Child Protector Watch

They're out of control, but we're watching



This web site has been created for the specific purpose of protecting children and their parents from the excesses of the "child protectors," who use them in their quest to remove control of your children from you so they can teach them to be good (forced) altruists and socialists from an early age. Hitler and other despots knew the value of getting the children young and teaching them what they wanted them to think. This is called "conditioning," and it is happening to your children, now.

This is no longer a periodical newsletter, but is now a place for articles that can help the victims of the excesses of the "child protectors" all over the world. Here we publish articles detailing many of their abuses and the reasons behind their entire scam. Below is an article that tells you exactly why they're abusing the rights of parents and children and abusing those children and parents themselves in the name of "protection."

Below also is a link to an index of articles written by me and other knowledgeable people in this field. Contained in that index are also links to many people who can help, including some attorneys who specialize in child protection problems. These are not attorneys who specialize in pro bono (free) legal work, although I'm sure some do it on a case-by-case basis.

We will update this site on a regular basis as we receive new information. It will not be a "periodical" publication, since we will update it only when we get new information. If you'd like to be notified each time we update, there is a link at the top of this page to have Angelfire notify you.

CHILD PROTECTOR REPORT: To read up-to-date news articles concerning the abuses of the child protectors that never usually are heard of outside of local news sources because they're purposely treated as "local" news so we won't know how widespread these abuses are go to The Child Protector Report is updated as often as we find a news item of interest, not always daily, but sometimes several times a day. Sometimes once a week. This will keep you informed of what the child abusers are doing to innocent families all over the world on a regular basis. It will be a revelation to you, as you see that your case is not, by far, unique or even excessive by the standards of what the child protectors do every day. While there. You can sign up for the THOMA$ REPORT Alert List which involves one e-mail a day to tell you what we're covering in both the THOMA$ REPORT and in the Child Protector Report. Included in the daily message is a link to use to go to either web site.


Copyright 2002 By Ray Thomas

There has been a big upsurge recently in the number of stories in the news about "parents who abuse their children." This fits with the well known (to those of us who pay attention) Hegelian Principle looters (also known as: collectivists, socialists, liberals) use when trying to put over a con: get their media friends to push the con every day in the news.

Using the "Hegelian Principle" involves three steps:

Step one: Create a problem: Or call attention to something you can con the public into believing is a problem;

Step two: Publicize "the problem": Make use of every propaganda method known to man to condition the public to believe there is a problem;

Step three: Offer a "solution": One that takes away one (more) "small" right (But hey -- you can afford to give up that "itty-bitty right" in order to "solve the problem," can't you?).That's called "incrementalism."


The power brokers are now at "stage two" in their campaign to take control, not only of what our kids are taught in school (they've already got that), but control over all decisions that are made about them. They want to completely discredit parents by convincing everybody -- including other parents (Present company excepted, don'tcha know.) -- that the biggest majority of parents abuse their children, so the government should take over all parenting decisions (In other words: "There's a 'problem,' so you should be willing to give up your parental rights in order to solve it.").


You still get to do the work, but now you have to ask a bureaucrat for "permission" to do whatever must be done (If you are a child molester or abuser, you'll still get to molest or abuse them, but the bureaucrats won't care. They'll have "the power" to control your kids, and your actions toward them. Their biggest "concern" will be that you obey their "regulations." Not whether or not you abuse the kids.).


In "phase two," they constantly feed the gullible press item after item about "parental child abuse," many of them items that would never have been seen outside of local papers, and not there either, for the most part. The press predictably (and without checking the facts, as usual) repeats the "mantra" over and over, every time they are asked to do so. A good example is the Associated Press item seen in June, 1996 (nationally) about a Winchester, Indiana man who was arrested because his three-year-old boy was seen drinking beer and smoking a cigarette (Wow! Three of their pet projects in one incident!). Now I'm not saying it's OK to allow a three-year-old to smoke and drink, but I am saying that you'd never see such an item in an Associated Press national dispatch as a rule. That's "local news." They also place many news items (and television specials on the television news magazines) about terrible stories about the nasty things some parents do to their children. Often these "parents" who abuse their children are foster parents, but they ignore that. But you'll rarely, if ever, see stories about abuse and sexual abuse by foster parents and the child protectors themselves in the name of "protection."


The pattern, under phase two, is to have one or more items that "fan the flames" appear in the media every day, in as many news venues as possible, while constantly criticizing "child abusers" in other items, and calling for "tougher laws." Pretty soon the incessant din has to have an affect on the people and then others start joining in the calls for tougher laws. Then it's time to start pushing phase three (offering a "solution") in a big way.


Phase three involves organizing such things as "Children's Rights Marches," where "abused children" are paraded before the news media and the world, while their "plight" is emphasized. Conning legislators into introducing laws that strengthen their hand and weaken the hand of parents and the children themselves while telling us all how much they "care" about children.


Then they trot out the "studies" and arrange conferences to "study" things that ought to be done to "alleviate the problem." Child abuse becomes an election-year issue. Then the president chimes in and makes empty statements. Pretty soon they're arranging a "photo op" with the president and a "group of abused children," and everything else they can think of to "stir the pot." All the bureaucrats who make their livings by controlling what parents may do regarding their children will be there to protect and promote their interests.


Distinguished professor/syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell said in a recent column: "Make no mistake about it, those who organized this political pageant (The 'Rally for Children' (the 'Million Man March for Kids') held in Washington, DC in early 1996) were doing so on their own behalf -- for money and power -- and children were just pawns in the game."


He also said in the same article: "No doubt that many -- perhaps most of those gathered in front of the Lincoln Memorial were sincere. Savvy leaders often surround themselves with 'useful idiots' who actually believe the propaganda. These leaders also know that no one makes better hostages, to march across the political minefields in front of them, than children." [Emphasis mine -RT]


He also pointed out that what they want is" -- not just money, but power; the power to take over the role of parents, without having to take the responsibility for the consequences. That this has been the agenda of groups like the Children's Defense Fund since long before this rally was planned or held, specifically to promote the theme of "collectivism" in the raising of children that will end up with the collectivists completely in the driver's seat.

"To the 'anointed,' other people's children are guinea pigs for social experiments and targets for brainwashing in politically correct views and attitudes. Lots of statistics were thrown around at the Washington rally, showing how many children were in poverty, abused or otherwise getting a bad start in life. It never seemed to occur to any of those present that the kinds of people and the kinds of policies represented at this rally are themselves a major part or the problem." And he asks: "What has gotten better (in the last 30 years) as a result (of liberal control and growing welfare state programs usurping parental control and all sorts of avant-garde theories about how to raise children) as a result? But they just keep on pushing and people (many of them children) just keep on suffering and even dying."


Naturally, at about this time they pick an especially bad case to publicize, such as the Denver ten-year-old who (supposedly) kicked a baby to death because his dad didn't keep his house clean. Or the one where an eight-year-old broke into a home to rob it because his parents abused him, so he beat another infant almost to death. There is always such a case ready for the looters to exploit because their welfare policies have created an atmosphere in which such cases abound. When kids have nothing to do, and their parents are drug addicts and criminals because they had nothing to do when they were children, it's almost a "normal thing" for the kids to do violence.


The fact that the looters in fact created this problem seems to be lost on everybody who insists that the looters should be placed in power over the children.


Then there are the stories of "recovered memories" of abuse that are used by the "Family Service" Gestapo to put parents in jail -- never mind that a large number of such cases have been proven to involve planted, rather than "recovered" memories. Mind you, I'm not saying "recovered memories" don't exist. I'm sure people do forget things that are too awful to remember. What I am saying is that these "recovered memories" should never be used as evidence of a crime without convincing corroborating evidence as has been done in many cases.


Another of their major scams is drugging children as early in their lives as they can (as young as 2) and by so doing, in addition to making them easier to control (they mostly have no idea how to control children who are unruly as a result of having their world destroyed), it teaches them that the answer to all their problems are drugs. The major scam here is to convince school authorities (already accomplished) and parents (almost completely accomplished) that Attention Deficit Disorder is epidemic in the world. They have people convinced that this "disease" (and it's companion, ADHD) is a real mental disease although there have been no definitive studies to prove it. What studies have been done use methodology that is extremely suspect.

They use this false information to con schools and parents into allowing these children to be given a dangerous, addictive, cocaine-like drug such as Ritalin or its relatives. This drug is today one of the most abused prescription drugs there is. Kids who don't get it at school will do anything to get it They buy it from those who do. Many college students take it regularly when pulling "all-nighters." Soon they're addicts, and later move on to cocaine or other dangerous drugs. This is all done in pursuit of their goal to control what these kids taught without interference from parents. They don't care that they're ruining many lives and that many of these children commit suicide because of drug-induced depression. Others die of overdose, just as do many illegal drug abusers.


Most cases of child abuse are raised and prosecuted with little more evidence than the unsupported (by physical evidence) word of a child, a parent (often one who benefits by making the charge), or by an outsider who may have misinterpreted what he or she saw or who may have an ulterior motive (there is no penalty for making false charges of child abuse, the "Good Samaritan Laws" see to that). In no other area of law are people allowed to be sent to jail on such little, or nonexistent evidence. Independent corroboration is always required, except in child abuse cases. Child courts are much like the courts landlords use in eviction cases. When the eviction is filed, you're as good as gone because the deck is stacked in their favor. Here, when the abuse charge is filed (and sometimes when it is not), your kids are as good as gone.


Michael Thomas, of Denver, Colorado. Yes, we are related, He is my son. Which is why I have so much personal knowledge of his case. But lest anyone accuse me of lying because of this, or of "looking at it through rose colored glasses," I ask, no demand that if anyone can come up with proof that will stand up in court that any of the accusations made against him are true, I will back off. Michael Thomas, who does not drink, smoke, or do drugs (and after 18 years as a paramedic, scraping the remains of drug addicts and drunks off the streets, I would know), and whom I've never known to abuse his children (and he has lived with me and I him on several occasions), was accused (by his then soon-to-be ex-wife, who benefited from making the accusation) of beating his kids, starving them, and allowing them to live in filthy surroundings. He has been accused of threatening his wife with a gun and of throwing her up against the wall in anger. No such charges were ever found to be true but they kept his kids anyway, for three years and tried their best to terminate his parental rights and put them up for adoption.

Let's take the gun. Mike was an armed security officer and thus had occasion to carry a gun. Which means that a gun will probably be in the house at any given time, leading to the possibility that a girl who would rather tell a lie than tell the truth, even when the truth would serve better, would accuse him of threatening her with a gun after a heated argument. This girl (girl, not woman) is a congenital liar, an inveterate thief (I was forced to put a lock on my door when they lived with me), a snooper who sticks her nose into everybody else's belongings and who just steals whatever she wants. She is a person who, when she finishes with some trash, just opens her hand and lets it drop to the floor (and that includes such things as dirty diapers (whenever she can be forced into changing one) and partly empty potato chip wrappers, which she has been known to drop on the floor and leave until the potato chips were ground into the carpet. She is also well-known to have regularly cheated on him, with both male and female lovers. This is not suspected, it is known. But it makes no difference to this court. This, and all the other things I have noted here are from personal knowledge, having come from close association with both of them for long periods of time.


Yet when she made accusations against him when they separated (mostly because of what I just enumerated), she was instantly believed, in spite of the fact that as this is written, she is reported to have green hair in a spike hairdo, to be living with a truck driver in his car somewhere in the outback of Colorado, and is rarely seen on child visitation day (did not see them for six months, while Mike was there every week).


This is a girl who begged for Mike's (and my) help some years ago when her alcoholic mother was abusing her when she was still a teenager. Who (the mother), when Mike worked to help her become an "emancipated minor," cut the tires on his car and later tried (unsuccessfully) to get custody of his children (More revenge, perhaps?) even though the children's mother seems to have lost interest. A mother who went to their school while the children were in Mike's custody and spirited them away without his knowledge so she could abandon them by turning them over to the child protectors. Who tried to get the bureaucrats to take them, then the police (neither of which would do so without a court order), and finally the court (where she succeeded finally getting a court order to put them into the custody of the authorities, thereby playing right into their hands).

She ended up turning them over to their court-appointed attorney at a 7-Eleven store and disappearing for six months (It is my theory that her parents put her up to this so they could get their further revenge on Mike by taking custody away from him, either temporarily or permanently. Mike has not been proven to be an unfit parent in any way).


Notwithstanding the fact that this entire "case" is nothing but her unsupported word and that not a single bit of actual evidence exists that he was either abusive to her or to the children -- and he was never even charged with a crime -- they forced Mike to attend the "Amend Program" sessions that most people are only required to attend under the threat of jail time (To everyone's surprise, however, he enjoyed the sessions, saying that he thought he had learned a lot about interpersonal relationships).


The "Child Protective Services," (under whatever alias they use) will do just about anything to gain control over our children and "take the patents out of the loop." Their very funding depends upon how many children they can take away from parents, for however short a time they can accomplish it. The longer, the better. And if they can take them away permanently, so much the better. They get (at this time) $4,000 for each child they can "terminate" from the parents and put up for adoption. They get $6,500 for every one that is a "special circumstances" child (and most are by the time they get done with them).


If we don't do something to stop them, pretty soon none of us will have any say about our children and what they do. I am not, by any means saying there should be no laws, and no child protection. But I am saying they should be made to prove their allegations before a conviction can be obtained and before the parent can be discredited.


Child Protective agents are allowed to do too much, with not enough control over them. They are plainly out of control, (See "School Officials Rape Children") and if we don't do something to "rein them in," no one will be able to make any decision regarding his or her own children without having to consult some bureaucrat to get permission.


This is just one more example of the "power grab" that continues unabated within the government at all levels. They've got such cons going all over the map, and it's hard to even know about them all, let alone stop them.


It's not about children's rights. It's not about guns, or about smoking, or about wetlands or the environment. It's about power, and their ability to wield it over you and I. They only take our money in taxes because that gives them the (seed) money to finance their cons. You don't need to own the money if you control absolutely how it is spent. Power is everything to the looters, and they'll do anything they have to do to get more of it. Lie, cheat, steal, even destroy families and abuse the very children they're supposed to be protecting.

On the "Articles Index" page are many articles. But there are two you should especially read. One is Target: Your Child, which gives much useful information, including a description of blatant child sexual abuse by the child protectors, disguised as a "medical procedure." Another is the Manual for the Falsely Abused, which tells you all about their many scams and schemes designed to get your cooperation in turning your children over to them or to steamroller you in just taking them. If you read these articles, you will be forewarned so that every time they try a new scam or scheme you will not fall for it. All I learned in stopping them from taking my son's children the way they did mine more than thirty years ago, is on this site.


The law actually does protect the family. But the "family courts" ignore it. They do not follow it, nor do they equally enforce it. They routinely violate constitutional rights and this must be challenged at the jurisdictional level. If you challenge jurisdiction, the court can't lawfully proceed until a hearing is held to decide the jurisdictional matter. To refuse this is a violation of due process, as is bringing you into any hearing without complete discovery. All motions before the court must be answered, but you must demand them or you will not get them. Lack of a warrant, or a petition, or of an affidavit of probable cause (which must accompany the petition). Usually when they steal your child they don't have these things and if you do not demand them, they'll get away with it. If you do demand them, they must produce them or they have committed reversible error. In the absence of a crime and evidence of such, an injured party, a lawful warrant, probable cause and due process, these family courts are operating without jurisdiction Without jurisdiction it is a CRIME to take your children and they should be returned.

Don't depend on your lawyer to demand these things. Do it yourself. And if your lawyer objects or attempts to advise you against it, fire him and become your own lawyer.

Below are a few of the cites you must keep handy to use when you go to court with them:

"A parent's right to the custody of his/her children is an element of "liberty" guaranteed by the 5th amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution." Metter of Gentery 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).

"The parent child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment." Bell V City of Milwaukee, 746 f2d 1205, 1242-45; US Ct Ap 7th Cir WI (1985)

"The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See -Declaration of Independence - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution - No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws)" Kelson v Springfield, 767 F2d651;US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985)

"State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights." Gross V State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257, (1963) The Constitution also protects "the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters." Federal Courts (and State Courts) under Griswold can protect, under the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, (l965)

Before you lawyers get all "bent out of shape" thinking I'm "practicing law without a license, let me say that this advice comes from a lawyer, not me. I'm only relaying it. Wouldn't want to have people think I'd try to be a lawyer, no sir.

The information in this newsletter and on this web site is not legal advice. Before carrying out suggestions found here consult your attorney. To find more information look for the "Manual for the Falsely Accused" report on the Special Reports page. To contact me by mail, write to: P O Box 16247, Denver, CO 80216-0247

The "Lions List" is a discussion List where people who have suffered at the hands of the child protectors come together to discuss their cases and help each other through the process, give each other advice on how to proceed, and share information about persons and organizations who can help. To subscribe to The Lions List click here. Leave the subject field blank and in the first line of message type: "subscribe lions" in the body of the message.

Special Reports and Links to Other Information Click here to find important articles that can give you the benefit of the knowledge that allowed my son and I to beat the child protectors so badly that it cost them $50,000 more than they got from the feds and for them to mark him "hands off."

Ray Thomas also publishes The THOMA$ REPORT, an online web-based news source for independent thinkers who don't buy the view of the "looters" in our governments. Child abuse is just one area in which abuses occur and the press routinely ignores them. This newsletter brings you information they don't want you to have about "child protector" activities. The THOMA$ REPORT does the same thing in a much wider spectrum, bringing you information daily on the scams, schemes, and hustles the power seekers in our government are conning us into approving of our own enslavement. It is updated several times a day with new information on a continuous basis. You can read it by going to: . You can subscribe to the "Alert List" that notifies you when a new issue is posted by going to the form at the bottom of the main page on THOMA$ REPORT, typing in your e-mail address and clicking the "Join List" button.

Email to:


This Falsely Accused Parents Web Ring
Falsely Accused Site is Owned by:
Ray Thomas

Join the Falsely Accused Parents ring

[Prev Page] [Skip Next] [Next 5] [Random Site] [List Sites]
Inspired by The A-Team

This publication is Copyright 2002 by Ray Thomas, all rights reserved.