!!!!!!!!!!!! You
do not protect children you endanger them more !!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!! Epstein, Bill Clinton, Hollywood owning child
sex slaves across the world !!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!! You are
the CRUTCH of SLAVEY OF YOUR NATIONS HEIRS
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY HAVE LIED TO UE YOUR ENTIRE LIFETIME !!!!!!!!!!!!
U.S. citizens and Nationals were declared enemies of the U.S. by F.D.R. by Executive Order No. 2040 and ratified
AVAILABLE! Original House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933
AVAILABLE! Original House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933
!!!!!!!!!!!! U.S. CITIZEN MENAS SLAVE !!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!! Linda Hughes is a Human Trafficker !!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!! DHS is a human trafficking procurement
system for the BAR !!!!!!!!!!!!
From: Marilyn
LeBaron
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 12:00 PM
To: UnKnown Hidden; ppbpio@portlandoregon.gov; crc@portlandoregon.gov
Cc: linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us; Representative Tawna Sanchez
Subject: RE: Aiding Capital Felony Treason, Pattern and Practice, Aiding Human Trafficking and Child Endangerment - Under Conflict of Interest - No Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Not Upholding the Oath of Office Through Theft By Deception - Deprivation of Rights
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 12:00 PM
To: UnKnown Hidden; ppbpio@portlandoregon.gov; crc@portlandoregon.gov
Cc: linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us; Representative Tawna Sanchez
Subject: RE: Aiding Capital Felony Treason, Pattern and Practice, Aiding Human Trafficking and Child Endangerment - Under Conflict of Interest - No Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Not Upholding the Oath of Office Through Theft By Deception - Deprivation of Rights
The new colors of your flag!
"I
pledge allegiance to the Flag of the Surety Bond Slavemaster’s Plan, and to Subjugation at the BAR Associated Pen, one Nation under DHS, divisible, into ‘institutions’ for their cash bonuses
and forced adoptions for all." Pledged nobody ever!!!!!
You stole
me from my heirs!
I
belong to my heirs!
No just
compensation provided to my heirs!
I belong
to my heirs!
My
heirs belong to me!
You stole
my heirs from me!
You
stole the right to bloodline!
We ceased
to be free!
No just
compensation for theft of Nationality!
Suspend
habius corpus we cease to be free!
From: Marilyn LeBaron
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 7:20 AM
To: UnKnown Hidden; ppbpio@portlandoregon.gov; crc@portlandoregon.gov
Cc: linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us; Representative Tawna Sanchez; linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us; linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us; linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us; linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us
Subject: RE: Aiding Capital Felony Treason, Pattern and Practice, Aiding Human Trafficking and Child Endangerment - Under Conflict of Interest - No Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Not Upholding the Oath of Office Through Theft By Deception - Deprivation of Rights
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 7:20 AM
To: UnKnown Hidden; ppbpio@portlandoregon.gov; crc@portlandoregon.gov
Cc: linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us; Representative Tawna Sanchez; linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us; linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us; linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us; linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us
Subject: RE: Aiding Capital Felony Treason, Pattern and Practice, Aiding Human Trafficking and Child Endangerment - Under Conflict of Interest - No Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Not Upholding the Oath of Office Through Theft By Deception - Deprivation of Rights
NO JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
DUE TO YOUR TREASONOUS ACTS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING OF MY HEIRS!!!!
YOU BLOCK MY VISITS TO GIVE YOUR BAR
CONSTITUENT A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE AND ORDER PEOPLE TO NOT TELL ME ANYTHING
AGAINST YOUR JUDICIAL CODE OF CONDUCT THAT I AM A NATURALLY INTERESTED PARTY
BUT SINCE YOU’RE A TREASONOUS BABYLONIAN WHORE GOD COMMANDS ME TO GIVE YOU A
DOUBLE PROTECTION OF WHAT YOU FILL IT WITH ASKING E TO DRINK BUT TREASON IS NOT MY
CUP SO THE MONIES IS WHAT MUST BE FILLED TO MAKE THOSE BANKERS YOU WORK FOR
BLEED.
AND THE VALUE OF A SENTIENT HUMAN BEING
IS A TRILLION ANCIENT BLUE DIAMONDS AN TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND
RUBLES THAT ONLY A KING COULD PAY SO YOUR BOND MONIES ARE NT SUFFICIENT
COMPENSATION TO US OR THEM SO A BIG ‘NO SALE’ button by that calculation is
made’ making my GRANDKIDS NOT FOR SALE FOR ATTORNEY ADOPTION RETAINER FEES..
NOR ARE YOU ALLOWED TO PUT THEM WITH SOMEBODY DHS ALREADY TOOK THEM FROM CUZ
YOU ALLOW THE TO ABUS EME SO WHY WOULD YOU ALLOW THEM TO BE PLACED WITH SHANNON
STEVENS WHO WILL GIVE ACCESS TO A MAN THAT REPED MY DAUGHTER AND JERKED
STEERING WHILE WITH HIS SON IN THE CAR? WELL THAT WOULD BE NEGLIGENCE ON YOUR
PART JUST TO MOVE BOND MONIES TO THE SOCIAL WORKERS HANDS SO YOU CAN’T ADOPT MY
GRANDKIDS TO HER THEY NEVER LIVED WITH HER AND SHE NEVER LOVED VICTORIA
WHICH YOU HAVE ENDANGERED LONG ENOUGH. AND CONSIDERING IT IS DOCUMENTED SEXUAL
ABUSE IN ADOPTION DOES NOT START TILL AFTER THE ADOPTION TAKES PLACE AND THE
SOCIAL WORKERS STOP VISITING!!!!!! SO ADOPTION IS MORE LIKE A MARRIAGE
CEREMONY BETWEEN PEDOPHILE AND OUR NATIONS HEIRS WHICH IS NOTHING YOU CAN
GUARANTEE IS NOT HAPPEINGIN GR THE INTENTION OF THE HEART IN VIOLATION OF YOUR
FIRST DUTY IN GOVERNMENT WHICH IS TO PROVIDE ‘GUARANTEE OUR SAFETY’ WHICH YOU
CANNOT AND DON’T BUT ARE THE TIE OFF PILING FOR SEX SLAVERS AND HUMAN
TRAFFICKING BAR MEMBERS…
From: Marilyn LeBaron
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 3:51 PM
To: UnKnown Hidden; ppbpio@portlandoregon.gov; crc@portlandoregon.gov
Cc: linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us; Representative Tawna Sanchez
Subject: Re: Aiding Capital Felony Treason, Pattern and Practice, Aiding Human Trafficking and Child Endangerment - Under Conflict of Interest - No Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Not Upholding the Oath of Office Through Theft By Deception - Depravation of Rights
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 3:51 PM
To: UnKnown Hidden; ppbpio@portlandoregon.gov; crc@portlandoregon.gov
Cc: linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us; Representative Tawna Sanchez
Subject: Re: Aiding Capital Felony Treason, Pattern and Practice, Aiding Human Trafficking and Child Endangerment - Under Conflict of Interest - No Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Not Upholding the Oath of Office Through Theft By Deception - Depravation of Rights
This Long list of questions was posted
publicly in 2007 and is over stuff my daughter allowed me to have power of
attorney over when they tried to take Victoria from her when Victoria was under
5 months old for a tiny bruise on my daughter's face the Beau Couvillion put
there and Victoria was not even near the incident nor could possibly have been
a victim but the DHS and the District Attorney stealing the Kettle Berge
Estates was trying to force my daughter to press charges on Beau Couvillion or
they would say she was an unfit mother when my daughter had moved in with me
they did not take her from us just because I was in Victoria's life and taking
care of her which was adjudicated by Judge Avera because DHS IMPEACHED
THEMSELVES SAYING, "We don't think your mother is going to hurt you or the
baby, she is threatening bureaucrats" which is not child protection it is
BUREAUCRAT PROTECTION SERVICES and not the subject matter jurisdiction of the
Juvenile Justice Complex (not then, and not now), and well maybe you all need
to go back in time and look at what they call A GOD DAMED
THREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND YOU WILL SEE HOW BIG A PILE OF
LIARS THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All I did is act on my
right to not have any contact with the opponent! Remained as silent as I could
like fucking Bill Clinton! (Mother FUCKER), AND SEND MOTIONS, AND USE THEIR
COPY MACHINE!!! AND TELL JUDGE OFF!!!!!! MOVING AIR IS WHILE HANDING EVERYBODY
THEIR COPY IS GROUNDS FOR A TRESPASS FROM DHS BUILDING WHEN I MOVED AIR IN THE
POLK COUNTY COURTHOUSE NOT A DHS BUILDING!!!!! AND JUDGES SEE THAT AND JUST
WATCH AS IF WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK UP WHEN YOUR ATTORNEY WON'T SINCE THEY
DON'T HAVE TO BUT I FYOU HAVE ONE YOUR RIGHTS ARE WAIVED WHICH SUBVERTS YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!!!!
AND THAT GOES TO WHY DO CRIMINAL HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS WHILE THEY PREY ON OUR
NATIONS HEIRS IN FOSTER HOMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE LIST OF QUESTIONS
is based on Due Process violations and is based on the case resulting in my
daughter's repeated rape in foster care, to which DHS was controlling her
PHYSICAL CUSTODY AND PAYING A FOSTER HOME THAT WAS NOT
LICENCED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! which said refute at another
time is filed at the Governor’s Office, then we are later as if they are better
then us, on prejudice power trips alone by use of 'you have thirty days to
refute all over again what DHS accuse you of twelve years ago and did not have
sufficient grounds or take action on even if it is a false attempt to take my
heirs from us and make money off them, DHS forced to refute DHS garbage can
allegation several times, yet they bring it up again IN 2018 AND 2019 just to
expose my grandkids to rape now too as if they can get a twelve-year extension
of time when the OAR state thirty days max by supervisory extension, and could
not step in back then, nor did when I called them to and my grandkids were
living with me, yet do not when they did assess more recently at my current
home, and just because they grab them up and are hiding my grandkids and are
allowed by the Juvenile Justice Complex to use abuse of process to alienate OUR HEIRS for adoptive purposes and the Treason Linda Hughes has perpetrated against
her Oath of Office causes a conflict of interest directly at her seat since she
is the one that is ordering DHS to not let me have any visits and FORCE the
adoption herself using COVID as an excuse to hold phone hearings (TO ISOLATE MY
GRANDDAUGHTER) and not invite me and has ordered DHS to not tell me court
dates, aiding the two generations of my family being abused, under false 'non''
accused assessments as if she owns us appointing attorneys that do not uphold
our Bill of Rights or Constitutional Rights, after personally being in charge
of the emotional death to all family ties inflicted on my heirs directly at her
hand while we are collectively tortured and subjected to rape and knowledge of
rape in foster care for two generations in a row which is direct evidence of a
pattern and practice of the Juvenile Justice Complex regardless if elected
judiciary preside the case or not. My case was presided by an elected judge and
he overturned himself and entered into the record that I stated I was present
under duress and duress only after DHS impeached themselves making the
prosecutor look like the criminal he was
We have a
right to an independent judiciary not one that directs DHS to gain technical
advantages causing status quo and six months time to pass then extend a
sentence to permanent while DHS threaten more retaliation on backdated letter’s
bearing the governor’s seal!!! DHS proved they are the process server for
the Juvenile Justice Complex and handed down a sentence from the ‘referee’ who
is not an independent judge and has no jurisdiction anyhow since the
allegations DHS brought against me were refuted over and over yet they still
use it and the Juvenile Justice Complex like a beating stick when that is
illegal: Goes to you cannot build a case after the fact and no matter how many
walkthroughs you to anybody in the entire U.S. of A. the DHS
always find a reason not relevant to crime and penitent intending to inflict
death pinalite for cash bonuses and do it on a walkthrough after the fact as if
‘testing for running water’ is relevant as an EXHIBIT of ANYTHING other than a
violation of DHS BUILD CASES AFTER THE FACT AND THAT IS ALL THEY EVER DOI!!!!
The Juvenile Justice Complex have NO JURISDICTION since their false allegations
were bunk, overturned, and refuted again and again OVER THE SAME BULL SHIT IN
BAD FAITH they ‘resurrect’ as demon witchcraft to see if they finally cast
their spell right!!! It is nothing but a spirit of murder and they failed to
perform and their failure is always a win for them and when they list me as an accused party they don’t have to give me a day in court just slaughter the whole family then do not list me on the safety plan while stonewalling me since
my grandkids have no blood ties and the BAR Affiliated Attorneys ALL THE WAY TO
THE SUPREME COURT CALL IT a grandparent rights issue when it really is an issue
of wickedness and black murderous hearts that have taken from our Nations
Heirs which is their rightful property and that is the right to belong
somewhere other than to be ‘institutionalized’ under bond monies that attorneys
have laid claim to so they can get a cut and allow DHS to be ambulance chasers
so they can bleed our Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness so they can make
a bloody red cent!!!!
From: UnKnown Hidden <lebaronmarilyn@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 3:44 PM
To: Marilyn LeBaron
Cc: linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us; Representative Tawna Sanchez
Subject: Re: Aiding Capital Felony Treason, Pattern and Practice, Aiding Human Trafficking and Child Endangerment - Under Conflict of Interest - No Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Not Upholding the Oath of Office Through Theft By Deception - Deprivation of Rights
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 7:22 AM Marilyn LeBaron <dogetty@live.com<mailto:dogetty@live.com>> wrote:
Fictitious enemy and theft by deception by means of naming the benefactor an enemy principle when not enemy of the actor who was a public servant by assign of the people, by so doing you are aiding and abetting Capital Felony Treason by deception naming the people the enemy as a Pattern and Practice which also is aiding and abetting Human Trafficking and Child Endangerment - Under Conflict of Interest - No Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Not Upholding the Oath of Office Through Theft By Deception - Deprivation of Rights – when all your judicial discretion is put into the hands of everybody else.
While I am away studying law my family tortured under you lack of due care through theft by deception: Giving aid to a fictitious enemy is not an act of treason or an act of aiding the enemy when defining that enemy was never an act of deception upon the actors' minds. But, giving aid to the fictitious enemy while acting as their ally and later saying it is an act of war to receive that aid is deception and not a binding contract. Hence; Handing the people poisoned water from a paper cup while acting as the guardian of the 'well of waters' belonging to the people, then stipulating after the fact that drinking from a paper cup is treason while selecting the paper cup to serve the water in when a drinking glass was proper, is deceit when also saying, 'The people deserve death for drinking from a paper cup handed them instead of a drinking glass that sat where it belonged in the cupboard next to where the 'well of water' is also stored", while also saying, "The people are liable", and "Those that drink from the paper cup handed them are the enemy since they drank from the paper cup handed to them", and then say "All well water guardians are immune to their acts since Mens rea is not their state of mind since it is in their training and all they learned to do is hand out paper cups to drink from", And also assert, "The 'well water guardian' did not know that instead of the 'cup of paper' a 'drinking glass' belonging to the people was needed since drinking from paper cups makes the people the person and enemy of the 'guardian of the well'", and also conclude, "So the people who not the persons in charge are the enemy of the water in the well and drinking from a paper cup is an act of treason since they failed to drink from a 'drinking glass' that was 'rightfully theirs'".
Hon. Charles E Luukinen Mailing Address Hon. Charles E Luukinen PO Box 5762 Salem OR 97304 County Polk Phone 503 362-1506 Fax Email srjudgecel@gmail.com<mailto:srjudgecel@gmail.com> Bar Number 752333 Status Active Member Admit Date 9/19/1975 Dear Charles Luukinen, Can you plea...
The following AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH AND REPUDIATION is intended for the Grand Jury indictment and criminal prosecution of Linda Hughes and was written prior to this matter arising and is based on fact and is supported by court record and historical fact
Acting outside the scope of the legislative authority to your seat in violation of the oath of office is capital felony treason
The questions will verify that the Juvenile Justice Complex is acting outside the scope and definition of a constitutional judiciary while claiming to be a court of record and also in violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct and the Bill of Rights
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH AND REPUDIATION
Posted Date: Oct 20, 2007 12:41 AM
1. DHS 'adjudication', [disposition of a completed assessment], is equivalent to a 'court order'. a. Yes No
2. DHS can try you on the spot and that is seen as reasonable efforts, on their part, if you do not do what they say. a. Yes No
3. DHS can cite a judge on an unproved matter to build another case against a parent. a. Yes No
4. DHS will wait to bring you to trial, with the case they choose to cite, though never proved. a. Yes No
5. DHS 'findings', from an assessment are final, and a trial after DHS reports have already taken effect is not DOUBLE JEOPARDY. a. Yes No
6. DHS does not have the obligation of PRESENTMENT, for something never proved. a. Yes No
7. DHS can build another case against you even if they never proved the previous matter. a. Yes No
8. DHS can gain a continuance (x2), prior to another continuance (x2), while they determine what their diagnosis is. a. Yes No
9. DHS can cite a judge, build another case thereto before the cited case is proved or investigated. a. Yes No
10. A judge can keep you from visiting your children while a case is closed, on the case DHS chooses to cite. a. Yes No
11. DHS does not have to PRESENT a case prior to taking your other child, while a judge waits to hear from them. a. Yes No
12. DHS can try you on the spot at the Juvenile Department, without a proper 'SUMMON'. a. Yes No
13. DHS can 'appear' in person, anywhere, any time, not tell you they are coming, and their presence is equivalent to a trial. a. Yes No
14. DHS can try a case, by assessment, and then advise the judiciary of their 'findings'. a. Yes No
15. DHS findings are final, though the burden of proof is not met beyond a reasonable doubt. a. Yes No
16. DHS can take your children basing their 'findings' on statistics alone, till they take you to court for something never proved, not having been subject to proper PRESENTMENT when required. a. Yes No
17. The court can ignore Pro-se attempts to gain discovery, {PRESENTMENT} because a citizen is not familiar with the legal process. a. Yes No
18. The court can ignore Pro-se inadvertence, grounds for an order to dismiss, defined in RULE 71, and give you a 'broken arm'. See: Judge Luukinen, who does not speak English in the courtroom. a. Yes No
19. There is no acquittal for 'non'criminal matters. a. Yes No . 20. There is no plea available in 'non'criminal matters. a. Yes No
21. There is no plea bargain available in 'non'criminal matters when a person is said to be suffering of poor mental health, and no protection of Substantive Due Process, because no crime has been committed. a. Yes No
22. The opposing party does not have to cause the DHS to come to court in a 'non'criminal matter. a. Yes No
23. The DHS, the 'voice' of the 'WHOLE VILLAGE' is not subject to cross-examination. a. Yes No
24. Policemen do not have to come to court for cross-examination of the facts when a police report is presented to a judge. a. Yes No
25. If you lose your turn, by 'ORDER' of the court, not allowed to place further evidence into record, you are responsible to cause the DHS to speak on your behalf, though they are the opposing parties' advocate. a. Yes No
26. The court does not have to appoint you Counsel, until after accepting DHS reports, taken before you are advised. a. Yes No
27. DHS does not have to Fully Advise you of the nature of their questioning process though their 'findings' bear the weight of an 'adjudication'. a. Yes No
28. The 'voice' of the 'WHOLE VILLAGE', 'DHS case working staff', is not the equivalent of the voice of 'We the People' of the United States of America, the duties represented as THE BEST INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, the 'voice' of the DA. a. Yes No
29. The ORS Advocacy, DHS caseworker is not required to have a law degree. a. Yes No
30. The DHS does not answer to the Oregon State Bar, or subject to be investigated by the Municipal Police. a. Yes No
31. If you disagree with DHS staff you have to talk to DHS supervisory staff and use their forms. a. Yes No
32. If you do not use DHS forms to resolve a dispute you do not get to submit a grievance. a. Yes No
33. DHS does not have to tell you what the grievance process is or give you Advise on how to complain about their conduct or mistakes. a. Yes No
34. DHS is not responsible to respond to an 'ORDER' of the court, who waited to hear from them, which falls to the responsibility of the petitioning party. a. Yes No
35. DHS can, after a case is closed, with no further contact with a subject, change the disposition to 'FOUNDED'. a. Yes No
36. DHS can interfere with visitation, on a closed case, by threatening to remove a child from the parent who has physical custody, against a child's right to maintain a bond with the other parent. a. Yes No
37. A judge can interfere with visitation on a closed case, against the right to a speedy trial, while the DHS wait for grounds to open a closed case while advancing their assessment 'findings' of UNABLE TO DETERMINE. a. Yes No
38. DHS can act as though they proved a case on insufficient evidence, [no reasonable cause to believe neglect or abuse has occurred], and 'found', at a later date, the disposition UNABLE TO DETERMINE as a 'FOUNDED' case with no doctor reports. a. Yes No
39. Statistics will replace a sound police investigation and doctor reports until a set of double continuances provides time for DHS diagnosis. a. Yes No
40. DHS can interfere with visitation for matters they do not investigate before or after they assess your parenting. a. Yes No
41. The burden of proof is not on the DHS by a direct examination of doctor reports they never ordered to see. a. Yes No
42. DHS can at any time, regarding the report of medical neglect, order a release of information into doctor-patient privilege, and ignore the initial allegation. a. Yes No
43. DHS can forward their clinical diagnosis, without direct examination of an intended client, in lieu of a release thereto, when that person does not want to be their client, SAY they represent the child, BEST INTERESTS, and the parent, too. a. Yes No
44. DHS can represent child and parent, by way of parents Social Security Number, as their intended clients, though they have no license to practice law, as Counsel of Choice, and have no Professional Rules of Conduct which includes privilege. a. Yes No
45. Though a law firm cannot when there is a conflict of interest, represent both parent and the intended complainant, the DHS caseworker can, the complainant being the child, requiring the complainee, the parent, cooperate and allow access to all their private information and witnesses, though the DHS is the opposing party. a. Yes No
46. The DHS does not have to press a criminal allegation in order to subject you to 'ADMINISTRATIVE' LAW and there is no plea available or acquittal, because 'ADMINISTRATIVE LAW' is not the criminal justice system subject to definitions thereto. a. Yes No
47. DHS can press obstruction charges where there is no plea, where the rules of evidence do not apply if you do not sign a release of information when you have no lawyer to guard against prejudice. a. Yes No
48. DHS can punish you with criminal prosecution by way of obstruction charges if you do not participate with 'ADMINISTRATION' over a 'non'crime, and you have no lawyer, and they do not tell you why they are threatening to kick in your door. a. Yes No
49. It is reasonable for the DHS to say, ''The case is closed we are not answering your letters'', but ''We intend to take you to court someday and prevent you from visiting your children in the meantime.'' a. Yes No
50. It is reasonable for the DHS to allege possible inferences towards child abuse or neglect not provide you a lawyer while assessing, and decide relevancy issues over something they stated has no reasonable cause to believe child abuse or neglect occurred. a. Yes No
51. It is reasonable for a judge to deny PRESENTMENT prior to a trial, and then order PRESENTMENT continuing a proceeding, after inferences toward child abuse or neglect resulted in a closed case. a. Yes No
52. It is just that the DHS makes decisions that affect you longer than any felonious act would, and you have to provide your own lawyer, at your own expense, if you disagree with their opinion. a. Yes No
53. DHS should represent your doctor, your child, you, though that is a conflict of interest, and a judge should not provide you a lawyer when his 'ORDER' is DHS come to his courtroom. a. Yes No
54. DHS can represent both parent and child, even when there is not enough evidence to substantiate an allegation. a. Yes No
55. Complaining about DHS staff is to be seen as an obsessive and compulsive disorder and you should be brought to court in chains if the judge does not agree to allow a MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY. a. Yes No
56. The DHS should only respond to half a report, then say, "UNABLE TO DETERMINE", though there is no evidence the caller, (who logged the report), was concerned enough to step in at any specific date while saying 'the long-drawn-out emergency', they never personally attended to, is ongoing, RIGHT NOW, and wishes to remain anonymous. a. Yes No
57. The DHS should act against your parental rights, after they decided not to, close the case, because of the lack of evidence, and the January 10, 2005 caller was not believed by the DHS. a. Yes No
58. The contradictions in logic should outweigh the lack of proof and DHS should act as though you are committing a felony, since my sentence has been extended for now almost a year, because I said, ''Get a SEARCH WARRANT from a real judge'', and maintain the right to privacy, not wanting to include DHS in your privileged relationships. a. Yes No
59. A caller should remain anonymous, though purporting to have intimate knowledge regarding your state of mind, and the severity of abuse they purport, saying the younger of the children are in a state of emergency, and the older is on drugs. a. Yes No
60. A material witness should remain anonymous and the judge should appoint public officials, probation officers, and CASA, as witnesses in lieu of the first-hand attestation, in open court, form a caller who claims to be an inside witness. a. Yes No
61. DHS should require all parents, who of sound mind, to submit their medical evaluations and decisions, subject to a detailed release thereto, to a State Case Worker, as law, so the DHS does not have to pick and choose to select who they require to submit to an evaluation. a. Yes No
62. DHS should know immediately when a parent begins seeing a psychiatrist, be allowed to declare an emergency if they need assistance in determining what your psychiatrist has to say regarding your medical choices, while under his care. a. Yes No
63. DHS provides a Social Service, not to be confused as Social Duress if they do not allow you to make your own medical choices, once you begin psychiatric treatments. a. Yes No
64. A Child Abuse Hotline Screener should be switched after another closed the case at screening, when DHS supervisory staff calls to provide "NEW INFORMATION", and not presenting that information to you first, as law stipulates they should do. a. Yes No
65. If the caller at the time of the report, stipulated directly that they had direct knowledge regarding an 'ongoing', matter, and do not report ongoing involvement, like; calling an ambulance, babysitting, meal preparation, as including in their report: what assistance was given to the child, the report should be believed as if it were true, though DHS took no action for almost a month. a. Yes No
66. The DHS should close a case just as they claim and emergency is ongoing, though they did not document that they recognized it before, during the assessment, and annotate after the fact. a. Yes No
67. I should not be troubled by the tangible effect of this type of action happening to the rest of the people of this nation if a third trial were held. a. Yes No
68. It is always proper to try a DHS case, under an 'ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE', and then have a jury determine if a judge made the right choice while they re-try the case after a parent refuses to do what the DHS said. a. Yes No
69. DHS's findings' are not to be seen by Americans as Pre-Adjudication, though judges follow their recommendations. a. Yes No
70. The morals of the Declaration of Independence allow for a judge to have advisors who not come to court for cross-examination, where there is no jury, on matters that affect you the rest of your life. a. Yes No
71. An eighteen-year-old should not be given the right not to contract with an agency by a judicial 'ORDER'. a. Yes No
72. An eleven-year-old who says, "Yes, but, nothing that worries me", and nothing further to the question, "Does your mother do anything weird?", have words that should be construed as a complaint even after he says, "No", to the question, "Do you want to go live with your dad?". a. Yes No
This F:.. Confirmation of Judicial Opinion.doc The 'Blind Faith in the Bureaucracy' test, [or not!] Questionnaire was addressed to Dear Public officials, political leaders, and news media personnel; Mailed to Polk County Judiciary 850 Main, Dallas, Oregon 97338 Date: Oct 20, 2007, 12:41 AM
These questions are to the best of my ability answered correctly and are true and factual and grounds to Quash the baseless allegation made by Bonnie Kembal of DHS on matters already settled by Judge Avera prior to the birth of my daughter.
Under Explicit Reservation of All My And My Families Inalienable Rights Without Prejudice To Those Rights u.c.c 1-308 formerly 1-207.......reservation of rights...., plus {jut naturale},-{jus soli}...The Great Spirit, Mother Earth, The Creator rights for man, earths rights for man....the other that is illegal and unlawful is the {B.A.R} statutes-codes-ordinances that are in repugnance of the primary protocol of your rights or marbury v. madison 5 u.s. 137 {1803}...... " Byars v. United States - 273 US 128 "Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary" We are the Beneficiaries.......
Marilyn [LeBaron]© for
Melanie V [LeBaron]© which has direct bearing on her heirs From: UnKnown Hidden <lebaronmarilyn@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 3:44 PM
To: Marilyn LeBaron
Cc: linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us; Representative Tawna Sanchez
Subject: Re: Aiding Capital Felony Treason, Pattern and Practice, Aiding Human Trafficking and Child Endangerment - Under Conflict of Interest - No Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Not Upholding the Oath of Office Through Theft By Deception - Deprivation of Rights
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 7:22 AM Marilyn LeBaron <dogetty@live.com<mailto:dogetty@live.com>> wrote:
Fictitious enemy and theft by deception by means of naming the benefactor an enemy principle when not enemy of the actor who was a public servant by assign of the people, by so doing you are aiding and abetting Capital Felony Treason by deception naming the people the enemy as a Pattern and Practice which also is aiding and abetting Human Trafficking and Child Endangerment - Under Conflict of Interest - No Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Not Upholding the Oath of Office Through Theft By Deception - Deprivation of Rights – when all your judicial discretion is put into the hands of everybody else.
While I am away studying law my family tortured under you lack of due care through theft by deception: Giving aid to a fictitious enemy is not an act of treason or an act of aiding the enemy when defining that enemy was never an act of deception upon the actors' minds. But, giving aid to the fictitious enemy while acting as their ally and later saying it is an act of war to receive that aid is deception and not a binding contract. Hence; Handing the people poisoned water from a paper cup while acting as the guardian of the 'well of waters' belonging to the people, then stipulating after the fact that drinking from a paper cup is treason while selecting the paper cup to serve the water in when a drinking glass was proper, is deceit when also saying, 'The people deserve death for drinking from a paper cup handed them instead of a drinking glass that sat where it belonged in the cupboard next to where the 'well of water' is also stored", while also saying, "The people are liable", and "Those that drink from the paper cup handed them are the enemy since they drank from the paper cup handed to them", and then say "All well water guardians are immune to their acts since Mens rea is not their state of mind since it is in their training and all they learned to do is hand out paper cups to drink from", And also assert, "The 'well water guardian' did not know that instead of the 'cup of paper' a 'drinking glass' belonging to the people was needed since drinking from paper cups makes the people the person and enemy of the 'guardian of the well'", and also conclude, "So the people who not the persons in charge are the enemy of the water in the well and drinking from a paper cup is an act of treason since they failed to drink from a 'drinking glass' that was 'rightfully theirs'".
Hon. Charles E Luukinen Mailing Address Hon. Charles E Luukinen PO Box 5762 Salem OR 97304 County Polk Phone 503 362-1506 Fax Email srjudgecel@gmail.com<mailto:srjudgecel@gmail.com> Bar Number 752333 Status Active Member Admit Date 9/19/1975 Dear Charles Luukinen, Can you plea...
The following AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH AND REPUDIATION is intended for the Grand Jury indictment and criminal prosecution of Linda Hughes and was written prior to this matter arising and is based on fact and is supported by court record and historical fact
Acting outside the scope of the legislative authority to your seat in violation of the oath of office is capital felony treason
The questions will verify that the Juvenile Justice Complex is acting outside the scope and definition of a constitutional judiciary while claiming to be a court of record and also in violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct and the Bill of Rights
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH AND REPUDIATION
Posted Date: Oct 20, 2007 12:41 AM
1. DHS 'adjudication', [disposition of a completed assessment], is equivalent to a 'court order'. a. Yes No
2. DHS can try you on the spot and that is seen as reasonable efforts, on their part, if you do not do what they say. a. Yes No
3. DHS can cite a judge on an unproved matter to build another case against a parent. a. Yes No
4. DHS will wait to bring you to trial, with the case they choose to cite, though never proved. a. Yes No
5. DHS 'findings', from an assessment are final, and a trial after DHS reports have already taken effect is not DOUBLE JEOPARDY. a. Yes No
6. DHS does not have the obligation of PRESENTMENT, for something never proved. a. Yes No
7. DHS can build another case against you even if they never proved the previous matter. a. Yes No
8. DHS can gain a continuance (x2), prior to another continuance (x2), while they determine what their diagnosis is. a. Yes No
9. DHS can cite a judge, build another case thereto before the cited case is proved or investigated. a. Yes No
10. A judge can keep you from visiting your children while a case is closed, on the case DHS chooses to cite. a. Yes No
11. DHS does not have to PRESENT a case prior to taking your other child, while a judge waits to hear from them. a. Yes No
12. DHS can try you on the spot at the Juvenile Department, without a proper 'SUMMON'. a. Yes No
13. DHS can 'appear' in person, anywhere, any time, not tell you they are coming, and their presence is equivalent to a trial. a. Yes No
14. DHS can try a case, by assessment, and then advise the judiciary of their 'findings'. a. Yes No
15. DHS findings are final, though the burden of proof is not met beyond a reasonable doubt. a. Yes No
16. DHS can take your children basing their 'findings' on statistics alone, till they take you to court for something never proved, not having been subject to proper PRESENTMENT when required. a. Yes No
17. The court can ignore Pro-se attempts to gain discovery, {PRESENTMENT} because a citizen is not familiar with the legal process. a. Yes No
18. The court can ignore Pro-se inadvertence, grounds for an order to dismiss, defined in RULE 71, and give you a 'broken arm'. See: Judge Luukinen, who does not speak English in the courtroom. a. Yes No
19. There is no acquittal for 'non'criminal matters. a. Yes No . 20. There is no plea available in 'non'criminal matters. a. Yes No
21. There is no plea bargain available in 'non'criminal matters when a person is said to be suffering of poor mental health, and no protection of Substantive Due Process, because no crime has been committed. a. Yes No
22. The opposing party does not have to cause the DHS to come to court in a 'non'criminal matter. a. Yes No
23. The DHS, the 'voice' of the 'WHOLE VILLAGE' is not subject to cross-examination. a. Yes No
24. Policemen do not have to come to court for cross-examination of the facts when a police report is presented to a judge. a. Yes No
25. If you lose your turn, by 'ORDER' of the court, not allowed to place further evidence into record, you are responsible to cause the DHS to speak on your behalf, though they are the opposing parties' advocate. a. Yes No
26. The court does not have to appoint you Counsel, until after accepting DHS reports, taken before you are advised. a. Yes No
27. DHS does not have to Fully Advise you of the nature of their questioning process though their 'findings' bear the weight of an 'adjudication'. a. Yes No
28. The 'voice' of the 'WHOLE VILLAGE', 'DHS case working staff', is not the equivalent of the voice of 'We the People' of the United States of America, the duties represented as THE BEST INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, the 'voice' of the DA. a. Yes No
29. The ORS Advocacy, DHS caseworker is not required to have a law degree. a. Yes No
30. The DHS does not answer to the Oregon State Bar, or subject to be investigated by the Municipal Police. a. Yes No
31. If you disagree with DHS staff you have to talk to DHS supervisory staff and use their forms. a. Yes No
32. If you do not use DHS forms to resolve a dispute you do not get to submit a grievance. a. Yes No
33. DHS does not have to tell you what the grievance process is or give you Advise on how to complain about their conduct or mistakes. a. Yes No
34. DHS is not responsible to respond to an 'ORDER' of the court, who waited to hear from them, which falls to the responsibility of the petitioning party. a. Yes No
35. DHS can, after a case is closed, with no further contact with a subject, change the disposition to 'FOUNDED'. a. Yes No
36. DHS can interfere with visitation, on a closed case, by threatening to remove a child from the parent who has physical custody, against a child's right to maintain a bond with the other parent. a. Yes No
37. A judge can interfere with visitation on a closed case, against the right to a speedy trial, while the DHS wait for grounds to open a closed case while advancing their assessment 'findings' of UNABLE TO DETERMINE. a. Yes No
38. DHS can act as though they proved a case on insufficient evidence, [no reasonable cause to believe neglect or abuse has occurred], and 'found', at a later date, the disposition UNABLE TO DETERMINE as a 'FOUNDED' case with no doctor reports. a. Yes No
39. Statistics will replace a sound police investigation and doctor reports until a set of double continuances provides time for DHS diagnosis. a. Yes No
40. DHS can interfere with visitation for matters they do not investigate before or after they assess your parenting. a. Yes No
41. The burden of proof is not on the DHS by a direct examination of doctor reports they never ordered to see. a. Yes No
42. DHS can at any time, regarding the report of medical neglect, order a release of information into doctor-patient privilege, and ignore the initial allegation. a. Yes No
43. DHS can forward their clinical diagnosis, without direct examination of an intended client, in lieu of a release thereto, when that person does not want to be their client, SAY they represent the child, BEST INTERESTS, and the parent, too. a. Yes No
44. DHS can represent child and parent, by way of parents Social Security Number, as their intended clients, though they have no license to practice law, as Counsel of Choice, and have no Professional Rules of Conduct which includes privilege. a. Yes No
45. Though a law firm cannot when there is a conflict of interest, represent both parent and the intended complainant, the DHS caseworker can, the complainant being the child, requiring the complainee, the parent, cooperate and allow access to all their private information and witnesses, though the DHS is the opposing party. a. Yes No
46. The DHS does not have to press a criminal allegation in order to subject you to 'ADMINISTRATIVE' LAW and there is no plea available or acquittal, because 'ADMINISTRATIVE LAW' is not the criminal justice system subject to definitions thereto. a. Yes No
47. DHS can press obstruction charges where there is no plea, where the rules of evidence do not apply if you do not sign a release of information when you have no lawyer to guard against prejudice. a. Yes No
48. DHS can punish you with criminal prosecution by way of obstruction charges if you do not participate with 'ADMINISTRATION' over a 'non'crime, and you have no lawyer, and they do not tell you why they are threatening to kick in your door. a. Yes No
49. It is reasonable for the DHS to say, ''The case is closed we are not answering your letters'', but ''We intend to take you to court someday and prevent you from visiting your children in the meantime.'' a. Yes No
50. It is reasonable for the DHS to allege possible inferences towards child abuse or neglect not provide you a lawyer while assessing, and decide relevancy issues over something they stated has no reasonable cause to believe child abuse or neglect occurred. a. Yes No
51. It is reasonable for a judge to deny PRESENTMENT prior to a trial, and then order PRESENTMENT continuing a proceeding, after inferences toward child abuse or neglect resulted in a closed case. a. Yes No
52. It is just that the DHS makes decisions that affect you longer than any felonious act would, and you have to provide your own lawyer, at your own expense, if you disagree with their opinion. a. Yes No
53. DHS should represent your doctor, your child, you, though that is a conflict of interest, and a judge should not provide you a lawyer when his 'ORDER' is DHS come to his courtroom. a. Yes No
54. DHS can represent both parent and child, even when there is not enough evidence to substantiate an allegation. a. Yes No
55. Complaining about DHS staff is to be seen as an obsessive and compulsive disorder and you should be brought to court in chains if the judge does not agree to allow a MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY. a. Yes No
56. The DHS should only respond to half a report, then say, "UNABLE TO DETERMINE", though there is no evidence the caller, (who logged the report), was concerned enough to step in at any specific date while saying 'the long-drawn-out emergency', they never personally attended to, is ongoing, RIGHT NOW, and wishes to remain anonymous. a. Yes No
57. The DHS should act against your parental rights, after they decided not to, close the case, because of the lack of evidence, and the January 10, 2005 caller was not believed by the DHS. a. Yes No
58. The contradictions in logic should outweigh the lack of proof and DHS should act as though you are committing a felony, since my sentence has been extended for now almost a year, because I said, ''Get a SEARCH WARRANT from a real judge'', and maintain the right to privacy, not wanting to include DHS in your privileged relationships. a. Yes No
59. A caller should remain anonymous, though purporting to have intimate knowledge regarding your state of mind, and the severity of abuse they purport, saying the younger of the children are in a state of emergency, and the older is on drugs. a. Yes No
60. A material witness should remain anonymous and the judge should appoint public officials, probation officers, and CASA, as witnesses in lieu of the first-hand attestation, in open court, form a caller who claims to be an inside witness. a. Yes No
61. DHS should require all parents, who of sound mind, to submit their medical evaluations and decisions, subject to a detailed release thereto, to a State Case Worker, as law, so the DHS does not have to pick and choose to select who they require to submit to an evaluation. a. Yes No
62. DHS should know immediately when a parent begins seeing a psychiatrist, be allowed to declare an emergency if they need assistance in determining what your psychiatrist has to say regarding your medical choices, while under his care. a. Yes No
63. DHS provides a Social Service, not to be confused as Social Duress if they do not allow you to make your own medical choices, once you begin psychiatric treatments. a. Yes No
64. A Child Abuse Hotline Screener should be switched after another closed the case at screening, when DHS supervisory staff calls to provide "NEW INFORMATION", and not presenting that information to you first, as law stipulates they should do. a. Yes No
65. If the caller at the time of the report, stipulated directly that they had direct knowledge regarding an 'ongoing', matter, and do not report ongoing involvement, like; calling an ambulance, babysitting, meal preparation, as including in their report: what assistance was given to the child, the report should be believed as if it were true, though DHS took no action for almost a month. a. Yes No
66. The DHS should close a case just as they claim and emergency is ongoing, though they did not document that they recognized it before, during the assessment, and annotate after the fact. a. Yes No
67. I should not be troubled by the tangible effect of this type of action happening to the rest of the people of this nation if a third trial were held. a. Yes No
68. It is always proper to try a DHS case, under an 'ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE', and then have a jury determine if a judge made the right choice while they re-try the case after a parent refuses to do what the DHS said. a. Yes No
69. DHS's findings' are not to be seen by Americans as Pre-Adjudication, though judges follow their recommendations. a. Yes No
70. The morals of the Declaration of Independence allow for a judge to have advisors who not come to court for cross-examination, where there is no jury, on matters that affect you the rest of your life. a. Yes No
71. An eighteen-year-old should not be given the right not to contract with an agency by a judicial 'ORDER'. a. Yes No
72. An eleven-year-old who says, "Yes, but, nothing that worries me", and nothing further to the question, "Does your mother do anything weird?", have words that should be construed as a complaint even after he says, "No", to the question, "Do you want to go live with your dad?". a. Yes No
This F:.. Confirmation of Judicial Opinion.doc The 'Blind Faith in the Bureaucracy' test, [or not!] Questionnaire was addressed to Dear Public officials, political leaders, and news media personnel; Mailed to Polk County Judiciary 850 Main, Dallas, Oregon 97338 Date: Oct 20, 2007, 12:41 AM
These questions are to the best of my ability answered correctly and are true and factual and grounds to Quash the baseless allegation made by Bonnie Kembal of DHS on matters already settled by Judge Avera prior to the birth of my daughter.
Under Explicit Reservation of All My And My Families Inalienable Rights Without Prejudice To Those Rights u.c.c 1-308 formerly 1-207.......reservation of rights...., plus {jut naturale},-{jus soli}...The Great Spirit, Mother Earth, The Creator rights for man, earths rights for man....the other that is illegal and unlawful is the {B.A.R} statutes-codes-ordinances that are in repugnance of the primary protocol of your rights or marbury v. madison 5 u.s. 137 {1803}...... " Byars v. United States - 273 US 128 "Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary" We are the Beneficiaries.......
____________________________________________
Melanie V LeBaron Date.
Notary Republic of Oregon
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 6:21 PM MYOB HackerTracker <myobhackertracker@gmail.com<mailto:myobhackertracker@gmail.com>> wrote:
Ms. Linda Hughes
Private Capacity
1401 NE 68th Ave
Portland OR 97213
Phone 503 988-3463
Fax 503 988-3494
Email linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us<mailto:linda.hughes@ojd.state.or.us>
[cid:image001.png@01D5F7E3.ABC52AC0]
1. You are required to avoid the appearance of impropriety and right now you are a Human Trafficker committing Capital Felony Treason and cannot preside with dirty hands. You must at lease recuse but a hangman knott would be better. You do not get to dismantle our bloodline just because you deemed us TAXABLE since we are not British Subjects owned by the British Crown.
Bank, Britain, Debt, IRS, Tax, United Kingdom IRS Forces U.S. Citizens To Pay A Percentage Of Their Taxes To The Queen Of The UK Deep State Americans pay a percentage of their taxes to the Queen of England via the IRS. The IRS is not an agency of the Federal Government. It is an agency of the International Monetary Fund which is an agency of the United Nations. No law has ever been passed legalizing the charging of income tax. The 1040 tax form is the payment of a foreign tax to the King/Queen of England. American citizens have been in financial servitude to the British Monarch since the Treaty of 1783 and the War of Dependence.
2. Robert B Axfort has ben fired again for at least the fourth time.
3. You have no jurisdiction over the subject matter and the court cannot move since there is a conflict of interests between you and my heirs.
U.S. citizens and Nationals were declared enemies of the U.S. by F.D.R. by Executive Order No. 2040 and ratified
AVAILABLE! Original House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933
Comments
Post a Comment