During Youssef’s final disposition hearing he told the committee “”I received [the GAL report] the morning of the hearing” to which committee chairman Paul Ingbretson replied ”I would refer to this as abuse we do have a serious issue with this because of every kind of due process but it also constitutes an RSA breach.”  Representative Dan Itse noted “there is a clear disconnect between the state’s statement of purpose for a parenting plan… the state would have to show that it is detrimental for his son not to be in contact with him, where the position of the court order puts without showing it is detrimental, puts the stipulation as to when contact should resume.”

Based on a review of the court record as well as the testimony and documentation provided to the committee, it is clear to Judicial Child Abuse that the judges and marital masters involved exerted arbitrary and capricious jurisprudence in suspending Mr. Youssef’s visitation and parental rights for approximately 13 months.  The committee voted 8-2 in favor of Mr. Youssef’s petition and recommendations, and added its own recommendations based on the widespread due process violations administered by the courts.  Three members of the committee abstained from voting due to the fact that they are supporters and endorsers of Mr. Youssef’s bid for N.H. Senate in District 7 (www.joshfornh.com).  The three abstaining noted that they would have voted in favor of the petition based solely on the evidence, but chose to stand above reproach.

Mr. Youssef stated “we will bring accountability to this government whether by agreement or by legislatition, but either way, those in positions of authority must realize that they are accountable to the citizens.  The moment the public loses confidence in the judiciary, the legislature must completely reform the Court system and remove all actors whose behaviors have eroded the integrity of our great state.”  Youssef continued “there are a lot of victims of this flawed ideology and a one-size-fits-all N.H. court system that is both unfair and lacking jurisprudential integrity.  The people must insist that the balance be restored.  This is just the beginning.”

For extensive coverage please visit http://www.youtube.com/gatecitychroniclesnh

THE NEW HAMPSHIRE DECLARATION OF ABJURATION AND REFORMATION

As it is apparent to all that a government is constituted by a sovereign people to administer the will of the people, to defend them from oppression and violence; and whereas God did not create the people slaves to their government, to obey its commands, whether right or wrong, but rather God created a people imbued with reason, who established a government for their common benefit, protection, and security: to administer the laws and rules the people have found right and meet to establish for mutual peace and prosperity, to witness in the body politic the inexpressible love the Creator has manifested in his creation of natural law, and to defend and preserve themselves, even at the hazard of life, in support of the convictions their Creator has placed in their hearts.

Whenever the ends of government are manifestly endangered and the power delegated to the government is perverted to oppress the people in their practices and beliefs, seeking opportunities to infringe on their ancient customs and rights, exacting from them a slavish compliance, then this is no longer a government approved by God and constituted by the people, but a tyrannous mob, and the people must consider it in no other view. This condition is more particularly venomous when this usurpation is done deliberately, unauthorized by the people or by their representatives. When such a time arises in the course of human events, the people may not only disallow this authority, but lawfully put aside and abjure this government and its officers for the choice of an administration and officers more favored in the light of their own eyes. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of all humanity.

This is the only method left for people whose humble petitions and pleadings have never softened the hardened hearts of the administrators of a government, nor have dissuaded officers from the tyrannous progress of their designs. This is what the law of nature and our sovereign God dictate for the defense of liberty, which we have an obligation to pass down to our posterity, even at the hazard of our own lives.

Now, thus, we have seen numerous acts of violence and tyranny exacted by judges and officers of the courts of New Hampshire on its sovereign citizens:

Judges have allowed children to be taken from fit parents in secret hearings without recourse to the law for many years.

Judges have unlawfully removed children from the care of their fit parents, then continued to deny the familial love and interest of the children and their parents, by violating criminal laws to cover up the original unlawful removal and to fabricate evidence against the already aggrieved parents to cover up the first crimes against the families.

Judges have allowed friends of the court to claim the authority of the court without appointment, to claim fees for services never contracted, to determine court decisions without hearing, and then to threaten the abused, who refused to pay and refused these services, with indefinite incarceration merely for objecting to the court’s authority to ignore the law.

Judges have violated laws of the legislature, then, refusing to recuse themselves from their criminal trials, participated as both criminal defendant and judge, exonerating themselves of wrongdoing.

Judges have created, sua sponte, a class of individuals, guardians ad litem, who have the full authority of judges to go about the people and report back to the judges alleged crimes and infractions, which the judges then act upon without trial, incarcerating citizens, threatening and denying them liberty, and taking their property without any recourse in law against said guardians and their false reports.

Judges have unlawfully removed children in secret hearings from the care of fit parents for the practice of Christian worship, prayer, Bible study, and attendance at church, for many years without recourse to a hearing.

Judges have neglected the best interests of our children by rejecting the statutes the New Hampshire General Court enacted to protect families under RSA 461-A, Parental Rights and Responsibilities.

Judges have denied parents federally protected rights of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law and without equal protection under the law.

Judges have knowingly and willfully violated their own code of Judicial Conduct in woeful disregard of impartiality and fairness, have demonstrated abject bias and prejudice against parents, have denied parents the right to be heard in court, have compelled parents to bear witness against themselves, demanded excessive bail and incarcerated parents when challenged to conform to the law that their own oaths demand they uphold.

Judges have denied parents the right to counsel, the right to be heard, and have ignored the numerous petitions to rectify these plain errors of the court, resulting in yet further abuse and injury of parents and their children.

Judges have denied the right to freedom of the press, after one of their own was documented on video and before the eyes of the world ordering a false arrest and alleging infamous and non-existent crimes against a journalist.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury only. A government whose every act is thus marked by the above-cited injuries and abuses is unfit to administer the will of a free and sovereign people. It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is, therefore, not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, that the judges of the courts should hold their offices so long as they behave well.

So, despairing of any hope from the courts and finding no other remedy, we have, agreeable to the law of nature and to our own sovereign liberty in our own defense and for maintaining the rights, privileges and liberties of our fellow citizens and our future posterity from being enslaved by the courts, do hereby abjure and renounce the authority of the courts and pursue such methods as appear to us most likely to secure our ancient liberties and rights. Being reduced to the last extremity, as witnessed by the foul acts above, we have unanimously and deliberately declared that the courts of New Hampshire have forfeited, ipso jure, all authority over the people of this State, and we also are determined henceforward not to acknowledge the courts’ authority or jurisdiction, but rather to dissolve their existence from across the breadth and width of the land.

We, therefore, the People of the State of New Hampshire, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do solemnly publish and declare the following acts of abjuration and reformation of the courts.

Pass CACR 26.

Rededicate Cheshire Superior Court as Thomas Ball Memorial Court of Cheshire County.

Convene a Constitutional Convention July 1, 2013, in Concord to reform and re-establish the Courts of the State, according to the will of the people and their representatives.

In this article, courtesy of the national organization “Fathers and Families” (fathersandfamilies.org), Robert Franklin, Esq. sheds light on the Vandenberg experience enduring N.H. Family Court corruption.

David Vandenberg: Fit Father Denied All Contact with Daughter for 2 1/2 Years

May 23rd, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

The problem is that the DV industry always cites stats that the denial of the “safeguards” will harm women.  They neglect to say that this same statute defines domestic violence as occurring from a man to a woman only.  So all the woman-on-man domestic violence is defined out of the law.  So, if a woman stabs a man in an act of DV.  It cannot be classified for statistical purposes as DV.  It will be classified as an assault and battery.

The bill is wholly sexist in its protection of women only.  That’s why it’s called the Violence Against Women Act.  To find accurate statistics about DV, you have to go to the Health and Human Services Department, not the DOJ, Department of Justice.  Because of VAWA, DV against men does not exist.  Does this remind you of your fun in family court, in which you are not allowed to submit evidence or provide witnesses?  Well, you are also not allowed to be a victim of domestic violence, by definition of VAWA.  So, the family court rarely considers DV against men, because they deem it not to occur.

To find accurate DV statistics, you have to go to the Department of Health and Human Services.  In the 40 years that they have kept statistics about DV in every county in the US, they have found that the statistics do not change.  Women are slightly more likely to initiate DV, 55% to 45%.  Women are 100% more likely to commit DV against their own children.  Women are 400% more likely to kill their own children than fathers.  These stats come from medical clinics not from the courts, where DV by women has been “deemed” not to occur.

So why are the Dems so excited by VAWA?  Because it is about power, not about protection.  The power to bring in female illegal immigrants and grant them automatic residency if they make allegations.  The power to begin control of tribal courts.  The power to control college boards.  The power to control men and their resources by just leveling a few false allegations, which as Jack Lightfoot and Timothy Horrigan say, “Must be true” just because a woman made them.  And really they do have to be true, legally, because VAWA defines them not to occur against men, legally.

You need to get on the phone and call your federal reps and get them to support the House version of VAWA, which eliminates these new changes that the feminists and the DV industry will use to further the use of secret courts, secret allegations, and secret accusers.

By Annmarie Timmins / Monitor staff

May 20, 2012

IS NEW HAMPSHIRE failing kids? New Hampshire was one of 10 states to earn an F on legal protections for children in a report released last week by two national child advocacy groups.

Maine failed too, but not the Granite State’s other neighbors: Massachusetts got an A+ and Vermont an A.

Where did we fail? In most categories, according to First Start and the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego Law School.

New Hampshire scored a 58 out of 100. Bringing down the grade were these factors:

• New Hampshire law does not mandate that a child get an attorney in abuse and neglect cases.

• While the state requires guardians ad litem to have specialized training, it does not require abuse and neglect attorneys who are not guardians ad litem to be similarly trained.

• The state does not limit the caseload for attorneys handling abuse and neglect cases.

The state did earn a perfect score for one thing. State law grants a child in these cases legal status and assures they have rights.

The state’s handling of child abuse and neglect cases made headlines last year, but for a different reason. Citing budget shortfalls, the state no longer provides a lawyer to parents charged with abuse or neglect of a child.

Mike Ostrowski, president of Child and Family Services, said he was not surprised by the state’s grade. The state budget eliminated money for the guardian ad litem office, and the state is out of sync with national groups that believe children need their own attorney in abuse and neglect cases.

Ostrowski said the state’s decision to cease giving parents attorneys in abuse and neglect cases hurts the kids as well as the parents. “It’s in everyone’s best interest,” he said.

 

Josh stands for equality between the genders and for what is in the best interests of the children.  He does not believe that the Family Court should have the broad and overreaching discretion to intervene in the private realm of the families of fit parents to the extent that they do under the current runaway judicial model.

Those interested in volunteering on Josh’s campaign or donating to help support the expense of running this race to help bring parents’ rights back to concord should visit his campaign website at:  http://www.joshfornh.com

Recently, Dr. Vandenberg appeared on Rep. Kevin Avard’s Speak UP! TV and explained in some detail the travails of being ensnared in the N.H. Family Court.

Here, we share with you one of several motions to remove a corrupt N.H. Family Court official:  You may also download it in PDF format here

1. For the purposes of this example, Supreme Court Rule 3 (“SCR3”) states in relevant part:

“A mandatory appeal shall be accepted by the supreme court for review on the merits… A mandatory appeal is an appeal from a final decision on the merits issued by a… family division court, that is in compliance with these rules. Provided, however, that the following appeals are NOT mandatory appeals:

(1) an appeal…
(2) …
(9) an appeal from a final decision on the merits issued in, or arising out of, a domestic relations matter filed under RSA Title XLIII (RSA chapters 457 to 461-A); provided, however, that an appeal from a final divorce decree or decree of legal separation shall be a mandatory appeal.”

2. If subparagraph (9) of SCR3 is an exception to the rule that all appeals are mandatory, then the portion of the same subparagraph highlighted in red would serve to indicate “an exception to the exception.”

3. The exception to the exception only applies to the class of inhabitants known as “married” people or “civilly-unified people, but does not grant the same mandatory appeal to “unmarried” people.
-On its face, the rule is discriminatory and is a violation of both state and federal constitutions, in addition to both state and federal law.

4. Supreme Court Rule 3(9) can be more easily read:

“All appeals in New Hampshire are mandatory except for the following nine exceptions, but if you are a married or civilly-unified person, exception (9) does not apply to you.”

5. That foundation is important to understand exactly why Judiciary rule-making is misplaced in the hierarchy of the body of lawmaking, making its home in Pt.2, Art. 73-A of the Constitution, and precisely why it should be placed at the statutory level. The following real-life example will demonstrate why:

a. In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630 (2011) Mr. Miller, an unmarried father, appealed a decision from the Portsmouth Family Division. For the purposes of this discussion, the merits of the case are not relevant.

b. His appeal was filed as a discretionary appeal because of the SCR3 (9) exception, and was denied.

c. He filed a motion to reconsider arguing that SCR3(9) is unconstitutionally discriminatory based on marital status.

d. On motion to reconsider, his appeal was accepted, but on a discretionary basis, not on a mandatory basis. Arguendo, the Supreme Court was very concerned that Miller had just uncovered a major problem within its rule-making paradigm that could quite possibly shine light on an even bigger problem.

e. His substantive appeal addressed numerous questions, but for the purposes of this example, the important question addressed is “is SCR3(9) constitutional?”

f. As it turns out, the N.H. Supreme Court overturned the trial court’s ruling, answering most of Miller’s questions.

g. But, at p.645 of the opinion, the Supreme Court declined to opine as to the constitutionality of SCR3(9), because it decided to accept the appeal on a discretionary basis.

-(The legal theory behind this maneuver is that the Supreme Court is prohibited from issuing “advisory opinions,” or in other words, they don’t rule on hypotheticals to give advice to the public on as to the lawfulness of any topic. (except for “opinions of the justices” in answer to parliamentary inquiry, etc.))

h. In utilizing this tactic, the N.H. Supreme Court “prevented” Miller from actually being injured by the prima facie unlawfulness SCR3(9), therefore giving him no legal basis upon which to ask the question as to whether the rule is constitutional or not. Essentially, the Supreme Court insulated itself from the need to review the constitutionality of its own rule.

In conclusion, because the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the constitution and of legislative intent, vesting rule-making authority in them at the constitutional level creates an unsolvable constitutional puzzle. The authority must be removed from this hierarchical position.