40 Tape 24
Judge: We are back on the record on JU 8801. All the parties are present
with counsel and we now have Ms. Martin on the stand so if you will raise
your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth? Okay, be sure and speak up because we are
recording this.
Mr. Schlenker: Will you state your name for the record, please.
Ms. Martin: Alex Martin.
Mr. Schlenker: Ms. Martin, where are you employed?
Ms. Martin: Cleburne Co. DHR.
Mr. Schlenker: What do you do there?
Ms. Martin: I’m a social worker.
Mr. Schlenker: And, are you familiar with the Holm case?
Ms. Martin: I am.
Mr. Schlenker: And is this assigned to you?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Can you tell us when you became associated with this
Ms. Martin: October 12.
Mr. Schlenker: And can you tell us what you’ve done on this case since.
Ms. Martin: I have provided service to the family.
****(Would the sum total of that service amount to removing their
newborn and refusing any consideration of giving him back?)
Mr. Schlenker: Okay, specifically let’s go back to October then. Can you
tell us how you began providing services to the family?
Ms. Martin: Yes, uh…we did ISP, an initial ISP. We started supervised
visitation at the department three times a week.
Judge: Making sure…you are going to have to speak up, okay? Kirby is a
little hard of hearing and so am I.
Ms. Martin: I apologize. I felt like I was screaming.
****(Screaming? Really? For those who are listening to her voice in the
audio the next sentence will have more meaning. Perhaps she has sensory
integration disorder.)
Judge: It would probably help if you turned your seat more that way and
project this way into the room. How’s that?
Ms. Martin: Supervised visitation three times a week, Monday,
Wednesday and Friday from 9-12. Sometimes I would allow those visits to
go until 1 to allow breastfeeding. Also provide assistance with
transportation. At the beginning I transported Mr. and Mrs. Holm myself
from Cheaha to the department, and after they got their vehicle we
provided gas vouchers as well.
Mr. Schlenker: What other support did you provide to them?
Ms. Miller: Also, for them to compete a psychological evaluation and also
for them to do an intake at mental health.
Mr. Schlenker: All right, so let’s talk about the supervised visitation. It
does begin?
Ms. Miller: Yes
Mr. Schlenker: And it does begin shortly after the ISP?
Ms.Miller: Yes
Mr. Schlenker: Okay, can you tell us about the visits?
Ms. Miller: Um…yes…um…Mr. and Mrs. Holm during the visitation, Mr.
Holm would excuse himself 30 minutes into the visit to either go to the
restroom, after he had used the restroom he would either go outside of the
department to speak on the cell phone. He would tell me that that was so
he could speak to people about the case for him to get help, then he would
turn back into the visit.
****(Notice to the degree the department colludes with the state in order
to use ANYTHING against anyone. Citizens need to become aware of how
every movement, including using the bathroom will be used against you.
Ms. Miller: I have not observed Mr. Holm holding the baby…
****(A lie. There are pictures from these early visits of him holding the
baby. DHR employees are required to observe and report from a two-way
mirror. Why lie?)
Ms. Miller: During one visitation Ms. Holm asked Mr. Holm if he would
like to hold the baby and he said that he did not, that the baby needed her
energy and not his.
Christian: Objection. Hearsay. She is running on a narrative and not
answering questions.
Judge: If you would just answer the question as best you can without
giving a narrative.
Mr. Schlenker: Just answer a few sentences and then I’ll ask another
question, okay?
Ms. Miller: Yes, sir.
Mr. Schlenker: So during the visitations did Mr. Holm interact with you?
Ms. Miller: No, not during the visitations.
Mr. Schlenker: Before or after would he interact with you?
Ms. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Did anything peculiar happen during those times?
Ms. Miller: Um…the only incident I can recall is that after one visit he
stated to me that Hillary Clinton did not win the presidential election, and
that’s a good thing because she supported organizations like CPS, and
people such as my supervisor, Leslie Smith, should not be receiving raises
for what she does, just kidnapping children.
****(All should understand how this is true. Rewarding employees with
money for taking children will only cause these same employees to take
more children for more money. Get the connection? Title IVe financial
incentives to remove children from loving homes must be stopped!)
Mr. Schlenker: Did you ever hear Mr. Holm refer to anyone as of the
****(This community is positively obsessed with the devil, don’t you
think? They constantly refer to him, yet the Holms never have.)
Ms. Miller: Yes.
****(Prove it with audio. Holms have audio of ALL conversations and it
can be proven it is not true.)
Mr. Schlenker: Okay, specifically do you know who he was referring to
Ms. Miller: I cannot recall.
****(Convenient memory. It never happened.)
Mr. Schlenker: Was it anyone at the department?
Ms. Miller: Yes.
****(But you cannot recall, yet you know it was someone at the
department he called the devil?)
Mr. Schlenker: And during those visits can you tell us what Mrs. Holm’s
interaction was with the child?
Ms. Miller: Ms. Holm would breastfeed the baby. She would hold the
baby. As the baby would take naps she would take a nap with the baby and
they would rest.
Mr. Schlenker: Would Mr. Holm be saying anything during the visits to
Ms. Holm?
Ms. Miller: I guess. Mr. Holm would speak about the case and he would
speak about his beliefs to Ms. Holm.
****(Even when they can’t get anything to use against you, they come up
with a way. I bet he spoke of things regarding his beliefs how the baby was
a gift from Yahweh, how their love from Yeshua had brought them this
baby, how Yahweh did not approve of what the state of Alabama was
doing….etc., etc., I wasn’t there but after getting to know the Holms I can
just about predict what they would have said from listening to how they
always talk to one another, and then even THIS is being contrived and
misconstrued to be used against them. What is the definition of a
Mr. Schlenker: During the entire visit?
Ms. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Is that peculiar?
Ms. Miller: To me it is, yeah
Mr. Schlenker: And did there come a time where the visitations stopped?
Ms. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Okay, and approximately when was that?
Ms. Miller: It was November 14th.
Mr. Schlenker: Can you tell us why?
Ms. Miller: The department was contacted by Mr. and Mrs. Holm stating
that they had business to handle and they did not feel safe at the
Mr. Schlenker: After that visit did the department received any documents
from them?
Ms. Miller: Yes, we received a 30+ page document.
Mr. Schlenker: As a result of that did the department have concerns for
Ms. Miller: We did.
Mr. Schlenker: Following the receiving of that document was there any
other conversations with the Holms regarding visitation?
Ms. Miller: Yes. Mr. and Mrs. Holm contacted the department on
November 16th.
Mr. Schlenker: And what happened on that conversation?
Ms. Miller: They stated that they wanted to visit at the department but due
to what was mentioned in the document the department did not fail safe
either, so.
Mr. Schlenker: During that time did the department receive any mental
health records in regards to the father?
Ms. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: And can you tell us what, if any, concerns did that cause
Christian: Objection.
Christian: Objection. Hearsay.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge. It is not asking for hearsay although the answer
itself may illicit hearsay from the witness that it would be appropriate only
after she has made a hearsay statement.
Judge: At this point, your objection is a bit premature, but go ahead Mr.
Mr. Schlenker: Not telling us what’s in the record but with regards to
records that the department received, can you tell us what the department
Ms. Miller: Mental health records.
Mr. Schlenker: With regards to who?
Ms. Miller: Mr. Holm.
Mr. Schlenker: Based on that did the department have concerns with
regards to the parents visiting?
Ms. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Subsequent to Nov. 16th, when is the next contact that you
have with the parents?
Ms. Miller: Last Friday.
Mr. Schlenker: Did you have any contact with them at the first trial
Ms. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Did you all talk about anything at that point?
Ms.Miller: No.
Mr. Schlenker: Or nothing substantive? You exchanged some pleasantries?
Ms. Miller: Right. Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Can you tell us about the conversation or what interaction
you had with them on Friday?
Ms. Miller: We asked if they would like to have a supervised visit at the
counselor’s office in Oxford. That would be a neutral location for both
Mr. Schlenker: And what happened?
Ms. Miller: They declined.
Mr. Schlenker: Can you tell us about the conversation in where they
declined in?
Ms. Miller: Yes, they said that they wanted to have their…
Christian: Objection.
Ms. Miller: …at the rec center.
Christian: That is personal knowledge. Did she speak to us?
Mr. Schlenker: I’ll clarify. Were you present in the room for the
Ms. Miller: I was.
Mr. Schlenker: Was it on speaker phone?
Ms. Miller: It was.
Mr. Schlenker: Were you able to hear the conversation?
Ms. Miller: Yes.
Ms. Schlenker: Can you tell us what the parent said?
Ms. Miller: Yes. Mr. Holm stated that they did not agree to that. They
wanted to do it at a public location, at the rec center in Heflin
Mr. Schlenker: Was the department able to agree with that?
Ms. Miller: No.
Mr. Schlenker: You said the services that the department was providing.
The department provided transportation, you said, and gas vouchers?
Ms. Miller: Yes
Mr. Schlenker: Did you arrange for a psych evaluation?
Ms. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: And where was that at?
Ms. Miller: Lucille Bernhummer in Anniston.
Mr. Schlenker: Did the parents complete the evaluation?
Ms.Miller: No.
Mr. Schlenker: You arranged….I’ve got intake on here…I’m sorry, you
arranged for a mental health intake?
Ms. Miller: No, no. It was Mr. Holm’s responsibility to do an intake with
mental health.
Mr. Schlenker: Did he do that to your knowledge?
Ms. Miller: He did.
Mr. Schlenker: And did he appear for that visit?
Ms. Miller: No.
Mr. Schlenker: Mr. Holm had in fact scheduled a visit with mental health?
Ms. Miller: Yeah.
Mr. Schlenker: He just did not appear for it.
Ms. Miller: May I elaborate?
Mr. Schlenker: Sure
Ms. Miller: Mr. Holm did do the intake he scheduled today, but mental
health called him and canceled the appointment. They then rescheduled
and Mr. Holm called and canceled the appointment that was rescheduled.
Mr. Schlenker: To your knowledge has he rescheduled the appointment
with mental health?
Ms. Miller: No.
Mr. Schlenker: Has he made any statements with regard to his future intent
to comply with that?
Ms. Miller: He stated that he didn’t need to do that. It was not necessary.
Mr. Schlenker: During any of your comments with the parents did the
name of the child ever come up?
Ms. Miller: Yes. October 26th, before the visit began Mr. and Mrs. Holm
stated they had something to tell me. I am just paraphrasing. I don’t
remember the whole conversation, that Mrs.Holm said they had decided to
name the baby Malachi, and she went on to tell me how she’d want to spell
Mr. Schlenker: Do you remember how she spelled it?
Ms. Miller: Yeah. Malakhi with no middle name.
Mr. Schlenker: While you have had this case has the child been to a
Ms. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: To your knowledge has he received any vaccinations?
Ms. Miller: No.
Mr. Schlenker: Have you had specific directions to the doctor’s office
regarding that?
Ms. Miller: No. I signed a form on the two day wellness screen and the
———-wellness screen stating that no vaccinations for baby boy Holm.
Mr. Schlenker: Now you testified that Mom is breasfeeding. Is Mom
currently breasfeeding?
Ms. Miller: No
Mr. Schlenker: When the case first began was Mom sending breastmilk to
the agency?
Ms. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Did there come a time where that stopped?
Ms. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: When did that occur?
Ms. Miller: November 14th.
Mr. Schlenker: And did the parents state why they were no longer going to
send breastmilk?
****(Certainly you are more intelligent than that question reveals, Mr.
Schlenker. A baby is required in order to keep nursing. Biology basics.)
Ms. Miller: No, because we gave them opportunity.
****(Seriously? A woman says this? What is the purpose of removing the
ability to breastfeed and then berate the parents in court because her milk
dries up? This court is making ludicrous statements but they still have the
baby, notice that?)
We were giving them an opportunity to deliver that to the foster parents to
give to the baby.
Mr. Schlenker: Did they tell you why they were no longer going to bring it
to you?
Ms. Miller: No
****( He just asked the same question twice.)
Mr. Schlenker: Up and through today if the parents had brought breast
milk would you have insured that it got to the foster parents?
Ms. Miller: Yes, I would personally take the milk to the foster parents.
****(Nobody in this court knows anything about breastfeeding or else
they are pretending they don’t in order to slam the parents. Just for the
record, it takes a baby actually nursing around the clock to keep milk in.
Maybe some people don’t actually know that. It is possible to pump and
supplement nursing when women have to work but they do have to have a
baby actually nursing for their milk to continue.)
Mr. Schlenker: When the milk was being brought what did you do with it?
Ms. Miller: They would give it to me before the visit and they would
either give it to me to put in the refrigerator or they would put it in the
refrigerator themselves and then give it to Ms. Cash, the foster mother.
Mr. Schlenker: If they put it in the refrigerator, did Ms. Cash the foster
mother get it and take it with her.
Ms. Miller: Sometimes in the visit we would forget so I would take it to
the foster parents after the visit.
****(Very suspicious. The foster parent remembers to pick up the baby
but doesn’t seem very concerned about the milk he needs to stay alive
with. I’m going to say they either weren’t giving it to him or they were just
supplementing with formula. It is very hard to get sufficient breast milk to
a baby you cannot nurse. It sounds like they were just humoring the
mother in accepting the breast milk but now they are using it AGAINST
her. Surprised about that, are we? They are having a very hard time
finding things to pick on this couple for but this is quite creative, I will say
Mr. Schlenker: And currently the child does not have a social security
number, correct?
****(Could this be why they are so intent on getting him named? He
might need a social security number for some of those federal
incentive tax-funded dollars.)
Ms. Miller: Correct.
Mr. Schlenker: Does not have a birth certificate, correct?
Ms. Miller: That’s correct.
Mr. Schlenker: So that is in line with respecting the parent’s belief, right?
****(No, Mr. Schlenker. It is not. You have to have a birth certificate and
A NAME to get a social security number. At the moment, the baby has
neither. You don’t respect the parent’s anything, let alone their beliefs.)
Ms. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge. I don’t have any other questions.
Judge: I’m sorry, Mr. Holm. Go ahead.
Christian: (Coughing) You will have to excuse me. I’m getting a cold as
well. Can you tell us your very first involvement of our case?
Ms. Miller: Yes, on October 12th.
Christian: Can you tell us what were you told to do?
Ms. Miller: I was told to go to RMC in Anniston to pick up baby boy
Christian: Okay. And that was your first acknowledgment of it?
Ms. Miller: Yes.
Christian: Who asked you to do that? Who told you to do that?
Ms. Miller: Supervision.
Christian: Who is supervision?
Ms. Miller: Leslie Smith.
Christian: And who were you with at the hospital?
Ms. Miller: I was with the foster parent.
Christian: With the foster parents after our child had been taken?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection as to the characterization “taken”.
Christian: After our child had been kidnapped?
Mr. Schlenker: I object to that. That is a legal conclusion.
Christian: After our child had been stolen?
****(Good one, Christian. You really do have a knack for this.)
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, again. I object to that.
Judge: I think it would be fair to say, and I understand where the Holms
are coming from…was after the child was removed. Is that a fair
characterization Mr. Holm?
Christian: We like the definition of kidnapped.
****(So might everyone else.)
Mr. Schlenker: And judge, I stand on my objection.
Judge: Sustained.
Christian: But we will go with it…
Judge: I understand…I understand.
Christian: Okay. Removed. Okay, so were you given a pickup order to
pickup our child?
Ms. Miller: No.
Christian: So you don’t have to have a pickup order to go and pick up a
I’m a foster care worker which means that has already been taken care of
before I even get involved with a case.
Christian: So whenever you go to the hospital, do you have to show the
hospital a pick up order to pick up our child?
Ms. Miller: No, that’s the investigator who does that.
Christian: So you don’t have to verify any type of pickup order at the
Ms. Miller: No.
****(This is key and needs to be understood. No child is safe from any
foster care worker. None.)
Christian: So you need no verification whatsoever to go to another
organization to then pick up somebody else’s child?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I want to object. This is basically ask and answer
and it is also cumulative.
Judge: sustained.
****(We all want to object. It is cumulative, Mr. Schlenker, because
Christian is in shock at the answer. We all should be horrified at this little
eye opener. This does let everybody know, however, just how much power
is given to a social worker. Tell me, who trusts going to the hospital with
your child now? Still want to have your baby there? Should people not be
Christian: Are you not required by law and/or by policy to show anything
or see anything?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Ask and answer.
Christian: I didn’t say law. I said law. Are you required by law?
Ms. Miller: I’m not really understanding. When I get to the hospital, I
show them my badge so they know who I am.
Christian: Okay. But are you not required by law to have something to
present to the hospital to pick up our child?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I will object because of the testimony of the last
witnesses already established the fact that there was a pickup order.
Judge: Sustained.
Christian: Can you tell us what evidence you had that our baby was
Ms. Miller: I don’t have any evidence of him being abused. The fact that
there is inadequate shelter…
Christian: Just answer.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I would object as she was still answering the
Judge: You may continue to answer your question as it was propounded.
Ms. Miller: Inadequate shelter, the fact that you have untreated mental
illness, and the fact that Mrs. Holm obviously lacked protective capacities
because she is going along with what you are doing.
****(Camping in nice weather is illegal in the state of Alabama with
infants. Untreated mental illness seems to be a virus this courtroom
personnel suffers from, but now untreated mental illness is a reason to
remove newborns? We should add suspicions of untreated mental illness
because they have failed to strap him into a straight jacket thus far, but we
all should be as mentally stable as Christian is under the duress he has
had to endure. Do they think we can’t notice this? And he is doing an
excellent job of representing himself and his family. One only has to listen
to the tapes.
Do all wives who love their husbands and get along wonderfully with
them now lack protective capacities ? Does Ms. Miller really believe
Danielle Holm does not have a mind of her own? She has expressed
strong and opinionated statements to the court throughout, and never felt
the need to ask her husband before speaking those thoughts. She is
brilliant, highly educated, and their strong marriage is a model of what
many wish for. I imagine all of this would be threatening to the state’s
case. Creative way to diminish and undermine the personality strengths of
Ms. Miller: …such as signing a 30+ page document with her blood and
sending it to the agency and others.
****(Oh, Ms. Miller, you only assume her husband initiated that. You
have no knowledge that Danielle didn’t orchestrate that whole idea. You
did actually take her newborn from her arms, and now you want us to
believe that a mother bear robbed of her cub needs her husband to get
inspired? A drop of blood as DNA proof of the authenticity of the parent’s
signatures is not quite as dramatic as you portray.)
Christian: Is that against the law?
Ms. Miller: It is.
Christian: It is against the law?
Ms. Miller: To put your blood in a document, it is.
Christian: What law?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, judge. She is not up there as an expert in law.
****(Apparently she is. She has a badge, she can take any kid she wants,
AND she said it was against the law. She said this while under oath. She
must know the law if she said it, right?)
Christian: If she is going to speak about the law and knowing the law, she
had better know the law.
****(You betcha!)
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, if he is going to ask a question that asks her to …is it
illegal? She has answered the question. It is not her responsibility to
provide the law to support her proposition when that’s his question.
Judge: Sustained.
Christian: Can you tell us who has told you that that is breaking the law?
Ms. Miller: No.
Christian: So it was in your opinion that it was breaking the law?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object because I believe it was asking a
question that probably was attorney client conversation.
Judge: I think that if she had a separate opinion that she can testify to that
she might have drawn on her own, but obviously if you drew that
conclusion from a conversation with counsel, and I don’t know where your
thought process or where you drew that conclusion from is. And you’ve
already testified now that you don’t know, you don’t recall, so, to me it’s
ask and answered.
****(She didn’t say she didn’t recall)
Christian: She has testified that uh…she is saying the law…I’m trying to
figure out is it an opinion or was it given to her? And that was not testified
to yet.
Mr. Schlenker: And judge, it’s been asked and answered. She said she does
not recall where it came from…
****(She did not say she does not recall)
Christian: Can you tell us what evidence you have that our baby was
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, judge. This is ask and answer. It is substantially
the same question as the last one they asked regarding the evidence.
Christian: Abuse is the same as neglected?
Judge: It’s a different question. You may answer.
****(Yay, Christian! You are holding your own against a high-powered
Ms. Miller: The fact that you had untreated mental illness and the fact that
the baby is a newborn and vulnerable.
****(WOAH! Do you realize what she is saying? Social workers can
decide on a whim that a baby’s father MAY HAVE untreated mental
illness, order that father to get psych tested, and while they wait
around for about a year to decide what else to find wrong with you
they have kept your newborn since it was delivered. )
Christian: So, that’s your evidence in saying that the child was neglected?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Argumentative.
Christian: All right. That’s good.
Judge: If there is further that you…I mean…I’m going to overrule that for
right now because…were you finished with your answer?
Ms. Miller: Yes.
Judge: Okay. I can’t see you. You are so short. Sorry. And I’m short.
Christian: Can you tell us what evidence you had that there was an
Ms. Miller: Yes. You and Mrs. Holm did not have a place to live. You had
inadequate shelter. You had untreated mental illness and at the time we
were trying to help you.
Christian: Okay. Can you tell us what law we were breaking?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object. That calls for a legal
Judge: Sustained.
Christian: Can you tell us what you are basing your opinion off of for your
evidence? What law it comes from?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, again I want to object. I don’t believe she’s been
qualified as an expert in the law. She is a fact witness, not a legal expert.
****(Wonderful! That means social workers can take kids without
knowledge of laws, without using laws, just going on their feelings. They
also can’t be pinned down in court as to any law that justified their taking
a child, just their feelings.)
Christian: So that’s fair to say your opinions are…
Judge: Is that a question to the worker or your response to Mr. Schlenker’s
Christian: I was saying to the worker.
Judge: Okay. So I am going to sustain your objection and let you go ahead.
I didn’t mean to interrupt. I just needed to make sure.
Christian: So is it fair to say that your opinions have no meaning?
****(Great point! No basis in fact.)
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. It’s argumentative. It also mischaracterizes the
Judge: Any response to that Mr. Holm?
Christian: Well, yes because to have meaning there has to be some type of
basis behind it. We are trying to find that basis and we are not finding it.
Mr. Schlenker: And judge she has also testified as to her concerns as a
****(Yeah, we know. She has feelings. She has beliefs. She has fears. And
listening to all of them it would appear that she has issues with
relationships and doesn’t like men. She doesn’t know about any laws, but
she also has a badge. She told us.)
Mr. Schlenker: She has given that basis now three or four times.
Christian: Yeah, but through those concerns we are trying to find out about
her opinions and he keeps going back and forth. That’s all he is doing.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I object as to Mr. Holm commenting on my
objections. May his comments about that be stricken.
laughter in the courtroom
****(Poor fellow. Mr. Schlenker is having a hard day and getting it from a
novice in the court room.)
Judge: I think that Ms. Martin in her capacity can give her opinion as to
why she picked up this child with the child continued in foster care I guess
are your concerns. I’m sorry I got you confused with—————-. Now
whether or not your answer changes with continued questions, it may or
may not happen. But as long as the questions are somewhat different in
nature we will take them one by one. Go ahead Mr. Holm.
Christian: All right, let me see…Can you tell us what evidence you had
that we were unable or unwilling to care for our child?
Ms. Miller: You have not gave the department an address so we can come
and assess your home to see if it is appropriate and if you have provisions
for the baby.
Christian: Okay, now what gives you the right to have that opinion of that
not being the correct things to have?
Ms. Miller: It’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.
Christian: Okay, we are speaking of at the time of the removal of the child.
What evidence did you have?
Mr. Schlenker. Judge, I object. She was not the removal worker. That
worker has already testified.
****(Wow! See how that is done? Talk about job specification.)
Judge: Sustained. As to at the time of the removal.
****(No matter how they all work together, they still don’t have ANY
evidence. None.)
Christian: I would like to introduce this. I’m not sure how to go about that.
I’m learning.
Judge: That’s all right. It’s been marked as parents #6 and that is a newborn
identification release?
Christian: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Schlenker: Thank you, Mr. Kirby.
Christian: Do you recognize this document?
Ms. Miller: I do.
Christian: Okay. Could you tell us about that document?
Ms. Miller: Yes, when I went to the hospital this was the discharge papers.
Christian: Okay. Could you tell us whose signature that is?
Ms. Miller: Yes. It’s my signature.
Christian: Okay. And can you tell us what it states right underneath it?
Ms. Miller: Yes. Signature of mother.
Christian: Okay. Are you the mother?
Ms. Miller: No. But at the time I was the guardian once the state held
Christian: Okay. But where was that proof at whenever you went in there
for showing the hospital that you were the guardian?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge. I’m going to object. That’s argumentative. Actually,
judge, I’m going to withdraw my objection.
Judge: Okay. Go ahead. Answer it if you can.
Ms. Miller: What was the question again?
Christian: Where was the proof showing whenever you went to the
hospital to sign for that that you were the guardian?
Ms. Miller: My badge.
Christian: Your badge?
Ms. Miller: Yes. Stating that I am a DHR worker with Cleburne County
****(Realize what she is saying. Court orders are not necessary to
permanently remove your children. Laws broken are not necessary. A
badge signifies immunity of the law and your constitutional right cease to
exist with this particular badge that a social worker wears. You will not
ever be issued a citation. Your children will just be gone. Permanently.
There will be no legal address available to you and you will not be able to
tell anyone what they are doing. You will be guilty of their “feelings”
about you until you figure out how to prove you are innocent. You will
never be able to prove it.)
Christian: So no paperwork?
Ms. Miller: No.
Christian: Okay. I’m not through this yet. Could you tell us whose name is
that right there next to yours?
Ms. Miller: The nurse.
Christian: That’s the nurse? Okay. Could you read what “I certify” please?
Ms. Miller: I certify that during the discharge procedure I received my
baby, examined it, and determined that it was mine. I checked the
identiband parts on the baby and on me and found that they were
identically numbered.
****(With this false statement signed and sworn to by both an officer and
a nurse, here is proof that ANY baby could disappear and the paperwork
would not reflect any protection for either the baby or the parent. Do you
realize how this completely renders null and void any offer of protection
that our medial establishment states now guarantees our legal rights and
our protection? The identiband infant release is all a scam with this one
proof in AN AMERICAN COURT OF LAW as evidenced by this court
transcript. I am interested to see how the judge and the court will jump
around this nightmare. By the way, this baby did not have an identiband.
The parents had refused one and refused to allow their child to leave
them. I did the same at some of my hospital deliveries. Never let them out
of your sight, but that didn’t help this couple.)
Christian: Okay, so did you have a band on you?
Ms. Miller: No.
Christian: All right, so you were certifying that you had a band on you but
you didn’t have a band on you?
****(So if she answers in the affirmative, she is admitting to perjury and
should be able to be prosecuted. Immunity for social worker officers of the
court to lie? Not anymore. Federal Court Case #15-55563)
Ms. Miller: Sure.
Christian: I’m not through, just yet. Okay. Is that your fingerprint?
Ms. Miller: I do not recall.
****(FBI or 3M Cogent Inc. could help us out here with that. A little
fingerprint report maybe?)
Christian: Do you want to think about it longer?
Ms. Miller: I mean I don’t remember.
Christian: You don’t know?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection.
Christian: Okay, Is that your child’s footprints?
Ms. Miller: No
Christian: No. Okay. So, is this your name up here at the top of this page?
Ms. Miller: No
Christian: Could you please read that name?
Ms. Miller: Danielle Hollum
Christian: Okay. So, it’s not your name at the top of the page, it’s not your
footprints, we are not sure about your fingerprints, and you certified that
you are the mother. All right.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I object unless there is a question. That was a
Judge: Sustained. You will have to ask her questions, okay?
Christian: Okay.
Mr. Schlenker: Strike the statement.
Judge: So noted.
****(You can take it out of the court record but Christian just connected
the dots for everyone who needs the help.)
Christian: All right, so is it fair to say the information on this document
from what you have put is false?
Ms. Miller: No.
Christian: But we have just stated that you put information in spots that
were asking for the mother and not you.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I believe she testified that she signed because she
was the legal custodian as well. Mr. Holm cannot pick and choose…
****(which act of perjury is okay and which isn’t? He cannot pick and
choose that?)
Mr. Schlenker: …what part of the testimony he wants to listen to.
****(Only the perjury parts. That is what we are noticing. It is true that it
is a particular part of the testimony, the incriminating part.)
Mr. Schlenker: He is mischaracterizing the statement of the testimony.
Christian: Okay. I need to…uh…can I admit this please?
Judge: Any objection?
Mr. Schlenker: Mr. Kirby is a part of that other package.
Mr. Kirby: It’s part of the baby’s hospital records that were admitted into
Mr. Schlenker: We’re going to have no objection.
Guardian: We have no objection.
Judge: So admitted.
Christian: Now, concerning the milk. Is it fair to say that when a mother
doesn’t have a child or her baby with her the hormonal process can stop
the flow of milk?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m going to object. That calls for a medical
****(So anytime the truth goes against the state it is thrown out on
objections but the state gets to use the SAME evidence and use it against
the parents. Suddenly, it is okay that you have medical knowledge anytime
you want to make a statement against the parents. Hogwash!!! Kangaroo
court personified.)
Christian: Okay, are you a mother?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. It is immaterial and irrelevant whether she is a
Judge: Sustained.
****(Notice how prosecutor, judge, and all state representatives operate
in sync to further only the state’s case. No consideration will be given for
ANYTHING the parents have to say in their defense or even just bringing
up basic truth and biology that most EVERYONE KNOWS.)
Judge: Do you all need to take a minute?
Danielle: Yes.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: