Follow by Email

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Rights of Parents with Disabilities and Their Children

This is America right? The land of equal rights, however what you believe to be equal rights must be questioned when things like the following occur and when reviewing these points keep in mind what Galileo once said "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."

 First you have to wonder what the hell is going on when the President of the United States assigns a committee to look into how parents with disabilities and their children are being treated. See their full report here it isn't pretty Rocking-the-Cradle-Ensuring-the-Rights-of-Parents-with-Disabilities-and-Their-Children Parents with even minimal disabilities are having their children stripped from their care without valid reasoning.

On top of it in NH every single parent is at a disadvantage because the Supreme Ct. has decided it will no longer even give them the lack lustrous lawyers it once did; these parent's disability stems from not understanding the legal system and while behind closed doors they are deprived by overzealous social workers and dysfunctional Judges who togehter are destroying the American Family.

Furthermore, when women like myself and these women are discriminated against, because we actually speak out against the oppression we faced as shown in this NOW Foundation Files Amicus Brief in Domestic Violence Case where a women was charge $350,000 for disclosing abuse by her husband it is a clear message that the male dominated judicial system is telling us to shut up and take it. Hardly equal rights.

In these cases America has become what it set out not to be "an oppressive dictatorship run in large part my white males" and the point is to expose them for what they are. Not much has changed from 2011 ... but with a little bit of effort we can certainly hope that the recent election favoring the previously oppressed, who are now represented in the House of Representatives; a government body that actually put in a women's room on the house floor only as recently as 2011 it's a politifact; of course they were put in by a "John" US Speaker John Boehner, the fact that his wife must be very cool and he has two daughters and is a practical republican surely played a role. But really we had to wait that long.

Don't wait for the doors of Due Process to be slammed closed in your face - "Great occasions do not make heroes or cowards; they simply unveil them to the eyes of men. Silently and imperceptibly, as we wake or sleep, we grow strong or weak; and at last some crisis shows what we have become." Brook Foss Westcott  

Ps. these abusers get the children and hold them in captivity they are denied normal relationships with friends, denied the right to speak freely and given a laundry list of do and don't's is that the next generation, is that all we are capable of giving them?  

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

oophs you voted NO on Question 2 NOW WHAT???...

I believe Karen Testerman and Dot Knightly stated it best:

Thursday, November 7, 2012

A Note from Karen  


Dear Denise-Marie,



The results of yesterday's election were devastating.  However, we are still in a war for the hearts and souls of Americans.  Just as we were appalled that one of our teens could deliver a baby and then dispose of the child like a styrofoam cup, today we are appalled because our leadership watched and refused to help our fighting forces to aledgedly cover-up a gun running operation.   America is still worth the fight!

In 1892 the Supreme Court wrote in the Church of the Holy Trinity v The United States: "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

The freedoms we have enjoyed were based on the majority in our country observing and abiding by morals and laws to protect the people from evil.  Oh yes, we have strayed as is evidenced by the fact that only 43% of our nation will make the decision to go to church.

IF we are to be able to salvage this great land where life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness is enjoyed by all, then we must put aside the selfish, immoral behavior that is rampant and restore individual responsibility for the consequences of our choices.

Yes, we are in a war!  But the battle, though lost, the war is still worth fighting.

Never give in.  Never, never, never, never...
in nothing,
great or small,
large or petty...
never give in,
except to convictions
of honor and good sense.
Winston Churhill

Be in prayer.  Be informed.  Be involved.  

Month YearVol 1, Issue 1
Join Our Mailing List!
Stand with Us
Stand with Us


For many of us, the unthinkable has happened.
America has decisively turned the corner away from the constitutional principles of limited government and self-government with the re-election of Barack Obama.


A searing true story from America's heartland, Losing Our Sons tells of two American families whose lives intersected through a shattering act of violence. Melvin Bledsoe, a small business owner in Memphis, watched with pride as his son Carlos we...

Monday, November 12, 2012
6:30 PM
Salmon Falls Church of Christ
336 Salmon Falls Rd.
Rochester, NH 03868

Thank's to the ignorance of so many, the NH Court's will still be able to walk all over our right's. If you think the NH Family Court' s are fair and looking out for you, think again. If and when you ever have the unfortunate experience of fighting the NH Family Court's and you can't figure out why your evidence of innocence is not allowed admitted into court and you can't understand WHY you're being railroaded, your children and grandchildren stolen from you ILLEGALLY, think back and kick yourself. You had the chance to protect your families with Legislative oversight and you blew it once again! Don't say you weren't warned! Dorothy Knightly

Monday, November 5, 2012

Protect Yourself and Your Neighbor Vote YES ON QUESTION 2 on 11/6/12

Why Vote Yes on Question 2 (CACR26)
By Representatives Dan Itse,  Paul Ingbretson and Greg Sorg*
We, the people of New Hampshire, have an important question before us on November 6th: Do we believe that court rules should be beyond control of "we the people” or do we believe that court rules should be under our control? If you believe that the authority of government legitimately comes only from "we the people,” you should vote “yes” on Question 2.

During the colonial period of our state’s history, the judiciary made administrative rules for the courts under the authority and control of the King. This authority ended with the ratification of our Constitution. We know this because in 1791, the Legislature passed "An Act Establishing Courts of Law for the Administration of Justice." By that Act the courts were "empowered to make necessary rules for the more orderly practicing in their respective courts, provided said rules be not repugnant to the Constitution and the Laws of this State." However, there is no evidence of any actual compilation of rules promulgated by the courts until 1834. Moreover, the Legislature reserved for itself the more weighty issues, such as rules governing contempt and evidence and the compensation of attorneys.

For two centuries, the courts customarily made administrative rules with the consent of the Legislature. Popular discontent with court rules could be addressed through the Legislature. However, by 1974 it was evident that there was a problem with the court rules made in this manner, in that each county’s superior court was proposing its own rules, resulting in a confusing lack of uniformity. The Constitutional Convention of 1974 proposed Article 73-a to remedy this problem by giving the Supreme Court authority to create a uniform set of rules for all the state’s courts. Article 73-a was not intended to deprive the Legislature of its ultimate authority over the content of court rules. Witness the following exchange memorialized in the Convention Journal:

Delegate Gross: "Is my understanding correct that this amendment (Article 73-a), if adopted, would not deprive the Legislature of its right that it presently has, to regulate the procedure of the courts?"
Delegate Nighswander: "I would think any power they now have, they would still have."

The Supreme Court, however, has advanced a differing opinion. For example, when in 1995 the Legislature was considering a bill that would suspend the salary and benefits of judges whom the Supreme Court had suspended for misconduct, the Supreme Court found that this would be unconstitutional, not for violating the Part 1, Article 35 regarding “permanent and honorable salaries” for judges, but for violating Part 2, Article 73-a regarding “practice and procedure in the courts.” When in 2003, in the aftermath of the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice David Brock, the Legislature created a legislative Judicial Conduct Commission, the Supreme Court determined this was unconstitutional because it would enable the Legislature to impose a code of judicial conduct, in supposed violation of Part 2, Article 73-a.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly suggested that Article 73-a stripped the Legislature of any of its previous
rulemaking authority. In defending a claim of exclusive authority to make court rules, the Supreme Court, citing Article 73-a , repeatedly makes reference to what it calls “inherent authority” to do whatever it finds it convenient to do. But how can a power originally confided by the Constitution to the Legislature be “inherent” in the judiciary? Our Constitution proclaims in Part 1, Article 8 that all power resided originally in and is derived from the people. Accordingly, the power to make court rules is really a power of the people. The Supreme Court's tortured claim that its independence frees it from any form of popular oversight is akin to a claim of divine right. Every Fourth of July, the American people celebrate the rejection of that theory in 1776.

We must remember the admonishment of Part 1, Article 37: In the government of this State, the three essential powers thereof, to wit, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, ought to be kept as separate from, and independent of, each other, as the nature of a free government will admit, or as is consistent with that chain of connection that binds the whole fabric of the Constitution in one indissoluble bond of union and amity. In order to maintain freedom, the three powers must overlap to some extent, but the parameters of that overlap are defined in Part 2. Our founders knew that the people had to be the final judges of justice. That is why we have juries, and that is why the Legislature has always had the authority to establish court rules by statute. Article 73-a was never intended to remove that authority from the Legislature.

It is time for the people of New Hampshire to make a decision: Are we satisfied with the administration of our constitutional rights solely by courts over which we have no control other than the Legislature’s "nuclear options" of Bill of Address or Impeachment? On November 6 th, we have the opportunity to ensure that "we the people" maintain our power to protect our rights, by voting “yes” on Question 2.

*Rep. Paul Ingbretson, of Haverhill, is Chairman of the New Hampshire House of Representatives Redress of Grievances Committee. Rep. Daniel Itse, of Fremont, is Chairman of the New Hampshire House of Representatives Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification Committee. Rep. Gregory Sorg is Vice-Chairman of the New Hampshire House of Representatives Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification Committee.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Gender Bias in NH....Really?

Mark Twain once said "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." In NH the facts more often than not, don't even have a chance to come out in the Judicial System.

Yes, NH has once again proven it is gender bias this article covers a recent case where the man who wasn't involved at the start of a child's life was able to receive a court order to have the child's last name changed to his. The NH Supreme Ct. again relied on and based it solely on their undefined best interests of the child, to which the lawyer representing the woman stated to the press:

"In affirming the best interest standard without outlining any factors, “my concern is the court just left every family court judge with absolutely unfettered discretion to do whatever that judge thinks best,” Gordon said. “That’s really no standard.”

Part of the problem in NH stems from the Judicial Branch's "unfettered discretion" Rule 1.2 which allows the courts to waive all rules. "This rule has been used in the family courts to waive the rules of evidence and allow hearsay evidence to be used against parents," And Rule 1.9 gives the court discretion to deny appeals to the Supreme Court, despite the fact that the N.H. Constitution protects that right. When the same government body that interprets the N.H. Constitution is allowed to waive the constitution by passing a rule, it makes the body untouchable" State Representative Avard said.

To understand how untouchable and that there really is no standard being followed consistently in the NH Court system you have to look at this recent Supreme Court Case In Re. Simon M. 2012-250 a request by a parent to review records was simply denied. However, the order of the supreme court shows the legislative intent behind NH RSA 169-C:25 I. (a.) and NH RSA 170-G:8 accessed 3/21/12 @ 1:29am (which appears to have been changed here without legislative intent, after the above order was issued)  is completely disregarded without substantiating their reasoning for doing so.

The court’s assertion that this appeal does not rise under NH RSA 170:8-a is lacking authority and/or legal analysis when the law in NH directly states for a parent to acquire records it could only be done under NH RSA 169-C:25 III. which states “All case records, as defined in RSA 170-G:8-a, relative to abuse and neglect, shall be confidential, and access shall be provided pursuant to RSA 170-G:8-a.” in fact giving the parents access to the records, the discovery ruled on in 2007 in this case, should be part of that case file and it is not, indicating that this Ct. [’s] order of 9/13/12 means if the State ignores orders long enough they are not accountable to the public they serve nor are they bound by the same rules this Ct. [’s] imposes on pro se litigants. Henry David Thoreau, once said "It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right."  the same is true today.

"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government and or Judicial System in NH only when it deserves it."  Mark Twain