Maryland Parents Panic When Their Kids Are Once Again Confiscated By CPS

[Cebu_4_2]

Maryland Parents Panic When Their Kids Are Once Again Confiscated By CPS (http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/13/maryland-parents-panic-when-their-kids-a)

"You don't understand how cruel bureaucracy can be."

Lenore Skenazy (http://reason.com/people/lenore-skenazy/all)|Apr. 13, 2015 12:12 am

Meitiv, the Maryland Mom (http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/14/cops-and-cps-threaten-parents-whose-kids#.vtnaph:xwr4) who lets her children play outside by themselves—despite the government's ridiculous demands—just called me. She and her husband were on their way to the Child Protective Services Emergency Crisis Center. Why?

The police picked up the kids while they were outside again sometime Saturday afternoon, and this time the cops took them without telling their parents.

The kids, ages 10 and 6, were supposed to come home at 6:00 p.m. from playing. At 6:30 p.m, Danielle says, she and her husband Sasha were pretty worried. By 8:00 p.m., they were frantic. Only then did someone from the CPS Crisis Center call the parents and tell them that the police had picked the children up.

"It was dark!" said Danielle, her voice shaking. "You know, I'd really had a nightmare about this, but I didn't realize they would do it. I didn't think they would. The kids must be terrified."
"What did CPS tell you had happened?" I asked.
"They wouldn't tell me anything about my children."

Husband Sasha Meitiv, raised in the Soviet Union under complete state control, told his wife he was less surprised. "He said, 'You don't understand how cruel bureaucracy can be,'" said Danielle.

I think we all are beginning to understand just how insane, paranoid, and vindictive the state can be when it comes to respecting human rights—in this case, the right of parents who love their kids to raise them the way they see fit. And the right of kids, all kids, to be outside, part of the world, without having to worry about police snatching them off the street and holding them for hours without even letting them make a phone call.

According to MyFoxDC (http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/28783266/free-range-kids), the children were released back into the Meitiv's custody but were required to sign a "temporary safety plan," which prohibits them from letting the kids go outside by themselves:


The Meitivs say CPS didn't call them to let them know they had the kids until about 8 p.m. The Meitivs drove to CPS to pick up their kids, but say they were told to "take a seat" and initially weren't given any information about their children, except that they were there.

Just after 10:30 p.m., the Meitivs were reunited with their kids. They had to sign a temporary safety plan to take them home. which means they are not allowed to leave the children unattended at all.

The Meitivs' 10-year-old son told reporters they sat in the police car for about two hours before they were told they would be dropped off at home, but instead, they went to CPS in Rockville.


Stay tuned for updates.



Parents of Kids Taken Away By CPS: They Were Terrified (http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/13/parents-of-kids-taken-away-by-cps-they-w)

Lenore Skenazy (http://reason.com/people/lenore-skenazy)|4.13.15
Autistic Child Wanders Off, Mom Calls 911, Is Accused of Neglect (http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/08/autistic-child-wanders-off-mom-calls-911)



Free-Range Kids (http://reason.com/tags/free-range-kids)


VIEW COMMENTS (103) | LEAVE A COMMENT (http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/13/maryland-parents-panic-when-their-kids-a#commentaddingblock)

You must have an account and be logged in to comment.
Click here (http://reason.com/users/register/comments) to register, or here (http://reason.com/users/login) to login if you already have an account

[Spectrism]

When the abductors are hunted down, the abductions will stop.

[madfranks]

the cops took them without telling their parents.

Sue each and every one of the pigs individually for kidnapping.

[Glass]

cant be accused of kidnapping if you hold title to the goods. Parents are still working on the old model. New model now. Children are "wards" of the state since they were abandoned at birth. It seems they are repeat offenders.

[Ares]

cant be accused of kidnapping if you hold title to the goods. Parents are still working on the old model. New model now. Children are "wards" of the state since they were abandoned at birth. It seems they are repeat offenders.

I've been looking into that recently, but I'm not sure how to reclaim my Children. Have any resources I can look at by chance?

[Jewboo]

When the abductors are hunted down, the abductions will stop.




http://meatballcandy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/seems-legit-school-bus-van.jpg

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--XHwQFcO_--/y2uu80y17kfptmvpvywb.jpg


http://i.newsrt.co.uk/upload/news/thumbs/14/15/11f38wayne1_469761.jpg
WTF Pilgrims

[Glass]

I've been looking into that recently, but I'm not sure how to reclaim my Children. Have any resources I can look at by chance?

It is pretty clear from what we have researched over the years and the responses that they have made to things supposed "Freemen" have been doing, that everyone is Dead at birth.

Disclaimer: There are also some things that Freemen are arguing in courts that are not very good arguments or they are just one part and to focus on just that one part can be unproductive - meaning it won't get a result. In some instances it has been counter productive to the individual because they get an outcome, just not the one they wanted.

E.G. The name. I am not the name! The person is a legal fiction. etc. This is true, but what then? Where does that argument go? The first thing to note is that it is an argument. Courts love arguments. It's all they do. They hear arguments. And they love to give orders to the persons arguing.

Back on Topic.
It's clear from reading the Birth Deaths Marriage Statutes and keeping an adherence to grammar, that everyone for whom a registration of birth is made, is in fact dead. In my State of Western Australia, only Still Births are recorded. The statute says so in no uncertain terms. The only event that causes a birth certificate to be created is a Still Birth. Nothing else. In NZ it is the same. In Canada and the UK the same applies.

In NZ you can still obtain a document that is known as the Record of Live Birth. I think you can still get this in Canada and probably the US. You cannot get these in my state. They DONT do them. Not they DONT EXIST. They don't do them. This document is used to create the Birth Certificate. We used to get "extracts" but the name and form changed at some point.

On the Record of Live Birth, it will have a place to put the offsprings name (offspring is a maritime term btw so we might not want to use it. I am trying to avoid using Child). It will only have one place and that is the section called "Still Born" or Still Birth. I think it's Birth because Born is a life word where as Birth is death word.

So basically there are no living people in "Society". We have had that discussion before. Society is not populated by living people. Everyone you see is the Living Dead. I've been saying for a while now that the zombie apocalypse has been going on for a long time now. Probably many thousands of years.

So I hate to break it to you but your sons and daughters are dead in the eyes of the law.

Commerce is not carried out by people but by Corporations. A Person is a corporation. Notice that the root of the word is Corp, as in corpus, corpse. Dead.

When you die, an estate is setup for you. If you didn't do one yourself, someone else does it. The Government does it. After 7 years has passed you can be confirmed dead, lost at sea/see and your estate enters into a phase of Administration. This trust is called the Cestui Que Trust (Setty-kay, sesty-kay). A Trustee is appointed, beneficiaries appear. Refer to: cestui que vie act 1666 (UK) (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/18-19/11)

The government is the grantor of the trust. The beneficiaries are the Government departments, lawyer, banks etc who know the system. They want access to your trust and to do that they need your signature. So they fish around, run traffic stops, raid houses, steal children etc. All of this is to get you to sign some paper. The paper is then converted by them into negotiable instruments. They sell that and take a commission. Some times they will draw from the trust itself.

Most times, while they are dipping into your trust, they are also demanding you pay the amount as well so they get 2 lots of cash.

SOLUTION.
Looking back over my research the past 8 years, the one common theme is the FLESH AND BLOOD LIVING BREATHING MAN. This has been used in all sorts of situations. In Court. In Claim of Right documents. In Mary Crofts material from some 10 or 12 years ago.

They cannot deal with living men or women. So much so that it can scare the crappola out of them when confronted with it.

PROBATE.
You are dead, your sons and daughters are dead. Dead persons need probate. If you check the laws in your state for Probate, Wills Estates etc. You should find a reference, definition of something called a Persons Personal Representative. This is the one who Acts in Probate for the deceased.

This is who you must become. You must become your persons Personal Assistant.

We have seen amazing reactions to responses given to Government, Bailment enforcers (e.g. sherrifs), cops, Judges. They will back away and basically run. It was used in a Magistrates court in the east about a month ago and complete pandemonium resulted. The magistrate fled, security came and threw the man out of the court. His result was not the conclusion to the matter, because he used it during and administrative hearing which basically halted proceedings. He should have used it on appeal which is where/when the real court case is fought.

The statement goes along the lines of: "We are that persons Personal Representative in Private Capacity in Being".

I think this is what you need to be for your sons and daughters. Enforcing it could be problematic. In the US the reaction may be that the other party draws their gun and starts firing. I don't know but they are psycho enough that it is a risk.

I would also get a lien in place on your kids. in the PPSR or what ever it is called in the US. Get a UCC lien in place on the Birth Certificates. The birth certificate is a bond and is negotiable. You need to prepare a copy of that document in a specific way so that it cannot be considered an inchoate instrument. If you give them one of those it's like a blank cheque/check and they will endorse it and then either cash it from your trust or sell it.

This guy: Bill Turner is an NZ guy. He has 21 videos on YT varying in length from 15 - 30 minutes. He is new to me, and I can't believe I have missed him these past couple years. He gives good summaries and information. I would start with the oldest ones and work through them. I have watched half so far. I am making notes, transcribing. I will start a thread here and post those notes as I go. So people can read the notes and decide if they want to watch them.

Bill Turners Youtube Channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/PirateBillTurner/videos)

REMEMBER.
The Government thinks that the children belong to them. They believe you abandoned them because you delivered the child to the ward. This is considered an act of abandonment. The fact that you took some children home is not because they are the ones you delivered, they are not. What you have done is adopted some children and you are permitted to look after them, so long as you do it right. Otherwise someone else has to step in. That is the law. #1 job of the King is to protect the infants and the infirm.

The fact that you have some children but not technically the same ones as you delivered goes to the question of being fungible. Of course it's just easier to let you take home the ones you want. You are more likely to look after them a bit better.

You and I - Grammar
One last thing. I will go over this stuff in the dedicated thread. It is important to learn Grammar. (The trivium is ideal - it is what they use)

You and I are not identifiers. You is a plural. Always. I am looking for the right definition. Some one showed it but I didn't get the reference noted down in time so I still need something to back it up but they use the term You when sending a Bill, A summons or Infringement. They may send it to John Henry Doe (delivery portion) but the letter is then addressed to you. You can ignore the "Address" at the top of the letter or notice. That is not the addressee for the document, merely the location it was presented. (It's a Bill of Exchange and needs to be presented in a "place certain" plus a few other requirements).

The text of the notice or document would then include some statements such as "You committed the offence of yadayada blah blah." So it is accusing someone or thing You, not the person noted in the address portion.

But You does not refer to anyone in particular. It is a general label. "You" should never respond to a questions addressed to "You". It would be better to respond with a question requesting that they identify who "You" is. There is more on this in Bill's Videos. the term "I" is the same. It should not be used or responded to unless asking the question who is "I". In court it creates the joinder that they need between the man (surety) and the person (the estate)

What they hope for and usually get, is that the other party doesn't know what "You" means and assumes that it refers to them. If the persons appears then the flaw in the name is cured. If they don't know the name or what "you" to do something, it doesn't matter so long as someone steps up.

Please note that Royalty, Sovereigns never refer to themselves as I or You. They only use "We", "Our" or "One". "One must do such and such in ones life". We believe. Go and listen to one of the Queens addresses to the people, Christmas message or something. We (me/Glass) been doing this for a while. "You" can see it in my homebrew threads. We are not 100% consistent so still trying to break the old habit.

Includes;
Is another one to learn. Learn what the form of "Includes;" is. Notice that there is a semi colon there. In this grammatical form the tern Includes; means ONLY the items listed after the semicolon are included. Everything that is not in the list is excluded. There is a maxim for this. I can't recall it but it sums it up more cleanly. So when reading law if you see the word Includes; only the things listed are included. Everything else is excluded. Do not put your own assumed things in that list. They do not belong there and this is what gets people in trouble. They projecting their beliefs in to what they are reading.

[Glass]

This is the guy Bill Turner giving a 2 hour seminar on this research. He gets right to the point from the start.

I might be wrong about the "I". Confident about "You" though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYehx_CLomk

He surrendered his BC which he now says was not the way to go. Other ways would be better. But he does put a Lien on his BC. I would think you do the same for your kids. To secure them until they turn 18.

Edit: this is a pretty good summary and some points on liens etc.

[Horn]

Thanks to the state, the children are now accustomed to getting into cars with strangers.

Another case of terrible investigation work.

[Glass]

Includes.

Maxim at Law - Bouviers Law Dictionary: An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant With reason.

Incusio unius est exclusio alterius
The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. 11.Co. 58

I thought that the usage of Includes required a semi-colon at the end of the word for this maxim to apply. I might be wrong. In the absence to anything contrary I'll assume I am wrong on that point.

I believe the previous time I referenced the Births Statute it was an older version and the word Includes had smi colons against them. I've referenced it in the past couple years so seeing 1999 as the date was a surprise. I thought I had looked at one dated from the 1940's.

[Glass]

BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES REGISTRATION ACT 1998 - SECT 4 (Western Australia - glass's notation)

4 . Terms used In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears —
-----------
-----------
birth means the expulsion or extraction of a child from its mother;
-----------
-----------
child includes a still-born child;
-----------
-----------
death includes still-birth;



As I have said the same applies in NZ, UK, CA. No doubt it applies in the USA as well. Check your State statutes.

[Glass]

My Blacks #8 suggests that this maxim, which is rcognised as a maxim is not an actual maxim but a opportunistic rule at best and subject completely to context. While I agree on context, I think the examples are self serving and probably derogative. Blacks has come under significant "revision" in the past 3 or 4 editions.

Needs more citations.

[Twisted Titan]

"You don't understand how cruel bureaucracy can be.

You dont understand how cruel I CAN BE if you are fool enough to think you have a superior claim on my child.

Trend down that path at your peril.