Saturday, September 29, 2012

Published report claims against CPS---Goal is to adopt out America's Children---Alarming Statistics

published report claims against CPS----Goal is to adopt out America's Children

Georgia State Senator Nancy Schaefer published a report "The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services" making many claims against CPS including:[18]
  • Unfair judgement of families, especially those most unable to defend themselves. Without compassion, unreasonable and impossible demands that separate families and cause stress are made of parents.
  • Local governments accustomed to resulting flow of taxpayer dollars to balance growing budgets routinely ignore charges against Child Protective Services. Funding continues as long as children are out of their home, adoption bonuses are also available, but no incentive remains to return children home.
  • On top of of $4000-$6000 per child is a multiplying factor based on the percentage that a state exceeds its baseline adoption goal.
  • Bonuses and incentives cause employees to work diligently to exploit children for government money while parents are charged for the cost of their care. Fraud, fabrication, withholding, and destroying of evidence, unnecessary termination of parental rights, and double dipping are common while confidentiality clause is used to protect the beneficiaries.
  • Beneficiaries include state employees, lawyers, court investigators, guardian ad litems, court personnel, judges, psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, caseworkers, therapists, foster parents, adoptive parents, and others. Incentives to put children on more drugs per day involve additional funds and Medicaid.
  • Parents are sometimes pressured by CPS agents to divorce their spouse in order to see their children again. Parental cooperation is often interpreted as guilt, and parents separated from their children are treated as criminals often without access to visit or even see their children.
  • Child protective services is a wasteful bureaucracy with no clear leader and unclear policies. State legislators are generally powerless to correct the federally mandated system.
  • Tragedies happen where children die in CPS custody due to neglect or abuse while parents are trying hard to regain custody of their children. Such tragedies should never happen.
  • While CPS claims relatives are contacted, there are very many cases that proves false, where grandparents and other relatives attempt to get custody and are denied. Parents and grandparents lose all connections to their heirs while children lose their heritage.
  • The California Little Hoover Commission Report in 2003 reported that 30% to 70% of the children in California group homes neither belong there nor should have been removed from their own homes.
  • Children are in far greater danger in CPS custody today than in imperfect homes. The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect reported in 1998 that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public. Children removed to official “safety” are far more likely to suffer sexual molestation and other abuse than in the general population.

Friday, September 28, 2012

Voice for the Marginalized, Call for Alignment

Voice for the Marginalized, Call for Alignment.

One of my calls in life is to defend those that are helpless, oppressed and marginalized in society. To defend the rights of children and their families, the weak, and those whose voices are not heard amongst the frenzied pursuit of happiness. There's too much pursuit of happiness (egoism) and we don't realize that we hurt the poor and defenseless with the actions we take to please self.

Let's help those in need in whatever form. Let's be mindful of those who are less fortunate than us. I am not saying that we should not enjoy prosperity, but what I am saying is that we thank our Creator for what blessings that have been bestowed upon us with a spirit of gratitude and to not forget the less fortunate. Cause what lies in the heart is what matters most.

What is the condition of your heart??? Is it cold as ice? Do you step on another person's toes in an attempt to get ahead? Check your heart, does it need a tune up or do you need a major service done in your heart? Do you need some "heart work" done?

Book of Isaiah Ch.1:17 says: "Learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.

Old school rap song, Ice cube & Das EFX say: "Chickity-check yo self before you wreck yo self, cause shot gun bullets are bad for your health..."

by Lynn Marie on Thursday, June 2, 2011!/2012/09/voice-for-marginalized-call-for.html

Voice of Reason Book by Bryant McGill

Voice of Reason
Speaking to the Great and Good Spirit of Revolution of Mind

ΠΑΤΡΟΤΗΣ-ΓΟΝΕΑΣ-ΣΥΓΑΠΑ: 28 Σεπτ. 2012 Φωτογραφίες & βίντεο

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Holding a sign asking for money protected as freedom of speech. Grand Rapids, Michigan...USA

    A recent ruling struck down the Michigan ordinance against Panhandling. The ACLU went to court for a local Homeless Air Force Veteran. The defendant from Grand Rapids is a recognized face on off ramps from the 131 expressway with a sign requesting cash. Them Michigan Panhandling law did not pass constitutional muster because the court ruled that (Even though inconvenient and a bad image for a thriving community) someone asking for financial help is considered freedom of speech. A link to the entire document for this ruling is posted here.

    This is a section of the ruling summary for quick browsing>

    The Defendant, Mr. Speet is an adult resident of Grand Rapids, Michigan and has been homeless for approximately two years. (Verified Compl., docket # 1, at ¶ 21.) He receives food stamps, and he gleans cash by collecting and redeeming bottles, cans, and scrap metal. (Id. at ¶ 22.) He has no other sources of income. He occasionally seeks assistance from others by holding up a sign asking for work or help. 
    (Id. at ¶¶ 22-23.) When seeking work or help, Mr. Speet holds up a sign but does not approach passersby directly. (Id. at ¶ 24.) Mr. Speet sees himself as informing people about his situation and his need for help by holding up his sign. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Some of his signs have read, for example, "Cold and Hungry, God Bless," and "Need Job, God Bless." (Id. at ¶ ¶ 30, 40.) He has obtained odd jobs, such as mowing lawns, and painting a garage, from individuals seeing his sign.
    (Id. at ¶ 27.) Mr. Speet was arrested and prosecuted in Grand Rapids twice for begging in 2011. (Id. at ¶ 29.) On one of those occasions, he was jailed. 
    (Id. at ¶ 43.) He has also been arrested and prosecuted for begging elsewhere in Michigan. (Id. at ¶ 44.)
    Mr. Sims, an adult resident of Grand Rapids, is an Air Force veteran. (Id. at ¶ 52.) He has a disability and receives approximately $260 per month in state disability insurance. (Id.) He also receives food stamps. (Id.) Mr. Sims attends Grand Rapids Community College, in pursuit of a career in electronics. 
    (Id. at ¶ 53.) He occasionally begs for money, typically by asking individuals if they can spare change for a veteran, and moving on if the individual declines. 
    (Id. at ¶¶ 54-55.) Mr. Sims was prosecuted for begging several times in Grand Rapids in 2005. (Id. at 56.) On July
    4, 2011, Mr. Sims was arrested for begging in Grand Rapids after he asked a person on the street 2
    Case 1:11-cv-00972-RJJ Doc #25 Filed 08/24/12 Page 2 of 16 Page ID#350 whether that person could spare some change. (Id. at ¶¶ 59-60.) He ultimately pled guilty to a panhandling charge and was fined $100.
    The statute under which Mr. Speet and Mr. Sims were arrested, prosecuted, and punished provides:
    (1) A person is a disorderly person if the person is any of the following: ....
    (h) a person found begging in a public place.
    MICH. COMP. L. § 750.167(1)(h). A person convicted under section 750.167(1)(h) is "guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both." MICH. COMP. L. § 750.168(1).
    The State of Michigan and the City of Grand Rapids (collectively, the "government") assert that Michigan's statutory ban on public begging is constitutional on its face, and they emphasize that the statute serves several desirable purposes. According to the government, the ban helps businesses, because the presence of people begging in or near business establishments may deter others from patronizing those businesses. The government also emphasizes that the ban on begging helps prevent fraud, because beggars may not use the contributions for the purposes donors intend. Indeed, the government observes, some beggars may use such contributions for alcohol and illegal drugs.
    The government also points out that begging can be intimidating or annoying to others and that the ban helps protect the public from harassment.
    Mr. Speet and Mr. Sims contend that the statute is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, "because it is a content-based restriction on protected speech in a public forum that is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, and because it prohibits a substantial 3 Case 1:11-cv-00972-RJJ Doc #25 Filed 08/24/12 Page 3 of 16 Page ID#351 amount of protected speech," and also facially unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, "because it prohibits individuals who wish to beg from engaging in protected First Amendment activity in public places, while allowing other persons to engage in First Amendment Activity in public places." (Id. at ¶¶ 123, 129.)

    Legal Analysis
    The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Through the Fourteenth Amendment, this prohibition applies to state and local governments as well. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940); Parks v. City of Columbus, 395 F.3d 643, 647 (6th Cir. 2005). The Fourteenth Amendment also forbids state and local governments from denying to any person within their jurisdictions the equal protection of the laws. "Only a statute that is substantially overbroad may be invalidated on its face." City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 458 (1987) (citations omitted). Whether a statute is substantially overbroad depends primarily upon whether it reaches a substantial amount of protected speech or conduct. Id. (citing Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494 (1982). That it
    is possible to conceive an impermissible application, without more, does not render a statute facially overbroad. However, statutes "that make unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct may be held facially invalid even if they have legitimate application." 
    Id. Criminal statutes "must be scrutinized with particular care." Id. at 459.
    I. First Amendment
    To resolve Plaintiffs' facial challenge to the statute under the First Amendment, the Court must first determine whether begging includes speech or expressive conduct protected under the First Amendment. Bays v. City of Fairborn, 668 F.3d 814, 820 (6th Cir. 2012). If begging is protected 4 Case 1:11-cv-00972-RJJ Doc #25 Filed 08/24/12 Page 4 of 16 Page ID#352 speech or expressive conduct, First Amendment protections are triggered, and the Court must determine whether the government has justified its ban on begging. Miller v. City of Cincinnati, 622
    F.3d 524, 533 (6th Cir. 2010). In making that determination, the Court considers the scope of the restriction, examining particularly whether the restriction is content-specific and to what forums the restriction applies. Id. In general, the more a content-based speech restriction applies to traditional public forums, as opposed to more limited venues, the stricter the scrutiny, and the less likely the restriction will pass muster.
    Id. A. Begging Includes Protected Speech and Expressive Conduct.
    Begging plainly conveys a message: it communicates, whether verbally or non-verbally, a request for financial or material assistance. A beggar's message is analogous to other charitable solicitation: in both situations, the speaker is soliciting financial assistance, the beggar for him or herself, and the charitable fundraiser for a third party. Courts have held repeatedly that charitable solicitations are a form of protected speech. Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 633 (1980) (citing Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940);
    Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945); Hynes v. Mayor of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610 (1976); Bates v.
    State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). It is well-established that "[c]haritable appeals for
    funds, on the street or door to door, involve a variety of speech interests – communication of
    information, the dissemination and propagation of views and ideas, and the advocacy of causes – that
    are within the protection of the First Amendment." 
    Id. The same rationale logically applies to begging, which involves similar speech interests. As the Second Circuit observes, [w]hile . . . begging does not always involve the transmission of a particularized social or political message . . . it usually involves some communication of that nature.
    Begging frequently is accompanied by speech indicating the need for food, shelter, clothing, medical care or transportation. Even without particularized speech,
    5 Case 1:11-cv-00972-RJJ Doc #25 Filed 08/24/12 Page 5 of 16 Page ID#353
    however, the presence of . . . [a] person holding out his or her hand or a cup to receive a donation itself conveys a message of need for support and assistance. We see little difference between those who solicit for organized charities and those who solicit for themselves in regard to the message conveyed. The former are communicating the needs of others while the latter are communicating their personal needs. Both solicit the charity of others. The distinction is not a significant one for First Amendment purposes.
    Loper v. New York City Police Department, 999 F.2d 699, 704 (2d Cir. 1993). See also Smith v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 177 F.3d 954, 956 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[l]ike other charitable solicitation, begging is speech entitled to First Amendment protection."). For First Amendment purposes, begging and charitable solicitations are both entitled to protection.
    Begging may, of course, take the form of expressive conduct rather than verbal speech. When a beggar wordlessly extends a container for donations, for example, the conduct expresses the message of indigence and request for assistance. The First Amendment protects expressive conduct as well as speech. Though the "government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word . . . [i]t may not proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 407 (1989). "The First Amendment generally prevents government from proscribing speech . . . or even expressive
    conduct . . . because of disapproval of the ideas expressed." R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377,
    382 (1992) (citations omitted). Regardless of whether begging is characterized as speech, expressive conduct, or a combination of the two, it is entitled to protection under the First Amendment.
    The government points out that begging can include conduct elements, such as fraudulent statements; confrontational interaction; trespassing on private property; or other disagreeable
    behavior that has the potential to interfere with businesses serving the public. This is, of course, true of most speech, including both begging and other charitable solicitation. Here, the Michigan statute
    6v sweeps the speech, expression, and conduct elements into a single category of "begging." Because speech and expression are in the mix, the protections of the First Amendment apply.

    B. The Government's Asserted Basis for the Ban of Begging Does not Pass Constitutional Muster.

    Re: Corporatocracy and how it destroyed everything our country was founded on.

    Walter &; Curtis,

    This is a quick a addendum to my "change wishes" and a little more personal:

    My parents (both objectively brilliant but with emotional baggage) were divorced when I was 3 so, despite my pedigree, I lived in student housing and had government provided school lunches in my early education years.  Having grown up in Santa Barbara (playground for the rich), there was always a clear distinction between who was a landowner/business versus a worker.  As Los Angeles encroached further north to Santa Barbara, the artsy, unique boutiques went away and were replaced by the Gap and Old Navy's of today.  I was going to churches, temples, Indian sweats and mosques with my mother as she got her 2d Masters in Religious Studies.  I learned so much about faith growing up and dinner conversations were mostly about politics and world religions. :o)

    Later, in my rebellion years, I was lucky that my my mom had insurance for me because I was very self destructive and made many teenager unsafe teen experiments.  I was lucky to have found a recovery/support group that nurtured me through to my twenties.  This foundation allowed me to start back at point A and to find a purpose.  My purpose has been found and it is to help humanity and the planet.  I especially love children and want to save them the brunt of all my mistakes through lack of emotional support.

    The primary problem we are facing boils down to greed.  The only way we can start anew is to 1) Amend the constitution to protect us folks from the banks, wall street, corporations and the "frozen chosen" at the top.  This shift from love/compassion and away from greed and corruption.  The other alternative is to re-create our own utopia.  Government and corporations can't hear us.  Why not an intentional community where we live in balance and harmony with our planet, as nature intended.

    Had I been a child now, rather than in the 1970s, my prospects for nutritious food, decent education and job opportunities would be limited unless I was wealthy.  That is not healthy for a democracy and is a great formula for collapse.  Perhaps collapse is what has to happen before people choose one another over profit. If money is a society's only value, there is no "civilization."  Lastly, our leaders have to represent us, not the frozen chosen.  The only way this happens is through true election reform.  Rigging the system is against every noble notion of our foregathers.

    Thanks, adp

    From: Curtis Occupy Globally Bard <>
    To: "" <>; Angela <>
    Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:10 PM
    Subject: Re: Corporatocracy and how it destroyed everything our country was founded on.


    Via Walter Davis

    That is the email address:<> to send POSTS into the citizens demanding justice blog.....

    My email for all other things is:

    On September 25, 2012 7:14:42 AM PDT, Angela wrote:

    Corporatocracy and how it destroyed everything our country was founded on.
    My pedigree as both a descendent of the Mayflower (Bradford) and the American Revolution (several ancestors) is solid.  I was born in 1971, when the shift of "we" back to an "I" society was coalescing in the late 70's, in the name of evangelicals, war profiteers, bankers and multinational corporations that didn't want to be bothered with regulation.  These regulations have destroyed the fabric of everything. 
    My experience with Corporatocracy is as follows:
    Housing for children and poor families:
    Funding was reduced so that the poor are poorer than ever.  The money that previously went into social services that protect the most vulnerable have been mostly depleted with the lies of "welfare queens" and dismissing the poor as unworthy since they are poor citizens not "rich consumers." 
    As for foreclosures and the market bubble collapsing, I am a victim of that.  I purchased my home in 2007, when the market was crashing.  We lost all equity and savings in that purchase.  We are unable to refinance.
    Food for the poor:
    Food banks are flooded with poor, trying to survive.  The demand for food exceeds the generosity of the corporations.  The food that often is donated for such purposes are expired or nutritionally void. 
    Healthcare for everyone:
    Rather than have Medicare for all, we have representatives who have their healthcare needs taken care of, elderly who do not want the same privileges for everyone else, and most of all, private insurance companies that want to make money off of providing everyone with healthcare.  We are the only "industrialized country" without healthcare for all.  In my own experience, a 1/3 of my monthly salary goes to my premium and my co pays.  Obamacare serves the insurance companies, not us.  One day, we will have Medicare for all and we pay our premiums to the government and see whatever private doctor we want.
    Another example of how a service for the people got high jacked by the Wall Street and corporations.  There is no lack of money.  There is a lack of generosity and trust.  Overpopulation has allowed the rich to dismiss the poor as undesirables.  Wall Street is an illusion.  It has nothing to do with what the value a company is, and has everything to do with what the Wall Street gamblers believe the value is or is not.
    Politics and our Judiciary
    I do not believe electing and appointing rich people to lead our country is helping.  Get educated, compassionate leaders and judges to make decision for our country.  If only 1-2% of our country owns everything, we need leaders that represent us, not the multinational corporations and money hoarders who are committing genocide through greed.  Remove money as a factor completely and our system will start to move again.  Oligarchy does not work for a society who wishes to remain.
    They are the least we can do.  I want to support everyone with my taxes.  I want my taxes to go to the causes I choose, not the soulless leaders who are corrupted by money and power. 
    My Background
    I have been exalted in my skills and smarts and fired for the same reasons.  My ideas may be too early in time but they are the ideas that move us to the next level of evolution.
    Expand empathy/compassion and love.  This is the only way we all heal.  To save our planet, we much choose her over corporate interests.
    Best, Angela Parker

    It's all about your uniqueness, but it's not all about you.

    It takes a long time to grow an old friend. - John Leonard

    Tuesday, September 25, 2012

    Fwd: I NEED HELP


    On October 3, 2011, my two minor children were taken from me and taken to California without my knowledge or my permission.  I was arrested on September 28, 2011 on a misdemeanor warrant for (insufficient funds/bounced check) from 2007.  My 24 year old daughter had my 14 year old daughter until I could bond out, and my 6 year old son was with a friend.  My 24 year old daughter lied to my friend and got my 6 year old son, she took both of my children to California without my knowledge or permission.  I was released from jail on October 3, at 3 pm and she left on a greyhound bus at 6 pm that evening. They went into a California Probate Court and filed a fraudulent petition for guardianship based on misleading facts.  They stated that I had abandoned my children and I was still incarcerated (they filed on October 8, 2011) 5 days after I had been released.   I have documentation showing the fraudulent claims on the petition for guardianship as well as the accusations of abuse and neglect. I can provide all documentation to you at any time.
    On December 6, 2011, a California Probate Court Judge in Solano County granted permanent guardianship of my children and denied me any contact with my children.  (There were accusations of neglect, abuse and that I was a drug addict) ALL LIES.  The court in California contacted no agencies in Texas, CPS. Police or my children's schools to find out if there was any truth to the accusations) the judge based her decision simply on what was said about me. 
    I am a single mother who has lived and raised my two children in Texas for the past 7 years; I do not have the money to fly back and forth to California or the money to hire an attorney in California to defend my rights as their parent.  I have never been away from my children in the past 13 years and I cannot get ANYONE TO LISTEN TO ME. It has been 6 months and I have not been allowed any contact with my children, my daughter is 14 and my son just turned 7 on March 29.  They have told my son that I am still in jail, he has absolutely no idea what is going on.  The choices being made for my children are not in their best interest and I believe damage is being done to them emotionally and mentally.  My 14 year old daughter is only going to school 2 hours a day and has no friends. She should be in school and having interaction with her peers.  This is a child that was a straight A student and very active in curricular activities such as band and had numerous friends in school here in Texas.  I feel that my children are being physchologically abused as my son is being misled about my situation and he is not are not allowed any contact with me or anyone that was in his life here in Texas.  He was born and raised in Texas and has numerous relationships which he is being alienated from and are being isolated with only those he now currently lives with.  They are being brainwashed and alienated from me their mother and there is no legal or just cause for this.

    I filed all the legal documents in the court of California to object appointment of guardianship based on the FACTS that I am a fit parent and can care for my children and also on the FACT that California, according to the UCCJA does not have jurisdiction to make a permanent order of custody as TEXAS has OME STATE JURISDICTION, SIGNIFICANT CONNECTION JURISDICTION AND ALSO MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM JURISDICTION. I was present for the hearing via a phone conference and represented myself.  My finances do not allow me the option of hiring a personal attorney and therefore I feel not only are my rights but the rights of my children are being violated.  The state of California is allowing this travesty and are now financing the abduction of my children by allowing my daughter to collect welfare and food stamps.  I am a fit parent and have a home for my children. The Probate judge overruled the law and simply made a judgment taking my children from me without any investigation of the allegations against me.    The court in Rusk County Texas will not make a ruling on jurisdiction because California has made a permanent ruling (illegally).  I have been advised by numerous attorneys here in Texas that I need representation in California in order to have this investigated and get my children back. They have kidnapped my children and are getting away with it.  It has been 7 months and this fraud is being allowed to continue.  My daughter is receiving  cash benefits in California and she gets my sons social security benefits of  over 500 dollars and receiving food stamps as well and now they are going after me for child support. On May 18, in Solano County Familly Court, I was court ordered to start paying child support.  I do not understand how this is being allowed to continue.  I need some help please.
    I would appreciate being contacted by someone in your office and advised as to whether or not you can give me any assistance or guidance. I can be contacted by phone (903) 722-5978 cell, (903) 657-5349 work or by email @
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Kathryn Passama


    Massachusetts county judge shields corrupt behavior and judicial misconduct by holding hearings simultaneously in two separate courtrooms.  County judge simultaneously held hearings for the” haves and have nots”.

    In order to shield attorneys and represented litigatants from hearing and witnessing a motion to recuse the county judge.  The county judge held hearings in two separate courtrooms.  While the county judge’s judicial case manager checked in and process non-represented litigatants in a courtroom on third floor of the county courthouse.  The county judge held hearings for attorneys and represented litigants on the fourth floor of the county courthouse. 

    The attorneys and represented litigatants were  shielded from hearing the motion to recuse the county judge which exposed corruption and judicial misconduct, such obstruction of justice, partiality, unlawful ex parte communications, suppression of evidence, denial of due processes; child trafficking; extortion, “robe rage”; and violations of both Massachusetts General laws and federal laws.

    This county judge thought so little of the unrepresented general public, and considered them ignorant to the facts of the motion to recuse.

    The hearings for the “Have Nots” started 10:30am, after waiting to be heard since 9am.

    September 24, 2012
    Adrienne McGlone

    The county judge attempted to shield and coverup wrong-doings; on September 24, 2012, The county Judge blatantly conduct covert hearings denying the public right and access to information regarding the Commonwealth judicial system.

    Adrienne McGlone

    “All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.”

    Friday, September 21, 2012

    Vintage Judge Judith Sheindlin speaks about inefficiencies in the Family Court system on 60 minutes

    Judge Judy speaks on 60 minutes about the woes of being a family court judge in the child welfare system and points out the inefficiencies of the whole madness.....

    Mother whose children were taken for adoption joins class action -via

    Baby P: Social workers admit string of failures -via

    Family Court Wrongful Termination Suit via

    Time and time again we see that family courts overstep their boundaries....not doing their jobs....not serving the public

    "Childs death would not matter social services officials tell undercover reporter via

    Preservation of the status quo and the jobs of these social workers take precedence over the life and death of a child....time and time again we see these things occurring and yet.....nothing being done to stop this....why?

    Children of the World for Sale and Sex Trade- Child Trafficking

    Children being sold into slavery, kidnapped from their families....abused.....right under our noses.

    CPS and Family Courts Abuse Parents and Families

    Wednesday, September 19, 2012

    Helpful information for parents fighting child protection for their children

    Luke Borusiewicz A Child Protection Hero

    I guess if you are on this site, you do not need me to tell you how seriously corrupt and evil the child protection system is. My hope is that you will speak out... start your own website, post on this one, and on the many others, join and support the child protection reform groups on facebook and on the sites....

    Your children, and all the others legally kidnapped and lost in the child protection system need you to become a Child Protection Warrior.

    I have gathered much information on the site I built in memory of my two year old son Luke Borusiewicz, who died under suspicious circumstances in foster care.

     Luke's Photo Album shows you how beautiful a baby and son he was. I went in everyday to beg for them to give Lukey back, some of the references, DoCS (department of community services, Queensland, Australia)courses and my story can be found here.

    Help and advice for parents on the Luke's Army Website

    Help for Parents in Australia with children removed by DoCS (Department Community Services), 
    DHS (Department Human Services)and FACS (Family and Children Services)

    Help for parents in the UK for parents fighting forced adoption and foster care of their children by Social Services and CAFCAS

     Help for parents in Canada fighting CAS (Children's Aide Societies)for the return of their children

    Post your story all over the net and help to expose the corruption and injustices occurring not only to you but thousands of other families and children.
    You can share your story on the Luke's Army site in the "Bring Them Home" section for parents fighting for the return of their children.

    If you are a parent, family member or know of a child who has died please post their story in the memorial section of the Luke's Army website for children who have died in foster care or due to child protection negligence and/or abuse.

    I have collected many heartbreaking but revealing foster care and adoption stories to educate the public and families about the tracic foster care and adoption systems.

    There is also an informative section on Governments Drugging Children With Psychotropic Drugs

    The Luke's Army Group on Facebook has over 3000 members, many of who have experienced the worst of the child protection system from all over the world. They offer excellent advice and support to parents, grand parents, families who find themselves caught up in the child protection racket.

    I hope this gives someone some sort of assistance. I just wanted to post something to be a part of this excellent group, but wasn't sure what to put up so thought I would give a run down of some of the things that Lukey's site has to offer.

    Thankyou for allowing me to talk about Lukey's site here, it is part of his legacy,
    Kind Regards,
    Lukey's Daddy,
    Help for parents fighting the child protection system for their children in foster care or adoption

    Our Child Support Nightmare

    My fiance and I have 3 children together ages 4, 2 and an 11 month old. I have 2 older children which I could not get child support for because the father lied about his income and he is pretending to be disabled so the judge said he can't pay and when I told her about how he owns several homes he rents out she said without proof and a lawyer there was nothing I could do. After court he told me that I shouldn't have done this and how I was going to pay so he took my 14 year old away and has turned him against me. He even made a false claim to DCF saying that I abused my son which they realized wasn't true and was dropped. He did all of this because I went for child support even after I told him that I had no choice if I wanted to get help with food stamps. Now my fiances ex decided to go after him for child support 2 years ago for their 13 year old and he was ordered to pay $307 a month. We later found out that they should have taken the fact that he had other children to support one of which has autism into consideration and they did not. We were already on welfare to begin with and couldn't afford this amount or a lawyer. Legal Aid does not help with child support but we found a law clinic that did. It took almost a year to get a hearing and right before we did the clinic decides to drop him claiming that he wasn't keeping reasonable contact with them which wasn't true since he had done everything he was told to do and thought he was just waiting for a court date. So right after they dropped him he gets a hearing date and goes in alone thinking that everything had already been filed. When he gets to there the hearing officer(who was very rude) told him that nothing had went through the judge and that it doesn't matter that he wasn't working right now or that he had other kids to support. He told him that he shouldn't have had more kids because his first child comes first and that he better find a job. My fiance told him that he doesn't have a problem paying for the first child but that he just doesn't have the money right now. He also told the officer that all the children should be treated fairly since they are here. So if the system claims to be about the children then where is the justice for children from second families and why should they have to suffer? This case was suppose to be about time sharing as well and when he brought this up the officer told him that's something he has to work out with his ex. We are so angry, hurt and confused by all of this. She refuses to let him see their daughter and for at least the first year since paying her child support she wasn't even living with their child.  She had the child staying with the grandfather but we couldn't prove that either. Everyone always wants proof from us but they never make her prove where the child is living or how the money is being spent. Isn't this a violation of his rights as a father? He should have the right to see her whenever he wants without permission. Our house and cars are falling apart and we have to borrow money every single month from my mother which barely gets by herself. We can't even get approved for a Habitat house because he is still on the mortgage for the house she lives in by herself which is a 4 bedroom doublewide. She refuses to refinance so he can get his name off of it so we're stuck in a tiny singlewide. We have no life and just keep sinking deeper and deeper into depression. Everyone is always so quick to say well you shouldn't have had more kids but you know what...we did, they're here and they're not going anywhere. Just because you have kids from a previous relationship doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't move on and have a new family. You shouldn't be punished for it either. I could understand the law getting involved if the father wants nothing to do with the child but when the ex won't even let you see the child and you can barely support yourself you shouldn't have to worry about losing your license or going to jail especially when you have a second family to worry about. Why doesn't the system care about my children? Second family doesn't mean second best. All children should be treated the same! You have people like my ex who have the money to pay but don't want to so they lie and don't have to pay. People like my fiance who want to pay but can't get the book thrown at them. So now we have to start all over with the law clinic and hope that they don't drop him this time so maybe after another year of suffering and living in misery something will go right but the way this system works it's very doubtful. If it weren't for these children who we love more than anything we would have given up a long time ago but we are the only ones who seem to care about what happens to them since the system only cares about the first child. Giving up is not an option! 

    Dawn Martin


    Could you contact the following, and inquire as to why this Mother being ordered to weekend jail? No probable cause; 19 years US Military Service. DCF has returned Alexiss home; Now, judge is ordering Mother to jail.

    Please bombard the following entities with calls and emails:
    Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct (617) 725-8050
    Governor Deval Patrick (617) 725-4005
    Massachusetts Justice Paula Carey (617) 788-6600
    Representative Stephen DiNatale (617) 722-2676
    ALS0, please continue reading, signing, and circulating the petition, need 700 signatures.


    Adrienne McGlone

    “All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.”

    Sunday, September 16, 2012


    I am Lyudmila Moiseenko, a citizen of the Russian Federation and Uzbekistan. I have been living in Belgium since 1999. I have a grandson, who is four years old and he is a victim of pedophilia and incest. My daughter, the mother of this child, cannot sue his father R. K. (citizen of Belgium), as she is scared and afraid of reprisal from his patrons – the functionaries of justice, who threaten to deprive my daughter of her son. In this connection, I acted as a declarant on this case.
    My daughter previously lived with R. K. In June 2008 their son D. was born (Belgian citizen), with whom R. suddenly started to prohibit me from seeing my 2-month-old grandson.
    In August 2008 I filed a complaint to the Juvenile Court in Antwerp, apparently, with a request to grant me the right of communicating with my grandson. The result of this complaint was a temporary decision of seeing my grandson in a specially allocated of the organization "HOUSE", under the supervision of its staff; later, the decision of the Juvenile Court, the Court of First Instance and the Appeal Court, all of which decided that my "fixed right for communication be considered unreasonable" as if I was "fanatically obsessed by the health of the child". As a matter of fact, all the facts in this case were purposefully distorted and falsified against me by all functionaries, lawyers and paediatrician involved in this case. The court decided to declare me as fanatically obsessed with the child's health to prevent my communicating with the grandson, who is subject to the sexual abuse and corruption. However, back then I did not guess about pedophilia against my grandson (although in "HOUSE", where I replaced my grandson's pampers. I already saw the signs of this, but was not able to correctly identify them and erroneously thought that hygienic rules were not observed in respect to my grandson).
    Supported by the court, R. did not allow me to see my grandson; however, in October 2010 my daughter temporarily moved to stay with me having told R. that she was moving to her friends. My grandson's father regularly took his son to his home. After these visits to R. I also started noticing a number of signs witnessing his lecherous sexual actions against my grandson; however, even then I erroneously comprehended these signs.
    Аlso, the child had behaved aggressively, coming from his father: he beat his favorite soft toys with his fist, and often on the head ...
    On 7 January 2011, after giving a bath to my grandson in the shower I saw obvious signs of sexual abuse and understood everything.
    On 18 January 2011 I wrote a complaint to the Attorney of Antwerp about my suspicions of pedophilia on my grandson's father, with the request of conducting urgent medical examinations of my grandson as doctors refused to do it, and take urgent measures.
    On 5 February 2011 was summoned to the Juvenile department of the local criminal police for an interrogation. The interrogation protocol is №AN.37.LB.18280/11 was given to me by the police inspector Ahda Sarah for signature; however, she refused to sign it. She said that I was supposed to tell R. about my complaint to the prosecutor; besides, she refused to accept my material evidence on this case – two photographs of my grandson with the signs of the sexual abuse. Later, I sent them to the police by registered mail.
    The father suspected of pedophilia was not isolated from the child; he continues to take him home, into which, as my grandson says, "a man" comes to play with him and cause pain to his bottom. On 11 February I came to my daughter's home and convinced her not to give D. to his father, about which I warned him on the phone. Nevertheless, he came and made a brawl at the entrance and I sent him an SMS about my complaint to the prosecutor's office. R. decided to threaten my daughter and demand that I withdraw my complaint from the prosecutor's office.
    On 18 February 2011 my daughter called me and asked me to take the complaint as he had told her that if I did not do so, the court would take her son from her and give him to his father and she would never see her son again and I would be imprisoned for slander. She was bitterly crying for fear of being deprived of her son. As I did not know the real state of the art at the Belgian justice I answered her that she should not believe his words and this would not happen.
    During the night of 25 to 26 February 2011, after another sexual abuse of D. (he had been the whole week at his father's and in the evening of 25 February was returned to his mother) and after my call to the emergency service 112, my grandson was examined by doctors and then after the confirming result the present police officer called a gynecologist for a medical examination for the search of the traces of sperm of the criminal. Besides, personal belongings of my grandson were taken and the police took the memory card of my photographic camera for printing photographs, which depicted the traces of sexual abuse against my grandson. This is all recorded in the protocol of the interrogation №AN.37.LB.02940611. After that I was given a certificate by the gynecologist about the conducted medical examination in order to give it to the home doctor and a manual for the victims of the sexual abuse.
    On 28 February 2011, the first court sitting was held concerning the residence of D., as his parents had separated. At the sitting the parents were given the equal right of upbringing their son and he was supposed to live with them every week in turns. The court illegally ignored the circumstance that R. was a suspect in pedophilia case, although I had warned it in advance by submitting the copy of interrogation to the prosecutor's office.
    A week later after the examination of my grandson, on 4 March 2011 I gave a call to the police inspector Ahda Sarah, to find out the results and she told me that the prosecutor prohibited her from informing me about the results of the medical examination, which was not allegedly ready and that the father of my grandson was out of suspicion.
    After staying with his father, D. returned home with bruises on his body, mainly, on legs and arms and obvious signs of sexual abuses.
    Also the kid masturbated and punched from all force by a fist on his genitals. I submitted numerous complaints to different Belgian instances, including the Justice Ombudsman Renaat Landuyt, the Senate Chairman Danny Pieters, Flemish Children's Rights Commissioner Bruno Vanobbergen, begging for their help to protect my grandson. However, all my actions were to no avail – no instance investigated this case of pedophilia. There is no real opportunity of rehabilitation of violated rights of citizens as state instances, to which citizens with violated rights could apply, work only nominally.
    On Monday morning of 9 May 2011 I visited the children's school attended by my grandson. As he was staying with his father since Friday, I was going to prove that my grandson was subject to sexual abuse while staying with his father. First of all, in school, I examined him and became sure that D. was again subject to sexual abuse, so I called the police and ambulance. When the policemen came I told them what had happened. However, the worker from the school administration, suddenly had the decision of the Juvenile Court about my "fanatic obsession with the child's health" interfered and police began to call to his chief and to the criminal police and did not give the permission to the medical assistant to take my grandson to the clinic for examination as the conclusion can only be made there. Then the policemen were given orders to have the medical assistant examine in the school; besides, they prohibited me from participating at the examination of my grandson (relatives must be present during the examination of a child). During the examination the policemen were in the other room with me; however, later one policewoman went out of the room for quite a long time and then on return she approached her colleague and quietly said that the fact of the sexual abuse was established and she did not know what to do then. Her colleague answered that she should called their chief, which she did. After that the ambulance was sent off. To my question "why was the ambulance sent off as the fact of the sexual abuse was established?" the police officer I. Y. Cools did not answer anything; instead, he was silently filling in the record of the interrogation №AN.37.99.34-11, in which nothing was said about the calling to the ambulance and examination of my grandson. I signed this protocol as I was in the state of stupor of what was going on. Later the boss of the police department came personally, led me beyond the gate of the school and rudely told me that the fact of sexual abuse was not established and my calls to the urgency and police were considered false. When I answered that this was not true and I had heard what the police woman said to her colleague, he started shouting that they would investigate proceedings against me.
    On the actions of the police on 9 May 2011 I complained to the commissariat of the Antwerpen police and to the Federal Committee of the Police Surveillance; however, their verbose answers contained no words about this incident, which only indicated the reluctance of Belgian main surveillance services to investigate in illegal actions of local law-enforcement bodies. A week later after the police had prevented me from recording a new case of the sexual abuse against my grandson, my daughter told me on the telephone that the public prosecutor prohibited me
    to see my grandson and if she did not acsept this prohibition, then my grandson would be taken away! This was said by the inspector of the criminal police, inspector Ahda Sarah on the telephone. When I called her, she confirmed it but refused to tell me the name of the public prosecutor. I recorded two our conversations on the internet on the video. However, no official prohibition was produced to me, but my daughter was seriously scared. Prosecutor's office or the police have no right to issue prohibitions on the telephone without written notices. Besides, the criminal police inspector gave us deliberately false information about the official interdiction of my contact with my grandson and the signing of this prohibition by my daughter.
    On 24 may 2011 I submitted a complain to the Belgian Supreme Court, in which I described all the events relating to the pedophilia against my grandson beginning with the complaint to the prosecutor of 18 January 2011 and a demand to stop the lawlessness of justice and police officers in the city of Antwerp and provide my grandson with the legal protection. I also sent them three photographs of my grandson with the signs of sexual abuse. On 14 June I received an answer from the Belgian Supreme Court which stated that my complaint will be examined for its being appropriate for their investigation.
    I also appealed to different Russian organizations and mass media, to the President of the Russian Federation asking them all for help because I realized that I would not find the truth in Belgium. The online newspaper published the article and filmed a video-roll with my interview and subtitles in English, which was then distributed in the internet. Knowing that the Belgian lawyers provide all the information about their clients to superior bodies, on 26 July 2011 I wrote to my former lawyer F. Teerlinck, informing him about my appeals to Russian organizations in the hope that this would help me to further the pedophilia case. However, on 28 July 2011, my home doctor Alexander Kerch gave me a phone call (previously he only once had phoned me asking me to keep him updated in this case of pedophilia, as he had been given a call from "respective bodies" asking him questions and he knew nothing) and suggested that I go and have my blood analyzed, if I wanted to be observed by him in the future and that blood samples should be submitted for analysis once a year (he never proposed me to do so on the telephone; besides, I had had my blood sample examined seven months before and he himself wrote a medical referral for me).
    On the same day, 28 July 2011, I received a letter marked "Urgent" from the Belgian Supreme Court that my complaint was being considered further. The content of the letter was not urgent and all I had to do was to guess what the urgency of this letter was. However, I soon understood it as I was given a call by a Russian speaking Igor (he refused to give his family name) and introduced his as an independent lawyer, who was given an order by Pavel Astahov, the ombudsman for children's rights in Russia, to clarify the case of my grandson (later I found out at the General Consulate of the Russian Federation in Antwerp that Mr Astahov was working only via them and they would get in touch with me themselves). Igor expressed his desire to meet me personally in the Brussels in order, as he said, to receive from me the answers from Belgian instances and to set me several questions; however, I was supposed to keep our conversation in secret and they did not want any fuss about this matter. I suspected something wrong and suggested that we limit ourselves to sending documents via electronic mail, to which he agreed. We were communicating for two days. In his messages there was an automatic signature "Dr Troian Igor"; by the phone number +32 485 713 803 of his mobile telephone I found a company "Renaissance Group" in Belgium, which provided medical services for former country fellowmen.
    Igor kept on calling me on the phone and insisting on meeting me; he pressed on me that if I did not agree to meet with him, then he would write to Astahov about my refusal from assistance and the case would be closed and I would not receive any help from him for my grandson. When I told him that in my present situation I am afraid of meeting with people, whom I do not know, he nervously answered that I should not have led the case to the extent of being afraid myself and everything should have been done quietly without shouting about it everywhere. After these words I finally realized that Igor was a man of straw against me and my country fellowmen were used in plotting something against me and not to raise any suspicions in me. When Igor failed to come to agreement with me about the meeting again, on the same day about 10 pm (!) I was given a call by his accessory, who introduced herself as Antonina Pavlovna Golikova and insisted on our meeting in the nearest 2-3 days (I had a feeling that they needed this meeting, but not me). She told me that she had allegedly met with Mr Astahov in Moscow, from where she just arrived and that he informed her about my message in his blog and gave her three photographs of my grandson depicting the signs of horrible abuse of my grandson, which I had previously sent to him. However, I had never left any messages in his blog and I sent the photographs only to the court instances in Belgium.
    Soon, owing to the internet it was found out that Igor Troian was the anaesthetist-resuscitation specialist and that a patent of "non-invasive method and device for the diagnosis of inner organs and tissues of a living human body" was granted to Igor Troian and A. Golikova. So these both persons work in the medical sphere and are closely related to transplantologists. I suggested that they wanted to take my body apart for organs. Indeed, in their web-site Renaissance Group these people propose their services on transplantation. I think what I can be killed by using doctors as I started disclosing the problem of pedophilia beyond the country. I immediately applied to the Interpol and the Russian Investigation Committee with the statement of the threat to my life, about which I again informed my former lawyer F. Teerlinck. After this Igor Troian and Antonina Golikova stopped calling and writing to me, which once again may indicate the link of these people
    with the officials from the Justice of Belgium. However, new attempts on my life are still possible, as I do not stop to save my grandson from the pedophiles.
    On 8 October 2011, five months after filing a complaint to the Belgian Supreme Court, it adopted a final decision that I allegedly complained on the decisions of the public prosecutor's office and the court (which had not been taken by that time) and that their commission on the counseling and investigation cannot consider complaints on the content of court decisions. Why was I not informed about it then? Instead, they sent me an urgent letter in which they had promised to consider my case and had been considering it for several months? A conclusion can be drawn that the answer of the Belgian Supreme Court was not a consequence of an error, but it was purposefully falsified instead.
    My former lawyers did not receive answers from the Antwerp prosecutor's office for months. Than I was waiting for these answers from the lawyers for months; I doubt that the lawyers in Belgium work for the benefit of their clients, but not for the deceitful Belgian system of justice.
    On 18 November 2011 I sent by registered mail a request to the Antwerp prosecutor about the state of the pedophilia case and as I no longer had a lawyer a request for the examination of the dossier or obtaining copies from it. I also requested to return the memory card of my photographic camera with pictures. The answer of the Antwerp prosecutor Theunis B., which I had been waiting for one month (this office should provide an answer in two week's period), stated that "you are neither a victim nor a suspect in this case and you are not granted a permission for examination of documents or taking copies of them". It also stated that "there are no objective elements, which prove the crime" and that "the minor is not at danger when with his father or mother". The refusal of the prosecutor to allow examination of documents is illegal as I was the applicant in this case and have a full right to examine it.
    The reception office of the Antwerp en prosecutor's office answered to my telephone calls that I had no right to get information of this case as I was no victim or a suspect. However, I insisted that I was an applicant and had the right to get information. Then the officers of the reception room either discontinued the telephone conversation or gave me false information about the closure of the case. As an applicant I was put into a desperate condition: the Belgian state in the face of justice bodies (Antwerp prosecutor S. Chome) did not inform me about the forthcoming trial sitting of the Antwerp Juvenile Court of the first instance held on 22 November 2011 to consider the case №AN.37.LB.02940611, about which I accidentally learnt a few months later and therefore deprived me as the applicant of the opportunity to attend the court and provide evidence, which could influence the decision. Besides, I was not given an opportunity of examining it and make an objection at the higher court instance. During the trial each side should prove those circumstances it refers to. The court violated the principle of the personal participation of the applicant in the trial. The court showed interest in the result of the trial for the benefit of the suspect in pedophilia, R.K., refused from studying the proof, which established circumstances, which were of importance for an adequate consideration and decision of this case. In fact, this trial was only formal.
    I received no information on the case №AN.37.LB.02940611, although I myself and via my lawyer sent a request to the Antwerp prosecutor's office. Only on 29 November 2011 I received a notice about the closure of the case №AN.37.LB.18280/11 for lack of proof, which was dated 7 November 2011 by the prosecutor's office and on 18 January 2012 about the closure of the case №AN.37.99.34-11 for lack of proof, which was dated 30 December 2011 by the prosecutor's office.
    The Antwerp prosecutor's office ignored all available evidence proving that my grandson was a victim of pedophilia; it illegally closed the case initiated by me allegedly for the lack of proof, which it itself concealed, namely, the result of the medical examination of my grandson and the memory card with the photographs depicting the signs of sexual abuse of my grandson. The case against R.K. remained purposefully uninvestigated.
    My complaint to the higher instance – the Antwerp General Prosecutor about the illegal closure of the pedophilia cases allegedly for the reason of lack of proof and a request to consider them as the prosecutor's office has irrefutable proof as the photographs with the signs of the sexual abuse of my grandson and the certificate issued by the gynecologist about a special medical investigation were sent by remplasant the General Prosecutor by the Attorney General L.Van Lerberghe to it for consideration to the same prosecutor, who closed the cases. The General Prosecutor is obliged to consider complaints, which raise the question of the acknowledgement of the decisions or actions (failure of action) by the prosecutor as illegal or unjustified.
    Despite all my appeals to different local Belgian instances and to organizations on Child Protection in Belgium, and also an open letter to the King of Belgium Albert II, my grandson was not taken under protection of the Belgian justice and is, as before, subject to sexual abuse by his father and a "man", about whom my grandson told me. Perhaps, this man holds the position of a prosecutor and my son became victim in return to the "cover" for his father. I submitted a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights; this complaint was written by me with an active participation of the Russian Legal Expert Zhanna Samoilenkova. We observed all the rules of filling the form of the complaint and its submission together with the evidence relating to the case; however, my complained was announced by this Court as unacceptable for consideration!
    The documents and proofs:!/media/set/?set=oa.160126970791563&type=1
    Two video contains my telephone conversation via internet with the criminal police inspector  (with translation from Dutch): and
    Please, sign and share my petition:


    Я, Моисеенко Людмила Андреевна, гражданка России и Узбекистана, с 1999 г. проживаю в Бельгии и имею внука 4-х лет, который является жертвой педофилии и инцеста. Моя дочь - мать ребенка не может выступать против его отца Р. К., так как она запугана и боится расправы со стороны его покровителей - чиновников юстиции, которые грозят ей отобранием сына. В связи с этим во всех нижеперечисленных инстанциях я выступала в качестве заявителя по данному делу.
    Моя дочь несколько лет жила с Р. и в июне 2008 г. у них родился сын Д., с которым Р. вдруг начал запрещать мне видеться с 2-месячного возраста внука.
    В августе 2008 я подала жалобу в Суд по делам несовершеннолетних г. Антверпена с просьбой дать мне право общения со своим внуком. Результатом жалобы стало: сначала временное разрешение встречаться мне с внуком в специально предназначенном для встреч помещении организации "ДОМ" под присмотром ee персонала, а затем - решения Суда по делам несовершеннолетних Суда 1-ой инстанции и апелляционного суда, в которых полагалось мое "закрепленное право на общение считать нецелесообразным", т. к. я "на фанатичный манер одержима здоровьем ребенка". На самом деле, все факты дела были целенаправленно искажены и сфальсифицированы против меня всеми чиновниками, адвокатами и педиатром, оказавшимися причастными к делу. Суд, видимо,  решил объявить меня фанатично одержимой здоровьем ребенка для того, чтобы не допустить к общению с внуком, которого его отец подвергает сексуальному надругательству и растлению. Но тогда я еще не догадывалась о педофилии в отношении моего внука (хотя в  "ДОМе", когда я меняла внуку памперсы, я уже видела признаки этого, но тогда еще не могла их правильно распознать и ошибочно полагала, что просто не соблюдаются правила гигиены в отношении малыша).
    При поддержке суда Р. не позволял мне видеть внука, но в октябре 2010 моя дочь временно переехала жить ко мне (сказав Р., что переезжает к знакомым). Отец регулярно забирал сына к себе домой. После его визитов к отцу я также стала замечать ряд признаков на половых органах внука, свидетельствующих о том, что в отношении него совершаются развратные сексуальные действия, но и тогда я неправильно воспринимала эти признаки. Также малыш вел себя агрессивно, приходя от отца: он бил свои любимые мягкие игрушки кулаком, и чаще по голове...
    7 января 2011 г., после купания в душе моего внука, я увидела у него уже слишком явные следы сексуальных надругательств и все поняла.
    18 января 2011 я написала жалобу прокурору г. Антверпена о подозрениях в педофилии отца ребенка и с просьбой  провести необходимые медицинские обследования внука (т. к. врачи отказывали мне в этом) и предпринять другие срочные меры.
    5 февраля 2011 я была вызвана на допрос в службу по делам несовершеннолетних местной уголовной полиции. Протокол допроса №AN.37.LB.18280/11 инспектор полиции дала мне на подпись, сама же подписать его отказалась; она сказала, что я сама должна рассказать Р. о моей жалобе прокурору, а также отказалась принять мои вещественные доказательства по делу - 2 фотографии моего внука со следами сексуального надругательства, и тогда я послала их в полицию заказной почтой.
    Подозреваемого в педофилии отца не изолировали от малыша и он продолжал забирать его в свой дом, в который, по  рассказам внука, приходит "дяденька", который играет с ним, а потом тоже делает его попке больно. 11 февраля 2011 я пришла домой к  моей дочери и уговорила ее не отдавать Д. отцу, о чем она его и предупредила по телефону. Но он все равно пришел и устроил ей скандал в подъезде и тогда я отправила ему мобильное сообщение о моей жалобе прокурору. Тогда Р. начал угрожать моей дочери и требовать от нее, чтобы я забрала свою жалобу.
    18 февраля 2011 дочь звонила мне и просила меня забрать жалобу, потому что Р. сказал ей, что если я не заберу  жалобу, то суд  заберет у нее ребенка и отдаст ему, и она его никогда больше не увидит, а меня посадят в тюрьму за клевету. Она сильно плакала, т. к.  боялась, что потеряет своего сына. Так как в то время я еще не знала истинного положения вещей в бельгийском правосудии, то я ей ответила, что не надо верить его словам и что такого не случится.
    В ночь с 25 на 26 февраля 2011, после очередного сексуального надругательства над Д. (он всю неделю находился у отца и 25-го вечером был передан матери) и после моего звонка в службу спасения 112, в клинике внуку было проведено медицинское  освидетельствование и затем, на основании его подтверждающего результата, присутствующим офицером полиции был вызван  гинеколог для проведения мед. обследования на предмет поиска следов спермы преступника. Для этого также забрали личные вещи внука, а у меня полиция изъяла карту памяти с фотоаппарата (для распечатки фотоснимков), на которой были запечатлены следы сексуальных надругательств над внуком - это все зафиксировано в протоколе допроса №AN.37.LB.02940611. После этого я получила на руки справку гинеколога о проведенном мед. обследовании для передачи ее домашнему врачу и брошюру - руководство для жертв секснасилия.
    28 февраля 2011 состоялось первое судебное заседание относительно проживания Д., т. к. его родители разъехались. На заседании суда родители получили равное право на воспитание сына и его проживание стало понедельным у каждого из родителей. Суд противозаконно не принял во внимание то обстоятельство, что Р. - подозреваемый в деле по педофилии, хотя я предупредила суд об этом заранее, принеся в прокуратуру копию допроса.
    Через неделю после мед. обследования внука, т. е. 4 марта 2011, я позвонила инспектору полиции, чтобы узнать его результаты и она мне сказала, что прокурор запретил сообщать мне результаты мед. обследования, которое якобы еще не готово, и что отец малыша у них вне подозрений.
    Д. после проживания у отца возвращался с синяками от пальцев на теле, в основном, на руках и ногах и с явными признаками сексуальных надругательств. Также малыш мастурбировал и бил со всей силы кулаком по своим гениталиям. Я писала множество жалоб в различные бельгийские инстанции, в том числе омбудсмену юстиции Renaat Landuyt, председателю сената Danny Pieters, Уполномоченному по правам ребенка Bruno Vanobbergen, прося помощи в деле и защиты для внука, но все было безрезультатно - ни одна инстанция не стала разбираться в деле по педофилии. В Бельгии ОТСУТСТВУЕТ реальная возможность восстановления нарушенных прав, поскольку имеется только формальное наличие в государстве инстанций, куда могли бы обратиться пораженные в правах граждане.
    Утром в понедельник 9 мая 2011 я приехала в дет. учреждение, которое посещал внук. Т.к. он уже с пятницы жил у отца, то я собиралась доказать, что ребенок, живя у него, подвергается сексуальным надругательствам. Сначала в школе я осмотрела ребенка и удостоверилась в том, что Д. опять подвергался сексуальным надругательствам, а потом вызвала полицию и скорую помощь. Когда приехали полицейские и я им рассказала, в чем дело (тут вмешалась сотрудница администрации школы, у  которой в руках было решение Суда по делам несовершеннолетних (в котором определено, что я "на фанатичный манер одержима здоровьем ребенка")), то полицейские начали звонить то в уголовную полицию, то своему шефу, и не давали фельдшеру разрешения отвезти внука в клинику на освидетельствование - ведь заключение могут поставить только в клинике. Затем полицейские получили указание, чтобы ребенка осмотрел фельдшер прямо в школе, к тому же они запретили мне присутствовать при осмотре моего внука (родственники должны находиться при мед. осмотре малолетнего рядом с ним). Во время осмотра малыша полиция оставалась в другом помещении вместе со мной, но потом одна полицейская надолго выходила, а вернувшись, подошла к своему коллеге и тихо сказала ему, что факт сексуальных надругательств установлен и она теперь не знает, что делать; коллега ответил, что надо звонить шефу, что она и сделала. После этого машину скорой отослали. На мой вопрос "Почему скорая уехала? Ведь факт сексуальных надругательств был установлен", полисмен ничего не отвечал, а молча заполнял формуляр допроса №AN.37.99.34-11, в котором ничего не написал о вызове скорой помощи и осмотре ребенка. Я подписала этот протокол, т. к. находилась в ступоре от происходящего. Потом лично приехал шеф полиции, вывел меня за ворота  учреждения и сообщил мне в грубой форме, что факт сексуальных надругательств у ребенка установлен не был и мой вызов служб считается ложным. Когда я ответила, что это неправда и я слышала, что говорила полицейская своему коллеге, то он начал кричать, что на меня заведут уголовное дело.
    На действия полиции 9 мая 2011 я жаловалась в Комиссариат полиции Антверпена и в Федеральный Комитет по надзору за полицией, но в их пространных ответах мне не было ни слова о данном инциденте, что указывает на нежелание главных и надзорных служб Бельгии разбираться в противоправных действиях местных органов полиции.
    Спустя неделю после того, как  полиция помешала мне зафиксировать в клинике новый случай сексуального надругательства над внуком, моя дочь сообщила мне по телефону, что прокурором мне запрещено видеть внука, а если она не будет соблюдать этот запрет и разрешит мне видеться с ним, то сына у нее отберут! Ее предупредила об этом по телефону инспектор уголовной полиции. Когда я позвонила ей, она мне все подтвердила, но отказалась назвать имя прокурора. Я записала на видео два наших телефонных разговора через интернет. Официального письменного запрета прокурора мне до сих пор не предоставили, но дочь они этим сильно запугали. Прокуратура и полиция не имеют права давать запреты по телефону, без официальных предписаний. Также инспектор уголовной полиции дала мне заведомо ложную информацию о имеющемся у нее официальном запрете на мои контакты с внуком и о подписании этого запрета моей дочерью.
    24 мая 2011 я обратилась с жалобой в Верховный Суд Бельгии, в которой описала все ранее произошедшее по поводу педофилии в отношении моего внука, начиная с жалобы прокурору от 18 января 2011, и с просьбой остановить беспредел юстиции и полиции в г. Антверпене и предоставить правовую защиту моему внуку. Также я послала им 3 фотографии моего внука со следами секс. надругательств.
    14 июня 2011 из Верховного Суда Бельгии мне ответили, что они изучат, подходит ли моя жалоба для их расследования.
    Также  я обратилась в различные российские правозащитные организации и СМИ с просьбой о помощи, т. к. я поняла, что в Бельгии мне правды не добиться. В российской он-лайн газете "Правда.ру" написали статью и сняли видеоролик с моим интервью с субтитрами на английском языке, который затем был растиражирован в интернете. Я, зная о том, что бельгийские адвокаты передают всю информацию о своих клиентах в вышестоящие инстанции, написала 26 июля 2011 своему бывшему адвокату в надежде, что это поможет мне продвинуть дело по педофилии и сообщила ему о моих обращениях в Россию.
    Но через день, 28 июля 2011, мне вдруг позвонил мой домашний врач Александр Керч (до этого однажды он мне также звонил в связи с тем, чтобы я держала его в курсе того, что происходит с моим внуком в деле по педофилии, т. к. ему звонили "из соответствующих органов" с вопросами, а он ничего об этом не знает) и предложил мне придти сдать кровь на анализ, если я хочу и дальше наблюдаться у него, и что кровь надо сдавать раз в год (никогда раньше он мне не предлагал этого по телефону, к тому же я уже сдавала кровь за 7 месяцев до этого и он сам писал мне направление).
    В этот же день, 28 июля 2011, я получила письмо из Верховного Суда Бельгии с пометкой на конверте "срочно", что мою жалобу рассматривают дальше. Содержание письма явно не было срочным, оставалось только догадываться, в чем заключалась срочность для Верховного Суда Бельгии. Вскоре я это поняла, т. к. через неделю после этого мне позвонил некий русскоговорящий Игорь (не захотевший назвать свою фамилию) и представился независимым юристом, которому Павел Астахов, уполномоченный по правам ребенка в России, якобы дал указание разобраться в деле с моим внуком (позже я выяснила в Генеральном Консульстве России в Антверпене, что Астахов работает только через них и они сами бы со мной связались и к тому же у ребенка должно было быть российское гражданство, которого у внука нет). Игорь хотел со мной лично встретиться в Брюсселе, чтобы, как он сказал, получить от меня письменные ответы из бельгийских инстанций и задать мне несколько вопросов, но я должна держать общение с ним в секрете, мол, им шум не нужен. Я заподозрила неладное и предложила пока ограничиться пересылкой документов через электронную почту. Он согласился. Мы переписывались в течение двух дней - в его письмах стояла автоматическая подпись "Dr Troian Igor"; по его мобильному номеру телефона +32 485 713 803 я нашла в интернете некую фирму "Renaissance Group" в Бельгии, которая предоставляет медицинские услуги для бывших соотечественников.
    Игорь продолжал мне звонить и настойчиво предлагал встретиться, давил на меня тем, что, раз я не соглашаюсь на встречу, то они  напишут Астахову о моем самоотводе и дело закроют и не будет тогда от него никакой помощи для моего внука. Когда я сказала, что в моей нынешней ситуации я боюсь встречаться с людьми, которых не знаю, он нервно ответил, что зачем же было доводить дело до такого, что теперь приходится бояться, и что надо было все делать тихо и не кричать везде об этом! После этих слов я окончательно поняла, что Игорь  - подставное лицо и против меня что-то затевают через моих же соотечественников, чтоб у меня не возникло никаких подозрений.
    Когда Игорь не смог со мной договориться о встрече в очередной раз, то в тот же день около 10 вечера (!) мне позвонила его сообщница, назвавшаяся Антониной Павловной Голиковой и также настойчиво предлагала встретиться в ближайщие 2-3 дня (складывалось такое ощущение, что это нужно им, а не мне). При этом она рассказала, что якобы встречалась лично с Астаховым в Москве, откуда она только что приехала, и что он сообщил ей о моем письме ему в блог и передал ей 3 фотографии моего внука, посланных ему мною, на которых запечатлены страшные последствия секс. надругательств. Но я Астахову ни в какой блог не писала, а 3 фотографии посылала в высшие судебные инстанции Бельгии.
    Вскоре, благодаря интернету, я выяснила, что Игорь Троян - врач анестезиолог-реаниматолог и что на имена И. Трояна и А. Голиковой в Бельгии зарегистрирован патент на "неинвазивный метод и устройство для диагностики внутренних органов и тканей живого человеческого тела". Значит, эти люди оба работают в медицине и тесно общаются с трансплантологами. Я предположила, что меня хотят разобрать на органы. И, действительно, на cвоем сайте "Ренессанс Групп" эти люди предлагают также  услуги по трансплантации. Полагаю, что меня решили убить с помощью врачей, т. к. я начала разглашать о проблеме с моим внуком за пределами Бельгии.
    Я немедленно обратилась в Интерпол и в Следственный Комитет России с заявлениями об угрозе жизни, о чем и сообщила опять своему бывшему адвокату. После этого Игорь Троян и Антонина Голикова прекратили мне звонить и писать, что еще раз подтверждает связь этих людей с чиновниками из юстиции Бельгии. Но новые покушения на мою жизнь возможны вновь, т. к. я не оставляю попыток спасти своего внука от педофилов.
    8 октября 2011, через 5 месяцев после даты подачи жалобы в Верховный Суд Бельгии, там приняли окончательное решение: что я, будто бы,  жаловалась на решения прокуратуры и суда (которых тогда еще не было) и что их Комиссия по советам и  расследованиям не может рассматривать жалобы о содержании судебных решений. Почему же мне сразу не сообщили об этом, а, наоборот,  прислали срочное письмо, в котором обещали, что все же будут рассматривать мое дело и "рассматривали" несколько месяцев? Явно, что ответ Верховного Суда Бельгии не был следствием ошибки, а был намеренно сфальцифицирован.
    Из прокуратуры Антверпена мои бывшие адвокаты месяцами не получали ответов, а потом так  же месяцами я ждала ответы от них, поэтому я сомневаюсь, что все адвокаты в Бельгии работают на благо своих клиентов, а не на бельгийскую систему "правосудия".
    18 ноября 2011 я послала заказной почтой прокурору Антверпена запрос о состоянии дела по педофилии, а также, по причине того, что у меня нет больше адвоката, запрос на просмотр досье или получении копий из него. Также я просила вернуть мне  мою фотокарту памяти со снимками. Ответ, который я ждала больше месяца (прокуратура должна отвечать в течении 2-х недель), гласил, что "Вы не являятесь ни жертвой, ни подозреваемой в деле и Вам не предоставлено разрешение на просмотр и взятие копий из него", а также, что "в деле не имеется объективных  элементов, которые доказывают преступление" и что "малолетний не находится в опасности ни у отца, ни у матери". Отказ прокурора в просмотре досье на том основании, что я не являюсь ни жертвой, ни подозреваемой в деле - противозаконен. Я - заявитель в деле и имею полное право его изучить.
    На мои телефонные звонки в приемную для пострадавших прокуратуры Антверпена мне отвечали, что я  не имею права получать информацию о деле, т. к. я не являюсь ни пострадавшей, ни подозреваемой, но я настаивала на том, что я заявительница и имею право на информацию и тогда служащие приемной стали или бросать трубку телефона или давать мне ложную информацию о закрытии дела.
    О деле №AN.37.LB.02940611 я так и не получила никакой информации, хотя запрашивала о деле прокуратуру г. Антверпена и через адвоката, и сама. Лишь 29 ноября 2011 я получила уведомление о закрытии дела №AN.37.LB.18280/11 по причине недостаточности доказательств, датированное прокуратурой от 7 ноября 2011 и 18 января 2012 - о закрытии дела №AN.37.99.34-11, датированное прокуратурой от 30 декабря 2011.  
    Также я, как заявитель, была поставлена в безвыходные условия: государство Бельгия в лице органов правосудия не известило меня о предстоящем судебном заседании Суда по делам несовершеннолетних Суда 1-ой инстанции Антверпена 22 ноября 2011 по делу №AN.37.LB.02940611 (я узнала о нем случайно спустя насколько месяцев) и тем самым лишило меня, заявительницу, возможности присутствовать на суде и давать показания, которые являются доказательствами и влияют на решение по делу, а также впоследствии, не предоставив мне судебного решения и лишив меня этим возможности ознакомиться с ним и опротестовать его в вышестоящей инстанции. Суд проявил заинтересованность в исходе дела в пользу стороны подозреваемого в педофилии Р. К., отказался исследовать доказательства, устанавливающие наличие обстоятельств, имеющих значение для правильного рассмотрения и разрешения дела. Фактически, состоявшееся судебное заседание носило формальный характер.
    Прокуратура г. Антверпена игнорирует все имеющиеся улики, доказывающие, что мой внук - жертва педофилии, неправомерно закрывает инициированное мною дело будто бы по причине недостаточности доказательств, которые сама же и скрывает: результат мед. обследования внука и мою фотокарту памяти со следами секс. надругательств над внуком.
    Моя жалоба в вышестоящую инстанцию - Генеральному прокурору Антверпена о незаконном закрытии дел по педофилии якобы по причине недостаточности доказательств и с просьбой рассмотреть их  в связи с тем, что у прокуратуры есть неопровержимые доказательства сексуального надругательства над моим внуком - это фотографии со следами сексуальных надругательств и результат  мед. экспертизы, была им отослана опять на рассмотрение того же самого прокурора. А ведь Генеральный прокурор обязан рассмaтривать жалобы, в которых ставится вопрос о признании незаконными или необоснованными решения и действия (бездействия) прокурора.
    Несмотря на все мои обращения в различные внутренние инстанции и организации по защите детей в Бельгии, а также открытое письмо королю, мой внук не был взят под защиту бельгийского правосудия и, как и прежде, продолжает подвергаться растлению и сексуальным надругательствам со стороны своего отца и "дяденьки", про которого рассказывал мне внук. Возможно, что этот "дяденька" занимает пост прокурора и мой внук стал также и его жертвой взамен на "крышу" для его отца.
    Я подавала жалобу в Европейский Суд по правам человека, которая была составлена мною при активном участии российского юридического эксперта Жанны Самойленковой; были соблюдены все правила заполнения формуляра жалобы и ее подачи вместе с доказательствами по делу, но моя жалоба была объявлена ЕСПЧ неприемлемой к рассмотрению!
      Документы и доказательства:!/media/set/?set=oa.246556738798242&type=1

    Два видео содержат мой телефонный разговор через интернет с инспектором уголовной полиции (с переводом с голландского языка на англ. Русский  перевод поместился только под вторым видео). Разговор идет о запрете для меня видеться с моим внуком. и

    Пожалуйста, подпишите и распространите мою петицию: