Here is the Information we are able to find about Children's protective Services

DHS Child Welfare Advisory Committee Membership

March 22,2006

Dana Ainam
ICW Supervisor Conf. Tribes of Grand Ronde
9615 Grand Ronde Road
Grand Ronde, OR 97347 Phone: (503) 879-2037
Fax: (503) 879-2142
The Honorable Sara GeIser
State Representative
900 Court St. NE H-479
Salem, OR 97301
Capitol Phone: (503) 986-1416 Interim Phone: (541) 757-6128
Janet Arenz
Executive Director Oregon Alliance of Children's Programs
707 13th Street SE, Suite 290
Salem, OR 97301
Phone: (503) 399-9076
Fax: (503) 362-0149
Mickey Lansing
Executive Director
Commission on Children and Families
530 Center Street NE, Suite 405
Salem, OR 97301
Phone: (503) 373-1570
Fax: (503) 378-8395
Mike Balter
Executive Director Boys and Girls Aid Society
018 SW Boundary Court
Portland, OR 97239-3939
Phone: (503) 542-2303
Fax: (503) 224-5960
Jean Lasater
1745 Kamela Drive S
Salem, OR 97306
Phone: (503) 871-8150
Leslie Currin
School Health Services Specialist Student Learning and Partnership Oregon Department of Education
255 Capitol Street N E
Salem, OR 97301-0203
Phone: (503) 378-3600 x2714
Fax: (503) 378-5156
Phil Lemman
Oregon Youth Authority
530 Center Street NE, Suite 200
Salem, OR 97301-3740
Phone: (503) 373-7212
Fax: (503) 373-7622
Don Darland
President, Oregon Foster Parent Association
38183 Hwy 226
Scio, OR 97374
Phone: (503) 361-3906
Nancy Miller
Administrator, Citizen Review Board
1163 State Street
Salem, OR 97301
Phone: (503) 986-5855
Fax: (503) 986-5859
Tracy Neely
2411 SW 4th Avenue
Ontario, OR 97914
Phone: (541) 889-4461
Fax: (541) 889-4461
Pam Patton, President
Coalition of Advocates for Equal Access for Girls
830 NE Holladay, Suite 125 Portland, OR 97232
Phone: (503) 233-4356
Fax: (503) 233-4359
Ruth Taylor
Executive Director Parents Anonymous of Oregon
4945 N E 7th Street
Portland, OR 97211
Phone: (503) 258-4568
Fax: (971) 230-0065
Doug Poppen
President, Oregon Juvenile Dept. Directors Assn.
2121 Kaen Rd.
Oregon City, OR 97045
Phone: (503) 655-8342 x1, then 7190 Fax: (503) 655-8448
The Honorable. Nan Waller
Multnomah County Circuit Court
1021 SW 4th, #360
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: (503) 988-3038 or (503) 988-3427
Fax: (503) 276-0957
Angela Sherbo
Attorney Juvenile Rights Project
123 NE 3rd Suite 310
Portland, OR 97232
Phone: (503) 232-2540 x233
Fax: (503) 231-4767
Becky Smith
State CASA Coordinator Commission on Children and Families
530 Center Street NE, Suite 405 Salem, OR 97301
Phone: (503) 373-1570 x257
Fax: (503) 378-8395
Christine Stetzer
Principal, Grant Watts School
52000 SE 3rd Place
Scapoose, OR 97056
Phone: (503) 543-6371
Judy Stiegler
Director (CWAC Chair) CASA, of Central Oregon
63360 Briita Street, Bldg. 1
Bend, OR 97701
Phone: (541) 389-1618

The United States court has stated that the presumption that the parent acts in the best interest of the child Parham v J R 442 U.S. 584, 602: there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself in the private realm of the family to further question of a parent ability to make the best decision regarding their children Reno V Flores ,507 U . S 292 , 304 The state may not interfere with child rearing decisions when a parent is available Troxel V Granville 530 U > S 57 {2000}

Lincoln County D.A. Barnett Skirting Oregon Law

Lincoln County D.A. Barnett Skirting Oregon Law
By Lincoln County PAC

County D.A. Barnett seems to be ignoring a law passed by our own State Legislature. 

Oregon is one of many states that does specifically allow a parent or guardian to use a spanking as reasonable discipline. Research at the local law Library uncovered Oregon Revised Statute 161.205, which reads as follows: 

"The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances: (1) A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person may use reasonable physical force upon such minor...when and to the extent the person reasonably believes (emphasis mine) it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of the minor or incompetent person." 

Several counties in Oregon are skirting this law and Lincoln county is leading the pack.

Spouses in Lincoln County Jailed For Disciplining their Child

In a cost-cutting effort, and to expedite their case loads, innocent fathers and mothers are often persuaded by multiple felony charges resulting from an ordinary disciplining to take an out of court settlement. In a review of several cases, the Defendant was charged with 2-4 felonies resulting from an average parental spanking.  For instance, in many cases there is more than one child in the room during a disciplinary spanking. If D.A. Barnett discovers that in the Police report- it adds at least one more felony charge, due to the fact that another child may have "been aware" that a spanking was occurring to their errant sibling.

Do you remember the Clark Family incident awhile back? Well, that's merely one example of hundreds of similar cases that Bernice Barnett is using to attack and divide good, wholesome families. On occasion, they are even targeting tourists as they pass through our county!

Parent is Barred from their Home

If that weren't enough- under penalty of imprisonment and fines- you shall have NO contact with your spouse or children!  You cannot even ask someone to tell your child that you love him or her, (that's 3 party communication) and will promptly land you in Jail! In order to get out, you would have to post $50,000- $100,000 in Bail to get out! Ditto if you send your son or daughter a card for their Birthday, Christmas, Valentines Day, etc.! Bernice Barnett considers that interference with the state's witness!

Additionally, the "non-abusive" spouse is usually pressured to testify against their spouse, or face losing their children to Foster Care as they are threatened. 

Malicious Prosecution Damage from County D.A. is Permanent

Regrettably, many of the families charged with this nonsensical abuse of power cannot afford an attorney and in many cases, the court appointed attorneys, have no financial motivator to "defend their client zealously" as defined by the Oregon State Bar Association. In addition, the Public Defenders' once has heavy case loads making it difficult for their Court appointed Attorney to devote a lot of time and energy to each individual case. That's not to say that there aren't good Attorneys in our county, just that it to becomes another motivator to increase numbers of cases, as it spells job security for them.

For those Fathers and Mothers able to afford their own attorney, the cost is $7-10,000, or even up to $15,000 or $20,000, to defend their good name as a result of spanking their child. The financial burden on these families is enormous and often felt years later, as they pay down a 2nd Mortgage on the family home that became necessary to pay the lawyer bill. The consequences of failing to mount an adequate defense, or accepting their plea bargain is extreme. Research has shown that the victims of this type of Malicious Prosecution are then forever barred from owning a firearm. They are also permanently (for the remainder of their life) labeled a "Domestic Abuser." Such charges are not expungable- forever labeling the victim a felon as well.

Bernice Barnett, Lincoln County D.A. Motivated by State & Fed. Tax Dollars?

Are they doing this because they are receiving State & Federal tax dollars in their office to increase staff and to give themselves perks and raises? The Fed gives them money for each and every case that is called "domestic violence," (the term they will use if you spank.) They don't even need a conviction to score a win against hard working families and they still get their "bonus" funding from Federal tax dollars; all they have to do is bring an indictment. Well, we've all heard the saying, "you can indict a ham sandwich." In fact, in order to save the District Attorney's offices' time, they are hoping you will accept their plea bargain. On their books this is a win for them! Don't forget, this is a voluntary system.

Malicious Prosecution is also bad business for the local economy as it will catch National headlines, scaring away the tourist dollars during the summer season, costing local businesses millions in lost revenue. We all remember the Country singer that received heavy handed treatment in Lincoln County, then made a popular song about it. It had a tune about "coming to Lincoln County on vacation and leaving on probation."

Truly, this is an abuse of the system and is an egregious exploitation of the power of the Lincoln County District Attorney's office, prosecuting loving parents merely performing their parental duties. If you know anyone that has been subjected to this type of malicious prosecution, please contact the Lincoln County PAC, so that we may investigate your case. The telephone number is: 541-336-1233. 

You may also mail documentation of your particulars to: 3824 River Rd. N. Box 188 Keizer, OR. 97303-4800.You are also asked to call your State Representative and State Senator. Rep. Dennis Richardson should also hear from you, as this type of waste of taxpayer money is used as an excuse to increase their budgets and Richardson heads up the Department of Human Services Budget, which controls the amount of money that Services to Children & Families receives. His telephone is:503-986-1404. 

Reference House Bill 5038, DHS' Budget Bill.

Print Survey sheet for you and your neighbors, friends and relatives to sign. (3 signors per sheet)

New Zealand Parenting - Easton 

Easton's Defence

(March 6, 2007)

On January 31st 2001, I wrote to a range of people including those in
direct New Zealand authority and advised them that I would stand up
against their bullying, I had been in a marriage for ten years
bearing two children.We had separated. On investigation of the
Family Court system it was blatantly clear that there was an extreme
discrimination against men as implemented in acceptable bias against
the functions of fatherhood.

On March 6 2001, I attended a mediation conference before Judge
O'Donovan. I was ushered into the conference room by a court officer
and immediately followed into that small room be my former wife's
lawyer Shona de Luen. Shona sat across from me and edited with a
highlighter pen what I could see was a letter of complaint to the
court I had sent to the court copying to her. Her presence was
unreasonable and her conduct unprofessional.

I was not in the room to argue with either Ms de Luen or my former
wife I had no such cause. I was in the room ready and prepared to
argue with the judge and inform him that he had no rights to practice
in the removal of any association with my children, that by so acting
he was abusing them. In the ensuing discussion I spoke only to the
judge. I advocated for equal shared parenting as the logical remedy
for necessity under extreme societal pressures of gender inequity for
women's demands of equality. The judge concluded the hearing.

I was informed the next day that I was a violent man and needed to
take violent prevention training. Not attached to that information as
was supposed was a document granting custody of my children to my
former wife without any provisions for contact with my children
assured or recognized as necessary. I rejected the legitimacy of
those papers today as I rejected them then. I became a criminal to
fight their impropriety and a deadbeat bad to challenge the
incompetence and arrogance of those who could implement such cruel
and violent conditions over a loving father. My children and I have
had approximately 30 hours contact, for today's anniversary, in a six-
year period. I am lost in their childhood.

I am a trained and respected Early Childhood Educator. There was no
violence against my children alleged, nor was any violence alleged to
have occurred against my former wife. The allegations laid were
innuendo for an over dramatic indulgence in self, with which I was
familiar. The lawyer knew this. I did not need to tell anyone: It was
obvious. The judge agreed that there was violence by me and issued a
temporary protection orders giving me 48 hours to respond. I refused
to respond. I should not have needed to respond. I was guilty of no
crime. More care should have been taken of my children and of me and
of our relationship.

In subsequent court appearances under criminal proceedings for my
challenge against such a cruel as vindictive system my former wife
has given evidence under oath that there was no violence against
either her or the children. She perjured herself on two occasions.
Yet she "still" demands that I can only see my children under
supervised access. There has never been a need for me to see my
children under supervised access conditions. The presiding judge
instructed the jury not to think of this as violence but more to
consider my behaviour for asking such questions as the logical
definition of domestic violence. He had interferred in my questioning
stopping those questions that asked "what was the violence?"

Over the years I have complained in the courts, both family and
criminal for those in power to recognise that this extreme and
prevalent neglect of children is discriminatory against men and
biased against fathers. They blatantly refuse to accept this as rich
in its event. I complain to politicians that this practice and
behaviour is violence against the children as discriminatory against
men and biased against fathers and still they refuse, powerful and
authoritative in their rejection. And the children take the damage of
such an arrogance.

I allege it would cost them too much to recognise that their
practices and protocols protecting women from a removal in domestic
responsibilities of human function should better be considered: for
its condition of domestic violence's exploitation. I allege that
their practice and protocols would be better effective if angled at
prevention instead of a further recognition in their power of craft
in changing the world -for "women's equality" to their own sense of
self importance, governorship and glorious historical power.

And it continues.

On Sunday, March 25th I with as many supporters as I can gather will
rally outside former Principal Family Court Judge Patrick Mahoney
residence and protest. We will have loudhailers and distribute
leaflets. We will have banners. During the years of my children's and
my oppression an unknown number of thousands of fathers and their
children suffered and remain as sufferers for the same kinds of
condition. Some have killed themselves as others have murdered. They
have had no champion, only their pain on which to rely and survive.
From New Zealand this period was under Judge Mahoney's watch. He will
know of me and he will know of my case. With me will be others who
know of Judge Mahoney and his rulings and behaviour when practicing
as the Principal Family Court Judge. His right from oath to act
without "fear or favour" will be compromised. The State cannot
protect him from vigilante like protests and gatherings. This is the
same where the State has not protected fathers and their children
from an abuse in processes and practice.

I do not need to organize this protest. Practices and protocols can
be put into place to protect my children from their on going neglect.
Practices and protocols can be put in place to compensate against the
failure of the State to honour their obligation to protect the
associations between son and daughter with mother and father.

Meetings that involve internal authorities and public scrutiny are
required and if put into place will be respected. Practices must
change. Open policies to remove the discrimination against men and
bias against fathers will need to be set into place. Such are
reasonable requests against an as proved unreasonable authority.

Protesters should gather outside the Karori Post Office at 9.30am.

Benjamin Easton.

Juvenile Court is a Administrative Court 

They can do anything they want in a Juvenile Court because a Juvenile Court is a Administrative Court, A Commercial Court,
all Administrative courts are Commercial Courts wherein "Best Interest" of a Child means where is the most money...( Interest doesn't mean love and care it means gain... ( INTEREST, in a lesser sense means desire and primary attention ... and that translates into "Love and Care " in the minds of the Sheeple) ( Of coerce nobody is against LOVE and CARE but they don't understand it's only about MONEY)

If it were me Linda, I would Send them all a Tort Claim warning them all of impending charges that you will file against them if they persist in their unfounded allegations, their Harassments and Threats against ... You could also use a Writ of QUO WARRANTO...File it with the Court Clerk requesting an assignment of a "judge" and a Case Number...There in you demand to know by what "Cause" they make these unfounded Allegations'; Lies and Harassments against you and against the Family Body of yourself and your Daughters or cease and desist and the Sovereignty of your Family Body be recognized as absolute...

I would deliver that Tort Claim by hand to those involved before Friday... (The time of the Hearing then male a copy to all of them also... You don't need to file the Tort Claim with the Court until after you decide that you must charge them, which you wont do until after you have a hearing on the QUO WARRANTO


your name full, sui juris
St Address or POB
City and State
Zip #
Tele #

Tort Claim

To: Name of one off those involved

It is my intent to file Criminal charges against you in both your Personal as well as your Professional Capacities for the
un-Lawful and Criminal Acts you have committed against my family Body unless you cease and desist in those Criminal
activities forthwith and Immediately and recognize the absolute Sovereighcy of the Family Body of Linda (middle name) Weston, sui Juris and her Two minor Daughters, Childs name: and Childs name...

I shall also file a Writ of Quo Warranto Into the Criminal Court and into the Supreme Court of the Sovereign Republic of State, in which you reside, giving you an opportunity to explain in a higher Court, a Court of Law and Equity, the Authority for your acts of Racketeering, Collusion, Conspiracy,Fraud, ( Kidnapping ? do you still have the Kids? If not, then Kidnsapping) and Slavery... Violations of Authority and Public Trust...

CC to:
____John Doe

Address each letter to the Individual Recipiant but put all into the Carbon Copy List

please,,,,CPS of OREGON, Sen George Speaks out -

Senator Gary George explains the ills and evils of a Child Protective Services "plan" and bill proposed to monitor EVERY family in Oregon via the school ...

Jul 08, 2009 · Senator Gary George, continues his explaination of the cost of the program of universal spying on families in OREGON, by Child Protective [dis]Services ...
CPS of OREGON, Sen George Speaks out
Senator Gary George explains the ills and evils of a Child Protective Services "plan" and bill proposed to monitor EVERY family in Oregon via the school syst...

SCHOOLS OR TEACHERS WHO GIVE THE CHILDREN AWAY TO {D.C.F-C.P.S} WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT ARE AN ACCOMPLICE TO CHILD ABDUCTION UNDER TITLE 18 U.S.C 1201----TITLE 18 U.S.C 2381----TITLE 18 U.S.C -S.S. 242 ---AND ARE NOT IMMUNE IN ANY sure to let the teachers at their school know that i file {COMMERICIAL LIENS} on teachers as well for {CORRUPT JUDGES AND POLICE} child may be questioned without consent of parents title 18 u.s.c 241 and 241 can not interrogate anyone without council or consent..the 5th is still in full scope of the law here.... ..... in·ter·ro·ga·tion
noun: interrogation; plural noun: interrogations

the action of interrogating or the process of being interrogated.
"would he keep his mouth shut under interrogation ?"
synonyms: questioning, cross-questioning, cross-examination, quizzing; interview, debriefing, inquiry, the third degree;
"he was taken to the police station for interrogation"

.The Eleventh Amendment was not intended to afford them freedom from liability in any case where, under color of their office, they have injured one of the State's citizens. TO grant them such immunity would be to create a privileged class free from liability from wrongs inflicted or injuries threatened. Public Agents must be liable to the law, unless they are to be put above the law.see.OLD COLONY TRUST COMPANY v. CITY OF SEATTLE ET AL.{06/01/26} 271 U.S.426,46 S.Ct. 552,70 page 431. no officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity see. United States v. lee,U.S. 196,220 and Burton v.United States 202 U.S. 344.

" the relevant cases demonstraight that the factors determining whether an act by a judge is a "judicial" one relate to the nature of the act it self, i.e, whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and the expectations of the parties,i.e, whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity."435 U.S 349,362 { emphasis added}.

some defendants urge that any acts "of a judicial nature" entitles the judge to absolute judicial immunity.But in a jurisdiction vaccum,{that is, absence of all jurisdiction}the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. Stump v.Sparkman,id.,435 U.S. 349.

Where there is no jurisdiction,there can be no discretion,for discretion is incident to jurisdiction. Piper v. Pearson,2 Gray 120,cited in Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall. 335,20 L.ED. 646 {1872}

A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person,to be entitled to immunity from a civil action for his acts.Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz.220,75 p.2nd 689 {1938}.

No man in this country is so high that he is above the law.No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest , are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.United States v. Lee, 106 U.S 196,220,1S.CT.240, 27 L.ED. 171 {1882
Buckles v. King County 191 F.3D 1127,*1133{C.A.9{WASH.},1999

Purpose of statute that mandated any person who under the color of law subjected another person to deprivation of his constitutional right's would be liable to the injured party in an action at law was not to abolish immunities that were available at common law,but to ensure that federal courts would have jurisdiction of constitutional claims against state officials.
Act March 3rd ,1875, 18 Stat. 470.
Butz v. Economou 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894{U.S.N.Y,1978}

The United States court has stated that the presumption that the parent acts in the best interest of the child Parham v J R 442 U.S. 584, 602: there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself in the private realm of the family to further question of a parent ability to make the best decision regarding their children Reno V Flores ,507 U . S 292 , 304 The state may not interfere with child rearing decisions when a parent is available Troxel V Granville 530 U > S 57 {2000}