On Jun 3, 12:35 am, Doug Laidlaw <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> There is a difference between real, caring CPS
Fairy tale.
> and blanket removal of a
> whole group on the mistaken view that their environment is harmful.
Same behavior, just different SCALE and MEDIA ATTENTION.
> Witness the "stolen generation" of Aborigines in Australia. The
> Governments who removed the children acted honestly, in the well-
> intentioned but mistaken belief that a white upbringing was better.
See Movie "Rabbit Proof Fence".
> On the issue of the agency stopping judicial intervention, we have
> administrative tribunals to deal with this. Courts can review the
decision
> of an agency, but they can't substitute their own decision. All that
they
> can do is send it back Administrative tribunals can decide differently.
That's why Iowa has effectively "dead ended" the alternative
avenues of redress. There is NO tribunal. It's one Judge.
> But here, that is largely a State matter. What happens in Iowa won't
> necessarily be the same in (say) New York.
Particularly when it comes to those other avenues of redress.
> But you Americans can always
> get it into the federal jurisdiction by citing the Bill of Rights.
>
> Doug L.
Doug:
Actually, getting a Juvenile Court dependency action into
a FEDERAL jurisdiction is almost impossible, especially
while the Juvenile Court action is ongoing.
The Fed courts kick them out saying that
the family has to exhaust their state remedies first.
The state, of course, has a huge conflict of interest
and doesn't want to be second guessed.
A family can't even appeal a Juvenile Court case
to the state Supreme Court except where certain
kinds of decisions have been made.
An "interlocutory" appeal to the Appeal/Supreme Court
is extremely difficult to obtain, almost impossible.
There are so many games being played to
prevent access to higher courts that while
it might be in theory possible, it's wrapped
up in enough garbage to make it VERY difficult.
The "terrible swift sword" of the Bill Of Rights
is just NOT the sacred magic bullet that
solves those sorts of problems as advertized.
It's like this "Fraud upon the Court" stuff.
Federally, there is NO statute of limitation on it.
Under Iowa law there is a short statute of limitation.
In essence, fraud or not, Iowa wants the fraud to roll on.
Convenient for them since it's mostly done BY the state!
But shouldn't the FEDERAL code be applicable
even in a state court?
How could a state set a short limit for the
same thing the Feds have as open ended?
If an Iowa family takes the Federal "fraud upon the court"
legal code into a state court they would cling to
the state code which screws the citizen and
protects the fraud perpetrated BY the state.
The wierd part of this to me is that they would
behave as if state statute TRUMPS Federal law.
It seems to me a bit like a "shell game" where they
basically operate using the "war of attrition" theory,
hoping that people will die, get frustrated, give up
rather than persist all the way to the ultimate court.
In essence they abuse the "weight" of the state.
|
