#20

Tape 20
502779
Judge: We are back on the record on JU 88.01. And Mr. Kirby I believe
you just said you had something you needed to address when I came to ask
you if you were ready for my break?
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am. I would just like for the court to take notice that
this possibly may not be all medical records from Savannah County. The
last page provided, and this is the copy that was provided by DHR…
Judge: Okay, let’s make sure that what we are talking about is the same
thing right here, I guess. I guess it would be. Go ahead.
Mr. Kirby: Well, the last page provided for the medical records is page 7
of 9, and there is no 8 and 9.
Guardian: Is that from 12-8-15?
Mr. Kirby: Let me see.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I was just looking at the order and I have not 8 or 9.
Christian: Am I allowed to approach the bench, your honor?
Judge: What you need?
Christian: The records that are in question, can I look at the end of them?
Right here, is that okay if I do that?
Judge: Yeah. These were the first set and this is the set they brought in
today, and you’re looking at what’s marked 5 and 7. I don’t mind telling
you that. We are still on the records. While you all are doing that, I’m
going to look at a couple of other things in unrelated cases.
Christian: Um..these are not all the records from Savannah Counseling.
This is only one of the doctors out of many doctors there.
Judge: Okay, let’s let you talk to Mr. Kirby about that, okay?
Christian: Okay.
Judge: Does the department have its next witness available to go when we
clear up this issue?
Mr. Schlenker: Yes, ma’am.
Guardian: Judge, I wasn’t sure when we looked in camera at the records,
did you look through it to make sure all the fax numbers
——————–or not…
Judge: Nope. I did not. I just looked through and particular to the mental
health records. I knew there was going to be an issue so I just did not pay
conscious attention, and I do remember telling Mr. Kirby that there
seemed to be a missing page or something. We couldn’t tell and we did not
go digging through it. I just reviewed it just for the fact that there were
documents there. Did not count the number of pages. Mr. Kirby, since we
are coming back in the morning is this something that you want to look at
a little further tonight or do you feel that we need to wait and let you look
at this now?
Since it’s still in the records, Mr. Kirby is the one who is dealing with it,
okay?
Mr. Kirby: I guess we’ll just note it on the record that we don’t believe all
of the documents are there. Mr. Holm apparently has a prescription that is
more recent than any of these records. From this, it is not indicated in
these records, a different doctor, so…
Christian: So I can go get that and prove it.
Mr. Kirby: You want to go do that now? He said he can get that and prove
it.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, number one, I object to Mr. Holm just talking
during this argument. This is Mr. Kirby’s argument, not Mr. Holm’s.
Second of all, this is at this point in time all argument, so taking testimony
on this issue would seem to be a little bit all out of, to me at least, all out
of order. And this is an argument. There again, there will be an opportunity
if Mr. Holm wants to maybe this time testify, but again he has had that
opportunity. He elected not to provide any of that information so it is not
now appropriate that he be able to now testify during an argument.
Judge: And that is correct. This is argument phase, though what you’re
saying Mr. Kirby from what you maybe have gleaned incomplete records
from the Savannah Counseling Center….that was a mouthful. Okay, and if
Mr. Holm wants to testify or in your case, in chief, you want to clear up
that issue, I am certainly going to give you wide latitude to do so.
Mr. Kirby: Thank you, your honor.
Judge: And I think what you were doing was just bringing it to the court’s
and the department’s attention. What you might have right there appears to
be different somewhat then what I might even have up here. Okay.
Mr. Kirby: Well, it should be, you know if somebody certified that they
sent all the records they reviewed, and didn’t, that would be lying.
Judge: So noted. I understand. Your next witness.
Mr. Schlenker: We call the mother, as an adverse witness.
Mr. Kirby: Who?
Mr. Schlenker: The mother.
Judge: Come on up. Need your water?
Danielle: Yes.
Judge: Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth?
Danielle: Yes.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Schlenker: Will you state your name?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment for client attorney
privilege.
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, there is no attorney client privilege for the
purposes of stating your name.
Judge: So noted.
Mr. Schlenker: You are the mother of baby boy Holm, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: He was born on October 9, 2016, at RMC Hospital,
correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Let me correct that, October 10th, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, I’m going to object to leading…I don’t know if you ever
addressed the hostile witness issue.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, she is an adverse witness, because she is a party of
Holm and she has refused to answer any questions, and so I believe I am
entitled to lead this witness.
Judge: At this point I mean (a) I didn’t take your questions necessarily as
leading. I think you are correct. She is an adverse opponent. You can lead.
Mr. Schlenker: When you went into labor you were living at Cheaha State
Park, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: And that is in the Cleburne division of Alabama, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: And subsequently you received medical care at RMC,
correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: While at RMC you had an occasion to encounter the
Department of Human Resources, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: During the time that you had conversation with the
Department of Human Resources…strike that.
Judge: Okay, Mr. Schlenker, before you go on let me just get this on the
record. We should have already done this…um…I mean you were in the
courtroom when your husband took the 5th and you heard the colloquy
there about how there is a difference in invoking the 5th in a civil case and
the ramifications that occur versus the right to invoke the 5th in a criminal
case. And Mr. Kirby, I am assuming that you have gone over the
differences in invoking the 5th in a civil case vs. a criminal case with Mr.
and Mrs. Holm?
Mr. Kirby: I believe the Holms understand that it is a…the court has a right
to infer if you invoke the 5th amendment right. Just going on record that
you understand that, correct?
Danielle: Uh..hmmm.
Judge: Thank you. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Schlenker. I am sorry.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I hate to be somewhat of a ninny but she said uh
hum. Can that be yes, because I have just seen too many court reporters
over the years say that….
Judge: Yes. Was that a yes?
Danielle: Yes.
Judge: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Schlenker: Thank you, judge. Thank you, Ms. Holm. I know that
seems very technical and petty, but it’s really not.
****(Because they can shaft you a different way for taking the 5th in a
civil trial.)
Mr. Schlenker: At the time that you went to RMC you did not have
sufficient provisions for baby boy Holm, correct?
****(Here is one of those times.)
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: And in fact, you had occasion to tell the Department of
Human Resources that one of the reasons why your husband’s identity
could not be determined at the hospital was because it was part of a
Masonic conspiracy, correct?
****(This statement is a lie. The true statement is available and doesn’t
come close to this contrived fallacy. Mr. Schlenker will be attempting to tie
all of Ms. Cloud’s testimony in such a way as to convict both of the Holms
of schizophrenia. This will absolve the state of all of its responsibility for
removing a newborn at birth from a normal loving couple.)
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: And that you also were subject to that conspiracy, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: And in fact you went on to tell Stacey Jackson that all of
this was done as part of a plot to steal Mr. Holm’s family trust, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: You also informed Ms. Jackson that your child was divine,
correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: …and that he was a prophet, is that correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: You were aware that your husband suffers from a mental
illness, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: You were aware that he has been diagnosed with
schizophrenia, is that correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: You were aware that he has been diagnosed with a
delusional order, is that correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: You are aware that he is not under the care of a licensed
physician?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: You are aware that he is not under the care of a licensed
counselor?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: You are aware that he was not taking his medications as he
was ordered?
****(He was never ordered. It was always voluntary.)
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Now subsequent to your child being removed you were
present at an ISP, is that correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: And visitations were afforded to you, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: And during those visits they were occurring 3 times a week
for 4 hours, is that correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: And during those visitations you would hold the baby,
correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: And then Mr. Holm would leave for about 30 minutes but
then he would leave for a substantial amount of time, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: That during those visits Mr. Holm was not ever interacting
with the child, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Because Mr. Holm said, in fact, the baby needed your
energy, not his, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Isn’t it true that you have referred to Ms. Jackson as the
devil?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: You referred to her as Lucifer?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: You referred to others at DHR as Lucifer and as the devil?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Isn’t it true that on November 14, 2016, you went to the
Department of Human Resources and informed them that you no longer
wanted to visit with your child?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: And that subsequent to that you then submitted a letter
which has been previously been entered into evidence wherein you made
threats to file liens against everyone involved in the case, for at least from
the department’s perspective for a lien of one billion dollars, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Then on the 16th you went back to the Department of
Human Resources and stated you did want to visit.
Judge: Mr. Kirby, made your first objections so I —————–would be
taking this first witness.
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Subsequent to that you expressed concern that your child
would no longer be able to breastfeed, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: The department offered to continue to take breast milk and
give your child breast milk, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: But you said, no, that you know longer wanted that to
happen, that you were afraid that DHR would tamper with the breast milk,
correct?
****(Pretty slick there, Mr. Slinker)
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Isn’t it true that the department as recently as last week
attempted to set up a visit with you?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: And that you elected not to visit your child?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Isn’t it true that at least on one occasion you have informed
Alex Smith that you have named your child Malakhi?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: I’m sorry, Alex Martin. I correct the record. I’m sorry. It’s
the wrong name.
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Does that change your answer if I say Alex Martin?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: And on another occasion you have told Stacey Jackson that
you have named your child Malakhi, is that correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: That is in fact because you have selected the name of
Malakhi for your child, correct?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Can I ask you what your address is?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Can you tell us where you live?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Isn’t it true you are refusing to tell the department where
you live?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Has the department asked you where you live?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Isn’t it true that the department has indicated to you that
with a minimal of cooperation with the department your child could be
returned to you in as little as a month?
****(We know that is a lie. Could be, he says? Maybe it could with a
presidential order. Not much else could make it happen, not even a
congressional investigation. But putting these words into the record makes
the “benevolent” state sound good, now doesn’t it?)
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: That they have offered to visit your home?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: And offered to set up counseling?
****(Apparently for the rest of their natural lives, according to the
testimony of Ms. Couch, and that would be enforced, not voluntary.
Anyone still feeling good about seeking mental health services in
America?)
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: Offered to set up a psychiatric evaluation?
****(A psychiatrist is necessary for enforced pharmacological treatment
for the couple’s “schizophrenic” religious beliefs, according to previous
testimony by expert witness, Ms. Couch and the DSM5 new American
standard bible which apparently has replaced the constitution and the
Holy Bible that so many yet believe in.)
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: They have provided gas vouchers for you to be able to get
to visitation?
Danielle: I would like to invoke my 5th amendment.
Mr. Schlenker: I don’t think I have any other questions for her.
Judge: Mr. Kirby.
Mr. Kirby: No questions.
Guardian: I don’t have any questions at this time.
Judge: You can step down. Call your next witness. Who is your next
witness?
Mr. Schlenker: Ms. Jackson.
Judge: Mr. Kirby, Ms. Jackson will be the next witness testifying. Who
will be cross-examination of Ms. Jackson?
Mr. Kirby: I’ll be handling it.
Judge: Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Can you state your name?
Ms. Jackson: Stacey Jackson.
Mr. Schlenker: Ms. Jackson, where are you employed?
Ms. Jackson: Cleburne County DHR.
Mr. Schlenker: And how long have you been employed there?
Ms. Jackson: About 15 months.
Mr. Schlenker: And what do you do there?
Ms. Jackson: A social worker.
Mr. Schlenker: And as part of your duties, were you assigned at least for a
period of time the case of baby boy Holm?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: And can you tell us how you first became involved with
that case?
Ms. Jackson: On October 11th I received a report with some concerns
stating that there was a family at RMC who had just given birth to a
newborn baby boy. Their concerns were that they were living in a tent on
Cheaha and that there was some bizarre behaviors with it.
****(Ah….the story keeps changing. Has anyone noticed that?)
Mr. Schlenker: Based on that, what did you do?
Ms. Jackson: I contacted the family at Regional.
Mr. Schlenker: Tell us a little bit about how you made contact with them.
Ms. Jackson: At that time I made contact with Mr. and Mrs. Holm in their
hospital room. When I walked in they stated that they had actually wanted
to speak with a social worker, and I asked them kinda what their story
was…how they ended up in Calhoun County.
Mr. Schlenker: What did they say?
Ms. Jackson: They stated that they had met on-line a few years previously
and that they had had what they called an awakening at the same time, and
Mr. Holm stated that God started sending him revelations, and in those
revelations they were told to sell their belongings and travel the United
States as part of their belief system.
****(How many missionaries became missionaries without a call from
God? Know the answer? None. None, because that is the only way a
person becomes a missionary. You will hear a similar story from each and
every one because that is how you enter that occupation.)
Mr. Schlenker: What else did he say?
Judge: I’m sorry, ———–what?
Ms. Jackson: Their beliefs.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Schlenker: What else did they say?
Ms. Jackson: They stated that they had traveled through several states,
Florida, Arizona, and had ended up in Alabama in the Montgomery area.
At that time they decided to store their car and to continue their journey on
foot.
Mr. Schlenker: What else did they say?
Ms. Jackson: I asked both parents about their backgrounds. Mr. Holm
stated that he did have a son previously. That son had been adopted. I
asked about previous drug history with both of them. Ms. Holm denied
any drug history. Mr. Holm stated that he did used to be addicted to pain
medication. I asked them about their financial means. Mr. Holm stated that
he received disability, and I asked what that disability was and he stated at
that time that it was anxiety. They stated that while they were traveling
that they would run out of food and water, that they would trust that God
would provide those provisions through strangers.
****(Something tells me that this is not exactly how it went.)
Mr. Schlenker: Did they say anything else?
Ms. Jackson: I asked the family about their family support. Mr. Holm
stated that he was estranged from his family, that his grandfather had left
him a multi-million dollar trust, and that his father had stolen that trust. He
stated that his father and grandfather had worked for very influential
individuals such as President Ford and President Nixon…
****(Truth. Provable.)
Ms. Jackson: …and that through them they had stolen his trust, so he did
not have the financial means and that’s why he didn’t keep in contact with
his family.
****(Safe to say that would do it for most of us.)
Ms. Jackson: Ms. Holm stated that she did not have any friends or family
members that she kept in contact with anymore either.
****(We have learned from Ms. Couch that this is an important question
to ask prospective parents in order to determine if they need their children
removed, because a diagnosis of schizophrenia requires strong family
support. If parents speaks disparagingly regarding their family members
then this is an open invitation for social workers and they know they will
have an easy time taking kids away.Just a tip to keep in mind for those
who still have their children.)
Mr. Schlenker: Did they say anything else at this time?
Ms. Jackson: Not at that time.
Mr. Schlenker: Okay. So then what happened?
Ms. Jackson: At that time law enforcement had come to the hospital and
they had concerns about the identity of Mr. and Mrs. Holm. They felt like
their name was similar and they lived in an area at the time that two
individuals were arrested for human trafficking and drug smuggling. At
that time law enforcement went into the room, asked Mr. Holm to come
with them…
Mr. Kirby: I’m going to object to her testifying to what law enforcement
said to the Holms. She is testifying basically that another person said
something and that person is not available.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, it is not offered for the truth of the matter or to
show action conforming with. I think she was present for this, and I think
she has later actions that tie into what was happening at that time.
Judge: Based on that I am going to overrule the objection, but let’s keep it
limited.
Mr. Schlenker: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Jackson: At that time Mr. Holm went into another room to speak with
law enforcement. There was some concerns about weapons that were in
open view and he was asked to surrender those weapons because the
hospital was a no weapon area.
Mr. Schlenker: Were you present when they searched a bag?
Ms. Jackson: I was not.
Mr. Schlenker: What did you do next?
Ms. Jackson: At that time we were able to confirm Ms. Holm’s identity.
She had a valid I.D. They attempted to confirm Mr. Holm’s identity and
his social security number and his I.D. came back as not on file.
Mr. Schlenker: Was an explanation provided by either of the parents as to
why that might be?
Ms. Jackson: At that time Mr. Holm was…I did not ask for his explanation
because at that time he stated that I was causing chaos or that I was satan.
So I spoke with Ms. Holm who stated that she didn’t think it was that
strange that his information didn’t come back on file because his
grandfather and his father were involved with the Free Masons, and she
stated that the Free Masons, his family as well as the executive branch of
the United States…
Mr. Kirby: Judge, can…I’m sorry. I don’t mean to cut you off but would
this have been…can I take the recorder off for just a second?
Judge: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: What you are testifying to here today, would that have been
contained in your narrative associated with this case?
Ms. Jackson: About what Ms. Holm stated…
Mr. Kirby: About what the Holms said, I mean either of the Holms said to
you?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: That would have been contained in the narrative?
Ms. Jackson: Uh..hmmm.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, I’m going to ask that she not be allowed to testify as to
what’s in her narrative. We weren’t provided her narrative before today. So,
I’m going to ask that any testimony that might have been contained in her
narrative be stricken from the record and that she’d be advised not to
testify anymore about her interactions with the Holms that would be
contained in her narrative.
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, the records have been produced. They have
had an opportunity to review. At best it is a discovery issue. The discovery
issue can be procured up until the day of trial. They have now seen it.
They know what’s contained in it, and in addition Mr. and Mrs. Holm
themselves were present. They know what happened that day. It is not a
surprise to anyone in this courtroom what is contained in that record
regarding what the Holms said. They were present. They are also the ones
who made those comments, and so, again, there is no prejudice as to the
parent’s position saying that they had no knowledge of all this because,
again, they are the party who made these statements themselves. And
they’ve already testified to it at shelter care, at least quite a bit of this as I
understand.
****(The Holms were present for the actual events. These creative events
from state’s witnesses require some lawyer skills to flush out the false
testimony. This takes a little time to think through. Thus, Mr. Kirby has a
valid point.)
Mr. Kirby: I don’t know what was testified to at shelter care so I don’t
know if that is true or not. Still, Ms. Jackson coming up here and testifying
about what could have been…should have been provided to us prior to
today the day of trial…or actually it’s late. It should have been provided to
us before December 5th, but I’ve just got to ask the court to not allow this
testimony to go on any further about her interactions and beliefs and
observations and personal opinions of the Holms that would have been
contained in her narrative that we haven’t had a chance to examine before
today.
Mr. Schlenker: In addition your honor, the mother has also been asked
about this on cross-examination, under direct examination by the state.
She has chosen to assert her 5th amendment right. This is no surprise. They
have known this is coming. Again, they said it. They have had an
opportunity to repudiate it. They have elected not to, so apparently I would
assume that means that it is true. Again, these are all things that they are
aware of.
Judge: Anything else?
Mr. Kirby: No ma’am.
Judge: Mr. and Mrs. Holm were apparently there or it was asserted they
were there. These were statements that they made in conversation with
worker. Given that, it is not a surprise to them what this testimony is.
However…so I’m going to overrule it. If you want a little additional
time…uh…earlier when I made the ruling on the records, your clients did
not wish to ask for a continuance. Is that still your position?
Mr. Kirby: The Holms would like to continue.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Schlenker: What else did she say, if anything? Actually, let me go
back? Did you finish that answer because I know he interrupted you?
I believe you were stating that…
Ms. Jackson: She…I had asked why she felt like Mr. Holm’s
information…you know…if she had any idea why it came back not on file,
and she stated that his father and grandfather and the Free Masons were in
conspiracy basically with the president to erase it, that it did not surprise
her that his social security number and I.D. were erased from the system.
Mr. Schlenker: All right, so after they attempted to identify both mom and
dad, what happens?
Ms. Jackson: At that time after they attempted to identify them I made
contact with my supervisor and stated to her what my concerns at that time
were.
Mr. Schlenker: What were your concerns at that time?
Ms. Jackson: I had a few concerns. My main concern was that Mr. and
Mrs. Holm both were displaying some signs of grandeur, some thoughts
of…
Mr. Kirby: Judge, I’m going to object to the testimony. She is testifying to
a medical diagnosis, and I guess if she is going to testify to a medical
diagnosis maybe the state needs to qualify her as an expert.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I think she is able to testify to what her assessment
was based on her training and understanding…again, it’s not expert
testimony, but she is telling you what she saw at that point in time, what
her concerns were.
****(Does anyone remember how Mr. Schlenker stopped all the questions
of feelings or beliefs that were attempted to be asked of state’s witnesses
because they weren’t expert enough and so could not be permitted to give
answers? He seems to feel completely different about these things when
the shoe is on the other foot, now doesn’t he? Wonder if the judge will
continue to go along with him in this?)
Judge: Well, it’s not…I didn’t take that as a diagnosis. I just took that…and
it may be because that is a term I am familiar with…I’m assuming when
you are referring to her signs of grandeur?
Mr. Kirby: Yes. Can I take the witness of ——————for just a minute?
Judge: Sure.
Mr. Kirby: Ms. Jackson, what all training have you had?
Ms. Jackson: I have a…um…education is ————?
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Jackson: I have a bachelor’s degree in social work with a certification
in child welfare, a master’s degree in social work from the University of
Tennessee in clinical social work. I am a licensed graduate social worker. I
have a master’s degree in public safety with a specialization in criminal
justice and that’s my education.
Mr. Kirby: That’s your education? What’s your training?
Ms. Jackson: I have worked in child welfare for six years. I have also
worked doing assessments for the state to do diagnostic impressions for
substance abuse and mental health issues.
Mr. Kirby: Are you a licensed counselor?
Ms. Jackson: I’m a licensed social worker.
Mr. Kirby: You are a licensed social worker. What’s the difference between
a licensed social worker and a licensed counselor?
Ms. Jackson: The degree. Social worker degree, counseling degree.
Mr. Kirby: As a licensed social worker are you able to make diagnosis?
Are you able to interview people and make diagnosis of their mental
illness?
Ms. Jackson: I can make diagnostic impressions.
Ms. Kirby: What are those? What are diagnostic impressions?
Ms. Jackson: Basically I cannot diagnose but through my training and
through my education be able to meet with people and speak with them
about their past history, past mental health history, past substance abuse
history, and make impressions based on the DSM.
Mr. Kirby: But you can’t make any recommendations as to treatment, can
you?
Ms. Jackson: Substance abuse treatment…uh…mental health treatment…I
mean, maybe not recommendations, but…
Mr. Kirby: Substance abuse treatment but you can’t make assessments to
somebody’s mental health conditions?
Ms. Jackson: I can make the diagnostic impression if I feel like there is a
present mental health issue based on my training in the DSM.
Mr. Kirby: Then how often do you use that, making diagnostic
impressions?
Ms. Jackson: I mean in social work, especially with DHR you are always
working with people who have co-occurring disorders, depression,
anxiety…there is always an opportunity to see diagnostic impressions.
Mr. Kirby: But you can’t testify as an expert about anybody’s mental
condition, can you?
Ms. Jackson: I’m not sure.
****(But you are sure about removing children, and often permanently,
from people who give you impressions?)
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, I object because she has not been offered as an
expert.
Mr. Kirby: I understand.
Judge:—————–
Mr. Kirby: Uh…you can’t offer testimony as to anybody’s diagnosis…uh,
mental health diagnosis, can you?
Ms. Jackson: I cannot diagnose anyone if that’s what you are asking.
Mr. Kirby: Yeah. Okay. So you can’t diagnose anyone. You can’t make that
determination of what somebody has whether it be schizophrenia,
delusions or anything like that, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: No. I’m not a psychiatrist.
Mr. Kirby: Okay and you’re not a psychologist?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: That’s all I have, your honor.
Judge: And your objection to ————-…
Mr. Kirby: I’m objecting to her testifying to anything she thought might be
a diagnosis of Mr. and Mrs. Holm.
Mr. Schlenker: And yet her testimony of just a moment ago was that she is
able to make diagnostic impressions based on what she has seen right
there in front of her, though. But she is not making a diagnostic
impression…but it is unreasonable to think that a person is not going to use
their education and knowledge in part of their assessments, particularly
when they are a social worker for the department which is exactly what
she has testified.
****(Especially if that knowledge and education is based in prejudice
against people of faith or of different beliefs, and against people who do
not adhere to the presently acceptable political viewpoints taught in
modern textbooks. It is a modern day witch hunt.)
Judge: And you were asking her what her concerns were, and I was
unclear as to when she said parents displaying signs of grandeur, whether
or not that was a diagnostic impression…and I believe that is what is
generating Mr. Kirby’s objection…or whether it’s just a general signs of
grandeur means, okay…I just saw this and this is the way I talk, my syntax.
I certainly understand what grandeur means. It’s a common word in the
dictionary so if you want to clear that up…
****(So is motherhood a common word but the security guard wasn’t able
to speak about the natural feelings a mother might have when her
newborn was being ripped away from her and Tammy as a woman could
not testify to anything regarding what a mother would feel. Here is
someone who can pretend to be a doctor and with “her” diagnosis”
permanently remove a newborn in a hospital. Still want to deliver your
baby in a hospital? How about RMC in Anniston?)
Mr. Schlenker: When you say grandeur, what are you referring to?
Ms. Jackson: Mr. Holm would make statements about how powerful his
family was and how powerful their influence was and how basically how
important he was and where he came from was…
****(Truth, not grandeur. He actually remains quite humble when one
realizes his family connections.)
Ms. Jackson: …and how their influence reached to the president…
****(That would be a given when one works for the protection of
presidents, right?)
Ms. Jackson: …and that the president had influence over the things that
were happening that day at the hospital.
****(This statement is not true. More twisting going on than Chubby
Checker.)
Mr. Schlenker: All right, so you said grandeur. What were your other
concerns?
Ms. Jackson: Other concerns were…kinda goes hand in hand with the
grandeur, kind of the thoughts that he had of persecution that I was
causing this chaos…
****(Did you not just TAKE HIS BABY?)
Ms. Jackson: …And he called me satan several times…
****(I would have. He didn’t. AND did you not just take his baby and
destroy his beloved wife? The real satan could have done no better, but he
didn’t call you that. This small courtroom is obsessed with the devil.)
Ms. Jackson:…and stated that we had an alternate purpose to be there, that
his family was out to get him, that his family was out to steal his identity
and steal his fortune.
****(You, Ms. Jackson, are delusional if you really believe all of that.
Christian believes his fortune was stolen because it actually was. Fact and
truth.)
Mr. Schlenker: Was that the alternate purpose of why you were there, to
have the family steal his fortune?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Schlenker: Did he tell you why your alternate purpose was there?
Ms. Jackson: To steal…umm…
****(Perhaps the baby? Obviously steal the baby?)
Mr. Schlenker: All right. What other concerns, so grandeur, thoughts of
persecution, and what else?
Ms. Jackson: There were concerns clearly about their identity, about Mr.
Holm’s identity…whether or not he was who law enforcement suspected
who he was.
Mr. Schlenker: Would those eventually rectify? Strike that. Is his identity
at this time a concern to you?
Ms. Jackson: No. I believe he is who he says he is.
Mr. Schlenker: Okay. What other concerns do you have? Did you have,
I’m sorry?
Ms. Jackson: There were concerns at the time where, you know what we
talked about where the family was living, that they had a newborn baby, a
vulnerable child and that they were living in the elements in a tent on
Cheaha when it was starting to get colder. Specifically though, that they
did not have any provisions for the baby.
****(A false presupposition that camping with a young infant is illegal. It
is not. Additionally this is followed by two false statements. If enough
people testify to a lie it still doesn’t make it true, but in the prejudiced
court system it will be sufficient to allow the state to keep the baby.)
Mr. Schlenker: What do you mean by provisions?
Ms. Jackson: I asked them when I initially made contact with them if they
had things for the baby, a place for the baby to sleep, bottles and things
like that? They stated that God would provide everything that they needed.
Mr. Schlenker: Did you see that day what, if any, provisions they had?
Ms. Jackson: I did not see any provisions they had.
Mr. Schlenker: Did they tell you they had any provisions?
Ms. Jackson: They stated that they did not. They stated they didn’t need it.
****(Lying on the witness stand is a felony. This is a lie.)
Judge: I’m sorry?
Ms. Jackson: They stated they did not need any.
Christian: That’s a lie.
Mr. Schlenker: What, if any other concerns, did you have, or is that all of
them?
Ms. Jackson: That was all of them.
Mr. Schlenker: All right. Based on those concerns, you removed the child?
Ms. Jackson: Yeah.
Mr. Schlenker: And can you tell us about the removal of the child?
Ms. Jackson: At that time myself and the investigator, Rachel Israel, with
the Calhoun County Sheriff’s Department or Children’s Center, I’m sorry,
and the head of security, Mr. Hayworth…also there was a DHR intern,
went into the room and made contact with Ms. Holm. At that time
investigator Israel informed Ms. Holm that the department was going to be
taking custody of the baby. Ms. Holm was holding the baby when she was
told that and she started to squeeze the baby. Rachel told her not to
squeeze the baby so tightly and Ms. Holm continued to, and Rachel
informed her that if she continued to hold the baby as tightly as she was
that she was going to press charges. At that time Ms. Holm went to stand
up…
****(How? She was still numb from her anesthesia? She was unable to
leave the bed or even attempt it…)
Ms. Jackson: She didn’t stand up. She just made the motion like she was
going to stand up. Investigator Israel went to one side of the bed and Mr.
Hayworth went to the other side of the bed. At that time the baby was
taken into custody.
Mr. Schlenker: During that time was Ms. Holm breastfeeding?
Ms. Jackson: Absolutely not.
****(This appears to be an important issue. The state keeps revisiting it.
It is either for the reasons of public relations or else they wish to portray
Danielle as a liar, but several have testified that baby was under cover so
how is it that they are so sure? Newborns get no milk the first couple of
days when they nurse, just little drops of colostrum, and so they do NOT
let go when they are nursing because their sucking instinct is very strong
and there is no reason for them to stop. They will not get satiated because
the milk has not come in, and if they fall asleep they will remain latched
and keep nursing in their sleep. Neonates have to be physically unlatched
from the breast during these first days. All mothers who ever nursed will
know this is true. The state’s witness are all liars. I believe Danielle. But
one has to ask, why are they all lying about this?)
Mr. Schlenker: What was her condition at that time?
Ms. Jackson: She was sitting on the bed and she was holding the baby in
her right arm, and she had been breastfeeding the baby. She was done. Her
gown was back up covering her breast.
****(The security guard told a different story and so did Officer Israel, I
believe. They both testified that there was a cover thrown over for privacy
during the time she was breastfeeding.)
Mr. Schlenker: Following taking the child into custody, what happened?
Ms. Jackson: Um…while we were taking the child…while we were taking
the child into custody Ms. Holm became very upset and started making
statements stating you don’t know who this child is, you don’t know what
you are doing. You are satan…just very upset, and her words presented as
delusional. She was stating that we didn’t rightfully…
****(Lies, except for the being upset part.)
Mr. Kirby: I object, your honor. She’s testifying as to a diagnosis. Clearly,
Ms. Couch testified to a diagnosis of delusional. She is testifying as to a
diagnosis. Is she going to qualify to testify to that? She is not qualified to
make that decision.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, she is not testifying that that’s a diagnosis. That is
her lay opinion as to what it is and she is entitled to have an opinion as to
what she was seeing at that point in time, and I think the court is well able
to determine whether or not she is making a diagnosis or not, which she
has not done.
Judge: I’m going to overrule the objection. Let’s not be as loose with our
words.
****(Of course you are…and what exactly does that mean?)
Mr. Schlenker: Did Ms. Holm make any statements regarding the deity of
the child?
Ms. Jackson: She said that the child was from God.
****(Well duh…They all are.)
Mr. Schlenker: Did she ever declare he was a prophet?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Can you tell us what specifically she said?
Ms. Jackson: She stated, you don’t know who this child is. This child is
from God. Get back, satan, and then stated he was a prophet.
****(Lies. Perjury is a felony.)
Mr. Schlenker: So subsequent to the removal, what happened?
Ms. Jackson: After the baby was brought into custody, I took him into the
nursery and spoke with the nursery staff regarding the baby. They
informed me that they felt like there was some tests that they felt like the
baby needed as well as some other medical things that they wanted to do
to the baby at that time. They stated that Ms. Holm had expressed during
delivery that she had labored in water, that she had labored outside. They
were concerned about infection. They felt like the baby needed a…
****(More lies. Danielle had never labored in water. She has enough
medical training and experience to know not to do that, plus she has
repeatedly stated she only wanted to be near water, to look at it. The
biggest lie is that the baby could have infection. He was born en caul.
There could be no infection or any danger of it with this extremely rare
birth presentation. It means he was completely encased in the bag of
waters and the sac of waters never broke. He was literally a “sterile
child” and the nurses would have the medical training to understand that.
Someone needs to get a nurse to testify to the truth and show the state’s
witness for the perjurer that she is.)
Mr. Kirby: I’m going to object to any more testimony. She is testifying as
to what somebody else said. This is hearsay.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Schlenker: Subsequent to that conversation, did you have occasion to
have another conversation with Ms. Holm regarding concerns of the
hospital?
Ms. Jackson: Concerns of what?
Mr. Schlenker: Concerns of the medical needs of the child.
Ms. Jackson: After they laid out what they felt they needed, I made contact
with Ms. Holm to speak with her about the things that they wanted done
with the baby to see what her opinion was.
Mr. Schlenker: And what was her opinion?
Ms. Jackson: She stated that…at the time she stated that they had not told
her the medical concerns that they had for the baby and she would have
consented to the medical tests, but that she did not want the hepatitis
vaccination series and that they were adamantly against the baby having a
vaccination.
Mr. Schlenker: What did you do with that after she had informed you with
that?
Ms. Jackson: I immediately told the nursery staff that the baby was to have
no vaccinations.
Mr. Schlenker: What was your specific directive with regards to the
medical care for the child?
Ms. Jackson: Only medically necessary tests and treatment could be done.
Mr. Schlenker: Subsequent to that conversation, what if anything
happened?
Ms. Jackson: That’s all———–
Mr. Schlenker: Shortly thereafter, did you stop being the caseworker on
the case?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Were you present, though, for the initial ISP?
Ms. Jackson: I was.
Mr. Schlenker:As…not in the —————what was discussed in the ISP
but what was part of that was visitation arranged?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Do you recall what the frequency of that visitation was?
Ms. Jackson: Three days a week for three hours.
Mr. Schlenker: Did you ever have occasion to supervise any visits?
Ms. Jackson: I didn’t directly supervise but I did go into several visits.
****(And the purpose being? You just stated you were no longer her case
worker and now it seems you are? Which is it?)
Mr. Schlenker: And what was the purpose of those visits? Or what was the
purpose of going in there to those visits?
Ms. Jackson: The first visit that I went into I had a conversation with Ms.
Holm regarding just how she was feeling. She said that she had some
depression issues which was natural. We discussed her visit and how
things were going. Another visit, they had just named the baby, and I
congratulated them on the name and told them that I liked the name…
****(This is another issue the state is desperate to get into court
transcript. For some reason they need to have this baby officially named
by the parents. The parents have repeatedly stated they have NOT named
the baby.)
Ms. Jackson: Malakhi.
Mr. Schlenker: Do you know how they spell it?
Ms. Jackson: They did not tell me how to spell it.
Mr. Schlenker: What were the other occasions?
Ms. Jackson: On one occasion I asked Mr. Holm to sign an additional
release of information for Social Security.
Mr. Schlenker: During the time that you were on the case did you help
assist purchasing items for Ms. Holm to be able to breastfeed?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Can you tell me what you purchased?
Ms. Jackson: Breast pump, a can of nipple cream and storage containers.
****(Is there not any of these people testifying who have ever nursed a
baby before? You can’t pump milk and keep your milk in for any length of
time without also having a baby. Not possible.)
Mr. Schlenker: What was the purpose of that?
Ms. Jackson: In order for her to provide breast milk.
Mr. Schlenker: How was she going to provide breast milk to the child? I
mean can you just tell us?
****(Good question.)
Ms. Jackson: Yeah. During ISP we discussed that she would pump the
breast milk and bring it to the department so that the foster parents could
give it to the baby.
Mr. Schlenker: And did she do that?
Ms. Jackson: For a short time.
Danielle: (whispering) I tried.
****(No guilt, Danielle. It is physiologically impossible. You did your best
under tremendously difficult circumstances.)
Mr. Schlenker: No other questions at this time.
Judge: Mr. Kirby.
Mr. Kirby: If you don’t mind, tell us again how you got notified of this
case, and how was that?
Ms. Jackson: We received a report stating that there was a family staying
at Regional Medical Center, and that they had given birth to a child, and
that they were living in a tent on Cheaha, and that there was concerns for
some things that they had told the hospital.
Mr. Kirby: Can I ask who reported that to you?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, we would object. The identity of the reporter is
confidential.
Mr. Kirby: You don’t have to name the person but was it a hospital
employee?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, we would object to any identifying information
regarding the report.
****(Good to know, Mr. Schlenker. Please understand, anyone who is
hearing of this. This is in direct violation of every American’s 6th
Amendment right to the United States Constitution which states that the
accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against
him. Because this is called “civil court” they deny this basic right,
ANYONE can make an anonymous phone call and report you for any
made up situation, and then your child can be permanently removed. Once
the state gets the child, they intend to keep them and you will never know
who made the allegation, you will never be accused of any crime, and you
will suffer a punishment more severe than any other for doing absolutely
nothing at all. Insult upon injury is you can immediately go to prison if
you tell anyone what is happening and all the trials are held in secret. The
Holm trial shall not remain secret! People need to know the ever present
danger to themselves and especially their children. People need to be
shown how it is accomplished.)
Mr. Kirby: I don’t know the employee position is a confidential, something
that should be considered confidential. Name, I understand, but was it a
nurse, caseworker?
Mr. Schlenker: Again, I object. That has the occasion to limit it down to
who might have been their reporter. There should be no disclosures
whatsoever of who the reporter might be.
****(What is the difference between us now and what Soviet Russia was
in the 1950’s? How do you feel about trusting your medical care
professionals, any state, federal or county employees you do business
with, or your child’s teacher? What about the pastor? Everyone is a
mandated reporter and gets this identical immunity.)
Judge: Any response to that objection?
Mr. Kirby: I want to review that information, your honor.
Judge: I’m going to sustain it. I don’t know that for the purposes of saying,
All right. Where were they from? Even…um…where…I’m not real sure
your point or your position, or why you are going there. You certainly
have the right to ask it.
Mr. Kirby: Well, I am just trying to get her exact involvement, trying to
establish a timeline for her involvement and how she got involved in this
case. We can move on, your honor.
Judge: That’s good, because my understanding of Ms. Jackson’s testimony
today was that she re…almost opening sentences…received a report and
investigated that report. And then went to the hospital to investigate the
report.
Mr. Kirby: What day was that that you went to the hospital?
Ms. Jackson: October 11th.
Mr. Kirby: October 11th. You remember what time?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t specifically but after lunch, though.
Mr. Kirby: It was after lunch? Was it…
Ms. Jackson: The afternoon.
Mr. Kirby: Was it before dark?
Ms. Jackson: I would say around 2:00, 2:30.
Mr. Kirby: 2:00 or 2:30? Okay, so you went to the hospital then, is that
correct?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Now, did your supervisor tell you to go to the hospital, to
check on this?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t recall.
Mr. Kirby: Or did you take the report or did somebody else…
Ms. Jackson: No, I received the report.
Mr. Kirby: You received the report directly?
Ms. Jackson: No, from…I would…my supervisor…is who…and she screens
all of our reports.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. So that would be Ms. Smith?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, so you were directed to go to the hospital by Ms. Smith?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: You did and it was after lunch, right? You sure you don’t know
what time it was?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t specifically, no. I would say close to 2:00.
Mr. Kirby: Were you there to pick up this baby under a juvenile pickup
order?
Ms. Jackson: Initially when I got there, is that what you are asking?
Mr. Kirby: Well, when you were dispatched from here to there was it your
understanding that there was a juvenile pickup order that..
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: Did you give any sworn testimony that would cause a juvenile
pickup order to be issued?
Ms. Jackson: Did I…repeat the question, I’m sorry.
Mr. Kirby: Did you come to the court and give any sworn testimony that
would have caused a juvenile pickup order to be issued?
Ms. Jackson: I did not come to the court that day.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Was there any discussion between you and your
supervisor regarding a juvenile pickup order?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And when was that discussion?
Ms. Jackson: That day.
Mr. Kirby: On your way to the hospital?
Ms. Jackson: No, after I made contact with the family, after the identity
stuff occurred, I made contact about the concerns.
Mr. Kirby: Let me ask you about the identity real quick because you said
Ms. Holm…they were able to identify Ms. Holm immediately. Was that
correct?
Ms. Jackson: Yeah.
Mr. Kirby: And when you entered the hospital or when you entered the
labor and delivery room, I guess…
Ms. Jackson: Postpartum.
Mr. Kirby: Postpartum? Let me just back up. All right, so you didn’t know
about any juvenile pickup order and you hadn’t sworn to anything to cause
a juvenile pickup order to be issued prior to leaving or to go to the
hospital?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Ask and answer.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: And you first spoke with your supervisor about a juvenile
pickup order…
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Ask and answer.
Mr. Kirby: Is your supervisor here?
Ms. Jackson: Okay.
Mr. Kirby: Did she advise you that there would be a pickup order?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection as to what she said. That would be hearsay.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: All right. When did you first have knowledge of a juvenile
pickup order?
Ms. Jackson: After I made contact with my supervisor and expressed my
concerns, at that time we decided that they would file for a pickup order.
Mr. Kirby: That they would file for a pickup order?
Ms. Jackson: The department would file for a pickup order.
Mr. Kirby: Did you tell the hospital that you were there under a juvenile
pickup order?
****(A security guard has already testified that this is true. Let’s see what
she says.)
Ms. Jackson: Initial…when? Initially, when I made contact with the
hospital?
Mr. Kirby: At any time did you tell the hospital that you were there under
a juvenile pickup order?
Ms. Jackson: After the pickup order was obtained, they knew that there
was a pickup order.
Mr. Kirby: After the pickup order was obtained, they knew that there was
a pickup order? Then you don’t remember, would you have picked up that
child prior to a pickup order be an issue?
Ms. Jackson: Taken the child…
Mr. Kirby: Would you have taken the child? Sorry, I just phrased it
wrong…taken the child away without the juvenile pickup order being in
place?
Ms. Jackson: The department can do a summary removal, but in this case
we did have a pickup order.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. So you were operating under the impression that when
you took the child you had a juvenile pickup order in place, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: There was one, yes.
Mr. Kirby: There was one. Ms. Jackson, I’m going to show you a
document and ask you if you recognize what that document is?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I object. I’ve not been shown that document.
Mr. Kirby: Oh. I’m sorry.
Judge: Do you need—————–, Mr. Kirby?
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am. Do you want to label this respondent?
Judge: Uh…let’s just put it parents.
Mr. Kirby: Parents, exhibit 1. I’m going to show you what I’ve labeled as
parents, exhibit 1. Do you recognize that document?
Ms. Jackson: It’s a juvenile pickup order.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Have you seen those a lot?
Ms. Jackson: Yeah.
Mr. Kirby: As a DHR caseworker?
Ms. Jackson: I’ve seen them, yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Can you tell me what the first box checked there is, on
the juvenile pickup order?
Ms. Jackson: The child has no parent, legal guardian, legal custodian, or
other suitable person able to provide supervision and care for the child.
Mr. Kirby: Read the statement right above that first box, I’m sorry.
Ms. Jackson: Based upon a sworn statement presented to the juvenile
court, that the above named child needs to be placed in detention or shelter
or other care —-(before it finds the following? unclear, couldn’t
comprehend)
Mr. Kirby: Okay. The child has no legal guardian. Is that correct? That’s
willing to take care of it…
Ms. Jackson: That’s what it states.
Mr. Kirby: Now, down below there, do you see Judge Walker’s signature
anywhere?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Do you see a date on there?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: What date is that?
Ms. Jackson: October 11, 2016.
Mr. Kirby: And is there a time associated with that?
Ms. Jackson: Uh…huh. It says 3: 20, or 5:20. Does it say 5:20? I’m sorry.
5: 20?
Mr. Kirby: 5:20?
Ms. Jackson: Yeah.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. That would be your testimony that it is 5:20? What about
the recorded time stamp on that? Do you see recorded time stamp?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I would object. The best evidence of this document
would be the original. I believe the court has a copy of.
Mr. Kirby: Well, we would ask the court to take judicial notice that it is
already a record. It is the court’s pickup order for the child.
Judge: Right. It’s ————document #1 in the system, I believe. If what
she is looking at is what I am looking at electronically?
Mr. Kirby: I guess, 5…
Judge: It’s time stamped electronically 5:24 pm?
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: And when she said 3 or maybe 5, I looked at my handwriting and
thought, Oh my goodness. I am so sorry.
Mr. Kirby: For the record the witness has identified parent’s exhibit 1, and
again the testimony is 5:20. Is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: Uh…hmmm.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. I offer parent’s exhibit 1as evidence.
Judge: Any objections?
Ms. Schlenker: No, ma’am
Guardian: No objections.
Mr. Kirby: And I’m sorry, I don’t remember. Did you tell me that you told
somebody in the hospital that you were there, that you had a pickup order
for the child?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. This has been asked and answered.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. So if the timestamp on that, on what’s been entered as
parent’s exhibit 1 is 5:20 and filed at 5:24, would it be your testimony that
you ended up taking the child after 5:20?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Judge, I’m going to, and Mr. Hamlin you have had a
chance to examine the medical records from the hospital, have you not?
Or Mr. Schlenker?
(male voice): There was two of them there.
Mr. Kirby: I’m sorry, your honor. I’m a bit organized here. Your honor, I’m
going to offer this here baby boy Holm’s medical records that have been
properly certified as business records. The department has had a chance to
review them, and it’s not for any medical expert opinions. It’s established
dates and times. I move that they’d be admitted.
Judge: Any objection from the guardian?
Guardian: No, your honor.
Mr. Kirby: Did you get a chance to look at them?
Guardian: Briefly, but I didn’t get a copy of them.
Mr. Kirby: You want them?
Guardian: That would be helpful.
Mr. Kirby: Ms. Jackson, you testified that your supervisor took the report,
is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t know who took the report.
Mr. Kirby: Did you have a conversation with a social worker at the
hospital named Sherry Gay on 10-12 at 7:49 in the morning?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: You didn’t? So if that was part of these records then…
Ms. Jackson: Tell me what day again?
Mr. Kirby: 10-12-2016 at 7:49.
Ms. Jackson: I did.
Mr. Kirby: You did?
Ms. Jackson: Sorry. I thought you said 10-11. That was the day after
removal.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. You remember what that conversation was about?
Ms. Jackson: I called to check how the baby was doing from the night
before. I don’t believe that I spoke with Sherry Gay. I spoke with the
nursery staff.
Mr. Kirby: You spoke with the nursery staff?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: So if Ms Gay put in her notes that she spoke with you she
would be lying?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t recall that.
Mr. Kirby: On October 11th, did you speak with a nurse named Karen
Smith?
Ms. Jackson: I spoke with several nurses that day. I did speak with many
members of the nursing staff.
Mr. Kirby: So if nurse Smith put into her notes that have been admitted
into the record to nursery in arms of Stacey Jackson, Cleburne County
DHR, and it was noted at 10-11-2016 at 16:55, do you understand what
16:55 is?
Ms. Jackson: 4:55.
Mr. Kirby: 4:55. Okay. Would that be prior to when the pickup order was
issued?
Ms. Jackson: The pickup order said 5:24.
Mr. Kirby: The pickup order said 5:20? So 16:55 would be prior to you
having a pickup order to pick that child up, would it not?
Ms. Jackson: That time would have been prior to it, but my supervisor had
faxed over a copy of the pickup order for us, or somebody from our office.
Mr. Kirby: Your supervisor faxed over a copy of the pickup order? Did the
hospital…When did they fax that over?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t know the exact time.
Mr. Kirby: Was it that day?
Ms. Jackson: Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Kirby: Did you see the copy of the pickup order?
Ms. Jackson: Yes. We showed it to the mother.
Mr. Kirby: You showed it to the mother?
Ms. Jackson: Yes. Rachel Israel did.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Was that prior to taking the child?
Ms. Jackson: I believe so. I’m not 100% sure.
****(Not possible. This is not true.)
Mr. Kirby: Okay. But if you’re taking the baby to the nursery at 16:55 and
the pickup order wasn’t signed till 5:20, how is that possible? How did
you…
Ms. Jackson: I can’t explain that.
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, your honor. I’m going to ask that he let the
witness answer her question before he starts asking another.
Judge: Okay, let her finish.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. I’m sorry.
Ms. Jackson: I cannot explain the discrepancy.
****(It was illegal.)
Mr. Kirby: Okay, and was it your testimony that you showed this pickup
order to Rachel Israel?
Ms. Jackson: No…it was shown….Rachel…it was shown to the mother. The
mother asked to see it.
****(Baby was taken to nursery at 4:20 but there was no pickup order
until 5:20. It wasn’t even signed until 5:20. Impossible for this to have
happened.)
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Was Rachel Israel present?
Ms. Jackson: She was in the room, yes.
Mr. Kirby: She was in the room?
Ms. Jackson: Uh…hmmm.
Mr. Kirby: Where was Rachel Israel? Was she talking to the mother with
you?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And so you were both…let me ask you this…was the mother in
the bed?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Now, where were you? Were you on one side of the
mother or were you…
Ms. Jackson: I was at the foot of the bed.
Mr. Kirby: You were at the foot of the bed? And where was investigator
Israel?
Ms. Jackson: To my right. I’m not exactly sure where, but she was on my
right hand side.
Mr. Kirby: Is that when you showed the mother the pickup order?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. So Rachel Israel would have been there and seen that
pickup order.
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: So, if Rachel Israel testified earlier that she didn’t see the
pickup order, she would be lying?
Ms. Jackson: I’m not sure.
****(Gotcha!)
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object as to asking questions that call
for the mental operations of another because he is asking her to speculate
whether or not someone else is lying.
****(Well, somebody is. Who is it? Ms. Jackson or Ms. Israel?)
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: So is it possible that you didn’t have a pickup order when you
picked up that child?
Ms. Jackson: I had a pickup order.
****(Cute trick. Magical even.)
Mr. Kirby: You had?…your testimony is that you had pickup order in hand,
you showed that pickup order to the mother, and you took that child.
Ms. Jackson: I’m not sure.
****(Want to show us how you did it?)
Mr. Schlenker: Objection judge. Ask and answer, and it’s also cumulative.
****(Maybe so, but he got her!)
Mr. Kirby: Judge, I’m just refreshing my memory as to what she has
testified to.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, she has testified to this, and I think she has testified
to it several times.
Judge: It has been asked and answered several times. It’s…
Mr. Kirby: Okay.
Judge: I get your point, Mr. Kirby. I do. I’m sorry. I was also thumbing
through the medical records as we were——————————
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Your honor, if you are looking for that particular entry in
the records, it is toward the back. It’s nurse’s notes they were generated on,
12-13-2016.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object. It is not proper for counsel to be
pointing the court to where the evidence is. The court is well able to
review the documents and ascertain the evidence as it sees fit.
****(Mr. Schlenker, I bet when you were a little boy you never had any
idea of what you would eventually turn into. Sad.)
Mr. Kirby: Your honor, we will move on. I think it was your testimony that
someone from your office faxed over the pickup order, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: I’m going to ask you to take a look at this document.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object. He has not shown it.
Mr. Kirby: You want to see this?
Mr. Schlenker: I want to see what you are offering.
Mr. Kirby: I’ll show you what I am labeling as parent’s exhibit 3. Do you
recognize the handwriting on that document?
Ms. Jackson: I’m sorry? I don’t. I’m sorry.
Mr. Kirby: Is that not your handwriting?
Ms. Jackson: Right here?
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Jackson: No. It’s not.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. What does that document appear to be?
Ms. Jackson: A fax sheet?
Mr. Kirby: A fax sheet.
Ms. Jackson: Fax cover sheet?
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Can you read the date and time down at the bottom of
the fax cover sheet?
Ms. Jackson: October 12th at 6:23?
Mr. Kirby: Can you flip over and tell me what’s attached to that fax cover
sheet?
Ms. Jackson: A juvenile pickup order.
Mr. Kirby: All right, and is there also another document attached to that?
Ms. Jackson: I have another copy of the juvenile pickup order.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, are those two copies of that juvenile pickup order, are
they the same?
Ms. Jackson: They appear to be the same.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. What is the date that you are reading on that fax?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object. It is a randomly generated…it is
a number generated purported to be a date and time stamp. There is no one
here to authenticate that part of the document. There is no one here to say
that that is or is not in fact set properly, the correct time. This is an
inappropriate line of questioning. We would move to strike this portion of
the testimony and the document.
Mr.Kirby: This document is part of the hospital records that have already
been admitted on baby boy Holm. It has Stacey Jackson’s name on the fax
cover sheet and I think she can testify as to what’s on the fax…
Mr. Schlenker: And judge, she has already…
Mr. Kirby: …date and time.
Mr. Schlenker: She has already testified as to when she got it. Whether
there is a date and time of that, the claim to have a date and time is
irrelevant unless someone is here who can testify to that that is set
correctly to that date and time. This witness has no knowledge of the fax
machine, whether or not it is set properly, whether or not it is maintained
properly or anything else. All she has testified to is I received this fax at
this particular time. Again, unless he can show and produce a witness that
can testify that that is always set properly at the correct time, then again,
this is improper.
Mr. Kirby: Well, surely the state would have their fax machines set
correctly as to date and time.
Judge: Well, given the problems with technology, I don’t know that one
can always assume that. My observations on, and it’s not what you would
think or what I would think or one would think about that. I think Mr.
Schlenker is correct unless you can lay a proper predicate as far as that
particular date, time, and program with that particular fax machine. It’s
sustained.
****(I would think she would think that, so we don’t think there are any
surprises here about anything this judge decides to think.)
Mr. Kirby: There’s no way we would have access to a professional that
could come in, and the state certainly wouldn’t allow us to check their fax
machine.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, it’s the same issue that the department has with
other issues as well, so…
Judge: I’m sorry, ————stands.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, we have had evidentiary problems getting witnesses
here, as well. Witnesses who lived in Savannah, Georgia, so, again…
Judge: Okay. I understand now.
Mr. Kirby: Well, she can testify as to what it purports to say, can she not?
Mr. Schlenker: Sure. There can be no objection because the best evidence
would be then the document itself not heard, the evidence is already in.
Therefore it is cumulative.
Judge: I agree.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. So, let me ask you, did you fax anything to the hospital?
Ms. Jackson: I did not.
Mr. Kirby: You didn’t fax a juvenile pickup order to the hospital?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, so if this document has your name on it, you didn’t put
that on there, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: Yep. And even if I sent a fax, I wouldn’t put my personal cell
phone number on it.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, well why would anybody else?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, judge. Calls for the mental operation of another.
****(Not necessarily. If Ms. Jackson is lying then it doesn’t call for
anything except the truth.)
Mr. Kirby: Withdraw.
Mr. Schlenker: Move to strike.
Judge: So noted.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, since this has already been admitted as part of the baby’s
records, we can either move to admit this document here, which Mr.
Schlenker’s had the opportunity to look at…he’s had the opportunity to
look at those medical records and see that it is a part of the medical
records, or we can just consider it a part of the medical records and let you
review it.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I object to it being offered again because it’s already
part of the medical records. Again, it is cumulative.
Judge: Well, I was going to say if it is part of this stack right here, I’m
seeing what you are saying…
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: However I do need you to leave it here and I will mark that it’s not
been admitted so that I don’t lose track.
Mr. Kirby: Okay.
Judge: Same thing that we did on these other medical records. So that
particular exhibit number 3 was not identified in particular but it by itself
is a part of the medical record identified in —.
Mr. Kirby: Ms. Jackson, have you seen the petition for dependency offered
by the state?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. You had a chance to review that?
Ms. Jackson: Initially when it was filed.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, we would ask you to take judicial notice of this petition
as it is already a record with the court and we are going to mark it as
parent’s #3, I’m sorry, #4. I’m going to show you what I’ve labeled as
parent’s #4. Do you recognize that document?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. What do you recognize that document to be?
Ms. Jackson: It’s a petition.
Mr. Kirby: It’s a petition for?
Ms. Jackson: Dependency?
Mr. Kirby: Dependency. Okay. Is there a date and time stated that the child
was picked up on there?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object. This document speaks for itself.
It’s already in evidence. I mean this is cumulative. The document speaks
for itself. We can get to the meat of the question rather than asking
whether or not it has…um…whether or not it is on the document because,
again, this document speaks for itself.
Mr. Kirby: I’m…judge, I’m asking her if she sees the date? Date and time
when it says the child was picked up?
Judge: On the petition?
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: It’s yes or no.
Mr. Kirby: Do you not see?
Ms. Jackson: Umm…filed from the court?
Mr. Kirby: The time of custody.
Ms. Jackson: Oh, Yes. Right there.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. What is the time of custody?
Ms. Jackson: It says 4:30 PM.
Mr. Kirby: Of what day?
Ms. Jackson: 10:11.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. So, would that be the time that you picked up the child?
Ms. Jackson: I wasn’t sure of the exact time that I picked the child up.
Mr. Kirby: You weren’t sure of the exact time?
Ms. Jackson: Not sure of the exact time.
Mr. Kirby: I move to admit parent #4, please.
Judge: Any objection?
Mr. Schlenker: No.
Guardian: No, your honor.
Mr. Kirby: Ms. Jackson, who actually took the child away from his
mother?
Ms. Jackson: I did.
Mr. Kirby: You did?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And the child was not breastfeeding at that time?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: That was your testimony?
Ms. Jackson: Yeah.
Mr. Kirby: What role, and when you actually physically took the child
away from his mother, what role was investigator Israel playing?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t know what you mean.
Mr. Kirby: Was she holding the mother back, arms, what was she doing?
Ms. Jackson: She was holding one of the mother’s arms.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, and was there another man in there?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And who was that?
Ms. Jackson: Uh…the head of security, Chuck Hayworth.
Mr. Kirby: Did he play a role in taking the baby?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And what did he do?
Ms. Jackson: He held her other arm.
Mr. Kirby: When you entered that room did it look like there was an
emergency that required taking that child?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, judge. The testimony has been that there was an
order, so it is irrelevant whether or not when she walked into the room at
that point in time the child needed to be removed. That decision had
already been made through an appropriately filed order with the court.
Mr. Kirby: Well, I think the testimony too has also been that Ms. Jackson
picked up…would lead you to believe I guess…that Ms. Jackson picked up
the child before the pickup order was entered…
****(That must be one of those little technicalities that only works if the
state makes it, right? Technicality of truth and fact will be ignored if the
state doesn’t make it.)
Mr. Schlenker: Judge,———-
Mr. Kirby: This is an emergency situation. They claim that this is an
emergency situation, so I’m asking Ms. Jackson was her impression that it
was an emergency situation when she walked into that room?
****(Only that if DHR didn’t act quickly enough they would lose this
golden opportunity to snag an infant that would bring in a large revenue
to the county coffers. That was the real emergency.)
Mr. Schlenker: And judge, that’s not been her testimony and counsel if
mischaracterizing. The testimony is she received a pickup order and then
she went in there, so therefore whether there was an emergency or not is
immaterial because she had an order of removal.
****(Still feeling okay about delivering your next baby at a hospital? Or
even going to one with your kids? Emergencies are not even required for
pickup orders. Remember it is not about your constitutional rights, only
the social workers feelings.)
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Ms. Jackson, were you at the shelter care hearing?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Do you recall Ms. Israel testifying…uh… or do you recall
testifying that Rachel Israel took the child off of the mother?
****(I recall that. Don’t you? Perhaps Ms. Jackson has a reality problem.
Or maybe she is just a liar.)
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: You don’t recall that?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: What else did you testify to at the shelter care hearing?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object. If they want that then I would
ask that we take judicial notice of her testimony because it has been two
months. There is no way that she…
****(…Can keep all the lies straight?)
Mr. Schlenker: …will remember all of her testimony from a shelter care
hearing of that length ago.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, it’s been two months. She remembers exactly what went
on in the hospital.
Mr. Schlenker: He asked generally, what else did she testify to at the
shelter care. I assume that means everything that she testified to from
beginning to end. Again, the best way to have that into this record…
****(…Is make her study it so she can keep the lies straight? She is
embarrassing the state.)
Mr. Schlenker: …is to offer her testimony….that particular testimony into
this case.
Judge: So you are asking me to take judicial notice of Ms. Jackson’s
testimony. Once I’m asked, I have to do so. So your request to take judicial
notice of her testimony is granted. And Mr. Kirby…
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: Before we go much further, #4 we said no objection. It is admitted
into the record. Just a matter of housekeeping. That was your petition. I
did not get that into the record.
Mr. Kirby: I’m sorry, judge. How did you rule on the fact if it was an
emergency?
Judge: I didn’t because you questioned before I could issue a ruling. You
had another question. So, I was going to sustain the objection and then you
proceeded, so…
Mr. Kirby: I’m sorry.
Judge: It’s all right. It happens, and I interrupted you so where were you
with Ms. Jackson?
Mr. Kirby: Well, I think the last question I asked her was there an
emergency?
Judge: No, it was about the shelter care. What else did you testify to at
shelter care, I believe?
Christian: (whispering…she’s coming to pick him up for child
endangerment. We need to know the emergency.)
Mr. Kirby: Did you consider that child to be in danger? When you took
that child did you consider it to be in danger?
Ms. Jackson: For a clear safety risk, yes.
Mr. Kirby: Clear safety risk? And what were those safety risks?
Ms. Jackson: The concerns for mental health, the concerns for the identity
issues at the time…
Mr. Kirby: But you identified Ms. Holm…
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, your honor. I would ask that the witness be
allowed to finish her answer until it is at least concluded.
Judge: Please let her finish.
Ms. Jackson: …and the concerns for their living conditions.
Mr. Kirby: Their living conditions?
Ms. Jackson: Uh…hmmm.
Mr. Kirby: All of this was based on….what? Did you speak to somebody at
the hospital that said something about their identification or their living…?
****(Easy to lose a newborn in America now, isn’t it?)
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I believe she has testified as to the basis of those
concerns previously, and it also appears that he is attempting to elicit
hearsay with regards to what others may have told her…
Mr. Kirby: What evidence, when you walk in that room…
Judge: Let me rule on his objection.
Mr. Kirby: I’m sorry.
Judge: Objection is sustained. She testified today and she testified to it at
length. Now if you want to conduct a cross to see where or what came out
of that, but let’s not get repetitive with information. I really am listening. I
promise you I am listening very carefully.
Mr. Kirby: I’m sorry. What evidence did you have to base your
decision…base your decision that the child needed to be taken…that
it…that something needed to be done?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object because #1 that was three
questions and I’m not sure which one was the question, and #2 I believe
she had just testified to what her concerns were with regards to his last
question, and she went through giving her three reasons why she was
concerned for the safety of that child.
Mr. Kirby: But what evidence? I didn’t ask what her concerns were.
Mr. Schlenker: And judge, I believe she has testified as to what her
observations were with regards to the parents, her conversation with the
parents.
****(Evidence not required. Not in our modern courts. Remember, it’s
only about the social worker’s feelings based on the DSM4 & 5.)
Judge: Objection sustained. And I guess Mr. Kirby, for me, I need you to
clarify. You are saying, what evidence?
Mr. Kirby: Right. How did you reach the conclusion that child’s safety was
in danger?
Mr. Schlenker: Again, judge, she has answered several times now about
what her concerns were in regards to that child and her safety concerns for
that child. It is asked and answered and it is already in the record.
Judge: Sustained.
Danielle: (quietly…It hasn’t been answered.)
Mr. Kirby: (quietly…Apparently the court thinks it has.)
Christian: (quietly…just say what evidence do you have that the child was
in danger)
Mr. Kirby: All right, I’m going to ask this question. What evidence do you
have of child endangerment?
Mr. Schlenker: Again, judge. I believe that she has answered as to what
her concerns were with regards to the safety and welfare of this child
during the time that she removed that child…
****(I hope it is being noticed how much protection any social worker
has from the state to cover ALL of their mistakes, any false removal of
children, and the covering they can expect for anything they want to do.)
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I would also ask that you would instruct the Holms
to stop commenting on the evidence….stop commenting on their opinions
with regards to the testimony of a witness or objection of counsel.
Mr. Kirby: Your honor.
Judge: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kirby: The Holms are simply stating…I mean Mr. Schlenker gets
advice from Ms. Smith or gets…
Judge: I just took it they are comments were directed to you to remind you
of things, not that they were trying to interject things into the court.
Mr. Kirby: Right.
Judge: Now. As far as your question, your first question as to the
evidence…can you rephrase that one for me that Mr. Schlenker objected
to? It does go to the same question that you’ve asked three times. What
evidence and what concerns, and I have them in my notes right here. The
concerns were the parents displaying signs of grandeur, and this was
through Mr. Schlenker’s testimony, thoughts of persecution, alternate
purpose and living in elements in a tent in Cheaha, no provisions for a
baby, and identity issues. And then later in your cross, there boiled down
to what appeared to be three concerns because the identity issues were
cleared up, so tell me where you are going with this.
Mr. Kirby: Well, I am trying to determine what Ms. Jackson saw if that
warranted…if a…if a mother holding a child warranted taking a child away
from her? So what evidence is she going off of, accusations made by staff?
What evidence did she have?
Judge: Okay. Let’s break it down then, piece by piece. If you want to ask
piece by piece, and then if Mr. Schlenker feels the need to object…go
ahead.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Well, let me ask you this? You’ve already testified to
what the Holms told you, okay? And you testified that Mr. Holm testified
that his father and grandfather was involved with the CIA. Let me ask
you…
Judge: Well, she needs to answer, please.
Mr. Kirby: Yeah.
Ms. Jackson: I didn’t say the CIA.
Mr. Kirby: Or in government, high up in governments with presidents, is
that what you testified to?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Did you have a chance to research that the determine if those
statements were true?
Ms. Jackson: That his family was in politics?
Mr. Kirby: Yes and…
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. So were those statements true?
Ms. Jackson: Which statements?
Mr. Kirby: What your testimony is Mr. Holm’s grandfather and/or father
were involved in politics with Jimmy Carter or anybody like that or with
the CIA?
Mr. Schlenker: We would object because counsel is testifying. He is also
interjecting evidence not in…er…facts not in evidence. For instance,
Jimmy Carter has never been mentioned yet in this case…
****(What are you afraid of? That they can prove it? If you let them, that
will be easy to do.)
Mr. Kirby: All right.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: What did you testify that Mr. Holm told you about his father
and grandfather?
Ms. Jackson: That they stole his multi-million dollar fortune, and that
them, along with Free Masons and the president they erased his identity.
Mr. Kirby: Was there any or did you testify that his family was involved
high up with presidents?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Did you investigate that fact?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And did you find that fact to be true?
Ms. Jackson: I found that his grandfather was an administrative assistant
and I believe to the executive branch…
****(Does someone want to tell this highly educated poor lady with lots
of degrees the executive branch means he worked for the president?)
Mr. Kirby: And what executive branch? You don’t recall?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t recall specifically.
Mr. Kirby: So, what Mr. Holm told you was true, is that correct?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, judge. That’s conclusionary in nature because
again I think there was more to it than just there was politics involved in
the family, so there again…
****(Am I the only one that can’t stand Mr. Schlenker? God help me to
forgive him and try to remember he was once somebody’s little innocent
baby.)
Mr. Schlenker: I believe her concerns about the family’s political
involvement was bigger than just that issue so…—————-
misrepresenting the facts.
****(So, why did she continue to claim delusions of grandeur after
finding out the couple were not lying about working for presidents? Her
insistence upon that IS conclusionary, not Mr. Kirby’s inquiry.)
Mr. Kirby: I don’t think it’s misrepresenting….I’m just asking her if she
investigated what the Holms told her and found it to be true. She said yes.
Mr. Schlenker: And judge I object because that’s not quite what she said.
Mr. Kirby: Did I not ask you if you investigated what the Holms had told
you?
Ms. Jackson: You asked if I investigated that the family was in politics, not
what they…
****(To save you the trouble of looking up, this is what she JUST said
in court: Mr. Kirby: Was there any or did you testify that his family was
involved high up with presidents?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Did you investigate that fact?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And did you find that fact to be true?
Ms. Jackson: I found that his grandfather was an administrative assistant
and I believe to the executive branch…)
Mr. Kirby: Did you investigate anything that the Holms told you?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Did you find any of it to be true?
Ms. Jackson: Parts of it, yes.
Mr. Kirby: All right, and what parts were those?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object,unless…Judge, I’m going to
withdraw.
****(Couldn’t think of something to make up this time, eh?)
Ms. Jackson: That the family was involved in politics.
Judge: I’m sorry. I’m sorry?
Ms. Jackson: That the family was involved in politics.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Is that the only thing?
Ms. Jackson: Specifically that I believe his grandfather was an assistant of
sort to a judicial committee of the president. I don’t remember specific, but
that he did have some kind of connection to the executive branch.
****(Ummm, let’s see…would that qualify as working for the president
also?)
Mr. Kirby: So those statements appear…those statements made by Mr.
Holm appear to be true?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Did you question Mr. Holm about his religious beliefs?
Ms. Jackson: I asked him what his religious beliefs were.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, and what did Mr. Holm tell you?
Ms. Jackson: They believe in Creationism.
Mr. Kirby: Let me ask you, is it wrong for somebody to believe differently
than you do?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: Do you believe in Creationism?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, judge. As to what she believes, her personal
feelings are not relevant. She is not…her personal opinions with regards to
religion or whatever are not at issue at this time.
****(She removed the child based on her personal feelings and opinions
based on her faith in the DSM4 and DSM5. I think it does matter what she
believes. She believed this innocent couple had the wrong religion.)
Judge: Sustained
Mr. Kirby: Well, let me ask you again. Did you ever state that the Holm’s
views on life were dangerous? Did you state that in your testimony?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Did you ever say that to the Holms?
Ms. Jackson: Absolutely not.
Mr. Kirby: So you never made that statement to the Holms?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: So, let me go back and ask you again, do you believe that
people can have different beliefs and still raise a child?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to ask…I’m going to object because that is
a compound question and is also somewhat…
Mr. Kirby: Do you believe people have different beliefs? I’m breaking it
down.
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And you said yes?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And can people that have different beliefs raise a child?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Just because they believe differently that doesn’t make them
bad parents, does it?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: That doesn’t make them unable to care for or unwilling to care
for a child, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: Correct.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, can we take a break for just a second?
Judge: Well, it’s now 4:47. We were supposed to have shut down this
facility at 5:00. We are coming back in the morning. Are you almost
finished with questioning Ms. Jackson or do you…?
Mr. Kirby: Probably not. I’ve got more than ten minutes left.
Judge: That’s what I figured. Let’s go ahead and stand in recess now. We’ll
come back here at 8:30 in the morning and we’ll probably get started at
8:30.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: We will go as far as we can go tomorrow. I’ve allotted the morning
but I’ll give you as much time as I can give you tomorrow. And then the
state…we’ve got to find another time to reset…or set the motion to dismiss
that you filed last night.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. How many more witnesses does the state have?
Judge: That’s a good question. Planning wise, let’s sorta plan this out here.
Mr. Schlenker: I don’t know, judge. At least one, maybe two.
Judge: Okay, so two.
Mr. Kirby: One, maybe two.
Judge: Four? And guardian?
Guardian: Judge, I wasn’t planning on calling anyone but mom or dad, and
they have already testified, so unless there is something at that time I want
to recall just to ask…
Judge: Okay. Yours will be very limited then?
Guardian: Yes.
Judge: So we will reconvene in the morning with Ms. Jackson’s testimony,
and then you will have one more, maybe two, and you’ll have one, maybe
two.
Mr. Kirby: I’ve got five or six on suspend.
Judge: Right. But that’s why I asked how many, and you said one maybe
two, so you may have six total.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: