RULE 53 REFORM

Add a Comment

8 Comments

Comment by ZachzBS on July 4, 2008 at 5:32am

Content or Prejudice March

Seek justice for the loss of the right to 'Life' by attending in the monthly march

Comment by Dedicated.to.Julie.A.Witherspoon on July 4, 2008 at 4:57am

'We' have a right to be together. 'We' do not deserve the Death Penalty.‏

Comment by Dedicated.to.Julie.A.Witherspoon on July 4, 2008 at 4:28am

Parent Alienation Awareness

Click through to see the plexo

Comment by dogettydoggonedo on May 25, 2008 at 8:10pm

Pardon Greg Pound for "Equivalent to the Death Penalty" Sentence

Since the dogbite incident, Greg and Melissa followed the Courts Case ... termination of Parental Rights is the family Law equivalent to the Death Penalty.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/pardon-greg-pound-for-equivalent-to-the-death-penalty-sentence-by-returning-his-children

Termination of Parental Rights

http://ww4.yuwie.com/profile/?id=268928

Go to the video just below my New Years Resolution for 2008 which we all should work on together. Impeachment: Impeach Corrupt Judges Now.

Please join me in my Blog movement and post anywhere you can find the space. Here is my group on RULE 53 REFORM:

http://cnbpinc.ning.com/group/rule53reform

Comment by dogettydoggonedo on May 24, 2008 at 6:55am

The most basic issue is Termination of Parental Rights is Equivalent to the Death Penalty.

When one person can walk through your front door, take your children, keep them, bill you too, pass the laws that empower them, and then not give you a grand jury indictment, when a tip from a anonymous person was never faced in open court, while attorneys do not demand trial by jury, and then pass all the statutes, regulations, and policies, which are repugnant and deliberately designed to circumvent, ignore the supreme law, the ones judges swear to uphold and defend, we are caused to loose all our inalienable rights, which defined our citizenship. If we have no citizen ship we have no alliance with our national origin and are in fact alienated to that which is our natural inherent birthright.

These violations of our American Due Process Rights are compounded by judges, psychologists, and attorneys violating the Separation of Powers defined in the Federalist Papers Article 86 by being a member of one branch of government that controls the other while gaining the position of god from the opinion of one man.

http://ww4.yuwie.com/profile/?id=268928

Go to the video just below my New Years Resolution for 2008 which we all should work on together. Impeachment: Impeach Corrupt Judges Now.

Please join me in my Blog movement and post anywhere you can find the space.

Comment by Marilyn LeBaron on May 14, 2008 at 1:21am

RULE 53 REFORM - THE NECK WHERE THREE HEADS OF THIS ’BEAST’ WE GROW.

http://www.myspace.com/marilynlebaron
ON BEHALF OF VICTORIA COUVILLION, HER OFFSPRING

RULE 53 IS A NASTY KING PIN OF POWER.

The legal references: Where they fit in, my mother not knowing how to coordinate the look of it so other people will follow the violation of our privilege with a lawyer, producing a conflict of laws, which compels us to adhere to the bureaucratic worship over the opinion of a psychologist.

Mark Allen Heslinga, though not have authority in the noncriminal venue, co-non punished my mother, to leverage, on behalf of the DHS, a violation of the right to the fifth Amendment, when the Sixth was not properly upheld.

"If any tribunal finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed." Louisville RR v. Motley, 211 US 149, 29 S. Ct. 42.

Mark Allen Heslinga, though having jurisdiction over criminal matters, did not present a case against the future crime Max R. Wall intended to prosecute without authority to do so. Miller v US, 230 Fed 486,489 - "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional (guaranteed) right cannot be converted into a crime".

Judge Avera had not jurisdiction over a future crime, while presiding a case continued based on a future crime, and to this moment has no jurisdiction over something that can never be adjudicated.

FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of the proper signatures of agent(s), principal or those who would validate the nature and cause of matter stated. Similarly, in any case in which it can be said that the evidence is such that it would not be utterly irrational for a jury to reach the result it has determined upon, and thus a valid question of fact does exist, the court may not conclude that the verdict is as a matter of law not supported by the evidence (see Middleton v Whitridge, supra, pp 507- 508).

Mary Anne E. Miller's unborn could not be adjoined as a party to the action because there is no assignment to the State of Oregon, due to Roe Vs. Wade, since the unborn have not protection according to Supreme Court Rule.

FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of the proper signatures of agent(s), principal or those who would validate the nature and cause of matter stated.- Clearfield Doctrine says: "Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen, (where private corporate commercial paper (FRN's) and securities is concerned) --- For the purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government." Bank of U.S. vs. Planter's Bank 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904 6 L.Ed. 24

My mother's Due Process rights can not be upheld when there is no complaint filed when she will never stand trial because there is no equal protection of the law in pre-conviction.

"The benefits of the Constitution are maintained only by a belligerent Claimant in person," Judge Learned Hand - 1947.

My mother's lawyer said they needed an expert opinion...

1. Only a Belligerent Claimant in person can defend rights. Rights cannot be defended by Attorney or Solicitor. United States v Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 540 (DC, MD PA, 1947) - The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus. US v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538, 540 (1947). "The right of a person under the 5th Amendment to refuse to incriminate himself is purely a personal privilege of the witness. It was never intended to permit him to plead the fact that some third person might be incriminated by his testimony, even though he were the agent of such person." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43:

It is not right that my mother and I did not get incommunicado from the criminal upheld when what my mother, naively believing she had the right to privilege with her lawyer, presented all her mental notes to the Public Defender, which were intended as material for the affidavit she requested he write in support of a counter suet.

"Lack of counsel of choice can be conceivably even worse than no counsel at all, or having to accept counsel beholden to one's adversary." Burgett v Texas, 389 US 109. -

FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of any "exhibit(s)" which purport to be an "instrument" that validates the "nature and cause" of matter stated: with respect to: "which I never saw".

Instead, of his putting her affidavit in order this is turned over to the DA, at the First Set of Double Continuances, the DHS, after that point diagnose my mother and are contaminated being provided a chance to collaborate, using what my mother deemed a claim, to retaliate. Instead of her lawyer organizing the details to leverage the facts and seek relief, by way of a counter suet, the DA, the DHS, and who knows who else, devise, in secret, a diagnosis, and collect one letter of complaint, which I never saw, from the IPD for Exhibit their diagnosis as fact, which impeaches them all.

"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon Constitutions, upon laws and courts. These are false hopes, believe me; these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no law, no court can save it." Judge Learned Hand.

It is not just that instead of honoring a motion the Public Defender respectfully submitted requesting private records be seal, the courts honor that which is surmised in secret to become adjudicated, denying privilege and not granting my mother, my brother, and me the relief she sought for us, while our Sixth Amendment toppled and a secret channel of power revealed, one that is not subject to cross-examination.

"The benefits of the Constitution are maintained only by a belligerent Claimant in person," Judge Learned Hand - 1947
Instead of allowing the Public Defender's motion, which if respected, would have resulted in the case being DISMISSED, but no, the DA turns around and enters an Oath of Affirmation, in the form of a diagnosis, and a future prediction of a crime. Such Facts are proof my mother had an appointment with a psychologist, a seer, the DHS, with respect to Max R. Wall, in communicating with the Public Defender, which shows nobody should ever talk to their Court Appointed Defender, because the DHS have the position to revoked our right to privileged with our lawyer, your right to choose your doctor, our right to privilege with a doctor, your right to set your own appointments, your right to decide what your symptoms are, our right to freedom of religion, your right to presentment, your right to a search warrant, your right to the Fifth Amendment, your right to enter you own plea of guilty by reason of mental defect, (since that can be entered for you by the DA), your right to complain against a caseworker, (which is a symptom in the eyes of a bureaucrat upon exercise of grievance), no matter if we say please when doing so in the presence of a judge.

You will not get a jury trial because a tribunal is competent to give an Article III trial because the chancery is not a true "trier of fact." The UCC is a fact issue when the court has been notified by Affidavit, notary stamp and certified post or you can make the trip to the clerks office. Some crude examples of fact statements are shown below. The facts are based on UCC 3-501 to show that you do not need to call on the UCC by name to get your Affidavit before the judge. In some cases this may be the correct method because a chancellery will be prejudiced against the mention of the UCC and a lawyer will not ask a judge these example questions.

I don't think it is just that my mother requested a jury for her custody case and a technicality is more important than my mother's voice, by brother's voice, or mine, when that technicality, claimed by a judge, gives him power to deny my brother's request, which was told the judge by his father and mother, who both said, "Bleu wants to come home", while yet another judge can say, "I don't understand it word 'in'", and your Constitutional rights all disappear. Next to the fact that the Oregon State Bar can say, "I don't understand", and the accountability to the DA to uphold your Constitutional rights can disappear, too.

The Rights of the People are inalienable and the source of Law. A chancellor cannot displace our inheritance unless we waive our Rights and allow statue to overtake us by our own ignorance.

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177; late 2d, Sec 256
The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. South Carolina vs. United States (1905)

I don't think it is fair, when ignorance is no excuse, judges and Bar Affiliates can self-effacingly say, "I don't understand", which only safeguards the Licensed, who collectively deny my mother, my brother, and me our Natural Right to be together, when what defines their 'legalized ignorance' is clarified only by what they ignore, which is their Oath to Uphold and Defend something contracted away by assign to the State of Oregon, while their admitted 'lack of understanding' makes me a slave to them.

I don't think it is fair, that their method of helping me understand comes at such a high price to me, when what I understood to be my right was denied me, and certainly the method for demanding judicial understanding is re-defined to hide the a way to enforce it, while Judge Luukinen clearly thinks, "Get a lawyer or get a broken arm" is a just parable. Yet, one day when he stands asking for entrance at the Golden Gates, he is going to be asked;

"Why is it that when men, who never stood in assembly, learn not the rules to which they are bound, but held accountable to that which they were never taught, and could not easily understand?",

"Why is it, when I do not hold men accountable to that which they did not recognize or understand to be law, men invent ways to keep that which is enforceable a secret?"

"How is it just, when in your first language, a request for bread is made, of which you have plenty, and My children were denied their request and given a cast instead?"

"How is it that when your second language, was never taught My children, you sit in My thrown and deny them bread, when that request is understood by your knowledge into their method of asking",

"How is it that you sat in My thrown, and enforced a commercialized, foreign standard, replacing My every Precept, erecting your own Decree above that which I declared Law unto My creation?"

"How is just, when you, in witness of My child while going in want, let them continue to hunger, failing to provide them with bread, you knowing they did not learn how to ask, having naught knowledge of your secret method, or language, while you clearly see what they should ask, and continuing to announce they should ask, also stating there is a secret method, and fail to teach them how?"

"How is it that when My children came, seeking My justice, they are ADJUDICATED by Precepts established for a minority, and are lead by your lack of adherence to My Statutes into Sodom and Gomorrah's rule instead?"

Subject to UCC 1-308
ROUGH DRAFT APPROVED BY,

Melanie LeBaron, who by DMV regulation is attached to her mother's (pen) had claimed her own voice and Power of Attorney, at the time the AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS was signed, which was prevented by a LIAR, when seized at the date of 'Trial'. Which goes to, Now comes Melanie LeBaron...having acquired her mother's pen... which today, as well as then, was valid and filed due to her mother's efforts.

Comment by We Belong Together on May 11, 2008 at 2:49pm

See: 7163-J: Polk County Circuit Court: 850 Main, Dallas, Oregon 97338.

Please join in...to talk about this case!

See: Reverse Miranda. Keep Child Pretender Services from questioning your children. Get a copy of the Reverse Miranda to each parent in this nation. Request your copy from gomadcowgo@hotmail.com

See: LeBaron Family Political Complaint at:
http://PetitionOnline.com/families/petition.html

# 666

I am bugging people about ongoing problems I am facing asking people to inquire and ban with me on this extremely important issue of RULE 53 REFORM... Please consider the issues. I am working to find the best way to present my arguments. I do not have a gimmick or a professional team to guide me, but, I am available as your friend if you like.

Please help me analyze: Equal Protection of the Law and when I refer to the term 'Law' I mean the Supreme Law the Land, if you please: The Constitution of the US!

My dream is to have you consider the two venues: THE CRIMINAL JUCTICE SYSTEM v NON CRIMINAL PROSECUTION: Family Law and the equivalent of the Death Penalty (Termination of Parental Rights without a Grand Jury Indictment). s-os. -The 'a Topic' AT b-LAW: We got our Miranda Warning from the criminal justice system, which protects the citizen from duress. But, if you claim to understand the Miranda Warning when it is read to you... YOU become WARD OF THE COURT, 'a Client', so never say you do. Learn to be a Belligerent Claimant instead using the CPS (free) HANDBOOK. So, that way you avoid 'whatever venue', called non crime, where DHS subjects us to 'non'criminal prosecution, in family relations, and they can demand the equivalent of the Death Penalty, but they don't give you the Miranda Warning; the Public Defender said, "It does not apply", and his whole demeanor changed when I mentioned my Constitutional rights.

Please look at my presentment of the LeBaron Political Complaint as I have worked for three years to find the wording to and posted all my study notes all over my Blogs.

All Rights Reserved
Without Prejudice
UCC 1-308
Marilyn LeBaron

Comment by dogettydoggonedo on May 11, 2008 at 11:18am

RULE 53 REFORM, taking the automatic motion away from judges like Luukinen of Polk County 'Circuis' Court, Dallas Oregon, 97338, causes the 'court appointed attorney' to argue Due Process issues on matters pertaining to consolidation.