“We have allowed CHFS to inspect our property and interview our children multiple times. After every visit they have confirmed, and confirmed again today that our children are happy, healthy and well cared for and that our property is sufficient for their needs. Despite that, the judge decided as a result of the deliberations in today’s hearing that our children will remain in CHFS care while they continue their investigation. Alex, my 19-year-old estranged son, testified in today’s hearing. We are both heartbroken with the way Alex’s upbringing away from us and his strained relationship with his mother have affected him. Although we are sad our children will not be returned to us today, we have nothing to hide. We have cooperated with all requests made to us by CHFS and will continue to do so. We are confident that throughout this process Nicole and I will be shown to be the good parents that we are and that our family will be reunited. We thank everyone for all you have done for us and ask for continued prayers for our children. We want all our children to know that we love them and we are constantly with them in our hearts.”
- Joe & Nicole Naugler, Blessed Little Homestead.
I think these children are being raised the right way. To know and love the land. No computer games, X-Boxes, cell phones, MP3’s - but instead - Gods life! This seems to be annoying the people who have false lifestyle ideals. Those children are probably more knowledgeable about survival and the basics of everyday life than the people who took them away from their parents. There is no abuse - physical, verbal or mental. Clean clothes, good meals, wood stove for heat.
Money and fancy modern foo foos do not make up for the love and the teaching of responsibility that these children are learning from their parents. These are not abused or neglected children. All the Do-Gooders need to go home and evaluate THEIR LIFESTYLES, AND LET GOOD PEOPLE RAISE THEIR OWN CHILDREN. Another form of the government taking over? My grand daughter and twin great-grandson were being abused - but the law did not care unless $ could provide restraining orders etc. and the proper forms were filed. Never mind that they were at risk! I took them from the abusive situation and was threatened with kidnapping even though it was public knowledge as to where we lived (a short distance away.) Then supposed officials do this to these people? Where is the sanity or the logic?
I totally agree with Lin Hunt. May God bless this family with the good life that they had been living together happily.
I am praying for your family! I hope you will be rightfully reunited with them quickly!
I pray for this family - that God will put them back together as a family.
There are a great many people following the tiny house movement, living well and without molestation off the grid in very tiny spaces around the country. They may be interested in this information. Also families for over 50 years have taken their children on small boats from 25 ft. to 45 feet and cruised the world with them in what many could consider dangerous conditions, but have thrived and done very well. There were chronicaled in Cruising World Magazine.
This is ridiculous.
This is happening everywhere. Keep fighting for your way of life. If I was younger I would never enroll my children in public school. And as much as possible live off the grid.
This is power abuse. You are on the right track by staying positive. I was born in KY myself and taken by CPS and sold to adoptive parents under the table when I was a small child. I know from both experience and education how important it is to help families stay together. I am praying for the goodness of those in power to do the right thing. Stay strong.
I am so sorry that CS felt the need to remove these children. While the ‘simple life’ is something I am not accustomed to - I do feel that it is the right of everyone to choose what works for them.
Even I - as recent situation and conditions are changing so drastically everywhere - would not mind living somewhere away from cities. I seek a ‘quiet’ life. I have grown tired of society as a whole.
I will pray for all of you and wish you nothing but the best!
According to http://www.wbko.com/home/headlines/Off-grid-Couple-Faces-Hearing-to-Regain-Child-Custody-303273911.html the state brought in Joe’s oldest son Alex Brow to testify against his father.
Alex testified under oath that he was taken from his father at age 4 and that he had not seen his father Joe since he was taken away. He also testified that he got all the beatings, most of the mental abuse, and a lot of sexual abuse.
The article states, “He told WBKO the reason he was in Kentucky, was to help his ten brothers and sisters”.
First I would like to state that first and foremost the children’s safety is of utmost importance and what I am about to point out has only to do with my own concern for their safety as a Citizen who is watching this all play out.
Alex Brow as a witness, should have been objected to by the Naugler’s attorney before he began testifying, on these grounds, Alex’s testimony concerns allegation of beatings, mental abuse and sexual abuse that he states he suffered. Seeing that he was removed at the age of 4 and has not been with his father since then, his testimony concerning what he experienced at age four is not credible before a court of law, as a child of four years of age is not able to understand the concept of truth required for one to raise their right hand and tell nothing but the truth, prior to delivering testimony before the Court.
Alex’s testimony of abused suffered was what others told him he suffered and this is not omissible in a court of law because it is considered hearsay. The fact that the judge would allow testimony that is based on hearsay is a huge red flag to the credibility of this Court.
The state seems to be pretty desperate to put a sibling up against his father based on hearsay and the judge should not have allowed the testimony on the grounds expressed above, in my opinion.
I expect the Naugler’s attorney will file a motion to strike the testimony, even if this just simply allows them to preserve the objection for a future appeal.
Now legal testimony should have been from the psychologist who assessed Alex when he was four years old and removed him from his father Joe’s custody or from other experts who assessed Alex as a child and who determined that he would be taken from his father. These experts would have their records and some type of assessments to present before the court. At the very least they would have testified as to how they determined that Alex was sexually abused prior or up to the age of 4 years old.
As a non-fee pastoral counselor one of the issues that is difficult to explain to parents in custody issues is that even though one parent may hate the other. If you love your child, even if you gain custody of the child, you should never attempt to destroy the child’s other biological parent’s character (character assassination) as this is a subtle abuse of the child themselves and their self-esteem. An attack against the child’s birth parent is an attack against the child.
The state knows this but their best interest is not for Alex but for themselves, because they needed to get a witness to help them defend their unconstitutional actions against the Naugler’s and they needed the court to agree with them so that they could gain legal access to the Naugler’s 10 children and do a battery of assessments on each of the children in hopes of gathering evidence to use against the Naugler’s.
The Naugler’s may have nothing to hide, but the state having no legal evidence to take these children in the first place, must now find anything they can to submit as evidence. And, when you have nothing to hide and they find nothing to support their abuse of power, they tend to falsify documents or use counseling techniques that do not have the child’s best interest at heart but are designed to create evidence as needed to support their unconstitutional actions.
I hope that these children can have an attorney present when they are being questioned and given the assessments, because I am very concerned for the constitutional rights of these children as the state has already violated their constitutional rights when they removed the 10 children extracting some of them from the safety of their family car and forced their father to bring in the others and when they continued to detain them based on hearsay testimony of their witness, Alex Brow, whose testimony was not only hearsay, but also greatly influenced by the state and whomever sought him out to present testimony, and as he is not an expert in child psychology or any field needed to provide expert testimony with assessments needed to validate the continued detainment of the 10 children from their parents, dogs, cat, and Kentucky home.
Also, if you watch the video found here by ABC News, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAQn8bI3D0E of Alex Brow in front of the camera he looks up to the right and this tells us that his brain is creating and attempting to figure out what to say based on what was told to him versus what he himself remembers.
When someone access old memories their eyes look to the left to access those memories. There is truth to this. Have someone ask you a question and try it on yourself.
Alex states, “I would get all the beating, um” and then his eyes go up to the right to create what to say next.
He then states, “most of the mental abuse, um” against his eyes go to the right, “a lot of sexual abuse towards me” he keeps his eyes towards the right.
You did not see him one time shift his eyes to the left (accessing memories), you only see him look to the right (creating) or at the reporter in front of him.
This does not mean that he is lying just that the information concerning the alleged abuse he suffered is not present in his memory to access.
He was simply too young, so he is having to access what he was told happened to him and create to provide this testimony.
In my opinion Alex is 19 years old, in my mind he is still a baby and I do not feel that the state had his best interest at heart when they brought him into Court to testify against his father, especially knowing that this case is in a huge spotlight across this nation.
They should have brought in experts. If Alex did suffer sexual abuse, he should not have had to come out with this to the public to help his siblings and why has he not reached out to them in the past, why now when the state is desperate to cover their unconstitutional actions and to get legal access to the Naugler’s 10 children?
If Alex was sexually abused the state would have no problem bringing in expert testimony or past court documents that substantiates, the alleged sexual abuse.
We are continuing to pray for this family, all of them including Alex, God Bless. – Shawna Sterling
My prayer is those representing this family has read your comment. I know if it was me, the information you brought out would be so comforting. Just reading it gave me more hope for this family. Your insight and considerations in regards to Alex surely need to be addressed. Thank you.
I want both parents to know that while I understand the importance of the Dept of Human And Child Services importance, that I feel deep down in my heart that they are in the wrong in this case. I believe the parents are great parents who have beautiful, healthy and happy children. Shame on the agency for their disregard for the childrens well being… u have everything for their basic needs and then some… I can honestly say my children couldnt survive on their own in any situation for any period of time if they had to be self sufficient because of any horrible situation. Your children could… if at all neccesary live off their land. There are so many horrible people that are parents and dont deserve their children, u folks are not those people. I wish u luck in your fight and want u to know that all the way up in the corner of no mans land Northern Maine… I am thinking of u and will be following your story. God bless u and your family.
The following Amicus Brief sent to the Breckenridge County authorities stands on its own:
STATE OF KENTUCKY FAMILY COURT
BRECKINRIDGE COUNTY, KENTUCKY
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN OF ]
Joe and Nicole Naugler ]
]
]
THE STATE OF KENTUCKY ]
ET AL., INHABITANTS, PETITIONER ] CASE NO. ___________
PERSONS CREATION OF CIVIL LAW ]
]
v. ] FEDERAL RULES OF
] APPELLATE
Joe and Nicole Naugler ] PROCEDURE RULE 2
RESPONDENTS, Man and Woman ] IS INVOKED AND
Created by Nature ] RULES ARE SUSPENDED
AMENDED INTERVENTION AND AMICUS BRIEF OF RIGHT/NECESSITY
TO PROTECT THE “REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT”
OF THE “PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES,” ex rel,
Michael Joseph Kearns
AND THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE “PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES” PROTECTED BY THE 1787 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The country of the said United States, ex rel, Michael Joseph Kearns, a man created by Nature and the laws of Natures God, and NOT a “person”, politically as one of the “people of the United States” and NOT one of the “inhabitants of the United States” as those terms are used in the Definitive Treaty of Peace, 1783, currently living on the land of the United States, more specifically, Texas, and NOT in the District of Columbia, enters this Intervention of Right Amicus Brief and for Declaratory Judgment as requested, to protect the “Republican Form of Government” of the people of the United States, ex rel, Michael Joseph Kearns and the Natural God given rights of the “people of the United States” as secured by the 1787 Constitution of the United States for the United States of America and would show the Court, the Plaintiff lacks standing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for Declaratory Judgment as requested herein.
The defendants, Joe and Nicole Naugler, have exhibited the lifestyle and character traits of the “people of the United States” and will be politically treated as such, until such time as Joe and Nicole Naugler, make a political determination in opposition to those said “republican form of government” principals, with full knowledge and intent to do so.
The Amici hereby invokes the following MAXIMS OF LAW:
Fictio cedit veritati - Fiction yields to truth. Where there is truth, fiction of law exits not.
Fictio legis inique operatur alicui damnum vel injuriam - A legal fiction does not properly work loss or injury. Fiction of law is wrongful if it works loss or injury to anyone.
The Plaintiffs lack standing to sue the Defendants, because the Plaintiffs are presumptively, an “inhabitant[s] of the United States” and in reality, acting for an “inhabitant[s] of the United States”, THE STATE OF KENTUCKY, et al, subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, by the authority of the Definitive Treaty of Peace, 1783, signed by the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, with the adoption of the said Treaty by the United States of America when the said Treaty was passed by the Congress of the United States of America as a Statute at Large at 8 stat 80.
Further, the Plaintiffs attempt to enforce a right guaranteed by the 1787 Constitution of the United States for the United States of America, when the 1787 Constitution of the United States for the United States of America, does not protect any rights of any “inhabitant of the United States,” as an administrative democratic subject of the Crown of Great Britain.
The State of Kentucky Family Court shall take Judicial Notice of the public documents and Cases cited herein, specifically under Rule 201(d), with the public documents easily obtainable by the Court personnel.
BACKGROUND
With all due respect, most people fail to start at the most important documents in our history, the Declaration of Independence and the definitive Paris Treaty of Peace, 1783. The United States of America Supreme Court in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) very clearly stated where the root of the sovereignty in the United States lies, in the “people of the United States.”
It is clear, history shows us, the early colonists were divided into two groups of individuals, one group wanted to be “free, sovereign and independent” while the other group wanted to remain loyal to the Crown of Great Britain.
The group who wanted to be “free, sovereign and independent” are mentioned as the “people of the United States” while the loyalists are mentioned as “inhabitants of the United States” and both are mentioned in the definitive Paris Treaty of Peace, 1783, specifically Article III therein, and later in that same Article collectively as “American fishermen,” confirming that two different groups were to be mentioned for specific purposes.
The “people of the United States” then went on to write the 1787 Constitution of the United States for the United States of America, with its Preamble, minus its Amendments. The “inhabitants of the United States” had no participation in the Constitution, because they wanted to remain loyal to the Crown of Great Britain.
The supreme sovereigns of the United States, i.e. the “people of the United States” who are “free, sovereign and independent” wrote their offer in 1787 to the United States of America, in its agency capacity for both the Crown of Great Britain and the subjects thereof, known as, “inhabitants of the United States” to provide “essential governmental duties” to the “people of the United States” and delegated some of the sovereignty residing in the “people of the United States” to the United States of America to have the authority to administratively control the said “inhabitants of the United States,” and that offer was accepted in 1789.
The two signatories to the said Definitive Treaty of Peace, 1783, were, the Crown of Great Britain, and the said United States, which acknowledged the states to be “free, sovereign and independent” states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and “every part thereof.” The United States of America adopted the said Treaty by the action of the Congress in passing the same as a Statute at Large, 8 stat 80. The United States of America and its administrative subdivision, the State of Kentucky, as agents of the Crown of Great Britain, have an obligation to respect and enforce what claims the Crown of Great Britain have relinquished.
The definitive Paris Treaty of Peace, 1783, was in reality a commercial exchange, the Crown of Great Britain surrendered dominion over land and people the Crown of Great Britain could not economically, legally or militarily maintain control over, in exchange for trade and taxing power over its subjects, the “inhabitants of the United States,” through its Agent, the United States of America.
It is absolutely necessary to fully understand the difference between the “United States” and the “United States of America.” The United States is the country, while the United States of America is the nation. The United States of America does not make laws for the United States, the United States of America only makes law for persons who are presumptively “inhabitants of the United States” and presumptively having a permanent residence/domicile in the District of Columbia.
The State of Kentucky was made a state of the Union by the Act of the United States of America Congress, on February 4, 1791, 1 stat 189, and was admitted to statehood on June 1, 1792, thereby making the State of Kentucky, an administrative subdivision of the United States of America, meaning, everything that applies to the United States of America, applies to the State of Kentucky, as far as the Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783 and the Constitution of the United States for the United States of America is concerned, by securing to the land of Kentucky, a “Republican Form of Government” for the “people of the United States” currently living on the land of the United States, more specifically, Kentucky.
When you read Article 1 of the said definitive Paris Treaty of Peace, 1783, you will note the Crown of Great Britain retained two positions for itself, the Arch Treasurer and the Prince Elector of the United States of America. The Crown retained control of the “public rights” of “inhabitants of the United States” in The United States of America, while it released the “private rights”, of the “people of the United States,” when it declared the states, “free, sovereign and independent.” With the United States Supreme Court in a Case titled, Karnuth v. United States of America, 279 U.S. 231 (1929) stated the Paris [Definitive] Treaty of Peace, 1783, was as operative today as it was when it was first adopted in 1783.
In reality what happened in the Paris Definitive Treaty of Peace, 1783, is, the United States of America became an agent of the Crown of Great Britain for two reasons, to provide “essential governmental duties” to the “free, sovereign and independent” “people of the United States” and to provide administrative democratic control (mob rule) over the “inhabitants of the United States” for the purpose of taking the census and collecting taxes and forwarding the same to the Crown of Great Britain.
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) states what a “state” consists of, “people, land, and the law/government.” You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out which of the three cares about being “free, sovereign and independent.”
TODAY IN AMERICA, the United States of America, and its administrative subdivision, the State of Kentucky, presumes every individual is an “inhabitant of the United States” until such time as an individual makes his/her own Declaration of Political Character and Status made as part of a claim for the said United States and made to the United States of America. The problem is, the average “person” has no idea about what I just explained to you.
“Inhabitants of the United States”/Slaves/Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain have no standing to interfere with a Treaty of the United States, that is still effective today according the United States of America Supreme Court in, KARNUTH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 49 S.Ct 274 (1929).
Chief Justice Marshal in COHENS v. VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 404 (1821), declared what the duty of the Courts and especially this Court is, regarding jurisdiction of a matter, by stating:
“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”
RESPECTFULLY COMMANDED FROM ONE OF THE SUPREME SOVEREIGNS, ONE OF THE “PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES,” TO THE TEMPORAL SOVEREIGNS, “INHABITANTS OF THE UNITED STATES,” ACTING FOR THE TEMPORAL SOVEREIGN, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/THE STATE OF KENTUCKY, AS AGENT FOR THE CROWN OF GREAT BRITAIN, this Court, providing and performing an “essential governmental duty” for the “people of the United States” has no alternative but to dismiss this Case as to the plaintiff party for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” and to enter a Declaratory Judgment, namely declaring the following, and other declarations as this Court sees fit, to perform its “essential governmental duty” to the “people of the United States,” to wit:
a. The Plaintiffs, The State of Kentucky, et al, are all an “inhabitant of the United States,” and;
b. an “inhabitant of the United States” has no authority to enforce any right guaranteed by the 1787 Constitution of the United States for the United States of America, for themselves, for the reasons stated herein, and;
c. the State of Kentucky is attempting to invade the land of Kentucky with a foreign law, without authority, permission, grant or consent of the “people of the United States.”
d. Joe and Nicole Naugler are a man and woman, created by Nature and the laws of Nature’s God and are entitled to be treated as “free sovereign and independent” as one of the “people of the United States.”
Respectfully, the said United States, submitted by one of the Supreme Sovereigns of the United States
__/s/_________________________
By, Michael Joseph Kearns, one of the “free sovereign and independent” “people of the United States”
c/o 9739 Hidden Falls
San Antonio 78250
Texas United States
210-523-7154
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Michael Joseph Kearns, hereby certify I placed a copy of this INTERVENTION AND AMICUS BRIEF OF RIGHT/NECESSITY TO PROTECT THE “REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT” OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE “PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES” PROTECTED BY THE 1787 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in the U.S. Mail, handdelivered, emailed or sent by facsimile, on the _11_____ day of May, 2015, addressed:
[email protected]
Breckinridge County Attorney
270-756-5459 fax
___/s/___________________________
Michael Joseph Kearns
Thank you for taking notice and interest of the injustice.
Tragedy…I guess Kentucky doesn’t like the women folk to know their rights..so it seems… Police up here in MA have major attitude..the majority..not all of course…it is terrible….I won’t sight all the horrors.. Praying the children’s safe and speedy return…. I also pray you have a LAWSUIT
I feel there is a need for more families who are brave enough to live off the grid and preserve the family values that works for their life’s philosophy as this creates greater biodiversity within our species and a higher chance of survival knowledge rather than all of us becoming hemmed in and dependent on a system and if the system fails, we are all at risk. I see no wrong in the Naugler’s approach to parenting although unconventional as they were not abusive nor did they have any bad habits so I hope whatever the misperception was would be cleared soon and the children returned to the rightful place in the family home and life will move on well and the children grow up healthy and happy 😉
Shame on this agency for their disregard for the childrens well being, and for breaking up this family.
help them stay intact. government agencies should learn from and observe this family for their capacity to manage. God bless this humble family and give the strength!