Main Entry: spu·ri·ousPronunciation: ’spyur-E-&sFunction: adjectiveEtymology: Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin spurius false, from Latin, of illegitimate birth, from spurius, noun, bastard

1 : of illegitimate birth : BASTARD

2 : outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : FALSE

3 a : of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : FORGED b : of a deceitful nature or quality- spu·ri·ous·ly adverb- spu·ri·ous·ness noun

1) Korean Defense Service Medal

2) National Defense Service Medal

3) Cold War Certificate and/or Medal

Maybe anti-military,anti-disabled,anti-veteran,and anti-male officials like Pilshaw,Fleetwood,& Foulston could show up at the awards ceremony and have some jack booted thugs point weapons at me during the ceremony.

It was certainly what happened in my own driveway,I am sure they would be “proud” to show their “true colors” during this future ceremony!

(AmerDAD):

I received this e mail from Judge Pilshaw’s aide just moments after we spoke (see note below). I apologize that I misspoke regarding our pro se motion policy. Apparently, Judge has changed her policy.

Consequently, your motion has not been filed with the court as of yet. Judge will review your motion and send it back to us to be set up for hearing, or it will be returned to you if it has not been filed properly. Again, I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Thank you.

Crystal

TCC IV

(316) 660-5720

I’m not sure who I should send this to, so if you could, please make sure it gets passed on to the necessary people.

Any Pro Se Motions (whether they have a Notice of Hearing attached or not) that are being filed by defendant’s or litigants that require a hearing date from Judge Pilshaw, please do not accept filing immediately.

Please place the Pro Se Motion into our 11th floor box. Judge Pilshaw will review the paperwork to see if it complies with statutory requirements and local court rules.

If it does comply, it will be returned to the Clerk’s Office by me for filing along with a hearing date. If it does not meet requirements, I will prepare a letter returning the paperwork to the person who submitted it telling them it does not comply with requirements and that it will be reviewed again should they desire to submit further paperwork. Only paperwork that meets requirements will be allowed to be filed.

Judge Pilshaw believes in the long run it will save a lot of time for your office, the DA’s office and our office.

Thanks, Laura

Division 14

Judge Pilshaw’s Court———————–State twice reprimands judgeOne order says Rebecca Pilshaw mishandled a probation case; the other involves the filing of motions.BY RON SYLVESTERThe Wichita Eagle

The other order involved the judge not allowing a motion by a man convicted of kidnapping to be filed in the public court file.Pilshaw, “in this instance, followed an alternative procedure in which she apparently received the merits of motions in order to determine whether the motions should be filed with the clerk of the district court,” the commission wrote.

Motions are usually filed with the clerk before a judge hears them. “These are both procedural violations that judges are sensitive to,” Joseph said on the judge’s behalf.

Pilshaw is the third Sedgwick County District Court judge to receive the rare public orders during the past year, and the first to receive two.

We recieved some mail today that is interestsing.

We recieved a refund check of 154.50 from the balace of three thousand dollars I had paid Michael Foster.

According to his ledger he itemizes every thing down to the dollar. Including charging me for a phone call from My fiances ex to him suggesting some rediculous move he planned to make to las vegas.

Correct me if I am wrong but am I supposed to pay for off the wall phone calls from the opposing party.

If this is the case in the appeal ahead if he retains a lawyer. I think I will call him with some of my fantasies and run up his bill.

We have recieved sumaries of charges from Michael foster in the past with charges for services that are in this ledger that dont match.

The last summary of charges we had over six hundred dollars he still owed us. He has done nothing since that date.

Just some more of sedgwick county good ole boy behavior we will have to address later.

The most interesting thing we recieved though is the order for withdrawl.It was heard by and sighned by Judge Yost.

If you have read earlier we were lied to by Judge Powell and his assitant Rita.Judge Powell was supposed to have handled the motion for withdrawl. Judge Powells assistant Rita told us this and had us send a e-mail to be shown to Judge Powell contesting his withdrawl.

We also in the same e-mail asked that the hearing date be moved forward to gain time to retain another attorney if Foster was allowed to with draw at the date he calculatedly did.

What a joke.They are so obvious in what they did.Such small men in positions of power wallowing in there petty dishonest mess of a court system.

We have yet to recieve any documents from the court pertaining to the may fourth hearing.

The anger of may fourth still burns away but it is a different anger.Not the strike back anger from the shock of the unbelievable behavior of Judge Powell and Attorney Michael Foster But a new felt anger of realization and deep felt disgust that a system like this can exist and go on as long as it has.

The fact that these men are self confident and cocky and think nothing of the lives they devastate with there unethical dishonest conspiring ways.

My fiance is living with the fact that Judge Powell gave custody to a her ex husband.

A man who repeatedly beat her lived off her and after conning her to move away from her home there in kansas . He forced her into prostitution in lasvegas.

During these Years my fiance was still recovering from a massive brain injury and her Iq was 84. Her maturity level was that of a 15 year old and she suffered memory loss of her entire child hood.

As her brain healed and her iq rose and her memories started comming back she began to resist and eventualy found help to stand up against her abuser.

Her ex husband when told she would no longer be his whore packed up the children and left.He took what little money she had and she lived off the streets of las vegas for over a month.

She struggled until she got a daily weekly motel and found work and did her best to find her children who had been abondoned in arkansas at her ex husbands mothers.

It took her six months to find them and attempted to get them back to there home in nevada.

She has been through hell because of this man. He did his best to keep her from seeing them trying to sell her visits with them for money that she did not have.

He even tried to get money from her through me and told me he should have kicked my ass when I told him he would never see a dime from me.

He has lived off welfare and family members all his life running computer pyrimid schemmes and is not capable of holding a job.

He has never even though he is 47 years old developed any type carreer and is now on his third job in less than a year.

He told Judge Powell he is a contractor.When Judge Powell pressed him for specifics as to what type contractor he was.It came out that he is a paper boy. He delivers the paper in Salina where he now lives.

He has defaulted on loans been kicked out of so many rentals that his credit is usless.

He ignored almost every order of the court.And he mounted a campain of alienation of his girls to there mother.He did this with the full knowledge of the case manager Don Hampton and the Judges Beasly and Powell. Contempt charges were filed and Judge Powell dismissed them.

This useless scab on society sucessfuly portrayed him self as a abused man.He is 5ft 10 and around 200 pounds.Ralynn is 5ft8 and about 135 lbs.

Ralynns oldest daughter will look you in the eye and in matter of fact way tell you how at one time she watched him choke her mother until she gave him money.

The little girl is so brain washed that she says it is ok that he choked her mother because she had his wallett and would not give it back.

The little girl doesnt know that her dad never worked one day in a eight year period and her mother had no interest in his wallett.

The fact is he was choking her to make her give him the cash from her just cashed anuity check of 775.00. she recieves from a settlement from her brain injury.

The case manager knows this story and refuses to look into it.

My fiance still suffers from her injury. She has normal cognitive brain functioning. But she has a problem with thought to speach and is limited as to what she can do for a living be cause of it. But her evaluations show her to be very competant and with a Iq of 94.The same as her ex husband.

There is no proof of any abuse by her to her ex husband or towards her children other than what her ex husband has lied about.

He has also brain washed the girls to claim abuse although they have crystal clear memories of alleged abuse that was supposed to have taken place when they were two and three years old.

Ralynn and I have been together for four years. I am 5ft8 190 pounds.Smaller than her ex husband.I would think if she was so mean and tough that she would have been abusing me and kicked my ass good for me long ago.

We have a three year old together and she is a very inteligent healthy extremely well taken care of little baby.

The case manger has seen our baby and so has two pyscologists that contradict every thing the case manager says and the opposing sides cronnie psycologist, hand picked by the case manager.Also influenced by the case manager.

I have been a heavy eqiupment operator since 1976.I make close to 40 dollars an hour and have exellent benifits.I am the oldest of five children and was raised with morals and a deep belief in god.My parents were together until my fathers death about three months ago.

My ex wife left me about four years ago to go make something of her self as she said but would love me forever go figure.

But I raised her two daughters one from 11 years old and had some very serious problems. The other was 18 months old and I am the only father she ever knew and she graduated a valadictorian recieved sholarships and is now in Reno going to colledge.

I have good credit and provide a good home for my three year old. Ralynn is 38 years old and a exellent mother. She loves kids and is asked frequently to baby sit others children.

The funny thing about it all is she is known for her love of children here in nevada and how good she is with them.

Judge Powell and the case manager Don Hampton treated her like a village idiot.

She is a very feminine woman very clean and efficent in the way she runs her house.This village idiot drives with skill in las vegas traffic that is some of the worst in the united states.

I would bet my soul she keeps a more precise ledger of my finances and check book etc than Don Hampton or Judge Powell.

She uses this pc better than I do and has superior literary skills to mine.

I can show you Don Hamptons report that shows he has problems with spelling and is full of typos and generaly sloppy.

He did a psyciatric evaluation of Ralynn in his report that shocked Ralynns psycologist when she showed it to him.Don Hampton has no skills or training to do a psyciatric evaluation.

He also is so full of himself. He actualy rewords the psycologists report from Nevada to suit his less than amature findings.

This psycologist literaly begged Don Hampton to speak with her as to the specifics of what she needed to do for her report and he refused to speak with her.

He is so incompetant and was so desperate in his little witch hunt. He quoted and made his psyciatric evaluation of Ralynn based on a old report Ralynn sent him made in 1988.

Ralynn sent him that report so he could see the major difference between her evaluation of 1988 and how she is now.

The man is just to incompetant and not intelligent enough to be able to grasp onto the fact that it is not 1988. No matter how bad he wants her to be the person she was early in her recovery back then.

It just simply isnt so and she has proved it with two evaluations.

To sum up every thing. According to Judge Powell ,Don Hampton. Don Hamptons hand picked cronnie unethical Psycologist Dr Larry Boll.Who also has never seen Ralynn or spoken to her and flatly refused to do so when she asked him to.Ralynn is a village idiot. She is not capable of raising her girls and is dangerous and abusive to Her ex husband/pimp and her children.

So that makes me a dumb ass who lives with a village idiot that is dangerous to me and my daughter with her.

The two psycologists that have met and evaluated Ralynn contradict every thing they say.

What I say means nothing either and I am a liar.I witnessed the after math of several beatings done to Ralynn by her ex husband and did my best to get her to press charges.

She had bruises from her ankles to her ears marks on her arms where he had grabbed her and her throat.She had a bruise as big as a grapefruit on her hip where he had kicked her and even on her jaw where he had hit her.

I regret to this day not hurting her ex husband real bad. But resisted because Ralynn was just a aquatance at the time and she refused to press charges on him.

To have seen what I have seen and to know what I know about Ralynn as a person.It sickens me that a ex irs agent with no psycological skills can take it upon himself to do a psyciatric evaluation of his own and say a evaluation done by a psycologist with a wall full of degrees and many years experience. That her report means nothing because he doesnt know her is unbelievable.

To read his report and the report of his cronnie psycologist Larry Boll who was heavily influenced by Hampton before and during the evaluation and he made no secret of it by quoting Larry Boll to myself and my fiance.

It is extremely frustrating because the person Hampton describes does not exist.He isnt even vaguely close to knowing any thing about Ralynn much less having no qualifications to do any psyciatric evaluations on her and placing himself as a expert above the extremely qualified and heavily experienced psycologist that did Ralynns evaluation in nevada.

This is what you have operating in the sedgwick county family courts and believe me.The judges actualy listen to this garbage and base there decisions on it.

You had better not call a case manager on any lie he tells and believe me there are plenty. You better not question his competance either.If you dare to show evidence to contradict him you will be shut down immediately.You had better not make any attempt to question any of the courts cronnie psycologists either.

Any attempts to show any evidence that contradicts them will not be allowed. Your due process will be taken away from you and you will be told to shut your mouth and put away your evidence.

It happened on may fourth 2007 in court room three of sedgwick county family court before Judge Anthony Powell.

If any one doesnt believe me I am more than willing to play tapes for you show you all the evaluations and documents and prove that sedgwick county courts are corrupt unethical and will not give you your right to due process.

Later on when we recieve the transcripts I will post them all over the internet along with the evidence we tried to show.

My nieghbor is a young man very skilled with computers who has agreed to help me start a internet site that we will have up soon.

This site will be for the people railroaded in sedwick county to tell there stories and meet others and gather together for unity and help one another fight the corruption of sedgwick county.

In the years to come there are going to be elections and it is important for the people to know about these out of control good ole boys in sedgwick county.We can take away there jobs and send them packing by letting people know what they are voting for.

We can also get the laws changed and make the case managers responsible for there actions. We can also force some laws to educate case managers and make them competant.Remember all it takes to be a case manager is a 40 hour class.Our case is a perfect example of a egotistical incompetant self proclaimed wise man.He is in a position way above his head and is grossly incompetant and under qualified to be holding the power he does.

Any one in the state of Kansas is as qualified as this man.

Think about that.

Thanks

Dave Parsons

Thanks for readingDave Parsons and Ralynn Teare

It would appear many of you ARE subject to review,you the CSO,Kansas SRS employee,the CSE clerk or cop DO NOT have absolute immunity like a Judge or DA.

I have no personal experience with their “fine” case managers or social workers but this case specifically deals with the department heads of Social Services.

There is a great amount of case law that proves that wrongful acts under the color of law DO NOT qualify these types for “absolute” immunity,only qualified immunity at best and that does not give them a free pass to do WRONG:

“An injunction to prevent [a state officer] from doing that which he has no legal right todo is not an interference with the discretion of an officer.” Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S.at 159.

We agree with the District Court and hold, as we did summarily in our prior opinion, Heartland I, 335 F.3d at 691, that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunityis not a bar to suit in this case.”

Don’t worry,there are ways to bring the Judge and DA into the bright light of justice which will be just as painful for them as their agency workers.

One of the best ways is to break the cycle of Sedgwick,per se to get a different venue than crooked ol’ Sedgwick County Kansas.

Topeka might work for some folks,or another State,or a trip to see our good friends at the Federal Courthouse…the folks at the Federal Courthouse seems pretty serious about that old piece of paper the Constitution.

There is no difference between Sedgwick County Kansas and the old Klan towns of the south. The Judge,your lawyer and the entire system is designed for you to lose.

It is strictly a seperate but equal mentality,do not stress another day because YOU WILL NEVER RECEIEVE FAIR DUE PROCESS OR JUSTICE IN SEDGWICK COUNTY KANSAS,IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Here is the case for all those “teflon” folks with ONLY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY:

United States Court of AppealsFOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT___________No. 04-2474___________Heartland Academy Community *Church, a Missouri Not-for-ProfitCorporation; CNS International *Ministries, Inc.

v.

Michael Waddle, in his individual and *official capacities,

David Parrish, in his individual and *official capacities; Patricia McAfee, in *her individual and official capacities; *Lewis County, Missouri; Missouri *Department of Social Services;

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Kennel Ayers, in her individual and official capacities,

Defendants.___________Submitted: March 16, 2005Filed: October 14, 2005___________Before ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.___________BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Michael Waddle appeals from the judgment of the District Court1 granting injunctive and declaratory relief to Heartland Academy Community Church and CNSInternational Ministries, Inc. (collectively, Heartland). We affirm.

I.The facts leading up to this lawsuit are set forth in great detail in the DistrictCourt’s Memorandum and Order, Heartland Academy Community Church v. Waddle,317 F. Supp. 2d 984, 992–1085 (E.D. Mo. 2004). Briefly, in October 2001, Waddle,as Chief Juvenile Officer for the Second Circuit of Missouri, effected the removal of115 boarding students from Heartland Christian Academy (HCA), an educationalfacility owned and operated by Heartland.

Although Waddle had obtained ex parte probable-cause state-court orders to remove some of the boarding students (and alsoto remove some students who were no longer at HCA and others who were not even within the jurisdiction of juvenile authorities because of their ages), there were noorders of any kind to remove many of the students who were taken from the school that day.

The removal action was without notice to Heartland, the students, or theirparents and was taken because of several allegations of mistreatment and abuse ofstudents at HCA.

Soon after the removal, Heartland sought and received a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the District Court. After a hearing, the District Court entered a finalpreliminary injunction enjoining Waddle and others from “seeking or participating in any pre-hearing removal of all boarding children from HCA unless all boarding children at HCA are directly involved in the underlying facts that serve as the basis for such removal.” Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 335 F.3d 684, 688 (8thCir. 2003) (Heartland I) (quoting the District Court’s order).

On appeal, we affirmed.Id. at 691.In its third amended complaint, Heartland sought declaratory and injunctive relief against Waddle and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of theFirst, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court held a full trial on themerits of Heartland’s claims. The court found that “Mr. Waddle appears ready andwilling to once again remove the children from Heartland, if the circumstances werethe same as they were at the time of the mass removal on October 30, 2001.” Heartland Acad., 317 F. Supp. 2d at 1109. Because the court determined that

Waddle’s actions in October violated the constitutional rights of Heartland and itsstudents, the court granted Heartland a permanent injunction and declaratory relief.The injunction, in its entirety, reads:

Hereafter, Mike Waddle, or any juvenile officer acting at his direction,shall not cause or attempt to cause the pre-notice or pre-hearing removalof or take into protective custody any child or children from Heartland Academy or CNS International Industries, Inc., without reasonable cause to believe that each child for whom protective custody or removalis sought is in imminent danger of suffering serious physical harm,See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v.Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923).threat to life from abuse or neglect, or has been sexually abused or is inimminent danger of sexual abuse.Id. at 1110.

Waddle appeals. We review the District Court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. To the extent that the issues raise mixed questions of fact and law, we review de novo.

II.Initially, Waddle makes a series of arguments challenging the jurisdiction ofthe federal courts and contending that he has immunity from suit.

A.In the first appeal of this case, we rejected the challenge Waddle made tojurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,which prohibits federal-court review of a state-court judgment.

We held that the injunctive relief Heartland wasseeking would “not interfere with a state-court judgment” and so “the District Courtdid not need to take on any issue actually litigated in the state courts or any claim’inextricably intertwined’ with such an issue” in deciding whether to grant therequested relief. Heartland I, 335 F.3d at 689.

That remained true at the subsequenttrial on Heartland’s request for permanent prospective injunctive relief. In thisappeal, Waddle acknowledges our holding but suggests that this Court “retract itsstatement.” Brief of Appellant at 34.

Nothing has occurred since the first appeal thatwould compel us to do so. We therefore reiterate our holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine has no effect on federal-court jurisdiction in this case.

B.Waddle argues that the District Court “should also have refused to hear this case on general principles of comity.” Id. at 34. He claims that the injunctioninterferes with his authority “and thus with the authority given to the juvenile court.”

Waddle then proceeds to make an abstention argument. (Neither comity nor abstention is discussed anywhere in the District Court’s Memorandum and Order).

The comity doctrine “teaches that one court should defer action on causes properly within its jurisdiction until the courts of another sovereignty with concurrentpowers, and already cognizant of the litigation, have had an opportunity to pass uponthe matter.” Rhines v. Weber, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1533 (2005) (citations to quoted casesomitted).

Here, no one has sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the state court to address the federal constitutional questions presented. Heartland does not challenge any state laws or rules, state-court judgments or orders, or anything else that a state court should address in the first instance, so there are no issues of comity in this case.

And as we said in our first opinion, to the extent Waddle seeks federal-courtabstention on some other ground, we see no abuse of discretion. Heartland I, 335F.3d at 688 n.4; see Haw. Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 236 (1984) (standardof review).

C. Waddle also seeks Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity as a state officialsued in his official capacity, citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155–56, 159(1908). But the Ex Parte Young doctrine describes an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity for a state official where the relief sought is prospective andnot compensatory. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 102-03(1984).

A federal court may therefore issue an injunction to prevent state officials from violating the Constitution without running afoul of the Eleventh Amendment.Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 68 (1985); see also R.W.T. v. Dalton, 712 F.2d 1225,1233 (8th Cir.) (”Although the juvenile officer may have limited immunity fromliability for damages, there is no reason to extend that immunity to liability forequitable relief.” (citation omitted)), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1009 (1983). “Aninjunction to prevent [a state officer] from doing that which he has no legal right todo is not an interference with the discretion of an officer.” Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S.at 159.

We agree with the District Court and hold, as we did summarily in our prioropinion, Heartland I, 335 F.3d at 691, that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunityis not a bar to suit in this case.

D. In another claim not addressed by the District Court, Waddle contends that heis entitled to absolute immunity from civil suit because he is a child services worker.

In support of this proposition, he cites a case from the Ninth Circuit where the courtcompared social workers with criminal prosecutors and held that “social workers areentitled to absolute immunity in performing quasi-prosecutorial functions connectedwith the initiation and pursuit of child dependency proceedings.” Coverdell v. Dep’tof Soc. & Health Servs., 834 F.2d 758, 763 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Meyers v. ContraCosta County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 812 F.2d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484U.S. 829 (1987)).

We are not certain that the immunity afforded prosecutors for their work in bringing criminals to justice should be available to juvenile officers in civilremoval proceedings that are unrelated to detaining juveniles for reasons of delinquency or their caretakers on criminal charges related to the care of thejuveniles. But we do not reach that issue because Heartland is not challenging Waddle’s commencement of court proceedings per se.

Heartland’s complaints arewith the ex parte nature of the proceedings and the information presented to the statecourt to justify the removal orders (and, of course, a number of children wereremoved without benefit of even an ex parte order). Cf. Whisman v. Rinehart, 119F.3d 1303, 1308 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding that absolute prosecutorial immunity wasnot available to state juvenile officers who failed to investigate neglect allegations,detained the allegedly abused child, and delayed in filing post-seizure state-courtproceedings).

In any event, we conclude that the Ninth Circuit’s opinion is inappositehere. In Coverdell, the prosecutorial-immunity defense was raised in response to theplaintiff’s claim for damages, not in defense of the request for an injunction. Thedismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief was affirmed because it wasfound to be moot, not because the state actors were entitled to prosecutorialimmunity.

Here, Heartland is not seeking damages from Waddle nor to punish him for his past judgment in effecting the mass removal of students from HCA withoutnotice or hearing.

Instead, Heartland has sought and received only declaratory andprospective injunctive relief prohibiting Waddle, as juvenile officer, from acting inviolation of the Constitution when and if he removes (or directs the removal of)children from Heartland facilities in the future. See Supreme Ct. of Va. v. ConsumersUnion of the United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 736 (1980) (noting that prosecutors,as state enforcement officers, are “natural targets for § 1983 injunctive suits”).

Waddle is not entitled to the absolute immunity he seeks.

E. Waddle further maintains that the District Court had no power to issue an injunction against him under § 1983 because he is a “judicial officer.”

That Waddle,as a juvenile officer, was appointed by, and may at times work at the behest of, the state circuit court does not mean he is entitled to judicial immunity from suit in this case.

We do not decide whether Waddle may be entitled to judicial immunity forenforcing a valid court order. Cf. id. (determining that a state supreme court and itschief justice were acting “in their enforcement capacities” when initiating proceedingsagainst attorneys pursuant to court rules and so were not entitled to judicialimmunity).

Heartland is challenging the manner in which Waddle obtained the orders (and therefore the validity of those orders) and his failure in some cases to obtaincourt orders of any kind.

Waddle was certainly not acting as the functional equivalent of a judge qua judge (not enforcer) when he used bad information toobtain ex parte orders and then removed all boarding children from HCA, includingthose for whom he had no court orders. See Whisman, 119 F.3d at 1309.

We affirm the District Court’s denial of judicial immunity.

III.Waddle next asserts that the District Court erred in concluding that Waddleviolated Heartland’s constitutional rights. Without question, some of Heartland’sconstitutional claims are stronger than others, but any single violation of Heartland’sfederal constitutional rights in this case would be sufficient to sustain Heartland’sclaim for injunctive relief under § 1983.

Heartland alleged violation of four constitutional rights.

A.Before considering the merits of Heartland’s claimed Fourth Amendment violation, the District Court reiterated its earlier ruling (which we did not address in the first appeal) that Heartland had “organizational standing” to bring such a claim.Heartland Acad., 317 F. Supp. 2d at 1088.

Waddle argues that the court was wrong and that Heartland cannot assert a claim for the alleged violation of its students’Fourth Amendment rights.Waddle cites two cases in his briefs for the proposition that associational ororganizational standing is not available to Heartland.

In the Eighth Circuit caseWaddle cites, we reiterated our earlier decision in the same criminal case that a searchby law enforcement officers was constitutional and that the cocaine evidence seizedwould not be suppressed. United States v. Washington, 197 F.3d 1214, 1216 (8thCir. 1999) (citing the law of the case doctrine), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1015 (2000).

As an alternate holding, the Court noted that the defendant had no standing to challenge the search in any event because he had disclaimed ownership of the bag in question, and we did say, “Fourth Amendment rights are personal [and] . . . may notbe vicariously asserted.” Id. (quoting Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174(1969)) (alteration in Washington).

That statement in the context ofa case considering the applicability of the exclusionary rule, a remedy used for FourthAmendment violations in criminal cases but not in civil cases, is not controlling inthis § 1983 case.

The Supreme Court has never held (and neither have we) thatassociational standing is not available to § 1983 plaintiffs alleging Fourth Amendment violations. Cf. United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 87 n.4 (1980) (noting that the Court in 1978 had “discarded reliance on concepts of ’standing’ indetermining whether a defendant is entitled to claim the protections of theexclusionary rule”).As Waddle points out in his reply brief, the Ninth Circuit in Mabe v. SanBernadino County, Department of Public Social Services noted in a § 1983 case thata mother had no standing to claim damages for a violation of her child’s FourthAmendment rights when the child was removed from the mother’s home. 237 F.3d1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2001). But the Mabe court cited a criminal exclusionary-ruleopinion for support of its statement. For the reasons just stated, we do not find thatcourt’s decision persuasive here.

We conclude that associational standing is legally available to Heartland on itsFourth Amendment claim, but we still must determine if the facts of this case qualifyHeartland to assert the Fourth Amendment rights of its students. To do so, we applya three-part test to those facts. See Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432U.S. 333, 343 (1977).

First, it is clear that the individuals in question, the removed children, “havestanding to sue in their own right.” Id. Next, “the interests [Heartland] seeks toprotect are germane to the organization’s purpose.” Id. Indeed, the school’s verysurvival could depend upon its success in getting the injunction it seeks. As we notedin Heartland I, “On the face of the complaint, the corporate plaintiffs alleged injuryto themselves (the imminent shutdown of HCA) as a result of Waddle’s conduct.”335 F.3d at 689.

Additional mass roundups of students such as the one that tookplace in October 2001 could well result in a significant loss of students. Withoutstudents, there is no school. This Court is satisfied that Heartland has “a stake in theresolution of the dispute, and thus [is] in a position to serve as [Waddle's] naturaladversary.” United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group,Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 555–56 (1996).

Finally, because Heartland seeks only declaratory and prospective injunctive relief, the participation of individual students who wereaffected by the mass removal of students in 2001 is not required. “[N]either the claimasserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members inthe lawsuit.” Hunt, 432 U.S. at 343.

To the extent the District Court’s decision togrant associational standing depends upon findings of disputed fact, we see no clearerror. And we conclude that Heartland has demonstrated that it has associationalstanding to assert the Fourth Amendment claims of its students.We turn now to the merits of the Fourth Amendment claim against Waddle.

As for the students seized with ex parte court orders, the District Court found thatthose orders were obtained by Waddle and at his request with stale information,misinformation, and material omissions, provided (or omitted) by Waddle.

Because of the manner in which the removal orders were obtained, the court held that theseizures were unreasonable and that Waddle violated the Fourth Amendment inremoving the children referenced in the orders.

As for the children taken withouteven ex parte court orders, the court held that those seizures were not reasonablebecause there was neither probable cause nor exigent circumstances to justify thetaking of thirty-five children without court orders.

Upon review of the record in thiscase, we conclude that the court’s factual findings regarding the process employed byWaddle in obtaining the ex parte orders are not clearly erroneous. Likewise, upon denovo review, we see no error in the legal conclusions on the reasonableness of theseizures and the Fourth Amendment violation.

B. Waddle next challenges the District Court’s conclusion that he violated Heartland’s substantive due process right to family integrity under the FourteenthAmendment. Again, Waddle questions whether Heartland has standing to bring thisclaim in its name.

“We have recognized a right to familial relations, which includes the libertyinterest of parents in the custody, care, and management of their children.” King v.Olmsted County, 117 F.3d 1065, 1067 (8th Cir. 1997). And the Supreme Court heldin Pierce v. Society of Sisters that a private school could assert such a claim on itsown behalf. 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

The private school plaintiffs in that case challenged a state law that compelled the attendance of nearly all the state’s childrenat public schools. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had “business and property forwhich they claim protection,” id. at 535, as is true for Heartland.

And as with theprivate schools in Pierce, Heartland’s “interest is clear and immediate,” and “theinjunctions here sought are not against the exercise of any proper power” by the state.Id. at 536. Moreover, in this case, the students in question not only attend classes butalso live full time under the care and control of school staff, with the full knowledgeand approval of their parents or guardians. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65(2000) (plurality opinion) (reiterating the liberty interest of parents and guardians “todirect the upbringing and education of children under their control”) (quoting Pierce,268 U.S. at 534–35).

Waddle proposes that the potential loss of students does not have an impact onHeartland (as it did in Pierce) because so many of HCA’s students pay little or nothingto attend. The record does show that the school is funded primarily by its owner, sothe impact of departing students may make little difference to the financial health ofthe school. But that fact is of little consequence to our decision here. A school, bydefinition, ceases to exist without students, regardless of how flush it may befinancially. We hold that Heartland has standing to bring this claim.

As for the merits, Waddle clearly interfered with Heartland’s right to family integrity when he removed all of the boarding students from HCA in October 2001.But the right to family integrity cannot be absolute when the state has a compellinginterest in protecting children from abuse. See Swipies v. Kofka, 348 F.3d 701, 703(8th Cir. 2003) (noting the state’s compelling interest in protecting a child).

This Court has determined that qualified immunity may be available for child abuseinvestigators who are defendants in suits for alleged violation of the right to familyintegrity “if their actions are properly founded upon a reasonable suspicion of childabuse.” Collins v. Bellinghausen, 153 F.3d 591, 596 (8th Cir. 1998).

Here, the District Court found that students were removed from HCA when there was noreasonable suspicion of child abuse. This finding is not clearly erroneous. On thisrecord, we cannot say that the court erred in holding that Waddle violated Heartland’sright to family integrity.

C. Waddle maintains in his briefs that Heartland alleged only substantive and notprocedural due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment. Some of Waddle’s confusion on this point likely comes from the District Court’s opinion,which discusses both substantive and procedural due process violations as a singletopic so that the two distinct rights are sometimes blurred. We nevertheless think thata procedural due process claim was adequately raised.

Some of Heartland’sallegations of due process violations are plainly couched in the language ofprocedural due process jurisprudence. See, e.g., Third Amended Complaint para. 34(”Defendants have violated and continue to violate the federal constitutional rightsof individuals in the Heartland community, including but not limited to itsstudents, . . . not to be deprived of their liberty without due process of law . . . .”); id.para. 63(b) (requesting injunctive relief prohibiting pre-notice or pre-hearing removalof any children from Heartland in the absence of exigency).

We hold that thelanguage in the complaint, together with the actions that provided the impetus for thislawsuit—the mass removal of boarding students without notice and hearing in theabsence of exigency—were sufficient to put Waddle on notice that Heartland’sFourteenth Amendment claim included a claim for violation of Heartland’s proceduraldue process rights.

As to the merits of the issue, the District Court noted that Waddle did not havethe requisite reasonable suspicion of abuse or imminent abuse to circumvent theFourteenth Amendment requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard before he seized the students. Heartland Acad., 317 F. Supp. 2d at 1101 (”Mr. Waddleeffectively prevented [Heartland] from ever receiving any due process related to theremoval of the children before and after their removal.”).

Again, we see no clear errorin the court’s findings of fact, and we hold that the court did not err in declaring thatWaddle violated Heartland’s procedural due process rights when it removed thechildren from HCA without notice and opportunity to be heard.

D. Heartland also claimed a violation of its First Amendment rights of associationas a result of the mass removal of its boarding students. As with other constitutionalrights, the right to expressive association is not absolute and can be abridged in theface of “compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannotbe achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.”Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 623 (1984).

We do not quarrel withWaddle’s assertion that “[t]he State has a compelling interest in protecting children.”Brief of Appellant at 52. We take issue, however, with Waddle’s characterization ofHeartland’s associational rights as “the interests of an allegedly an [sic] abusiveorganization to associate with its victims.” Reply Brief of Appellant at 20.

The problem here is that Waddle effected the wholesale removal of HCA’s boarding students with ex parte orders or no orders at all in the absence of exigentcircumstances. The state interest in protecting children from abuse could have been”achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.”

That is, Waddle should have given notice to Heartland and scheduled a hearing in which Heartland could have tested and rebutted Waddle’s evidence that purportedlydemonstrated that mass removal was required under state law.

We see no error in theDistrict Court’s holding that Waddle violated Heartland’s First Amendmentassociational rights.

IV. We turn now to Waddle’s claim that “[t]he district court lacked authority to grant the specific relief contained in the judgment.” Brief of Appellant at 55.

Under this heading, he challenges the injunction itself as legally flawed.

A. Waddle contends that this injunction has effectively—andimpermissibly—rewritten state law or has “left state law intact but carved out a portion of the juvenile officer’s authority where a federal judge will be the gatekeeper to the state judiciary.” Id. at 56.

He declares that he is “barred from acting to protectchildren.” Id. at 57. According to Waddle, state law is broader than the injunctionand requires him to remove children from Heartland facilities in circumstances (hegives the examples of “imminent” emotional abuse or threatened harm that is not”serious”) where such a removal would result in a violation of the federal-courtinjunction.

But if Waddle was in fact applying state law when he removed all boarding children from HCA—an issue that was neither raised nor decided in theDistrict Court—then state law would be ipso facto unconstitutional, at least as applied by Waddle to Heartland in October 2001.

The federal-court injunction instructs Waddle on how to avoid violating the federal constitutional rights of Heartland and its students as he goes about doing his job in accordance with state law.

We frankly see no reason why Waddle cannot perform the job required of him by state lawwithout violating the United States Constitution.

He is merely to conform hisconduct to established federal constitutional law as determined by the United StatesSupreme Court.

The injunction does not, as Waddle intimates, strip him of his ability to make judgment calls to protect the welfare of the children at Heartland.

But he must exercise that judgment so as to protect the constitutional rights of Heartland and its students.

B. Waddle also says that the injunction is so vague that he is unable to fathom what the court expects of him (although he did not raise this dilemma with the District Court to give that court an opportunity to clarify the injunction for him).

For example, he purports to be confused about what sort of notice he is to give and towhom, and how extensive the required hearings must be. He apparently does notknow “whether ‘Heartland Academy’ refers to Heartland Christian Academy” and isbaffled by “what it means to remove children ‘from’ [the named] entities.” Id. at 59,60.

With these arguments, it seems Waddle purposely misapprehends the District Court’s injunction, notwithstanding his intimate familiarity with this case and theguidance set forth in the District Court’s voluminous Memorandum and Order.

Reading the injunction in the context of the facts and circumstances of this case, wefind Waddle’s claims to be preposterous.

We conclude that anyone acquainted withthis case knows precisely the behavior that the injunction is designed to prevent in thefuture—the behavior that violated the constitutional rights of Heartland and its students in the first place.

We will chalk this one up to an attempt at zealousadvocacy on the part of counsel and not to a fundamental inability to read andcomprehend.

C. Waddle also asserts, for the first time, that the injunction violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it fashions special rules thattreat the faith-based Heartland “better” than other such facilities in Missouri. Id. at 61.

According to Waddle, Heartland has “pro-caretaker rules” and everyone else has”pro-child rules.” Id. at 62. But the injunction was not entered because Heartlandoperates a faith-based school.

The injunction was sought and entered becauseWaddle violated the constitutional rights of Heartland and its students. TheEstablishment Clause is not implicated by the facts of this case.

V.Finally, a word about what the District Court’s injunction does not do.

Throughout his briefs, Waddle continually suggests that the injunction effects achange in state law as to the removal of children from abusive situations and that hewill be so intimidated by the requirements of the federal-court injunction that he willbe unwilling or unable to do his job.

As we have said, we do not see why that should be so. The injunction is specific to Waddle (and to those acting at his direction) andto Heartland only. It is the result of ongoing problems between Waddle andHeartland, not the least of which were a breakdown in communication and a mutual lack of trust, that culminated with a failure of judgment when Waddle removed allboarding students from HCA without notice or opportunity to be heard, using staleor inaccurate information, and without exigent circumstances.

As we see it, Waddlewill still have the ability—and the obligation—to protect the children at Heartlandfrom harm. But he may not do so by treading on federal constitutional rights.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.______________________________

Just a quick shout to Givan of the SRS,WE WILL INDEED SEE WHO IS “GROUNDLESS & SPURRIOUS” at your explanation of wrongful acts under the color of law as defined by 42 USC 1383 & 42USC 1385!

Thanks for reading thisDave and Ralynn

Dave Parsons and Ralynn Teare

I wanted to let you know how bad it got for me. First there was a Judge who allowed falsely sworn oaths and actually signed papers that I was guilty of a charge,without ever having a trial.

Next,during the money portion of child support issues they appointed a Judge who as part of his religious beliefs could not be unbiased.

Let me explain,this second Judge was for a better word an elder in his church and denomination.

This church has different levels of acceptance and alledged rank with God (sic) sort of like military rank and achievement.

His church will allow a murderer,rapist,or felon to rise to the next rank or level,however there are specific questions concerning child support which would disqualify any person if they owe child support arrears.

They ask these questions very specifically during their ceremonies for advance to the next level.

This Judge,before I ever filed any paperwork would consider me an infidel according to his religious beliefs. There is no doubt how this Judge would treat an “infidel” like me.

I am proud to be an infidel compared to these whole basket full of judges. I thought I would have to wait for the ultimate appellate before God concerning the corruption of the SG government officials.

God,throughout the centuries has always heard the voice of those afflicted by governments.

I know these crooked officials would have tried to sue God himself…you see its says that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills,and of course Jesus was raised by a poor carpenter and his wife.

I would love to see the fate of these officials in filing against God,I am sure it would be a Sodom & Gommorah experience for them!

I have been blessed not only to await the ultimate Court hearing for the future,but apparently will now have the chance to expose the wrongful acts of Kansas in shall we say a more earthly setting.

All the “rank”,”secret name” or undergarments in the world will not advance a person who on a daily basis calls evil to be good,and darkness to be light.

Hi Dave,I am AmerDAD and I have just read your blog. There have been lots of updates since my last posting. I am glad you posted to this blog. The Court & State system of Sedgwick County Kansas simply laughed and scoffed at the idea of being responsible for their unlawful actions under the color of law.

I can guarantee you that as of this last week they are not laughing anymore. The system of Sedgwick County Kansas simply believes it is above the law and the Constitution.

I believe they are not above the law,and now there are over a hundred pages of written documentation to bring these officials into the exposing light of justice.

These corrupt Sedgwick officials really love to try to hurt veterans. I have no idea why,maybe some land dispute or friction with military brass decades ago,I really don’t know why they hate veterans,but they do.

Sedgwick County does not believe that the Constitution applies to any person who is from out of State,you were in a tough strait before you entered the Court room.

I know that some of these officials probably read these blogs so I just want to let everyone know that I know the difference between absolute and qualified immunity. What does that mean? It means that the clerks and admin personnel will be held accountable for wrongful acts under the color of law.

Judges and the prosecutor have absolute immunity,so when they told you that they could protect you,when you broke the law,THEY LIED.

These people with absolute immunity used you to break the law and they will abandon you when their actions,through you are exposed…you will be left to twist in the wind,simply judged a criminal dressed in the clothing of a government official.

There has been progress for the suffering in Wichita,Judge Pilshaw rec’d two public State reprimands for her conduct. She and her aide first established her motion procedure during the time of my SG experience.

Check out her reprimands by entering Judge Rebecca Pilshaw on your search bar and you will find out the specifics of her conduct.

I would recommend that you document everything,start today,list phone calls,emails,any interaction with SG county,keep a journal,record every event in military time and calendar date.

You don’t have to worry,crime is the SG official’s way of life,they become more brazen with time. Contact your and their elected officals,every once in awhile someone will actually read or listen and then progress can be made.

Do not become discouraged,be diligent and have faith that some day the light of justice will shine on these corrupt persons.

The Judge and/or prosecutor can be held accountable inspite of their demigod mentality…the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications is in Topeka,not Wichita.

A sworn affidavit and evidence can be invaluable,remember to report only the facts and do not extend to opinions.

Remember,leave the falsely sworn oaths,false official statements,and flagrant lies to the officials of Sedgwick County.

They are well skilled at lying under oath and in official State documents…leave these criminal felony acts to the Sedgwick County officials,don’t worry they will fail by their own words.

Be sure to use the Freedom of Information Act to get every shred of paper from State and Court sources.

Amazingly,they love to lie in writing,could be a real gold mine.I believe their female personnel(at all levels) find it almost orgasmic to swear falsely under oath or lie if any male is involved in any capacity.

This penchant of their personnel makes them vulnerable for the shining light of exposure and the truth.

I wish you the very best and I will watch to see if you make further posts…I am AmerDAD

We were wounded to resolve transgression,we were brusied to correct inequity,the chastisement of this nation’s peace was upon us,and by OUR stripes

(the solider,sailor,airman,& marine-not lying government officials)

AMERICA IS HEALED,you are there with us Dave,I salute your service to our country regardless of time or era!

BTW–there was apparantly some learning & benefit for my ex and her 2nd husband when they got divorced…I am told they left the whole lawyer,Kansas SRS,Child Support Enforcement,and Sedgwick County Court system standing at the altar…good for them! Too bad no shrimp cocktail or cool drinks for the folks at 525 North Main!

I can say clearly that I never married to be divorced,but that is what happened,and I would even go so far as to say we made some effort to avoid the divorce outcome.I do know when I married all those years ago(over two decades)I ended up being “married” to dozens of Court and government officials who came after the divorce.

Most of these officials have their own domestic problems in life,and it affects outcomes.

One problem with divorce is no one is ever prepared for how ruthless government officials, and the Courts can be in their conduct.

People now have much more info about divorce than 25 years ago. One sage piece of advise I have is to try to ensure that you and the ex live in the same state when you divorce.

If your divorce order is in your ex’s home state,and you live in another state,they will always have home field advantage.

Each time you go to Family Court in another State,you are fighting a whole State rather than seeking a just outcome for both parents.

Everyone feels such empathy for the “poor (Kansas) in-state” ex,against the mean ol’ out of state resident. You lost any action,regardless of its merits,before you even made travel arrangements to appear in Court.

The lawyer you hire,who lives in the same State (Kansas) as your ex,will be fetching shrimp cocktail and cool drinks for the Judge days later to celebrate the big win over the “evil” out of state resident,and the big attorney fee that was gained.

Everyone at post trial gathering will share a hyena like laugh when your attorney tells the Judge how pathetic you were to believe in the Courts & justice,how you nearly broke down in anguish when you realized you could now rarely afford to see your own children.

The Judge & your lawyer will revile & mock recounting how stupid you were to think mandatory income tables would be used.

Like the adapted lyrics to a classic song says…”don’t trust your soul to no backwoods Sedgwick lawyer…cuz…

The cuts were made by eliminating a so-called double-dipping provision added in 1998 that matched incentive payments states receive for improving their programs with additional federal dollars.

Now that federal funding has been pulled back, states are faced with either reducing their staffs or coming up with more money to keep their programs running at current levels.”

I guess the Kansas SRS and CSE are going to end up just like Al Capone,all their crimes going unpunished,but at the last unable to escape the tax issues!

This guy is lucky he was in New Mexico and not Sedgwick County Kansas. He’d probably be forced by the Kansas SRS to pay for a college education for a Sedgwick County imaginarychild!

ALBUQUERQUE — Steve Barreras’ attorney said he had never seen anything like it.

After Barreras was hauled into court, peppered with threats and demands for money for a child he adamantly denied fathering five years ago and even paid out $20,000 to support, his ex-wife was under a judge’s order to produce the child.

So last week, Viola Trevino picked up a 2-year-old girl and her grandmother off the street, promised them a trip to see Santa Claus and $50 and took the girl to court, alleging it was her daughter.

“I have seen hundreds of jury trials and I have never seen anything like this,” said Rob Perry, Barreras’ attorney.

It was the latest chapter in a bizarre case that has prompted Gov. Bill Richardson’s office to call for a full investigation.

The elaborate ruse stretched over five years and involved fake DNA evidence, a forged Social Security number and birth and baptismal certificates, court records show.

Last week, state District Judge Linda Vanzi ruled the child did not exist.

After feeding the standin daughter and her grandmother hamburgers, it seems Trevino parked near the courthouse, where she left the grandmother in the car and took the child into court.

Only when the grandmother followed her into court did Trevino admit that the child was not hers.

The 52-year-old Trevino announced to a family-court judge in December 1999 that she gave birth to a girl fathered by Barreras that September.

Barreras, 47, who says he had a vasectomy in 1998, said it was impossible . The couple had two adult children, a son and a daughter.

Paternity tests were ordered, and, in February 2001, Barreras was ordered to pay Trevino child support . Barreras continued to protest.

Trevino was ordered to bring in a birth certificate, but she did not.

Her adult daughter was even fired from a hospital after she was caught attempting to create documents pertaining to the birth of a Stephanie Trevino , according to court records.

Then another DNA paternity test was ordered, this time done by a private doctor, but Trevino did not obey the court order and instead went back to the same company where the first test was done.

Court records show that both DNA tests were done by a friend of the couple’s daughter.

Because of the DNA matches, Perry said the Child Enforcement Division of the state Human Services Department garnisheed Barreras’ paycheck , forcing him to pay child support.

“How can this happen? It is like a plane wreck caused by a cascading series of events,” he said.

Betina Gonzales McCracken, spokeswoman for the department, said her agency is not to blame because the division was only enforcing a court order for payment of child support .

When the agency got a tip that there might be fraud in this case, she said officials investigated.

Meanwhile, Vanzi’s ruling that the child does not exist has prompted reaction from Richardson’s office.

“The governor’s office has asked the Human Services for a complete report on what happened to make sure this mistake is never repeated,” said Billy Sparks, Richardson’s spokesman.

“2-1-07 – A proposed bill may force some Kansas parents to pay child support until their child reaches age 23. The bill was introduced last week in Topeka by the judiciary committee.

It would require a parent to pay child support until the kids are 23 if they go to college. Right now, the law only requires child support until the children are 18.

There are some stipulations however. The child has to prove he is going to college by providing a transcript each semester.

The bill has yet to be discussed in a committee, but if it were to become law, it would only impact child support ordered after July 1st.”

The comments throughout all these posts have revolved around the same problem – MANIFEST INJUSTICE.

This idea is the “American Dream” for the government,the Court,and its various agencies. No longer will Mom or Dad direct the path of their children,the State will mandate and own your collective lives.

How many Fathers have tried to get an appropriate reduction due to economic downturn only to face the corruption of the system?

Once the State gains authority to collect until the child reaches 23 y/o,it will NEVER relinquish that authority under any circumstance regardless of college attendance or changing factors.

Kansans should recognize that the State will continue to collect dollar for dollar federal funding on each dollar paid through this prolonged payment idea.

Custodial parents (mainly women by the Courts design) will be forced to make payments for the additional five years. The entire lives of both men & women will revolve around the ego or whimsy of Court,State officials,and lawyers.

You will go to the Courthouse with your national ID card,the outcome already determined by officials in collusiion with attorneys to determine what of course to them is most important matter…the best benefit for the STATE.

This has got to stop. When the judges make the law in order to rule a certain way, we have problems. Why have laws if every man is right in his own eyes.

The lawmakers need to know that they are being ignored by the high and mighty judges who have usurped their authority. They don’t follow the law, they barely have a relationship to it. We are at the mercy of a court system that has gone renegade in Sedgwick County. There is no justice in the courts.

HERE IS ANOTHER “GREAT” CASE WHERE THE KANSAS SRS WOULD HAVE COLLECTED $$$$!:

GOV’T OFFICIALS TRY TO COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT FROM A “FATHER” WHO WAS THREE YEARS OLD AT THE TIME OF CONCEPTION!

GOV’T OFFICIALS TRY COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT FROM A “FATHER” WHO WAS THREE YEARS OLD AT THE TIME OF CONCEPTION!

A young teen has been accused by Child Support Legal Service of abandoning his parental responsibilities.

“Tyler Holden, a 15-year-old school boy, received a letter from the agency demanding that he pay $550 for a DNA test, despite the fact that he is not sexually active and still lives with his parents.

“The agency claimed that Holden had fathered a child born on July 27, 1994, when he was THREE YEARS OLD.

“’It is scary for a 15-year-old guy to find out he is a father,’ Tyler told a News Ltd newspaper.

“The teenager told a News Ltd newspaper, ‘I’m just really worried about why they would accuse me of being a father at three. I haven’t even had sex yet and then I get this letter, so I’m thinking what is going on?

I just saw my name on the front of the letter and then I read it and thought, ‘what is going on?’

“He added, ‘I was just disgusted. If it happens to me it could happen to others. They need to take more notice of what they are doing.’

Legal Aid managing director Tony Parsons said that the letter was sent out by a junior ‘NAZI CS’ lawyer.

He told the Herald Sun newspaper, We made a mistake…

“Holden will not have to be DNA tested.”

The only thing that surprises me about this story is that they fixed the error.

But don’t count on that to hold–they often fix the errors and then the errors reappear later.

“…child support enforcement agencies are notorious for their bureaucratic bungling and incessant computer errors.

When law enforcement officials have published “deadbeat” parent lists…innocent people have been vilified and subjected to public ridicule.

“For example, when the Louisville Courier-Journal published the names and addresses of 1,000 alleged child support scofflaws in July of last year on behalf of Jefferson County Attorney Irv Maze, they listed James H. Frazier as a deadbeat who owes $57,000.

Unfortunately, they listed his name above the home address of James R. Frazier.

“WAVE 3 TV in Louisville reported that James R. Frazier and his wife Bertha–both of whom seethed at being publicly humiliated–had been erroneously targeted by Maze before, and had spent years fighting to straighten out the error.

“Maze’s office had previously acknowledged its mistake–and then went ahead and published the erroneous information anyway. In fact, as of October 1–over two months later–Maze still had not corrected the error on his list of 1,000 ‘deadbeats’ on the County Attorney’s website.

“ABC 7 KGO News in San Francisco, California has followed the saga of Alex Mendez, a childless man who has been mistakenly targeted for alleged overdue child support five times in the past three years by two different counties.

After embarrassing media coverage, local enforcement officials repeatedly pledged to fix the error but have failed to do so.

“The list published by the Commercial Appeal appears to have similar problems. Memphis’ News Channel 3 WREG quotes a juvenile court source as saying that some of those on the list may have already paid their child support.

Nicholas Burchett of WREG was shocked and angered to find his father listed as a “deadbeat”—the man has been DEAD for 14 years.

“Eyewitness News-WPTY reports that the Department of Human Services lost thousands of dollars of child support paid by Hugh Jones of Memphis, leaving Jones with a $10,000 child support arrearage.

According to WPTY, DHS cashed Jones’ checks six times but, despite Jones’ detailed documentation, has failed to credit his account.

The nazis tanned the soldiers skin and hide to make alampshade and other items. I am sure these tactics would be very popular at State offices.

If a person died & owedchild support you could get a court order for the bodyand make products from the corpse of the debtor.

I am sure the Kansas SRS could come up with a clever Statemarketing scheme for such products.

These measures were indeed tried by governments in thepast. The irony is that these are the same proceduraltactics used by the ‘State’ against Fathers in thiscountry.

I am certain there are many State officials who think these things would be just fine.