http://www.examiner.com/article/us-department-of-justice-calls-for-examples-of-outrageous-child-custody-outcomes

“AN AMERICAN FAMILY LEGACY”

2013

All Americans,

   We the people of The United States experience life in the greatest country founded in the history of the world and man. We the people of our Constitutional Republic have the opportunity to pass on our great sovereignty life experience to our children and our legacy by way of our children’s – children...

   “An American Family Legacy.” But, not all Americans understand that truth is based on the perspective you perceive facts by way of our own inhabitant choice, our sovereignty life experience and our sense of self-evident results, by way of family principles, ethics, and morals with the opportunity of being self reliant, independent, and a entrepreneur.” We the people of our Constitutional Republic proclaiming a basis of political rule in the sovereignty of we the people”. Our whole organization of government on the capacity of We the People to govern themselves. The Declaration of Independence is a timeless statement of inherent rights, the proper purposes of government, and the limits on political authority. To understand by way we hold these truths to be self-evident, our sovereignty life experience of such state inhabitants do establish a perceived perspective fact from our own inhabitant choice are the self-evident truths. A timeless legacy of inherent rights and liberties from God, as declared in The Declaration of Independence and signed into law by way of The United States Constitution that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

   “An American Family Legacy.”

Our founders place the legislative power in Article 1 of The United States Constitution, to show required proof of our self-evident truths by way of our inhabitant of sovereignty life experience by choice to such states. Not by way of the national centralized government based on required government entitlements to keep up with the times. It’s a sovereignty life experience, our sense of self-evident results by way of an experience of such state inhabitant choice our Senators and Representatives shall choose for political rule in the sovereignty of the people, as citizens of The United States.

   Since after the civil war in 1865 to present, why are many rules of law in The United States exempt all Senators, Representatives, political class, some American companies and some Citizens?

   The United States Constitution Article 1 Section 2 Paragraph 2 No person shall be a Representatives who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

   The United States Constitution Article 1 Section 3 Paragraph 3 No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

   The United States Constitution Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

   All Senators and Representatives when elected are required to be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen, attained to the age of twenty five or thirty years old, and been seven or nine years a citizens of The United States.

   If these Senators and Representatives are citizens of The United States and are elected of the people, for the people, and by the people shall make the Rule of Law, but are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof with abridge privileges or immunities by exempt status from the Rule of Law.

#1 Question / How can they be citizens of The United States? Or How can they be citizens of the State wherein they reside?

#1 Answer / The United States Constitution Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

If these Senators and Representatives are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof by way of abridged privileges, immunities, and lawless exempt status at the same time are citizens of The United States.

#2 Question / How can these Senators and Representatives as lawless men support

The United States Constitution as a citizen of The United States?

#2 Answer / The United States Constitution Amendment XIV Section 1 / sentence 2. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States.

If these Senators and Representatives are citizens of The United States and are elected of the people, for the people, and by the people shall make the Rule of Law, equal protection of the laws, and shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

#3 Question / How can these Senators and Representatives provide equal protection of the laws within its jurisdiction, but themselves are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof with abridge privileges or immunities by exempt status from The Rule of Law?

#3 Answer / The United States Constitution Amendment XIV Section 1 / sentence 3. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Any Senator, Representative, or Citizen of The United States with abridged privileges or immunities by exempt status from The Rule of Law, are automatically disqualified by way of The United States constitution to political rule in the sovereignty of the people and are perverting the United States Constitution, because of their abridge privileges or immunities by exempt status from The Rule of Law of such inhabitant State for which the Senators or Representatives shall be chosen. The Senators and Representatives have become lawless and can not rule in the sovereignty of the people, for the people and by the people and be lawless people at the same time, this perverts The United States Constitution and such State the Senators and Representatives claim inhabitant. With abridge privileges or immunities by exempt status from the Rule of Law The Senators and Representatives divide the citizens of the United States, classify the citizens with prejudice, discriminate, and pervert The United States Constitution by way of the political rule in the sovereignty of the people of these United States. I don’t even know if The Senators and Representatives being lawless are legally a citizen of The United States with abridge privileges or immunities by exempt status from The Rule of Law.

   Quoted best. America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. We the people are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts, not to overthrow The Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert The Constitution.

   We the people of the United States do not look at our country any different today, tomorrow, or any day after. We the people enjoy our Constitutional republic and our life experience as rightful governed masters of both congress and the courts of The United States. The world doesn't look at us any different. The world perceives The United States as a free people and a Constitutional Republic by way of The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution. Mr. Herman Belz explains The United States Constitutional Republic as a whole, in easy and plain English terms to understand. National unity, freedom, and limited government are the basic values underlying and intrinsic to the principles of federalism, the separation of powers, republican liberty, and The Constitution as fundamental law. Because these principles together constitute a coherent whole, failure or derangement in one part may lead to disorder in the system as a whole.

   The only difference or change in we the people of The United States are among men who pervert The United States Constitution, in order to defy The Declaration of Independence and our Constitutional Republic as a whole, for their own self just powers as the centralized national government. These men use words like Safe and Secure or for National Security by any way possible to convince we the people that The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitutional Republic is dead and spreading these lies by apologizing to the world for our failure. Our true National Security are the men who pervert The United States Constitution, these men are lawless and present a clear danger to the sovereignty of the people of The United States. Our brother Americans are targeted by these lawless cowards that defy The United States Constitution and dare any American to stand up and speak out against the centralized national government. These men divide the citizens of the United States, classify the citizens with prejudice, discriminate and pervert The United States Constitution. These men are a rot to the cornerstone of The United States Constitution and the political rule in the sovereignty of the people. This rot is accomplished by way of the derangement in the separation of powers as a whole and their own claim to abridge privileges or immunities by exempt status from the Rule of Law, for their own self just policy's, procedures, and laws to constitute their principles as the fundamental law for the centralized national government. These rot of principles look like this. We as the centralized national government self consciously hold all rights to be relative values of the constant evolution of man, politics, and society. Any permanent rights are at the indulgence of government by judicial decree or by congress in the form of required entitlements to justify our existence in order to keep up with time. This way of thinking is a rot to The Declaration of Independence and perverts The United States Constitution. These men are justifying the derangement in the separation of powers as a whole and claim abridge privileges or immunities by exempt status from The Rule of Law as new ideas of modern liberalism, repudiated America's core principles and traditions, holding that there are no self-evident truths but only relative values, no permanent rights or the sovereignty of the people, but only changing rights held at the indulgence of government from lawless men.

   No one can divide or classify the citizens of The United States with prejudice or discriminate against. We're not African Americans, or Asian Americans, or Spanish Americans, or Indian Americans, or European Americans, or Mexican Americans, or Irish Americans we're all Americans. If some one says what about the African American, in The United States there are no African Americans only all Americans, If the Africans don't like it go back to Africa or if someone says what about Irish Americans, in The United States there are no Irish Americans only all Americans, if the Irish don’t like it go back to Ireland. Same with the Asian, or the Spanish, or the Indian, or the European, or the Mexicans, if they don't like that we're all Americans, then go back to the country you came from. This was the answer to the reason for the civil rights movement in the 1960's lead by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr..

   The United States will not divide or classify the citizens with prejudice, discriminate against, or pervert The United States Constitution, by way of the political rule in the sovereignty of the people in

The United States. We’re all Americans and I don't believe these liberals understand how dangerous and immoral these new ideas of modern liberalism are unfolding. Their lawless abridge privileges or immunities by exempt status from The Rule of Law by way of changing rights held at the indulgence of government, are provoking and feeding the lawless in other men and organizations. Their reckless and lawless behavior and immoral actions, have created a National Security problem that shadows and covers the justified sovereignty of all the people of The United States. All Americans need to understand the end results by choosing the centralized national government, will forever more falter and lose our freedom and liberties.

We the people need to understand we are the rightful governed masters of both congress and the courts from all corners of The United States. Not the centralized national government. We the people are not to overthrow The Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert The Constitution. As a Constitutional Conservative we need to wake up liberty, simplify the Rule of Law with transparency, clarity and simplicity, Amend The United States Constitution with limit Federal Bureaucracy, limit Federal Spending and Taxing, Establish term limits for member of congress and supreme court justices, Promote free enterprise, Protect private property, Protect the vote, and Grant the states the authority to check congress and Grant the states the authority to directly amend the Constitution. We the people need to turn to The United States Constitution for answers to combat the lawless, corruption, and tyranny of men who pervert The United States Constitution. Our United States Congress, Courts, and Federal Government have become so oppressive and burdensome to our individual liberties, private property rights, and the rule of law. We the people at the State level need to act now and combat the immoral behavior. 

I propose under Article 5 of The United States Constitution, the application of the legislatures of the state to call a convention for proposing Amendments to The United States Constitution, to valid to all intents and purposes as part of The United States Constitution. This is not a Constitutional Convention, but a State Convention by way of at lease two thirds of the states together will propose Amendments to The United States Constitution. 

   I support and propose Mr. Mark R. Levin eleven Amendments from his book called The Liberty Amendments. I believe all eleven Amendments that Mr. Mark R. Levin proposes will restore The United States Constitution founding principles as our founding framers intended and reestablish The United States Constitutional republic as a whole. Our timing could not have a better stage in history, then now to proclaim to the world, The United States of America, The Declaration of Independence, and The United States Constitution are powerful beacons to all who strive for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

   “An American Family Legacy.” This is a transparent and clarify message. We can use this message to achieve liberty at its highest degree and restore the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic as a whole.

   “Amend The United States Constitution by way of State Convention, for all Americans.” This will be the greatest victory for liberty and freedom since President Ronald Reagan hedged The United States effort to end the cold war and take down the Berlin wall. We the people of The United States need to unite and proclaim family principles, ethics, and morals with the opportunity of being true self reliance, independent, and entrepreneurs. Contact your state legislatures to call a State Convention for proposing Amendments to The United States Constitution. The United States will forever more be a timeless legacy of inherent rights and liberties from God, as declared in The Declaration of Independence and signed into law by way of The United States Constitution that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Federal Hand Behind Common Core

“Common Core is a state-led initiative.”

   This sentence is among the most repeated pitch lines of those selling Common Core.  It is an effective sales pitch, but is it true?

   The answer lies in the maze of money and regulation tying federal and state departments of education together.

   Let’s start with the money.  The money is always the carrot that the federal government offers the states.

The money trail for Common Core begins in 2009, with the passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, commonly called the Stimulus Bill.  Among the bill’s many provisions was a $53.6 billion appropriation to the U.S. Department of Education, called the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.  Of that amount, $4.35 billion was set aside for the Race to the Top initiative.

   States had to access the funds in a prescribed order.  First was the Stabilization fund program.

In order to receive these funds, states had to assure the federal government that they would adopt “rigorous college and career ready standards.”   The elements of the standards were dictated by the federal government in the America COMPETES Act, and as part of their application for Stabilization funds the states had to sign an assurance page that specifically required them to align their state programs to the language of that federal law.

   The Stabilization funds were awarded in two phases, with states submitting an application outlining their plans to adopt the standards to receive the first phase, and then submitting a progress report showing that they were actually completing those plans in order to receive the second phase of their Stabilization grant.  The U.S. Department of Education had to approve each state’s plan before Phase Two funds were awarded, effectively giving the federal government control over each state’s education programs.

   States who had successfully completed the Stabilization grant process could then compete for Race to the Top funds.  This requirement was explained in question A-4 of Race to the Top Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions, published by the U.S. Department of Education on May 27, 2010.

   Race to the Top was a competition grant process. States were awarded points based on how closely they conformed to the desires of the federal Department of Education.  In the case of the Common Core State Standards, Section (B)(1)(ii) of the Race to the Top grant application clearly outlined the federal requirements.  States would be awarded up to 40 points depending on their commitment to adopting a common set of standards by the federal deadline of August 2, 2010.

   Under Race to the Top, states could add to the common standards, provided that the additions were not more than 15 percent of the total, but they could not subtract or change any of the standards.

   The Race to the Top grant applications had to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Education BEFORE the standards were actually available to the states.  In January 2010 William McCallum, one of the authors of the Common Core Math Standards, spoke at a national mathematics conference in San Francisco.  In response to questions and concerns about the compressed schedule for developing the math standards, a schedule that did not allow for pilot testing or normal editing, Mr. McCallum told his audience that his “bosses,” the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, were being “pressed by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan who was using the possibility of getting Race to the Top money as leverage to force states to commit now to adopting uniform standards.”  He told his audience that states were committing to the adoption of the standards “sight unseen.”

   In Pennsylvania’s Race to the Top Phase Two grant application, submitted in May 2010, the State Board of Education told the federal government that if they received the standards by June 2, 2010, they would adopt them by July 1, 2010.  They kept that promise, tying every public and charter school student in the Commonwealth to standards that they had not even seen when they made the commitment.

   A visit to the web site for the Common Core State Standards, reveals that the standards are the copyrighted property of the NGA Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, and may only be used if a public license is obtained.  The same web site states that every user of the standards must acknowledge this ownership, except states.  States are exempted from sharing this information with their citizens.

   So the money in the federal State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and Race to the Top were the carrots.

What was the stick?  The stick was federal regulation. And it was a big one.

   Federal regulations implementing No Child Left Behind required every state to prove that 100 percent of its students were proficient in reading and math by the end of the 2013-2014 school year, with substantial penalties for failure to demonstrate that it had attained this impossible goal.

   The U.S. Department of Education has allowed states to apply for flexibility from these requirements.  Section C of ESEA Flexibility Frequently Asked Questions, dated August 3, 2012, tells the states that to receive this flexibility, the state must prove to the federal government that it has formally adopted college and career ready standards.  The federal Department of Education is the sole judge of whether or not the state has adopted adequate college and career ready standards.

   An examination of ESEA flexibility requests from across the country reveals that even states that did not apply for Race to the Top money, such as Texas and Virginia, were required to show how their state’s educational programs were aligned with the Common Core State Standards in order to be granted flexibility.  So even the states that did not take the carrot found themselves confronting the federal stick.

   “State-led initiative” may be a wonderful sales pitch for those promoting Common Core, but an examination of the facts reveals that the reality does not match the marketing.

September 30, 2013

To whom it may concern,

It occurred to me tonight as I lay wide awake that our family court system justifies everything they do with "the best interest of the child.”

Women can put their children up for adoption. They can just walk away no questions asked and never have to pay a lick of child support. Why? Because lawmakers say it is in "the best interest of the child."

Under the "safe haven" law a woman who elects not to be a mother to her infant child can take that child to a hospital, church or police/fire station and drop the child off. She can walk away, no questions asked and never have to pay a lick of child support. Why? Because the lawmakers say it is in "the best interest of the child."

Fathers who do not get the privilege of being the primary care giver must pay child support. In some cases they may still have to pay even if they have 50/50 custody. Why? Because lawmaker/JUDGES say it is in "the best interest of the child."

There is no safe haven law for unwed or divorced fathers. Once they are proven to be the father of a child they are on the hook for child support until that child reaches the age of majority or the courts says so. The mother can spend the child support she receives in any way she sees fit and does not have to prove where the money is spent. She can spend it on shoes, makeup, alcohol, or drugs and is still eligible to collect benefits from the state because she is under employed. Why? Because the lawmaker/JUDGES say it is in "the best interest of the child."

A father that falls behind on child support is labeled as a deadbeat. He faces losing his driver’s license, business license, and passport. He can face felony charges and even thrown in jail ripping him out of his child's/children's lives. Why? Because lawmaker/JUDGES say it is in "the best interest of the child."

A father that loves his children can provide a loving, caring and nurturing home for his children may not be able to get 50/50 custody. They may be stuck with the minimum "parenting time" (the courts way of doctoring up visitation). Minimum guidelines may only be a few hours a week and every other weekend. Why? Because JUDGES say it is in "the best interest of the child."

A vindictive mother falsely claims a father is abusive. Immediately the courts suspend fathers parenting time until the matter can be investigated. It may take months, even years before the matter can be resolved. A father's right to due process is violated and they are ripped from their children's Lives even though he is a loving and caring father whose only crime may be loving his children too much. Why? Because JUDGES say it is in "the best interest of the child."

I could go on all night. The bottom line is JUDGES that can't even tell us our child's favorite color are telling us what is in our children's best interest. JUDGES hide behind "the best interest of the child" to justify the horrible atrocities that take place in family court on a daily basis.

Here is my question to those same lawmakers. If every guideline and law you pass or approve is in "the best interest of the child".....Why is abortion still legal?

Figure that one out and get back to me?

September 7, 2013

   No matter what is printed in the papers, or stated on TV about the Kansas courts and the Judges. The people of Kansas know nothing about the Judges or the system until they are thrown into it. Again how do you explain when a Judge is DEAD for a month, yet is able to capture more than 636,000 votes to retain him in office after he has been dead for a month, that at a 72% of the votes? Are we better off with him dead than alive? Will he serve us better dead than alive? I think its the fact that the people of Kansas have never voted to not retain a Judge in 152 years. You have to engage in the process to know what you are voting for!
Court of Appeals Judge 10 
November 6th 2012 General Election
Richard D. Greene - "YES" 636,376 72.0 %
Richard D. Greene - "NO" 246,864 27.9 %

August 13, 2013

A History lesson on Lawyers (Not all - but the far majority apply)

      A lawyer, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person who is practicing law." Law is the system of rules of conduct established by the sovereign government of a society to correct wrongs, maintain the stability of political and social authority, and deliver justice. Working as a lawyer involves the practical application of abstract legal theories and knowledge to solve specific individualized problems, or to advance the interests of those who retain (i.e., hire) lawyers to perform legal services. 
      Lawyers were widely unloved in the 17th century in America. The first lawyer who arrived in the Plymouth colony in 1624 or 1625 is said to have been jailed and then expelled from the colony for scandalous behavior. For a time, the Bodies of Liberties (1641) of the Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited “pleading for hire”; Virginia excluded lawyers from her Courts in 1645; Connecticut also prohibited them. The Fundamental Constitutions of the Carolina’s (1669) said it was a "base and vile thing to plead for money or reward". William Penn had a Quaker’s distaste for lawyers and formal laws. In 1682, his laws provided for the appointment of three "peacemakers" in each precinct whose "arbitration’s" were to stand as legal judgments. Thus, in Pennsylvania, it was said: "They have no lawyers. Everyone is to tell his own case, or some friend for him. . . . 'Tis a happy country." Resentment of lawyers continued into the revolutionary period and beyond.
      If there is a stain on the record of our forefathers, a dark hour in the earliest history of the American Colonies, it would be the hanging of the "witches" at Salem. That was a pinpoint in place and time -- a brief lapse into hysteria. For the most part, our seventeenth century colonists were scrupulously fair, even in fear.
      There was one group of people they feared with reason -- a society, you might say, whose often insidious craft had claimed a multitude of victims, ever since the Middle ages in Europe. One group of people were hated and feared from Massachusetts Bay to Virginia. The Magistrate would not burn them at the stake, although surely a great many of the colonists would have recommended such a solution. Our forefathers were baffled by them.
      In the first place, where did they come from? Of all who sailed from England to Plymouth in 1620, not one lawyer was aboard. "VERMIN." That's what the Colonist called them. Parasites who fed on human misery, spreading sorrow and confusion wherever they went. "DESTRUCTIVE." They were called. And still they were permitted coexistence with the colonists. For a while, anyway. Of course there were colonial laws prohibiting the practice of their infamous craft. Somehow a way was always found around all those laws.
      In 1641, Massachusetts Bay colony took a novel approach to the problem. The governors attempted to starve the "devils" out of existence through economic exclusion. They were denied wages, and thereby it was hoped that they would perish. Four years later, Virginia followed the example of Massachusetts Bay, and for a while it seemed that the dilemma had been resolved. It had not, somehow the parasites managed to survive, and the mere nearness of them made the colonists skin crawl.
      In 1658, In Virginia, the final solution: Banishment; EXILE. The "treacherous ones" were cast out of the colony. At last, after decades of enduring the psychological gloom, the sun came out and the birds sang, and all was right with the world. And the elation continued for a generation. I'm not sure why the Virginians eventually allowed the outcasts to return, but they did. In 1680, after twenty-two years, the despised ones were readmitted to the colony on the condition that they are subjected to the strictest surveillance. How soon we forget!
      For indeed over the next half century or so, the imposed restrictions were slowly, quietly swept away. And those whose treachery had been feared since the Middle Ages ultimately took their place in society. You see, the "vermin" that once infested colonial America, the parasites who prayed on the misfortunes of their neighbors until finally they were officially banished from Virginia, those dreaded, despised, outcasts, masters of confusion were lawyers.
      In most civil law countries, the government has traditionally exercised tight control over the legal profession in order to ensure a steady supply of loyal judges and bureaucrats. That is, lawyers were expected first and foremost to serve the state, and the availability of counsel for private litigants was an afterthought. Even in civil law countries like Norway which have partially self-regulating professions, the Ministry of Justice is the sole issuer of licenses, and makes its own independent re-evaluation of a lawyer's fitness to practice after a lawyer has been expelled from the Advocates' Association. Brazil is an unusual exception in that its national Order of Advocates has become a fully self-regulating institution (with direct control over licensing) and has successfully resisted government attempts to place it under the control of the Ministry of Labor. 
      Of all the civil law countries, Communist countries historically went the farthest towards total state control, with all Communist lawyers forced to practice in collectives by the mid-1950s. China is a prime example: technically, the People's Republic of China did not have lawyers, and instead had only poorly-trained, state-employed "legal workers," prior to the enactment of a comprehensive reform package in 1996 by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. 
      In contrast, common law lawyers have traditionally regulated themselves through institutions where the influence of non-lawyers, if any, was weak and indirect (despite nominal state control). Such institutions have been traditionally dominated by private practitioners who opposed strong state control of the profession on the grounds that it would endanger the ability of lawyers to zealously and competently advocate their clients' causes in the adversarial system of justice.
      The concept of the self-regulating profession has been criticized as a sham which serves to legitimize the professional monopoly while protecting the profession from public scrutiny. Disciplinary mechanisms have been astonishingly ineffective, and penalties have been light or nonexistent.
      A key difference among countries is whether lawyers should be regulated solely by an independent judiciary and its subordinate institutions (a self-regulating legal profession), or whether lawyers should be subject to supervision by the Ministry of Justice in the executive branch, legislatures or executive branches..
      If you want to review or see the problems in this country – you only have to look at our Federal Government that is now over run with these Vermin?? Have to love the election process…..

2013 Legislative Ideas and Principles

As we head into this legislative session a few ideas and principles to pass along for a successful 2013! Good luck to all of you!!

Conservative Ideas - Building A Solid Foundation

Suggestions:

Accountability for Government

1)     Setting up the Redress of Grievances Committee. This committee will meet year round. This has been implemented or reintroduced in New Hampshire.

2)     Special Grand Juries - Complaints will come before them only after other legal remedies have been exhausted. The Juries should have the power to strip those judges of their protection of judicial immunity who are the subject of complaints for criminal acts and be able to investigate, indict, and initiate criminal prosecution of wayward judges and public officials.

3)     Executive and Legislative Branch Adoption of Originalism - Both the executive and legislative branches should be encouraged to adopt originalism as a mode of constitutional analysis when deciding on the constitutionality of executive and legislative branch actions and the constitutionality of legislation.

4)     Recall Statutes - Every elected official in the State can be recalled except for judges. This practice must end.

5)     A Public Integrity Act - This bill would allow or give the Attorney General the power to investigate Color of law violations and other criminal violations of “ANY” public employees in their capacity to do their jobs. This law would allow the Attorney General to go into any county without invitation to investigate these types of problems to prevent local corruption as well as suspend or place on administrative leave any public employee, or recommend a Grand jury investigation of those allegations.

6)     Secure the 2^nd Amendment for the State. Conceal carry on campus’s and public buildings.

7)     Cut State spending projects and employees. Many jobs can be supported through private business and contracts.

8)     Take the courts out of the family business - Domestic Courts were never designed or intend to be punitive. These courts were set up after the Constitution was written and to use the same adversarial settings as criminal courts is an absolute abomination to our society. Courts will no longer be able to order, hold or take children without documented evidence.

9)     Add voluntary "Citizen Review Boards/Panels". These can be selected by the County Commissioners, or others that provide for “NO” Judicial tampering or interference in this process. Mandate for every county.

10)  Immigration – Illegal means “Illegal”. We must stop the public funding of these individuals. There is a system and laws in place to be here “Legally”. This goes for schools, colleges, etc.

11)  Major reform in “not sending people to jail” for non-aggravated crimes i.e. (child support, trespassing, and other misdemeanors) to reduce the taxpayer cost. Consider fines for marijuana possession rather than jail terms or arrest? We do not have to participate in this "war on drugs" ignorance.

12)  Make major cuts in the funding of SRS, Youthville and other services that interfere in child development and family settings with a “state first” mentality.

13)  Making sure Capital punishment is instituted and carried out. That murder, rape, aggravated crimes are penalized accordingly for the crime.

  

Judicial Branch

1)     State ballots in 2014? Let the citizens of Kansas elect of our District court Judges for the state process.

2)     State ballots in 2014? Change the Constitution for the selection of the Supreme Court Justices.

3)     Change the Statutory law for the selection of the Appellate Court Justices. A Governor selection with a Senate majority approval..

        a.     HB 2101http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/hb2101_00_0000.pdf

        b.     SCR 1606 http://24.123.107.252/blackbelt_kf/FMPro.php?-DB=BillTracker_KS_109&-lay=Description&-format=Bill_Detail_House_109.html&-RecID=706&-find

4)     Make sure the Statutory laws for the selection of the District Court and Magistrate judges can be opened up to (non-attorneys) and allow them to serve by the age of 18, as Texas has done for decades.

5)     Create voting Districts for both the Supreme and Appellate Courts. Give the State balance in representation on the State Courts.

6)     Look at taking the “retention votes” for State Judges to 75% to retain them, or raising them.

7)     No Judicial Immunity for Judges or others within the court system. Immunity was reserved for the legislators only in the Kansas Constitution.

8)     Abolish Judgeships and Lower Courts - The Constitution vests Congress with the power to create and abolish all courts, with the sole exception of the Supreme Court.

9)     Cutting court staff - It would be more cost effective to have video recorded court hearings, eliminating the need to pay a transcriptionist to transcribe the record of every hearing. You would only need to cite the record and the time, which would be recorded on the video. Voice inflection, body language and gestures would now be seen. Reduces cost!

10)  Limiting the General Application of a Judicial Decision - As the head of the executive branch, a Governor can command all executive branch agencies or its sub contracted agencies in certain circumstances to limit the application of a Supreme Court decision to only the litigants involved and otherwise ignore it as a rule of general application.

11)  The court lacks jurisdiction anytime it denies you the Bill of Rights or Amendments, especially Due Process. Any judges orders issued under these conditions are to be void immediately when found.

12)  Anyone can assist others in the courtroom. SCR 5.5 Law Firms and Associations: This legislation does not, in any way shape manner or form, define a non-lawyer assisting others, whereby it was legal to assist others in the State of Kansas. These rules were put in place originally for only disbarred attorneys. The practice of common law is a public arena, in which all those who are caught up in it are always advised that there is no excuse for ignorance of the law. Multiple areas of the law that are presented by non-attorney’s every day are (police, real estate agents, law clerks, lobbyist, etc. the courts cannot be allowed to regulate non-attorney’s.

13)  Judges will no longer hide behind "Broad Discretion or Best interest of the child" terms in Domestic or Juvenile Courts. The courts are using this term to expedite court settings without vetting the cases properly. These are parents not criminals. We took away the discretion from judges when it came to sentencing criminals or clearly limited their ability or range to sentence criminals with the National guidelines. This was due to their inability to do their jobs properly or consistently. When it comes to families these judges are using the bench to intimidate and place fear in these citizens and their families - this must stop.

14)  Case Management will be voided in whole state statute 23-3507. Limited Case Management and Mediation will be available to the parties and the courts, but actually having an individual trying to run families day to day affairs from afar and through the courts is over. This social experiment of government/judicial branch has gone awry and must end.

15)  All children over the age of 10 will be allowed to testify. This legislation already exists now in Chapter 38. Both Domestic and Juvenile Courts should be using this legislation. Statute 38-2262: Placement; testimony of certain children. We have to get the courts and the State Judiciary away from this idea that they are in control of our kids until 18 simply because someone filed for a divorce
.

16)  All Juvenile and Domestic courts will offer to the parties juries of their peers. Currently judges are singularly ruling and controlling the cases by acting as Judge, jury and prosecutor. This is not working in favor of the public and or the citizens or the laws of this state.

17)  Public debate and voting of the legislature in the "Child Support Guidelines" to make them LAW. The Supreme is drafting these without a single vote of our legislature being cast. Many states use legislative committees without the Judiciary even being involved. This is a public issue being railroaded through the Judiciary. The idea that we are using a broken formula to penalize nonresidential parents, while asking them to pay child support percentages that are ridiculously high and then compounding it with having them pay shared expenses is barbaric. The state is intentionally trying to hurt one parent in this setting. Even putting them in jail for nonpayment and it's not even law or been approved by our congress.

Schools

               

Suggestions:

1)     Move toward removing the State BOE. I realize this too is a constitutional matter to change but this entity is simply inept. The school districts have the representation of legislators the same as the public. The school districts have not been redrawn or moved in over 50 years, this single item has led to school districts running into different city limits and making wasteful use of tax payer dollars to bus student that would no longer even be bused to closer schools.

2)     Hire an Independent company to evaluate each school district in the State and review its efficiency and cost per student. By learning the “true” cost associated with education and its expenditures we will never “really” know how to fix the problem. Schools are administration heavy, with an emphasis on classroom size rather than quality of education. These reports should be used by the legislature and Governor to ascertain better solutions to a growing problem of “out of control spending” and better review how certain school districts are not cost effective.

3)     Serious consideration needs to be applied to a “voucher system” for the citizens of this state. Kansan’s deserve more choices and their kids deserve an education worthy of competition.

4)     Any type of formula that allows other formulas to add to the states cost. School Districts continue to have bonds and expect the state to cover the bonds without a single legislator vote or the cost or impact to our budget. Lobbyist group continually insists on tax increases and demands more funding without any accountability for public education – PERIOD!

5)     Focus needs to be on “Special programs”, Special schools, and the needs for busing. Schools are not being responsible for this cost and providing them as a “want” not a need. Any advanced courses or college classes in high school should clearly have more students due to the very nature of the course in preparing them accordingly.

6)     School years can be shortened to eliminate enormous amounts of cost in August and May due to the Heat.

7)     Collective Bargaining for Public Employees needs to end.

8)     Privatizing KPRS.

9)     Bond and Interest formulas have to be reformed so that our legislators have to review before acted on.

10)  End the Kansas Board of Regents ability to continue to increase tuition rates yearly and at ridiculous rates.

Overall State Expenditures

Suggestions:

Tags staying on the vehicles. Texas assigns the tag to the vehicle so there is no additional cost for tags every 2-4 years. Eliminates tag offices except for new cars. The rest of the registration can be done on line. (21^st century?)

Toll fees still being incurred for 35 Turnpike. A 10 year toll that has lasted 50 years. Turn the road over to the counties and eliminate the tolls.

Tax reform, to stop increasing “Property Taxes” on retired seniors with fixed incomes. This defies logic.

Focus on ending stupid State permits and licensing that are burdensome. http://www.businesslicenses.com/licenses.php 

 The Department of Health will create a process for anything, tanning, dairy, raffle, tattoos, nails, Barbers and Cosmetologists would no longer need to be licensed. It’s these type regulations that are killing small business and if the daily individual can’t select their barber or the fact that people cut their own hair – then we are in trouble. Let alone the fact that “not having” these may lead to your imprisonment or the government fining them. We have dog licenses, hunting licenses, park permits, boat permits, garage sale permits, trash permit, just how much needs to be charged for?? Common Sense must prevail.

Laws like this:  Pedestrians crossing the highways at night must wear tail lights.