In this country we embrace the myth that we are still a democracy when we know that we are not a democracy, that we are not free, that the government does not serve us but subjugates us. Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know the government is no longer the servant of the people but, at last has become the people's master.

Yet Americans, whose battle cry was once, "Give me liberty or give me death", have sat placidly by as a new king was crowned. In America a new king was crowned by the shrug of our shoulders when our neighbors were wrongfully seized. A new king was crowned when we capitulated to a regime that is no longer sensitive to people, but to non people--to corporations, to money and to power.

We cheered the new king on as it diluted our right to be secure in our homes against unlawful searches and to be secure in the courts against unlawful evidence. We cheered the new king on because we were told that our sacred rights were but "loopholes" but which our enemies: the murderers and rapists and thieves and drug dealers, escaped. We were told that those who fought for our rights, the lawyers, were worse than the thieves who stole from us in the night, that our juries were irresponsible and ignorant and ought not to be trusted. We watched with barely more than a mumble as the legal system that once protected us became populated with judges who were appointed by the new king.

We forgot the lessons of history: that when the rights of our enemies have been wrested from them, we have lost our own rights as well, for the same rights serve both citizen and criminal. The government had but one purpose, as it remains today, the disengagement of free citizens from society.

That none of us felt responsible for having lost our freedom has been a part of an insidious progression.

The above excerpt is:  "From Freedom To Slavery, The Rebirth Of Tyranny In America"
by Gerry Spence

One thing I hope becomes obvious to the visitor to this web site is that immunities were originally intended to be granted to elected congressional officials, diplomats, and judges.

To a certain degree these were necessary because sometimes diplomatic messengers carried bad news and would be killed by the receiver of the bad news. Agreements were eventually reached and respected by most all governments and diplomats currently receive some of the most extensive immunities. There are many examples on the history of immunities I could provide but there is not enough space to cover the subject the way it should.

If one were to examine the United States Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Amendment XIV

(1868)

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."

At a specific point in time the citizen was provided immunities against actions initiated by the government with the understanding that there would be "zealous prosecutions" and that certain crimes against citizens could not be brought against them by the government. Only a person who has suffered an actual injury, either personal or an injury to his/her property, could bring the accused into court for redress and compensation. This was known as "standing to bring suit."

Actions against an individual were limited to actual damages and injuries caused by that person for which compensation could be sought.

The wisdom of this was based on the understanding that if the government was limited to what it could charge its citizens with there would not be abuses of due process and overzealous prosecutions. Only another citizen could bring these charges and that citizen must be able to prove an actual injury or damage.

Laws have changed significantly since these concepts were placed in effect and now there are crimes that are considered to be against society and the government has created a long list of these types of crimes where in actual fact no one has been personally injured by the action of the accused.

I am reminded of a section of the Declaration of Independence where this concept was originally placed into words:

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World."

Below is a list of grievances our founding fathers presented to the King of England.

HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless
suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly
neglected to attend to them.

HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those
People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and
formidable to Tyrants only.

HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the
Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his
Measures.

HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions
on the Rights of the People.

HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the
Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their
exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and
the Convulsions within.

HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws
for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising
the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing
Judiciary Powers.

HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and
Payment of their Salaries.

HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People,
and eat out their Substance.

HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and
unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us;

FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on
the Inhabitants of these States:

FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an
arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit
Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:

FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the
Forms of our Governments:

FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for
us in all Cases whatsoever.

HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our
People.

HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death,
Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled
in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their
Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their
Hands.

HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of
our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished
Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our
repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus
marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to
Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have
reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their
native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to
disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence.
They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce
in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind,
Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL
CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our
Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish
and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT
STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political
Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that
as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace,
contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT
STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the
Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our
sacred Honor.

It would be quite accurate to say that in the United States what was once preserved for the citizen has now been established for the public servant: Immunities from Suit, or being held personally accountable and responsible for misconduct and corruption.

The United States Government has reached a point where the Judicial System truly answers to no one when it denies the common citizen a right to access the courts for a redress of grievance.

In truth, any judge may enter any unlawful order he, or she, pleases and is only limited by what the affected person may have the order overturned on a successful appeal. In Michigan there is a case that somewhat covers this quite bluntly:

We do not accept the "no relief no harm" rule because it is a legal fiction with serious analytical flaws.

Rather than being a legal definition of harm, the rule is a legal fiction that divorces the law from reality.
"Persons convicted of a crime will be astonished to learn that, even if their lawyers' negligence resulted
in their being wrongly convicted and imprisoned, they were not harmed when they were wrongly
convicted and imprisoned but, rather, that they are harmed only if and when they are exonerated."

Gebhardt v. O'Rourke, 444 Mich. 535, 554; 510 N.W.2d 900 (1994).

It is especially true when the courts consider that should there have been any real foundations of fraud, or corruption, when you stand before the court, then it was the duty of your attorney to raise this issue and preserve these issues, for appeal, in the event that the judge disagrees with your evidence.

The fact that the attorney does not raise these issues at all, forever, creates a presumption that it was the duty of the attorney to raise these issues and since they were not raised during the court proceedings then the issues must not have had any merit, or the attorney surely would have zealously performed these duties and obligations. Once the court enters a final court order, these issues are lost forever, unless you can file a successful claim that your attorney negligently represented you and failed to do the duties prescribed to attorneys.

Quote courtesy of Gary A. Preble, Attorney at Law.

"As is so often the case, the answer must be found in a balance between the evils inevitable in either alternative. In this instance it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation." Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581 (CA2 1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 949 (1950).32 "

"This case presents a question of statutory construction: whether 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1976 ed., Supp. V) authorizes a convicted person to assert a claim for damages against a police officer for giving perjured testimony at his criminal trial. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that witnesses are absolutely immune from damages liability based on their testimony, and rejected the petitioners' contention that government officials who testify about the performance of their official duties may be held liable under 1983 even if other witnesses may not. We agree with that conclusion."

"A witness' apprehension of subsequent damages liability might induce two forms of self-censorship. First, witnesses might be reluctant to come forward to testify. See Henderson v. Broomhead, supra, at 578-579, 157 Eng. Rep., at 968. And once a witness is on the stand, his testimony might be distorted by the fear of subsequent liability. See Barnes v. McCrate, 32 Me. 442, 446-447 (1851). Even within the constraints of the witness' oath there may be various ways to give an account or to state an opinion. These alternatives may be more or less detailed and may differ in emphasis and certainty. A witness who knows that he might be forced to defend a subsequent lawsuit, and perhaps to pay damages, might be inclined to shade his testimony in favor of the potential plaintiff, to magnify uncertainties, and
thus to deprive the finder of fact of candid, objective, and undistorted evidence."

"The reasons for this rule are also substantial. It is precisely the function of a judicial proceeding to determine where the truth lies. The ability of courts, under carefully developed procedures, to separate truth from falsity, and the importance of accurately resolving factual disputes in criminal (and civil) cases are such that those involved in judicial proceedings should be `given every encouragement to make a full disclosure of all pertinent information within their knowledge."

"Subjecting government officials, such as police officers, to damages liability under 1983 for their testimony might undermine not only their contribution to the judicial process but also the effective performance of their other public duties."

"This category of 1983 litigation might well impose significant burdens on the judicial system and on law enforcement resources. As this Court noted when it recognized absolute immunity for prosecutors in Imbler, if the defendant official "could be made to answer in court each time [a disgruntled defendant] charged him with wrongdoing, his energy and attention [460 U.S. 325, 344] would be diverted from the pressing duty of enforcing the criminal law." 424 U.S., at 425."

[Footnote 1] The Court has held that the prosecutor's knowing use of perjured testimony violates due process, but has not held that the false testimony of a police officer in itself violates constitutional rights. See United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103, and nn. 8, 9 (1976) (citing cases).

Bielaska v Orley

This case is provided here so that the visitor to this web site may be able to review the legal reasoning of the Michigan Court of Appeals as to why it is "permissible" for a court to appoint an expert witness who the court could even be aware that the appointed expert witness may even knowingly lie and fabricate "expert testimony" and still be immune from lawsuit.

Children are not provided any exceptions to these policies and procedures.

Child abuse is a reality and an outrage. It is unfortunate that there is a need for the creation of public agencies to protect children and it must be said that these agencies do provide a much needed service to children. The problem is that there are many children who do not benefit from the intervention of these agencies and services but are actually worse off than they were before interventions. What is even worse is that there are also far too many children who were not in need of intervention services but for the pursuit of profit these children were processed through a system that is abused by corrupt individuals who also have the privilege of "secrecy and confidentiality" on top of the immunities they have should they get caught destroying a child's health and welfare.