Parents, civil rights groups support Detroit mom jailed over daughter's meds

Parents, civil rights groups support Detroit mom jailed over daughter's meds

detnews. com

Godboldo had been in custody for five days since surrendering to police March 25 after barricading the girl inside their west-side home where she is alleged to have fired a shot with a .38-caliber revolver at three police officers who broke open the door of her home and entered. The shot hit a wall, according to a police report.

(visit the link for the full news article)

If you're going to come after someone's child, don't be surprised if they determine to protect their child with deadly force.

The CPS and family courts are completely out of control in the US.

Stories such as this really make my blood boil since I know that defending my child against these demons is a lose/lose situation for everyone involved. It does your child no good for you to be dead or in prison yet the fire inside you to defend your child from those whom you feel are a threat to them doesn't really allow you to just sit back and allow it to happen.

The family court system is beyond corrupt and is completely unConstitutional yet is one of the most powerful in the States for destroying lives without any chance for recourse.

I hope I never see myself in a situation such as this but if so and I choose to defend my position, I will not be using a .38 to do so.

detnews. com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I wish the lady had taken a firearms coarse prior to this....A few dead bastards will end these no brained fools from following unlawful orders. Sometimes it takes a few lives being lost to get the point across. This is bad and sad but it is also true....

reply to post by bozzchem


Starred and flagged. I am with you: I won't be using a .38 either, and I sure as hell won't miss.

Originally posted by Caji316
I wish the lady had taken a firearms coarse prior to this....A few dead bastards will end these no brained fools from following unlawful orders. Sometimes it takes a few lives being lost to get the point across. This is bad and sad but it is also true....

I don't disagree. However, this goes back to what I was saying regarding the confrontation being a lose/lose one. Sure, I'll drop two or three of them and they'll either drop me or take me in. Should I be taken in, chances are good I'll never see my child again. My child loses either way. On the same token, should these power trippers see that some of us will defend ourselves, they may be a bit more cautious about thinking they can just take away an individual's child with impunity.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by bozzchem

 

I won't be using a .38 either, and I sure as hell won't miss.

I have better body armor, better ammo/firepower and should I decide it's time to press the trigger, only the first one will be a warning shot. I can tuck tail and run for some things but am not sure I could do so should someone come for my children.

reply to post by bozzchem


Well, right now I'm torn between a .38 and a .22.... Don't mess with my kids damn it...

reply to post by bozzchem


OK folks leaving the emotion out. Lets look at this issue:

....The warrant was apparently issued without a hearing by a Wayne County Circuit Court judge, because the mother had stopped medicating the girl....

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Refuse Mind-Altering Drugs

CCLE Amicus Brief Argues Forced Medication
Infringes Fundamental Liberty

June 16, 2003--The United States Supreme Court upheld the right to refuse unwanted psychotropic medication in its landmark decision in Sell v. United States, delivered earlier today. Ruling in favor of a St. Louis dentist who resisted government attempts to force medicate him with antipsychotic drugs, the Court held that while involuntary medication solely for trial competence purposes may be appropriate in some instances, those instances would likely be “rare.” ...

This means the JUDGE and the SOCIAL WORKERS and the COPS were acting under the Color of the law!

What does "color of the Law mean?

         "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."   Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

·         "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."   Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

·         "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."   Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
 
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it:
   

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it” 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d. Sec 256

Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

    

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

   

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it....

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void.
--Marbury v Madison, 5 US (2Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)

An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
--Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425, 442

lawfulgov.org...
lawfulgov.org...

[CASE] 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256: "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it."
[CASE] Amos vs. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619: "If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right."
[CASE] Bowers vs. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, at 618 (7th Cir. 1982): "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."
[CASE] Brandes vs. Mitteriling, 196 P.2d 464, 467, 657 Ariz 349: "Sovereignty means supremacy in respect of power, domination, or rank; supreme dominion, authority or rule."
[CASE] Chisholm vs. State of Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp. 471-472: "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty."

[CASE] Chisholm vs. State of Georgia, Ga., 2. U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471, 1 L. Ed. 440: ""Sovereignty" is the right to govern. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the prince; here it rests with the people. There the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance. Our governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereign. Their princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences. Our rulers have none but official, nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity than as private citizens."
[CASE] City of Bisbee vs. Cochise County, 78 P.2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1: ""Government" is not "sovereignty." "Government" is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power."
[CASE] Filbin Corporation vs. United States, D.C.S.C., 266 F. 911, 914: "The "sovereignty" of the United States consists of the powers existing in the people as a whole and the persons to whom they have delegated it, and not as a separate personal entity, and as such it does not possess the personal privileges of the sovereign of England; and the government, being restrained by a written Constitution, cannot take property without compensation, as can the English government by act of king, lords, and Parliament."
www.lawandliberty.org...

reply to post by crimvelvet


wait wait wait....what was the point of that super long quote fest?!?

reply to post by crimvelvet


If the court and the social workers were acting "Under the Color of the LAW" what does that mean??

The color of law is a legal term that refers to acting under the appearance of legal authority. The phrase, color of, in legal terminology, often means that something has a certain pretense or appearance. Color of law then means that activities are colored by a pretense of legal clout. In most instances, individuals who refer to this term are referring to its abuse.

In its most basic definition, any official law enforcement activity is deemed to be done under the color of law. Law enforcement officials, for the most part, perform their daily duties in a legal manner. The term takes on a negative connotation when the activity is illegal, or the person acting does not have the authority to act on behalf of law enforcement.

Some officials may abuse their position of authority and perform illegal activities under the pretense of legal clout. This abuse is a punishable offence in many countries. In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) typically investigates such abuse cases.... www.wisegeek.com...

Then there is the Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....

I hope she sues the crap out of these people!!!!

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by bozzchem

 

OK folks leaving the emotion out.

I appreciate what you added to the thread!

Leaving the emotion out is easier said than done when your children are involved. I do not tend to be an emotionally driven person but should my child be in any semblance of danger, there will be nothing BUT emotions involved.

The question is, what exactly was the medication that the mother refused to give her child, and what is her condition? If the refusal was threatening life or health of the child, then such measures could be justified (altough having the decision of court would still be prefferable, if there is time).

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by bozzchem

 

Well, right now I'm torn between a .38 and a .22.... Don't mess with my kids damn it...

You have two hands, right?

Problem solved.

reply to post by My.mind.is.mine


Any round with 7.62 as a caliber will get people looking for cover on the double.
A.P. or steel core is a plus.