The State of Oregon has been finding ways to force additional Federal Funds than just a recent threat of a Filibuster – Child Laundering

by DK, 2-24-2008; re in follow-up for www.stop-the-suffering.com

In a recent case with the Department of Human Services involving a child named, JJ, a father’s struggle to have his child returned home has turned into a nightmare; but it has also provided him insight to disclose one of Oregon State’s dirty, little secrets. Due to a false allegation made by the State of Oregon and local Law Enforcement in an unrelated matter, DHS took his son and placed him into protective care. There have been no allegations that the father ever hurt or abused his child; nor any evidence presented that he was actually guilty of the crimes alleged by law enforcement, but DHS acted quickly, to ensure that his son, JJ would be, “safe.” That is, they improperly acted months after they began their investigation, leaving JJ with the allegedly, ‘dangerous,’ father, and then in a profit-making scam, abused the ‘Threat of Harm’ clause present in the Oregon laws to legally kidnap his child and give him away, in what is considered a non-abuse-based intervention. They removed a child from his home with the intention of permanently giving him away for profit and didn’t require any evidence of abuse to do so.

The Oregon laws are written to be very obscure for this purpose. There are many parts of the OAR and ORS laws that discuss returning a child to their home, but also returning a child to their parent, as the primary goals of DHS. The difference is that the ‘home,’ would be back with the parent from which they had been taken while the ‘parent,’ could be an absent parent who had abandoned the child years earlier, as was the case with JJ, in which the mother abandoned him when he was 1, leaving he and the father alone for 7 years. These two terms are interchanged freely in the OAR laws without consideration for that distinction. DHS does make one thing clear though: they have now mastered the scheme by which they can legally kidnap for profit. This is not an exaggeration. By using the excuse of a, ‘threat of harm,’ DHS does not have to provide any evidence of a factual nature to a court, only that they believe the threat exists. It is not for a Judge to determine if abuse had occurred, only that DHS has jurisdiction to take a child. In fact, it would appear in many cases that the courts work with DHS to help support the State of Oregon in getting Federal dollars. And, considering Rep. Gordon Smith’s recent threat of a filibuster, his failure to assist in these matters makes one fact clear: the State Agencies, starting with the heads of the Oregon Legislature, endorse using children as the shields for their monetary gain.

The catch in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR’s) that supports DHS doing this is the consistent referral to DHS’ first and foremost responsibility to a child being that they return them to “a” parent. By using this very strategically worded phrase, DHS seemingly fulfills the appearance of attempting to act in the best interest of a child and not to separate healthy, strong families. They manage to extend the Federal benefits they will receive by ‘reuniting,’ that child with an absent parent with whom they had not actually been with and could not technically be returned to; an example of this is:

413-010-0180 Basic Rights of Children in SOSCF's Custody. Each child placed

in the legal custody of SOSCF has the following rights:

(7) To be provided services which will reunite the child with his or her own family

except when there is clear evidence that the family will not protect the child's welfare;

Now, one might believe that the family in question here is the one in which DHS has removed the child from (as per the line regarding a family not being willing to protect the child’s welfare) the only family they have known. Consider the following:

413-040-0005

(5) "Conditions for return" mean a written statement of the specific behaviors, conditions,

or circumstances that must exist within a child's home before a child can safely return

and remain in the home with an in-home ongoing safety plan.

Would you believe that the only ‘returning,’ that a child who has been kidnapped from their home that can happen is to return them back to the family from which they were taken? Would you believe that the references to changes in that home would refer to the home from which the child had been harmed in which change would need to occur? You would be wrong if you inferred that from this clause; although it appears as if the Oregon Legislature had that intention when they first wrote the law. Here’s the catch:

413-040-0009

Requirements for Conditions for Return

(2) The conditions for return are documented in the case plan and must describe:

(a) The specific behaviors, conditions, or circumstances that must exist to develop

an ongoing safety plan that assures a child's safety, as described in OAR 413-

015-0450(2)(b)(A)(i) – (iii), in the home of a parent or legal guardian; and

(b) The actions, services, and time requirements of all participants in the ongoing

safety plan in the home of a parent or legal guardian

Are these two sections (413-040- 0005/0009) different or do they pertain to any different situation? Sadly, the answer is no. If you look at the above OAR law, you’ll notice the phrase, “a parent.” This means, that an ‘ongoing,’ safety plan for ensuring a child’s safety to be returned to their home – does NOT mean that a child will be returned to their original home. The ongoing safety plan can be for the absent parent to do nothing more than attend classes that teach them how to keep the child safe from the supposedly, dangerous, other parent. And, DHS’ need to be involved to the point it costs them time and labor, ends with the awarding of custody of the child to the absent parent; and, no consideration at all is given for returning the child to the parent from which they had been kidnapped.

What’s especially frightening about this, is that the laws also state that a child’s best interests are to be considered first, and the least amount of intrusiveness is top priority. The laws recognize that there must be some consistency. Unfortunately, the mechanism by which that consistency exists, doesn’t financially support the government, and will therefore, never happen. DHS does not receive federal dollars, nor any incentive for making any effort to reunite a child with the parent(s) from which they had been taken. You can refer to the report by Senator Nancy Schaefer on the findings from her office into the investigations into DHS operating in Georgia, and the Nation as a whole.

No courtroom hearing that allowed for evidence to be presented by both parties, took place. There was no need for the Constitution of the United States of America, in regards to due process and fair representation, to be upheld in a court of law. In the case of JJ, the Judge questioned whether or not DHS had met its obligation to attempt to return the child home, and they said they did; but no evidence had to be presented in this matter, only their bogus statement that they felt the falsely, accused parent was just unwilling to try. The OAR laws specifically outline rules to the contrary, but without the parent being allowed fair representation or due process, the Judge made a one-sided ruling; going against every last principal of jurisprudence ever established, regarding the right of both parties to present evidence in full for the Judge to make a fair and impartial decision. In the recent Oregon Child Advocacy Project, in an Amicus Curiae Brief, Professor Leslie Harris shows that there is evidence that courtrooms who act presumptuously and do not consider all the evidence, sufficiency of counsel or the best interests of the children are bound to be more harmful to innocent children than good, and are evidence of failures in the legal system to abide by any of the existing laws of fairness and equality for the families.

In the case of JJ, DHS circumvented the father’s rights to present evidence, awarding custody to mother from the custodianship they had lied to obtain. They presented mother with adoption paperwork the day the CPS Caseworker, not the permanency worker, gave her custody (which would go against all OAR and ORS standards for permanency plans, temporary shelter plans and other similar solutions in these types of situations). This allowed the mother to apply for full, legal custody within the Juvenile court system. The father will not have any rights in this matter – whether or not the charges against him in the unrelated matter are ever deemed true or not (and thus, whether or not DHS acted upon a false allegation and destroyed an innocent family because of a lie). Why? Because, she will continue to receive additional funds and monies from the federal government, and DHS will get a bonus for assisting. What DHS did, was to take the child away from his safe and healthy home because of a political structure that encourages law enforcement agents and District Attorney’s offices to help create false allegations against families that allow DHS to get involved. It is an intricately laid out scam that starts at the very top of a State’s, political infrastructure.

Because these allegations do not involve any forms of abuse, and cannot actually substantiate any threat of abuse other than to often times rely on inappropriate means such as having bogus psychological evaluations performed by low-end, so-called professionals, DHS has to make sure that a child is transferred from their custody as soon as possible. It is child laundering. Their temporary placement for safety pending the results of a criminal trial to determine the facts, are lost when DHS transfers the matter over to the Juvenile Courts, allowing the dependency case to ‘appear,’ to continue in light of any other pending cases while the custody case can go through without having to be set aside. In fact, in the case of JJ’s father, the Judge in the dependency matter asked the District Attorney why they would not wait until after the findings in the criminal case to make rash decisions. The D.A. claimed that they would, most likely continue forth with a civil hearing on the matter following the results of the criminal case; even if the father was proven, not guilty.

Ask yourself this – if the father can prove that the allegations against her are completely untrue, and DHS took his child based on those allegations, why would they bother with an additional trial, and for what? Then, ask yourself this – what purpose would a civil trial between DHS and the father have in the dependency matter if the parent’s rights had already been terminated and the State had given him away to his mother? It helps to know that the D.A. told the Judge, that they would go forth with a civil trial, even if the father was found innocent, after they had begun to work on the Juvenile case to ensure that the mother would have custody. What appears to be taking place in courtrooms across the country, is that the children are getting pushed through the cracks and the cases washed under the carpets, because the D.A. plans to pursue a criminal case that they have concocted and have therefore become quite proficient at doing so, knowing that they can obscure this child-selling, money-making scheme in the background, behind their money-making scheme to imprison innocent people. One system supports another, and it appears to be a well-oiled, giant machine designed around corrupt politics.

This same type of laundering takes place with money. But, children are not objects. They are not money, and this is America – the idea of laundering a child within the legal system for monetary gain is equivalent to a terrorist act, punishable by life imprisonment, or death. That is, unless you’re DHS or the District Attorney. As Rep. Gordon Smith, along with every other member of the Oregon Legislature were notified of this situation, they had an opportunity to respond. However, as the Representatives in Oregon all rallied behind Rep. Smith’s, filibuster threat, they have proven that they will allow any tragedy to occur in order to increase their profit margin. DHS has been exempt from lying in a court and disobeying a Judge’s, direct orders, while in a different court room, a young lady was berated and threatened for not informing the courts, one time, when she moved residences from a temporary shelter into her mother’s home, for charges that are also bogus.

How much do each of these non-abuse cases yield for the State of Oregon? Last year alone, the 5000 – 6000 children taken in a non-abuse situation, turned over about $12 million dollars …. per month. That number is only reflecting the amount made by the absentee parents and foster families and doesn’t even count the amount given to DHS itself. Now we understand how Representatives such as Gordon Smith, are going to guarantee their money; through abusive, criminal and terrorist actions. The State will continue to support trying criminal cases based on entirely circumstantial evidence, knowing that this means that people can lie and there’s a high probability of the innocent sitting in prison, making Oregon ever wealthier for the rich, while crushing the lives of innocent children to help continue to build their money-making empire well into the future.

What man or woman, can cast their vote, knowing that keeping any of the currently elected officials, means that more innocent children, will die suffer? Oregon’s welfare system received an overall grade in 2007 of “D”. This includes internal departments such as the Child Welfare system receiving an overall “D” grade.  Of the 12,000 children that DHS takes, half of them are based, continuously, year after year, upon the Threat of Harm, without any finding of fact. Psychsexual evaluations that do not meet the industry’s standards are abused by clinicians who may hold a Master’s Degree, but not the clinical, psychologists or psychiatric degree required to actually perform a legitimate test, and the courts allow this.

Of course, to some extent, there must be an excuse for the courts. They are overwhelmed, and when a Judge receives only one side of the evidence, and is instructed by the State that they WILL accept this, then they must act accordingly. The Judges rely on the reports they receive from agencies such as DHS and CASA, to the extent that they know these agencies were designed to protect children. And, when half of the cases coming through their courtrooms involve abused children that are battered or raped, the Judges will get to see that some good does exist within DHS. For this reason, they are shielded from getting to know that more than 20% of those battered, raped and murdered children, are also the victims of foster care that resulted from DHS taking a child from a home where they had never been abused and placing them into a dangerous situation. So, in some situations, the Judges must maintain the right to be exempt from the accusations of corrupt, profiteering off of the innocent.

However, the politicians must not be permitted to be exempt. They choose to represent the people, but their representation includes the blatant abuse of approximately 6000 children every year, and has not improved in over ten years’ time. DHS takes approximately 1.5% of Oregon’s children every year (in a state whose population is slightly less than 4 million people total; and only about 20% of those are children under the age of 14!). DHS claims that they are understaffed and underfunded. Rep. Gordon Smith claims that the Federal Government must begin to contribute more to the State of Oregon. The Oregon welfare system, the education system and other programs that involve children look to be cut once again this year because of underfunding. However, when the yearly, federal dollars given for children that are taken for reasons that do NOT include any form of abuse are around $200 million dollars per year, it raises the question over the potential abuse of Federal dollars.

The issue of protecting children from abuse is a very serious one and should not be taken lightly. There should never be any reason to not use tax dollars on both the State and Federal levels to ensure that children who have been subjected to abuse, are given the right to be protected. What we should be concerned with, is an industry such as DHS, whose entire success and future depends on removing children from what they label as ‘dangerous homes.’ If the Oregon, Department of Human Services were to stop taking children that they only ‘believed,’ to be harmed, than they would have their caseloads reduced to only slightly more than half of what they currently handle. This means that their supposedly strapped budget would also be significantly cut. Permanency workers, such as the one on JJ’s case, handle near 30 children at any given time, and must contribute a significant portion of time to each case. It has already been argued that a teacher in a classroom, whose responsibility starts and stops within the hours of school operation, cannot properly handle that many children; how can we expect a caseworker who’s responsible 24/7 to do the same?

The answer is simple: cut the caseload, by changing the priority status of DHS to managing cases of child abuse. Assessments can be done all day long for alleged child abuse, but cases that do not involve child abuse should never be a part of any case management. That would exceed the scope, reasoning and logic for child welfare. It should further be added, that in cases where evidence has not been established as per the law, that not only should DHS not be permitted to intervene, but that temporary shelter assistance, should remain in effect until such time as a child can be returned to their parent either following the establishments of the facts as untrue, or until such time as the parent can be retrained to get their kids back. Giving a child away, whether it’s to a foster family or an absentee parent, violates the principals of custody cases and individual rights. Doing so without any proof of abuse or legally established facts, violates the entire foundation of due process as included within the Constitution. To do so otherwise, would appear as a malicious, egregious attack on the innocent; especially the children. I wouldn’t suppose that our officials in Congress would do such a thing; so then comes the other fear – money. Let us stop selling our children and start protecting our families, shall we? This is, after all – America.

SOURCES:

http://fightcps.com/pdf/TheCorruptBusinessOfChildProtectiveServices.pdf

http://www.law.uoregon.edu/org/child/docs/dhs.pdf

http://www.law.uoregon.edu/org/child/docs/jenkinsbriefexcerpt.pdf

http://www.stop-the-suffering.com/

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A128226.htm

http://www.knightsindirtyarmour.com/ArrestWarrant.html

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341216.shtml

http://www.nkmr.org/english/the_state_is_the_child_abuser.htm

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319814.shtml

http://suncanaa.com/2008

http://www.kids-right.org/shame11.htm

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

The Newest Threat in Identity Theft:

Flies vs Spyders

By Dan Kennedy

Part 3: Why Spyders get away with it – and what do to protect yourself!

So far we’ve discussed the newest threat in Identity Theft – and quite frankly, it’s downright frightening to even touch a computer these days knowing this information. In the last article, we discussed what types of activities this new era of hackers engages in and what types of people are susceptible. But, what allows this to keep happening? Is it all end-user ignorance? Are we doomed to be trapped by hackers because not everyone is a computer technician? What about the technically savvy folks? Are they doomed to be falsely accused because there is far too much ignorance out there to understand the complexity of the Information Technology field? I can assure you now, that if you keep reading, you won’t like the truth!

Yes, it’s true that spiders spin their webs in corners and wait for the little bugs to come to them. But, the Internet is also known as the World Wide Web – and is an entanglement of tens of millions of computers interweaved in a giant, spiders’ web. Since Sepetember 11, 2000, airports around the country have increased their security ten-fold. The world has followed suit. People have to take their shoes, belts, jackets and other articles of clothing off just to walk through a metal detector. You can’t bring through your deodorant any longer if it exceeds a certain weight!! Why the big fear? In short – there are bad people in the world, and their methods of attack are becoming more complex. It used to be, only 20 years ago, that the big fear of not having your bag with you at an airport is that it will get stolen. For the last seven years, that fear has evolved to now be that you will be the victim of Identity Theft. In what way? There are now signs in every airport warning you not to leave even a small portion of your bag open or out of sight as someone may put contraband of some sort into your luggage. Is this because the bad guys are out to get you? No. That’s the ignorant paranoia that prosecutors use to discredit people. It’s because the items the bad guys are smuggling would land them in prison for life, or on death row, and in the event the item is discovered, it’s more worth it to them to lose the item and let you take the fall then get busted themselves!!

Now to the technology field. The very same principals hold true – if you’re carrying it – YOU are responsible! The current laws for computer forensics have one requirement: to find the illegal material on your computer. They don’t have to prove you accessed it or that you knew it was there because the computer belongs SOLELY to you! This applies now to every field of cyber-crime there is: from copy-righted music to illegal copies of software to child pornography! All of these have one thing in common for computer forensics: if it’s on your computer – YOU must have put it there!

The reality of this situation is much different. Ted Coombs writes that in today’s modern era of techonology, the internet, wireless and all the security-holes, there’s no way to say that any one user is in complete control of their computer. He goes on to say that even Savvy computer users cannot say they are in complete control, although they might be amongst the lucky to know when they’ve been hacked and stop it before they find themselves the falsely accused perpetrator of a cyber-crime. The web-site, corrupted-justice.com, recently hosted an article about the $100 million lawsuit against DateLine NBC’s, ‘To Catch a Predator Program,’ for setting a man up and leading him to commit suicide.

It’s not as ‘small’ of an issue as it seems. The News and media are busy telling people about the hackers and viruses and bad people of the world, but no one is educating the end-users as to the reality of the situation. Matthew Bandy, a 16-year old boy spent 3-years battling a false accusation of downloading child pornography and cost his family over $250,000.00 (from which they cannot recover). The method used to download the pornography? Limewire – a pay-per download, legal music trading program. Unknown to the family, this ‘legal’ program that they paid money for also created a security vulnerability, allowing someone else to access their computer and use their computer to both host and distribute pornography.

Recently, Microsoft sued a software-testing company for copyright infringement, not only costing them tens of millions of dollars, but banning them from using Microsoft’s software again – guaranteeing the company’s demise and the loss of many jobs. Microsoft and agencies like the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) do not limit their lawsuits to companies, but aggressively go after individuals as well. A single infringement can be as small as a couple thousand dollars and probation up to a lifetime in prison and countless millions of dollars. Either way – if you were the one downloading the materials, would you want to be caught?

What makes this a problem is that the law is ENCOURAGING the activities of hackers and Spyders alike!! The anti-child pornography industry is a perfect example. Where the downloading of a single image of child pornography might seem like a crime that requires somebody to seek counseling – it goes far beyond that. Currently, the act of acquiring child pornography is equivalent to raping a child and constitutes a minimum of 5 years in prison and 10 years (soon to be life) as a registered sex offender. While we can all agree that stiffening the laws on any form of sexual exploitation of children will help yield good results in most normal circumstances, we must also acknowledge that it’s creating a ever-more complex, black market. This black market is trading and working through the World Wide Web, increasing the need to take over other peoples’ computers to protect themselves. In April of this year, a 35-year old, Kerrville Doctor was accused of downloading and possessing child pornography. The doctor, being able to afford good, legal counsel, was able to make the statement that vulnerabilities in their email had recently lead to some unwanted hacking of their computers – and that is the only reasonable explanation for that material. But, what lead the police to his door? In fact, what leads the police to the doors of anyone who commits a cybercrime?

While it might be difficult to believe that you weren’t interested in downloading illegal music from a peer to peer sharing program such as BitTorrent or trying to access child pornography on an internet site where you are interactively talking to a person, describing yourself, your interests and such, the lines of reality become skewed when police show up for an unsolicited email containing or pertaining to the materials is sent across the internet, or there is a ‘tip-off’ based on IP addresses or phone calls. Fortunately, there are instances where it is ‘clear’ when a person has attempted to access illegal materials. One Texas man tried to blame his open Wireless connection for hackers breaking into his computer. When multiple CD’s were found in his bedroom, it became clear that it had been handled by the user sitting at the computer itself. But, what if it wasn’t you? Don’t computers keep good records and anti-virus programs prove otherwise?

Here’s a catch-  if a Trojan accessed your computer, opened up ports for a hacker to upload pornography to your computer with the intent to distribute it on a Monday afternoon, and your virus scanner runs its scheduled program that night around 10:00 pm and wipes the virus out – it does not wipe out the uploaded pornography. It ONLY wipes out the EVIDENCE!!! How incredibly frightening and sickening is that? The same programs we use to defend our computers can inadvertently cause us to be falsely incriminated? There are numerous viruses with a post-functional, self-destruct sequence that wipes itself out and leaves you holding the bag. Didn’t think there were really malicious people out there? Might want to rethink that. Hackers who want to freely distribute software will often times create ‘scripts’ (short programs that serve only one purpose) that will discover any vulnerabilities you have and unlock your computer for their access. They can then use your computer to store their software!

But, what about Worm-viruses such as the, ‘I wish you were here’, virus and its variants that look for information in your emails that you have communicated with a minor and then seek to solicit that minor? The program might send a completely irrational and ridiculous letter, having pieced together parts of other letters and added solicitation to it – but that doesn’t change the fact that a minor was now solicited from YOUR email account or YOUR computer!! Again, we must ask: Don’t the authorities know this?

While there have been some baby steps made in the computer-forensics fields (such as not trying to bust somebody for being a pedophile because there are pictures in their temporary directory that could be an accident resulting from a virus), but these steps are too small, and too late, to undo what is happening now. Currently, there are thousands of people around the world contending that they are victims – not perpetrators of a crime. There are prosecutors and law enforcement agencies trying to create a world-wide, paranoia against people who claim to be the victims of a hacker. Rather than accept the possibilities of truth, they are seeking to undermine the basics of justice and truth. Sure, your 90 year old grandmother downloaded naked pictures of 4 year olds and distributed them across the internet. Well – thanks to her not being ‘computer savvy’ and clicking on a virus/spam email – her computer was hijacked and now the federal authorities are at her door – and they will try to press charges, even in light of the evidence!

Or better yet, a 30-year old, single father who IS a computer technician gets a knock on his door one day telling him he’s busted for soliciting a 16 year old girl for sex!! He’s even charged with attempted sexual abuse – because there is an email, again – sporadic and nonsensical based on grafted input from other emails and inserted portions of solicitation!! But, now his computer is taken, and low and behold – there’s pornography! Well – because he’s a computer technician, he MUST be guilty. No – there’s no actual proof he wrote the letter… and no, there’s no actual proof he downloaded the photos… and yes, there’s all the signs of a computer that could be and probably was easily hacked – but the legal system does not care. They do not consider a totality of circumstances! A single father with pornography on his computer – no criminal background, no issues whatsoever with his child who is loved in his community – folks, I cannot tell you how many forums I have read where people have been accused, convicted, continued to plead their innocence and now their friends and family are on there saying, “I can’t believe it was him – I would have never believed it!”

DON’T. Don’t be fooled by hype and media. While we must all strive to protect the innocent children of this world, the software producers, the movie makers and the book writers from being exploited an