#16, #17, #18, #19 Religious beliefs equal schizophrenia now

Tape 16

Judge: All parties are present with the counsel, as well as foster parents are
present, and we now have resolved at least I believe whatever little
technical issues we all were experiencing those of us who are using the
internet to access ———court. So, with that, we are down to the motion to
suppress testimony and records in laminae. That’s it, right?
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: Okay. Mr. Kirby. Go ahead.
Mr. Kirby: And the reason I filed a motion to suppress was I couldn’t find
in laminae motion…
Judge: Oh, when you were talking about the drop-down boss…
Mr. Kirby: The drop down boss and out of court, yes, ma’am. I believe we
———-to suppress records. I think we’ve already dealt with paragraphs 1
through 6. 1 through 7, I would just like to…
Judge: Okay, hold on. Let me…okay. We’re one through seven…
Mr. Kirby: Well, actually I just want to bring back to the court’s attention
that even if the record from DHR were produced today, it makes it hard to
produce a fully viable defense for the Holms in this matter, even though
the records were produced today. We’ll move on.
****(Wha??? Wait a minute! What about when Mr. Schlenker threw up
such a big fit about getting his five days to prepare. Why not the same for
the Holms?)
Mr. Kirby: One of the issues that we had last week was the father’s
counseling records from Savannah Counseling. We are stating that…or we
are contending that all those should be deemed inadmissible due to several
rules. Rule 503 which is Alabama rules of evidence which is
psychotherapist patient privilege. I go through the definitions what is
patient and what a psychotherapist is, communications is not confidential
if not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those present to
further the interest of the patient in the consultation, examination, or
interview. It is a general rule the patient has the right to refuse to disclose
and to prevent any other person disclosing confidential information about
themselves and that privilege can be claimed by the patient, and I think
that of course without talking to the medical doctors that were associated
with those records, you know, I think you have to assume the patient
would not want to have that information known at least. There are some
exceptions, of course, to 503 and that’s proceedings for hospitalizations.
(Of course, we believe that none of those records even though we just had
an opportunity to view them for a short time on December 5th, we don’t
believe that any of those records were for hospitalizations.
Another exception is examination by order of the court. This court has not
ordered Mr. Holm to be psychologically examined, so therefore it doesn’t
meet that exception.
Accused in a criminal case…not a criminal case; this is a dependency
case and…
Abridge of duty arising out of the psychotherapist patient relationship. Of
course that’s not what this case is about, and then number five it says:
Child custody cases. In a sense, this is not a child custody case. This is a
child dependency case. The state is arguing that the child doesn’t have a
parent and legal guardian that’s willing or able to take care of that child,
so I don’t know that it meets the definition of the child custody case in the
traditional sense as one party against another. Say, in a divorce.)
****(But do the statutes matter when the statutes would appear to go
against what the state has done?)
Mr. Kirby: So, there is no exceptions to the rule that would allow any of
the counseling records of the father. I guess, you know, one question that
would probably arise would be how the state got those records if they
claimed to have gotten those records under a release of information, then
that release of information should have been HIPAA compliant. Of course,
without being able to review the records that the DHR did not produce to
us we weren’t able to see what that release of information was until today.
Glancing at it, I don’t believe the release is HIPAA compliant. I don’t
believe that it has on there that this release is good from this date to this
date, what has to be on a HIPAA release and who the information can be
released to…
****(You mean, the state broke the HIPAA law? Doesn’t that have
penalties involving prison time? It says that near the bottom of the HIPAA
page they make all of us sign whenever we go to the doctor or dentist. So,
I bet they don’t get in any trouble for this and Mr. Schlenker will once
again slink out of this corner effortlessly and with the full blessings of the
Mr. Kirby: I know…you know our standard HIPAA release which is in
compliance has a lot more information on it then, “Hey, you know we are
requesting these records!” So, we are claiming that the father’s counseling
records are inadmissible pursuant to rule 503A which is counselor client
privilege for which there is no exception. In applicant in asking that all of
those counseling records be deemed admissible, I will point out to the
court that a communication is confidential if it is not intended to be
disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure is made in
furtherance and rendition of professional counseling service to the client
order those whom the disclosure is reasonably necessary for the
transmission of communication. Uh, now I’ve laid out a couple of
definitions there.
****(Anyone reading or hearing this should realize that this is exactly
what happens. There is NO privacy and no rights. If you go to a counselor
you do it at your own peril. Should it be that way? Of course not. It is
what it is. Smart people need to understand the great danger we live in if
we choose to trust the medical profession. Therapists and Pastors live
under the same rules as mandated reporters, so consider carefully who
you go to for help. I would suggest only Jesus.)
Mr. Kirby: There are some exceptions to the rule, but the counsel and
record sent to be entered by the state don’t meet any of the exceptions. One
of the exceptions is counseling or to assist a person through a counseling
relationship to develop an understanding of personal problems. Well, Mr.
Holm is not subject to those. Appraisal activities, counseling guidance and
personal consulting, ———–activities, research activities, victim
counseling…now the records sought to be introduced by the state don’t
meet any of those exceptions, and once again, the privilege is claimed by
the client. 503A as well as 503. I’m sorry, the exceptions were, excuse me,
examination by order of court, of course which has not been ordered. The
client’s condition is an element of a claim or defense. You know, that’s not
part of the defense in this action. —————–arising out of client
counsel or relationship——————this is not a suit against any
counselors and victims counseling in a civil case.
Further, the parents or the attorneys of record at that time believed that the
state or the department will offer testimony from Mrs. Edith Couch or
some licensed counselor to testify as to the records that they subpoenaed
or they got through request, anyways the father’s counseling records. It is
believed that Mrs. Couch’s testimony will be offered to provide expert
testimony as to the father’s counseling records. The parents, or the
attorneys, Mr. and Mrs. Holm have never seen Edith Couch, and as
such she could not have any personal knowledge of the parents or the
matter at bar. If Ms. Couch does have personal knowledge or does
have any knowledge supplied to her by the department we are
claiming that that would be in violation of HIPAA as well as the
psychotherapist patient privilege and counselor client privilege. Ms.
Couch’s testimony should be deemed inadmissible and not allowed on
those grounds alone. And I threw in there…I think that if the state was
going to call Ms. Couch, they should have notified the other parties
prior to day of court, or any expert…any person that they are going to
try to qualify as an expert to testify to any counseling records.
****( Consider what you just read or listened to. How many violations is
the state willing to incur in order to take this couple’s baby on their
trumped up grounds?)
Mr. Kirby: That brings us to rule 702, testimony by experts or witnesses.
Of course it is not uncommon to have testimony by expert witnesses or
experts, but that testimony has to be based on sufficient facts or data.
Since Ms. Couch or no other counselor has met with the Holms, we
contend that they wouldn’t have sufficient facts or data in front of them to
make any kind of judgment as to the records provided by Savannah
Counseling. Probably one or someone that could testify as to those records
would be the treating physician. In citing Armstead vs Smith and Jones vs
Keith; if the state wants to try to introduce testimony of records that might
involve prescriptions, those records were obviously created by a doctor,
and not a psychologist. We all know psychologist can’t prescribe medicine.
Probably the best evidence would be to have one of the treating physicians
that was associated with those records come testify as to anything that are
on those records. I understand it is out of state but the state has had plenty
of time to issue an out of state subpoena to get somebody here. Course I
know that doesn’t guarantee that they will be here but that could have been
done. I mean this has been going on since October 11th I think.
One thing I would like to remind the court, rule 703 leaves unaffected the
preexisting law requiring the facts or data relied on by the expert and
gotten by the expert other than first hand knowledge, generally must be
admitted into evidence. We don’t believe those records are admissible
under evidence based on the opinion, hearsay, and best evidence and
expert testimony rules. And this came from MacElroy’s Evidence 130.01.
This is how it should be emphasized. Alabama case law generally
precluding an opinion based on the unadmitted record or reports of others
does recognize exceptions. We don’t think that Edith Couch can be
qualified or any local counselor can be qualified as expert to testify on
these records. Once again, Ms. Couch or any other licensed counselor,
unless they can testify as a medical doctor, would be able to give any
expert testimony as to somebody who was a doctor that made any
diagnosis or wrote any prescriptions for those records. Yet, when we were
here on December 5th, the department attempted to introduce the father’s
counseling records. Gambels Alabama Rules of Evidence 8036, it should
be emphasized that satisfying the hearsay exception does not give the
evidence carte blanche admissibility over independent objection such as
those relating to opinion, irrelevancy, best evidence, etc. So, even if the
court found that Ms. Couch could be qualified as an expert we still got to
address the issues of best evidence…well, we got to satisfy all the 503 to
503A, best evidence which is 1002 I believe, 802 which is hearsay.
What we going to next is the hearsay rule for hearsay is not admissible
except as provided by these rules or as adopted by the court . Course we
know there is a business rule exception to the hearsay rule but who is to
testify the records in question, the father’s counseling records, or who can
Mr. and Mrs. Holm even cross that could testify that these are actual
records kept in the ordinary course of business? In that particular
institution or doctor’s office or whatever it is, there is nobody here to say
that, and I think you have to have that to get by the exception to the
hearsay rule. Especially from somebody that is out of state. We’ll go back
to the best evidence rule and prove the content of writing the original
writing as required. Of course, I know the state wouldn’t have access to the
original. I’m not blind to that fact. The thing is they could have received
copies that weren’t faxed over because nobody knows who is on the end of
that line and who they are in that company. I would think something from
the custodian of record addressed to the state would be more compliant
than something that was just faxed over from somebody who claims to be,
but you don’t know who they really are. I don’t know if that’s a counselor
doing that or is it a counselor who was involved in any of the records they
sought to be admitted. And that is something we will never know. Also the
admission of any counseling records of the father would so prejudice the
father in that neither the parents or the attorneys have had a chance to
thoroughly inspect the record so as to provide their own expert testimony
in rebuttal if the court allows expert testimony to be given.
****(The state has already misidentified this couple. They could just keep
that up by finding records that belong to somebody else, records they
falsified, records they never had permission to access in the first place.
They have presented false statements already in court regarding a mental
condition that Mr. Holm has never had. The state doesn’t appear to have
much concern for accuracy.)
Mr. Kirby: Then we move on to rule 403, which is relevancy, exclusion of
relevant evidence on ground of prejudice, confusion or waste of time,
although relevant evidence may be excluded if its prohibitive value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Confusion of
the issues or misleading the jury or considerations of undue delayed waste
of time and needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Once again, we
believe that it would prejudice the father so greatly not to be able to
provide any rebuttal testimony by his own expert. These records were part
of the records of DHR that were not given to us, although you are correct I
guess they could have been sought by a subpoena, but as such the parents
are indigent and probably couldn’t have afforded to pay for those records
even if they could have subpoenaed them because I am sure there is a
charge to get those records. There certainly is at Regional Medical Center.
That to admit any evidence ——————————————-who is
unable to testify would be a violation of the parents’ 6th amendment
constitutional right to confront witnesses against them. Of course I
understand the court probably understands what the 6th amendment
is but it definitely says to be confronted with witnesses against him. If
those records are allowed to be admitted there is no witness that
would be testifying as to those records except for possibly a counselor
who has no knowledge of Mr. and Mrs. Holm. So how can Mr. and
Mrs. Holm possibly defend against that? She is certainly not a witness
to it, to this case. I don’t know how she would provide a fax or
Judge: She being?
Mr. Kirby: Ms. Couch or any counselor I guess. I’m sorry. How they
would have gotten information, what kind of knowledge they have,
and so I think they should be excluded as per the 6th amendment right
to confrontation as well as Alabama’s Article 1, section 6
confrontation clause. So what we are doing is we are asking the court
to deem these records, deem the counseling records and any records
or counseling records and any testimony concerning the counseling
records, also any records that DHR failed to provide until today or
testimony that had anything to do concerning those records–deem
those inadmissible and direct DHR or the state that they couldn’t
question any witnesses about that, couldn’t call any witnesses if they
were going to testify to something that was either in the medical
records or records not provided. That would be our motion, your
****(Let’s see what the state does with the Constitution, shall we?)
Judge: State?
Mr. Schlenker: There’s a lot there.
Judge: There is, and this is one that was filed after 5 o’clock last night so I
am assuming you are okay going forward with this because it sort of
hinged on some other of your motions to alter amend and stuff.
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, I’m okay going forward with it because on my
very, very brief review of it this morning I assumed these would be the
same objections we would be dealing with in trial anyways, so it’s not as
shocking as the other one.
Judge: Okay. So, bottom line state waives any due process issue as to this
motion in laminae.
Mr. Schlenker: Yeah, I think it will speed up the trial one way or the other.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, let me start with the records. So, 503 talks
about an exception for a child custody case. It’s funny, actually in
reviewing the other motion 33B209 talks about child custody cases and
you got to file an affidavit in all child custody cases, and you got to do that
in a dependency case because it’s a child custody case. This is at its very
nature a child custody case. The purpose is determining where is the child
going to be placed? There is nothing other than to call it a child custody
case. It may have a dependency spin on it or whatever, but again, it is
child custody. So, 503 is absolutely satisfied. These records are
admissible. That is satisfied. These records are admissible as a business
record under 902 they are a certified domestic record. The department has
now received certification from Savannah Counseling Services that these
are in fact the records, the whole records. This is submitted by Joyce
Ampinasha, the medical record clerk at Savannah Counseling Services,
800 E. 70th St., Savannah, Georgia, 31405.
****(Now you understand. You DO NOT have 6th amendment rights. You
DO NOT have HIPAA rights. The judge and the prosecutor work hand in
hand together. Any arguments an attorney would make on your behalf will
be whisked away with whatever verbage contests, and you DO NOT have
parental rights. Seriously consider EVER going to mental health
professionals for anything, and seriously consider ANYTHING you ever
tell a medical doctor. Truth.)
Judge: Okay, let me just stop you right there. That was not included in the
records we had in camera, correct?
Mr. Schlenker: That is the only part of that document that was not
included in that.
Judge: Okay. Go ahead.
Mr. Schlenker: And I would proffer that part of the document is for trial
purposes and that is part of attorney word product getting ready for trial.
These records, themselves, have been available to the Holms since
probably the day of their creation. A copy of them has been with the courts
since last week. The issue of dad’s mental health has already come up. In
fact, if the court will recall, he was asked if he was diagnosed with
schizophrenia and he asserted his 5th amendment, so…
****(What a clever snake for stating that and trying to make that false
connection stick because Christian asserted his 5th amendment for every
single thing he was asked. You have proven nothing, but I am sure the
court will not see it that way.)
Mr. Schlenker: …again, this issue is already in play and I would deem that
that could be construed as an affirmative answer by his refusal to answer
such a question. He was also asked whether or not he suffered from
delusional disorder and again, he also asserted his 5th amendment right
which again, can be deemed as an answer of that.
As to the expert witness, the expert obviously has not seen Mr. and Mrs.
Holm. What the purpose of Ms. Couch is to provide expert testimony as to
what schizophrenia is, what delusional disorder is, appropriate levels of
treatment and other concerns that the department has as a result of
statements by Mr. and Mrs. Holm as well as that has been determined by
these records. So, her testimony is more than relevant to this proceeding
and certainly I have no doubt that someone will question her credentials
which she has provided and I think that she certainly meets the appropriate
credentials to provide such testimony. She is a LPC. She has the
authority to make diagnostic impressions…
****(…The authority to make diagnostic impressions…Pay attention to
that. It gives the state power to remove your children with the blessing of
the court after they get a state paid medical professional to “make
diagnostic impressions”. You will never need to be seen by a doctor. None
of us could escape such a trap. None of us!)
Mr. Schlenker: She provides mental illness counseling to people on a
regular basis. That is what she does for her career, and again that is the
manner…she has specialization in that. That is what her expert testimony is
deemed to elicit, and I would also say it is obvious that they…well, I will
strike that. Finally, judge, I will just finish with this. I keep hearing the
parents bemoan the fact that well, there was this and there was
that…we weren’t provided with this and provided with that…the
parents as their own attorneys have a duty to investigate and
prosecute their case in the way that they wanted to. That included
doing subpoenas as they wanted to. Whether they would have
occurred the cost or not, again, that is something that every litigant
curtails and they terminated the representation that they had and
they undertook that responsibility. It is not a legitimate reason for
them to have records denied by the court just because they elected to
not do their own due diligence.
****(Notice how he twisted Mr. Kirby’s defense on the statutes and
ignored arguing on the facts that were presented, then made everything all
the fault of the “so-called legally incompetent parents who happened to
notice their lawyers were not defending them”. Perhaps they are not so
incompetent as it were to be hoped, but Mr. Schlenker will not worry
himself about such things. I’m going to take a guess here and say the
judge will find for Mr. Schlenker on all points. Just a guess. Let’s see.)
Judge: Guardian.
Guardian: Judge, I guess I would echo a lot of the department’s arguments.
Rather than repeating them I would just mention only a couple things. I do
think these records are relevant provided there is proper authentication to
admit them into evidence. I think that they should be admitted. The father
testified at the shelter care hearing about these documents, about his
treatment at this facility, about his diagnosis…
****(Which did NOT include schizophrenia or mental delusions!)
Guardian: …and about what he actually received Social Security benefits
****(Those who have children and also receive Social Security benefits,
this should raise a red flag for you.)
Guardian: Certainly I think these documents are relevant to his testimony
under oath about that to either verify that or if there is something different
in there I certainly think that is relevant and provident.
Mr. Kirby: I think the state’s making quite a presumption when they talk
about Mr. Holm taking the 5th on that. I guess they are presuming that he
inferred that he has been diagnosed with that so, you know…Mr. Holm
apparently testified at the shelter care hearing about ADD and depression,
and that’s all that I know that he testified at the shelter care hearing about,
or maybe that is what the disability is based on.
Judge: My recollection, and I’m going to take————-I guess at this
point, Mr. Kirby, you weren’t on here but mom and dad did testify and
they were both represented by counsel. It was a rather lengthy testimony
and my recollection of that, and I am going to take judicial notice of mom
and dad’s testimony of that portion of the proceedings because I did hear it
was…it was bipolar disorder, ADD or ADHD, and depression that had
been medicated and he had stopped medication but I don’t remember at
what point in time. Because I remember asking Mr. Holm what was your
basis for your disability? And it pretty much hinged on the bi-polar..the
mental health issues coming out of and I do believe he said Savannah
Counseling was where he had been treated.
Christian: Judge, I said ADD. I never said bi-polar. I never said bipolar
in my life to anybody.
Danielle: He never said bi-polar.
****(No, he never said bi-polar because I am the one typing these
transcripts and I would have remembered that! Besides, we have both the
audios and the transcripts. I challenge anyone to be able to find where
Christian said he was bi-polar. You won’t find it.)
Christian: I have never even been diagnosed with it…
Mr. Kirby: That is one reason we asked for the transcripts to see exactly
what the testimony was.
Christian: I would be claiming against my own diagnosis.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object. This is exactly what you were
talking about which is double-barreling.
Judge: Right.
Mr. Schlenker: Mr. Kirby, if you are the one speaking, I would ask that
anything that Mr. Holm say be struck and that…
Judge: It needs to be directed through Mr. Kirby. He is the one arguing the
motion. Okay, Mr. Kirby, I am sorry. I didn’t mean to interrupt you.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, I guess we would have to take exception and…
Judge: I understand.
Mr. Kirby: …and say that bi-polar was not admitted to at shelter care and it
was ADHD and depression, but either way we are moving to exclude
those records, and as I mentioned earlier all records that DHR has not
provided to us. And again, I question the method in which those records,
the counseling records were received.
And I guess one thing too, remind the court that the child was taken before
the records were gotten so what basis did DHR have to take that child
based on any kind of non professional opinion of a case worker?
****(It is called a fishing expedition.)
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, the petition itself addresses DHR’s concern of
mental health so, again, that has been there, and I do take exception with
the idea that the worker has some non professional assessment,
particularly the social worker that was involved in this is a master’s level
social worker. She certainly has ample qualifications to be concerned
about mental health based on her prior experiences in life, and again, that’s
what she was relying upon as well with regards to her making that
determination. And again, this has been at the crux of this case since the
very inception on October 11th when we filed this. Mental health has been
an issue.
****(“odd beliefs” scrawled across the top of a document is not a
professional assessment. It is religious prejudice and nothing else.)
Judge: Anything further from the guardian?
Guardian: No, your honor.
Judge: Okay, Mr. Kirby. Anything further?
Mr. Kirby: No ma’am. Well, I guess I would like, before we end this
up what evidence did the case worker observe to make a
determination that should have been done by a psychologist, licensed
psychologist or psychiatrist that would even lead to taking a child
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, we are not done with evidence and I believe
Mr. Kirby or Mr. Holm or Mrs. Holm will have an opportunity to see that
witness and ask those questions.
Judge: I think you are correct on that issue… You were right, okay. I went
back and looked at the minutes. Gets SSI for severe depression and
ADHD. No bi-polar. Two months on SSI, diagnosed 8 years, taking
Wellbutrin and Adderal, discontinued medications, took himself off pills
which he felt was corrected without medication.
Christian: I agree. Thank you, your honor.
Judge: Sorry, it took me so long to find them up here. And with that being
said as to the department records that they have provided today in total,
uh, again from what I gleaned from the narrative which was not a lot of
narrative, a large part of that was narrative consisting with interaction with
Mr. and Mrs. Holm. So obviously Mr. and Mrs. Holm would have been
present and engaged in that part for the narrative to have been created. The
records as far as the, uh…you know there was some interesting records that
I said, “Here. These appear to be facebook postings by your client. I am
not going to read them here. They are…um…those are what they are.
However the department may want to use them, they can use them. If your
client generated them he certainly had knowledge of them. If his
contention is he did not generate them then I will take that also.
****(ANYTHING you say, i.e. on social media and anytime in your use of
it in history, can and WILL be used AGAINST you. Never forget.)
Obviously I believe they…unless they recall Mr. Holm…as far as the
psychiatric records Mr. Holm is very aware of wherever his records are,
where they were at, signed a release, pulled back that release, I
understand. I understand why he did that, but nonetheless those records if
they were indeed received at the time the release was valid…you know it
was something that was there…it could have been assessed by your client
and he knows what was there. I guess at this point we will tread very
carefully. I do think that the pr—-ative value at this point outweighs the
prejudicial effect. When Ms. Couch testifies you certainly have the right to
raise your issues and I’m sure it may hinge in part whether or not that
release was still valid at that point.
****(Well there you go. I must be a prophet. Did I not predict exactly
this? There was no consideration for ANY of Mr. Kirby’s points argued on
either the statutes or the constitutional arguments. No references
pertaining to anything he said, almost as if the Holms had no
representation at all. Kangaroo court defined perfectly here and that is
just how easy it is done! It almost sounds like it is legitimate, doesn’t it?
Anybody fooled?)
Judge: And that does not mean that these records right here that were
deemed not admissible—Exhibit number 5 is still not admitted. So, I guess
the state has to try again if they wish to.
Mr. Kirby: I guess judge I would need to see the state’s new certification.
Judge: Absolutely.
Mr. Kirby: Well, should we go over this now? You can certainly present
that to the judge. Judge, Mr. Holm revoked his authorization on December
6th, and he did that by way of filing with the court. That certification is for
December 8th. So, we are going to still argue that those records are not
admissible. Basically, what they did was just have somebody send them a
sworn statement of certification and they are trying to admit the same
medical records that they tried to admit on December 5th that were faxed
over on November 14th of 2016 at 3:58 in the afternoon. So we are going
to ask that…they can’t cure that just by giving a certification sent over after
the patient has revoked his authorization.
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, we can cure it because, again, the records have
already been produced. It was in effect on December 2 if you will look at
#5. The same person said I sent those records. The court deemed that not
to be a sworn statement to make them certified and so she again submitted
the same document except this time it is now certified. So this is not a new
production of record. This is the same records. The way that Savannah
produces them is the way that they produce them. They say that they only
fax records and that she was willing to mail this to us. These are the
records as they have been produced and these are the same records that
Ms. Ampinosh swears are the records in their possession. And again, it is
the same person, it is the same document. It is just a sworn statement and
again, there is no need for a HIPAA to be in place for that because the
production had already been made. Again, it is for the purposes of her
certifying that they are authentic. Also, as I recall, I believe the state also
submitted a trial subpoena to her.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, while Mr. Schlenker is looking that up, the records that
were not admissible last Monday because they had not been properly
authenticated…uh, the person that signed this affidavit that’s a sworn
statement, there is no guarantee that they reviewed these records. Their
records are kept in the ordinary course of business. All they did was they
send another…they sent a sworn statement which basically says I sent what
I sent you before. I guess. I didn’t read the statement fully. I looked at the
date. I was more interested in the date.
Judge: Did you review the statement? Let’s see while Mr. Schlenker’s
looking for…
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, let me read it. I, Joyce Ampinosh, hereby swear in
writing that I am the medical record clerk of Savannah Counseling
Services organized and operated pursuant to or under the laws of Georgia
located at 800 E. 70th St., Savannah, Georgia, 31405. I am custodian of
records of said organization. The within copies of record is an exact full
true and correct copy of the records for ———Christian Holm. I further
swear that the said records were made and kept in the usual course of
business of said organization. It was in the regular course of business of
said organization to make and to keep said records, and said records were
made at the time of such transactions or occurrences or events therein
referred to, or occurred or arose or were made within a reasonable time
thereafter. This I swear and affirm on the 8th of December, 2016. There
appears to be a signature. Before me the undersigned authority a notary
republic in and for said county and state, and the state personally appeared
before….it says Alexander Buchanan who is known to me and who
appears to be…
Mr. Kirby: Well, there…I mean then we’ve got a problem with…
Mr. Schlenker: I mean that’s the notary’s name. The notary wrote their
name and there is known to me who being…being by my first duly sworn
doth depose and state under oath that the statement of facts put forth in the
above and foregoing petitioner are true and correct to the best of his or her
knowledge information and belief sworn to before me on this the 8th of
December. And then, Alexander Buchanan signed it.
Mr. Kirby: But Alexander Buchanan is swearing to his own, swearing to
Alexander Buchanan, not to Ampinosh.
Mr. Schlenker: I believe Alexander Buchanan assumed that was where he
needed to write his name.
Mr. Kirby: Well, then we have a problem with the notary that doesn’t know
where to write their name and so how can we assume that these are
records kept in the ordinary course of business? This, judge, again is
December 8th. The authorization was revoked on December 6th. If they
weren’t admissible then, they are not admissible now.
****(Don’t worry, Mr. Kirby. I predict this court will sweep all these little
problems under the rug with the bigger ones like the 6th amendment rights.
Let’s just see if I’m right…)
Mr. Schlenker: Again, if the court, while they are not admissible on I
believe is Exhibit 5, the same person, same signature on December 2
saying the same records are the records…again, it wasn’t a sworn
statement. It is now a sworn statement. They are the records, Judge, and
again, I understand that the Holms don’t want them in because they don’t
want them to have what’s heard, but again they are proper…you know…the
department has done everything it can…
****(…to shaft an innocent law abiding couple who were excited to have
their first baby. The department is desperate to dig up some kind of dirt in
order to justify what they have done under color of law and this is exactly
how the government treats all of its citizens. I am learning a lot hearing
Mr. Schlenker: …to get these records appropriately to the court.
****(Appropriately? Seriously? What about what is appropriate for the
rights of the Holms?)
Mr. Schlenker: It is from someone 500 miles away, and again, it was the
intent of everyone early on that that was a sworn document. That
continues to be what they were doing. It was a sworn statement.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, intent doesn’t equate to correctness. Intent…the notary
may have intended to put somebody else’s name there. We will never
know that because that person is not going to be here to testify. The
custodian of records doesn’t say read or reviewing the records that were
sent. All she is saying is that…you know she is going to say that the
records she sent when they weren’t admissible the first time were the
business records. And who knows if that’s true?That person is certainly not
going to testify. So, like I say, if they were not admissible then, they are
not admissible now, and especially since Mr. Holm revoked his
authorization for any kind of release of information whether they are
HIPAA compliant or not on December 6th. That’s made a record in the
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I think it would be different if it said Jonathon
Schlinker down at the bottom of that instead of Alexander Buchanan. That
is obviously a scribner’s error. It is obvious that the intent was to have that
as a sworn statement.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, I don’t know that that is that obvious. You can’t question
that person. You can’t question that notary. He is supposed to notarize
saying I saw this person sign this document. He didn’t do that. He says he
did it. So, who did it? Did he or did Ms. Ampinosh? I say, still the
certification and authentication of those medical records does not meet
what is required by law, and especially after somebody has revoked any
kind of information release that they might have signed.
Mr. Schlenker: But the release had already occurred. It was the
certification, and again there was no further documents that were released.
That is exactly what she swore. Those are the records. Again, we talked
with her on the phone. She said the only way I send them is by e-mail
pursued by fax and I will send you a certification of the records. That is
their policy. That is their procedure.
Mr. Kirby: Well, judge, we won’t know that because that person is not
going to be here to testify. So, we won’t know that. We have to, I guess
accept the state’s word that it is what it is? And I don’t know that we can
accept the state’s word that it is what it is not what it appears to be.
****(Why accept their word? They have sworn to use anything against
the Holms. That means anything. I don’t believe these are actually
Christian Holm’s records. There is no proof and if there was proof it has
all been done in violation of HIPAA and his 6th amendment constitutional
rights. It also violates the statutes Mr. Kirby presented.)
Guardian: Judge, I’m going to argue that I don’t know it is so much the
state’s word as the woman, excuse me, her name I can’t recall who signed
that affidavit saying that these were records kept during the course of
business. My argument as to the notary would be that the notary was
certifying her signature and provided that were the oath and where the
number is signed provided with that notary saying that she or he did watch
her sign that. A notary isn’t merely saying that anything in there is true or
untrue, just that that person swore that under oath.
Mr. Kirby: And your honor, I don’t disagree with Ms. Miller except for the
fact that the notary didn’t swear that she signed it. He put his name in it, so
for all we know she could have taken this in here and said, Here. Notarize
this. Is that proper? No. Well, we won’t know that because we don’t have
the notary and we don’t have Ms. Ampinosh who certified these records to
testify to that.
****(The state will not be concerned with what is proper. They haven’t
shown that to be a part of their character yet unless it benefits their
Mr. Schlenker: And judge I would say rule 903 goes on the state
subscribing witness testimonial not necessary to authenticate a routing
unless required by laws of the jurisdiction whose laws govern the validity
of the routing, so therefore evidence is not necessary.
Judge: And that’s very true. Their presence is not necessary. We have a
statute as far as medical records in Alabama for a reason…
****(Can statutes override constitutional protections? 6th Amendment
trumps statutes.)
Mr. Kirby: Judge, if you notice the facts, date, and time on the records that
the state is going to seek to introduce is the same facts, date, and time
that’s on the records they tried to admit last weekend, same exact date. So,
they didn’t get records refaxed over. This is all they got and I don’t see any
fax on this so she didn’t bother to take the time to put this in the mail. I’m
saying she could have…you know…we don’t know…well I guess we do
know that all the records are in here are there but I’ll advise the court of
this, we’ve seen instances where one person will go get a set of records
and then another person will go get a set of records, and there is additional
pages or not as many pages. All they are doing is getting a certification
sworn statement after the HIPAA release or whatever release has been
revoked to go along with the records that they have that weren’t admissible
last week.
Mr. Schlenker: And they weren’t admissible because there was not a
certificate of authenticity and there is now. Again, it’s the same records. I
don’t dispute the fact of the Nov. 14th records that were produced. There
was no reason to have the records resent because we had them. She had
previously attempted to certify that those were the records and then again,
she now has sworn that those were the records. So, these records are
properly admissible.
Mr. Kirby: Well, judge, I further swear that said records were made and
kept in the usual and regular course of business of said organization and it
was in the regular course of business of said organization to make and
keep said records. Well, what is…I mean she doesn’t say on here anywhere
that the records that I sent the department on November 14th…she can’t
swear to those. She is not swearing to the particular records that they have.
This is a blanket authorization that did not come with any records that said
they had been reviewed and were made in ordinary course of business.
She is swearing something that she hasn’t done.
Mr. Schlenker: It was made at or near the time of occurrence of the matter
set forth by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge
of those matters, was kept in the course of regular conducted activity and
was made by the regular conducted activity as a regular practice. She has
satisfied all of those. It is wonderful the counsel wants to add in to statutes
about what it must say but again it does not say…there is nothing in the
statute that says I hereby certify that the records sent on Nov. 14th hereby
are the records. It is those three issues, was made, was kept, was regular
conducted activity. She has satisfied all of that. The affidavit is sufficient.
Mr. Kirby: But it came with no records, your honor. It came with no
records so if it came with no records then she has got to certify the records
that were sent, that were inadmissible, not just a…
Judge: Who has got the affidavit? My overwhelming concern with it is this
little on the bottom. It says Alexander Buchanan personally appeared
before himself. I have to take that document for what that document is. I
can’t go outside the four corners of that document. I can’t infer intent. It is
what it is. He says he appeared before himself, not Ms. Ampinosh
appeared. I don’t think it’s enough done to meet it as far as that. I just think
that’s an error that’s there unfortunately for the state and very good for part
of the parents, and I don’t mean that ugly the way it sounded.
****(No, but it was truthful. This is a contest or a match between two
opponents, one with unlimited resources and abilities, the other fighting
for their very lives with almost nothing and no warning that this could
ever happen.)
Judge:…A scribner’s error, it may be. I don’t know.
Mr. Kirby: So, the medical records from Savannah Counseling are deemed
to be inadmissible, is that correct?
Judge: Yes, however, remember prior to you raising this issue your client
was under oath and took the 5th and I can infer what I want to from his
questions and answers thereto, so…
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am. I understand.
****(Just in case it could be believed that there ever is a way to win…)

Comments enclosed in parenthesis are Danielle’s. Mine are preceded by asterisks and parenthesis.

Tape 17 (33)

Judge: We are back on the record.
Guardian: Judge, I know that you have ruled that you are not going to
admit these records that we have for the purpose I guess of them being
true. I assume is the court making any ruling as far as if they are
introduced for impeachment purposes ——————?
(Bear in mind, there was a “break” before this. Kirby successfully kept
their illegally obtained medical records and then they wanted a
break….Danielle saw attorneys coming out of a room with the judge. We
went back into the room and Allison Miller, just so happened to start
asking this question about “impeachment”. )
Judge: Well, let’s make that ruling when we get there.
****(In order to be better able to use ANYTHING against you, including
non-admissable evidence, this court room will leave no stone unturned.
Still feel like parents should trust the Guardian Ad Litem or want to work
with them in any way?)
Guardian: Okay.
Judge: I think it’s a little early like that.
****(Oh, but they are alluding to the fact that they have many tricks to
pull out of the legal bag when they are needed?)
Mr. Kirby: I guess while we are asking are we going to allow any
testimony as to…uh…by an expert who would examine those records?
****(You mean like to see if they are even actual correct records of Mr.
Holm? Minor detail, correct?)
Judge: Well, let’s cross that bridge when we get there because there may or
may not be other issues that that person could testify about.
****(We are at the bridge, Ms. Judge. If they aren’t his records should that
not be determined first? Lots of testimony is being entered into trial based
on erroneous so-called findings of these records. Again, minor detail I
Judge: I think saying at this point yes, I am going to exclude or no, I am
not going to…I think the issue is immature at this point in the trial.

Tape 18

Judge: We are back on the record. Just a matter of housekeeping before we
get started. I have what was handed to me this morning.
I report to the court for this phase of the proceeding.
Do you have it?
Mr. Kirby: Uh…yes, ma’am.
Judge: Okay, because I have not reviewed this yet. Ms. Miller, you have
Ms. Miller: I do. And it was court produced by the department. Big mouth
full of words there. Haven’t had enough coffee this afternoon. Okay. Any
other motions here that we need to address that we can think of?
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, in light of the court’s last ruling, we would
move to offer the records from Savannah Mental Health as impeachment.
The court has taken judicial notice of the following required testimony.
They contain inconsistent statement. We contend that it is inconsistent
with his prior testimony, specifically that he stating he has only been
diagnosed with depression and ADHD. And I believe that the records
indicate that it was something else, so at this time we would offer them for
the purposes of impeachment on———————————that the matter
is heard.
(So, let me get this straight….they want to get the inadmissible, records
that were DEEMED inadmissable by the judge based on the fact that they
are NOT valid, NOT true, NOT authenticated and NOT certified….now
they want to get these false records in saying that Christian, who DOES
NOT LIE is lying about his own diagnoses and what he was honestly
stating he had, and why he was previously on medication??? He STATED
he had depression and ADD (NOT ADHD), because that is the ONLY
thing he has ever been told by ANY medical professional that he was
diagnosed with and the ONLY thing he had ever been on medication for.
So, now they want to call him a liar because the WORD “schizophrenia”
by ONE of MANY doctors he has been to stated he may have
schizophrenia because of SIDE EFFECTS of the medications they had him
on at the time?? They cannot admit medical records in as evidence of
anything if they are FALSE, and they surely cannot admit them in if these
FALSE records have a FALSE diagnosis and Christian is TELLING THE
ADD…Impeachment??? Maybe the JUDGE should be impeached for
allowing this ABUSE on innocent parents.)
Mr. Kirby: Judge, the records are inadmissible regardless of…for any
purposes. They are inadmissible in this matter. Improperly served by
authenticated…so we would object to any kind of attempt by the state to
get the records in through impeachment.
****(Why do I get the feeling that none of this matters? Let us see how
the judge manages to get the records in anyway, shall we? Just call me
cynical here.)
Mr. Kirby: There just not…they are not admissible and we would ask the
court to direct this witness that she would not testify as to anything in
those records.
Judge: Well, I don’t know what she is going to testify to yet.
Mr. Kirby: Well, I don’t know what she is going to testify to yet but if it
has to do with anything that was in these records that was covered in my
motion and liminae that if Ms. Couch is testifying as an expert they cannot
testify as to inadmissible records.
Judge: Mr. Schlenker?
Mr. Schlenker: No further, judge.
Judge: Okay, and you are asking me to admit these as far as impeachment
to the prior statement of Mr. Holm made in shelter care that judicial notice
was taken?
Mr. Schlenker: Correct.
Judge: And not to the truth of the matter asserted?
Mr. Schlenker: Correct.
****(Truth? They are talking about truth?)
Judge: Is it your intention to utilize those records from that ————other
testimony or anything like that?
Mr. Schlenker: Not at this time, judge.
****(So, that answer is yes.)
Judge: Based on that assertion I think that it is appropriate to admit them
as impeachment to Mr. Holm’s prior testimony at shelter care.
****(Of course, you do.)
(His testimony at the shelter hearing was TRUTHFUL and these NONcertified,
FALSIFIED records are NOT…but you will use the lies over the
truth, right because you DO NOT KNOW GOD, so you are OKAY WITH
****(Well, she just said…not to the matter of the truth asserted, correct?
Truth is not a problem here.)
Judge: I haven’t read them. I think you’ve reviewed them somewhat.
Christian: Well, they’re not certified.
Judge: And I understand that they are not certified…
****(Legal technicalities. No problem for the state.)
Judge: …but as far as admitting into evidence, as far as evidentiary basis
itself they would not be a document that would be admitted as far as a true
and correct document. Is that correct?
Mr. Schlenker: Correct, judge.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, we would object to any testimony based on Ms. Couch’s
having reviewed these records that are inadmissible.
Judge: Let me double-check right quick. Just a ;matter of housekeeping. I
have not marked this.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, we would ask that you mark it as DHR’s…
Judge: And since it was a very big contention I would really want to mark
it. That way we can identify what document we were speaking about when
I said your authentication is not appropriate.
Mr. Schlenker: So, 7 judge?
Judge: Oh, so what did I do with my list? Yes. 6 was not admitted, 5 was
not admitted. 7…
Ms. Schlenker: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: …not admitted as to the truth of the matter, asserted, but is it
understood for impeachment.
Mr. Kirby: ———-again, note on the record that we object to this. The
state is quite obviously wanting to get this in I believe for the truth of the
matter asserted.
Judge: I’m listening.
Mr. Kirby: The records are what they are. They are not admissible and Ms.
Couch can’t testify to them so note that objection on the record.
****(I am going to predict that you can object all day long but watch if
Ms. Couch doesn’t testify to the inadmissible notes. I am not being
prophetic. I just see how this is going.)
Judge: I do note that objection. I will say this. At the time when Mr. Holm
was on the stand and took the 5th to this, that objection was not pending.
And for me, bringing these in for impeachment purposes pretty much has
already been done. It is almost a moot issue at this point because that
happened on the 5th. Nonetheless, I don’t know what about the testimony
they are trying to elicit from Ms. Couch and we’ll just go step by step.
Ms. Couch, if you will raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Ms. Couch: I do.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, is there any way to change the batteries out before we
Judge: We could. Let’s do that.

Tape 19

35 Tape 19 Religious Beliefs Equal Schizophrenia Now
Judge: And we are back on the record on JU 88.01 after changing batteries
in our recorder. Ms. Couch, you have been sworn. Mr. Schlenker, go
Mr. Schlenker: As a housekeeping matter, can I ask the defense to
designate who is going to cross-exam?
Mr. Kirby: Sure. That would be Mr. Holm.
Judge: Mr. Holm will be cross-examining.
Mr. Kirby: Yes.
Judge: Okay
Mr. Schlenker: Please state your name.
Ms. Couch: Edith Couch.
Mr. Schlenker: Ms. Couch, where are you employed?
Ms. Couch: With Couch Counseling.
Mr. Schlenker: And what do you do there?
Ms. Couch: I am a licensed professional counselor.
Mr. Schlenker: And in order to be a licensed professional counselor can
you tell us about your education?
Ms. Couch: I had to get my masters of science in community agency
counseling through Jacksonville State University. I did 3,000 hours
practice under the supervision of another licensed professional counselor. I
had to take a licensed professional counseling board test which I passed,
and I have to stay current in all my license CEU’s and fees.
(In other, words tooting her own horn, both for the state to pat them on the
back, and herself to feel better about getting paid $1000 to be an expert to
take down innocent parents and their baby.)
Mr. Schlenker: And can you tell us about your work experience?
Ms. Couch: I’ve worked at Regional Medical Center Psychiatric Unit. It
was a locked-down crisis unit. I also do private practice counseling with
mental health patients. I do contract work with the Department of Human
Resources and I do contract work with court systems.
****(There you have it. Contracting with all the agencies that ALL work
together to remove your children permanently from your custody. Want to
have a baby at RMC? Notice how inter-agencies are all tied together and
pay particular attention to these transcripts in how they function in the
court system when one of them has decided they want your child.)
(Mmmmhhhmmmmm…..RMC. Yet again…The child trafficking center of
Alabama. It has been verified that this particular “expert witness” is a
major part of the team…OFTEN an expert against innocent parents who
have NEVER met her…and each time she does so her check is for $1000.)
Mr. Schlenker: So as a result…excuse me, do you have any special licenses
besides your LPC?
Ms. Couch: I have National Counseling Accreditation. I am a Certified
Forensics Addictions Expert, and I’m a supervising licensed professional
Mr. Schlenker: And as a result of all your training are you able to provide
counseling to people who suffer from mental illness?
Ms. Couch: I am.
Mr. Schlenker: And approximately, I know this is probably a long time,
how many patients have you treated in your career?
Ms. Couch: I don’t know that I could say…I work 40 clients a week, 5 days
a week for the last 19 years.
Mr. Schlenker: That’s a lot.
Ms. Couch: It’s a lot.
Mr. Schlenker: As a result of your training and employment in licensing,
are you able to make diagnostic impressions of people to establish a
course of treatment for mental illness?
Ms. Couch: I am.
Mr. Schlenker: Have you completed diagnostic impressions throughout
your career?
Ms. Couch: I have.
Mr. Schlenker: In order to complete a diagnostic impression what, if any,
instrument do you have to rely on?
Ms. Couch: In the past it was the DSM4 which you have to take while you
are in school, and most recently they have changed it to the DSM5, which
I believe therapists are required to take as part of their CEU. They have
updated some changes.
Mr. Schlenker: You have received training in the DSM4 and the DSM5?
(So, has Danielle. Ironic.)
Ms. Couch: Yes, sir.
Mr. Schlenker: Okay. And have you ever been declared an expert witness?
Ms. Couch: Yes
Mr. Schlenker: Approximately how many times?
Ms. Couch: Um…at best memory I don’t know how many times. Usually it
is stipulated to because I’m an expert witness lots of times in Cleburne and
Gadston and Calhoun County, but I don’t know how many.
(Exactly. One of their top players in the game…and she gets paid hefty.)
Mr. Schlenker: And you mentioned Cleburne, Calhoun, ————-. Any
other counties have you been qualified as an expert that you can think of?
****(This would make a good source for a Freedom of Information Act
investigation to find out how many children were removed from this one
person’s “expert” testimony and from these several counties.)
Ms. Couch: Randolph County. I think those are the ones that I work in
right now.
Mr.Schlenker: Your honor, at this time we would offer Ms. Couch as an
expert in general counseling to people with mental illness, evaluating
people with mental illness, and coming up with an appropriate course of
treatment for them and in the application of DSM4 and DSM5 to people
with mental illness.
****(Do you realize that all they have to do is make a little adjustment,
call it DSM6, and anyone with a conservative or religious viewpoint may
be considered mentally ill. I bet that is already covered in DSM5. Wouldn’t
take much would it? Since this is the bottom line for courts now and
apparently our legal base line is NOT our constitution.)
Christian: Uh…could you tell me, are you a psychiatrist?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object. I have made a proffer of her as
an expert.
Judge: And Mr. Holm, obviously, is not agreeing. I do believe Ms. Couch
is an expert. However, I am going to give a little latitude here to Mr.
Holm, and I believe it looks like he has gotten three or four questions
written down there.
Mr. Schlenker: So you are allowing him…would allow him to…
Judge: To allow him to ——————-the witness.
Mr. Schlenker: Sorry, judge. Just wanted to be sure that I knew what we
were going to be doing.
****(We means we. They are all in unity in a pre-determined plan with
their combined efforts to bring the trial towards a conclusion insuring the
state keeps the baby.)
(Christian, doing the best as he can without any experience in a
courtroom or with law….led BY THE JUDGE at this point right into the
noose. At this point we were not understanding that we could object to her
being an expert. We thought it was “just so”….so he started asking her
questions…the judge did not clarify and allowed him to keep going,
without anyone telling him he did not have to, because he could OBJECT
to her being one. When parents do not know law, or how to work a
courtroom, they will not get their children back. Matthew 10:16 “Look,
I’m sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd
as serpents and as harmless as doves.)
Judge: A–(voyadar?)——— means you get to question.
Christian: Okay.
Judge: And it’s just brief. I’m going to limit it to part at this point of…and
Mr. Kirby, I am sorry, I might be stepping on your toes sustained by
counsel. Just brief, as to the limited part of qualification if Ms. Couch is an
expert. Okay?
Christian: Sure. Okay.
Ms. Couch: I heard him ask me if I was a doctor.
Christian: What I was going to ask you…I was going to ask you are you a
Ms. Couch: No, I am not.
Christian: You are not. Can you prescribe the same medicines as a
Ms. Couch: No, I do not.
Christian: Okay. Do you have a HIPAA release with my signature on it?
Ms. Couch: No, I do not.
Christian: Are you my doctor?
Ms. Couch: No, I am not.
Christian: Have you ever spoken to me in person?
Ms. Couch: No, I have not.
Christian: Have you ever diagnosed me in person?
Ms. Couch: I have not.
Christian: How can you attest to the view of any other doctor?
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, I object. She has not been offering to attest to
the view of any other doctor, and that is also out of the scope for what she
is being offered for.
Judge: Sustained.
Christian: Okay. I don’t have any other questions. Because she has stated
that she is not a psychiatrist, we would like to object to qualifications of an
expert witness.
(Great Job, Christian! You picked up on that without the help of anyone
other than our Creator because no one in this court room actually wants
to help you.)
Judge: Mr. Schlenker, any response to that?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, a LPC licensed counselor has the credentials and is
allowed to under laws and within the provisions of the State of Alabama to
make diagnosis of mental illness, and that has been satisfied and that is
what she has been offered for.
Judge: So noted that ——————–qualify Ms. Couch as an expert at
this time.
(An expert on WHAT exactly? Depression and ADD? Because any other
diagnoses would be false and based on falsified medical records that were
deemed inadmissible.)
Mr. Schlenker: Now Mr. Holm asked you this, but you have never seen
Mr. Holm or Danielle Holm, the parents, correct?
Ms. Couch: No.
Mr. Schlenker: Can you tell us what schizophrenia is?
(Why do we need to know about schizophrenia? We are going to take up
MUCH of our precious time, away from our baby in a courtroom speaking
of a hypothetical diagnosis that there is NO actual PROOF of either of us
Ms. Couch: Schizophrenia is a brain disorder under the DSM4 and the
DSM5, and it has certain criteria that has to be met with symptoms and
negative symptoms with schizophrenia. And uh…it affects a person’s
thoughts, moods, and behaviors.
(Thoughts: Love, selflesslness, serving life, walking the way of Yeshua,
serving Yahweh.
Moods: Typically Content/Happy (very stressed out right now but dealing
with it)
Behaviors: Always the same. Non violent. Not sporadic.)
Mr. Schlenker: Is it something that?…Is it biological or is it mental? What
is the cause of schizophrenia?
Ms. Couch: According to the diagnostic criteria, schizophrenia is actually
a brain disorder, not a mood disorder. They believe that it is caused in part
by genetics, perhaps some environmental factors or chemical imbalance.
At one time they used to think schizophrenia was purely genetic and that it
could not be substance induced and now they are finding that there is
perhaps some genetic tendency but you can also now have a substance
induced schizophrenia.
Mr. Schlenker: Now on to the traits…what are some of the hallmark traits
of someone who suffers from schizophrenia?
Ms. Couch: I believe the most prominent ones are the positive symptoms
of schizophrenia, which are your delusions,
****(i.e. belief in God)
(According to them, they believe Christian is delusional for thinking that
there is a conspiracy against us to kidnap our child….and that one is
closer to God the less materialism they consume themselves
Ms. Couch: hallucinations, disorganized speech…
****(Anyone besides me noticed how beautifully organized both Christian
and Danielle’s speech and behavior is, and under severe duress and stress,
and how they are absolutely not appearing to be disorganized at all?
(Well, lately we may not be very organized with paperwork, etc…but when
we speak we know what we are speaking about. We also do not “see”
things like they so think….but EVEN SO….was Yeshua schizophrenic for
seeing the things he saw, and for speaking to Satan and telling Satan to
get away? Man, Yeshua must have been a crazy man!)
Ms. Couch: Some of the ones that are less prominent or less in therapy
would be your negative symptoms and that would be inappropriate or
incongruent mood and affects, anhedonia, energy…
Mr. Schlenker: What is anhedonia energy?
Ms. Couch: I’m sorry. Anhedonia is a lack of pleasure in what one used to
****(Everyone suffering from transient depression, either acute or
chronic depression with any of its related mental health cousins can now
be diagnosed with schizophrenia with the anhedonia moniker. Trapped.)
(Actually, before we started traveling the country as missionaries we
enjoyed hiking and backpacking and camping every weekend. We enjoyed
mountain climbing each weekend. We enjoyed serving others, caring for
animals. We started traveling, and serving all of life, serving our Creator
and were THOROUGHLY happy and enjoying life. But, that is exactly
what they DO NOT WANT. They do not want us enjoying life, because
then that means we are not being controlled by them and being labeled as
schizophrenia so that they can steal our child. Christian was enjoying his
life, just fine until they assaulted his wife and stole his baby.)
Mr. Schlenker: Okay. What else?
Ms. Couch: There is energy, which means that you have fatigue. Some of
the negative symptoms are inability to focus almost like an ADD
****(Like how she did that? How she artfully brought that in?)
(So, you are screwed if you actually have ADD or focus problems or
chronic fatigue because you can get thrown in a loony bin at any time and
have your baby stolen.)
Ms. Couch: There is some speech problems. Sometimes there is some
behavior problems. One of the main behavior problems that people might
know is catatonia where you actually don’t move your body. There can be
some agitation where you are okay one minute, you stand up, you sit
down. You may go from agitated to calm, so those are some of the
negative symptoms.
****(Probably really messed them up when he behaved better than
normal when they took his baby. Christian is proving to be quite the
challenge in helping them prove their mental case against him.)
(Also, remember that Stacy Jackson testified that Christian was very
excited and then down, up and down. Christian never changes. And in 6
months he has shown that he does not change in any situation. He never
shows anger. He does not show violence. He speaks truth and is blunt, but
he never yells and he is always calm no matter what. People keep asking
us how?? YAHWEH.)
****(Yahweh is our strength in time of trouble. He is ever present and he
is our peace. I don’t know how the rest of the world handles life without
Mr. Schlenker: Now, when someone has schizophrenia do they present all
of those or just some of those?
Ms. Couch: Uh…just some of those.
Mr. Schlenker: And what are the underlying criteria for a diagnosis of
Ms. Couch: You must exhibit one of the positive symptoms, delusions,
hallucinations, or the disorganized speech, and it must be for a period of
more than one month. Then you’ve got to show one of the negatives.
Mr. Schlenker: Specifically, when it comes to children, what are the
concerns if any that would be present with someone with schizophrenia
who was responsible for the care and custody of a child?
Ms. Couch: It would depend on the schizophrenia. If you are paranoid
schizophrenic one of the concerns is that if someone becomes a part of
your delusion or psychosis, and if you become paranoid or afraid they are
a harm to you then a paranoid schizophrenic might strike out first. It
would depend on what their delusions are at the time. If they are seeing
things, hearing things, and their ability to distinguish between what is real
and what isn’t; and whether or not that person would be involved in that.
(Yes, and now she brings this in, because this is the type of
“schizophrenia” they are trying to label him as. They really coached her
well before she came to the stand.)
Mr. Schlenker: Would it be concerning for someone who would be
schizophrenic and not be on medicine and have custody of a child?
****(This is the place where the government now has the right to take
authority over one’s life in making a diagnosis, enforcing drugs, and
removing a child for parent’s failure to submit to questionable medical
experimentation for a contrived diagnosis. Very scary.)
Ms. Couch: Yes.
(Of course you would say yes to this, why wouldn’t you? You are getting
paid $1000 to sit there for 10 minutes.)
Mr. Schlenker: Can you tell us, would it be for the same reasons that we
just went through?
Ms. Couch: Um…schizophrenics need family support…
****(Uh, oh…We know that doesn’t exist for this couple on either side.
State know this. State’s “expert” witness knows this. How many people
would also fit into this category who are also not mentally ill? These are
the people the CPS organization preys upon, people with little family
support. Now we know how they get the kids so easy. They are all being
branded with schizophrenia.)
Ms. Couch: …or need someone who can help them when their thinking is
not correct…
****(Government re-education camps? Are you politically correct enough
to keep your kids? Also, they are attempting to portray Danielle as a
weak-willed individual who only does whatever her husband tells her and
doesn’t have a mind of her own. That part is not going for them so well.
She is totally a strong person with her own opinions and her own ideas.
The fact that this couple doesn’t fight and argue is not a reason to accuse
her of being “in human bondage” to the husband. They are stating this in
court, nevertheless.)
Ms. Couch: …uh…to reach out for help when they need it, so it takes
family support. They need the medications to help with the positive
symptoms which is psychosis, delusions, hallucinations. They need those
medications to help them diminish the positive symptoms, and then some
of the medications also help with the behavior. But mostly with the
behavior it is cognitive behavior therapy because they need to learn what’s
not real, what isn’t. Family, psychotropic medications, and counseling
even though they don’t prevent relapse of the symptoms…
****(You will never be safe to have your child with this branding.
Adoptions….chi ching!)
(If she is looking for his WIFE to be a SUPPORT to him to FORCE him to
TAKE medications that they both know are what CAUSED the adverse
side effects to begin with, then this would be pretty bad support. She
doesn’t know Danielle has a degree in Psychology either and experienced
with diagnostic impressions, and the most she has seen from her loving
husband is mild situational depression for certain periods of time, and
Ms. Couch: …they do help a patient become more aware.
Mr. Schlenker: In your expert opinion would that be assumed or would
you believe that to be absolutely necessary for someone who is
schizophrenic to have custody of their child to be actively engaged on a
pharmacological regimen as well as a cognitive therapy regimen?
****(There it is! What did I say? I believe I am a prophet. I have
Christian faith so that already makes me delusional. What’s to lose? My
kids are grown.)
(So, FORCE MEDICATE children of God, who believe differently and
who choose to come off of medications that were causing them issues to
begin with in order for them to have children!)
Ms. Couch: Yes, sir.
Mr. Schlenker: And, are you also familiar with delusional disorder?
Ms. Couch: I am.
Mr. Schlenker: What is delusional disorder?
Ms. Couch: Delusional disorder is more of a non-bizarre thought process.
There is some truth, perhaps, in their delusion. They are able to function
more effectively than someone with psychosis…
****(You just described everyone working in the state department and/or
for the state, including yourself, Ms. Couch, but I bet this is where you get
us all for having Christian faith in an unseen God.)
Ms. Couch: …and the difference between the delusion and the psychosis is
that delusion is an entire break from reality, whereas delusion is
inappropriate beliefs that are not based on the way the person was born or
the culture that they were raised in.
****(Gotcha! Wow! They don’t miss a trick. They must have really poured
over the Holm’s every word to be able to so craftily now use it against
them. It is noteworthy that in the Holm’s facebook and in transcripts that
both Christian and Danielle have stated that they have rejected each of
their family upbringings and decided to follow Christ. Anyone who has
ever walked away from their parent’s beliefs OR the hogwash fed to us by
the public school system is now confirmed delusional. Forget that free will
choice to believe in whatever you choose to believe in when you are an
adult. If you deny the programming of the world you are now delusional
and need re-programming. The Bible says to forsake the world and come
and follow Him and He will give you life. Jesus said not to be conformed
to this world and reject its ways. So, if you want to live forever you must
be willing now to be branded as delusional.)
(So, Christian was raised in a household where it was OKAY to USE
people to get ahead in life, it was OKAY to STEAL money behind people’s
backs, as long as they did not notice, and it was okay to swindle people,
coerce and control people and scream at people for not getting their way.
Christian decided to walk away from the negativity, walk away from the
greed of his family who stole over 1 million dollars from him, and walk
towards Yeshua and living within love. He MUST be delusional.)
****(Not delusional, but smart as Solomon. Christian wins everything,
even when they take it all away. Praise God who keeps score and fights
our battles for us.)
Mr. Schlenker: Consistent with someone who had delusional disorder,
would that be someone who submitted a 34 page demand letter asking for
a million dollars?
Mr. Kirby: I’m going to object…
Christian: I object too. That’s speculation.
Judge: Your question was?
Mr. Schlenker: My question was consistent with delusional disorder would
that be someone submitting a 34 page demand letter asking for a million
Judge: Are you asking that as a hypothetical?
Mr. Schleinker: Yes, ma’am. As a hypothetical.
Judge: I mean if you are asking that as a hypothetical, you can answer it.
(What? Since when are courts based on HYPOTHETICALS and not
****Since they need help swaying the testimony in the direction they are
desperate to make it go. Repeat something often enough and it begins to
sound correct. The Judge and the court know the truth, however. They
understand exactly what they are doing and it is all under color of law.
Ms. Couch: Okay so…
Mr. Schlenker: Hypothetically, if someone were to submit a demand letter,
approximately 34 pages in length and asking for one billion dollars…
****(The amount just changed. This one billion dollar comment was
gleaned from the Holm’s facebook page and is being taken completely out
of context. It was a comment that came from Danielle. Nowhere else was it
stated and it was not intended to be literal and was stated as such.)
Christian: Objection, your honor. She doesn’t even know why.
Judge: Let him finish his question, okay? Let me hear all the question and
then we will get to your objection.
****(A lot of latitude is given for this attorney and virtually none is given
to the Holms. Anyone notice that besides me?)
Mr. Schlenker: Would that be consistent with someone who is suffering
from delusional disorder?
Ms. Couch: Well, that’s possible. I don’t know that I’ve read the letter to
see the content. That’s possible.
(The content Ms. Couch?? Well, maybe before you offer to accept $1000
for sitting on the stand painting the wrong picture of an innocent family
who had their newborn KIDNAPPED illegally, you should understand the
contents of what you are speaking of. The Contents of this “delusional
letter”, what if this was a Notice of Intent to SUE in Civil Court upwards
of ONE BILLION dollars because our baby was KIDNAPPED
ILLEGALLY without cause and he is worth FAR MORE than a BILLION
dollars. Is that delusional? What if this letter of intent is a perfectly lawful
way to show the abusers and criminals you are supporting that they have
broken many laws against us and to give our baby back they STOLE?
How else do you change their wrongdoing? How else do you make them
accountable? It’s all in the pocket. Do we care about money? NO. We care
about our baby. And Maybe, JUST maybe the damages they will have to
give us will be saved for our baby who has been robbed of life and liberty
upon coming into this world.)
Mr. Schlenker: Would signing a document in blood be consistent with a
delusional disorder?
Ms. Couch: That’s possible. Yes.
(Possible….yes, but how about if it is actually a DNA sample with a
thumbprint showing the DNA matches to our baby who was stolen? Does
that sound a little better and understandable? What if YOUR baby was
stolen illegally at birth because “they could not identify you” despite
showing ALL of your ID’s? Would you want to PROVE YOUR DNA? Or is
this delusional?)
****(I would say it was pretty smart, actually. They are having difficulty
with your intelligence, education, behavior, and reactions. Not what their
DSM4’s predict.)
Mr. Schlenker: As part of the DSM4’s statements of what might be
someone with delusional disorder, specifically as part of the DSM4’s list
of what would be some of the criteria for delusional disorder on page 326
there is a…
Ms. Couch: Are you under specific culture and gender feature?
Mr. Schlenker: No, ma’am. Right above that.
Ms. Couch: Associated features and disorders?
Mr. Schlenker: The line started with the -persecutory and jealous type.
Ms. Couch: As specified in the sub-title.
Mr. Schlenker: Yes, ma’am. Can you read what the DSM4 says with
regards to that line and perhaps the next one?
Ms. Couch: The persecutory type?
Mr. Schlenker: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Couch: Sub-type applies when the central theme of the delusion
involves a person’s belief that he or she is being conspired against
(has anyone recognized the conspiracy in this court room ALONE?) ,
cheated (We are being robbed of our baby and our time as a
family…cheated?? YES), spied on (let’s see…these people know about
everything we are saying and doing AND our visit are being OPENLY
SPIED UPON), followed (There is an entire website dedicated to those
trying to figure out where we live and what we are doing and who we
are with and how many pets we have, etc…Oh, AND we DO have a
VIDEO of a car following us FROM DHR…thankfully we kept driving
in circles so they gave up), poisoned or drugged (maybe not by them yet,
but by the fluoride in the water and the chemicals in processed foods,
yes.), maliciously maligned (ha! do you see what’s happening here!),
harassed or obstructed in the pursuit of long-term goals (Oh, you mean
like having our family and living our life!). Small slights may be
exaggerated and become the focus of a delusional system. The focus of the
delusion is often on some injustice that must be remedied by legal action.
(You mean, like KIDNAPPING?? And should be remedied by LEGAL
WAS DELUSIONAL?) (Guerrolous?) paranoia, and the affected person
may engage in repeated attempts to obtain satisfaction by appeal to the
courts and other government agencies (When they are ALL corrupt, what
else do you do?). Individuals with persecutory delusions are often
resentful and angry and may resort to violence against those that they
believe are hurting them. (It’s a good thing we haven’t nor will we show
anger or violence then huh? Even though the MAYOR of HEFLIN
SUGGESTED “IT’S TIME TO GET ANGRY!” No, Mr. Mayor, it’s not…it’s
time to speak truth, but violence is not the key here, obviously they will use
that against us.)
****(Wow! Did you get that? This feels like the twilight zone, doesn’t it?
Nope. Not going for it. Kidnap under color of law is not a small slight and
it MUST be remedied by legal action. We have appeals through legal
means available to us in order to prevent citizens from desperately
resorting to vigilante or other retributive relief. You realize now they can
persecute us for real and we don’t dare say anything about it? We will be
dangerously schizophrenic if we try to mention it.)
Mr. Schlenker: Would that be of a concern to you, someone with a
delusional disorder who was under…well, first off…someone who had a
delusional disorder would that be a concern to you having custody of a
Ms. Couch: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: And why is that?
Ms. Couch: Because of the persecution they always feel slight. They
always feel that someone is against them, and they will resort to either
violence, legal action, or other actions in order to have their needs met.
(In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits
Congress from abridging “the right of the people…to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances” is now construed as delusional
and in such cases it is concerning when those people have children? What
kind of world are we living in right now?)
****(Legal action to have our needs met is schizophrenic. Now who
would have ever thought that would be grounds for insanity? Makes you
wonder who is writing these textbooks, eh? So legal action (the very thing
the kidnappers are taking against you, the parents) is off the table for
recourse. I guess they prefer violent war? I prefer legal action. Lawsuits.
Just call me crazy, okay? Oh, and a little friendly public protesting is
another good plan. Don’t expect the media to get involved. The ones who
own the media run the pedofile rings and they need to be able to keep a
steady supply of kids. I guess that makes me paranoid or one of those
fancy words like conspiracy, but you didn’t say it. I did. Eventually we will
get legislators who are brave enough to fight the media. Trump can’t do it
alone. Whether he be good or evil only time will tell.)
Mr. Schlenker: Could that put a child in immediate danger?
Ms. Couch: If it is part of the delusion, yes.
(Let me get this straight. a private company which receives federal
funding from the government, kidnaps a child with NO pick up order, NO
warrant, NO emergency, NO CAUSE whatsoever, no abuse, no neglect,
the innocent father and mother petitions the government for a redress of
grievances in every way they can which is their absolute right to do, also
sends letters to state the violations and laws against their family in order
to steal and keep their child, with higher courts and higher officials, and
this is seen as delusional and puts our child in immediate danger?)
****(This is called Catch 22)
Mr. Schlenker: If someone was suffering from the type that you just read
about, would that cause you concern?
Ms. Couch: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Okay, and would it be for the same reasons?
Ms. Couch: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Now, what would be the course of treatment for someone
who was suffering from delusional disorder?
Ms. Couch: The same treatment as schizophrenia, psychopharmacology
and counseling, because delusional disorder even though given its own
diagnosis in the DSM4…um…under the DSM5 has been moved to the
schizophrenia ———–.
****(If you protest your government, hire lawyers to defend your rights,
contest unfair actions violating your civil rights, you need to be forcefully
medicated and put into subjection of re-education until your mental
attitude improves and you decide to submit to the prevailing method of
getting shafted by public policies.)
Mr. Schlenker: So delusional is an offshoot of schizophrenia itself.
Ms. Couch: It’s one of the diagnostic criteria under positive symptoms.
Mr. Schlenker: Now, you have mentioned earlier that also family support
would be important.
Ms. Couch: It’s important.
Mr. Schlenker: Can you tell us what you would be looking for with family
Ms. Couch: With family support? Schizophrenia is a difficult disease and
oftentimes the person with schizophrenia or delusional disorders, they do
not think that they have any problems, so they are less likely to seek
treatment. They are less likely to take medication. They have some
cognitive issues that are distorted and they are not very responsive to
therapy because they don’t believe that they are delusional or their
distorted thoughts or faults, and so it takes family to be able to help them
understand the deficits. (This is the kind of family that believes that
government would NEVER STEAL YOUR BABIES) They need support
because a lot of times they don’t find support within the community and it
helps….someone else is there to safeguard against relapse. They may see
behaviors and symptoms and be able to get them to the doctor and get
them to the therapist before they start that cycle.
Mr. Schlenker: Would it be a concern to you if that family support was
actually participating or going along with the delusions?
****(Watch out! He’s going to set up Danielle to catch her in this next
mental trap.)
Ms. Couch: You mean as in a shared delusion or shared psychosis?
Mr. Schlenker: You want to tell the court what that is?
Ms. Couch: A shared psychosis or a shared delusion is when there is
another person who may have what we refer to as a passive temporal
delusion disorder or the ability to have delusions, and it takes someone in
active delusion to bring that out. So they already have an issue, and so
what that is is that the person who has the delusion is active. Then the
passive person’s job is to help them reach their goal or carry out their goals
of their delusion.
****(So which one is it? Who first believed they were persecuted because
their newborn was taken and who next had that delusion brought out? My
guess is the mother will be the maddest, but what do I know? I did learn a
lot from this lady. I learned I already have an issue. I believe the whole
courtroom is suffering from both active and passive temporal delusion
disorder, and also another condition called denial. I believe they help
each other carry out their goals of their delusion, i.e. removing babies
from loving parents. I believe treatment must include therapy in enforced
confinement because no one is safe from the violence they perpetrate
against innocent law-abiding citizens.)
(What exactly ARE our delusions, I would like to know. Has this ever
been addressed? The only thing that has ever come up was our “odd
beliefs” of feeling the need to travel by foot for a time as missionaries
sharing love and speaking of Yeshua and living simply with as least
amount of possessions as possible. And the last time I checked, this was
Danielle’s decision originally. This was DANIELLE who made this
decision to leave HER well paying job, where she was making almost
$90,000 WHILE pregnant so that they could be together and enjoy
pregnancy together all day everyday. Danielle was stressed out,
Christian at the time was suffering from certain physical ailments that
we are still trying to get worked out and that walking the countryside
actually was starting to help. Danielle wanted to drop her hectic,
stressful, indebted, lonely possession filled life to be with her loving
husband, nourishing their relationship, and healthily taking care of this
pregnancy that meant the world to the both of them because they had
already lost 2 before that because of the STRESS that working a hectic
job brought to their lives. It was DANIELLE that suggested we drop it
all and follow the will of the Creator and serve life rather than allowing
life to serve us. It was DANIELLE who made the first step and
suggested we sell all of our possessions and give away a lot of donations
to those in need. It was DANIELLE who left her education behind
knowing this life is temporary and our eternity is what matters. It is
DANIELLE who asked Christian if it was time to take off and love life
and bring our baby into the world free of bondage and possessions and
full of love. Christian only agreed. He did not force.)
****(Danielle, I love the way you express yourself freely. Never change!
This court doesn’t understand truth nor do they have any interest in
discovering it. They cling to their guns and DSM4s and 5s because it gives
them the federal incentive dollars. Misplaced faith. )
Mr. Schlenker: What would be your concerns if you’ve got two parents
and one was suffering from schizophrenia or something on the scale, and
someone who was also then suffering from shared psychosis?
(So, they have FALSIFIED records about Christian with a false
diagnoses…that state “schizophrenia”. They have NO records on
Danielle. Now, a non medical professional is suddenly “diagnosing”
Danielle as having shared psychosis, based on their OPINIONS of how
she wants to live life close to Yeshua and close to her loving husband and
precious baby? Is this not SLANDER???)
****(It is far worse than slander. This is a crime far worse.)
Ms. Couch: They’d both have to participate in counseling and they would
both have to participate in psychopharmacology. When I am talking about
family support, I am talking about are the family members have a healthy
cognitive outlook? Those would be the ones who would be the support,
not the ones who would fall in with the delusion.
(Oh, yes, that’s right, you mean….the family members like Danielle’s
mother who told DHR the day they took her first and only grandchild off
of her daughter’s breast that Danielle needs a psych evaluation because
she called her crying after they took the baby off of me and she was
concerned because I am mentally unstable and should not be raising my
child like that. Yes, mother. This is in the DHR narrative…
Or what about the cousin of Christian’s who spoke to DHR and said he
had “weird beliefs about the government”. You know…like the government
kidnapping babies for profit. Are these the kind of family members the
government approves of supporting delusional Yeshua loving lunatics?)
Short Break
Judge: We are back on the record. Ms. Couch will remain under oath.
Mr. Holm will have a chance to cross-examine Ms. Couch if you so desire.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, did I rest?
Judge: My understanding was you had finished questioning and Mr. Holm
was about to…
Mr. Schlenker: I’m sorry.————with them, and make sure I haven’t
missed anything.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Schlenker: Someone who is schizophrenic, is it common that they
comply with their regimen of treatment?
Ms. Couch: No.
Mr. Schlenker: What is the normal prognosis? I’ll strike that. How do
people normally react who are treated with…who are diagnosed with
schizophrenia and then are undergoing treatment?
Ms. Couch: Could you repeat that?
Mr. Schlenker: Sure. In people who are undergoing treatment, how does
that normally progress through their lifetime?
Ms. Couch: They exhibit symptoms. I believe less critical diagnosis is
given until they meet certain criteria if its schizophrenia. They participate
in counseling. They participate in psychopharmacology, and it stays
constant in their life because there’s relapse from this with it. And a lot of
times with the medications, the side effects with the medications, the
distorted thinking there is a tendency to pull away from counseling or
when your medication starts to make you feel better you think that you are
okay so you quit taking your medication. And then the cycle begins again.
Schizophrenia is treated, not cured.
(Really would love to speak to people who ACTUALLY have
schizophrenia and see what exactly they believe in life…it may be that
people truly connected to our Creator are deemed lunatics….such as John
the Baptist and Yeshua.)
****(Actually, Danielle, I spent years with them when I was on the streets
in Santa Barbara. The real ones you can pick out of a crowd, lol. They
require friendship, support, and a community who doesn’t judge. They are
often found in the homeless population. The homeless watch out for them
because they often become crime victims or need simple care. I had some I
truly cared for and looked after. The paranoids are more dangerous.
Psychopaths are found in that group and don’t make the best of
acquaintances. One must step carefully around those. But I digress.
Believe me, you two are not schizophrenic. They struggle with
communication, scattered thoughts (not ADD) and other things that set
them apart. But, if you learned about things from a textbook you wouldn’t
know what you were doing, and Ms. Martin appears to have just gotten
out of college and taken her first job. Suddenly she is a mental health
Mr. Schlenker: Is it common that someone who is under treatment will
then suddenly stop taking all their medicine?
Ms. Couch: It’s common.
Mr. Schlenker: Is it common that they will be doing well and then
suddenly make that turn and stop?
Ms. Couch: Yes, from what I’ve experienced.
(Does this counselor even have any idea what she is doing? Does
Schlenker? Do they even know the medication Christian just randomly
STOPPED taking???? Well, yes they should, because at the shelter
hearing, Christian testified that he WAS on Wellbutrin and ADDERALL
and when we started traveling, he slowly came off and was trying to be
more natural and allowing nature to heal. Wellbutrin for depression and
adderall for ADD. Nothing for Schizophrenia. EVER. If you are a licensed
professional who diagnoses and prescribes medications for mental illness,
that is ONE DANGEROUS CONCOCTION of medications to give to
someone with schizophrenia or even POTENTIAL schizophrenia. You give
them that medication together if MAYBE you are trying to MAKE them
diagnosed with schizophrenia because it could most definitely make their
illness MUCH WORSE. But, yet he had been on these medications for
years…and they started giving him unwanted side effects, which is why he
came off. So, these medications that they are now saying he is dangerously
TRYING TO LABEL HIM AS!!! When was the last time coming off of a
medication like adderall hurt anyone!!?? Or even wellbutrin??)
****(They won’t let that get into the record because it will ruin their case.
Remember, their case is all they care about. They have to win.)
Mr. Schlenker: I don’t think I have any more questions, judge.
Judge: Mr Holm———–
Christian: Is anything in life possible?
Ms. Couch: Yes, within reason.
Christian: Okay, so now…uh…possibility is not fact, right?
Ms. Couch: No. That’s right.
Christian: And if one has different views of religion, that’s not
schizophrenia, right?
Ms. Couch: No. Not per se, no.
Christian: Okay. So if one chooses to live a certain way of life, that’s not
Ms. Couch: Not in and of itself, no.
Christian: Alright. So let’s say that if someone wanted to live in a more
natural state or natural way of life, that’s not schizophrenia, right?
Ms. Couch: No. Not put like that.
Christian: Okay. All right. Can schizophrenia be cured?
Ms. Couch: No.
Christian: Are you born with it?
Ms. Couch: They believe that there is a genetic factor, so you are born
with a tendency, like diabetes, you are born with it.
Christian: Okay. Could you tell me why a doctor would prescribe
medicines for one diagnosis, then give another diagnosis, then go back to
the diagnosis before?
Ms. Couch: Why would a doctor do that?
Christian: Yes. Let’s say….
Mr. Schlenker: I’m gonna ejeculate…(laughter)
Ms. Couch: Ejeculate? (more laughter)
Mr. Schlenker: Wow. May I clarify that? (loud laughter throughout the
court. Finally, some comic relief!)
Judge: Please do!
Mr. Kirby: Do we need to leave the room?
Judge: I would like to. Can I leave? (laughter)
Mr. Schlenker: I would like to object. That’s speculation as to why a
doctor would do one thing and another. She has not been…I mean that
calls for the mental operation of another.
Judge: The way it was phrased, yes. It does. Sustained.
Christian: Well, really, your honor. I completely agree with everything she
is saying. We don’t have any other questions.
Judge: Okay. Anything from the guardian?
Guardian: No, your honor.
Judge: Any redirect from the state?
Mr. Schlenker: Can religion become an issue, though, with someone who
is schizophrenic?
Ms. Couch: It can be. There’s a…there’s a fine line between
religious…freedom of religious pursuit and what we refer to as religiosity.
Mr. Schlenker: And can you tell us what religiosity is?
Ms. Couch: That is not my field of expertise. It is a symptom of
schizophrenia such as grandiose. The religiosity would cross the line, but I
don’t know that I could know how to explain that to you, sorry. But yes,
religiosity is an issue.
Mr. Schlenker: Okay. Would someone having visions be a symptom of
****(Uh oh…you just condemned Moses, all of the major and minor
prophets, Mary and Joseph, Jesus, many of the apostles, and John the
revelator. Not to mention ALL the charismatics and pentecostals
numbering in the many millions throughout the earth who currently have
visions from God. Now what do we do with all these living, untreated,
happy, high-functioning people? A never ending kid supply, right?)
Ms. Couch: A positive symptom.
(Okay, so let’s get this straight…you have positive symptoms…so seeing
things, having visions, speaking to God….and then the negative would be
when you choose to not be so much in the government’s control and live
more natural and not conform? When you have those combined that
equals schizophrenia.)
Mr. Schlenker: The belief of the free mason’s persecuting you or causing
your ID to disappear, hypothetically, would that be…uh…
****(Danielle made a brief reference to a family member in answer to a
question the officer asked her at the time of her baby’s kidnapping. There
are links verifying this information. I ask permission to post that link.
Reality is different from delusion. Charles Ramm Holm, Jr., Christian’s
grandfather and 33rd degree Mason, is Christian’s lifetime reality. I hope
Christian and Danielle would consider releasing some of the memorabilia
pictures and information he has of his grandfather working professionally
with several presidents while in their service. And that, Mr. Schlenker is
not hypothetical!)
(Permission granted. Yes, this is confirmed. Christian and Danielle
separated by law enforcement at hospital. Danielle cornered in her
hospital bed 33 hours after delivering her first child into the world.
Danielle falsely accused of NOT being Danielle, rather being Daniela
RUIZ from Arizona and having been back and forth over the Mexican
border. Them interrogating her, asking her Christian’s real name…not
taking the truth as reality (delusional?), and asking why Christian’s ID
and social security may be coming back as “not on file”. Danielle,
panicking after having her baby kidnapped off of her breast in the hospital
bed, with a racing mind, thinking of any reason they could be mistakenly
taking our baby, thought of the one thing she KNEW to be true….that
Christian’s grandfather was a high level FREEMASON (IN REAL
LIFE)….he worked for President Carter and President Ford, side by side,
in their cabinets(IN REAL LIFE). He also worked in the private sector of
the government doing things people do not speak of. Christian had
security clearance in the past by his grandfather and all that went through
Danielle’s mind at the time, was that if that TRULY was the issue and they
were not finding Christian’s SS number anywhere MAYBE it was because
of the security clearance of his grandfather from the past. This is not
completely coming out of left field. MAY be incorrect, but our baby was
just stolen and they were telling us our identities were not found!! Even
though, he has gotten things done with his social security number
MULTIPLE times in the past, even recently…and it’s never been an issue!)
Christian: Objection, your honor. Leading the witness.
Mr. Schlenker: Hypothetically.
****(Courtroom games, played to cast a negative and false light on the
Holm’s trial.)
(So, can we just hypothetically paint a picture of every single person in the
courtroom, without FACT?)
Judge: Go ahead.
****(Since they are keeping themselves busy playing hypothetical games,
how is that relevant to facts and truth?)
Christian: They are offering as truth.
Judge: I believe you did say hypothetically, but just in case you didn’t why
don’t we start over with that and rephrase.
Mr. Schlenker: Hypothetically. Yes, ma’am.
Judge: And break it down, okay?
Mr. Schlenker: Yes, ma’am. I apologize. I’m going too quickly.
Judge: You are talking a little fast.
Ms. Couch: He’s talking fast. (laughter) I’m trying to keep up.
Mr. Schlenker: I warned everyone. I talk fast…
Mr. Couch: You are in the South boy!
Mr. Schlenker: Oh, I know. ————I grew up here. I want that
understood. Alright, so hypothetically, if someone claims that the Free
Masons were persecuting them would that be a symptom of
(Yes, maybe if that was STATED….but that was never stated by either of
us!! Danielle merely only in her scared mind after the kidnapping and
when ASKED by Stacy Jackson why Christian’s SS number was coming
back as “not on file”, the reason Danielle gave that could be POSSIBLE
was maybe his grandfather who at ONE POINT IN TIME before he died,
had the power to make phone calls and get certain things done. NEVER
did anyone say anything about this being a conspiracy with
Freemasons….BUT, now…we are wondering….)
Ms. Couch: Under persecution? Yeah.
****(Uh-oh. Many or most Christians believe similar things about the
Free Masons as being a cult affecting or subjecting the masses to their
brand of manipulation. Although it is a secret organization, enough of
them have left it and ratted the rest out, publicizing their documents and
creeds. None of us believe that they are persecuting us specifically or
personally (and neither do the Holms) yet we hold the Free Masons to
their stated beliefs contained in the doctrine of Free Masonry, especially
the Masons holding higher degrees in the organization. Does that mean
ALL of us now have schizophrenia? Is Free Masonry an American
psychiatric sacred cow while Christianity has become a case for
enforced mental treatment? )
Mr. Schlenker: Hypothetically if a parent believed that their child was a
prophet, would that be a symptom of schizophrenia?
(Also, painting a picture that is false…neither of us has EVER said
this….what WAS said, was that he was OUR MIRACLE (I was having a
hard time staying pregnant and was told I would probably not be able to
have children) and we mentioned the actual FACTS of his PHYSICAL
birth which include what is called as “en-caul”. Look this up, its REAL!
And VERY spiritual!! We did not fantasize about this, or create it in our
minds…this actually happened and even the delivery room nurse herself
called him an ANGEL BABY. WE did not label him. THEY ARE. And even
so, so what if he is!?)
****(He got the Christian’s again. Are people of faith paying attention to
what is happening here in American courtrooms? Not saying the Holms
even said this but for those who don’t know, prophecy is one of the gifts of
the Holy Spirit and people are born with gifts. Parents in charismatic
churches are looking for the gift of prophecy to emerge in their child
because the Bible says it is the best gift. Multitudes of parents are
teaching their children about the gifts and leading them in the ways of the
Holy Spirit as found in the New Testament because they want to
encourage the operation of the gift of prophecy in their children. Acts 2:17
in the Message translation of the Bible makes it easy to understand what
all Christians believe. That’s when Peter stood up and, backed by the
other eleven, spoke out with bold urgency: “Fellow Jews, all of you who
are visiting Jerusalem, listen carefully and get this story straight. These
people aren’t drunk as some of you suspect. They haven’t had time to get
drunk—it’s only nine o’clock in the morning. This is what the
prophet Joel announced would happen: “In the Last Days,”
God says, “I will pour out my Spirit on every kind of people:
Your sons will prophesy, also your daughters; Your young
men will see visions, your old men dream dreams. When the
time comes, I’ll pour out my Spirit On those who serve me,
men and women both, and they’ll prophesy. I’ll set wonders
in the sky above and signs on the earth below, Blood and
fire and billowing smoke, the sun turning black and the
moon blood-red, Before the Day of the Lord arrives, the
Day tremendous and marvelous; And whoever calls out for
help to me, God, will be saved.”
God wrote the book. Maybe He is schizophrenic too?)
Ms. Couch: Yes, that would go along with religiosity.
****(2 billion people are Christian. One half a billion of those are
charismatic who believe in the operation and gifts of the Holy Spirit AND
who believe their children could be prophets. Roll that page up from your
DSM5 textbook and smoke it.)
Mr. Schlenker: Hypothetically if a parent believed that a child was
somehow divine, would that be a symptom of schizophrenia?
(So what if he is? Was Yeshua correct when he said in Luke 18:8 “When
the Son of Man comes will He find that faith on Earth?” It’s almost time.
Where is the faith? People think it is completely delusional and are
labeled as schizophrenic if they believe their baby’s birth was a gift of
God and a miracle? What has the world come to? We cry out for the
softening of their hearts and for them to turn back to the Creator.)
Ms. Couch: Under religiosity, delusional disorder.
Mr. Schlenker: No other questions.
Christian: Would you have the same answers if Joseph and Mary were
asking the same questions?
Ms. Couch: (Big sigh)…oh…if Joseph and Mary were to ask me the same
Christian: Yes, ma’am. If they were here present today? How would you
answer? Yes?
Ms. Couch: Yes.
Christian: You would answer the same way?
Ms. Couch: I suppose so.
Christian: So you would say that Joseph and Mary had schizophrenia?
Ms. Couch: Based on the knowledge of this culture, of this society and the
historical evidence, if a Mary and Joseph type person were to present
themselves today, then yes.
****(Everything is all in place. They are not going to stop at taking our
children. The Christians are slated for incarceration with
psychopharmocology until re-educated, because according to DSM4 and
DSM5 we are all in need of treatment and we could be a danger to society.
Anyone besides me connecting these dots?)
(This is mind boggling. Their “expert witness” just testified that JOSEPH
that in mind folks…When Yeshua comes back, he WILL be DEEMED
delusional and schizophrenic. Will he find any faith??)
Christian: Do you believe in Jesus?
Ms. Couch: Yes.
Christian: Okay, but you don’t believe in Joseph and Mary.
Ms. Couch: I do.
Christian: You do believe in Joseph and Mary?
Ms. Couch: I do believe in Joseph and Mary.
****(They were historic figures who actually lived, along with Jesus. It is
what one believes about these historical figures that separates us.)
(Right. She does not believe they could be prophets or of God in any way,
if she believes they would be schizophrenic.)
Christian: Do you believe people can have different beliefs?
Ms. Couch: They can.
Christian: Does that mean that they are schizophrenic?
Ms. Couch: (nearly inaudible) No.
Christian: I have no further questions.
Judge: Guardian?
Guardian: Just a couple. Ms. Couch, you testified that people have the
diagnosis of schizophrenia will relapse——————-.
(Here goes the guardian who surely does not have the best interests of her
client in mind.)
Ms. Couch: Yes, ma’am.
Guardian: Generally, how often does relapse happen, and if it does is there
a certain period of time that occurs? Is it immediate? I guess shed some
light on that.
Ms. Couch: With schizophrenia it depends on the person, on the age of
onset. Schizophrenia generally hits in the prime of your life which makes
it the more devastating. But every time you have…if you are non
medicated and you have a psychotic episode, they believe that or..what
I’ve been educated on and taught in the hospital…was that that has some
residual effect on the brain, and so that diminishes the ability to overcome
the next psychotic break. And that’s why the medication is to keep those
psychotic breaks from happening…
****(Lifetime enforced drugging using psychotropic medications)
(So, what does it mean when one has NEVER had a psychotic break NOR
has ever been on medication for schizophrenia? Have they checked into
Christian’s medical records for those tidbits of information? The answer
to that is yes. Why aren’t they talking about it? Because they cannot find
anything. If there was something more there, I am SURE they would be
using it against him.)
Ms. Couch: …and increasing the chemical imbalance in the brain. Relapse
proneness depends on the stress..
****(Hahahahahah! Having a bit of difficulty trying to get these supposed
schizophrenics to break? The more stress you give the Holms the better
they perform. Could any of us in the same situation do as well, I ask you?)
SHOULDERS, TRYING TO SAVE OUR BABY and get out of this ungodly
state. STRESS? Illegal search and seizure, kidnapping our baby, without
our baby for 6 months, dealing with slander, malicious attacks on our
bodies, minds and spirits, threats, and PRESSURE of knowing your every
move is watched and if you slip up ONE TIME you could lose your baby
forever because that’s what they are hoping for….could ANY true
unmedicated schizophrenic deal with this STRESS??)
****(Let me take this opportunity to just tell you both how very proud I
am of you. I know I speak for the Lord and I am crazy enough to say it, but
you are representing Christ as true champions! I constantly pray for you
and will continue to cheer you on.)
Ms. Couch: Schizophrenics don’t like a lot of external stimuli, a lot of
social interactions…
****(Lol! They are missionaries!!!! And they are continuing to be
missionaries!!!! And they are still loving their enemies. Haha!)
(Guess this is why they don’t like us standing on the streets speaking the
word and protesting the truth and sharing on Facebook and representing
ourselves in court.)
Ms. Couch: So there are some things that would set them off, so to say. So,
with each person it is different with their ability to pull themselves back
into reality. It’s different so there is really not a pat answer but it is…there’s
no treat…there’s no cure for it.
Guardian: Hypothetically speaking, if someone had a diagnosis of
schizophrenia, removed themselves from their medication, would you feel
comfortable with them caring for an infant?
(Nice job GAL. Buttering up the answer for this expert witness to say this
“unmedicated schizophrenic” who was never on medication for
schizophrenia to begin with to even be able to come off of it, who stands
on the street with signs, speaking to people, spreading truth, showing love
to others, was traveling as a missionary, who represents himself and his
family in court, is not capable of caring for HIS beloved baby who is a
miracle from up above. What a great advocate for our baby to have. We
do not consent, she is fired!)
****(You can beat her. We beat ours and she testified against us in court.
God is in control. Never forget.)
Christian: Objection. Ask and answer.
Judge: Sustained.
Guardian: That’s all I have.
Judge: Anything further?
Mr. Schlenker: Nothing further.
Judge: Let’s take a break. Take five.
Mr. Kirby: Before we take five, we offer the records weren’t necessarily
used for impeachment purposes so they need to be deemed inadmissible
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, I’m lost with it. We have been over the records
before. The records were not used at all in that testimony. I am confused as
to why we are going back over.
Mr. Kirby: Right, but I think you admitted them for impeachment
purposes and we are asking that they be excluded completely again and
not used for any further testimony.
Mr. Schlenker: I object. This has been raised. The court has ruled. It has
been raised. The court has ruled. Judge, we would ask that if counsel
wants to note it for the record, fine, but then I think it’s…
Christian: Objection. Leading a judge.
Mr. Kirby: The state didn’t necessarily use….didn’t use the records for
impeachment so I think they need to go back to the same status they…
Judge: I’ve already ruled on that. We didn’t allow Ms. Couch to utilize
those records. I think at this juncture in relation to Ms. Couch your
objection is duly overruled, and I’m assuming that’s where you are
going…to this particular witness with these records to make sure we aren’t
using them in that conjunction, correct? Or am I misconstruing…
Mr. Kirby: No. I’m talking about future testimony. I mean they were
deemed inadmissible prior to Mr. Schlenker’s correct motion, I guess to
bring them in as admissible under…for impeachment purposes but they
were not used for impeachment purposes.
(Right. they were used as TRUTH for an EXPERT WITNESS WHO WAS
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I offered them for the impeachment for the purposes
of the testimony that the court had previously taken judicial knowledge of
with regards to parent’s testimony at the shelter care.
(Yeah, the testimony that he actually spoke the TRUTH of….NOT
Judge: And in addition, those were the same records that were utilized
when Mr. Holm was on the stand.
Mr. Schlenker: Correct.
Judge: And that was the limited scope I said was admissible for
impeachment. Very limited.
Mr. Schlenker: Correct. And that was all they have been used for. They
Christian: It was acknowledged but not with those…
Mr. Schlenker: Acknowledged…Objection. One of them gets to argue,
Judge: And that’s correct. Mr. Kirby, that’s your motion to argue. Again,
we are going over semantics, at the same thing…it was very limited, very
limited. Not carte blanche that you can come in here later on and say…very
limited. Mr. Holm testified at shelter care. This is what he said. Mr. Holm
testified at the adjudication phase the last time we were here. This is what
he said. For impeachment purposes here is what the records say, not what
the truth of the matter is asserted. Very limited.
(Actually, Judge…Christian testified ONE time…at the shelter hearing,
and he spoke ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that needed to be KNOWN
at that time to show we had done nothing to harm our baby. We testified to
the TRUTH of everything and that INCLUDED the truth of his diagnoses
even though he was under NO OBLIGATION to surrender his privacy to
you…he did so anyway, to get his baby back home. You chose to not send
him home anyway! And his testimony did not nor would it change. He did
NOT testify to having schizophrenia, nor would he because he does not
have schizophrenia NOR was he ever TOLD of a schizophrenia diagnosis.
If there IS one somewhere, it is FALSE and based on the same OPINIONS
the state is forming on his RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. You just said he
testified at the shelter hearing and said this, and testified at the
adjudicatory hearing and said something else…this is not true. Because of
this very reason, of everything being maliciously twisted and used against
us we did NOT testify at the adjudicatory hearing and instead we PLED
THE 5th because everything can and will be used against you in the court
of DHR. Therefore, your “impeachment” process with FALSE RECORDS
is based on NOTHING because Christian cannot be impeached based on
testifying to the truth ONCE and then not testifying at all the second time.)
Mr. Kirby: Okay. If the records were used in the shelter care hearing…
Judge: They were not used in the shelter care. I keep forgetting you
weren’t here. I’m sorry.
(No, they were not judge, good point. They did not HAVE records at the
shelter case hearing despite having on the petition “mental health
concerns” They had no facts or evidence of this, even though it was
SUPPOSEDLY sworn to in front of YOU in order for you to “sign” your
pick up order to STEAL our child. Concerns based on 15 minutes spent
with us at the hospital speaking of WHY WE WERE TRAVELING AS
MISSIONARIES. No medical records…nothing…but opinion of an
uneducated, ungodly, SOCIAL WORKER. )
****(Keep in mind, you can be declared as schizophrenic: schizoaffective
disorder just from having a traumatic childhood background. That
diagnosis is made from the initial intake interview while the nice
counselor gathers your history. Still feeling okay about taking their test?)

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: