Disabled Marine Forced to Give Constitutional Rights to Get Custody of Grandson

By Dave Dolbee published on in Legal

Do you think the gun control issue is dead? Do you believe the last presidential election secured your gun rights? What if a court openly admitted it was trampling your constitutional rights, but gave you an unthinkable ultimatum of giving up your Second Amendment rights or losing custody of your grandchild? Don’t think that could ever happen? Then, you have never heard of William and Jill Johnson.

William Johnson is a Marine Corp veteran who is 100 percent disabled. The Johnson’s were seeking custody of their grandson when their civil rights were allegedly violated—after the state asked the Johnsons to be foster parents to their grandson. The sad story goes like this.

Second Amendment Foundation

National Organizations such as the Second Amendment Foundation are the great defenders of our rights.

Michigan DHHS caseworkers told Mr. Johnson, that he would have to give the agency the serial numbers of all of his firearms. Johnson logically questioned this—as I would imagine we all would. The caseworkers allegedly replied, “If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.”

What a caseworker allegedly said is one thing, but we have a belief that the Lady Justice is blind and the courts will right certain wrongs. However, the lawsuit filed jointly by several parties including the Second Amend Foundation (SAF), alleges a Gogebic County Court judge told the Johnsons that if they wanted their grandson placed in their care, “We know we are violating numerous constitutional rights here, but if you do not comply, we will remove the boy from your home.”

The Second Amendment Foundation

“The statements from the caseworker and judge are simply outrageous,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This amounts to coercion, with a child as their bartering chip. I cannot recall ever hearing anything so offensive and egregious, and we’ve handled cases like this in the past. Blatantly telling someone they must give up their civil rights in order to care for their own grandchild is simply beyond the pale.”

The lawsuit asserts that “the policy of the MDHHS, by implementing requirements and restrictions that are actually functional bans on the bearing of firearms for self-defense, both in and out of the home, completely prohibits foster and adoptive parents, and those who would be foster or adoptive parents, from the possession and bearing of readily-available firearms for the purpose of self-defense. This violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

“This is a case we simply must pursue,” Gottlieb said. “State agencies and the people who work in those agencies simply cannot be allowed to disregard someone’s civil rights.”

Will the Second Amendment Foundation be successful in defending the Johnsons’ Constitutional rights? Share your answer, thoughts, or feelings about the Michigan case in the comment section.

SLRule

Growing up in Pennsylvania’s game-rich Allegany region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s and an Olympic hopeful holding up to 16 archery records at one point. During Dave’s writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersen’s Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police, Archery Business, SHOT Business, OutdoorRoadmap.com, TheGearExpert.com and others. Dave is currently a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!

View all articles by Dave Dolbee

Tags: , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (59)

  • Anon E Mous

    |

    Take the name of everyone involved and sue them into the poor house with Civil Rights Violations lawsuits.

    Reply

  • f

    |

    American colonies fought a Revolutionary War to free us from the “death grips” of Old King George III, but thanks to American lawyers we now live under Ole English Common Law that was dictated by King George centuries ago. Americans traded ONE King Dictator George III for literally thousands of King Dictators. Only their “Titles of Nobility” have changed from King to Judges. Each and every judge in America is a King Dictator in his own Reich. Judges have legislated/dictated to themselves “judicial independence” meaning judges are accountable to no one – the unadulterated definition of a King Dictator. Beware of quoting “common law.” It can and will be used against you.

    Reply

    • drew

      |

      f – most modern lawyers are clueless when it comes to true common law. They are not under ‘Ole English Common Law’ as you have stated. They are trained in statutory law and that is basically what most of them practice. Why? Because that is the law system that allows the ‘powers that be’ to extract the largest amount of wealth from their victims – their statutory slaves. King George did not dictate anything to the common law. He may have influenced English Parliament, but he did not dictate the common law. Common Law is basically unwritten law and is based on case precedent. Here is Black’s Law Dictionary 4th definition: As distinguished from law created by the en- actment of legislatures, the common law compris- es the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of per- sons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity……. Note the words ‘usages and customs of ……’Your claim that judges are dictators is basically correct. They are definitely in control of the other branches of gov’t. I have no clue what you mean by ‘quoting common law. It can and will be used against you.’ That claim is totally wrong (even though I don’t have a clue what you really meant). The thing that will save you and everybody else from our tyrannical judicial system, not to mention the entire political system, is the common law. If you don’t understand what I just said and why I said it (in the previous sentence), it’s a sure bet that you are a slave with little chance of being free.

      Reply

    • fair

      |

      Have you actually put into practice your beliefs in “common law,” or is your beliefs something you read in a book?

      Reply

    • drew

      |

      Absolutely, I’ve put them into practice. I structure my entire relationship with gov’t around Biblical Law and Common Law.

      Reply

    • fair

      |

      Give me an example of ONE of your successes, complete with citation to legal authority?

      Reply

    • drew

      |

      My involvement with lawful matters involving myself, family, loved ones and many others are numerous and almost always successful. You don’t fall into one of those categories, aren’t on my charitable list nor are you someone who has tendered a fee. You are now attempting to attack the messenger instead of the message. That’s usually what people do when they have nothing else and are becoming desperate. I would strongly recommend that you use critical reading skills in your attempt to understand what someone is saying in their writing and then go out and try to educate yourself further before you engage in a discussion with them.

      Reply

    • fair

      |

      “tendered a fee” Are you actually charging folks for bad advice? Asking for proof of your success is NOT attacking you. Your misstatements about common law may lead someone astray. No law dictionary in the world will back up your asinine claims. Do you think an all powerful judge gives a rat’s race about a law dictionary much less an “old” law dictionary. I hope you are not one of those who do not pay income tax? Most who try that garbage end up in jail and penniless.

      Reply

    • drew

      |

      Fair – These blogs sites are perfect for persons like you. They allow you to attacked when the urge arises and remain unaccountable for all you’re generalizations. You simply can walk away when it’s no longer fun or hide behind your keyboard during the confrontation. You wouldn’t get away with either out in the non-cyber world. You’ve made many general claims without providing any proof to advance your message. Most people here can probably see through your hollow comments. Here’s the challenge. Go back through all your comments and take every claim you’ve made and back it up with substantive proof (minimum of 3 premises for each claim; no opinions or flawed logic). You’ve proven you aren’t a critical reader or a critical thinker. Prove me wrong by providing what I’ve asked for. I’ve got a huge bet on you failing. If you come back with only attacks and generalizations, there will be no reason why I would continue to waste my time with someone at your …….

      Reply

    • fair

      |

      You say, “Common Law is basically unwritten law and is based on case precedent.” That is a contradictory statement. And case law is judicially written laws that are only opinions. If not, then judges are writing laws, an item the Constitution specifically prohibits.

      Reply

    • drew

      |

      Unwritten law in the sense that we are using it means it is not codified. Codified law seeks substantial uniformity. Statutory law and the Uniform Commercial Code are two examples of codified law. True common law and statutory law have little in common. It would take too much time and space to get into it. I would recommend that you at least go to a few good law dictionaries and get a feel for these terms….i.e. Black’s and/or Bouvier’s. The older editions are the best to use.

      Reply

    • Steve Waters

      |

      If any government official violates their oath of office why are they not removed from office? Why aren’t people suing judges, etc… for violating our rights. A precedent needs to be set.

      Reply

  • Willy

    |

    They even admit to violating his Rights…We know we are violating numerous constitutional rights here, but if you do not comply, we will remove the boy from your home.”

    We need to get organized and start working as a well oiled machine, because this isnt going to get any better.

    In California, either they passed, or are trying to pass a law that makes the Citizens of Cali have to buy ammo from a licensed dealer and can’t just buy it from a friend, or whichever way they choose. I wonder just how far California’s will be backed into a corner, before making a stand. 10 round mags, bullet buttons, now this! Unfortunately, they have always set the trends for the rest of the Nation and I won’t even bring up the CROOKS in NYC!

    Reply

  • Auggie Will

    |

    Drew you look & sound to be the man!
    The Government gets away with it be it State or Fed because they have our deep pockets behind them.
    The more money you have the more you are allowed to do or get away with.
    Some people even have meetings at airports in their planes because they are too busy making money to get together and have a drink to work it out.

    Reply

  • Ian

    |

    As a Michigan resident, this isn’t the first I’ve heard of asinine things like this from DHS.

    I kid you not, I have friends who are trying to be foster parents and DHS has told them that if they have firearms, the ammunition and the firearm have to be locked up separately from each other.

    I had to ask them if they were joking. Sadly, this is not a joke. This is discrimination against those of us who exercise or constitutional rights. For a state agency or court officer to try to force a citizen to relinquish their constitutional rights to care for their family member, they should be tried for treason.

    Reply

    • Reseacher

      |

      Judges shall be impartial and held accountable when judges are biased.
      Bracey v. Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 (June 1997).

      Therefore, if a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then that
      judge’s orders are void. In re Sawer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.

      TREASON

      Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S.(6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).

      Reply

  • Frank

    |

    Just in case anyone is confused drew here is what we like to refer to as a sovereign citizen. They tend to have a rather creative view of many things, not the least of which is UCC 304. You can safely ignore any of his pseudolegal babel.

    Reply

    • drew

      |

      Dear Frank – I’m not sure where you get your authority from. Could you enlighten us? Sovereign citizen is an oxymoron. You may not know what that means. Any SIMPLE dictionary would provide a starting point for your journey. I believe you have misquoted the U.C.C. Let me suggest that you study commercial law before you struggle in your attempt to use it to advance your self inflated ideas. I don’t think anyone who has discernment, a moderate level of reason and some education would dispute what I’ve said after considering all my comments and doing SOME research on their own(inclusive of all comments I’ve made on this article). Can you prove that anything I’ve said is false with evidence that would be admissible in a court of law? If so, please submit it here or recant your comment! I personally put helping the children of God above self-elevation.

      Reply

  • Paul

    |

    What are the implications here for the judge and case worker as well as the county? Seems to me this is far beyond an accidental trampling of rights…what they have admitted to is that they knowingly and actively worked to deny people their constitutional rights on a systemic basis. I would think penalties for purposefully doing this would be much more severe and far reaching.

    Reply

    • Reseacher

      |

      These “people” are no longer citizens !!!!!

      December 9th 1945 International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of the United States to the United Nations. In 8 USC 1481 stated once an oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, thus any state employee becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign entity). Under 22 USC (Foreign Relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign State.

      TITLE 22–FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE
      CHAPTER 11–FOREIGN AGENTS AND PROPAGANDA
      SUBCHAPTER II–REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN PROPAGANDISTS

      Sec. 611. Definitions
      As used in and for the purposes of this subchapter– (k) The term “registration statement” means the registration statement required to be filed with the Attorney General under section 612(a) of this title, and any supplements thereto required to be filed under section 612(b) of this title, and includes all documents and papers required to be filed therewith or amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, whether attached thereto or incorporated therein by reference;
      (l) The term “American republic” includes any of the states which were signatory to the Final Act of the Second Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics at Habana,
      Cuba, July 30, 1940;

      (m) The term “United States”, when used in a geographical sense, includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the Territories, the Canal Zone, the insular possessions, and all other places now or hereafter subject to the civil or military jurisdiction of the United States;

      http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/22C11.txt

      -CITE-
      22 USC Sec. 611 01/03/2007

      -EXPCITE-
      TITLE 22 – FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE
      CHAPTER 11 – FOREIGN AGENTS AND PROPAGANDA
      SUBCHAPTER II – REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN PROPAGANDISTS

      -HEAD-
      Sec. 611. Definitions

      -STATUTE-
      As used in and for the purposes of this subchapter –
      (a) The term “person” includes an individual, partnership, association, corporation, organization, or any other combination of individuals;
      (b) The term “foreign principal” includes –
      (1) a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party;
      (2) a person outside of the United States, unless it is established that such person is an individual and a citizen of and domiciled within the United States, or that such person is not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States; and
      (3) a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.
      (c) Expect (!1) as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the term “agent of a foreign principal” means

      any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and who directly or through any other person –
      (i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (ii) acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or

      (iv) within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States; and
      (2) any person who agrees, consents, assumes or purports to act as, or who is or holds himself out to be, whether or not pursuant to contractual relationship, an agent of a foreign principal as defined in clause (1) of this subsection.

      (d) The term “agent of a foreign principal” does not include any news or press service or association organized under the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or any newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication for which there is on file with the United States Postal Service information in compliance with section 3611 (!2) of title 39, published in the United States, solely by virtue of any bona fide news or journalistic activities, including the solicitation or acceptance of advertisements,
      subscriptions, or other compensation therefor, so long as it is at least 80 per centum beneficially owned by, and its officers and directors, if any, are citizens of the United States, and such news or press service or association, newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication, is not owned, directed, supervised, controlled, subsidized, or financed, and none of its policies are determined by any foreign principal defined in subsection (b) of this section, or by any agent of a foreign principal required to register under this subchapter;

      Reply

    • drew

      |

      99.9 % of the people in this country do not have constitutionally guaranteed rights (all they have are civil privileges. That’s what slaves are given if they behave). 99.9 % of the people in this country have consented away their unalienable rights (this is not true in fact because nobody can consent away their unalienable rights. God did not give any human a delegation of authority to consent away the gifts that he gave them. The reason the abandonment works is because 1. people don’t realize that those gifts came from the eternal God 2. the people benefiting from the deception aren’t willing to tell you that you can’t consent them away). There are several Supreme Court/other tribunal rulings that admit this in slightly veiled language. You need to be fully aware of legal language vs. proper English meaning to pick up on it, but it is clearly revealed. Why wouldn’t they openly admit that you are a voluntary slave? You’re drowning in gov’t contracts. Your lifeguard is the gov’t. Are you starting to get a feel for how this swimming experience is going to work out?

      Reply

  • william.w

    |

    when judges stop enforcing the law .witch is there job.thay like to tell you what thay think the law is .witch is not there job. so I say just do your job or lose it .

    Reply

    • Dale2

      |

      Translation, witch = which, there = their, that = they

      Reply

    • Dale

      |

      Typo, that = they. Sorry

      Reply

    • Dale2

      |

      F-ing spell corrector. thay = they

      Reply

  • Chameleon

    |

    While judges have near 100% immunity from personal liability, if the quote from the judge is accurate, this may be the chink in the armor needed for a S183 suit. We can not permit pure immunity for any class of government employee.

    I am in no way a fan of our excessively litigious culture, but this is egregious enough to draw a line in the sand.

    At the very least, impeachment should be pursued, since the judge admitted allowing administrative code to preempt the Constitution.

    Reply

    • drew

      |

      Under the common law, nobody has immunity, not even the king. Contract law is higher than constitutional law. That judge will get away with it because there is a contract in play. Once that contract is destroyed, good things will start to happen.

      Reply

    • art

      |

      i certainly am not a lawyer so i only work off logic. it seems what you are saying is a contract is above the law. so if you have a contract that has things in it that are against the law, the contract means that is the way it happens? it just sounds crazy to me, but then i am not a lawyer.

      Reply

    • drew

      |

      Your logic is keen. You must have a valid/legal contract before you have contract law operating. Anything illegal in the contract would make it null and void from the beginning, and therefore no contract was formed. Once you have a valid/legal contract, contract law is in operation. Keep in mind, the contract itself (if lawful and valid) can change the pecking order. Your driver’s license brings you under contract law through the franchise contract created by filling out an application. They regulate and enforce through statutory law though. Why? Because the contract stipulates that law system for enforcement of penalties and fines.

      Reply

    • dockilldare

      |

      drew i don’t know who told you contract law is higher than constitutional law, it is not at least not legally. in practice it might be held higher is some instances but contract law would mean nothing without the constitution to protect property rights. as you rightfully stated if a contract has a crime in it said contract is null and void. however, your use of a drivers license a is contract law is a bit of a stretch. a driver’s license is a tax and according to law enforcement driving is a privilege. that is why you have fines and penalties. just like you could not be fined for not allowing soldiers to be quartered in your home without your permission or reimbursement from the government. see the constitution and bill of rights are the ultimate contract in this country.

      Reply

    • drew

      |

      Dockilldare – I understand why you feel that way. I only have time for a short reply now. Hopefully, I will come back later and give a fuller response. Yes, there are several supreme court (federal and state) citations that literally say ‘the Constitution of….is the supreme law of the land.’ The Constitution also says the same thing in A6.S2. This section also puts treaties on par with our Constitution. What is a treaty in essence? In the federal Constitution, at A1.S10C1, it states the following…..”No State shall…pass any…Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…” I have over 250 citations, most of them federal and state supreme court decisions, that say we have the unalienable right to travel freely on the public ways without any hinderance/licensure requirements (unless we use the public ways for commerce – taxi, freight hauler, etc.). So why is it that they can regulate us and force us to get a driver’s license to use the public ways if we do not use them to conduct commerce? Think about all the things that the federal and state gov”t are doing to us that violate our unalienable rights and our constitutionally guaranteed rights. How do you think they get away with it? See all my comments on this article and you’ll have the basic answer.

      Reply

    • Dale2

      |

      Drew, thought you knew a little bit about the law. But now I am not to sure.

      Reply

    • drew

      |

      Dale2 – please explain what you mean…..be detailed.

      Reply

    • Reseacher

      |

      “OUR’ entire “gubbermunt” operates by FRAUD !!

      Check out “expose 1933″ for name in ALL CAPS and B.A.R. ASS-ociation !!!

      Reply

    • fair

      |

      Judge-made immunity doctrines stem from Ole English Common Law. The premise is that the “King Can Do No Wrong,” therefore he is immune from any wrong doing.

      Reply

  • CC

    |

    Michigan is a leftists wet dream.
    What do you want to bet DHHS caseworker is affirmative action placeholder and Mr. Johnson is a white man?

    Reply

    • Dale2

      |

      Please do not bring race into this. There are a lot DHHS workers of all colors and the name Johnson is not only a white name. But, this is much worse. These are over zealous government workers throwing their weight around because they can, not because it is right. They forget who they work for. Time to get a couple of them fired and put the fear of God in the rest.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: