***********************************************************

[The piece below is prima facie evidence for the corruption of our constitution, the loss of judicial integrity in the courts, the loss of freedom from undue seizure and search, from unjust punishment, and on and on it goes. The courts are ruling our land, and we must inform the such judges that we will do all that we can to remove them from office -- hopefully before the thing turns violent -- as it surely will if it is not turned around. Tyranny, like it or not, begets counter action, which, if not successful any other way, will resort to force of arms.

And that is precisely what our Declaration of Independence said to King George III, and what we must say to those who would subvert the freedom of the people to pursue truth and righteousness with power usurped from the law of God, from the people, and from the constitution. Suggest you read it -- E. Fox]

From: FriendOCon <FriendOCon@aol.com>

Subject: Massachusetts unlaw

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:45:56 EST

Reply-To: sepschool@lists.best.com

The discussion currently on the list about Kansas law gives me a great springboard to launch into an update on my case.

Dec 10, We basically got a definition of educational neglect. The "independant" court investigator assigned to the case submitted a 9 page report. the conclusion of the report pointed out the dispute that has been ongoing over "requirements" and "authority" and the recommendations of the investigator included everything the school department has demanded for the last year and more.

At this point my attorney pointed out that the word "neglect" appears nowhere in the report. In fact, at no point did the investigator indicate that the children were being neglected educationally or otherwise. At this point the judge said that per se there is neglect because the school department has not given its approval for my family to home educate.

So Kaleb, you can argue all you want about how the courts cannot legislate, but I'll tell you that in Mass, the current truancy law is now (because of the courts) the definition of educational neglect. The supreme court has determined what information is required of home schoolers (not the legislature, see Care and Protection of Charles) and the judge has told us that she will be giving DSS educational custody of our children basically unless we move out of town (maybe state), put our children in school, or unless we give the school department whatever they say they need. Please note that the trial is scheduled for Jan 21 but it sounds to me like the judge has already made up her mind.

And Mike, like Dorris, I have to ask, do you have children and are you practicing what you preach. because mine are seriously out here on the line and I'm looking for all the help I can get.

I would also like to point out that what Dorris says is absolutely true with regards to child protective services. Once you are in it is nearly impossible to get out. You are guilty unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are innocent. You have no recourse to a jury of your peers. And every "independant" or "court appointed" person believes that parents charged are guilty and earns their bread and butter from doing whatever government wants. And attorneys tell me they are ABSOLUTELY immune from prosecution.

When my husband and I appeal, we have been told we will face a panel of 3 judges most probably like the one we face now. and if we appeal that we face a jury of 7 supreme court judges most probably like the one we face now.

Kim

*************************************

Go to: => TOP Page; => EDUCATION Library;  => ROAD MAP