CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP 🏦

Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005): The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to enforce a restraining order, leading to the tragic loss of a woman's three children. DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989): The Supreme Court held that the state has no duty to protect individuals from private violence, even when aware of the danger. Sapp v. City of Tallahassee: Reinforced that the police do not have a specific duty to protect individuals. Keane v. City of Chicago (1968): Confirmed that there is no special relationship between the police and individuals that mandates protection. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept (1990): The court ruled that a police department is not liable for failing to protect a woman from domestic violence. Rivera v. City of Providence, RI (1992): Reaffirmed that the police have no specific duty to protect individuals. The POLICEMAN and the CORPORATE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER The POLICE MAN (MAN) has a duty under COMMON LAW to serve and protect and uphold the COMMON LAW. The POLICE OFFICER (FICTION) is a CORPORATE EMPLOYEE a REVENUE COLLECTOR who ENFORCES STATUTES. You are in COMMON LAW JURISDICTION this means that no CIVIL LAW STATUTE applies unless you CONSENT to it. POLICE are a COMPANY which exists to make PROFIT. They PROFIT from you by enforcing STATUTES on you, not LAWS, but BY-LAWS a.k.a. POLICY. Next time you hear one of them say the reason they stopped you was to protect others and yourself know that they are completely full of shit

Remeber Flock cameras are for your saftey, I believe that like I need another orphis. Wake up people the system they operate is not for your benefit, its for their benefit, their principals benefit, their retirement and to your detriment. The Supreme Court Ruled Police have no duty to protect the population in 1981. In 1975 they changed thier jobs to data collectors, and motor vehicle code enforcment revenue generators. So..what do they do? They protect the states financial interest and could give two shits about you. They get paid up to $10k to say you commited a crime for the statistic reports and those reports create more laws againts the people. Please define for me why we say that's heroic? you as an individual have no right to police protection. And that there's a common belief that police are required to protect each individual, rooted in the motto "To Protect and Serve." However, legal precedents in the United States don't actually support this belief. The "public duty doctrine" holds that law enforcement owes a duty to the public at large, not to individual citizens. This means police are responsible for maintaining overall public safety but are not legally obligated to provide personal protection to every individual. The legal reality and the public perception are vastly different. And! You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. (Remember against, not for you.) You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. You do not consent to any searches and always ask if you are free to go. A detainment is considered a seizure of your person. Police can and may LIE to you! Remember to STFU and ask if you are free to go! Key Cases to support my comments: Warren v. District of Columbia (1981): Three women were attacked despite repeated calls to the police. The court ruled that the police do not have a specific duty to provide protection to individuals, only a general duty to the public. Riss v. New York (1968): Linda Riss was attacked by an ex-boyfriend after unsuccessfully seeking police protection. The court ruled that the government is not liable for failing to provide police protection to individuals. Rieser v. District of Columbia: Similar to Warren, this case reaffirmed that the police have no specific legal duty to protect individuals from crime. Turner v. United States (1919): This case focused more on federal officers but similarly found no specific duty to protect individuals from harm. Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975): The court ruled that the police are not liable for failing to protect a woman who was killed despite her prior calls for help. Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982): The police were not liable for the injuries sustained by a woman who was attacked by an assailant they had been monitoring. Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrance (1974): The police were not liable for failing to prevent the theft of property despite being aware of the high risk.

T.me/RealChristopherhauser Contact me

If you have submitted your applications with me kindly contact me T.me/RealChristopherhauser

T.me/RealChristopherhauser Submit your Applications Payment start Wednesday

This will Change your life

T.me/RealChristopherhauser Contact me

T.me/RealChristopherhauser Contact me

When did we stop believing in rehabilitation for parents? Our justice system recognizes that even a person convicted of a crime can serve a sentence, rehabilitate, and work toward rebuilding a productive life in society. Yet in family court, a parent may never be convicted of a crime and still face years of restrictions on one of the most important liberty interests recognized in our constitutional tradition—the parent-child relationship. That raises a serious question: How can we believe in punishment followed by rehabilitation and restoration for convicted offenders, while allowing restrictions on a loving parent’s relationship with their child to continue indefinitely without continually asking whether those restrictions are still necessary? If circumstances change, evidence changes, and a parent demonstrates fitness, shouldn’t the system have a meaningful path toward restoring the parent-child relationship? What about child support? At what point did we embrace rehabilitation for the convicted, but lose sight of restoration for parents who were never convicted at all?

You can't say that young people today are more confident about their future than their parents were, because they're not, and they’re right not to be. So if you cared about them, you would consider that a tragedy. As a matter of public policy, you’d consider it a disaster. Because your job, if you run the American government, or if you seek to influence the running of the American government, is really simple. Help the people thrive. That's it. And if you don't do it, someone else will. Maybe someone with an economic program that doesn't work. Maybe someone with deep racial animus that's going to split the country along racial lines. Maybe someone who hates white people or thinks that men can become women or something crazy. That person is going to win anyway. Why? One reason, because he at least pretends to care about the people who live here. And not just their material wellbeing, but their spiritual wellbeing. Are they happy? Can you imagine 400,000 or 500,000 American 18-year-olds plucked at random from cities across the country in a field this summer, 57 years after Woodstock, can you imagine what they would look like with their shirts off? Which is not to make fun of their lumpy physiques, that happens to a lot of us over time. But can you imagine what their faces would look like? Would they look as cheerful as the kids you see in the pictures of Woodstock? You hope so. Probably not. So maybe the last thing they need is to be lectured by people who are clearly the beneficiaries of unearned privilege, like Ben Shapiro, who somehow got into Harvard Law School, despite a middling IQ. How did that happen? Never asked. People like that have no standing at all to lecture the rest of America's young people about whether or not they complain about their clearly declining standard of living and their future prospects. They have no standing at all, but they do it anyway. Now, why do they do it? Well, one reason is because they feel it. Now, the second Matt Walsh sent his tweet about grocery prices out, there was a chorus of people making exactly the same noise as Ben Shapiro made: “Shut up, burritos are enough for you. A $20 burrito is a good deal. Eat your burrito and be quiet. Eat your burrito and be happy. No chalupas for you.” So there was that. It was clearly coordinated. But it's not just coordination that gets us to a talking point like that. There was a deep feeling behind it, and that feeling was contempt. It was loathing of the people complaining, it was loathing of the population. And that is part and parcel of this whole program. And this ultimately is the reason that the neocon worldview is a cancerous worldview. Not simply because it's wrong about which countries we ought to invade and which leaders we ought to topple, which democracies we ought to erect in countries whose languages we don't speak. That's obviously all wrong. But that's not the worst thing about it. The worst thing about it is not just its inattention to the fortunes of actual Americans. It's its hostility, its hatred of Americans.

Family court parents: Do you feel like your fundamental liberty interests are more threatened in the civil family court system than they would be in the criminal justice system? In criminal court, constitutional protections are clearly recognized. When family court can affect your relationship with your own children, do you feel those same fundamental rights receive the same level of protection?

Over the last several days, I’ve spoken with several parents, and I keep hearing the same troubling patterns. Parents describe situations where they believe they are being denied meaningful due process in family court. They describe judges who: * Talk over them, interrupt them, or rush them while they are trying to present their case. * Refuse to allow them to call or present expert witnesses. * Proceed with hearings without adequate legal notice or sufficient time to prepare. * Threaten pro se litigants with contempt if they do not remain quiet while they are attempting to make an argument, preserve an objection, or present their case. * Move through proceedings so quickly that parents are left without a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Due process is more than simply allowing someone to appear in a courtroom and saying they had their “day in court.” A meaningful opportunity to be heard means a person must have a fair and genuine opportunity to present their arguments, offer relevant evidence, call appropriate witnesses, respond to the opposing side, make appropriate objections, and make their case before a decision affecting their rights is made. Judges absolutely have the authority to maintain order and courtroom decorum. But maintaining order should not become a substitute for providing a litigant especially someone representing themselves a meaningful opportunity to be heard. If parents in different cases and different courtrooms are describing the same barriers, we need to ask: Are these isolated experiences, or are we identifying a broader pattern affecting due process in our family courts?

Could a county sheriff-court bailiff who personally witnesses a judge, acting in a judicial capacity, commit conduct the bailiff reasonably believes violates the Texas Penal Code file a criminal complaint or, when legally authorized, make an arrest? Does holding judicial office change the ordinary rules of criminal accountability, or is a judge subject to the same criminal laws as everyone else?

T.me/RealChristopherhauser Contact me