RE: CHILDREN'S RIGHTS - AN OPEN LETTER TO FRED UPTON
        This letter is posted to the Internet at: https://www.angelfire.com/mi/oaxamaxao/fu.html

Dear Representative Upton,

As you know I was once employed to manage a law office for an attorney who specialized in child abuse cases. It has been most disturbing to discover the extent to which this nation's prosecutors are given wide discretionary authority to fabricate allegations, manufacture evidence, and even participate in instructing state's witnesses how to commit perjury against US citizen's accused of crimes the prosecutor knows are false while these prosecutors have totally immunity from civil lawsuits when prosecutors are caught applying these tactics against a citizen, or even in cases involving a child's welfare during child protective proceedings in courts.

In 1935, The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue: Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/295/78.html: "As such, he [the prosecutor] is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones."

Now, 67 years later, the federal courts are taking a different view towards prosecutors using these tactics to win cases: (January 23, 2002)  Rowe v Ft. Lauderdale  F.3d, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 885 (11th Cir. 2002) United States Court of Appeals 11th Circuit No. 00-16361 D.C. Docket No. 97-06832 CV-PAS Appeal from the U S District Court for the Southern District of Florida:

• "We begin by discussing whether Lazarus was entitled to immunity from Rowe's claims. A prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity for all actions he takes while performing his function as an advocate for the government. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273, 113 S. Ct. 2606, 2615-16 (1993). The prosecutorial function includes the initiation and pursuit of criminal prosecution, Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 424, 96 S. Ct. 984, 992 (1976), and all appearances before the court, including examining witnesses and presenting evidence. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 492 111 S. Ct.. 1934, 1942 (1991). Under these principles, it is clear that, even if Lazarus knowingly proffered perjured testimony and fabricated exhibits at trial, he is entitled to absolute immunity from liability for doing so."

• "Witnesses who are an integral part of the judicial process "are wholly immune from liability for the consequences of their testimony or related evaluations." .. Falsity or malice on the part of the witness does not abrogate the privilege.... In this case, we are concerned with the absolute privilege for statements made during the course of judicial proceedings.... The immunity extends to every step of the proceeding and covers anything that may be said in relation to the matter at issue, including pleadings and affidavits."

• "This Court has repeatedly declined to consider arguments not presented at a lower level, including those relating to constitutional claims. In re Forfeiture of Certain Personal Property, 441 Mich 77, 84; 490 NW2d 322 (1992). Moreover, the Michigan Court of Appeals "functions as a court of review that is principally charged with the duty of correcting errors" that occurred below and thus should decline to address unpreserved issues. See Michigan Up & Out of Poverty Now Coalition v State of Michigan, 210 Mich App 162, 167-168; 533 NW2d 339 (1995)."

What is very disturbing is that this truth is so outrageous and unbelievable that the ordinary citizen being informed of these policies is not likely to believe it, or see a need to accurately verify it. The truth also is that it appears that the press has been suspiciously silent about these "standards of conduct."

Representative Upton, I do know that you have the resources available to you to independently verify the accuracy of these current policies regarding immunities and I am asking you to inquire into this as accurately as you are able in an honest administration of the public trust and as a representative of the people. I am praying that I am not the only citizen who would ask this of you. And I would like to know your opinion on this issue. I am asking that you seek out the opinion of the President of the United States on behalf of your constituents in this regard. Our nation's judges have adopted very lenient policies for prosecutor and judicial misconduct.

Perhaps, most important of all, is your opinion on how these policies affect the rights of children who are "processed" through the child welfare system and the courts in the name of child welfare at taxpayer expense. Is it possible that you are not concerned that far too many children's lives are being affected with serious negative consequences because a prosecutor, children's protective services, and the expert witnesses being used are allowed to do anything to win a case even at the expense of the rights and welfare of a child?

Mr. Upton, are these the same standards which you would have your own children subjected to?

Sincerely Yours,

Terry L. Fesler
Terry L. Fesler

• "Traditionally, a private citizen has no standing to vindicate a public wrong or enforce a public right where he is not hurt in any manner differently than the citizenry at large." Waterford School Dist v State Bd of Ed, 98 Mich App 658, 662; 296 NW2d 328 (1980)."

Rowe: https://www.angelfire.com/mi/oaxamaxao/rowe.html
Bielaska: https://www.angelfire.com/mi/oaxamaxao/2bielaska.html
Berger: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/295/78.html

One anticipated reply and response from Mr. Upton is that any litigant who has a problem with the conduct of a prosecutor, or judge, may file an interlocutory appeal, and even an injunction but if this litigant is represented by an attorney the that attorney will most likely decline to zealously pursue such an issue and there are reasons why which are explained more fully here: https://www.angelfire.com/mi/oaxamaxao/why.html

Legislators prefer to refer people who make such complaints to their elected representatives to the state attorney general, or a children's ombudsman, or an attorney grievance commission, or a judicial tenure commission. These agencies have no intention to discipline judges and lawyers to the extent the public and elected officials are inclined to believe and represent is the purpose of these agencies.

Also federal elected officials usually try their best to ignore that there is federal oversight on these issues, primarily through the Department of Health and Human Services, and even though the federal government rarely prosecutes this misconduct it does on occasion pursue criminal indictments. Also the elected representative on the federal level knows that when the states refuse to diligently maintain the integrity of the child welfare laws these states can lose the federal funding for violations of the child welfare laws. So, please do not accept and answer from any elected federal official that here is nothing they can do. Do not tolerate an elected federal official avoiding the issue that federal taxpayer dollars are being wasted and the states can be "cut off" and fined for abuses of these federal funds until the states again comply with the child welfare laws.

It is also insulting to consider that I may be raising issues that have not been brought to the attention of federal legislators for years, in fact well over 20 years now. In my opinion Fred Upton is not going to be concerned about these issues until the public has made enough complaints about it that Mr. Upton will only become concerned about the abuses children suffer through official misconduct if he thinks it may effect his re-election. That is my opinion of Fred Upton's concern for the welfare of children ad this opinion is based on my personal experiences with Fred Upton. I will be posting several of the letters I have received from Fred Upton over the years as time permits.

If people are having difficulty with their own elected representatives at addressing public corruption then perhaps people may learn more effective ways to have their elected representatives acknowledge and address public corruption by learning from my posts and attempts to have Fred Upton effectively address these issues. Public corruption in the child welfare industry has got to stop! I am going to do my part and I fully expect Fred Upton to faithfully administer the public trust on children's rights issues. At this point in time I sincerely believe that Fred Upton does not want to be bothered about public corruption in the child welfare industry and I have no legitimate reason to believe that this is not true. This has also got to stop!

Here are links to federal congressional testimony by experts who have been trying to get the federal elected legislators to see these problems for over 20 years now:

https://www.angelfire.com/mi/oaxamaxao/knitzer.html

http://www.liftingtheveil.org/testimony.htm

http://www.liftingtheveil.org/

This page created on October 13, 2003
There have been visitors to this web page!