Day 1: Arrest

This is so shameful. Shame on that sheriff and anyone who upholds pursuing action against this family.

Here’s a silly term that you could use:

CPSWATted. The same way gamers get SWATted by mischevious parties, your family got CPS-SWATted by a douche with mischevious tendencies.

I cannot believe this is happening to your family. I hope you get justice for what has been done to you.

What were the charges brought against them, please?
While i oppose the force that CPS showed in the apprehension, I could not support this family without knowing what the actual charges are. Anyone?

So what if this family is living off grid. So what if they homeschool. I am a fellow homeschooler myself. What this boils down to is this families “FREEDOM” has been taken away all because of the anonymous CPS call and their “FREEDOM of SPEECH”. Whoopie Cookie! This is sad and shameful! I pray this family gets their children back.

Someone a few posts up posted the court date and place. Everyone in KY or nearby that is available needs to show up in that courtroom!

Some people don’t understand when some of us choose to live differently. It sounds like you had a lovely home. The police definitely did not need to manhandle Mrs. Naugler. I will pray for you and your family.

I’ve read this story over and over and can’t see where it says what crime was committed that resulted in the need for CPS taking their children?

This sherrif demonstrated no regard for the supreme law of the land- the United States Constitution. It seems that his idea of the law is reversed whereby lesser laws trump the supreme law which protects the rights of citizens. Instead of this sherrif protecting the rights of citizens through his duties it would seem that he would rather violate the rights of citizens under his care and to misuse his authority by ASSAULTING a pregnant woman under false pretenses and justification in order to protect himself. He should face charges for this assault and must face more serious charges should anything happen to the baby of this pregnant mother who was victimized by the actions of a bully. This sherrif and those like him should be removed from authority as they are a disgrace to their position and to Constitution of the United States. They must once again fear the people whom they took an oath to both serve and to protect.

NOTE in regard to following item: I, Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone (the United States), am the original author and Common Law Copyright holder of the Notice and Demand presented herein below. I offer it here for Joe and Nicole Naugler for them to use against STATE OF KENTUCKY CPS, should they care to serve it, but for no others without my express permission. No Paytri-Idiot edits allowed!
This item is ineffective without Exhibit A, posted on my private Yahoo Group. I can be contacted on my public group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whoru.
There is never any charge for my work.

PRELIMINARY NOTICE
OF CHALLENGE TO STATE OF KENTUCKY’S
POLITICAL OR CONTRACTUAL JURISDICTION
OVER THESE BELLIGERENT CLAIMANTS
and
DEMAND
THAT CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES OF STATE OF KENTUCKY
PRESENT PROOF OF STATE OF KENTUCKY’S JURISDICTION
OVER THESE BELLIGERENT CLAIMANTS’ FAMILY
-
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES OF
STATE OF KENTUCKY’S INHERENT FAILURE
TO PRESENT SUCH PROOF SHALL CONSTITUTE
ITS AVERMENT THAT IT HAS NO MANNER OF JURISDICTION OVER THESE BELLIGERENT CLAIMANT’S FAMILY
AND RESPECTS THEIR ASSERTION
OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER COMMON LAW
The issues:
1. This is a challenge to the Political and or civil contractual Jurisdiction of STATE OF KENTUCKY, particularly Child Protective Services of STATE OF KENTUCKY (“CPS/SOK”), such being of the Executive Branch of SOK .

2. In accordance with Exhibit “A” hereto, it is the responsibility of CPS/SOK, of the Executive Branch of SOK. to present its proof, from its existing files, to be attested to by an actual living eyewitness, that said State has in some manner, in conformance to the restriction set forth and established in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, gained the voluntary agreement of these Belligerent Claimants to be subservient to the Political or civil contractual Jurisdiction of SOK .

3. This PRELIMINARY NOTICE has been prompted by contact of these Belligerent Claimants by CPS/SOK, wherein CPS/SOK seems to have presumed it has the same degree of control over these Belligerent Claimants’ children as it does over those persons who have voluntarily submitted themselves, generally, to SOK, and particularly to CPS/SOK, through marriage under a marriage license contract where; under such marriage license contract; the children of such marriage contract relationship are agreed to be the property of SOK.

4. Let CPS/SOK be hereby advised, until CPS/SOK presents proof of some manner of jurisdiction of SOK over these Belligerent Claimants, in accordance with the provisions of this Preliminary Notice, that CPS will have no authority to, and will not proceed further with it’s investigation against these Belligerent Claimants or their children.

5. In consideration of the foregoing, CPS/SOK , in recognition of its lack of jurisdiction, has no option, other than to discontinue any further investigation or contact with these Belligerent Claimants or their children.

ADDITIONAL ADMONISHMENTS

6. Based on all the foregoing, let CPS/SOK be hereby advised; these Belligerent Claimants are NOT herein making or implying any manner of assertion as to what their political status is in relation to the United States or SOK and none should be inferred by CPS or by said STATE; and, SOK/CPS has no standing to inquire of these Belligerent Claimants as to their political or civil contractual status in regard to SOK. The burden of proof is on the charging entity, SOK;

7. In reference to Exhibit “A” hereto, set forth in paragraph 4 herein above and incorporated therein and thereat, in full by such reference, is a list of forty-five (45) appellate court case citations that establish that when jurisdiction (of any manner), is challenged, it must be proved, on the record, and attested to by a living eyewitness, subpoenaed by the charging party, the Executive Branch of SOK, not declared or assumed by CPS/SOK based on its own determination or on any assertion presented by any representative of SOK, that is not attested to, in court, by a living eyewitness, cross examined by these Belligerent Claimants. (See Exhibit “A”, par 39-45).

8. It is clearly self evident that the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution causes the admonitions in these 45 appellate court cases to apply reasonably, in this instant case, to the charging party, the Executive Branch of SOK, and NOT directly to CPS. However, let it be clear, the burden of proof is upon CPS to establish SOK has properly acquired some manner of jurisdiction over these Belligerent Claimants and their children.

9. However, let CPS be hereby advised, as a subdivision of SOK, CPS has no standing to proceed against these Belligerent Claimants or their children, unless and until the Executive Branch of SOK presents its proof, from its files, substantiated by the attestation of an eyewitness, attesting that at the time and on the date these Belligerent Claimants were approached by CPS/SOK, that such State then had and now has properly gained and maintained Political and or civil contractual Jurisdiction over these Belligerent Claimants and their children; (Exhibit “A”, pars 1-38);

10. And that a real live eyewitness will attest that SOK has gained such jurisdiction in full compliance with and not in violation of the restrictions established in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution; that unless and until such proof is presented and attested to, neither SOK or CPS will regain any authority to ever again interfere with the life of these Belligerent Claimants, Tom and Mary Smith, or their children!

11. CPS/SOK (through either its Administrative/Judicial Branch or its Executive Branch), does not have standing to interrogate these Belligerent Claimants in their efforts to establish that SOK had political or civil contractual jurisdiction over these Belligerent Claimants , and certainly do not have standing to attempt to establish such jurisdiction to be effective at this late date.

12. SOK must present its proof from its existing files, and if SOK claims to have such proof, such proof must be presented to these Belligerent Claimants in writing, together with the sworn declaration of the STATE’S eyewitness, including (but not limited to) the eyewitness’ name and contact information. And, these Belligerent Claimants must be accorded a reasonable opportunity to depose the STATE’S eyewitness and subpoena witnesses and gather evidence in opposition thereto, if deemed necessary by these Belligerent Claimants.

Discussion

13. The issue of this Notice and Demand is limited to examining the issue of whether or not SOK can present proof that it has political or civil contractual jurisdiction over these Belligerent Claimants and/or over their children. The underlying issues of CPS are NOT relevant! (EX. “A”, pars 1-38).

14. The relationship of the standing of these Belligerent Claimants to SOK is a political issue based on SOK’S compliance with the Federal Thirteenth Amendment; it is not a judicial issue.

15. CPS/SOK does not have standing to determine the political status of either of there Belligerent Claimants any more than would CPS/SOK have standing to determine the political status of the Queen of England.

16. This is true because the political status of any person can only be determined by the voluntary act of each individual, based on their own individual choice, as is clearly established in the prohibition of involuntary servitude, set forth and established in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal
Constitution.

17. Let SOK and CPS be further advised; The presentation herein and references herein to the forty-five (45) appellate court cases pertaining to and establishing proper protocols in regard to procedures once jurisdiction has been challenged are not offered herein by these Belligerent Claimants as any basis for their Challenge to the jurisdiction of SOK over these Belligerent Claimants.

18. Let SOK and this CPS be further advised; the Fundamental Basis of these Belligerent Claimants’ Jurisdictional Challenge goes to the very existence of SOK and is based on Natural Law as is embodied and Recognized and established as an integral part of the Constitution of the United States of America, in the Thirteenth Amendment thereto!

19. Federal Thirteenth Amendment:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

20. Let SOK and this CPS be hereby further advised, We, Joe and Mary Smith, freely acknowledge that the CPS and SOK have a serious dilemma, as there is no possible way that SOK can present proof that it has properly gained any manner of jurisdiction over these Belligerent Claimants or their children, and at the same time, that if CPS/SOK responds with the information that it does purport to have, CPS/SOK knows that we will eviscerate any such presentation due to the self evident fraudulent procurement thereof by SOK, thereby totally embarrassing SOK.

Proceeding at all times under Threat, Duress and Coercion

____________________________
Joe and Mary Smith
c/o P.O. Box XX,
Breckinridge County, KENTUCKY 12345
May 10, 2015

Just leave, leave that horrible country. The world is a wonderful place. We left 6 years ago, never looked back. The best decision ever.

God be with your family and send you an angel of might to free the mom and the family! In Jesus’s name Amen!

If it were us, we’d revoke our voter registrations. Then contact at least 16 people to volunteer in that county’s Grand Jury and propose an indictment against the sherif his superiors and name everyone involved for felony kidnapping with a deadly weapon. Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, grand theft auto etc. Endangering the life of minors etc. I’m quite serious, indict everyone involved to stand trial and if the judge gets in the way, indict him for contempt of court and obstructing the official duties of the Grand Jury.

This is not an isolated case. I liveway off grid too and people around here with children have to live VERY quietly - hidden almost - if they do not have the “proper” set up especially hot running water and flush toilets. As though these were ANY guarantee of health and safety. There is an almost knee-jerk reaction that we are somehow “crazies” for notbuying into the whole 9-yards of civilized life. All we can do is do what matters to us and be prepared to fight back if challenged. Whatever that means to each one of us.

Our lovely “Death Spiral” Commonwealth, once famous for raising great Americans off-the-grid.

Now with the highest percentages of methlabs, toasted CPS pension funds and SSI recipients in the world, it is busily dividing fruitful and self-sufficient houses against themselves.

Matthew 10
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

The head must bow and the back will have to bend,
Wherever these poor folks may go
A few more days and the trouble will end,
In the fields where the SSI payments grow.
A few more days for to tote the weary load,
No matter, ’twill never be light
A few more days till we totter on the road,
Then my old Kentucky home, good night.