If I may I would like to offer a quote found on the web site of the web site of the US Attorney for
Western Michigan. United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Michigan 616-456-2404 The Law Building, 330 Ionia Avenue N.W., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/miw/criminal.html:
______________
"Once an Indictment is returned, a criminal case exists that must be prosecuted on behalf of the United States of America. The Assistant United States Attorney has the privilege of serving as the representative of the people in such a case. The AUSA is charged with seeing justice is done, not only on behalf of the United States, but the defendant as well. The Supreme Court once noted that:

The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he 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... It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 at 88. Argued and submitted March 7, 1935. Decided April 15, 1935. United States Supreme Court."
___________________________

I was schooled during the 1950's and 1960's and remember very well many of the civic and social studies lessons I received from very fine teachers. The Berger v US decision is so very consistent with what I was taught as a child and exemplifies what democracy and the United States of America stood for, represented, and most importantly could be counted on to firmly maintain these standards.

However, since 1935, there have been many decisions that suggest the integrity that I once understood to be diligently maintained appears to be eroding significantly over the years.

As a person who has worked in the legal profession, including managing a law office once, and a father who has also had personal experiences with the courts, child welfare agencies, and prosecuting attorneys, I feel that certain issues have been "overlooked" or neglected for far too long and it is quite appropriate to speak out in an attempt to have the voices of many be heard. I understand that there are far too many voices and especially a growing number of voices, people, children, citizens, and even some legislators who are beginning to realize something is terribly wrong with the child welfare structure in every state, on every level from the federal to the state and to the counties within the state. These voices are growing, and growing stronger, each and every day!

I have since learned that right here in the United States of America prosecutors, police, expert witnesses and even child welfare social workers can bring a citizen into the court process by presenting lies, manufacture and fabricate evidence and even do so with malice and it has become established case law that these people will have immunities, even if they are caught doing these things:
_______________________________

The truth of this has been so well stated in court decisions issued right here in the United States:

Specifically, I am referring to two decisions, one that is published and one that has been designated as unpublished:

The published case is an 11th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals case: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (January 23, 2002) No. 00-16361 [D.C. Docket No. 97-06832 CV-PAS

Robert R. Rowe, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, a municipal corporation, BLACKBURN, individually and as police officer of the City of Fort Lauderdale.

The specific judges who decided this case were: The Honorable J.L. Edmondson, the Honorable Edward Carnes, and the Honorable R. Kenton Musgrave.

A copy of this case should be available through the Court Clerk's office of 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Thomas K. Kahn, Clerk
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
56 Forsyth St. N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

In this decision these judges made these observations about prosecutor [Lazarus] discretion and immunities:

We now turn to the issue of whether, given those facts, the district court was right to grant Lazarus summary judgment on Rowe's claims against him. 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.

"An investigator's planting or fabricating evidence in an effort to obtain a conviction does violate clearly established law, Jones, 174 F.3d at 1289-90; Riley v. City of Montgomery, 104 F.3d 1247, 1253 (11th Cir. 1997), and therefore is not protected by qualified immunity. Thus, if Lazarus had engaged in any planting or fabricating of evidence while he was in an investigatory role, he would not be immune from liability for damages to Rowe."

EDWARD BIELASKA and CLAUDIA BIELASKA Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Wayne Circuit Court LINDA ORLEY, LAURA ORLEY, and WILLIAM ORLEY, Defendants, and KAREN SCHULTE, FAMILY CONSULTATION & TREATMENT SERVICES, INC., KATHLEEN COULBORN FALLER, JANE MILDRED, and ELLEN DEVOE, Defendants-Appellees. Lower Court No. 96-614421-NM for Wayne County, Michigan.

The section of this case I would like to quote from follows:

"Our Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the civil action, finding that summary disposition was warranted under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (8). Id. at 118. In that opinion, the Court explained the scope of the witness immunity doctrine in Michigan. The Court stated:

[W]itnesses who testify during the course of judicial proceedings enjoy quasi-judicial immunity. This immunity is available to those serving in a quasi judicial adjudicative capacity as well as "those persons other than judges without whom the judicial process could not function." Witnesses who are an integral part of the judicial process "are wholly immune from liability for the consequences of their testimony or related evaluations." Statements made during the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged, provided they are relevant, material, or pertinent to the issue being tried. Falsity or malice on the part of the witness does not abrogate the privilege. The privilege should be liberally construed so that participants in judicial proceedings are free to express themselves without fear of retaliation. As this Court [previously] noted: "Witness immunity is also grounded in the need of the judicial system for testimony from witnesses who, taking their oaths, are free of concern that they themselves will be targeted by the loser for further litigation. Absent perjury of a character requiring action by the prosecuting attorney, the testimony of a witness is to be weighed by the fact finder in the matter at bar, not by a subsequent jury summoned to determine whether the first lawsuit was tainted . . . ." [Id. at 133- 134 (citations omitted), (emphasis added).]

The Honorable Hilda R. Gage
Michigan State Court of Appeals, 2nd District
American Center Building
27777 Franklin Rd. Suite 645
Southfield, Michigan 48034-2055
The Honorable Donald E. Holbrook Jr.
Michigan State Court of Appeals, 4th District
Washington Square Building
109 W. Michigan Ave.
P.O. Box 30022
Lansing, Michigan 48909-7522

The Honorable Michael R. Smolenski
Michigan State Court of Appeals, 3rd District
State of Michigan Office Building
350 Ottawa N.W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503-2316
_______________________________

It is more than shocking, and very discouraging to me, that my fellow citizens of the United States of America do not realize the extent to which prosecutors, police, and especially court appointed witnesses lie, manufacture, fabricate and commit perjury in order to "win a conviction." It is even more appalling to me that the press continues to ignore this truth.

What is even more discouraging to me is that elected representatives continue to argue and debate about constitutional and procedural safeguards that may as well be considered nonexistent now. The next step has already been put in place for people are being detained without being charged, or allowed a public hearing, and detained indefinitely while being subject to "secret tribunals."

What happens to the rights of children in the United States of America has been quite similar for secret files and records are kept, closed hearings are performed, and records of these proceedings are considered confidential, even to legislators who have authority over the agencies that perform these functions. Add to this that the persons involved in these children's affairs are permitted to lie, manufacture and fabricate these records and proceedings and it can only lead to disaster after disaster, which also apparently appears to be well documented in the news far too many times.

What is fair in court proceedings should be so obvious:

• It should be a mandatory law to interview children on videotape and preserve this evidence, if for no other reason than to consider that the people who interview these children can lie, manufacture and fabricate their reports, findings and allegations and often do.

• Legislators need to establish what a competent psychological evaluation or assessment is and make this the law, as well as clearly define who is qualified to perform these psychological evaluations or assessments for the purposes of review by a court.

• Citizens ordered by the court to submit to these psychological evaluations or assessments should have the right to demand that these also be videotaped and that evidence preserved.

• Citizens who are subjected to supervised visitations with their children should also have the right to have these interactions videotaped and that evidence preserved.

• Judges who do not control the proceedings before their court where discovery issues and all properly filed motions and issues are not timely adjudicated should be criminally charged for misconduct, and removed from office.

• Judges who fail to make decisions based on reliable tangible evidence and judges who refuse to allow credible and reliable evidence to be admitted should also be criminally charged for misconduct, and removed from office.

• Prosecutors who knowingly withhold exonerating evidence from discovery and the court should also be criminally charged for misconduct, and removed from office.

• Certain acts of official misconduct should have the statute of limitations extended for those who have been subjected to these tactics, maneuvers and procedures.

Psychological evaluations, or custody/visitation assessments which are often ordered by the court are nothing more than another abuse of process where it is already known that the "expert evaluator" is going to produce a report, or evaluation, that reinforces what has already been predetermined.

The services and programs many people are "coerced" into accepting are again "structured" to reinforce the often fabricated and manufactured allegations that initiated far too many child protection proceedings to begin with.

Please do not get me wrong here for their are many public programs designed to assist children and families in many given situations and there are many dedicated individuals administering these programs and many children often benefit and are protected from negative, or even more horrible situations. But even given these circumstances it does not and cannot excuse what also has been growing within the child welfare system and it does not and cannot excuse those who decline to recognize an urgent need to "cut this off" and competently investigate these things. This society all the way up to the President of the United States urgently needs to know what children are far too often being subjected to in the name of "child welfare" for personal profit or gain, or personal agenda, while being permitted to "run amok" under the veil of these immunities and confidential proceedings and records.