AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION OF TRUTH AND NOTIFICATION
(for cover sheet, print one out here)
To: [CT legislative Childrens Committee ranking member Address]
I, [Affiant full name and address], the undersigned, make this affidavit of my own free will and hereby affirm, declare, and swear, under my oath and under the pains and penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and of this state, that I am of legal age and of sound mind and hereby attest that the statements, averments and information contained in this Affidavit/Declaration are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
This affidavit is lawful notification to [recipient] and to [his/her] agents, attorneys, affiliates, assigns, employees, or those associated with [recipient] in any manner whatsoever, and is hereby made and sent to the above named [recipient] pursuant to the Constitution for the united States of America, circa 1787, as amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 (hereinafter referred to as the national Constitution), specifically pursuant to the Bill of Rights, in particular, Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, IX and X, and the 1818 Connecticut Constitution, in particular, Sections 5, 8, 16, Article VIII, and Sections 4, 7, 14, and 20 of Article First of the 1965 Connecticut Constitution, and, pursuant to your oaths, requires your written response to me within five (5) days, via your sworn and notarized affidavit, specific to the subject matter specified in this Affidavit/Declaration of Truth and Notification. Notice to Principals is notice to agents, and notice to agents is notice to Principals. Notice to incumbent is notice to successors and assigns.
You are hereby noticed that your failure to respond, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, anything with which you disagree in this affidavit, is your lawful, legal, and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this Affidavit/Declaration of Truth and Notification and its exhibits is true, correct, legal, lawful, and fully binding upon you in any court in America, without your protest or objection, or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law”. See also: U.S. V. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”
Any act committed by you, [Full name of recipient, acting as governor/district attorney/attorney general, etc.] either supports and upholds the Constitutions, national and state, or opposes and violates them.
You have taken an oath to support and uphold the national and state Constitutions and are constitutionally mandated to abide by that oath in the performance of your official duties. If you have not taken such an oath, you have no lawful authority to hold public office.
You have no Constitutional authority, or any other form of valid, lawful authority, to oppose and violate the very documents to which you swore or affirmed your oath and under which you were delegated by the people the limited authority to conduct the duties of your office.
The above three positions are true, factual, lawful and constitutionally ordained.
I have heard that the Education Committee of which you are a member is considering or is going to consider one or more bills to regulate homeschooling throughout Connecticut, presumably to protect school-age children from the sort of abuse to which some children have been subjected in recent years. Those cases of abuse are often cited by some Connecticut legislators pushing to regulate homeschooling.
The right of parents to educate their children is just that – a right. Whether termed “home schooling” or “home educating”, this is a right, and rights cannot be regulated or restricted in any way. This right is supported in the national Constitution by the 1st Amendment, which protects the freedom of speech and religion, the 5th Amendment, which says that we cannot “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (the right to home educate is a property parents possess in the rearing of another property they have – their children), Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, which says “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” (meaning that the Citizens of each State have the same rights as the Citizens in all the States; therefore, any jurisdiction in the United States with a law or judicial ruling that upholds the right of parents to home educate their children applies to all jurisdictions in the United States), and the 9th Amendment, which states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
In the landmark Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a 1919 Nebraska law, the Siman Act, that prohibited teaching foreign languages in schools, violated due process and was thus unconstitutional. This was a key decision that protected parental rights in education.
Just two years later, in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Justice James C. McReynolds wrote for the majority: “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
These two Supreme Court cases together unequivocally affirmed that parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.
Any so-called law that regulates or restricts the practice of parents educating their children at home would be and is unconstitutional, and this statement is well supported by the above cases as well as the landmark Marbury v. Madison (1803), which ruled that “a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” Below are a few other case precedents supporting this right:
- Aflcio v. Woodard, 406 f 3d 137 (1969) – The court reaffirmed the principle that state officials are not immune from suit when they transcend their lawful authority by invading constitutional rights.
- Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491, U.S. Supreme Court (1966) – “When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
- Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F .2d 1344, 1348 (1985) – All codes, rules, and regulations are for the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws. “All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law.”
- Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261, U.S. Supreme Court (1963) – “The Common Law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the Land. The codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are ‘not the Law.’ They are the law of government for internal regulation, not the law of man…”
- Flournov v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197La.1067, 3 So.2d 244,248. (1941) – “A ‘Code’ or ‘Statute’ is not a law.”
- Lockard v. Los Angeles, 33 Cal2d 553: Cert den337 US. 6) (1949) – “It (the legislature or statutory laws) may not violate constitutional prohibits or guarantees OR AUTHORIZE OTHERS TO DO SO.”
- City of Dallas, et al. v. Mitchell, 245 s.w. 944, 945-46 (1922) – “The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state, or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. The Constitution states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invades these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and afford the necessary relief.”
Should you vote for, support, or otherwise promote any legislation that regulates or restricts the natural, inherent right of parents to educate their children at home, you will be in violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments, as well as Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1; Sections 5, 8, 16, and Article VIII of the 1818 Connecticut Constitution, and Sections 4, 7, 14, and 20 of the 1965 Connecticut Constitution, including the above-cited court rulings.
This will cause harm to [state what harm or harms such legislation, if enforced, will cause to you or your children].
Be advised that all actions by any state official such as you must support and uphold the national and state Constitutions. If you support any legislation that regulates or restricts the right of parents to home educate their children, you will violate those Constitutions and due process of law. As a result, you can be sued for your wrongdoing against me, personally, privately, individually, and in your professional capacity, both civilly and criminally. The same fate can befall all those in your jurisdiction, including your supervisors and anyone having oversight responsibility for you, including any judges, prosecuting attorneys, and public officers for that jurisdiction, if, once they are notified of your wrongdoing, they fail to take lawful actions to correct it, pursuant to their oaths and their duties, thereto. If they fail to act and rectify the matter, then they condone, aid, and abet your unlawful actions, and further, they collude and conspire to deprive me and other Citizens of their inherent rights guaranteed in the Constitutions, as a custom, practice, and usual business operation of their office and the jurisdiction for which they work. This constitutes treason by the entire jurisdiction against me, and based upon the actions taken and what exists on the public record, it is impossible for any public officer, such as you, to defend him or herself against treason committed. Rest assured that I will claim and protect my Constitutionally guaranteed rights which you and your entire jurisdiction will have unlawfully, and without any Constitutional authority, denied if you support any such regulatory or restrictive legislation against my right to home educate my children.
Lawful notification has been provided to you stating that if you do not rebut the statements, charges, and averments made in this Affidavit/Declaration, then you tacitly agree with and admit to them. Pursuant to that lawful notification, if you disagree with anything stated under oath in this Affidavit/Declaration of Truth, then rebut to me that with which you disagree, with particularity, within five (5) days of receipt thereof, by means of your own written, notarized affidavit of truth, based on specific, true, relevant fact and valid law to support your disagreement, attesting to your rebuttal and supportive positions, as valid and lawful, under the pains and penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and this state of Connecticut. An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth and fact before any court. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, is your tacit agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this Affidavit/Declaration of Truth and Notification is true, correct, legal, lawful, and is your irrevocable admission attesting to this, fully binding upon you in any court of law in America, without your protest, objection and that of those who represent you.
Affiant further sayeth naught.
All Rights Reserved,
[Affiant full name], Affiant/Declarant Date
[Affiant address]
cc:
cc: Interested media
Possible Harms Families May Cite
Suggested use of this toolkit:
- Do not use every module. Pick 3–4 modules that resonate most with you.
- Use the ideas, and feel free to edit the wording to match your own beliefs, experiences, and knowledge.
- We do not want “cookie-cutter” testimony. We want your voice—the key points that matter to you and your family.
- This toolkit can also be used for other homeschool or education bills with small changes to match the specific bill language and section numbers.
1. Presumption of Suspicion / Reputational Harm
Being automatically reported to DCF despite no allegation of abuse or neglect.
Being treated as a suspected risk solely for exercising lawful educational choice.
Damage to reputation within community if a DCF inquiry becomes known.
Emotional harm from being presumed guilty rather than innocent.
2. Emotional & Psychological Harm to Children
Anxiety, fear, or trauma caused by DCF contact or investigation.
Fear of government officials visiting the home.
Stress from interviews with investigators.
Damage to child’s sense of security and privacy.
Loss of trust in institutions.
3. Emotional & Psychological Harm to Parents
Stress and anxiety from potential investigations.
Fear of losing custody or facing unfounded allegations.
Emotional distress from state intrusion into family life.
Chilling effect on lawful homeschooling due to fear of scrutiny.
4. Privacy Violations
Disclosure of personal family information without cause.
Forced sharing of educational plans, records, or home information.
Government monitoring without individualized suspicion.
Data collection and storage of family information in state databases.
5. Fourth Amendment Concerns
Potential home visits without probable cause.
Questioning of children without parental consent.
Government intrusion absent specific evidence of wrongdoing.
6. Financial Harm
Legal expenses if representation becomes necessary.
Lost wages from time taken to respond to DCF inquiries.
Costs of document production or compliance.
Potential impact on employment if an investigation becomes known.
7. Educational Disruption
Interruption of homeschool routine.
Stress affecting learning outcomes.
Hesitation to pursue certain educational activities out of fear of scrutiny.
Pressure to return children to public school to avoid reporting.
8. Chilling Effect on Constitutional Rights
Deterrence from exercising the right to direct a child’s education.
Self-censorship of religious or philosophical instruction.
Reluctance to withdraw a child from public school even if necessary.
9. Unequal Treatment / Discriminatory Impact
Being singled out compared to private school or parochial school families.
Disproportionate impact on families with special-needs children.
Impact on minority or immigrant homeschool families who may fear state agencies more intensely.
10. Strain on Special Circumstances
Families could cite specific harm if applicable:
Children with trauma histories who would be retraumatized by investigation.
Children with autism or developmental differences who would be harmed by interviews.
Families who relocated due to bullying or safety concerns.
Families who withdrew for medical reasons.
11. Administrative Harm
Permanent record in DCF intake system despite no findings.
Risk of future bias due to prior report history.
Burden on families to prove innocence.
12. Resource Diversion Harm
Concern that overreporting dilutes DCF resources from genuinely endangered children.
Moral distress at contributing to system overload.