Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Middleton school district control update!

Check this out!!

Did you know when you put your kids in public school you give up your rights to them?

Mathematically, it’s easy, they force you to pay taxes to your school district that has the power to take your rights and that of your children away.If you decide not to they take your house and you still owe the taxes! If you find this as a concern, I suggest you share this!

I spent hours on the phone yesterday with fire chiefs and law enforcement regarding codes, educated them on the constitution, and the state board of education about how they got their power and am still trying to figure it out. My assumption is it was legislated but so many government entities now seem to have the ability to circumvent the legislative process usurping the will of the people and the rule of law!

Evidentially these school districts have so much power due to “legislated local control” that the right of redress can be denied and the board has the AUTHORITY even if it violates the will of the people and the constitution to make their OWN LAWS! I was told I needed to go through the policies and procedures and seek redress but when I asked if I went through this trouble if the board could deny me and they said they could. The next question is who’s policies and procedures, the state board of Ed or the state Dept. of Ed, and so the government red tape is exposed, like a rat, you must submit to the maze!

The constitution is no longer supreme if school districts can usurp the law and the parent’s right to their children. They teach our kids that abortion is a choice but the government that was created to protect life, liberty and property now does everything but what it was established for!!!

When speaking to my rep, he said “ Oh they have the ultimate authority, your only options are to take the child out of school or run for school board” ALL using government COERSION TO PAY TAXES for a system that removes your rights to your KIDS!!!!??? And people want to fund it???? This needs to go viral!!!

I spoke with teachers in different districts and even one at a football game when I asked him, did you know if you have your kids in public school you give up your rights to them and he said “ Oh, Yeah, I knew that!” WHAT????? Am I missing something? When did this happen?

Doing more research I found out about two terms:

“in loco parentis”- government is the parent
“parens patriae”- states role as guardian

I will be calling boards today in regards to this matter! My bet is that parents don’t even know about this but I think this is the reason they can get away with what they are doing with school lockdowns, surveillance and, as I dreamt last night, they could lockdown the school with the flip of a switch and force vaccinations or hold them for any arbirary reason they choose. Will they? Who knows but should they be in a position to do so if they decide to?!
Questions? Contact me anytime! Links below! Check out the district meeting video on my website at

Tom Munds:

…schools are usurping the parental role of teaching personal values to children. They are not acting as educators but as guardians, "in loco parentis" (in the place of a parent). Some schools clearly consider this function to be their right, even over parental objections. Thus, Estabrook defends its "right" to teach Parker's son to accept same-sex marriages.

One of the latest developments in public education is that schools believe they are the de facto parents of the children who attend them. With so many children living with only one parent or two parents who work, with who knows who looking after them, it is no wonder. Now some States are trying to require girls entering the sixth grade to be immunized against something called HPV (Human Papilloma Virus), a virus that only can be transmitted through sex and which causes certain kinds of cancer. What does that say about our public schools and about the state of our culture?

In the United States, the parens patriae doctrine has had its greatest application in the treatment of children, mentally ill persons, and other individuals who are legally incompetent to manage their affairs. The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized by controversies between parents. This inherent power is generally supplemented by legislative acts that define the scope of child protection in a state.

Parens Patriae: Legal term that defines the State's legal role as the guardian to protect the interests of children who cannot take care of themselves. For example, in an abuse or neglect case, this concept is used to explain the State's duty to protect minor children who lack proper care and custody from their parents.

The 1852 compulsory schooling legislation of Massachusetts represents a fundamental change in the jurisprudence of parental authority, as had the adoption act passed by the nearly identically constituted legislature just four years prior, the first formal adoption legislation anywhere on earth since the days of the Roman Empire. Acts so radical could not have passed silently into practice if fundamental changes in the status of husbands and wives, parents and children, had not already gravely damaged the prestige of the family unit.

There are clear signs as far back as 1796 that elements in the new American state intended to interpose themselves in corners of the family where no European state had ever gone before. In that year, the Connecticut Superior Court, representing the purest Puritan lineage of original New England, introduced "judicial discretion" into the common law of child custody and a new conception of youthful welfare hardly seen before outside the pages of philosophy books—the notion that each child had an individual destiny, a private "welfare" independent of what happened to the rest of its family.

The legal doctrine of parens patriae—the right and responsibility of the state to substitute its own control over children for that of the natural parents when the latter appeared unable or unwilling to meet their responsibilities or when the child posed a problem for the community—originated in the English chancery courts to protect the crown's interests in feudal succession and established royal authority to administer the estates of orphaned minors with property.

In 1838 parens patriae entered American juvenile jurisprudence to justify the commitment of a child to a house of refuge. In Ex parte Crouse, 4 Whart. 9 (Pa. 1838), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected legal challenges to the peremptory incarceration of troublesome youths, noting that "The object of the charity is reformation . . .

To this end, may not the natural parents, when unequal to the task of education, or unworthy of it be superseded by the parens patriae, or common guardian of the community? It is to be remembered that the public has a paramount interest in the virtue and knowledge of its members, and that, of strict right, the business of education belongs to it . . . .

The infant has been snatched from a course which must have ended in confirmed depravity; and not only is the restraint of her person lawful, but it would be an act of extreme cruelty to release her from it" (4 Whart. at 11 (Pa. 1838)).

(So…you pass laws to make disciplining children illegal, then when the parents can’t control their children … you get legal guardianship over them!}

U.S. Supreme Court cases have had an impact on the character and procedures of the juvenile justice system (Challenges to the use of parens patriae in the juvenile justice system.)

The Supreme Court has made its mark on juvenile justice
Issues arising from juvenile delinquency proceedings rarely come before the U.S. Supreme Court. Beginning in the late 1960's, however, the Court decided a series of landmark cases that dramatically changed the character and procedures of the juvenile justice system.

Parens patriae is the idea that the state has a responsibility to play a parental role for youths that have been neglected by their parents. This Latin term roughly translates to the concept of "state as parent," or "parent of the country." The U.S. adopted parens patriae from British Common Law, under which the sovereign was charged with the role of acting as parent to the country.

Much juvenile justice policy is based on an understanding of this now implicit role of government. The U.S. Code addresses the state's parens patriae "rights" in Title 15, Chapter 1, Sections 15c-h, and Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 248.

The latter reads, "If the Attorney General of a State has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, such Attorney General may commence a civil action in the name of such State, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in such State, in any appropriate United States District Court." For more information about parens patriae and how it could affect your case, contact a juvenile defender in your state.

While parens patriae was designed to handle youth committing criminal acts, the discretion of this philosophy became increasingly more broad and was constantly debated in court. A number of pivotal cases ensued which helped the juvenile justice system evolve.

Juvenile Case History

In 1838, a man by the name of Crouse took the state to court over the INCARCERATION of his daughter, Mary Ann. Mary Ann Crouse was being held at a house of refuge against her father's wishes but at the BEQUEST of her mother, who felt Mary Ann had become unruly and unmanageable. Mary Ann had not committed any crime.

The courts held in Ex parte Crouse that the house of refuge was a reformatory rather than a jail, and Mary Ann's behavior could be reformed as long as she remained there. In essence, the court ruled that the judicial system had the right to assist families with troubled youth.

Some thirty years later in People v. Turner (1870), Turner protested being held in a house of refuge against the wishes of both his parents. He was incarcerated because the state felt he was in danger of becoming a criminal. His parents actually won this case, and it was decided that the state should only intervene in troubled families given extreme circumstances. However, the verdict was largely ignored by the courts.


No comments: