#22

38 Tape 22
DS502781
Judge: We are back on the record in the matter of baby boy Holm and Mr.
Kirby….all parties are present with counsel. Mr. Kirby, go ahead.
Mr. Kirby: Before we get started, I would like to….uh…I would like to
address the court with a concern I had yesterday, and if we could ask Ms.
Jackson just about…just a brief few minutes would be fine.
Judge: Sure.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, yesterday I guess something happened that was
concerning and I don’t know how much Mr. Schlenker meant
this…Yesterday…and I can’t remember exactly when it was during the
proceedings, Mr. Schlenker was walking by and I said….I asked Leslie to
stop looking at me liked she wanted to kill me all the time, and I
believe Mr. Schlenker will tell you the same thing…he told me to tell
my wife to watch what she posted on facebook. Okay, that creates a
concern for me in that I feel like now the department is trolling or
looking for anything on me personally, my family. Now Mr. Schlenker
may not have known this but my wife is my legal system, so yes, she has
helped me with this case, but she has not said anything that would breach
the confidentiality of this case. And if the court would like I could pull up
her facebook postings and show you exactly what it is that Mr. Schlenker
was referring to yesterday.
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, first off, I was walking to the back and he said
something ostensibly what he said, and I said I will address that with her. I
think there is no doubt in this court’s mind that there is a lack of
appreciation between Mr. Kirby and Ms. Smith. Mr. Kirby’s actions in this
case actually, and I’m…he has done some things in attempting to get
records that I would find quite offensive, but again, I’ve elected not to
bring that up to the court to where he was rude and offensive to workers,
making demands and things and not really caring about other things. That
being said, I said just so he would know that his client referred to….or his
wife referred to him fighting evil today. And judge, she posted that, it
got to the department, the department is not trolling anyone with
regards to Mr. Kirby. I really don’t care what anyone says but I thought
you might want to know that that is being said, because again, I think that
goes exactly towards the animosity that he expresses towards Ms. Smith
and I expect will be on full display later on in this case as….so then again I
think that is what there is. I don’t really care what his wife posts. I was just
letting him know really as a courtesy so he would know that that is out
there as well. You know, if he wants to take offense to it, he is welcome to
take offense to it, but again, that was meant really just as a courtesy…
Mr. Kirby: And judge I get this…I’ll put this on the record in case anything
comes up in the future. You know, if DHR is coming after my family and
that’s———–
****(Because no one in America is safe, not their children or
grandchildren, and Mr. Kirby well knows it. DHR has all power.)
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I object even to the reference that we would come
after his family, judge. We don’t come after people.
****(Oh, have I got references for you. Attorneys defending too well have
lost their children. These are real people and these are not secrets from
the public record, even though they were provided secret trials in the same
way as others by the state who took their children too.)
Mr. Kirby: They are obviously looking for things if they are pulling my
wife’s facebook postings.
****(When private citizens do this it is called stalking, a crime.
Threatening is serious, especially when it comes from people with legal
power.)
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, he can proffer no evidence that we went out and got
it. People send us things all the time just as they do other people.
****(Well, does that make your threat better, Mr. Schlenker? Now it’s
justified to threaten the Holm’s attorney because you state you didn’t go
hunting around in their private business to find something to use against
them?)
Mr. Schlenker: And again, I was letting him know as a courtesy because,
again, when those things are known that does help spike a little bit of the
animosity between the parties. Again, I encourage my folks to post
nothing on facebook involving anything. I have attorneys that work for
me. I have secretaries that work for me. I make sure that they post nothing
that could ever be construed in any way shape or form with regards to
anything that I am doing or anything that my agency is doing down to
even political comments. I ask them not to make those as well because,
again, it can be misconstrued.
Mr. Kirby: And judge I will tell you about the conversation that I had with
DHR. I requested the Holm’s records. I did. I called. I did not think myself
to be rude. Evidently Ms. Smith thought that I was rude or her caseworker
thought that I was rude. I didn’t think myself that I was rude, but I
apologize if I was, but I was requesting the records for the Holms and
those are records that should have been produced prior to the day of trial.
The day of trial was December 5th, not December 14th.
Judge: I’ve heard all this.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, I understand that. Mr. Schlenker said that…
Judge: Don’t go on the record here Carey—————–. We’ve had this
conversation before. Carey can be abrupt. It’s his nature. He’s defending
his client’s case. Okay. I’ve heard from more people that Ms. Smith doesn’t
like me and she gives me dirty looks…
****(Sounds like Ms. Smith is a potential liability for the state…heard
from more people many complaints and yet no one is inclined to do
anything about it?)
Judge: It’s her nature. Okay. It is what it is. Now do you think it impacts
this case?
Mr. Kirby: I wasn’t concerned about it until the comment was made about
“tell your wife to watch what she posts or you might want to talk to your
wife about what she posts”.
Judge: And I will say this, just cause you know and I think everybody in
this room knows, especially those of you who come up here and practice a
lot and with the juvenile cases I am really sensitive about the
confidentiality.
Mr. Kirby: I understand.
Judge: And if it was something that Mr. Schlenker saw or it was brought to
his attention that he thought that, hey…you might not know about this
post…if it was truly a courtesy and if that’s how he’s saying how it was just
a courtesy….I don’t know if you knew about it or not. I didn’t know about
it until now.
Mr. Kirby: Well I knew that she had asked for prayers yesterday, and it
was unspoken and God knows about it. That was the original post.
Everybody thought that I was in…you know…I’ve had a heart condition
back in August. Now, that’s no secret. So everybody thought that was it.
So her response was that the post was about battling evil. So if it was a
courtesy then I appreciate Mr. Schlenker bringing it to my attention.
Obviously I misread the intentions, but….
Mr. Schlenker: And judge I will tell you as well…as I told him. Look this
is a small community. This stuff gets out. You know, I mean it is what it is,
and again I would want to know if one of my secretaries was posting
something, because again it does impact the feelings of people in the case,
and again, I would want to know that that was being said on my behalf. I
would also like to take this opportunity as long as you are going there, Ms.
Jackson last night informed me that Mr. Holm continually keeps mouthing
to her, “You’re lying. That’s not true.” And I would ask that you admonish
Mr. Holm to stop speaking to the witness while she is sitting on the
witness stand.
Judge: If I see it happen, I will, and I will make a conscious effort. I
generally am taking notes, trying to watch what’s going on, but I’ll…and to
be fair to the Holms I’ll watch it from both sides. Okay? Anything else?
Mr. Kirby: I just wanted to bring that and I’ve already touched on
this…judge, I’m going to have to further object and I would just like the
court to know for the record that I have objected to all of the testimony
that Stacey Jackson gave yesterday due to her narrative. Uh…we were not
provided those reports and while Mr. Schlenker was correct in saying that
discovery could be supplemented up until the day of trial, that is true. This
is not discovery. These are records ordered, but nevertheless, we’ve been
through that. It’s been…uh…they were provided in the middle of trial, not
beginning of trial.
Mr. Schlenker: And judge I would also want to —————–to the record
too, that is also rebuttal to the testimony of the parents who have, based on
whatever their…the court makes of their assumptions or assumes with
regards to their testimony it is to rebut whatever the court assumes of their
testimony based on their assertions of their 5th amendment right.
Judge: So noted and my ruling stands on that, but I understand…
Mr. Kirby: We just ask the court to note the continued objection to any that
might have been contained in the records that should have been provided.
Judge: I understand. Were it?
Mr. Kirby: Were it yes, ma’am.
Judge: One other matter we’re asking. If you have cell phones, silence
them, recording devices turn them off. Please don’t click your pens. It
makes it very difficult for me to hear and it makes it impossible for the
court reporter that may be trying to transcribe to hear audibly, and Mr.
Schlenker was accurate yesterday when you are testifying you need to say
yes or no, not uh-huh or umm, because then it comes back…especially on a
recording…as inaudible, okay? Ms. Jackson, you remain under oath.
Ms. Jackson: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: Mr. Kirby, I believe you were in the middle of questioning Ms.
Jackson.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am. Ms. Jackson, in your narrative that was provided
to us yesterday…for information purposes your narrative is what you write
up your notes on what happens, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: You stated that Mr. Holm told you that God started sending him
revelations, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: Yes
Mr. Kirby: Okay. When did he say this?
Ms. Jackson: When I was speaking with him in the hospital.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. It was in a hospital room?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: When was it that you were in the hospital room? I think there
was testimony that you may have been in and out with your first…
Ms. Jackson: My initial contact with them.
Mr. Kirby: Initial contact with them?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And do you happen to remember what time that was?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Let me ask you this. Ms. Jackson, do you believe in
God?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Relevance.
Mr. Kirby: Just personal belief.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, it is irrelevant what her personal beliefs are to this
case.
****(Especially, since according to DSM4 one can’t have an active
relationship with the Lord without being schizophrenic. And it was Ms.
Jackson’s personal belief that this couple had a misconception regarding
reality, their reality centering on their religious beliefs. But you will notice
the state has total freedom to discuss the Holm’s religious beliefs (deemed
schizophrenia under DSM5 category of religiousity and delusions) and it
provides the central focus for their reason for removing the newborn.)
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: We’ll move on. You also put into your narrative that Mr. Holm
said that God would provide food and water. Can you dispute that God
would provide food and water for the Holms if they needed it?
Mr. Jackson: Their statements were that if they ran out of food and water,
that God would provide it at that time. If they didn’t have the money, that
God would provide it, and I would say that that is probably not a stable
thought. There should be thoughts that they could go to get assistance
somewhere but not that it would just be provided.
****(Well, you just dismissed the faith of all missionaries everywhere.
Perhaps all people of faith who depend on God for everything, not just
food and water. Ms. Jackson ascribes to a humanist belief, an alternative
religion to Christian faith. She believes one should have faith in mankind
to provide for needs.)
Mr. Kirby: What kind of assistance are you talking about?
Ms. Jackson: You know, agencies that help. They said that they depend on
strangers to provide them food and water along the way.
****(You also were told by them that they received monthly income
from the agencies you just stated they avoid and that this is prima facie
evidence that they did go to agencies. You were also told that they went
to churches, another type of agency that assists people. They trusted the
agency of emergency services and going to a hospital for medical needs.
That really worked out well for them, now didn’t it? What is it actually
you are saying, Ms. Jackson? That you lack the ability to reason
cognitively in using the information people provide you with to draw
simple logical conclusions?)
Mr. Kirby: But if somebody doesn’t believe in getting aid from public
agencies, is that okay?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
****(Which is it? You just said believing that way was not a stable
thought.)
Mr. Kirby: Okay. So, they are not wrong in believing God will provide
them food and water?
Ms. Jackson: No.
****(Great. So when do they get the baby back?)
Mr. Kirby: Okay. You stated also in your narrative that the tent is not
located in a registered campsite. Is that personal knowledge or did
someone tell you that?
Ms. Jackson: They told me. Mr. and Ms. Holm told me that.
Mr. Kirby: And when was that?
Ms. Jackson: On the initial contact.
Mr. Kirby: Initial contact. You stated the Holms wanted to have the
child…the childbirth near the water. Is that a fact that you first had
knowledge of when you contacted them or were you told that by
somebody else?
Ms. Jackson: That’s what they told me.
Mr. Kirby: That’s what they told you?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. So the reporter…the person who initiated this report
didn’t tell you that?
Ms. Jackson: That’s what Ms. Holm told me. That narrative is my first
contact with them.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. That’s what they said that Ms. Holm had told you.
Ms. Jackson: That’s what Mr. and Mrs. Holm told me.
Mr. Kirby: Or had told them…
Ms. Jackson: No. Told me. That’s what they told me in the hospital room.
Mr. Kirby: That’s what Ms. Holm told you?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. I’m just trying to get it straightened out. You said that
they were not bound…er..told you that they were not bound by societal
standards or contracts such as names, contracts, social security numbers. Is
it wrong for them to feel that way?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: So, it’s not wrong?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Asked and answered.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. You also stated that contracts are of the…in your
narrative that…contracts are of the devil. You stated you had specialized
training to determine mental health symptoms but not diagnosis, is that
correct?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Contracts are of the devil. Do you happen to know what that
means?
Ms. Jackson: What they meant?
Mr. Kirby: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Counsel is calling for witness to testify as to the
mental operation of another.
****(If the Holms are going to be convicted for what something they
supposedly said meant, then the witnesses testifying against them ought to
be able to at least state what those condemning words meant to her.)
Mr. Kirby: Okay, did you use what they told you at the hospital to form a
determination of their mental health status?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. I believe she has testified she is not able to
make a determination as to the mental health status she uses as part of her
assessment.
****(Double-talk! Apparently she was able to make enough of a
determination to instantly remove the baby!)
Judge: Mr. Kirby, do you have anything further with that? Any response to
his objection?
Mr. Kirby: Well, I’m gonna say that yesterday she testified that she is
trained and experienced in performing diagnostic impressions. I think
that’s the correct term Ms. Jackson used. So I’m trying to get to whether
her conversation, and particular things in her conversation caused her to
form a diagnostic impression, if you will, of their mental health status.
Judge: So you are taking her more than just a lay witness informing
because of her experience and education?
Mr. Kirby: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I object because she has not been qualified as an
expert.
Mr. Kirby: Well, even if she testifies as a lay witness, she’s testified that
she has had the training and education to form diagnostic impressions and
****(So which is it? Is she educated or inept? She used her so-called
education to form a diagnostic impression and took away their child so
she should be able to be questioned regarding that.)
Mr. Schlenker: I believe that her testimony was that she wasn’t there in
that capacity.
Mr. Kirby: But obviously she uses her diagnostic impression as Mr.
Schlenker said yesterday…to get all that training and experience and then
not use it…obviously she is using her training and experience to form a
diagnostic impression or an impression that she is using to report to the
department, a reason why they think that Mr. and Mrs. Holm has mental
health problems.
Judge: To the best that you can, I am going to allow you to answer it if you
feel like you can.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Did you use the conversations that you had with the
Holms to form a basis for your reporting back to your supervisor or
whoever it was…and all of this is in the narrative…did you use that to form
an opinion as to their mental health?
Ms. Jackson: I think that in the assessment process, certain things that
were said in part and in whole led to me to have concerns for their mental
health, but not…it wasn’t just one thing, it was the whole picture.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Can you explain to me, instead of me asking you a
question, about everything that you used to form that opinion? Can you
explain to me what you used to form that opinion of their mental health?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object. It is cumulative and she has
already testified as to what it was that she used to formulate her opinions
as to…her lay opinion as to her concerns regarding mental health.
Judge: Mr. Kirby, is there anything additional that you are looking for that
you did not cover yesterday?
Mr. Kirby: Well, judge, we certainly didn’t have this narrative, so I…it
wasn’t until yesterday and I looked over it last night…
Judge: Okay. Given that, I will allow you to go over it a little further.
Mr. Kirby: What did the Holms say to you that would create a concern for
you about their mental health conditions?
Mr. Schlenker: I’m going to object because that is what her testimony was.
It was not just one thing. It was a cumulative thing so it’s not just speech.
Mr. Kirby: Well, I can ask her about her actions then later, but I…right now
I’m asking about what they said.
Judge: You can answer that. I’m going to overrule that objection. Go
ahead.
Mr. Kirby: I think that she…
Ms. Jackson: Um…statements from Mr. Holm and Ms. Holm about family
members stealing their multi-million dollar trust, statements about
presidents erasing identity, statements about the fact that his I.D. could not
be confirmed because it was a conspiracy and that we were a part of the
conspiracy and that it was chaos, and that several statements calling
myself satan and the devil. Statements like that.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, the statement you just mentioned about being the devil,
was that before or after the child was taken?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t remember. I’m not positive.
Mr. Kirby: Well, would Ms. Holm have had any reason to say that to you
prior to the baby being taken?
Ms. Jackson: No…
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. It calls for the mental operation of Ms. Holm
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: Well, judge, she’s obviously diagnosed or assessed the mental
operation of both Mr. and Mrs. Holm.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: Okay.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: