Verification of Liability. Human Trafficking My Grandchildren

RE: leach sabrina alberta branch Wendy Polzel Alicia Reynolds Sherrelle Jackson 541 969 2738 District Manager sherrelle.o.jackson@dhsoha.or.us
1 message

Marilyn LeBaron <dogetty@live.com>
Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:27 AM
To: Marilyn LeBaron <dogetty@live.com>, Marilyn LeBaron <myobhackertracker@gmail.com>, "hackertracker@gmail.com" <hackertracker@gmail.com>, "DA@mcda.us" <DA@mcda.us>, "Bittick, Richard" <bittick.richard@co.polk.or.us>
Cc: Metzger Soren K <SOREN.K.METZGER@dhsoha.state.or.us>, "Kevin.Demer@mcda.us" <Kevin.Demer@mcda.us>, "rod.underhill@mcda.us" <rod.underhill@mcda.us>, "amelia@jrolegal.com" <amelia@jrolegal.com>, Erica Hayne Friedman <Erica.HF@youthrightsjustice.org>
Dear recipients of this email,

Could you please have a talk since all you do is have star chamber proceeding about family matters in place of a trial in open court which is capitol felony treason – but since that is your method maybe you could do that to Helmar Lochmann since it is about child abuse and under the scope of star legalized chamber proceedings you could bring him to justice the same way.

No, but criminals have all the rights which is not equal protection of the law and another count of capital felony treason.

Notice of Liability for aiding capital felony treason for adhering to the enemy of your nation for allowing criminal sentencing of myself and two fictitious plaintiffs since an act of prudent protection after identifying a perpetrator of egregious child abuse and torture is not a criminal act since Mens Rea is how all the bureaucrats get away with treason know being properly schooled in law not having the state of mind in opposite of ignorance is no excuse which is not equal protection of the law and actually another felony 

Notice of Criminal Liability witness tampering by not allowing family to gain access to the testimonies of their kin when held for surety and their mother is dying in the streets and you all drain her surety and do not hospitalize her to save her life while not providing her bus passes or making sure there is a way to comply and providing her with ample support to comply.

All three of my heirs are material witnesses against Helmar Lochmann and his abuses and you separate the witnesses which allow for criminals to intimidate them into silence while you just waif of the material witness to die without fully deposing her or sealing the case. See: Rod Underhill

Notice of Liability aiding and abetting after the fact misprision felony with all its penalties and emotional harm after the fact by separating them with a promise of reunification and then do not reunify my heirs putting my grandson with a single gay man as if he is a concubine or a paedophile dating service instead of putting him with family

Please inform me if the District attorney of Multnomah County has collected and sealed all the record, emails, and telephone records, including text message between Helmar Lichman and my daughter on the matters pertaining to Victoria Couvillion and Nolan Stevens whose Christian names include middle initial RD and J respectively. Since Helmar Lochman acted in an egregious manner torturing my daughter making it hard for her to comply while he put my heirs in harm's way also denying me contact to isolate them

Please show me where the method of gaining a visitation schedule is posted in order to make your denial of visits legal as I recently learned each and everything you do or don’t do has to be specifically defined and enumerated before such actions ro avoidance of acting.

Hello, I’m inquiring as to why I never get to see my grandkids?

sherrelle.o.jackson@or.us; sabrina.leach@state.or.us;

I'm contacting you because the child abuse hotline has assigned two new social workers (sherrelle.o.jackson@or.us; sabrina.leach@state.or.us;) now since the other workers were removed based on objections pertaining to the conflict of interest between DHS Alberta Branch and Gresham Branch dating back to 2005 through 2006 between my kin based on things not available to my abilities to weigh fact a law upon back then nor today allowed to know what is in the record when bringing up old abated matters - which I believe were not presented to the seated Linda Hughes which needs verification.

The civil subject matter concerning the jurisdiction of DHS and the criminal allegations under criminal venue not under actual investigation, since I am by law required to be notified when under criminal investigation at the earliest stage of an investigation to allow a refute by and independent investigative body independent form Juvenile Justice Complex subject matter belonging the JJC District Attorney. If there is any criminal investigation going on in Multnomah County regarding bureaucrat protection could you please educate the DHS of the right to presumption of innocence, the right to a Trial by Jury of my peers, prior to being punished or penalize, while that right should extend to any other party suffering from the same punishment or penalty, where the Right to Trial by Jury must be waved in writing according to the Oregon Bill of Rights.

If you could please offer your guidance here please to the DHS

I would appreciate your quash the Diligent Efforts ruling made by the JJC since the matter has been abated years and years ago

Sent from Mail for Windows 10From: Judge_the_Bench
Date: Oct 20, 2007 12:41 AM


The 'Blind Faith in the Bureaucracy' test, [or not!] Questionnaire, by judge the bench @ hotmail .com

(judgethebench@hotmail.com)

If you answer no to all most all of these questions please write to Judge Horner and tell him so, at: 

horner-william@hotmail.com

If you answer yes to these questions: You have no sense of freedom and are not Fully Advised as to your Inalienable Rights. But, there is a couple of acceptations bellow which should be answered, "Yes". 

Can you find which ones? 

Regarding: Thomas Alexander Bleu LeBaron: <Google search it>

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 do 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 choose 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 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. Police men 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 do 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 provide 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 case worker can, 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 make decisions that affect you longer that 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 court room. 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 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 is 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 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 do not have to pick and choose selecting 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 you 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 reported ongoing involvement, like; calling an ambulance, baby sitting, 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 say. a. Yes       No

69. DHS 'findings' is 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       

If you know what questions to say yes to, please send me a letter. All these questions are based on the actual events and are a sign of lawlessness. My government should not be both above, while acting below, the law. 

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