The link, below, is the first Petition for Certiorari, and a bit of history, in dealing with the chattel law in the trafficking of tiny humans under DACA and DAPA for National Adoption Month.
Happy National Adoption Month: TRUMP v. NAACP Petition For Certiorari To SCOTUS On Trafficking Tiny Humans - DACA, DAPA
In short, DACA and DAPA are policies, not laws, because the Congress refuses to make law in dealing with child immigration.
The reason why the Congress will not touch the fraud in child welfare is because it is what keeps them in a job.
That is why you have the States jumping to defend DACA because it is their money maker through the Public Private Partnerships o Children's Trust Funds:
- Maine;
- California;
- Maryland;
- Minnesota;
- New York;
- Massachusetts;
- Washington;
- Connecticut;
- Delaware (Its Children's Trust Fund seems to have been operating after the statute was repealed through the University of Delaware.
- https://kilroysdelaware.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/delaware-childrens-trust-fund-to-no-where/
- http://delcode.delaware.gov/title31/c004/index.shtml
- https://www.cds.udel.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/delAwarespring02.pdf
- https://www.udel.edu/udel-search/?cx=013351329533778082783:fdysbzypdiy&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8&q=childrens+trust+fund&sa=Search
- D.C.;
- Hawaii;
- https://www.hawaiicommunityfoundation.org/strengthening/hawaii-childrens-trust-fund
- http://hawaiichildrenstrustfund.org/
- Illinois, (They got fancy and set up lots of complex, financial fraud schemes);
- Iowa, (they partnered with the National Children's Trust Fund Alliance because they never incorporated and used land banks, instead.);
- https://www.pcaiowa.org/resources/training/community-training/
- http://www.iowafinanceauthority.gov/File/DownloadFile/474
- New Mexico;
- North Carolina,
- Oregon;
- Pennsylvania;
- Rhode Island,
- Vermont;
- Virgini;, and,
- Colorado, just to name the few.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
This dispute concerns the policy of immigration enforcement discretion known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In 2016, this Court affirmed, by an equally divided Court, a decision of the Fifth Circuit holding that two related Department of Homeland Security (DHS) discretionary enforcement policies, including an expansion of the DACA policy, were likely unlawful and should be enjoined. See United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (per curiam). In September 2017, DHS determined that the original DACA policy was unlawful and would likely be struck down by the courts on the same grounds as the related policies. DHS thus instituted an orderly wind-down of the DACA policy. The questions presented are as follows: 1. Whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is judicially reviewable. 2. Whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioners are the Donald J. Trump, President of the United States; Jefferson B. Sessions III, Attorney General of the United States; Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and the United States.
Respondents are the Regents of the University of California; Janet Napolitano, President of the University of California; the State of California; the State of Maine; the State of Maryland; the State of Minnesota; the City of San Jose; Dulce Garcia; Miriam Gonzalez Avila; Saul Jimenez Suarez; Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza; Norma Ramirez; Jirayut Latthivongskorn; the County of Santa Clara; and Service Employees International Union Local 521.And, in the Vidal, et. al. case, you have:
Respondents are Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal, Antonio Alarcon, Eliana Fernandez, Carlos Vargas, Mariano Mondragon, and Carolina Fung Feng, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals; Make the Road New York, on behalf of itself, its members, its clients, and all similarly situated individuals; the State of New York; the State of Massachusetts; the State of Washington; the State of Connecticut; the State of Delaware; the District of Columbia; the State of Hawaii; the State of Illinois; the State of Iowa; the State of New Mexico; the State of North Carolina; the State of Oregon; the State of Pennsylvania; the State of Rhode Island; the State of Vermont; the State of Virginia; and the State of Colorado.I have included the petition for cert of the individual DREAMer defendants, below.
DHS et. al. v. Regents of University of California et. al. - Request to Expedite Petition of Certiorari for... by Beverly Tran on Scribd
If you pay close attention to what I am saying, here, you will start to see a civil rights model.No? You can not see the civil rights model?
 |
| https://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2017/10 /a-letter-to-kansas-foster-care-task.html |
In a nutshell, Brown v. Board of Education is child welfare legal precedent because it was the very first case that was based in what they called "science" back then.
The SCOTUS case was fast tracked by enjoining all parties into on case for orals and opinion.
I ran across a study that was actually used in one of the many enjoined cases in this action that came out of Kansas called Brown v. Board of Education.
Yes, I was intentionally redundant in my cadence, of saying Brown v. Board of Education came out of Kansas.
Do you know why?
Because, the chattel model was created, right here, in Michigan called the Michigan Children's Trust Fund and the model transposed to Kansas to set up the parent trust fund.
The National Alliance of Children’s Trust and Prevention Funds (Alliance) is the only national membership organization representing state children’s trust and prevention funds (CTFs).
Dr. Ray E. Helfer, M.D., began using his influence to create a protected source of funding for prevention by persuading the state legislature in Michigan to increase funding to add 50 full-time “prevention workers” to the protective services budget. After the “prevention worker” positions had been created and filled, all 50 had full-time protective service caseload and none of them was doing any prevention work. The needs and demands of children in crisis had compelled the decision makers to divert the money to treatment. This event helped shape the law that created Michigan’s Children’s Trust Fund and served as a model for all states.
In summation, DACA is nothing but a product of judicial lobbying of legislating from the bench through privatization under UCC laws as foreign corporations to fund political campaigns, to ensure more trafficking of tiny human policies go through so there is more appropriation of federal funding to secure more foreign contracts designed to traffic more tiny humans for the continuance of stealin' children, land and votes.
This is the reason why Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare is going to SCOTUS.
It all started in Detroit.
It all started with the children because no one cares and there are too many trillions of dollars involved.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORN... by Beverly Tran on Scribd
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
