Ralph Winterowd Show, April 24, 2011


http://www.msfraud.org/Gloss3.htm

The Ralph Winterowd Show, April 24, 2011

[Ralph] Got some interesting issues. I’m going to talk about a lot of live cases that are going on in Alaska. Other ones that I’m involved in providing research material in. I’ve got a working computer, my Mac is back healthy—praise the Lord {and pass the Megabytes}. I did a complete reload and got all my contaminated files out of all the application stuff and I got a healthy computer so watch out. Federales, I’m a coming for you, bubba and I don’t take prisoners and I don’t do forgiveness. You got to talk to somebody else about that, not within my realm. A couple of the things that are really—there’s a lot of absolute astounding things going on. I’ve got to believe that we have people out there that are actually maybe starting to wake up and might want liberty. One of the astounding things that’s coming up is on George Noorey’s show on Coast-to-Coast. Dr. Judy Wood is finally going to get a platform for three hours to put out the truth—it’s absolutely astounding. The only comprehensive forensic investigation in existence today in the public forum, she’s got it, that’s it and it’s just absolutely shocking. How did we get this far away from 911, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the NIST Report and admits they did not investigate the collapse of the building. They admit it and it’s been discredited. How does this get by all of 300 plus million people? And the fallout that they’ve used is all of the legislation to further entrap us and “for our own protection” take away what we perceive as our constitutional rights—they’re actually the rights that they want to give us that are their civil rights but we have civil liberties. But the Patriot Act of all of these things are all the fallout are all because of and implemented because of we had a 911 attack in New York. Nobody wants to talk about all seven buildings—seven of them went away. Yes, seven of them, not just the twin towers, not just building seven and there are about 1400 cars up to a half a mile away that were “toasted”. People were levitated. All of these things nobody wants to talk about. The truth is a very rare commodity in today’s world. I sit and I ponder how the truth has no standing in today’s world. I don’t get it, I really don’t. He tells lies, he steals other people’s work. They repackage it. They have no evidence. They attack the messengers. I don’t get it. I don’t know. And I heard a little bit of what John was saying here in the re-run prior to the hour. That was the “claim” to be of the “Christian faith” regardless of whatever it is. What the hell are you folks? What are you? Greg Pound is still fighting—hasn’t surrendered down in Florida. He had a—for you people who don’t know—he had a dog, it wasn’t his, grab a hold of one of his children. Took it to the hospital, wasn’t hurt. The next thing you know he loses four children to the people that are “out there to help us”, the child custody folks and he has lost all of his parental rights. {Serves him right for filing a birth certificate on them and turning them over to the State (minions of the central bank).} And the person that filed the report had filed over twenty some illegal unlawful that were felony counts and that little lady, she walked without any jail time and vanished into the ether. Did Greg Pound get any of them back? {He needs to file a breach of the fiduciary duty or public trust law suit} No. And it’s been documented all of the abuse that goes on with the children. And I have an act of Congress where it is white slavery, folks. It is black slavery, it is every color of slavery you want to call it. It is flat out damned slavery. Congress has put a bounty on kids. …kids on children—absolutely. They want, these child people, these child custodies, child slavers is what they are, they’re slavers. They have goals and if you reach this goal we will give you $4000 bonus for the healthy ones and $2000 for the cripples. That’s in America, folks. {That might be, but which minions of Satan are running America?} E-mail me at Ralph@jusbelli.com I will give you the dam public law. Tell me it’s not so. I bought this up at the LIO, the Legislative Information Office when I actually had a “driver’s license”. We’re going to get into that in this show too and Senator Lyda Greene thought it was funny. And if I were evil I would say, ‘I hope to hell it happens to your children and your grandchildren,’ but I can’t do that. They are killing children, torturing them, sending them into pedophile rings and the Christians which just irritates the living hell out of me—Greg Pound has gone to some the biggest churches and they ran him off. They don’t want him out side. {They’re contractees (501[c][3] and so is he [birth certificates].} Why wouldn’t they be fighting if it’s your child or my child or any child, why wouldn’t you be up in arms? You wouldn’t allow this thing to happen {too bad you don’t look at what you sign or even understand it if you did.} and yet they’re not interested. So what do they do in church anymore, the 501 [c][3]’s . {they count their money}. They’ve admitted that we want to tie into the coup d’etat government with the Internal Revenue Service that has no laws—conclusively proven. There is no legal duty for the IRS—that’s a fact, folks, and I can absolutely prove it and I will take on anybody—bring it on. Now, I have an IRS package for $250 and I’m going to be adding to that here with some more things that I have discovered. It’s already there. But you know what, if you can put up one Mount Everest let’s put up three of them against these illegal treasonous acts that are going on in our country. Where are the Christians. {They are signed up with the devils’ minions}. Where are those that just even have the faith without being called a Christian but there is something else out there on the other side. Where are you or do you think this it? I hope not. I’m not of that belief system. I can’t prove it. No, I can’t prove it. It’s a belief system, it’s a faith system. {better talk to Jonathan Gray who can show you some real proof – http://www.beforeus.com } But if you profess to have that where are you in the fight for liberty? I have come to the conclusion very few people want liberty. You know why? It’s too much work. You actually have to be responsible for your own lives and your own actions and you don’t have somebody to take care of you and you can actually have to stand up and have a moral compass and say, ‘yeah, I screwed up,’ and correct your moral compass and take responsibility {after you get rid of your fluoride and other delights}. Nobody wants to do that anymore—most people don’t. It’s absolutely astounding. That doesn’t detract for people that are out there that…… like everything else you can’t say that all Christians are bad. You can’t say all these other ones—there are some ‘religions’ that aren’t technically religions that are incompatible with our way of life, our Constitutional Republic of civil liberties. One of them is Islam. {It ain’t the only one!!} But I’m not going there today, I’ve talked about that before. This is supposed to be a day for the Resurrection, of course, and we know the three days and all that that people have told us about. It’s there but it’s been misrepresented. I went to a Lutheran catechism and they didn’t tell me the truth by a long ways. I don’t regret that I had the two years but what is wrong with unmitigated truth today? I don’t know. {it’s too incriminating—heck, how can we have deception if we have unmitigated truth—and besides I don’t have a fast horse (old proverb: he who tells the truth must have a mighty fast horse}. I can’t put a finger on it that I can describe to people. Also, after Dr. Judy Wood’s going to be on May 3rd for three hours on George Noorey. I’m going to have– Richard Gage has agreed to come on my show on May 8th at six to seven for one hour. So that should be an interesting show and we’re going to talk some more about the thermite {my spell checker thought it was termites instead of thermite but it can be forgiven, with Dr. Wood it got confused.} issues and where he stands in the world. And I’m about the truth {probably goes to the Kentucky Derby every year}. That’s what I follow—I try to follow—I’m not perfect at it…but I try to vet some of these issues on the truth.

Dealing with Dave Gladden which is in Dillingham. People that don’t know, he was by force taken from his house, from his apartment and he actually lives in an apartment and he’s added rooms to it. He’s a hard working Seventh Day Adventist. They actually got Sunday right. He’s a man of great courage. He stands with the truth and he’s willing to fight. They removed him by force of arms. A trooper came and he was in the building and the Dillingham Policeman came and none of these people hold a public office. They have no authority. It’s all commerce, what I’m seeing now any more. But I’m going to read you what they put on the thing here—unbelievable.

He has a federal case filed, a quiet title action, in Alaska in the United States District Court in the kangaroos, not the real District Court of the United States and the case number is 3-10-CV-267 and his last name is Gladden. The federal court is trying to not take “jurisdiction” of the quiet title action. There is a cloud on the title which is one action by the City of Dillingham. They claim they’re the legal owner. They don’t claim that they have a perfect legal title. They’re just a legal owner. They’re claiming that they have the right of possession. Nobody ever wants to talk about the other part of property which is the right of property, the thing, what we touch. There is the right of possession. There is the right of property and a legal owner, legal title or a perfect legal title means you have the right of possession to use something, somebody else’s property and you have the right of property also tied in could be the same thing as equitable title, equitable owner. They don’t want to go there. It’s in the ‘communist manifesto’ called the Constitution of the State of Alaska, not the Constitution of Alaska. I have the Constitutions, two books, that were given to me and I have them all scanned and probably for $50 I could send them on a pdf in Skype. And it gives all of the Constitution dating from the charters clear up through about, I think it’s 1878. And there is the Constitution of Arkansas, Constitution of New York. It’s not the Constitution of the State of New York. That means it is a corporate charter. Alaska has a nice corporate charter. But on this, out there, it’s really amazing what they put on there. I mean, they tell us what they’re doing. We just don’t want to take the time. This is the sign that’s out there on Dave Gladden’s property in Dillingham and this issue, by the way, arose over in 1977 they repealed the property and sales tax. And they brought it back in by adopting what was written on exhibit A. They just didn’t even just repeal and re-enact and it’s supposed to be adopted by what’s on Exhibit A. Well, Exhibit A doesn’t exist so there is no ordinances. There is no law—it doesn’t exist. One guy took it on Jackson but he had a lawyer sell him out so it’s never been adjudicated and then, of course, this would make the City of Dillingham liable to pay a lot of people a lot of money. And the state and everybody has weighed in on this. They have 33 misdemeanors filed against Dave Gladden. They have a felony charge for a tenant that moved out and he has re-paid the money and he didn’t even instigate the felony charge. They tracked her down in the village and called her to testify before a grand jury. But we’re going to get into some things here, out of that Connick case. I’m going to go back and… But let’s get back to—this is what they posted out there in Dillingham. Notice—dated January 5th, 2011. This building is owned by the City of Dillingham, Alaska. As of eleven A.M. Friday, February the 5th, 2011 it is determined the building has been abandoned and is now unoccupied—abandoned—lovely. This has been determined by the facts. There are no people on the property or signs of continuing habitation. Yeah, you took them out. They got around and all the tenants they scared them all off by telling them what they were going to do and they all left. There is found to be no heat being provided to the building making it uninhabitable and unsafe for normal occupancy. He has two boilers out there, one is an oil, another one is this hot water heat, another one is fired by wood—another lie. There is no domestic water available to the building. He has water by well and they’ve changed in the well because they didn’t like something or other—who knows? No trespassing, violators will be prosecuted and it’s signed by interim mayor Steve, whatever the heck his name is. They change people out there in Dillingham like I go to the throne every day. They just can’t keep people out there. It’s abandoned. Isn’t that amazing? Wonder what that means if you abandon something in property? This is out of Blacks 4th. How could you say something’s abandoned when under force of arms—because if he had stayed they’d kill him and arrested him if he hadn’t left peacefully. They would have. That’s what they’d do. And then they lie about, well, it’s abandoned. Well, you just must have given up on it. Really? Abandoned property in a legal sense.

Talking about abandonment—they said Dave Gladden abandoned his property. Abandonment, abandoned property in a legal sense is that to which the owner has relinquished all right, title and claim and possession with the intention of not reclaiming it or resuming its ownership, possession or enjoyment. That’s a case, Jackson v. Steinberg and it’s 200 P 2d 376. This is out of Blacks 4th. There are a lot of other cases. Abandonment, this is what happened to—I had guest on out of Florida (Donna Baran) and they had taken her out of her house by a force and as soon as she walked off the edge of the property, we’re now going to give you notice you’ve abandoned the property. So there’s a key thing. I’ve got to do a module up on that but that has something to do in this commercial world that we’re living today and it has nothing to do with our constitutional and secured rights. How can you say you abandoned your property when they under force of arms take you out? If you resist they’ll come in and they’ll bring all their things and they’ll kill you. That’s what they do—absolutely. I don’t have any doubt in my mind. So, I thought it was quite interesting that that’s what they would put on the property because they’re telling us what they’re doing. We tend not to read and the thing is who in this “coup d’etat government” who knows this verbiage? They have to know. And I’m going to get into the second hour about the Connick case and I’m working on how to give all these state governments and all these folks notice of what’s going on to make them susceptible to the 1983 lawsuits which are for citizens of the United States, those who want the same rights as white citizens. Anyway, with Dave Gladden what we’re waiting on, right now, is in the federal court system—they’re waiting on a summary judgment. And everybody’s saying they don’t have jurisdiction and they do have jurisdiction and what these federal courts have made this stuff so complicated. They don’t just have a subject matter and the court has jurisdiction. Federal courts, they want you to plead 2409a. That has to do with notices of federal tax liens. They want you to plead 2410, a waiver of sovereign immunity. Then they want you to plead 1346 which says they have original jurisdiction over 2409a which is notices of federal tax lien. And it also says illegal ones. Well, of course, they don’t want to talk about 1346. But you have to have three code sections to even get them to even think about…to what’s going on. Then they don’t want to talk about it. And these attorneys, they just flat out lie. It’s unbelievable what they’re doing. We’re going to get into that here, what Stanford said about the attorneys and their qualifications and stuff here in the next hour in this Connick case. So anyway, we’re waiting and the judge in the misdemeanor case, Judge Terisi was as a corrupt slime ball which I’ve had the occasion to be thrown out of his case in Palmer when he was on a child custody case because I went out and talked to the people during a break and they came back and lied and threw me out. And I got the transcript to prove that they were wrong but it’s irrelevant. I got to thinking, how many places have I been thrown out of? I’ve been thrown out of Judge Beisline. He’s the guy that supposedly was threatened in the Vernon’s case on a tax issue out of tax court. They threw me out of that and said if I came back they would arrest me. I just walked by the little defense attorney because I was providing some research material and Mr. Beisline and the little attorney were looking like the north end of a south bound mule. And I made a little comment and she jumps up. The next thing I know the marshals got me and I’m being escorted out and threatened not to come back. Judge Singleton, he hasn’t ever really thrown me out. I walked into a tax case and the next thing you know they stopped the trial and they wanted to know if I was going to be testifying. And they said, the person that was there on trial thought it was better if I wouldn’t be there, so that’s fine. What could I say? So I dealt with Mr. Singleton and these other federal judges because they always want you to stand because I never stand in the state courts. They’ve long abandoned that. I have no respect for people that are criminals. So what I’ve done in the federal courts, I just get around and I’m standing there because I’ve got a bad hip. I just put my back to them and when they all rise I put my back to them and just poke a long in getting to my seat, making sure my seat is buried somewhere in there so by the time he sat down then I turn around. I put my back to them. God, does that drive the US marshals up the… They tried to stop me doing that. What can they do? I didn’t do anything, just giving them my thing. I don’t know, I’ve been thrown out of so many state courts it would be hard to remember anymore. But anyway, so that one’s over. We have filed in research material and he’s looked at it and modified it is that the City of Dillingham has a law firm in Anchorage by contract for civil issues to “represent the city of Dillingham”. Well, they’ve taken on to act as a prosecuting attorney by contract and that’s a conflict of interest. And I’ve got the case and I’ll look and see if I can’t find those here. But anyway, they don’t want to go there. But how can somebody that’s by contract to keep their civil contract become a prosecuting attorney. Then we don’t need prosecuting attorneys. A prosecuting attorney is supposed to be a public officer to begin with. Of course, we don’t have any of those in Alaska. They don’t exist. We don’t have any officers of the United States in Alaska. They don’t exist either and I can prove it with their documents. So anyway, Mr. Judge Terisi, he used to be the district attorney for the City of Dillingham by hire and so he’s recused himself from the misdemeanor. So, he’s seen the writing on the wall and he’s going to wash his hands. He doesn’t want to get his little black robe tainted by what’s going to happen because Dave Gladden is not going to surrender—not going to happen. And I’m not going to surrender either. So as long as both of us are out there we’re going to get a resolution to this thing. What I started to say about the constitution of the “State of Alaska” it says right in there that they tax our private interest in property owned or held by the government or its political subdivisions—our private interest in their property. What do you think that means? We own absolutely positively nothing in the true sense of the word. All we are is squatters on the land {we all registered our property and thereby relinquished it to the government}. When I was doing research here and we’re going to go back with the quiet title on a foreclosure action which went into meet with the attorney, Lane Powell, in Anchorage, they made a copy of the MERS, the Mortgage Electronic Registration System out of Delaware. They made a color copy and they let us get within twenty-four inches of it but couldn’t touch it. They were going to throw me out of there again, of course, because I said, ‘well, this looks like a good copy. We’d like to get around and examine the signature now.’ The next thing you know I’m being ordered to leave. Of course, me and my nice meek self, I never budged. They’re not going to throw me out of the law office. So anyway, we lost on the foreclosure. So we’re going to go back with the quiet title and try to do an amended complaint with a quiet title action. And bringing up all of these issues that in the actual—in Alaska the deeds of trust, all of the deeds of trust that have the MERS, the later ones, probably the same, but they say that the legal title is held by MERS out of Delaware. The Supreme Court of Alaska has ruled that the legal title is to be vested in the person or the parties better have the land—direct opposition. And that little judge over there, White, in Palmer didn’t want to deal with any of these issues—too hot to handle. So she wouldn’t allow an amended complaint. It was all agreed to have an amended complaint until she saw it and she probably had heart failure because we’re going to take on the state constitution, take on the municipality of Anchorage that has in their article 14, also they tax the private interest on the same thing, a property owner held by the government or the state or the political subdivision. Well, the question becomes on a quiet title action there is no abstract of title in Alaska. You can’t get an abstract of title on the ownership of the right of property, the right of possession and possession from beginning to end on property in Alaska—they don’t do it. Talked to a couple of title companies—‘no, we don’t do that up here.’ But anyway, so what you find out when you start reading this stuff and reading these deeds of trust all you end up with is all you are is a glorified squatter. You have no legal title, you have no equitable title. That’s why they can get us off up here so easy. They just do the non-judicial thing and bye-bye and here comes the cops and away you go, you’re out of your property because we don’t understand. …is not taught so the question becomes how could we ever understand if we’re not taught any of this? So, there’s going to be some quiet title actions. I want to do a quiet title on my ‘automobile’ but I haven’t gotten to it because before I got to it I had to dig up every nickel that I had to get a new computer. But I’m dangerous. I got my computer and my putty cat and heat so I’m good to go. Another one that was very interesting is the Vernon’s case in Fairbanks and now I have permission to give out that number. And that’s an IRS case, been going on, it’s a reduce to judgment on the notices of federal tax lien and the case number is 4-09-CV-38. It’s an Alaska federal case. And, of course, they were tied into the people that supposedly threatened Beisline and threatened the state people in that and that’s why Cox and some other people in the militia up there that got some real bad advice and went off the deep end. Anyway, I wasn’t aware of any of that. If I would have been, of course, I wouldn’t participate in it because threatening these judges or any of these people in any manner all that’s going to do is free room and board. That’s a no win situation. But anyway, there were put into jail and told to not pursue the civil case—just to let this civil case die. Well, that’s just not going to happen because what they did up there in this case, in this civil case, which is so astounding it should shock the conscience again of most people but for some reason it doesn’t. I don’t know why but what they did in their case, they would not allow them any discovery of any documents from the Internal Revenue Service or the Department of Treasury—none. Where are you going to get any documents or any information if you don’t get it from those two folks. They have filed notice of federal tax liens. So, the discovery, we’re not going to do it. You don’t have any right to it. They tried to get admissions—admit or deny. The IRS or the Department of Justice, those guys over there, refused to answer because it would be oppress and annoy the United States. Do you believe that? These are the guys that filed the lawsuit. But it would annoy or oppress the United States so they weren’t going to answer that, any of the things. It just gets worse. You get into the interrogatories, ‘we’re not doing the interrogatories, we’re not doing any admissions,’ and they tried to depose them and they said no. They got a protective order, you can’t depose the United States of America or the United States—well, because they got to have a client and I don’ think they have a client. I think it’s the DOJ as an agency coming after people which reduced to judgment. So to make a long story short they were allowed no discovery under Rule 26. They were allowed no interrogatories under the penalties of perjury the court attorney for the DOJ got around and bypassed that so there was really nothing there and basically he was saying everything was just what he had in his control and there was nothing there. Also, they invoked the attorney-client privilege. Really? You have a client and so you can’t provide any information or anything and the client won’t do the admissions or interrogatories—so no admissions, no nothing. You can’t help but wonder why these people up there got a little bit distraught. It’s just absolutely astounding. Here’s a case, here, when you finally hit them with the real stuff you’re allowed no discovery of any documents from the IRS or from the Department of Treasury and it’s annoying and oppressing the United States and you can’t depose them. Can’t show up, got attorney-client relationship and all the information we got is protected under attorney client. What the hell, why don’t we just do the old star chamber and say you’re guilty and get out the firing squad and come and either take the property by force of arms and have them leave or just shoot them—it’s absolutely astounding. It’s an on-going case. Anyway, there’s more on that because I’m going to donate my time to that to see where it goes. So, anyway, we’ve got the Gladden case and we’ve got that one there case. We’ve got a bankruptcy case. I can’t give the party’s name out. But the judge down there wanted to know where the statutory authority is for assessment and this judge actually admitted—I didn’t get time today, I was going to do some of the audio clips—admitted that she has no clue what’s going on with IRS issues. She’s had no training which is what we’re going to get into next hour and I don’t understand why more people aren’t on these blogs and e-mails list understanding that latest case of Connick v. Thompson where they came out and they can withhold evidence, exculpatory evidence that will put you in jail and why they’re doing it and how they’re doing it. And it just seems to not be out there. I mean, if we’re going to have any liberty in this country, even the appearance of liberty you cannot have prosecutors coming after you and withholding all the evidence that would make you free. That’s not justice.

We’re going to be making this available probably for, I don’t know, for a twenty-five or fifty dollar donation. We’re going to see where this thing really goes. And what this involves is the State of Alaska has chosen to take the ‘privilege’ of a driver’s license away from me. And I have been afoot since September. What they did is, they got around and they think there was a moose accident and that some property that I owned was involved. They have no evidence of anything. The man was not on public property, it was off on private property and so what they did is the trooper called me up and he threatened me. I played that on the air and he threatened and he wanted me to tell him what I knew. But I said, ‘I don’t talk to troopers. I’ve learned a long time ago, which there’s a great video out on the internet, you don’t talk to troopers, you don’t talk to FBI, you don’t talk to anybody.’ Look what Martha Stewart, she should have learned. She didn’t get connected with to a crime. She got convicted of lying to these guys. Why is it that we can get convicted of lying to them but they can lie to us—whether you’re guilty, innocent or whatever? It’s a no-no. So what they did is they’ve come out at night and arrested me. Came onto my property here in the Winter and hauled me off to jail. I told Trooper Cook, I said, It’s not going anywhere, but I’m not going to talk about any of the evidence—ever. It’s up to you to provide evidence. If you think I’ve done something where’s your evidence? So, come to find out, they had tried to—I went over with a friend over there—and they had tried to get a felony indictment—couldn’t do it—so they filed a misdemeanor charge. They dropped that after I went over there. The prosecution, ‘we’re going to drop it.’ Fine, great, I already knew that because all misdemeanor charges got to have first-hand knowledge and the people that are prosecuting are called private prosecutors. So, I knew that…by the way. Then they tried a traffic citation, 6 points, a $1000 fine—no insurance. Had to drop that—no evidence. So what did finally Juneau do to get even with Ralph because I’m so well liked up here? We have a report, you can’t see it and you are losing your driver’s license. Now, we’re going to make a telephone call to you and you can try to convince us otherwise and with no evidence, no exculpatory evidence at all. No public office by some twit sitting in Juneau. And I’m going to belly up to the bar and confess my sins—you betcha. Not going to happen. I beat them to the punch. I filed it in the Superior Court. I have a thing that I…my status. It’s filed into the public record and I need to get that out to people. I took all the years of my research that I’ve done and it’s based on the certificate of naturalization that they use for lower-case c citizens of the United States of America for everybody coming into this country. Everybody comes in that way—they don’t come in as citizens of the United States—they come in as citizens of the United States of America which is a traveling citizenship to go anywhere within the several states and they could get your domicile and you become a citizen of Alaska, citizen of New York and all that or an American citizen if you’re natural born. Anybody that’s born is called an American citizen—compounding of nouns. America is a noun and it’s used as an adjective compounded to the word, citizen. So, anyway, that’s what they did. So I beat them to the punch. I said, I want declaratory judgment because a Superior Court is a court of general jurisdiction over everything in this country including agencies because they’ve bifurcated the court systems up here to screw people.

{start hour 2}

[Ralph] Talking about the brief I filed into the Supreme Court of Alaska on the right to travel. Do you think that you can take away ‘privilege’ of the right to travel? They don’t want to say the right to drive. But it may against me but I beat them to the punch. They always want you to go to have an administrative hearing and then you appeal up from the administrative hearing which is beyond kangaroo. Been through two of those now and the first one, the person was sanctioned $6000. The second one just happened $4000. They don’t want you going there. So re-analyzing their little unconstitutional little schemes and you learn so filed it in the Superior Court for a declaratory judgment of my status, I am not a citizen of the United States under 14 Stat 27 which is for people that want the same rights as white citizens. I be white.

What did I do to the Supreme Court of Alaska? Well, I put in a lot of things that they didn’t want to see. Like I said, I went to the Superior Court, the Court of General Jurisdiction and the other side put in opposition nonsense and the Superior Court would not talk about anything, just dismissed. They couldn’t say lack of jurisdiction, lack of subject matter. They just wouldn’t talk. So I did a motion to reconsider, no, they wouldn’t talk to me. Ok. So we had to go to the Supreme Court so there I had to put up another $700 bond and another $150. So we’re $300 and $750 so we’re $1050 into this already and I haven’t got one court to talk to me to do anything other than they sent back, which I’m glad they did, the Supreme Court brief and said I didn’t back up all my facts. Guess what, bubba; you’re talking to the right guy. I just ran out of time with all my computer problems and I didn’t have the proper time to do it. Well, guess what, it’s due May 5th and they are not going to like what’s coming. They didn’t like what I sent in because some the issues were, like I was talking about, I put in I want my status. I am not a citizen of the United States under 14 Stat 27. I am not somebody that wants the same rights as a white citizen. Bubba, I be one. Blacks don’t have to do that either if they knew any better. They’re as gullible as the whites and everybody else. In 1870 they gave them exactly the same status as whites. They don’t know it. Whites don’t even know what a citizen of the United States is. And I cannot vote in Alaska because you have to be a citizen of the United States—it says so. I’m excluded. And you have to do it under the penalties of perjury. They cannot discriminate against a class of people in this country. And amazingly in the recent case of MacDonald v. the City of Chicago 130 S 320 is on page 360 and 362. It’s based on the right to travel is based on a First Amendment right of the right to assembly and also on the ‘Ninth Amendment’ what’s not included is you can’t control it—it’s reserved to us. And in this they gave a very good case which is extremely enlightening is Saenz v. Roe and this is at 526 US 489. It’s a 1999 case and it’s on page 403 and they’re talking about the third aspect of the right to travel, the right of newly arrived citizens to the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by the citizens of the same state. That right is protected not only by the new arrival status as a state citizen but also by her status as a citizen of the United States. Note 15—very interesting. The framers of the 14th amendment modeled the clause upon the privileges and immunities clause found in Article 4. The states have not now, if they ever had any power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons. They can’t do it. Farther down, the newly arrived citizens have two political capacities, one state and one federal—Cruickshank, Slaughterhouse cases. And there’s another 2007 case, Wilkie v. Robins 551 US 537 on page 584. The court has held the government may not unnecessarily penalize the exercise of constitutional rights. This principle has been applied most notably to protect the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment and the right to travel with many other Supreme Court cases in support of that. This is the brief that I’m working on. Like I say, I think I’ll put it out for like a $50 donation. I’ll give the whole thing with all of the stuff. It’s going to be fifty pages. So what did I take up to the Supreme Court of Alaska that tweaked them so badly? Unequivocally people do not know when you go to the ‘DMV’ you’re giving your motor vehicle, your automobile away and you come out and it says right on our Certificates of Title that you are nothing more than a legal owner. And by the way, there is a unified—I was doing some work on that—there is a uniform law on the certificates of title. I’m going to tie it into that which says you’re nothing but a legal owner. Well, legal owner is possessory rights only—no different than if you were leasing your car from a place. So you’re under—and the person that has the equitable owner, equitable title, the right of property, the thing we touch, does have the right to get rents, fees and whatever else they can come up with to use their property. That’s….—they just don’t tell us. …then by taking this logically then. The State of Alaska when I served them I did a registered delivery, the same way you do gold and silver. I wanted a signature every place it was touched. It got to Juneau and they handed it off and they scratched out and they just put a thing there and said that they weren’t an agent or anything and you can’t read the scribble. Nobody wanted to be responsible. I said, ‘I want to know who to sue.’ Who is the party that says that you can have a report and I can’t even see it and I ‘lose the privilege’ to drive your corporate car. So I filed in, in this case, is the Supreme Court a non-biased court because they are adjudicating the commercial interest of the entity that has hired them. Do you see the conflict of interest there? It’s not about constitutional right to travel. They’re adjudicating the Supreme Court of Alaska—by the way, none of those jokers up there are public officers. I’ve got the oaths of office and all that on the older ones. I haven’t got any on the newest ones. They keep changing them around. So, can the State of Alaska have judges that are paid by them adjudicate their commercial interests? I think not. Interesting idea, isn’t it, because that’s what they’re doing. It’s not about the constitutional right to travel. They don’t want to hear that. And technically, I don’t have a right to travel if I’m driving a commercial motor vehicle that is in commerce that the property is owned by the State of Alaska or God knows who. And that’s right in all of the states. It’s all there that if you are a registered owner you are a debtor and they’re a secured party. In Alaska, it’s 45.29505 which points to the same—it’s always the same, it’s always something 505 that points up to 311 which points back to your ‘registration’ of the ‘motor vehicles’. Every state’s the same, basically the same, the couple that I’ve looked at anyway. It’s all there. They do it differently but it’s all there because that’s part of this uniform UCC nonsense. And, of course, now that we’ve found that under the UCC to register is or other variations is a certificated security. Well, a security does not—this was the game they did in England back when the Jews move there with the Jewish Shitar. They had securities. That’s how they changed the common law, the ownership of true land and stuff. It’s because the Jews weren’t allowed to own property so they came up with a commercial law. Interest in property, security interest in property, commercial security interest—been there, done that. I almost lost my whole business over that. But so anyway, I brought all these issues up and they kicked it back. I’m blessing them that they did because they thought that what I did the last minute was going to be interesting. Well, it’s going to be nothing because I had included out of New York State, the State of New York, Michael O’Donnell doesn’t have a driver’s license. He’s had ten instances of misdemeanors in New Jersey and New York and has had them thrown out every time. He has the attorney general opinion and it’s in the statutes in New York. For a private conveyance, not involved in business there is no license. There is no insurance, there’s no tags, there’s no nothing. And it exists in New Jersey—I got to find that too because the information that I got from him was older and I didn’t have time to update it. But I’m going to try to find how many states actually have that buried. Alaska does not. We’re one of the new corporate guys to come along and we came in on an equal footing with the other states instead of the original states. We came in without any boundaries. Can you believe how ludicrous this sounds. It’s just—it’s shocking. Anyway, Blackstone’s 2nd volume, page 199, lays out properties, possession, right of possession, right of property for a perfect legal title that’s been upheld in many Supreme Court cases and that’s going to be in my brief also that I’ll be putting out which was also in this one. And Michael had looked up a lot of cases on right to travel which I’d used and then I went back to the Supreme Court looking for the newer ones that have holdings and tell me it’s not so. But we’re going to say what these Supreme Court justices want to do because—and then based on that I want to go over into the—because, see, this is one of the things that I can use also in the State of Alaska.

We live and learn as we watch how these guys try to weave through all this nonsense here, these unconstitutional acts of what they’re doing and based on that I said, ‘ok, you all down at the State of Alaska, you all…to see somebody coming, swinging, with all the information that I have I’m going to re-file the brief and we’re going to bring in some other things that I didn’t have the time to get into the bottom of. And one of them is disclosure it’s on criminal but also in the State of Alaska they have refused to disclose who they were representing. Were they representing the commercial interest of the State of Alaska? Were they representing Alaska, one of the several states, or the State of Alaska as one of the several states which I know they’re not, which they can’t? Who are you guys? Are you representing the ‘agency’, are you representing a mere employee, are you representing a public officer? Who are you representing? And then I want to see your statutory authority and I want to see the contract that you have to represent these people in this case. The State of Alaska doesn’t want to go there. I wouldn’t either if I were them. But what can we learn from…and back these guys into worse corners than a higher corners and actually hopefully they…shekels because the only thing these people understand is money. They like power and they’re into the money. Well, this case that I’m amazed that more people—I don’t know if they don’t understand it but this recent case of Connick v. Thompson and it now has a case cite of 131 S. Ct. 1350. It was decided March 29th. And it is absolutely an astounding case and it also is quite revealing if you just sit and look at it. I talked about it some last week but I haven’t read the whole Supreme Court case. I had read just of the parts of the Sanford Law School and some other law colleges that had filed in. And what they did to this guy, this Thompson, ….Thompson, they charged him with murder and then they found out that he may have been involved in a prior robbery. They found evidence, blood evidence, on some jeans of one of the people on the robbery. They did the evidence examined. They withheld the evidence that that blood type was not his type and there’s no evidence that they ever had him blood typed at that point. But the evidence from the defense of the blood type and then they put the robbery first because that would be an easier conviction and then they would discredit him that he couldn’t testify at the murder trial because his testimony would be tainted because he’s a convicted felon. They set him up and they withheld this exculpatory evidence under Brady, this Brady material, they usually call it. They withheld it and he got within a month of being executed for his execution date and they found this and they dropped the charges and they re-tried him for murder and, of course, he came up innocent and then he sued. He got a 14 million dollar judgment at the lower federal court and the 5th Circuit upheld it and the Supreme Court said, no way, Jose. So, what can we learn from this and why is it so astounding? Exculpatory evidence is evidence that could help you impeach somebody or get you not convicted. Inculpatory is the evidence they use against you. Well, first of all, our resources, if you’re ever charged by these guys compared to what the state does it’s just like one person against an army of goliaths because they have all of the subpoena power and all of the investigatory power of all the troopers, cops, and God knows who, what ever and money, whatever they choose to spend to ‘find evidence’ and if they don’t turn it over and they withhold it we go to jail and this is the game they’re playing. This is the what’s going on in America. That’s one of the reasons we have one of the highest incarceration of anybody in the world, this country. All kinds of people are innocent. There’s no laws for the IRS, none of that. It doesn’t exist. There’s no legal duty—the thing is legal duty. It doesn’t exist. But yet we got all these people going to jail. Well, he took them on and tried to sue them under 1983 which is part of the Act of 1871 which is to enforce the rights for ‘citizens of the United States’. Well, I’ve stood under 1983 myself. But how they beat you is, of course one of the things they do is with jury instructions but that’s really getting off point. So, with that said in here they admitted, the D.A.s admitted—this guy here, Michael Rideman revealed that Deagan has confessed to him in 1994. Now, Deagan was also a prosecutor, that he had intentionally suppressed blood evidence in the armed robbery trial of John Thompson that in some way exculpated the defendant. He had terminal cancer so I guess he finally decided he was going to confess his sins. Well, he better get them out because it was last chance.

To get to the real core of the problem with these Brady materials the brief filed by Stanford Law School and some other law schools together put a great amount of enlightening on what the problem is and why we have such a high rate of incarceration. And I’m going to read this, it’s on page 10. And I’m going to be putting out these on my special list. By the way I’ll be where people can download them. But I, for whatever reason the Supreme Court uses the American BAR to publish this stuff and then of course they make it such that most of the briefs are word searchable or anything so you have to destruct them or reprint them. Destruct them is what I usually do and reassemble and OCR them so I can not only… I like to do the word searches. That’s a real good trick. Here is one of the key elements of all the incarcerations in America. ‘Perhaps the most vexing aspect of the Brady analysis is its materiality component. If the evidence in question is not material disclosure is not required even though it might be useful to the defense. See, EG Agurs 427 US at 103 through 113. Now, that’s a first key, right there. ‘If the evidence in question is not material disclosure is not required even though it might be useful to the defense. Materiality, in turn, hinges on whether disclosure will result in the depravation of a fair trial considering all the proof adduced at trial. This standard requires a prosecutor to determine’—here’s the key—‘to determine before trial whether the trial would be deemed fair afterwards when the record is complete and the verdict rendered if the evidence is not disclosed. And this is in accord with US v. Bagley 473 US 667, page 682, 1985. What did they just say? The prosecutors are knowingly withholding evidence that might even be helpful. Instead of just saying, ‘ok, here’s all the evidence we have. You make up your mind where this is going to go.’ They’re going to foresee in the future. This is what makes it complex. They have to determine before the trial whether the trial would be deemed fair when the record is complete with the evidence they have withheld. Do you see the problem? They’ll say, ‘well, I don’t know, let’s see, if I withhold this blood test here in Thompson I’m going to get a conviction. I’ll probably maybe get promoted, get a good star, maybe I’ll get a bonus, who knows? The question becomes will it be deemed a fair trial and then what’s the chances of the other side ever finding out about it. That’s what they’re doing with the prosecutors. In Alaska they love to use Rule 16. Well, it’s just the evidence that I have. No, no, if you go to Strickler v. Greene Supreme Court ruling is evidence, even if you don’t have it you have a duty to track it down and give it to the other side. They’re not doing that. That’s the game that they’re playing in this whole thing. And then farther down in here they’re talking about—in this case and they talked about it up above is the fact that are these attorneys competent? It says, as for a law school petitioners point to no evidence in the record indicating that the prosecutors who handled Thompson’s case actually learned there about Brady and to the extent and the quality of their instruction and what if anything they might have retained after graduating courses like criminal law and criminal procedure may last no more than one of two semesters. One or two semesters, and necessarily cover the waterfront of related subjects. Criminal procedure is not a required course in many law schools. Discussion of Brady may consume no more than a class or two if that and it is extremely unlikely that anything more than the most superficial understanding of the subject can possibly be imparted. Amici, which is the law schools are on the front lines of legal education and firmly believe that serious comprehension of Brady’s legal complexities is not typically achieved in law school pretending that newly minted law graduates are extremely educated on Brady simply ignores reality. They’re admitting in some of these it’s not even taught and it’s a class or two. Placing faith—this is further down, page 22—placing faith in BAR exam puts supervising prosecutors on even shakier ground. Such exams may or may not include Brady related questions and those who pass may or may not have managed to study that part of the test or gotten such questions right. It is the rare lawyer who having frantically crammed in the weeks before the test will retain much of anything so tenuously absorbed. Rarer still is the lawyer who would stake such serious outcome once in practice on what she recalls from studying from the BAR exam or the law firm that would be so cavalier with potential malpractice liability. You starting to get the drift here? These people aren’t qualified. These tax attorneys, they’re not qualified. Do you think they have ever researched out that like 26 USC 6303 says you can’t do a notice and demand until 6203 which is assessment says that you can’t do that until there are regulations promulgated, rules or regulations, proscribed by the Secretary—whoever the heck that is—in those regulations because of the Federal Register Act must be published in the Federal Register and according to the Federal Register Committee which was tasked by the actual act to implement says, if you have any of these regulations or any statutory authority for a regulation it shall be put behind the Table of Contents with the statutory authority. That’s it. There are no regulations behind the Table of Contents for assessment. They cannot proceed without assessment to collections. They do examinations. They do a Notice of Deficiency and if you don’t waive it they’re supposed to come along and do an assessment. Great, go for it, give it you best shot. This type of information was put in the only case ever is Joe Banister’s case where I have ever seen and I monitor a lot of jury instructions on tax cases. They actually quoted the law and the actual code sections because Mr. Joe Banister, they want him to go free and with his jury instructions there’s no way they could have convicted him. Al Thomas that he worked with preparing his tax returns he went to the pokey. They wouldn’t let him do what Joe Banister did. I have never seen codified put in jury instructions, ever. I have never seen it before, only in Joe Banister’s case. And there’s no way with those jury instructions he could have gotten convicted and he walked. Why are people not understanding the importance and in what I’m working on now is to put out and give notice because I’ve got to find it here where I have been working on that, notice to the…and to the states because of this. And I’ll just read what I have written here, so what I’ve sucked out of this: The purpose of the Notice of Policy of Inaction—that comes out of the case—and deliberate indifference arises under the holdings of Connick v. Thompson in the case cites. Thus when city policymakers are on actual or constructive notice that a particular admission in their training program causes city employees to violate constitutional rights the city may be deemed deliberately indifferent if the policymakers choose to retain that program. Well, let’s put them on notice. Remember they’re talking about employees. The city’s policy of inaction, another thing that they did, in light of notice that it’s program will cause constitutional violation is the functional equivalent of a decision of the city itself to violate the Constitution. A little further down in page 1359, official municipal policy includes the decisions of government’s lawmakers, the acts of its policy making officials and practices so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law. So, let’s turn this back around to our advantage. We’re going to do that in Dillingham. I’m going to do that to the State of Alaska and all these folks. I want you to know and I want to see the training and that these people understand Brady that they have provided all the exculpatory evidence. I want to see that and, by the way, I’m going to put you on notice, you’re using flunkies called mere employees that are citizens of the United States and I’m a citizen of one of the several states and you can’t discriminate against my class. And these people, because I’m telling you that they are not public officers or officers of the United States. How can I prove that? Easily. There are no public officers in Alaska—absolutely guaranteed. They are the ones that have a limited delegation of power to exercise some of the sovereignty of one of the several states. And I have put this module out to anybody on my special list. If you haven’t seen it it’s there to be used. It’s about public officers versus mere employees. I found a case, several others, and this case is State v. Hawkins, 257 P. 411 and it’s the Supreme Court of 1927 out of Montana. What is a public officer? Does anybody know when one of these cops walk up to you, one of these agency folks walk up to you, do you know how to tell them apart? Probably not. Have you been taught that? This lines it out. Well, guess what, all the cops over in Dillingham hold no public office. An office is where you have a limited delegation of power and the office, the actual office, the legal duty has to be created by the Constitution or the legislature. That’s it. You have to have an office before you can become a public officer. You can’t just show up and do one of these phony oaths or oath of office they call them or just an oath. It’s an oath of office as a public officer. How do I prove, how can I determine what you are? I’m going to read this, there’s five points to it. After an exhaustive examination of the authorities we hold that five elements are indispensable in any position of public employment in order to make it a public office of a civil nature—number one. It must be created by the Constitution or by the legislature or created by a municipality or other body through authority conferred by the legislature. That’s the powers and duties. What can you do? That’s it, what you can’t do, you can’t do. Number two, it must possess a delegation of a portion of the sovereign power of a government to be exercised for the benefit of the public. Three, the powers conferred and the duties to be discharged must be defined directly or implied by the legislature or through legislative authority. Four, the duties must be performed independently and without control of a superior power other than the law unless they be of an inferior or a subordinate office created or authorized by the legislature and by it placed under the general control of a superior office or body. Five, it must have some permanency and continuity and not be only temporary or occasional. In addition in this state the officer must take and file an official oath, hold a commission or other written authority and give an official bond if the latter is required by proper authority. They have to have an office created, powers and duties, it’s got to be defined, it’s got to be by the Constitution or the legislature or if it’s through the municipality tied back to the legislature—what can you do? And if you’re going to hold that office you must have a—because that comes under 1 Stat 23 of the Federal Constitution, these guys, they must have on file and take a verbal oath as a public officer. It’s got to be sworn and subscribed and you will find it in the constitutions in quotation marks. There’s 41 words in Alaska’s Communist one and not one person in Alaska can do it. Every one of them from the governor down and all the judges—the judges in Alaska have two different ones for the two different jurisdictions that they are operating under—they all have employee affidavits. That’s why in that Connick case it talks about employees. They’re all employees. It’s all corporate. So you have to tie in that the policymakers of the corporation world knew about it for their employees. Make sense? If they actually held a public office they could be held liable. A sheriff or somebody would have to have an official bond, a real one, of his own assets. It’s still in Alaska you have to be a freeholder and have two bonds with your own name on it of your assets.

I’ll read a little bit about employee. The distinction of a position, i.e., mere employee is different from a public officer. ‘A position, the duties of which can be changed at the will of the superior is not an office but a mere employment and the incumbent is not an officer but a mere employee.’ Another statement: ‘when a position is created not by force of law but by contract of employment the employment does not rise to the dignity of an office. A public officer as distinguished from an employee must be invested by law with a portion of the state’s sovereignty for the public benefit largely independent of the control of others and authorized to exercise functions either of the executive, legislative or judicial character. So, how about, like in Dave Gladen’s case, we’re going to give notice to these folks and guess what, this policy of inaction and deliberant indifference, we are noticing you that the lawyers that you have we want to see where they have training for Brady material. We are also noticing you, state or municipal entities, that you have people out here that are not public officers but they’re all mere employees–the State of Alaska has an employee contract, you can’t paid without it—and that you will be held liable and that I am not a citizen of the United States. I’m a citizen of one of the several states and you cannot discriminate against me. I am being discriminated in Alaska, I can’t vote, I can’t sit on a jury, I can’t sit on a grand jury. I don’t get the permanent fund in Alaska which is anywhere from a thousand to a couple of thousand dollars a year because I’m not a citizen of the United States. I don’t want your benefits. Just get the hell out of my life. Leave me the heck alone. Well, I put these things in and with the Supreme Court being paid to enforce the commercial interests of the state we have a conflict of interest. It’s not about the Constitution. And these cops are nothing more than commercial mercenaries. They’re out here enforcing the commercial interest of the people that hire them. It says right in the ordinance in Anchorage that they’re city-owned vehicles in ordinance 9. It’s all about the government-owned vehicles. Well, there it is plain and simple. Well, guess what. I don’t want to go there. I want the right to travel and I’m going to look up some more—I’m going to have Michael O’Donnell to give me the statute out of New York and we’ll work on New Jersey and some of these other ones where why do they have the right to travel in the Eastern states? Of course, the people don’t know it because they don’t know how to enforce it and get past the nonsense. Why does Alaska not have that? And how can you deprive me of the right to travel and not provide not one shred of evidence, not even inculpatory evidence? I’m denied inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. We have a report and you can’t see it. That’s what happens when you become very well loved and appreciated. I’m not going to give them the opportunity. I get a ride. I’ve got a friend that gives me a ride every once in a while and basically I’m under house arrest. But I’m not going to give them the opportunity to incarcerate me. I don’t have the money to fight it like I used to when I had my business, it was not an issue. I just put up a thousand dollars bail, walk out the door, or a couple thousand and it was over. I’ve had seven misdemeanors. Six of them they dropped. They don’t want to go there. I don’t have the money to play, I’m like guy going to Los Vegas. I don’t have the money to ante to get into the poker game. So, we’ll play it a little different but I’m a lot smarter and I’ve been beat up a lot more. But, anyway, I’m going to put this out to put all these prosecutors and attorneys on notice so you can be sued. Anyway, I hope you found this show interesting. I hope you learned something. And be sure and tune in June 3rd for Dr. Judy Wood on Coast-to-Coast and I will see you next week, God willing. And as I always say, watch out for the Federales, they’re everywhere—stay safe.

UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAWS
105th Congress – First Session
Convening January 7, 1997

Cite as: 111 Stat 2115

Additions and Deletions are not identified in this document.

PL 105-89 (HR 867)
November 19, 1997
ADOPTION OF CHILDREN–FOSTER CARE

An Act to promote the adoption of children in foster care.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

<>

(a) SHORT TITLE.–This Act may be cited as the “Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997”.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.–The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I–REASONABLE EFFORTS AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR FOSTER CARE AND
ADOPTION PLACEMENTS

Sec. 101. Clarification of the reasonable efforts requirement.

Sec. 102. Including safety in case plan and case review system requirements.

Sec. 103. States required to initiate or join proceedings to terminate parental rights for certain children in foster care.

Sec. 104. Notice of reviews and hearings; opportunity to be heard.

Sec. 105. Use of the Federal Parent Locator Service for child welfare services.

Sec. 106. Criminal records checks for prospective foster and adoptive parents.

Sec. 107. Documentation of efforts for adoption or location of a permanent home.

TITLE II–INCENTIVES FOR PROVIDING PERMANENT FAMILIES FOR CHILDREN

Sec. 201. Adoption incentive payments.

Sec. 202. Adoptions across State and county jurisdictions.

Sec. 203. Performance of States in protecting children.

TITLE III–ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS AND REFORMS

Sec. 301. Authority to approve more child protection demonstration projects.

Sec. 302. Permanency hearings.

Sec. 303. Kinship care.

Sec. 304. Clarification of eligible population for independent living services.

Sec. 305. Reauthorization and expansion of family preservation and support services.

Sec. 306. Health insurance coverage for children with special needs.

Sec. 307. Continuation of eligibility for adoption assistance payments on behalf of children with special needs whose initial adoption has been dissolved.

Sec. 308. State standards to ensure quality services for children in foster care.

TITLE IV–MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 401. Preservation of reasonable parenting.

Sec. 402. Reporting requirements.

Sec. 403. Sense of Congress regarding standby guardianship.

Sec. 404. Temporary adjustment of Contingency Fund for State Welfare Programs.

Sec. 405. Coordination of substance abuse and child protection services.

Sec. 406. Purchase of American-made equipment and products.

TITLE V–EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 501. Effective date.

*2116 TITLE I–REASONABLE EFFORTS AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR FOSTER CARE
AND ADOPTION PLACEMENTS
SEC. 101. CLARIFICATION OF THE REASONABLE EFFORTS REQUIREMENT.

<>

(a) IN GENERAL.–Section 471(a)(15) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)) is amended to read as follows:

“(15) provides that–

“(A) in determining reasonable efforts to be made with respect to a child, as described in this paragraph, and in making such reasonable efforts, the child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern;

“(B) except as provided in subparagraph (D), reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify families–

“(i) prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the child’s home; and

“(ii) to make it possible for a child to safely return to the child’s home;

“(C) if continuation of reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B) is determined to be inconsistent with the permanency plan for the child, reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a timely manner in accordance with the permanency plan, and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize the permanent placement of the child;

“(D) reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B) shall not be required to be made with respect to a parent of a child if a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that–

“(i) the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances (as defined in State law, which definition may include but need not be limited to abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, and sexual abuse);

“(ii) the parent has–

“(I) committed murder (which would have been an offense under section 1111(a) of title 18, United States Code, if the offense had occurred in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States) of another child of the parent;

“(II) committed voluntary manslaughter (which would have been an offense under section 1112(a) of title 18, United States Code, if the offense had occurred in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States) of another child of the parent;

“(III) aided or abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit such a murder or such a voluntary manslaughter; or

“(IV) committed a felony assault that results in serious bodily injury to the child or another child of the parent; or

*2117 “(iii) the parental rights of the parent to a sibling have been terminated involuntarily;

“(E) if reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B) are not made with respect to a child as a result of a determination made by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with subparagraph (D)–

“(i) a permanency hearing (as described in section 475(5)(C)) shall be held for the child within 30 days after the determination; and

“(ii) reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a timely manner in accordance with the permanency plan, and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize the permanent placement of the child; and

“(F) reasonable efforts to place a child for adoption or with a legal guardian may be made concurrently with reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B);”.

<>

(b) DEFINITION OF LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP.–Section 475 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 675) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(7) The term ‘legal guardianship’ means a judicially created relationship between child and caretaker which is intended to be permanent and self-sustaining as evidenced by the transfer to the caretaker of the following parental rights with respect to the child: protection, education, care and control of the person, custody of the person, and decisionmaking. The term ‘legal guardian’ means the caretaker in such a relationship.”.

<>

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.–Section 472(a)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 672(a)(1)) is amended by inserting “for a child” before “have been made”.

<>

(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.–Part E of title IV of such Act (42 U.S.C. 670-679) is amended by inserting after section 477 the following:

“SEC. 478. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

“Nothing in this part shall be construed as precluding State courts from exercising their discretion to protect the health and safety of children in individual cases, including cases other than those described in section 471(a)(15)(D).”.

SEC. 102. INCLUDING SAFETY IN CASE PLAN AND CASE REVIEW SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS.

Title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended–

<>

(1) in section 422(b)(10)(B)–

(A) in clause (iii)(I), by inserting “safe and” after “where”; and

(B) in clause (iv), by inserting “safely” after “remain”; and

<>

(2) in section 475–

(A) in paragraph (1)–

(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting “safety and” after “discussion of the”; and

(ii) in subparagraph (B)–

(I) by inserting “safe and” after “child receives”; and

(II) by inserting “safe” after “return of the child to his own”; and

*2118 (B) in paragraph (5)–

(i) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting “a safe setting that is” after “placement in”; and

(ii) in subparagraph (B)–

(I) by inserting “the safety of the child,” after “determine”; and

(II) by inserting “and safely maintained in” after “returned to”.

SEC. 103. STATES REQUIRED TO INITIATE OR JOIN PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE.

<>

(a) REQUIREMENT FOR PROCEEDINGS.–Section 475(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675(5)) is amended–

(1) by striking “and” at the end of subparagraph (C);

(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and inserting “; and”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(E) in the case of a child who has been in foster care under the responsibility of the State for 15 of the most recent 22 months, or, if a court of competent jurisdiction has determined a child to be an abandoned infant (as defined under State law) or has made a determination that the parent has committed murder of another child of the parent, committed voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent, aided or abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit such a murder or such a voluntary manslaughter, or committed a felony assault that has resulted in serious bodily injury to the child or to another child of the parent, the State shall file a petition to terminate the parental rights of the child’s parents (or, if such a petition has been filed by another party, seek to be joined as a party to the petition), and, concurrently, to identify, recruit, process, and approve a qualified family for an adoption, unless–

“(i) at the option of the State, the child is being cared for by a relative;

“(ii) a State agency has documented in the case plan (which shall be available for court review) a compelling reason for determining that filing such a petition would not be in the best interests of the child; or

“(iii) the State has not provided to the family of the child, consistent with the time period in the State case plan, such services as the State deems necessary for the safe return of the child to the child’s home, if reasonable efforts of the type described in section 471(a)(15)(B)(ii) are required to be made with respect to the child.”.

(b) DETERMINATION OF BEGINNING OF FOSTER CARE.–Section 475(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675(5)), as amended by subsection (a), is amended–

(1) by striking “and” at the end of subparagraph (D);

(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E) and inserting “; and”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

*2119 “(F) a child shall be considered to have entered foster care on the earlier of–

“(i) the date of the first judicial finding that the child has been subjected to child abuse or neglect; or

“(ii) the date that is 60 days after the date on which the child is removed from the home.”.

<>

(c) TRANSITION RULES.–

(1) NEW FOSTER CHILDREN.–In the case of a child who enters foster care (within the meaning of section 475(5)(F) of the Social Security Act) under the responsibility of a State after the date of the enactment of this Act–

(A) if the State comes into compliance with the amendments made by subsection (a) of this section before the child has been in such foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, the State shall comply with section 475(5)(E) of the Social Security Act with respect to the child when the child has been in such foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months; and

(B) if the State comes into such compliance after the child has been in such foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, the State shall comply with such section 475(5)(E) with respect to the child not later than 3 months after the end of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins after such date of enactment.

(2) CURRENT FOSTER CHILDREN.–In the case of children in foster care under the responsibility of the State on the date of the enactment of this Act, the State shall–

(A) not later than 6 months after the end of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins after such date of enactment, comply with section 475(5)(E) of the Social Security Act with respect to not less than 1/3 of such children as the State shall select, giving priority to children for whom the permanency plan (within the meaning of part E of title IV of the Social Security Act) is adoption and children who have been in foster care for the greatest length of time;

(B) not later than 12 months after the end of such first regular session, comply with such section 475(5)(E) with respect to not less than 2/3 of such children as the State shall select; and

(C) not later than 18 months after the end of such first regular session, comply with such section 475(5)(E) with respect to all of such children.

(3) TREATMENT OF 2-YEAR LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS.–For purposes of this subsection, in the case of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of the session is deemed to be a separate regular session of the State legislature.

(4) REQUIREMENTS TREATED AS STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.–For purposes of part E of title IV of the Social Security Act, the requirements of this subsection shall be treated as State plan requirements imposed by section 471(a) of such Act.

(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.–Nothing in this section or in part E of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.), as amended by this Act, shall be construed as precluding State courts or State agencies from initiating the termination of *2120 parental rights for reasons other than, or for timelines earlier than, those specified in part E of title IV of such Act, when such actions are determined to be in the best interests of the child, including cases where the child has experienced multiple foster care placements of varying durations.

<>

SEC. 104. NOTICE OF REVIEWS AND HEARINGS; OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

Section 475(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675(5)), as amended by section 103, is amended–

(1) by striking “and” at the end of subparagraph (E);

(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F) and inserting “; and”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(G) the foster parents (if any) of a child and any preadoptive parent or relative providing care for the child are provided with notice of, and an opportunity to be heard in, any review or hearing to be held with respect to the child, except that this subparagraph shall not be construed to require that any foster parent, preadoptive parent, or relative providing care for the child be made a party to such a review or hearing solely on the basis of such notice and opportunity to be heard.”.

<>

SEC. 105. USE OF THE FEDERAL PARENT LOCATOR SERVICE FOR CHILD WELFARE SERVICES.

Section 453 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653) is amended–

(1) in subsection (a)(2)–

(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting “or making or enforcing child custody or visitation orders,” after “obligations,”; and

(B) in subparagraph (A)–

(i) by striking “or” at the end of clause (ii);

(ii) by striking the comma at the end of clause (iii) and inserting “; or”; and

(iii) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:

“(iv) who has or may have parental rights with respect to a child,”; and

(2) in subsection (c)–

(A) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting “; and”; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

“(4) a State agency that is administering a program operated under a State plan under subpart 1 of part B, or a State plan approved under subpart 2 of part B or under part E.”.

<>

SEC. 106. CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECKS FOR PROSPECTIVE FOSTER AND ADOPTIVE PARENTS.

Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)) is amended–

(1) by striking “and” at the end of paragraph (18);

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (19) and inserting “; and”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(20)(A) unless an election provided for in subparagraph (B) is made with respect to the State, provides procedures *2121 for criminal records checks for any prospective foster or adoptive parent before the foster or adoptive parent may be finally approved for placement of a child on whose behalf foster care maintenance payments or adoption assistance payments are to be made under the State plan under this part, including procedures requiring that–

“(i) in any case in which a record check reveals a felony conviction for child abuse or neglect, for spousal abuse, for a crime against children (including child pornography), or for a crime involving violence, including rape, sexual assault, or homicide, but not including other physical assault or battery, if a State finds that a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that the felony was committed at any time, such final approval shall not be granted; and

“(ii) in any case in which a record check reveals a felony conviction for physical assault, battery, or a drug-related offense, if a State finds that a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that the felony was committed within the past 5 years, such final approval shall not be granted; and

“(B) subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a State plan if the Governor of the State has notified the Secretary in writing that the State has elected to make subparagraph (A) inapplicable to the State, or if the State legislature, by law, has elected to make subparagraph (A) inapplicable to the State.”.

<>

SEC. 107. DOCUMENTATION OF EFFORTS FOR ADOPTION OR LOCATION OF A PERMANENT HOME.

Section 475(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675(1)) is amended–

(1) in the last sentence–

(A) by striking “the case plan must also include”; and

(B) by redesignating such sentence as subparagraph (D) and indenting appropriately; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

“(E) In the case of a child with respect to whom the permanency plan is adoption or placement in another permanent home, documentation of the steps the agency is taking to find an adoptive family or other permanent living arrangement for the child, to place the child with an adoptive family, a fit and willing relative, a legal guardian, or in another planned permanent living arrangement, and to finalize the adoption or legal guardianship. At a minimum, such documentation shall include child specific recruitment efforts such as the use of State, regional, and national adoption exchanges including electronic exchange systems.”.

*2122 TITLE II–INCENTIVES FOR PROVIDING PERMANENT FAMILIES FOR CHILDREN
SEC. 201. ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

<>

(a) IN GENERAL.–Part E of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 670- 679) is amended by inserting after section 473 the following:

“SEC. 473A. ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

“(a) GRANT AUTHORITY.–Subject to the availability of such amounts as may be provided in advance in appropriations Acts for this purpose, the Secretary shall make a grant to each State that is an incentive-eligible State for a fiscal year in an amount equal to the adoption incentive payment payable to the State under this section for the fiscal year, which shall be payable in the immediately succeeding fiscal year.

“(b) INCENTIVE-ELIGIBLE STATE.–A State is an incentive-eligible State for a fiscal year if–

“(1) the State has a plan approved under this part for the fiscal year;

“(2) the number of foster child adoptions in the State during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year;

“(3) the State is in compliance with subsection (c) for the fiscal year;

“(4) in the case of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the State provides health insurance coverage to any child with special needs (as determined under section 473(c)) for whom there is in effect an adoption assistance agreement between a State and an adoptive parent or parents; and

“(5) the fiscal year is any of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

“(c) DATA REQUIREMENTS.–

“(1) IN GENERAL.–A State is in compliance with this subsection for a fiscal year if the State has provided to the Secretary the data described in paragraph (2)–

“(A) for fiscal years 1995 through 1997 (or, if the first fiscal year for which the State seeks a grant under this section is after fiscal year 1998, the fiscal year that precedes such first fiscal year); and

“(B) for each succeeding fiscal year that precedes the fiscal year.

“(2) DETERMINATION OF NUMBERS OF ADOPTIONS.–

“(A) DETERMINATIONS BASED ON AFCARS DATA.–Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall determine the numbers of foster child adoptions and of special needs adoptions in a State during each of fiscal years 1995 through 2002, for purposes of this section, on the basis of data meeting the requirements of the system established pursuant to section 479, as reported by the State and approved by the Secretary by August 1 of the succeeding fiscal year.

“(B) ALTERNATIVE DATA SOURCES PERMITTED FOR FISCAL YEARS 1995 THROUGH 1997.–For purposes of the determination described in subparagraph (A) for fiscal years 1995 through 1997, the Secretary may use data from a source *2123 or sources other than that specified in subparagraph (A) that the Secretary finds to be of equivalent completeness and reliability, as reported by a State by November 30, 1997, and approved by the Secretary by March 1, 1998.

“(3) NO WAIVER OF AFCARS REQUIREMENTS.–This section shall not be construed to alter or affect any requirement of section 479 or of any regulation prescribed under such section with respect to reporting of data by States, or to waive any penalty for failure to comply with such a requirement.

“(d) ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENT.–

“(1) IN GENERAL.–Except as provided in paragraph (2), the adoption incentive payment payable to a State for a fiscal year under this section shall be equal to the sum of–

“(A) $4,000, multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year; and

“(B) $2,000, multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of special needs adoptions in the State during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of special needs adoptions for the State for the fiscal year.

“(2) PRO RATA ADJUSTMENT IF INSUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE.–For any fiscal year, if the total amount of adoption incentive payments otherwise payable under this section for a fiscal year exceeds the amount appropriated pursuant to subsection (h) for the fiscal year, the amount of the adoption incentive payment payable to each State under this section for the fiscal year shall be–

“(A) the amount of the adoption incentive payment that would otherwise be payable to the State under this section for the fiscal year; multiplied by

“(B) the percentage represented by the amount so appropriated for the fiscal year, divided by the total amount of adoption incentive payments otherwise payable under this section for the fiscal year.

“(e) 2-YEAR AVAILABILITY OF INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.–Payments to a State under this section in a fiscal year shall remain available for use by the State through the end of the succeeding fiscal year.

“(f) LIMITATIONS ON USE OF INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.–A State shall not expend an amount paid to the State under this section except to provide to children or families any service (including post-adoption services) that may be provided under part B or E. Amounts expended by a State in accordance with the preceding sentence shall be disregarded in determining State expenditures for purposes of Federal matching payments under sections 423, 434, and 474.

“(g) DEFINITIONS.–As used in this section:

“(1) FOSTER CHILD ADOPTION.–The term ‘foster child adoption’ means the final adoption of a child who, at the time of adoptive placement, was in foster care under the supervision of the State.

“(2) SPECIAL NEEDS ADOPTION.–The term ‘special needs adoption’ means the final adoption of a child for whom an adoption assistance agreement is in effect under section 473.

“(3) BASE NUMBER OF FOSTER CHILD ADOPTIONS.–The term ‘base number of foster child adoptions for a State’ means–

*2124 “(A) with respect to fiscal year 1998, the average number of foster child adoptions in the State in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997; and

“(B) with respect to any subsequent fiscal year, the number of foster child adoptions in the State in the fiscal year for which the number is the greatest in the period that begins with fiscal year 1997 and ends with the fiscal year preceding such subsequent fiscal year.

“(4) BASE NUMBER OF SPECIAL NEEDS ADOPTIONS.–The term ‘base number of special needs adoptions for a State’ means–

“(A) with respect to fiscal year 1998, the average number of special needs adoptions in the State in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997; and

“(B) with respect to any subsequent fiscal year, the number of special needs adoptions in the State in the fiscal year for which the number is the greatest in the period that begins with fiscal year 1997 and ends with the fiscal year preceding such subsequent fiscal year.

“(h) LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.–

“(1) IN GENERAL.–For grants under subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003.

“(2) AVAILABILITY.–Amounts appropriated under paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until expended, but not after fiscal year 2003.

“(i) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.–

“(1) IN GENERAL.–The Secretary may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to assist States and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions and, to the extent that adoption is not possible, alternative permanent placements, for children in foster care.

“(2) DESCRIPTION OF THE CHARACTER OF THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.–The technical assistance provided under paragraph (1) may support the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system, when adoptions promote the best interests of children, and may include the following:

“(A) The development of best practice guidelines for expediting termination of parental rights.

“(B) Models to encourage the use of concurrent planning.

“(C) The development of specialized units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanency goal.

“(D) The development of risk assessment tools to facilitate early identification of the children who will be at risk of harm if returned home.

“(E) Models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements.

“(F) Development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive families without waiting for termination of parental rights.

“(3) TARGETING OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE COURTS.–Not less than 50 percent of any amount appropriated pursuant to paragraph (4) shall be used to provide technical assistance to the courts.

*2125 “(4) LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.–To carry out this subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services not to exceed $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2000.”.

(b) DISCRETIONARY CAP ADJUSTMENT FOR ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.–

<>

(1) SECTION 251 AMENDMENT.–Section 251(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)), as amended by section 10203(a)(4) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

“(G) ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.–Whenever a bill or joint resolution making appropriations for fiscal year 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003 is enacted that specifies an amount for adoption incentive payments pursuant to this part for the Department of Health and Human Services–

“(i) the adjustments for new budget authority shall be the amounts of new budget authority provided in that measure for adoption incentive payments, but not to exceed $20,000,000; and

“(ii) the adjustment for outlays shall be the additional outlays flowing from such amount.”.

<>

(2) SECTION 314 AMENDMENT.–Section 314(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended by section 10114(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, is amended–

(A) by striking “or” at the end of paragraph (4);

(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and inserting “; or”; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

“(6) in the case of an amount for adoption incentive payments (as defined in section 251(b)(2)(G) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) for fiscal year 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003 for the Department of Health and Human Services, an amount not to exceed $20,000,000.”.

SEC. 202. ADOPTIONS ACROSS STATE AND COUNTY JURISDICTIONS.

<>

(a) STATE PLAN FOR CHILD WELFARE SERVICES REQUIREMENT.–Section 422(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 622(b)) is amended–

(1) in paragraph (10), by striking “and” at the end;

(2) in paragraph (11), by striking the period and inserting “; and”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(12) contain assurances that the State shall develop plans for the effective use of cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or permanent placements for waiting children.”.

<>

(b) CONDITION OF ASSISTANCE.–Section 474 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 674) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(e) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a State shall not be eligible for any payment under this section if the Secretary finds that, after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the State has–

“(1) denied or delayed the placement of a child for adoption when an approved family is available outside of the jurisdiction with responsibility for handling the case of the child; or

*2126 “(2) failed to grant an opportunity for a fair hearing, as described in section 471(a)(12), to an individual whose allegation of a violation of paragraph (1) of this subsection is denied by the State or not acted upon by the State with reasonable promptness.”.

<>

(c) STUDY OF INTERJURISDICTIONAL ADOPTION ISSUES.–

(1) IN GENERAL.–The Comptroller General of the United States shall–

(A) study and consider how to improve procedures and policies to facilitate the timely and permanent adoptions of children across State and county jurisdictions; and

(B) examine, at a minimum, interjurisdictional adoption issues–

(i) concerning the recruitment of prospective adoptive families from other States and counties;

(ii) concerning the procedures to grant reciprocity to prospective adoptive family home studies from other States and counties;

(iii) arising from a review of the comity and full faith and credit provided to adoption decrees and termination of parental rights orders from other States; and

(iv) concerning the procedures related to the administration and implementation of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.

(2) REPORT TO THE CONGRESS.–Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report that includes–

(A) the results of the study conducted under paragraph (1); and

(B) recommendations on how to improve procedures to facilitate the interjurisdictional adoption of children, including interstate and intercounty adoptions, so that children will be assured timely and permanent placements.

SEC. 203. PERFORMANCE OF STATES IN PROTECTING CHILDREN.

<>

(a) ANNUAL REPORT ON STATE PERFORMANCE.–Part E of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“SEC. 479A. ANNUAL REPORT.

“The Secretary, in consultation with Governors, State legislatures, State and local public officials responsible for administering child welfare programs, and child welfare advocates, shall–

“(1) develop a set of outcome measures (including length of stay in foster care, number of foster care placements, and number of adoptions) that can be used to assess the performance of States in operating child protection and child welfare programs pursuant to parts B and E to ensure the safety of children;

“(2) to the maximum extent possible, the outcome measures should be developed from data available from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System;

“(3) develop a system for rating the performance of States with respect to the outcome measures, and provide to the States an explanation of the rating system and how scores are determined under the rating system;

*2127 “(4) prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that States provide to the Secretary the data necessary to determine State performance with respect to each outcome measure, as a condition of the State receiving funds under this part; and

“(5) on May 1, 1999, and annually thereafter, prepare and submit to the Congress a report on the performance of each State on each outcome measure, which shall examine the reasons for high performance and low performance and, where possible, make recommendations as to how State performance could be improved.”.

<>

(b) DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE-BASED INCENTIVE SYSTEM.–The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with State and local public officials responsible for administering child welfare programs and child welfare advocates, shall study, develop, and recommend to Congress an incentive system to provide payments under parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 620 et seq., 670 et seq.) to any State based on the State’s performance under such a system. Such a system shall, to the extent the Secretary determines feasible and appropriate, be based on the annual report required by section 479A of the Social Security Act (as added by subsection (a) of this section) or on any proposed modifications of the annual report. Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a progress report on the feasibility, timetable, and consultation process for conducting such a study. Not later than 15 months after such date of enactment, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate the final report on a performance-based incentive system. The report may include other recommendations for restructuring the program and payments under parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act.

TITLE III–ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS AND REFORMS
SEC. 301. EXPANSION OF CHILD WELFARE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

<>

(a) IN GENERAL.–Section 1130(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-9) is amended to read as follows:

“(a) AUTHORITY TO APPROVE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.–

“(1) IN GENERAL.–The Secretary may authorize States to conduct demonstration projects pursuant to this section which the Secretary finds are likely to promote the objectives of part B or E of title IV.

“(2) LIMITATION.–The Secretary may authorize not more than 10 demonstration projects under paragraph (1) in each of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

“(3) CERTAIN TYPES OF PROPOSALS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED.–

“(A) If an appropriate application therefor is submitted, the Secretary shall consider authorizing a demonstration project which is designed to identify and address barriers *2128 that result in delays to adoptive placements for children in foster care.

“(B) If an appropriate application therefor is submitted, the Secretary shall consider authorizing a demonstration project which is designed to identify and address parental substance abuse problems that endanger children and result in the placement of children in foster care, including through the placement of children with their parents in residential treatment facilities (including residential treatment facilities for post-partum depression) that are specifically designed to serve parents and children together in order to promote family reunification and that can ensure the health and safety of the children in such placements.

“(C) If an appropriate application therefor is submitted, the Secretary shall consider authorizing a demonstration project which is designed to address kinship care.

“(4) LIMITATION ON ELIGIBILITY.–The Secretary may not authorize a State to conduct a demonstration project under this section if the State fails to provide health insurance coverage to any child with special needs (as determined under section 473(c)) for whom there is in effect an adoption assistance agreement between a State and an adoptive parent or parents.

“(5) REQUIREMENT TO CONSIDER EFFECT OF PROJECT ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CERTAIN COURT ORDERS.–In considering an application to conduct a demonstration project under this section that has been submitted by a State in which there is in effect a court order determining that the State’s child welfare program has failed to comply with the provisions of part B or E of title IV, or with the Constitution of the United States, the Secretary shall take into consideration the effect of approving the proposed project on the terms and conditions of the court order related to the failure to comply.”.

<>

(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.–Nothing in the amendment made by subsection (a) shall be construed as affecting the terms and conditions of any demonstration project approved under section 1130 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-9) before the date of the enactment of this Act.

<>

(c) AUTHORITY TO EXTEND DURATION OF DEMONSTRATIONS.–Section 1130(d) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-9(d)) is amended by inserting “, unless in the judgment of the Secretary, the demonstration project should be allowed to continue” before the period.

<>

SEC. 302. PERMANENCY HEARINGS.

Section 475(5)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675(5)(C)) is amended–

(1) by striking “dispositional” and inserting “permanency”;

(2) by striking “eighteen” and inserting “12”;

(3) by striking “original placement” and inserting “date the child is considered to have entered foster care (as determined under subparagraph (F))”; and

(4) by striking “future status of” and all that follows through “long term basis)” and inserting “permanency plan for the child that includes whether, and if applicable when, the child will be returned to the parent, placed for adoption and the State will file a petition for termination of parental rights, or referred for legal guardianship, or (in cases where *2129 the State agency has documented to the State court a compelling reason for determining that it would not be in the best interests of the child to return home, be referred for termination of parental rights, or be placed for adoption, with a fit and willing relative, or with a legal guardian) placed in another planned permanent living arrangement”.

<>

SEC. 303. KINSHIP CARE.

(a) REPORT.–

(1) IN GENERAL.–The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall–

(A) not later than June 1, 1998, convene the advisory panel provided for in subsection (b)(1) and prepare and submit to the advisory panel an initial report on the extent to which children in foster care are placed in the care of a relative (in this section referred to as “kinship care”); and

(B) not later than June 1, 1999, submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a final report on the matter described in subparagraph (A), which shall–

(i) be based on the comments submitted by the advisory panel pursuant to subsection (b)(2) and other information and considerations; and

(ii) include the policy recommendations of the Secretary with respect to the matter.

(2) REQUIRED CONTENTS.–Each report required by paragraph (1) shall–

(A) include, to the extent available for each State, information on–

(i) the policy of the State regarding kinship care;

(ii) the characteristics of the kinship care providers (including age, income, ethnicity, and race, and the relationship of the kinship care providers to the children);

(iii) the characteristics of the household of such providers (such as number of other persons in the household and family composition);

(iv) how much access to the child is afforded to the parent from whom the child has been removed;

(v) the cost of, and source of funds for, kinship care (including any subsidies such as medicaid and cash assistance);

(vi) the permanency plan for the child and the actions being taken by the State to achieve the plan;

(vii) the services being provided to the parent from whom the child has been removed; and

(viii) the services being provided to the kinship care provider; and

(B) specifically note the circumstances or conditions under which children enter kinship care.

(b) ADVISORY PANEL.–

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.–The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, shall convene an advisory panel which shall include parents, foster *2130 parents, relative caregivers, former foster children, State and local public officials responsible for administering child welfare programs, private persons involved in the delivery of child welfare services, representatives of tribal governments and tribal courts, judges, and academic experts.

(2) DUTIES.–The advisory panel convened pursuant to paragraph (1) shall review the report prepared pursuant to subsection (a), and, not later than October 1, 1998, submit to the Secretary comments on the report.

<>

SEC. 304. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE POPULATION FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES.

Section 477(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 677(a)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting “(including children with respect to whom such payments are no longer being made because the child has accumulated assets, not to exceed $5,000, which are otherwise regarded as resources for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits under this part)” before the comma.

SEC. 305. REAUTHORIZATION AND EXPANSION OF FAMILY PRESERVATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES.

(a) REAUTHORIZATION OF FAMILY PRESERVATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES.–

<>

(1) IN GENERAL.–Section 430(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629(b)) is amended–

(A) in paragraph (4), by striking “or” at the end;

(B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

“(6) for fiscal year 1999, $275,000,000;

“(7) for fiscal year 2000, $295,000,000; and

“(8) for fiscal year 2001, $305,000,000.”.

(2) CONTINUATION OF RESERVATION OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS.–Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 430(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629(d)(1) and (2)) are each amended by striking “and 1998” and inserting “1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001”.

<>

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.–Section 13712 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 670 note) is amended–

(A) in subsection (c), by striking “1998” each place it appears and inserting “2001”; and

(B) in subsection (d)(2), by striking “and 1998” and inserting “1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001”.

(b) EXPANSION FOR TIME-LIMITED FAMILY REUNIFICATION SERVICES AND ADOPTION PROMOTION AND SUPPORT SERVICES.–

<>

(1) ADDITIONS TO STATE PLAN.–Section 432 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629b) is amended–

(A) in subsection (a)–

(i) in paragraph (4), by striking “and community-based family support services” and inserting “, community-based family support services, time-limited family reunification services, and adoption promotion and support services,”; and

(ii) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking “and community-based family support services” and inserting “, community-based family support services, time-limited family reunification services, and adoption promotion and support services”; and

*2131 (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking “and family support” and inserting “, family support, time-limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support”.

<>

(2) DEFINITIONS OF TIME-LIMITED FAMILY REUNIFICATION SERVICES AND ADOPTION PROMOTION AND SUPPORT SERVICES.–Section 431(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629a(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(7) TIME-LIMITED FAMILY REUNIFICATION SERVICES.–

“(A) IN GENERAL.–The term ‘time-limited family reunification services’ means the services and activities described in subparagraph (B) that are provided to a child that is removed from the child’s home and placed in a foster family home or a child care institution and to the parents or primary caregiver of such a child, in order to facilitate the reunification of the child safely and appropriately within a timely fashion, but only during the 15-month period that begins on the date that the child, pursuant to section 475(5)(F), is considered to have entered foster care.

“(B) SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED.–The services and activities described in this subparagraph are the following:

“(i) Individual, group, and family counseling.

“(ii) Inpatient, residential, or outpatient substance abuse treatment services.

“(iii) Mental health services.

“(iv) Assistance to address domestic violence.

“(v) Services designed to provide temporary child care and therapeutic services for families, including crisis nurseries.

“(vi) Transportation to or from any of the services and activities described in this subparagraph.

“(8) ADOPTION PROMOTION AND SUPPORT SERVICES.–The term ‘adoption promotion and support services’ means services and activities designed to encourage more adoptions out of the foster care system, when adoptions promote the best interests of children, including such activities as pre- and post-adoptive services and activities designed to expedite the adoption process and support adoptive families.”.

(3) ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.–

<>

(A) PURPOSES.–Section 430(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629(a)) is amended by striking “and community-based family support services” and inserting “, community-based family support services, time-limited family reunification services, and adoption promotion and support services”.

<>

(B) PROGRAM TITLE.–The heading of subpart 2 of part B of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

“Subpart 2–Promoting Safe and Stable Families”.

(c) EMPHASIZING THE SAFETY OF THE CHILD.–

<>

(1) REQUIRING ASSURANCES THAT THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN SHALL BE OF PARAMOUNT CONCERN.–Section 432(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629b(a)) is amended–

(A) by striking “and” at the end of paragraph (7);

*2132 (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8); and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

“(9) contains assurances that in administering and conducting service programs under the plan, the safety of the children to be served shall be of paramount concern.”.

<>

(2) DEFINITIONS OF FAMILY PRESERVATION AND FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES.–Section 431(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629a(a)) is amended–

(A) in paragraph (1)–

(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting “safe and” before “appropriate” each place it appears; and

(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting “safely” after “remain”; and

(B) in paragraph (2)–

(i) by inserting “safety and” before “well-being”; and

(ii) by striking “stable” and inserting “safe, stable,”.

(d) CLARIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REQUIREMENT.–

<>

(1) DEFINITION OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS.–Section 431(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629a(a)), as amended by subsection (b)(2), is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(9) NON-FEDERAL FUNDS.–The term ‘non-Federal funds’ means State funds, or at the option of a State, State and local funds.”.

<>

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.–The amendment made by paragraph (1) takes effect as if included in the enactment of section 13711 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-33; 107 Stat. 649).

<>

SEC. 306. HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS.

Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)), as amended by section 106, is amended–

(1) in paragraph (19), by striking “and” at the end;

(2) in paragraph (20), by striking the period and inserting “; and”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(21) provides for health insurance coverage (including, at State option, through the program under the State plan approved under title XIX) for any child who has been determined to be a child with special needs, for whom there is in effect an adoption assistance agreement (other than an agreement under this part) between the State and an adoptive parent or parents, and who the State has determined cannot be placed with an adoptive parent or parents without medical assistance because such child has special needs for medical, mental health, or rehabilitative care, and that with respect to the provision of such health insurance coverage–

“(A) such coverage may be provided through 1 or more State medical assistance programs;

“(B) the State, in providing such coverage, shall ensure that the medical benefits, including mental health benefits, provided are of the same type and kind as those that would be provided for children by the State under title XIX;

*2133 “(C) in the event that the State provides such coverage through a State medical assistance program other than the program under title XIX, and the State exceeds its funding for services under such other program, any such child shall be deemed to be receiving aid or assistance under the State plan under this part for purposes of section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(I); and

“(D) in determining cost-sharing requirements, the State shall take into consideration the circumstances of the adopting parent or parents and the needs of the child being adopted consistent, to the extent coverage is provided through a State medical assistance program, with the rules under such program.”.

SEC. 307. CONTINUATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WHOSE INITIAL ADOPTION HAS BEEN DISSOLVED.

<>

(a) CONTINUATION OF ELIGIBILITY.–Section 473(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “Any child who meets the requirements of subparagraph (C), who was determined eligible for adoption assistance payments under this part with respect to a prior adoption, who is available for adoption because the prior adoption has been dissolved and the parental rights of the adoptive parents have been terminated or because the child’s adoptive parents have died, and who fails to meet the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) but would meet such requirements if the child were treated as if the child were in the same financial and other circumstances the child was in the last time the child was determined eligible for adoption assistance payments under this part and the prior adoption were treated as never having occurred, shall be treated as meeting the requirements of this paragraph for purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii).”.

<>

(b) APPLICABILITY.–The amendment made by subsection (a) shall only apply to children who are adopted on or after October 1, 1997.

<>

SEC. 308. STATE STANDARDS TO ENSURE QUALITY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE.

Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)), as amended by sections 106 and 306, is amended–

(1) in paragraph (20), by striking “and” at the end;

(2) in paragraph (21), by striking the period and inserting “; and”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(22) provides that, not later than January 1, 1999, the State shall develop and implement standards to ensure that children in foster care placements in public or private agencies are provided quality services that protect the safety and health of the children.”.

TITLE IV–MISCELLANEOUS
<>

SEC. 401. PRESERVATION OF REASONABLE PARENTING.

Nothing in this Act is intended to disrupt the family unnecessarily or to intrude inappropriately into family life, to prohibit *2134 the use of reasonable methods of parental discipline, or to prescribe a particular method of parenting.

<>

SEC. 402. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

Any information required to be reported under this Act shall be supplied to the Secretary of Health and Human Services through data meeting the requirements of the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System established pursuant to section 479 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 679), to the extent such data is available under that system. The Secretary shall make such modifications to regulations issued under section 479 of such Act with respect to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System as may be necessary to allow States to obtain data that meets the requirements of such system in order to satisfy the reporting requirements of this Act.

SEC. 403. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING STANDBY GUARDIANSHIP.

It is the sense of Congress that the States should have in effect laws and procedures that permit any parent who is chronically ill or near death, without surrendering parental rights, to designate a standby guardian for the parent’s minor children, whose authority would take effect upon–

(1) the death of the parent;

(2) the mental incapacity of the parent; or

(3) the physical debilitation and consent of the parent.

SEC. 404. TEMPORARY ADJUSTMENT OF CONTINGENCY FUND FOR STATE WELFARE PROGRAMS.

<>

(a) REDUCTION OF APPROPRIATION.–Section 403(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(b)(2)) is amended by inserting “, reduced by the sum of the dollar amounts specified in paragraph (6)(C)(ii)” before the period.

(b) INCREASE IN STATE REMITTANCES.–Section 403(b)(6) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 603(b)(6)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(C) ADJUSTMENT OF STATE REMITTANCES.–

“(i) IN GENERAL.–The amount otherwise required by subparagraph (A) to be remitted by a State for a fiscal year shall be increased by the lesser of–

“(I) the total adjustment for the fiscal year, multiplied by the adjustment percentage for the State for the fiscal year; or

“(II) the unadjusted net payment to the State for the fiscal year.

“(ii) TOTAL ADJUSTMENT.–As used in clause (i), the term ‘total adjustment’ means–

“(I) in the case of fiscal year 1998, $2,000,000;

“(II) in the case of fiscal year 1999, $9,000,000;

“(III) in the case of fiscal year 2000, $16,000,000; and

“(IV) in the case of fiscal year 2001, $13,000,000.

“(iii) ADJUSTMENT PERCENTAGE.–As used in clause (i), the term ‘adjustment percentage’ means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year–

“(I) the unadjusted net payment to the State for the fiscal year; divided by

*2135 “(II) the sum of the unadjusted net payments to all States for the fiscal year.

“(iv) UNADJUSTED NET PAYMENT.–As used in this subparagraph, the term, ‘unadjusted net payment’ means with respect to a State and a fiscal year–

“(I) the total amount paid to the State under paragraph (3) in the fiscal year; minus

“(II) the amount that, in the absence of this subparagraph, would be required by subparagraph (A) or by section 409(a)(10) to be remitted by the State in respect of the payment.”.

(c) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING THE OPERATION OF THE CONTINGENCY FUND.–Not later than March 1, 1998, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall make recommendations to the Congress for improving the operation of the Contingency Fund for State Welfare Programs.

<>

SEC. 405. COORDINATION OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES.

Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, based on information from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Administration for Children and Families in the Department of Health of Human Services, shall prepare and submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report which describes the extent and scope of the problem of substance abuse in the child welfare population, the types of services provided to such population, and the outcomes resulting from the provision of such services to such population. The report shall include recommendations for any legislation that may be needed to improve coordination in providing such services to such population.

<>

SEC. 406. PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.–It is the sense of the Congress that, to the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds made available under this Act should be American-made.

(b) NOTICE REQUIREMENT.–In providing financial assistance to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using funds made available under this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the Congress.

*2136 TITLE V–EFFECTIVE DATE
<>

SEC. 501. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) IN GENERAL.–Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the amendments made by this Act take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) DELAY PERMITTED IF STATE LEGISLATION REQUIRED.–In the case of a State plan under part B or E of title IV of the Social Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines requires State legislation (other than legislation appropriating funds) in order for the plan to meet the additional requirements imposed by the amendments made by this Act, the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to comply with the requirements of such part solely on the basis of the failure of the plan to meet such additional requirements before the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins after the date of enactment of this Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular session of the State legislature.

<>

<>

Approved November 19, 1997.

PL 105-89, 1997 HR 867

END OF DOCUMENT

Advertisements