#13

My comments preceded by asterisks and enclosed in parenthesis.

Tape 13
Judge: In the matter of John Doe, otherwise known as baby boy Holm.
Parties are present with counsel, also present are the foster parents, and
Mr. Kirby, you have another gentleman seated at your table who was not
here at the last hearing.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am. —–We need to address the court I guess on that
before we get started on motions as to possible witnesses being present in
courtroom and Mr. Brady Byrum.
Christian: I was going to say I would like to ask if he could assist on
counsel?
Mr. Kirby: Mr. Byrum will be here solely for the purposes of taking notes
and he is a friend of the parents, and Mr. Byrum, you understand that
everything that is said in this courtroom is confidential. You can’t disclose
what goes on in this courtroom outside of court.
Mr. Byrum: Absolutely.
Mr. Kirby: We’d ask that he’s be allowed to stay and assist the parents with
notes if possible. We believe that it allowed under 12 15 129. It says the
general public should be excluded from delinquency, in need of
supervision dependency hearings, and only the parties, counsel, witnesses
and other persons requested by a party shall be admitted. Other persons as
the juvenile court finds have a proper interest in the case or work with the
juvenile court may be admitted by the juvenile court on the conditions that
the persons refrain from divulging any information which would identify a
child under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court or family involved. We
are asking for Mr. Byrum to be admitted in this proceeding. He
understands that he can assist them by taking notes. He is not to disrupt
this court in any way.
(male voice): Or argue any motions.
Judge: Is Mr. Byrum a licensed attorney?
Mr. Kirby: Are you a licensed attorney, Mr. Byrum?
Mr. Byrum: No.
Judge: Department’s response?
(Male voice): Your honor, we would object to him being present. He is not
an attorney. A brief internet search of him actually appears that he is here
and has been providing legal counsel to the Holms which would be the
unlawful practice of law, and that we believe that is the sole reason why he
is present. Mom and Dad are both here. They are able to take notes, as the
department is doing. Its counsel has to take notes as well. In order to be
prepared, they have standby counsel. They have plenty of assistance to
insure that their case is able to be recorded and will put forth the evidence.
And again, he is here solely for the purpose of attempting to provide
unlawful legal advice to the Holms.
Judge: Sonia?
Sonia: I ————the motion.
Judge: Guardian?
Guardian: Judge, I would also object and echo the objection of the
department.
Judge: Mr. Holm?
Christian: Yes, ma’am. I would like to state on the record that it is our 6th
amendment right to have counsel of our choice.
Judge: Ms. Holm? Anything further, Mr. Kirby?
Mr. Kirby: Nothing, your honor.
Judge: It has long been the standard and practice of this court that if
everyone does not agree that someone who is not a party under the rules or
not an attorney, is not allowed to come in. Mr. Byrum may indeed be
called as a character witness maybe if he has known these people a long
time. I don’t know. I just don’t think it is proper to allow him to remain in
the courtroom to assist in taking notes. Your clients are capable of doing
that.
Mr. Kirby: We respect the court’s decision, your honor.
Christian: I would like to have it on record that our 6th amendment rights
are being violated.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, before we get started with any motion, would it be
proper now to ask that any witnesses be asked to leave the room? Any
possible witnesses be asked to leave the room?
Judge: ————————-If you need to testify you need to leave the
room with the exception of whatever our standard has been that
the….generally if it is the state, the state gets to have their person in. So,
who are you asking to leave? You want them to designate one?
Mr. Kirby: Yes. And I also want to know who everybody else is.
Judge: Foster parents are in the back, Mr. and Mrs. Cash.
Mr. Kirby: All right. Ms. Busby is subpoenaed as a witness for us, Ms.
Smith is subpoenaed as a witness for us, foster parents may be possible
witnesses.
Judge: Foster parents have a right under the statute as my understanding to
be here.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, I’m sorry. I didn’t know you———— them, but she is
definitely subpoenaed. Martin? Martin. Okay. So, if the state would like to
designate one agent for them, I understand that, and if by statutes the
foster parents stay in here I’m not going to argue with that, but certainly
Ms. Busby is subpoenaed as a witness for the parents. We would ask her
and Ms. Martin.
Judge: State’s response.
(male voice): Judge, I’d like to have one second.
Judge: And while you are all doing that, would you remove your jackets?
It’s a little cool in here to me, but I’m cold natured and it was rather stuffy
in here when we came in.
(male voice): Judge, we would designate Ms. Smith as our case agent.
Judge: Okay. Ms. Martin and Ms. Busby if you will step out. There is no
one in the lower court room so you may utilize that area over there.
Judge: Okay, we have several pending motions and I apologize where I
can get down to where they are at. We were last here on December 5th and
we took a few motions then which were addressed. Did I get all of them at
that time?
Mr. Kirby: To my knowledge, at that time, your honor. I believe so.
Judge: Well, at that time we addressed a motion to comply, which was a
motion for Guardian Ad Litem to the parents. We took care of that. The
motion about the child’s name, that was taken care of. The motion to hold
an open court, that was taken care of. Were there any other motions
pending at that time?
(Male voice): Not at that time, Judge. Well, there was a motion to dismiss.
I think you held that————————-.
Judge: That wasn’t filed until the 6th. There was, and I have it as a 10 page
docket of motion and I’m not sure that the parents intended for it to be
docketed as a motion they filed in, and we did not address it. It starts with
the Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin. I think is was -actually marked as
exhibit 3. So was that something that you wanted to argue or was that just
something that was filed in?
Mr. Kirby: That’s not something that is intended to argue.
Judge: Okay. It was a 10 page docket. That’s what I thought but I just
wanted to make sure. Okay, so I guess we will just take things in order.
Mr. Kirby: Let me confer with the parents. The parents say that they did
not file this.
Judge: Okay, and well it may not have been marked, so these were things
that they took with them. What I showed you is a 10 page Statement of
Manufacturer’s Origin.
Christian: That was actually brought up to us by Tony Hamlin trying to
cross examine…
Mr. Kirby: That’s right. This is state’s exhibit but I think it is made part of
the record.
Christian: We did enter it so it was looking….
Mr. Kirby: You said it’s in our court now as a docketed motion?
Judge: There’s a 10 page docketed motion…I’m sorry. Our internet is so
horribly slow.
Mr. Kirby: This looks like it’s more than 10 pages.
Judge: Yes, it is apparently not the same document of what you are telling
me. The front of that document and this document do not appear to be the
same. This one was stamped Dec 4 and it starts manufacturer’s statement
of origin.
Mr. Kirby: That’s it. That one, the state attempted to introduce that. But it
is part of the record.
Judge: So, we have…let’s take care of this issue. We have the transcripts.
We’ve taken care of that, correct?
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: There is a motion to revoke permissions given to DHR as filed by
the father, I believe, and possibly by the mother.
Mr. Kirby: I am unsure that that should be a motion. I think that that may
just have been notice to the court. Is that correct? That any HIPAA
authorization that they have give them have been revoked.
Christian: I was wondering if that was being addressed?
Judge: You want it addressed any further? You have a right to tell me what
you want to tell me about it.
Christian: Is it being revoked or not?
Mr. Kirby: I think the simple fact that they put on there that they revoke
their permission…I mean…
Christian: I would just like to have it on record that we are under duress.
Judge: Mr. Schlinker, what is your understanding of that?
Mr. Schlinker: Your honor, my understanding of HIPAA is that they can
when they elect to allow the release of information and they can revoke it.
They have notified the department. I will note if it had anything to do with
the court. With regards to duress, obviously (A) that did not occur in court
and (B) we will certainly take issue with it being under duress. I believe it
was part of an ISP. They were represented by counsel at the time, so there
was no duress. But again, I think they can certainly revoke it. It does not
change the reality of the fact that the department has received records prior
to the revocation, that it still has those records.
Judge: And I don’t think that it’s something that’s up for me to determine.
That’s the way that I have always viewed it, but that lies with the
discretion of the person whose records are being sought. Just like you said,
like a power of attorney.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: Then we have on the 6th a motion to dismiss all pro se by the
parents, and on the 7th a 29 page motion to dismiss by the parents. So if we
are taking things in order, Mr. Kirby, do you folks want to argue those two
motions now or do you want to argue all the motions to dismiss together in
one bundle? And there was also a motion to dismiss notice filed this
morning, or last night at 4:42 which I did not see until this morning, and
then a motion in ——————-, and then we have a motion to alter or
amend as filed by the state as to the records which were filed before the
motion to dismiss yesterday afternoon and a motion in—————-.
Mr. Kirby: I’m sorry, your honor. I’m looking for the 27 page motion to
dismiss. Mr. and Ms. Holm filed it, I believe. It was before you got
involved.
Christian: Hand-written.
Mr. Kirby: I know there was a motion to dismiss based on lack of
evidence filed by the Holms on the 6th, but I don’t know….
Christian: There wasn’t 29 pages. There was just one page hand-written.
We included the case laws.
Judge: One was filed the 6th. One was filed the 7th.
(female voice): The second was the longer one.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. All right. We can address all the motions to dismiss at
the same time, your honor.
Judge: So, now we get to all the motions to dismiss and get everything in
order. The department filed a motion on December 9th to alter or amend
a————order. It was set for a hearing today.
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, the department filed that motion seeking
to change the court standard production order. While we respect the
court in its attempts to get regularly licensed attorney’s access to
department’s records, we certainly have concerns with regards to Mr.
and Mrs. Holm having unfettered access to the agencies departments.
Specifically, we would point out the fact that the Holms have a history
of taking whatever information they glean and within 24 hours
putting it out on social media or the like, and again it is our concern
that those records would not be used for the purposes that they were
intended or that they are intended for which is for the purposes of
preparation of this hearing, but instead would be used to further
promulgate whatever it is that they are attempting to do with social
media.
****(Perhaps whatever the state says can and will be used against
THEM. Miranda can work both ways and since they absolutely cannot get
a fair trial then the only trial left to them is the court of public opinion.
That would be a political one, and yes there is a media available. What
they are attempting to do is called “get their child back from illegal
kidnappers” and the crime is operating under color of law. Tricky to
manage and with no resources other than faith in God and the knowledge
that they are completely in the right. Let’s see how that goes.)
Schlenker: Again if they had regular counsel the department would
certainly have complied with production prior to that. But again, as an
example within 24 hours of the last hearing it was on social media
particular evidentiary issues that had come up in this hearing. For
instance…uh….specifically, I should say, not for instance, the issue with
regards to the department being able to get in the records. There was
actual comments on facebook by one of the Holm’s supporters specifically
addressing the fact that those records were not able to be admitted at that
time, and then theorizing other things that might occur. That is of grave
concern to the agency. It is also a grave concern to the agency as well
again that whatever is happening in this case is being instantly turned
around and put out into media. For that reason alone we are very
concerned with the release of our records. They are confidential in nature.
The parents view correctly in their response 26 14 8 parents have a right to
use it for purposes of a dependency case.
****(I am getting the feeling that you are having a problem with the fact
that everyone just won’t roll over and die for your kangaroo proceedings?
Sounds like somebody doesn’t like to lose. But I understand, the deck must
remain stacked against the Holms.)
Mr. Schlenker: The problem is that’s oftentimes not the Holm’s
purpose. Their purpose is to, at least it appears to be, have a cause, to
go down and picket, to again put out whatever it is that they are
trying to spin on media. Again, and that is the agency’s concern.
****(Boy, you got that one right, Mr. Attorney. Their purpose was just to
have a baby and enjoy their family, but this little child-trafficking scheme
of one small town suddenly thrust them into an unenviable position of a
forced cause. So, yes. They have a cause. And now, so do the rest of us.)
Mr. Schlenker: There are other statutes that make other portions
confidential. 38 2 6 the Holms rely on, that being only about welfare. If
you read the…you cannot take 38 2 6 outside of the context of 38 2 in
general. 38 2 is the actual enabling statutes for the Department of Human
Resources and its existence. 38 2 6 goes through and talks about DHR’s
records and then there is actually a period that the Holms then kinda skip
over and they say, well, okay, that applies to welfare and at the end of the
very statute it says that the release of those records is a misdemeanor.
****(So, here is the exact place in the law where it states this
misdemeanor offense trumps Constitutional protections and rights of
every law abiding citizen. This is a fixable problem. Thanks, Mr.
Schlenker, for pointing out where it can be found.)
Mr. Schlenker: Again, that is exactly what the Holm’s intend to do, so we
are concerned with giving them those records because we believe that they
will instantly or almost instantly be into the public domain.
****(Just like you took their baby because you knew what these parents
intended to do with him? Are you practicing psychic law? Guilty until
proven to live up to the state’s projections? You have no idea what will be
done with what YOU are doing. You won’t be able to keep it a secret
anymore. You will be held accountable. THAT is also the law.)
Additionally, many of the records that the department has, the Holms
either have or have access to. For instance, we have a copy of Mr. Holm’s
psychiatric records. Mr. Holm has access to those records as well. We have
the child’s medical record. They have gone to RMC and procured those
records. They have gone to the doctor’s offices and procured those records,
so there is very little in our record that they themselves have not had direct
access to should they have elected to have undertaken to have gotten those
records. So for that reason, Judge, we are opposed to releasing these
records to the Holms and would ask that the court would modify its order.
****(But have you doctored up or altered those records? Do you have the
file pencil marked at the top “odd beliefs”? That one you probably would
like to have, right? It’s on my computer.)
Judge: Modified to?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, we would ask that there be no release of these
records to the Holms or in the alternative, that they be allowed only to be
given to, and again I don’t know that this is appropriate because Mr. Kirby
is only stand-by counsel, but again, perhaps the stand-by counsel with a
———–that they are not allowed to make copies of them or anything
else. So then, again that those records cannot be directly released to the
public.
****(He is quite worried for which there is only the penalty of a
misdemeanor offense. The Holms have already lost their newborn. What
do they have to be concerned with further? I think the state has the
concern for their own self and what they do.)
Christian: Your honor, this is a diversion tactic to hide injustice.
****(You think? Right you are, Christian!)
Mr. Kirby: I would like to address Mr. Schlenker.
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, I object to Mr. Kirby. Mr. Kirby is not their
attorney. They represent themselves. He is merely standby counsel.
****(So which is it, Mr. Schlenker? Mr. Kirby can talk anytime he wants
until it gets too hot for you? What are you so frightened of? Those records
and what they actually reveal?)
Mr. Kirby: Uh, before we entered court today, the Holms have authorized
me to argue the motions that I have assisted with them in filing and they
have authorized me to address some witnesses in this case.
Mr. Schlenker: I would ask for a limited notice of appearance….
Judge: So that is correct?
Danielle: Yes.
Judge: This is the——issue that I have with that. Either you are standby
counsel or you are counsel. If you are counsel, you are counsel, you argue,
you question, Mr. and Mrs. Holm don’t get to do that. We can’t have both.
It is my understanding of the rule, of the way that these things work. Mr.
Kirby, if you have a different understanding, please….and if you need to
take a few minutes with Mr. and Mrs. Holm, that’s fine. I certainly
understand, but that is my understanding of the way that our court system
and process works.
Mr. Kirby: I do…
Christian: I think that you are allowed to cross-examine a witness, or two
are allowed to cross-examine the same witness.
Mr. Kirby: So the court’s advice is either one of the other?
Judge: Well, I appointed you as stand-by counsel to assist them, to help
them better understand because the dependency process in general is a
very difficult area of the legal system,
****(Maybe also because it is so corrupt and bypasses all American
freedoms? Natural shock and rage must be tempered with spin.)
Judge:…and certainly within what they were comfortable with, because
they did want to proceed pro se, to give them assistance with possible
research and filing motions which I think is well within the purview of
standby counsel to…especially in light of some of the things that do appear
in the filings. So, that occur prior to counsel being on board. But as far as
actually questioning and things like that it would in essence allow the
parents to, for lack of better words, double barrel a witness, which is
exactly what I warned Mr. and Mrs. Holm the department would not be
allowed to do nor would they be allowed to do when we started and they
chose to do this pro se as a unified couple, because they are married. Just
like I would not allow Mr. Schlenker and then Mr. Hamlin to do that.
****(No, ma’am. You stack the deck another way, insidious and
insurmountable, yet giving an appearance of some attention to courtroom
conformity but denying the individual’s rights thereof.)
Mr. Kirby: Is that just to one witness that’s on the stand or it that going to
apply?
Christian: It’s not what we were told, I believe, in the beginning.
Mr. Kirby: On December 5th, you explained it to them that they could not
both question just like you wouldn’t let the department question the
witnesses, or you know took both counsel for some department question
them at one time. That was my understanding of it. I don’t…you
know…they’ve asked me to assist of course in filing motions and doing the
research on it. And they’ve asked me to assist, since I’ve done the research
on it, to assist in addressing the motions that have been filed. I don’t know
whether that goes beyond the standby counsel or not, but I would say
certainly——————————-would be if the parents asked for
assistance to get records that would be an issue that standby counsel could
help with.
Judge: If you want to take a moment and speak with Mr. and Mrs. Holm,
you may to see what direction they would like to proceed, because they
may well or may not. I don’t know. They may very well say at this point,
Mr. Kirby,we want you to question him. This does change your role which
is fine. It just changes the flow of how things may rest today as far as who
gets to question witnesses and make argument, okay?
Christian: We see ourself as counsel. We see him as counsel and we…
****(Keep in mind here that Danielle and Christian are facing a barrage
of attorneys in the room who are all acting in a prosecutorial mode,
including the judge, yet the state seems very concerned about any upset in
the balance of power which would endanger state’s case to keep the baby.
They couldn’t even be permitted to have one person in attendance who
advocates for their position.)
Judge: I think you need to take a moment to…
Christian: —————————–
Judge: …Let me let you take a moment to address this with Mr. Kirby,
okay? Just to make sure..
****(That’s right, because the state must insure that you don’t have a
fighting chance. The baby is worth a small fortune to the general budget
fund under Title IVe.)

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: