Harming children is harming the United States.
A nation exists across generations. Its future depends on the children living now: their safety, relationships, education, health, and opportunity to grow into their own lives.
The campaign’s moral argument follows from that obligation. A system that knowingly consumes childhood wages war on posterity. The weapons are coercion, extraction, delay, and indifference. The casualties are futures diminished before they could unfold.
Public power cannot fulfill its purpose while treating preventable harm to children as an acceptable cost of administration.
This is the basis for the campaign’s demand to investigate Maine’s administration and documented misconduct in family courts across the United States. It is an argument about institutional responsibility and the country’s future.
The people are the source of power.
Maine’s Constitution places political power in the people and states that government is instituted for their benefit. Article I also protects peaceful petition and provides for remedies through due course of law and prompt justice.
For this campaign, those principles require an accounting: which office had a duty, which official received notice, what remedy was possible, and why preventable harm continued.
Constitution of Maine, Article I, §§ 2, 15, 19 ↗
Judicial independence and lawful child protection matter. Accountability must examine individual conduct and institutional practices while preserving fair proceedings and evaluating the full record—including evidence that challenges the allegations.
“War on the future” and legal treason are different claims.
Harm to children, even serious or knowing harm, does not by itself establish the crime of treason. The metaphor of war cannot replace the constitutional elements.
Article III, Section 3 restricts federal treason to levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies by giving aid and comfort. It also requires two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. Federal law addresses treason in 18 U.S.C. § 2381.
As explained in the Constitution Annotated’s discussion of Ex parte Bollman, levying war requires an actual assembly for a treasonable purpose; even a conspiracy to levy war is insufficient without the required act. Administrative wrongdoing is not automatically levying war.
Maine’s Constitution separately limits treason against the State in Article I, Section 12 and includes the same two-witness or open-court-confession safeguard.
This website’s materials do not establish those criminal elements. The campaign seeks investigation and referral. A treason prosecution would require independent evidence satisfying the specific constitutional standard; prosecutors and courts must decide under governing law.
Investigate the conduct. Apply the law.
The campaign asks for independent review of alleged misconduct by Maine’s administration and evidence of comparable failures in other jurisdictions. It calls for criminal referrals—including review of any evidence capable of meeting the treason standard—and for investigation of other applicable offenses or civil-rights violations.
Where evidence warrants, the requested remedies include disciplinary action, lawful removal proceedings, civil remedies, and prosecution. Each has its own legal requirements. A petition cannot convict anyone, and a statewide audit cannot prove the culpability of every official or court.
The immediate demands remain concrete: protect children, preserve evidence, hold hearings, audit financial incentives, identify responsibility, and publish corrective deadlines.
The legal racket is treason.
The quoted sentence is the author’s political and moral condemnation. The legal distinction above governs any request for criminal charges.
Read the full citizen petition