Legislative Budget Assistant Office, New Hampshire. September 2001.

Department of Public Health and Human Services, Financial-Compliance Audit For the Two Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2001, Audit 01-11, Legislative Audit Division, Montana. December 2001. Report Summary, Complete report in PDF format.

Department of Corrections, Out-of-Home Placement of Juvenile Offenders, Performance Audit, 99P-02. Legislative Audit Division, Montana. November 1999. Report Summary, Complete report in PDF format.

Juvenile Detention, Montana Board of Crime Control (MBCC). Performance Audit 00P-12. Legislative Audit Division, Montana. November 1999. Report Summary, Complete report in PDF format.

Child Protective Services, (House Joint Resolution 32), Child and Family Services Division, Department of Public Health and Human Services, The Supreme Court of Montana, Department of Justice. Performance Audit, 02P-02. Legislative Audit Division, Montana. October 2002. Report summary, Complete report in PDF format.

Domestic Violence Program, Child & Family Services Division, Department of Public Health and Human Services, Performance Audit 00P-15, Legislative Audit Division, Montana. November 2000. Report Summary, Complete report in PDF format.

Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS), Audit and Compliance Bureau Performance Audit, 99P-03. Montana. December 1999. Report Summary, Complete report in PDF format.

Montana Foster Care Review Process, Department of Public Health and Human Services and Supreme Court, Performance Audit, 98SP-79. Montana. December 1998. Report summary, Complete report in PDF format, Complete Follow-up report (June 2001) in PDF format.

A Performance Audit of the Utah Foster Care Foundation, Legislative Auditor General, Report Number 2002-4, State of Utah, June 2002. Complete report in PDF format.

A Performance Audit of Child Welfare Caseworker Workload, Legislative Auditor General, Report Number 2002-54, State of Utah, September 2002. Complete report in PDF format.

A Performance Audit of Utah's Adoption Assistance Program, Legislative Auditor General, Report Number 2001-03, State of Utah, January 2001. Complete report in PDF format.

Child Welfare Referrals and Cases, Legislative Auditor General, Report Number 2001-08, State of Utah, September 2001. Complete report in PDF format.

Foster Care. Tennessee Division of State Audit, Audit 97113, November 1998. Download complete PDF report.

Cohort 2: A Study of Families and Children Entering Foster Care 1991-1993
Child Welfare Partnership, Portland State University, Graduate School of Social Work.

A Review of Family Preservation and Family Reunification Programs
Westat, Inc. in association with James Bell Associates, Inc., and The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, May 30, 1995.

A Synthesis of Research on Family Preservation and Family Reunification Programs.
Julia H. Littell and John R. Schuerman, Westat, Inc., in association with James Bell Associates, and the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. A part of the National Evaluation of Family Preservation Services for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. May, 1995.
Executive Summary.

Intensive Family Reunification Programs.
Ariel Ahart, Ruth Bruer, Carolyn Rutsch, Richard Schmidt, and Susan Zaro, Macro International, Inc., For the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, June 30, 1992.
Executive Summary.

Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings in Illinois Jurisdictions Outside Cook County: A Descriptive Report.
Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. Report focuses on court proceedings in parts of Illinois other than Cook County. May 1997. Available in Text or in Word Perfect format.

Timeliness and Delay in the Cook County Juvenile Court Child Protection Division.
Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. Report focuses on court proceedings in Cook County. January 1997. Available in Text or in Word Perfect format.

Assessment and Recommendations for Improving Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings in Montana Courts.
Montana Supreme Court, Office of the Court Administrator. December 1996. Available in Text or in Word Perfect format.

Improving the Court Process for Alaska's Children in Need of Aid.
Alaska Judicial Council. October 1996. Available in Text or in Word Perfect format.

Juvenile Justice: Status of Delinquency Prevention Program and Description of Local Projects
Letter Report, GAO/GGD-96-147, August 13, 1996.

Juvenile Out-of-Home Placement,
Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, Program Evaluation Division, Report Number: 99-02, January 11, 1999.
Report examines Minnesota's locally-administered juvenile out-of-home placement system. It documents the reasons for placements and assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the system.

Child Protective Services,
Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, Program Evaluation Division, Report Number 98-01. January 13, 1998.
Of particular interest is that this audit found the child fatality data was unreliable, to the extent that it reported twice the number of child fatalities which actually occurred over a two year period.

Arizona Department of Economic Security, Division of Children,Youth and Families
Office of the Auditor General, Report No. 97-18, November, 1997. (Temporarily offline)

Child Abuse and Neglect in California
Legislative Analyst's Office, January, 1996.

Child Welfare System
Utah Legislative Auditor General, December, 1993.
Download complete PDF report.

GRAND JURY REPORTS

Interim Report of the Spring Term 2001 Grand Jury, Broward County Grand Jury, Florida, October 4, 2001.

San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury, California, The Safety and Best Interest of Children, June 2004. PDF

2002 - 2003 Nevada County, California, Grand Jury, Foster Care Policies and Procedures, June 30, 2003. PDF.

2002 - 2003 Nevada County, California, Grand Jury, Child Abuse Reporting Procedure, June 16, 2003. PDF.

1996 - 97 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury, Juvenile Justice System, 1997. (Temporarily offline).

2000 - 2001 Sacramento County Grand Jury, Transitional Assistance For Aging-Out Foster Children, Section in Final Report (Internet Version) June 30, 2001.

2000 - 2001 Sacramento County Grand Jury, Recruitment and Retention of Foster Parents, Section in Final Report (Internet Version) June 30, 2001.

1993 - 1994 San Diego County Grand Jury, Analysis of Child Molestation Issues, Report No. 7. June 1, 1994.

1992 - 1993 Santa Clara County Grand Jury, Investigation: Department Of Family And Children's Services, Final Report. 1993.

County of Tom Green, Texas, Grand Jury Report, December 7, 1987.

1991 - 1992 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY
The San Diego County Grand Jury reports are among the most comprehensive examinations of the child welfare, foster care and juvenile justice systems conducted by an independent body.

Families in Crisis
Report No. 2. February 6, 1992.

Families in Crisis, Supplement
June 29, 1992

The Crisis in Foster Care
Report No. 7. June 29, 1992

Child Sexual Abuse, Assault, and Molest Issues
Report No. 8. June 29, 1992

RELATED RESEARCH

Marisol v. Giuliani Civil Complaint.
Includes detailed account of agency operations and comprehensive history of the New York City child welfare system.

Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, Bogutz v. Arizona, 2nd amended civil complaint, No. CV94-04159. July 1994.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Lashawn v. Dixon, decision, Civil Action No. 89-1754, 762 F. Supp. 959; 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5300, (April 18, 1991).

Kara B. & Mikaela R. v. Dane County, Dane County Department of Human Services, its Agents and Assigns, Decision, Case Nos. 94-1081 & 94-2908, November 2, 1995.

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, decision, Neal v. Casey, Docket No. 94-1381, December 22, 1994.

Federal Law Enforcement: Investigative Authority and Personnel at 13 Agencies
General Accounting Office, Letter Report, GAO/GGD-96- 154, September 30, 1996.

Characteristics and Sources of Allegations of Ritualistic Child Abuse.
Gail Goodman, Final Report to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Grant No. 90CA1405.
Executive Summary.

2007-12-04T21:16:00.001-08:00

A Critical Look at the Child Welfare System

If the Nation had deliberately designed a system that would frustrate the professionals who staff it, anger the public who finance it and abandon the children who depend on it, it could not have done a better job than the present child welfare system.

-- National Commission on Children

INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES AND ASSESSMENT METHODS
Introduction and Overview
An investigation of abuse or neglect, even if unfounded, can be the most traumatic and devastating event a family may face.
Interrogations, Repeated Questioning, Vilification
Exploring some of the more commonly used investigative techniques. False assumptions, repeated questioning, and dividing the family.
Strip Searches
Strip searching of children by child protective caseworkers. How widespread and useful a practice? What are the effects on children?

VITAL AREAS OF CONCERN

Decision Making in Child Welfare

Defensive Social Work.
Does caseworker protection play a role in the needless removals of children from their homes? A closer look at what it means to "err on the side of the child."

Reunification Plans: Recipes for Failure.
Critics charge that reunification plans are often designed to ensure failure. How can failure to faithfully follow the terms of such a plan affect the chances of family reunification?

Falsification of Records.
Many critics charge that case files, interview records and even evidence are often falsified by child protective caseworkers. How often does this occur?

Turnover in Child Welfare.
Exploring the reasons for high child protective and foster care caseworker turnover, and the effects on children.

Caseworker Training.
Are the training standards for child protective caseworkers adequate for the difficult task with which they are charged?

SPECIAL REPORTS

Analysis of Children's Drawings.
Your child brings home a drawing from an art session in school. Could it have been screened for potential indicators of child sexual abuse?

Questionable Examples of Expert Testimony.
A pictorial tour of the often incredible testimony and material presented as evidence by experts in child abuse cases.

Syndrome Evidence.
Behavioral indicators often used in the courtroom as evidence of child abuse. Do these indicators prove only the ingenuity of the expert witnesses?

Home Page

2007-12-04T21:09:00.001-08:00

WHAT'S NEW

What's New at Lifting the Veil
An overview of what is currently in progress on the Lifting the Veil web site.

A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM

A Critical Look at the Foster Care System
How great is the need for foster care? How safe are the services provided? What are the trends for the future of these children?

A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM

A Critical Look at the Child Welfare System
Investigative techniques, assessment tools, caseworker turnover, reunification plans, falsification of records, caseworker training, and other issues are explored.

SPECIAL REPORTS

Efforts at Reform
For decades, child advocates have tried legislative measures, litigation, administrative restructuring, as well as a variety of other methods aimed at reforming public child welfare agencies. How effective have these strategies been at altering daily practice? The first article in a planned series explores over three decades of reform efforts in the state of Tennessee.

Child Abuse Reporting
How many of the over three million reports received annually by child welfare agencies are passed on for investigation? How is the number of reports used to manipulate public perception? How many reports actually involve allegations of severe abuse?

Reasonable Efforts
What problems was Public Law 96-272, the "reasonable efforts requirement," intended to address? Did the law enjoy any measure of success? Are the states in compliance with the law? Critics charge the law suffered from a lack of federal leadership, and that it was destined for failure.

Close Up: The Petro Audits
Luxury car leases, tickets to sporting events, country club memberships, a cruise, limousine services, personal loans, and political contributions. All at taxpayer expense, and all from money intended to be used for children in foster care.

Under Siege: The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978
An alarmingly high percentage of Native American families are broken up by the removal of their children from them by nontribal public and private agencies. An introduction to The Indian Child Welfare Act. Is it working as intended?

The Lost Children
Children missing from foster care across the nation. Gone without a trace, they are among America's disposable children.

Eye on Kansas
Critics charge that privatization of foster care in the state of Kansas falls far short of the success that it was promised to be.

The Children: Casualties in America's War on Child Abuse
Special Reports including: Elisa Izquierdo, Krystal Scurry, Keron Owens, Eli Creekmore, Michelle Hampton, Selena Hill.

PUBLISHED WRITINGS

A Reply to Andrew Vachss' "A Hard Look at How We Treat Children"
Rick Thoma replies to Andrew Vachss' March 29, 1998, article in Parade Magazine. This article appeared in the Summer 1998 edition of Vindicator, the journal of the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

If You Lived Here, You'd be Home Now: The Business of Foster Care.
Article published in the January 1999 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Issues in Child Abuse Accusations.

Several of the articles that appear on Lifting the Veil have also been published in a variety of formats, such as newsletters, as well as having been incorporated as teaching and training curricula.

RESEARCH DATABASES

U.S. Supreme Court Caselaw
A comprehensive collection of Supreme Court cases dealing with the issues of parental rights, liberties and obligations.

Foster Care and Child Welfare Related Testimony
A growing database of Congressional and other testimony by child advocates and industry leaders, including Douglas Besharov, Mark Soler, George Miller, Marcia Robinson Lowry, Richard Wexler and others.

Studies, Surveys and Audits
A continuously updated database of reports on Foster Care, Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice, Family Preservation and more. Included are studies, surveys, performance audits, and grand jury reports.

Welcome

2007-10-20T21:38:00.000-07:00

This blog is being started to document abuses of power by government, especially City and County governments which use Federal money in their day to day operations.

My story is that of a county social services' agency telling my wife and we we have to break up, never live together again before they will give my wife her daughter back.

Because of my own experience with government and my involvement with the truth movement I will be even more focused on how our government works.

dakota county social services

Judges - District of Minnesota

U.S. District Court Judges

U.S. Court of Appeals

U.S. Bankruptcy Court

Follow the money

The TOP of our Constitutional Government.

County Attorney officer of the court. Thats another branch.

The Very Top of government.

It all starts right HERE, At the Top

NVE's Nanotrap Only Snares Speculators

http://www.massoutrage.com/dssfalseallegations.htm

Minnesota Statutes 2007Chapter 383D. Dakota County

United States Supreme Court

Parental Rights Caselaw

Equal Justice Foundation

Areas of Interest

The Equal Justice Foundation is a nonprofit organization of citizens from all walks of life working to:

Our objective is to fix the problem, not the blame.

Fundamental Liberties

The Equal Justice Foundation believes:

Basic Findings

Research Areas

Federal Employees In Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah

Our objective is to fix the problem, not the blame.

Publications

STUDIES, SURVEYS, AND AUDITS

A Critical Look at the Child Welfare System

Welcome

Minnesota Statutes 2007
Chapter 383D. Dakota County