#23

39 Tape 23
DS502782
Judge: All right, we are back on the record of JU88.01and Ms. Jackson
you remain under oath. Mr. Kirby.
Mr. Kirby: You stated that the Holms told you they planned to raise their
child in a tent, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: whisper…yes.
Judge: You have to speak up.
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
****(That would have been news to them to say something like that. That
had never been their intention nor had they ever told anyone it was. They
were merely having a camping experience at the end of summer.)
Mr. Schlenker: Just on the recording, she is sick. She is having problem’s
hearing as well too, so that’s part of what…
Judge: Do you need to move over?
Mr. Kirby: Or do you need me to speak up?
Ms. Jackson: If you don’t mind. I can’t hear very well at all.
Mr. Kirby: That’s fine. I can talk loud.
Mr. Schlenker: And judge, even last night when you were talking it was
sometimes hard to hear her, because she sometimes————–.
Mr. Kirby: All right. I am going to repeat the question. You stated in your
narrative that the Holms planned to raise their child in a tent. Is that
correct? Is that what they told you?
Ms. Jackson: That’s what they initially told me, yes.
Mr. Kirby: That’s what they initially told you?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Is a tent not shelter?
Ms. Jackson: It is shelter.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Do you know of any people or have you ever heard of
any people that lived…I want to say off the grid that don’t have power, that
have water, you know, but they got what’s considered shelter and have you
ever heard of those people doing that?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Does that make them unable to raise their child or care
for their child?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. In your narrative you talked about their religious beliefs
I believe, did you not? Did you have conversation with the Holms about
their religious beliefs?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And what did they tell you?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, judge. This has been asked and answered.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, I’m…if we went through their religious beliefs I don’t
remember.
Judge: We did. Ms. Jackson talked about creationism, that is was
creationism, and again Mr. Kirby, since you did just get the records
yesterday and you looked at them last night I’m going to give you a little
more leeway with this, but let’s try to move forward with testimony that is
not repetitive.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. It will just be one quick question. You did speak with
them about their religious beliefs, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: There might be two questions. (laughter in the court)
Mr. Schlenker: When you said one…
Mr. Kirby: Maybe three. Their religious beliefs, did that cause you any
concern?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: Their religious beliefs didn’t cause you any concern…
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Asked and answered…
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: Is it wrong for people to have different religious beliefs?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Asked and answered.
Mr. Kirby: No, I don’t believe I asked that.
Mr. Schlenker: He asked that specifically yesterday.
Judge: Yeah, I think you did ask that yesterday and she said no.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. And you said no. Would the Holm’s religious beliefs tell
you that they couldn’t care for or raise their child?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: Did your conversation with the Holms about their religious
beliefs play into any way as to your opinion about their mental health
status?
Ms. Jackson: No.
(Well, who penciled in “odd beliefs” at the top of an official document I
saw from the hospital?)
Mr. Kirby: Are you using the totality of everything that you observed and
heard on your initial contact with them to base your concerns for their
mental health status?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t understand what you are asking, I’m sorry?
****(I do, and I don’t even have a college education with a bunch of
degrees after my name.)
Mr. Kirby: Are you using everything in your assessment, okay…are you
using everything that you heard from them or observed of them to form an
opinion as to what their mental health status would be or that you had
concerns for their mental health status?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: In your initial contact with the Holms, was there an emergency
reason that the baby needed to be taken right then?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, judge. We’ve been through this. Asked and
answered.
****(Nobody has yet heard the emergency reason. We can’t figure it out
and neither can Mr. Kirby.)
Judge: Sustained. We’ve been through this yesterday.
Danielle: whispering…what was the answer?
Mr. Kirby: Did Ms. Holm appear to be safe on your first contact with
them?
Ms. Jackson: There were concerns with Ms. Holm’s mental health as well.
Mr. Kirby: Well, maybe you are not understanding what I’m asking and
I’m lowering my voice again. When you made initial contact with the
Holms, was Ms. Holm safe?
Ms. Jackson: Was she safe?
Mr. Kirby: Yes. Was she in a safe environment? Let me ask that way.
Ms. Jackson: She was in a hospital.
****(Notice how she doesn’t like to answer a simple yes or no if the
answer tends to go against the state’s case.)
Mr. Kirby: Okay, and Mr. Holm, did he pose any threat to you?
Ms. Jackson: Yes, I felt like he did.
Mr. Kirby: What kind of threat do you feel like he posed to you?
Ms. Jackson: He was extremely escalated, screaming…or saying that I was
satan.
Mr. Kirby: So he didn’t scream or anything did he?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: Raised his voice maybe?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
****(So maybe Christian is a normal human.)
Mr. Kirby: Was that before or after you took the child?
Ms. Jackson: I believe it was after.
****(She sounds like she isn’t sure. Seriously?)
Mr. Kirby: After? Okay. Was the baby safe when you walked in on their
initial contact, was the baby safe or in a safe environment?
Ms. Jackson: They were in a hospital, yes.
Mr. Kirby: They were in a hospital and the baby was on the mother, I think
you testified?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Any danger to the baby there?
Ms. Jackson: There was concerns that Mr. and Mrs. Holm wouldn’t allow
the hospital to put the security bracelet on the baby, so there was a concern
once I assessed their mental health, that they would try to leave with the
baby.
****(Take note. A baby born in a hospital is at a serious security risk if
they don’t get to wear the bracelet. The danger is from the parents. The
baby apparently belongs to the hospital until they permit the parents to
leave with it.)
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Did you ask…er…that was a concern of yours that the
hospital was concerned about not getting a security bracelet put on the
baby, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: I was concerned about that.
Mr. Kirby: You were concerned about that. Did you ask the Holms about
that?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And what did they tell you?
Ms. Jackson: They stated that they did not want the baby away from them.
The baby was not allowed to go to the nursery. They did not want anything
binding the baby. They didn’t want anything on the baby.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Was there anything wrong with that?
Ms. Jackson: When there is a safety concern.
Mr. Kirby: What safety concern would that raise?
Ms. Jackson: The safety concern at the time was their mental health, their
ability to leave with the baby at anytime.
Mr. Kirby: How would a…their ability to leave with the baby at anytime?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. You testified yesterday that Ms. Holm tried to get up but
she couldn’t, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: She stopped, yes.
Mr. Kirby: She stopped. She never could make it out of the bed, could
she?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t know that was a couldn’t. She just didn’t.
Mr. Kirby: What did she appear to be doing then when she was trying to
get up out of the bed?
Ms. Jackson: I would assume leave but I don’t know that for a fact.
Mr. Kirby: Well you put it in your narrative that Ms. Holm tried to get
away, okay?
Ms. Jackson: Uh hmmm.
Mr. Kirby: When do you perceive that she tried to get away?
Ms. Jackson: When she was trying to get out of the bed. At that time we
just told her that the baby was coming into custody.
Mr. Kirby: Did Mr. Holm grab the baby?
Ms. Jackson: He was not in the room.
Mr. Kirby: He was not in the room and Ms. Holm couldn’t get out of the
bed, isn’t that correct?
Ms. Schlenker: Objection, judge. It’s asked and answered.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: Were you aware that Ms. Holm had been given an epidural for
the birth?
Ms. Jackson: The day previously?
Mr. Kirby: Yes.
Ms. Jackson: I was not aware.
Mr. Kirby: You were not aware? All right. Well Ms. Holm physically
wasn’t able to sit up, was she, or sit up any further than she was sitting up
when you came in?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t know that for a fact.
Mr. Kirby: When you say that she attempted to get away did her feet come
out of the bed?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t recall.
Mr. Kirby: You don’t recall?
Ms. Jackson: Specifically how far she got.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Was the baby with her at that time?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And where was the baby?
Ms. Jackson: In her arms.
Mr. Kirby: In her arms? Was the baby feeding?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Asked and answered.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: In your narrative you put down that Mr. Holm talked about a
previous child. Do you remember that conversation?
Ms. Jackson: I do.
Mr. Kirby: And what was that conversation?
Ms. Jackson: I asked both of them if they had any other children. Mr.
Holm said that he had a child in Georgia that had been adopted.
Mr. Kirby: That had been adopted. Is that all Mr. Holm said?
Ms. Jackson: I asked why the baby had been adopted and he stated at the
time he was having some issues with drugs, with pain medication, and that
he gave the baby up for adoption to the maternal grandmother.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. So nobody took Mr. Holm’s other child as alleged, right?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t know. I’m still not sure what happened.
Mr. Kirby: Did you investigate that?
****(During the 20 minute assessment in the hospital room before taking
the newborn?)
Ms. Jackson: The other child?
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Jackson: I was unable to speak with the person who has custody. I
asked Mr. Holm for her contact information and he was never able to give
it to me.
Mr. Kirby: What mental illness did Mr. Holm self-report to you?
Ms. Jackson: At the hospital or at shelter care?
Mr. Kirby: At the hospital.
Ms. Jackson: At the hospital he said that he had anxiety.
Mr. Kirby: He had anxiety?
Ms. Jackson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kirby: Did he advise you he was taking any medications or anything
for that?
Ms. Jackson: He was not taking any medications.
Mr. Kirby: What about Mrs. Holm, did she say anything to you about
having any mental health conditions?
Ms. Jackson: She stated that she had no history of any mental health
conditions.
Mr. Kirby: Did you have as much concern for Ms. Holm as you did for
Mr. Holm?
Ms. Jackson: I did have concerns for Ms. Holm.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. I think yesterday’s testimony concerned Mr. Holm. What
mental health concerns did you have with Ms. Holm?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, objection. I think she has already testified to her
concerns with regards to the mental health, the statements that were made
by Ms. Holm and the concerns that that caused for her.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, I think she testified to this for Mr. Holm. I’m not so sure
she testified as to Ms. Holm.
Judge: I took it as collectively. However it was more directed in your
questioning towards Mr. Holm, so I’m going to allow it again. Just…
Mr. Kirby: We’re not going to dwell on it, but just…
Judge: Right.
Ms. Jackson: Statements that Ms. Holm made while I was there.
Mr. Kirby: To you?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Can you tell me what specifically she said that would
make you have a concern for her mental health?
Ms. Jackson: When we initially made contact I had asked them both if
they had criminal history. After we had tried to run Mr. Holm’s identity
and it came back as not on file, I asked Ms. Holm is she knew of any
reason why his identity wouldn’t come back not on file or why they
wouldn’t be able to verify his identity. And at that time she is the one who
told me that the conspiracy information with the Free Masons and that the
Free Masons had assisted in erasing his identity and that’s why we couldn’t
verify who he was.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Did she tell you anything about Mr. Holm’s grandfather?
Ms. Jackson: She did say the grandfather with the Free Masons assisted
the grandfather….hold on…the Free Masons and the president assisted the
grandfather in erasing his identity.
Mr. Kirby: And I think that you testified that you later determined that the
grandfather did work for the executive branch, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, this is asked and answered.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: We’ll move on. And I know Mr. Schlenker is going to object,
but you did testify that you found part of what they told you to be true, is
that correct?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, this is asked and answered.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Did you have at the hospital…did Mr. Holm say anything
to you about being arrested?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Do you remember what that was?
Ms. Jackson: He stated that he had been arrested in an incident where he
was protecting someone.
Mr. Kirby: Protecting someone?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Did you have a chance to follow up on that and investigate
that?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And what did you do? Did you find that to be true?
Ms. Jackson: I did not.
****(She lies. I saw the arrest report on the Holm’s facebook site and
everything was dismissed. No convictions.)
Mr. Kirby: What did you find?
Ms. Jackson: When we did the investigation we found that he did have
several criminal charges and when I tried to get some of the police reports
they were so far back that they didn’t have paper copies. They didn’t have
copies of them.
****(You should look on the Holm’s facebook site. No problem with
seeing the copies on there. I thought the state was paying closer attention
to their facebook.)
Mr. Kirby: What did you find out? What were the disposition of those
cases if you know?
Ms. Jackson: Most of them were dismissed I believe and one was maybe a
probation.
****(All dismissed. No probation.)
Mr. Kirby: So were these all very old?
Ms. Jackson: They were older.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Do you remember or have any idea of what year they
might have been?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t. 2…I don’t specifically.
Mr. Kirby: It was a long time ago.
Ms. Jackson: It was a while ago, yes.
Mr. Kirby: So, that shouldn’t be a concern for you now, Mr. Holm’s prior
arrests, should it?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: In the petition I think it alleges that the Holms were maybe part
of a drug cartel?
Ms. Jackson: That was the information that was suspected at first contact.
Mr. Kirby: Did you investigate that?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And what did you find out about that?
Ms. Jackson: It was untrue.
Mr. Kirby: That was not true?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And when did you find out about that?
Ms. Jackson: In don’t know the exact date. Several days after.
Mr. Kirby: Was it before or after shelter care?
Ms. Jackson: After.
Mr. Kirby: It was after shelter care?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: So the Holms as far as the petition goes alleges involvement
with a drug cartel. That’s not true. That’s not a concern of yours, is that
correct?
Ms. Jackson: That’s correct.
Mr. Kirby: Let me ask you, what evidence did you have at the time at the
hospital that the Holms didn’t have any necessary items to provide for
their baby?
****(This is key to understanding what any hospital can say about what
you may or may not have at home for your baby. Apparently they don’t
need to investigate any claims of yours in your defense. They appear to
have the legal right to assume anything and will put it on a petition and
swear to it in court to be used against you. Keep in mind that Danielle
was carrying a huge bag around stuffed with provisions they all said they
couldn’t see, and they were searching through these provisions to find
weapons, i.e. bear spray. Evidence and proof will not protect you in court
when all the participants collaborate with the same lie they have chosen
to use against you.)
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, judge. She has previously testified as to what
was told to her by Mr. Holm with regards to their provisions.
****(The question was–what evidence did she have that the Holms did
NOT have provisions? Not what she saw or did not see at the hospital.)
Judge: Anything different then what she testified to yesterday?
Mr. Kirby: We will withdraw, your honor. Do you remember Rachel Israel
being in the room with you?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Do you remember while Ms. Israel was in the room that
she searched the bag that the Holms might have had?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t know if I was in the room when she searched it.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Did you ever look in a bag that the Holms…did you
notice a bag?
Ms. Jackson: They had a bag, yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Did you look in that bag?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: So, you are not sure whether the Holms had baby items or not,
are you?
Ms. Jackson: They self-reported they had none, so…I didn’t have any
reason to investigate further.
Mr. Kirby: So your testimony is that you weren’t there when Rachel Israel
searched that bag, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: No, I was not to my knowledge.
Mr. Kirby: What information did you have when you went to the hospital
to assess the situation about how Ms. Holm got there to the hospital?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, objection. I think we’ve been over…I believe she has
testified as to what the report was. I believe that’s the same information so
I believe this is asked and answered and it is also cumulative.
Judge: Mr. Kirby?
Mr. Kirby: I don’t remember if she testified as to how…
Judge: You’re talking about how physically Ms. Holm got there?
Mr. Kirby: Well, I guess information about how…well, maybe I asked that
and I wasn’t clear when I asked. Let me re-ask the question.
Judge: Okay. Rephrase that.
Mr. Kirby: What information did you have about Ms. Holm when you
went to do your assessment, prior to her going to the hospital? What
information had you received about her labor, I guess?
Ms. Jackson: Prior to meeting Ms. Holm?
Mr. Kirby: Prior to meeting Ms. Holm and prior to Ms. Holm going to the
hospital. What information did you have about her labor experience?
Ms. Jackson: The information I got about her labor experience I got from
Mr. and Ms. Holm.
Mr. Kirby: Had you ever had any contact or seen Mr. and Ms. Holm prior
to the day in the hospital?
Ms. Jackson: Yes. I saw them walking in Oxford at one point, but I never
spoke with them or I didn’t know anything about them.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, so you just saw…you were driving?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: You drove by and saw them walking?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And I guess where I was going…sorry, I’m skipping around, but
I guess where I was going on the other questions…um…in your narrative
you put in there that the charge nurse said that Ms. Holm was laboring in
the woods and walked. Would that be…would that bring that back to mind
or refresh your recollection as to what you put in the narrative?
Ms. Jackson: Yes, she told me that but not pre…not before I went to the
hospital. She told me that while I was at the hospital.
Mr. Kirby: Was there any evidence that Ms. Holm was in the water trying
to give birth to a child?
Ms. Jackson: Ms. Holm denied that.
Mr. Kirby: So there is no evidence that Ms. Holm was in water trying to
give birth to the child?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Asked and answered.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: Do you recall telling the Holms that you didn’t agree with their
views on life and that they were dangerous?
Ms. Jackson: Absolutely not. No.
Mr. Kirby: Do you have reason to believe that their views on life are
dangerous?
Ms. Jackson: Their views on life? That’s a broad statement.
****(Yes it is, and yet you made that determination in just a few minutes
of speaking with them and used your power to immediately take their
infant.)
Mr. Kirby: Well, from your assessment from what you learned from them.
Would you consider them dangerous?
Ms. Jackson: I have concerns for their mental health, untreated mental
health. I do feel like that could be dangerous.
****(And this coming from a non-medical person making a medical
diagnosis in just a few minutes. You have noticed she has the full legal
backing of the state for this decision.)
Mr. Kirby: Okay, but you didn’t consider them dangerous at the time in the
hospital, right?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, judge. She has already testified as to the threat
that they posed.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: You put in your narrative there were manic episodes, great
period of excitement and delusions.
Ms. Jackson: (almost inaudible) Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Let’s start with manic episodes. What happened to….your
basing your opinion?
Ms. Jackson: When I was speaking with Mr. Holm he…for lack of better
word…just kept rambling, speaking. I would ask a question and he would
go off on another question. It was very hard to get him refocused.
****(He suffers from ADD and admits to it. This is a medical diagnosis by
a medical doctor for which he also admits having received long term
treatment for. Ms. Jackson is only confirming the original diagnosis. Are
adult ADD people now considered a danger to their children? Ms.
Jackson does not get to override a medical opinion in less than a half an
hour with her minimal educational qualifications.)
Mr. Kirby: Can I stop you right there? All right, we are taking these one at
a time. What is a manic episode, if you can explain?
Ms. Jackson: Umm…just…just he was heightened. I don’t know how to
describe it right now.
****(If not now, when? You apparently used your knowledge of this term
to remove a child.)
Mr. Kirby: I’m not asking specifically about Mr. Holm. I am asking for
your training and experience. What is a manic episode?
Ms. Jackson: Mania is like a heightened sense of how they are acting.
They’re…I can’t think of a better word for it but…excitable?…Yeah. It’s an
up.
Mr. Kirby: So, when manic they’re heightened?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And what does heightened mean? I’m trying to….I’m trying to
get a good idea of what you consider heightened. Where they…when you
say that were they running around?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: Were they yelling?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: Nobody yelled?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: What is…what is….what belief….what led you to believe that
they were having a manic episode?
Ms. Jackson: They were just what I said…they were…just the way that
he…his manner of speech…just the way that he would go off on a tangent.
It was just a heightened sense. His affect the whole time was pretty flat…
****(heightened and flat affect are not the same. They are opposites.
There is no textbook manic evidence being presented. There is no way
anyone could win with her definition in this kind of a contest.)
Ms. Jackson: And then he would go off and he….he was just excitable. Just
back and forth.
Mr. Kirby: And this was after you took the child?
Ms. Jackson: No, this was in my initial contact.
Mr. Kirby: That was in your initial contact?
Ms. Jackson: Yeah.
Mr. Kirby: Could it have been because they just had a baby?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Calls for the mental operation of another.
Judge: Sustained.
****(Warning! Show no emotion after having a baby or the diagnosis of
mania can and will be used against you in a court of law. No
consideration will be giving to the fact that a joyous event should
naturally give rise to joy on your part. It can be claimed that you are in a
“heightened” state.)
Mr. Kirby: Well, judge she is testifying as to mental operations when she
is talking about manic episodes.
Mr. Schlenker: No, your honor. She is testifying as to her observation and
she described it in words that she used.
****(Doublespeak again, and only in accordance with the direction the
state needs for the case to favor their conclusion. Other mental operations
going against state’s case are not permitted to be brought up for
discussion.)
Mr. Kirby: You didn’t…when you were telling us what manic was, you
didn’t mention rambling on as being one of the things that…you mentioned
heightened, okay? What heightened was I don’t know, but heightened and
excitement, right?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: It would be normal for anybody to be excited about having a
child, right?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, your honor. It calls for the mental operation of
anyone else. There is no way for her to be able to know what…
Judge: Sustained.
****(This judge is just another prosecutor and she and Mr. Schlenker
make a great team. How is your level of respect for American courtroom
justice now? Growing?)
Mr. Kirby: I am asking her opinion, judge.
Mr. Schlenker: And judge we are here on this case, these people, this
child.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Great periods of excitement is what you put down in
your narrative. Great periods. What is a great period?
Ms. Jackson: The long periods of rambling that he would say.
Mr. Kirby: How long were you with them on your…and then again you are
testifying as to the initial contact or after the child was taken?
Ms. Jackson: The totality of it.
Mr. Kirby: The totality of it? How long were you with him?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t know exactly.
Mr. Kirby: Just give me an estimate.
Ms. Jackson: I was at the hospital for several hours.
Mr. Kirby: Were you with them the whole time?
Ms. Jackson: In and out.
Mr. Kirby: But you took the baby at 16:55, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: I’m not sure what time.
Mr. Kirby: The hospital records said that.
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, judge. Ask and answer. We went through this all
yesterday.
Judge: Sustained. We did.
Mr. Kirby: How much time would you say you were with…I’m trying to
determine what great periods…or…great periods…
Ms. Jackson: I was with them most of the time I was at the hospital.
Mr. Kirby: And you say you were there several hours?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: You mentioned delusions in your narrative.
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: What would you consider to be delusions that the Holms told
you?
Mr. Schlenker: I’m going to object. I believe she has…This has been asked
and answered. She has given great testimony as to the delusions that she
saw, and what she saw as delusions.
Mr. Kirby: I’m not sure we simply addressed delusions. She addressed her
total assessment of them yesterday, but there again this is straight out of
the narrative.
Judge: My recollection there was testimony hinging on delusions and the
thought processes with the conspiracy and the Free Masons. There was a
lot of testimony about that yesterday. Again, Mr. Kirby, because I’m going
to give you a little more leeway than normal because you did get the
records just yesterday.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, if you testified yesterday with the conspiracy with the
Free Masons, how would that be a delusion?
Ms. Jackson: Delusions that his family could wipe out his identity and that
this was all happening as a conspiracy towards him.
Mr. Kirby: Any other thing? I mean you found that…and I know Mr.
Schlenker is going to object but you found that it was true his family
worked for the government…
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, judge. Asked and answered.
Judge: Asked and answered ten minutes ago. I really am listening. I know
you are working real hard to build your case and I greatly appreciate that
but…
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Was there anything other than the conspiracy about
erasing identity that you thought was delusional?
Ms. Jackson: Yes. Satan. Statements saying that I was satan and that I was
sent there to steal the baby, and the entire conspiracy of it.
Mr. Kirby: The entire conspiracy of the taking the baby?
Ms. Jackson: That I…that I was sent there as a part of this bigger
conspiracy involving his family to take the baby.
Mr. Kirby: Well I believe that would be the first testimony that we’ve
heard that the conspiracy…that his family was involved with the
conspiracy to take the child. How did you come to that?
Ms. Jackson: He asked me…Mr. Holm asked me several times if I had any
connection to the government, and statements with the government saying
his family is involved with the government, how that they were high
reaching and how they had been involved in erasing his identity…and at
the highest ———–further statements about that Rachel Israel was an
agent and that they had concerns about an agent being sent with their
family government ties.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, so now we are adding testimony that we’ve got a
conspiracy to take the child, not just that Mr. Holm’s identity has been
erased.
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Counsel is testifying and I take offense to his
use of the word…now adding, because apparently he is commenting
somehow that we are changing testimony. I object to the form of the
question.
Judge: Sustained as to the form.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Have you ever testified or put into any narrative or any
notes that you’ve made that there was conspiracy by Mr. Holm’s family to
take their child?
Ms. Jackson: Ask the question again?
Mr. Kirby: Have you ever testified or put in any notes that there was a
conspiracy by Mr. Holm’s family to take their child?
Ms. Jackson: No.
****(In EMT school we were taught if you didn’t write it down, it didn’t
happen whenever it comes to court. We were taught we could go to prison
on a technicality just for forgetting to omit something that happened.)
Mr. Kirby: In your narrative you put something about irrational thought
processes. Who were you talking about?
Ms. Jackson: Both parents. Mr. and Ms. Holm.
Mr. Kirby: All right. What led you to believe that they had irrational
thought processes?
Ms. Jackson: The same information. The conspiracy theories were
irrational.
Mr. Kirby: The conspiracy theories?
Ms. Jackson: Were irrational.
Mr. Kirby: Were irrational?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And that would be both theories about the identity and now the
baby, correct?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t understand what you are asking.
Mr. Kirby: You are saying conspiracy theories, meaning there is more than
one.
Ms. Jackson: The conspiracy of them erasing his identity is irrational. His
identity wasn’t coming back because it was a conspiracy to erase them. It
was an irrational thought.
Mr. Kirby: But your not talking about the conspiracy to take the baby, is
that correct?
Ms. Jackson: Right at this moment?
Mr. Kirby: Yes.
Ms. Jackson: ummm….the conspiracy in taking the baby started
developing then but it developed even further after shelter care, so my
biggest concern at the time was the conspiracy about why we couldn’t
identify who he was.
Mr. Kirby: And that is what you are basing irrational thoughts on?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Do you know who Jimmy Holm is?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, did you speak to Mr. Holm?
Ms. Jackson: I did.
Mr. Kirby: Did he seem to confirm Mr. Holm’s testimony about a trust
account?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, judge. It goes into hearsay.
****(Anything at all which proves the Holm’s innocence is not permitted
to get into court. Anyone noticing that? They are not being permitted a
fair trial.)
Mr. Kirby: Judge, I think it’s in Ms. Jackson’s narrative.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, it’s hearsay. Whether it is in her narrative or not it
does not change the…that is an out of court statement made for a particular
purpose. Mr. Holm is not present. He has not taken the witness stand, and
therefore anything he says is heresay.
Judge: Is Jimmy Holm present.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, Jimmy Holm is not present. I’m not asking what Jimmy
Holm said over the phone. I’m asking her did he confirm or deny any
suspicions or questions that Ms. Jackson might have had about a trust
account.
Judge: I think the way it is phrased it is hearsay. If you rephrase it?
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Did you find out that issues with the trust account Mr.
Holm told you about were true?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
****(That means Christian’s family did steal his trust fund inheritance.
Not a conspiracy but a heart-breaking reality.)
Mr. Kirby: Ms. Jackson, in your narrative…can you hear? In your narrative
you put in there about an SSI worker, verified over the phone that he gets
SSI due to paranoid schizophrenia. Do you remember putting that in your
narrative?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: What authorization did they have at that time to give you any
information at that time about…and who were you talking to?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t recall the individual’s name.
Mr. Kirby: But was it the social security administration?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. And what authorization did the social security
administration have to give you any information as to his mental health
status?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object as to her knowledge of social
security and whether or not they had authority…the answer to that question
would be directed toward the social security administration.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, I’m…I mean…I personally don’t believe social security
administration is going to give out information on the phone. Had you?…I
withdraw the question, or we’ll start back. I may ask it again. I withdraw it
at this time.
****(He basically is saying that she is lying about this.)
Judge: Hey guys. You better ask it now. I mean if you need to rephrase it,
rephrase it.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Did you have authorization to get that information from
the social security administration?
Ms. Jackson: I had a…I did not have a social security release. I had a
release of information.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. So you didn’t have a social security release to get that
information when you called social security?
Ms. Jackson: I had a release of information for records.
Mr. Kirby: Yet you put that in there that they gave you that information
over the phone, is that correct?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Asked and answered.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: In your narrative you put down that when you visited with the
foster parents, that you were going to apply for the baby’s birth certificate
and social security number the next week. Has that been done?
Ms. Jackson: That was not me. That was Alex, or Chris and Alex Martin.
She’s the foster care worker.
Mr. Kirby: She is the foster care worker?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: So that wouldn’t be part of your narrative?
Ms. Jackson: Now her monthly contact with the baby just goes into my
narrative to show that we are seeing the baby monthly.
Mr. Kirby: Well, okay. To your knowledge, has that been done?
Ms. Jackson: What’s that? I’m sorry.
Mr. Kirby: The social security number and birth certificate for the baby.
Ms. Jackson: I don’t know anything about where they are at on that or
what’s going on with that.
Mr. Kirby: I’ve got a couple more questions about documents for you. This
concerns your contact with the Holms at the hospital. Did Mr. Holm ask
you, “What’s the most natural way we can live without being harassed
by…I guess…the department?”
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And what was your answer to that? Do you remember?
Ms. Jackson: I do.
Mr. Kirby: What was that?
Ms. Jackson: I told him I would have to find out some more information.
At that time I wasn’t really sure what he was asking, then I came back and
gave them an answer, Ms. Holm an answer.
Mr. Kirby: What was that answer?
Ms. Jackson: At the time when I came back they had asked me…like you
said…what’s the closest way they could live to nature and still provide for
the baby…when I came back I asked Ms. Holm…I told Ms. Holm that we
couldn’t tell her…you know…shelter wise…if she had shelter and
provisions, and I asked her what they would need to stay in line with their
religious beliefs and be able to provide for the baby? And she stated at
that time that they would want to live in a primitive cabin. I asked her if
she had the means to do that? And she said that they would have the
means after she got her disability.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, after your initial contact with the Holms you left the
room, correct?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Do you remember how long it was before you came back into
the room?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t.
Mr. Kirby: Estimate?
Ms. Jackson: 15-20 minutes? I don’t know for sure.
Mr. Kirby: When you came back to the room did you have anybody
with…who did you have with you?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t recall at that time.
Mr. Kirby: Did you have officers with you?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: How many?
Ms. Jackson: Ummm…one or two, Anniston police officers and Rachel
Israel.
****(College graduates can’t count? That’s three.)
Mr. Kirby: So two, maybe three? When you went back into the room, if
you had the officers with you, what did you address then?
Ms. Jackson: Immediately when we came in with the officers they
addressed the weapons in the room. They asked Mr. Holm to go to another
room so they could confirm his identity, and that is when I spoke with Ms.
Holm about the question that they had asked.
Mr. Kirby: Was that after you took the child from them?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: The weapons in the room, I think they’ve been brought up but
had anybody expressed any concern over their being weapons in the
room?
Ms. Jackson: I had concerns that there were weapons in the room.
Mr. Kirby: But not the hospital?
Ms. Jackson: I’m not sure.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. May I approach here?
Judge: Sure. What’cha looking for?
Mr. Kirby: This.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Ms. Jackson, I’m going to ask you to take a look at
what’s been admitted as parent’s 1 and what’s been admitted as parent’s
number 3. And can you tell me what those are?
Ms. Jackson: Juvenile pickup orders.
Mr. Kirby: Do you notice any difference in those juvenile pickup orders?
Ms. Jackson: No. This one is faxed, but that’s really all.
Mr. Kirby: Specifically about parents number 1 beside the date that is
written in, beside Judge Walker’s name there is a time and I think you
testified yesterday it was 5:20?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. On the juvenile order that was faxed to the hospital
which is parent’s exhibit 3, is there a time written in there?
Ms. Jackson: There is not.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. So both of those orders would be different, right?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Is there any reason why the order that was faxed to the hospital
would be different than what the judge signed?
Ms. Jackson: I wouldn’t know.
Mr. Kirby: Down on part two, and I’m having to look upside down here, it
says description of child. Is that correct on either one of those orders?
Ms. Jackson: This is part two…
Mr. Kirby: I’m sorry, part three.
Ms. Jackson: Yes, description of child.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, is there anything filled out there?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: What about part five? What is part five?
Ms. Jackson: Officer authorized person.
Mr. Kirby: Part five?
Ms. Jackson: Oh, I’m sorry. I certify that I received the custody of the
above named child.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, so what does it say? It’s a custody receipt, is that what it
says?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Is that signed or dated by you?
Ms. Jackson: No.
****(This county is so accustomed to receiving the benefits of their
actions that they no longer concern themselves with the fine technical
details of legality. I predict they will not see a need to remedy this either.)
Mr. Kirby: By anybody?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: But your testimony is that the pickup order that was faxed to
the hospital was different than the one judge signed here that’s of record.
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Asked and answered and cumulative.
Judge: Sustained.
****(Legal technicalities are of no concern to this judge unless they will
adversely affect the parents, and then the focus will be directed on the
minutest of details regarding courtroom decorum and procedures.)
Mr. Kirby: Ms. Jackson, I’m going to show you what I’ve marked as
parent’s exhibit 5 and ask you if you recognize that….?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I object. I have not seen it.
Mr. Kirby: Let me present it to Mr. Schlenker.
Mr. Kirby: And judge we would ask that the court take judicial notice.
This is filed with the record.
Judge: So noted.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. You recognize that document?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Can you tell the court what that is?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object. The document speaks for itself.
Mr. Kirby: Do you know what’s on the document?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Did you have any part in making this document?
Ms. Jackson: In making it?
Mr. Kirby: Or…is it a verified petition for a temporary restraining order?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Did you have any part in creating this document?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object as to that question. I believe that
goes under attorney client privilege.
Judge: Sustained, and this is the other thing, Mr. Kirby, and I don’t mean to
interrupt your thought process. That is a motion that I have yet to set.
****(Yes it is because, as we all know, the 6th amendment has been
rendered null and void. We do NOT have a right to face our accusers in a
court of law. All accusations against law-abiding American citizens are
completely and totally veiled in a cloak of secrecy. This small piece of
courtroom drama verifies only one aspect of that sad truth. Policies,
statutes, rules, and a multitude of different forms of back-door legislation
replaced constitutional rights throughout our legal, medical, employment,
and other various functions of our national systems.)
Mr. Schlenker: Correct.
Mr. Kirby: Well, judge, you issued an order.
Judge: For a deficiency notice, yes. I did. But I have not set it for
argument. I don’t believe. Let me look.
Mr. Kirby: No, I know, but I mean you issued…you issued…
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, as long as we are on the record too, I’ll move to
dismiss it.
****(What is this thing they are all fired up about getting rapidly
dismissed and NOT heard?)
Judge: Dismissing the verified motion?
Mr. Schlenker: Petition———–verified petition for TRM.
Mr. Kirby: Seems Mr. Schlenker didn’t file it.
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, there was a drafting error on my part where I
did not sign it because of the distance for me up here filing things and so,
unfortunately sometimes I sent things up here to be signed and my
signature is not necessarily always on them. This is not the first time it has
happened. It was the intent. The court asked for that to be corrected, and
again, that is part of the reason why the department is moving to dismiss
it. There is another reason as well, but I won’t get into that, so
again…furthermore, it is filed on behalf of the department as well so as
their attorney I think I more than can ask that it be dismissed.
Judge: I think you are correct in that and we will dismiss your verified
motion for temporary restraining order. Is that what it was called?
Mr. Kirby: Verified Petition
(female voice): complaint.
Judge: But as far as her answering questions about the document
itself—————Go ahead. It was filed in.
Mr. Kirby: I mean it is part of the record. Do you see your name on that
petition anywhere?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. And at the time were you represented by counsel?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, but your counsel’s name is not on there, isn’t that
correct?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: All right, your counsel would be Mr. Schlenker or Mr. Hamlin,
is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: So at the time of that filing Mr. Hamlin’s or Mr. Schlenker’s
name is not on there, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: And you signed that without notice to anybody, is that correct?
Did you send notice to the Holms?
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, this is…it is a request for an ex parte
restraining order as well so therefore there would be no notice to the
Holms, so I would object to this line of questioning unless he is going to
show that for an ex parte motion there is a requirement to give service to
the Holms.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, we will agree that there is no requirement on that ex
parte notice, but then it has been judicially noticed that it says ex parte not
on part of the department but part of the caseworkers have signed the
document as well. They are signing. There is no signature in any case that
an attorney filed this.
****(Legal technicalities. They mean nothing if it goes against the state,
only if it is in favor of the state. I’m learning. Quickly.)
Judge: I understand that.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. So it is an ex parte motion filed by the department
director and three case workers that are represented by counsel.
Mr. Schlenker: And again, judge, the court is now…is aware…
****(And you all covered it up artfully like a well choreographed dance.
It is dismissed and swept under the rug.)
Mr. Schlenker: It is a drafting error on behalf of myself. The court order
issued an order that that be corrected. The department has not corrected it
because the department intends to dismiss it.
****(Maybe because there NEVER was any justification for a restraining
order. The Holms are never going to hurt anybody, unless people are hurt
by hearing the Word of God. For that they make no apologies.)
Judge: My order said legal counsel shall file proper notice of appearance,
certification, filing, come in compliance with rule 65 if an ex parte order is
requested. And I have not read that particular document of law so there
must have been something in there that made me…lead to believe it was an
immediate request…shown an immediate pleading when a harm may occur
to the state who the referenced plaintiffs to the parties of this action…
Mr. Kirby: Judge, what does the order say about…
Judge: And show that the parents were served with a copy of the pleading.
A certificate of service is not contained with the pleading.
And the court does note if it is an intended ex parte request that the rule 65
does not require immediate service of that particular document.
Mr. Schlenker: It requires service later on with a date set within ten days
after the granting of the ex parte TRO for them to appear at that time. And
you get that it is not being granted, and again, it was a drafting error on my
part. It’s got my name on there but it is the department’s intent not to go
forward with that…
****(I think I get it now. These ladies got together and wrote their own
restraining order, pushed it through, and now need the state’s attorney to
cover for them. This was a highly illegal action, but since there are so
many…what’s another one, right? I predict the judge will cover.)
Mr. Kirby: Judge, how long does the order give the state to make these
corrections?
Judge: 48 hours and if they deem not to do that then they are not going to
get to change it, and they are now dismissing it.
Mr. Kirby: So they made no corrections to the ex parte relief sought…
Judge: At this point are you asking me to testify?
Mr. Kirby: Well no. I’m sorry. Wrong…but you signed this document,
didn’t you?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Asked and answered.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, we move to admit parent’s number 5 which is the
verified complaint for motion for temporary restraining order.
Mr. Schlenker: No objection.
Judge: So admitted.
Guardian: No objection.
Mr. Kirby: Do you need to see it?
Guardian: I’ve seen it.
Mr. Kirby: Okay.
Judge: And Mr. Kirby while you are looking at your notes, are you ready
to go on? I’m going to go ahead and do an order dismissing this based on
the motion, okay?
Mr. Kirby: That’s fine.
Judge: Well, go ahead. —-courts not responding.
Mr. Kirby: Ms. Jackson, do you have any evidence that either of the
Holms have outstanding warrants in any jurisdiction?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: Do you have any evidence that the Holms acted negligently
toward their child?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object as to evidence because I believe
there has been plenty of evidence based on her testimony taken whether
the court alleged that in turn as negligence or not, but again I think that has
been asked and answered.
Mr. Kirby: I don’t know that she has testified as to what evidence she has.
She has testified as to her opinions and what was reported…
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, she…testimony is evidence, so again there has been
ample evidence as to what her concerns and what she saw as to with
regards to if the court wants to term it negligence with regards to other
concerns that she had as well, and again I would also argue it is
cumulative.
****(Pay attention here because evidence will not be required for the
removal of your children. Only depends on the social worker’s opinion
and feelings which come from a belief in the DSM4 and DSM5, not the US
Constitution.)
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: Oh…I will ask what physical evidence?
Ms. Jackson: Oh..what physical…I’m sorry. Repeat the question.
Mr. Kirby: What physical evidence, if there is any of record that the
Holms would want to harm their child? I’m sorry. Let me back that up.
What physical evidence do you have on record that the Holms would be
negligent in the care of their child?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object again. I believe it is cumulative.
She has already testified to that.
Mr. Kirby: It’s not…it’s not physical evidence. Not testified to anything
physical.
Judge: She testified about housing. Are you looking for something more
than that?
Mr. Schlenker: She testified to physical with regards to what they had for
provisions. Those are physical.
Mr. Kirby: I withdraw. Did the Holms have housing at shelter care?
Ms. Jackson: They stated they did.
Mr. Kirby: Did they show you any kind of receipt or release…or for a
lease, excuse me?
Ms. Jackson: They stated that they had one.
****(Making sure you never looked at it, eh? Why would you not want to
look at it if you were interested in finding out truth? Or maybe you are just
stating this after they showed the lease to you and you don’t want to admit
they had one.)
Mr. Kirby: Did they show it to you?
Ms. Jackson: I don’t recall…no.
****(Sound fishy? Bad memory when it comes to facts that favor of the
parents. Notice that?)
Mr. Kirby: Did you sit in during the shelter care hearing and hear?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Was there anything produced by the Holms that would indicate
that there was a lease?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. So the Holms did have housing at the shelter care.
Ms. Jackson: They stated that they did, yes.
****(Did you not just admit that they verified in court they had a lease for
housing?)
Mr. Kirby: Judge, we don’t have anything further for Ms. Jackson.
Judge: Okay. Guardian?
Guardian: Judge, I don’t have any questions.
Judge: Anything further from the department?
Mr. Schlenker: Just a few, judge. Ms. Jackson, did you remove this child
because he had no social security number?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Schlenker: Did you remove this child because he had no birth
certificate?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Schlenker: Did you remove this child because the parents had
different beliefs than what would be considered mainstream?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Schlenker: You have been asked several times about verifying the
family’s….particular about the family’s political ties and you said that you
in fact did verify that they have political ties. However, later on was Mr.
Holm identified by law enforcement?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: So, the president did not make his identity go away?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Schlenker: The Free Masons did not make…
Mr. Kirby: Your honor, I’m going to object to that question. The only thing
that Ms. Jackson can testify is that somebody was in the executive branch
of government and Mr. Schlenker is asking specifically about the
president. Now it has been testified that she verified that there was
somebody in Mr. Holm’s family in the executive branch of the government
but not specifically the president…
Mr. Schlenker: And judge, my question is that Mr. Holm stated, Mr. and
Ms. Holm stated the president and the Free Masons made Mr. Holm’s
identity disappear, and so since the parents have focused on what she did
to verify her statements I’m trying to go back and verify whether or not
there was accuracy in the full statement, not just in part of it.
Judge: I’ll allow that. Overruled.
Mr. Schlenker: So would it be…so, the part of their statement regarding the
Free Masons causing Mr. Holm’s identity to be erased would not be
correct, right?
Ms. Jackson: Right.
Mr. Schlenker: Now you were asked a series of questions with regards to
follow up with regards to adoption of the other child. Did you talk to
anyone else regarding…excuse me…strike that. Did you talk to anyone else
regarding that child?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Who did you talk to?
Ms. Jackson: Mr. Holm’s ex paramour, Angela Cross.
Mr. Schlenker: Okay. And as a result of that did you have concerns?
Mr. Kirby: Judge, I object. He is going to ellicit hearsay testimony.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I object. I don’t believe he can object until a
question is asked and he assumes he knows what question I am going to
ask.
Mr. Kirby: I may have been premature. Go ahead, Mr. Schlenker.
Mr. Schlenker: Based on that conversation, did that cause you concerns for
Mr. Holm?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: I’m going to object. It calls for hearsay information.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I don’t believe it does.
Judge: It’s no more hearsay than did you glean from Jimmy Holm that
there was indeed a trust account.
Mr. Schlenker: I have no other questions.
Judge: Anything further, Mr. Kirby.
Mr. Kirby: Ms. Jackson, were you here for the…were you here for the
whole shelter care testimony?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Did the Holms testify at shelter care about any Free
Masons or any presidential erasing of identity at the shelter care?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object. The testimony of Mr. and Mrs.
Holm the court is taking judicial notice of and the court is well able to
recall that testimony as well as refresh, and so it is improper impeachment
of this witness.
Judge: Mr. Kirby?
Mr. Kirby: Judge, I wasn’t here for the shelter care.
Judge: I understand it. The clients were and they had attorneys.
Mr. Kirby: Right, but I think it’s fair that I get to ask a question about…for
impeachment purposes about what was testified to at the shelter care. Ms.
Jackson has brought this up in her narrative and she has testified what she
used to base her opinions on. Surely she should remember if that
testimony was given at the shelter care.
Judge: Mr. Schlenker?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, again, the testimony has already been given by the
parents. That is already in evidence, and again, it is improper
impeachment. It is not the role of the witness to do comparative testimony.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, I’m not asking her to compare testimony. I’m just asking
her, did they?
Judge: And again, your clients were here and they were represented by
counsel. I don’t think that’s an appropriate way to get that testimony in.
Mr. Kirby: Your testimony was that the Free Masons speech came up at
the hospital, is that correct?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Was there ever or did you ever hear the Holms saying anything
else about Free Masons erasing…or I mean Free Masons conspiracy to
erase identity?
Ms. Jackson: No.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. That’s all I have.
Judge: Guardian? Anything further?
Guardian: No further questions, your honor.
Judge: May she be excused?
Mr. Schlenker: Please.