#25

41 Tape 25
502784
Judge: We are back on the record on JU 88.01. Ms. Martin, you remain
under oath. Mr. Holm, go ahead.
Christian: Were you supervising our visits?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Christian: All of our visits?
Ms. Martin: No.
Christian: All right, now, do you remember me telling my wife that I
would rather her hold our child during the visits because of the
nourishment and the…that the mother needs to bond more with the baby in
the beginning stages?
Ms. Martin: I don’t recall.
****(Oh, here we go again with selective memory. )
Christian: Didn’t you just say that you supervised the visits?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Christian: Okay. I am showing you parent’s exhibit number 5. I’m not sure
if I need to show it to Mr. Schlenker…
Mr. Schlenker: I’ve seen it.
Christian: Okay. All right. Could you tell us…could you tell us what this
document is?
Ms. Martin: It’s a restraining order.
Christian: Okay. For what?
Ms. Martin: Regarding you and Ms. Holm and the people in the
department.
Christian: Could you flip to the back and tell us whose signature is on it?
Ms. Martin: Do you want me to read all of them?
Christian: Well, do you see your signature on it?
Ms. Martin: I do.
Christian: You do? All right. Could you tell us why you signed that?
Ms. Martin: Due to the documents that the department received from you
and your wife.
Christian: I know, but could you tell me why you felt compelled to come
and file that here at the courthouse during this case?
Ms. Martin: Mr. Holm, in those documents that you gave to the
department, you stated demands and threats. The demands were that if you
do not receive your child in so many days that you were going to put liens
on our homes, you were going to contact the F.B.I. and you wanted a
billion dollars from us, and obviously you hold good to your word because
you have contacted the F.B.I.
Christian: Okay, so we need to understand the definition of threat. Can you
tell us the definition of threat?
Ms. Martin: No.
Christian: Can you tell us the definition of demand?
Ms. Martin: (almost inaudibly) No.
Christian: Well then you don’t even understand the process of a demand or
a threat to even go make a…or file a complaint.
Ms. Martin: That can be your opinion.
Christian: Okay, well is it not opinionated that you don’t even understand
the definitions of them?
Ms. Martin: I’m not going to argue with you.
Christian: All right.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, can I ———————–
Judge: You may.
Mr. Schlenker: Ms. Martin, is it a bit intimidating to have Mr. Holm
asking you questions, not that he is intimidating you directly with the
intent of doing that, but is that a little intimidating to you?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Okay. Do you know what the definition of demand is?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Can you tell the court what that is?
Ms. Martin: Something that you want and you want it right then.
Mr. Schlenker: Do you know what the definition of a threat is?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: What is that?
Ms. Martin: Where it makes you just feel very uneasy such as you are
going to be harmed, and I certainly am.
Mr. Schlenker: Okay, and is that what you were referring to when Mr.
Holm was just asking you those questions?
****(Need a safe space? Having guilty conscience issues perhaps?)
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I have nothing else.
Christian: Was the word demand used in those notices?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Christian: Was the word threat used in those notices?
Ms. Martin: No.
Christian: Could you please tell me your education and your experience
please?
Ms. Martin: Yes, I have a bachelor’s degree in social work.
Christian: And experience?
Ms. Martin: I’ve been employed at Cleburne County DHR for 8 months.
Christian: Okay. Any other licenses or qualifications?
Ms. Martin: No.
Christian: Okay. The visitations that were spoken of about last Friday that
you were listening to on the phone call, did we not offer to go meet in
another place with Mr. Kirby as supervision?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Christian: Didn’t you make a statement that we refused visitations with
supervision?
Ms. Martin: Our supervision, such as a counselor and mutual person to do
the visits such as a counselor.
Christian: So is Cheaha State Park your counsel?
Ms. Martin: Cheaha Counseling?
Christian: Cheaha Counseling, is that…
Ms. Martin: No. It’s a provider.
Christian: So that’s someone that’s separate from you?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Christian: So it’s not your supervision?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I don’t think she understands the question.
Judge: I think…Mr. Holm let me…maybe I can help you clarify and correct
me if I am wrong…I take your line of questioning as…is Cheaha
Counseling Center under your agency…
Christian: Yes, ma’am…
Judge: And is that within your supervision? Is that…where are you
going…tell me where you are going with it?
Christian: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: Help me understand, okay?
Christian: Yes. That’s it.
Judge: Okay. So if you want to phrase it that way or…
Christian: Is Cheaha Mental Health organization under your supervision?
Ms. Martin: No.
Christian: So you just stated that we refused you all’s supervision, right?
Ms. Martin: I was not present for that phone call with Mr. Kirby when you
asked for if Mr. Kirby would like to be…you want Mr. Kirby to supervise
the visit. I wasn’t present for that phone call.
Christian: So you were only present for the…which phone calls were you
present for, speaking about this visitations?
Ms. Martin: Friday morning. Last Friday morning I was present for the
first conversation.
Christian: Okay. When we said that we weren’t comfortable with the
counselor, meeting at a counselor, at a separate counselor?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Christian: Okay. Now about with the opinion of Hillary Clinton. Is it okay
to have a different political opinion?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Christian: Is it okay to have different beliefs?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Christian: No further questions, your honor.
Judge: Guardian?
Guardian: Can you tell us approximately how many visitations the Holms
had with their child?
Ms. Martin: I’d have to look at a calendar.
Guardian: Well, I think, according to your testimony they were visiting
three times a week.
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Guardian: Did that occur for several weeks.
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Guardian: So fair to say probably at least a month that they were visiting?
Ms. Martin: Yes, ma’am.
Guardian: How many of those visitations were you present for or did you
supervise?
Ms. Martin: I supervised all of them. I would not supervise each one the
entire time. You know, I would walk away and then come back.
Guardian: So you have for your supervision of those visits you witnessed
interactions between the Holms and the baby.
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Guardian: Did you have any concerns with how either of the parents
interacted with the child?
Ms. Martin: It just concerned me that Mr. Holm didn’t interact with the
baby.
****(Then what were those pictures they took with him interacting with
the baby?)
Danielle: (whispering loudly) liar.
Guardian: When you…I think Mr. Holm was questioning you a good bit
about when you went to pick up the baby at the hospital. When you picked
up the baby at the hospital, were you aware the hospital already had an
order?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Guardian: Did you ask them if they had the order or did you know that
they had the order prior to you removing or taking the child?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Guardian: What are the department’s current concerns with the Holms and
specifically relating to having unsupervised visitation?
Ms. Martin: Because Mr. Holm has untreated mental illness.
****(Ahhh…the dangers of ever going for assistance for mental health,
ever!)
Guardian: And what, I guess, are the current concerns altogether for the
Holms having their child?
Ms. Martin: Untreated mental illness and the fact that we do not
know…they have not provided us with an address. I can’t assess their home
to see if it’s appropriate and to see if they have provisions for the baby.
Guardian: What statements have the Holms made, if any, about where they
are living at this time?
Ms. Martin: They just..they refuse to give us the address, so.
Guardian: Have you personally asked for an address so you can go and
inspect their home?
Ms. Martin: Yes ma’am.
Guardian: And that has been denied to you?
Ms. Martin: Yes, ma’am.
Guardian: What, if anything, have either of the Holms disclosed to you as
far as mental health?
Ms. Martin: None.
Judge: I’m sorry?
Ms. Martin: I said none.
Judge: Okay.
Guardian: What are your concerns with…I think you testified earlier about
protective capacity, specifically mom. What is your concern with her
protective capacity?
Ms. Martin: Because she seems to be going along with Mr. Holm, for
example her signing the documents with Mr. Holm…
****(So if you have a normal marriage and you do things together, you
will be asked to separate in order to get your child back. In marriage,
people have joint bank accounts, buy cars and houses, and generally go
along with one another to accomplish goals. Bringing children into the
world would certainly count as one of those things you would cooperate
with your partner in. How about if you were attacked? By your
government? Not the time to separate.)
Guardian: Does the department currently have concerns for the child’s
safety if the child was placed…or…given back to the Holms?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Guardian: Judge, that’s all the questions I have.
Judge: Mr. Schlenker?
Mr. Schlenker: Hopefully, just a few, judge. Just so to clarify…I think it
came up but I want to be sure that it is clear…so there were two phone
calls with the Holm and the department on Friday, is that correct?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: And which one were you on?
Ms. Martin: The first one.
Mr. Schlenker: And you recall approximately what time in the morning
that was?
Ms. Martin: It was before noon.
Mr. Schlenker: Now let me show you what has been marked as parent’s
exhibit 6. You said you signed that, correct?
Ms. Martin: Yeah.
Mr. Schlenker: Are you the mother of that child?
Ms. Martin: No.
Mr. Schlenker: Why did you sign that?
Ms. Martin: Because the department held custody and so it was
guardianship.
Mr. Schlenker: Is that part of the discharge protocol of RMC?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Christian: Objection. Does she know discharge protocol from RMC?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m certainly…I’ll withdraw that question.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Schlenker: On approximately how many occasions have you removed
a child from RMC hospital?
Ms. Martin: None.
Mr. Schlenker: So that’s your first one?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: When you were discussing with RMC, is that the
document…or was that the document they told you you needed to sign?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: So, you didn’t do that because you stated you were the
mother. You did that because that’s what they put in front of your to sign?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: And that was in order for the child to be released to you?
Ms.Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Now, with regards to parent’s exhibit number 5, you signed
that on November 29th, correct?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Subsequently on approximately November 30th, was there
another document received? Is that correct?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Okay. And is that the one you referenced had the blood on
it from the mother?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: And it also had the blood from the father?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Did that cause you concern?
****( One drop of blood providing DNA proof THEY were the parents, so
now the baby will be harder to make disappear. After all, he has no birth
certificate or social security number, only footprints, but nothing tying him
to his real parents. We still don’t know what type of child trafficking
operation Anniston is running, whether it be simple federal solicitation of
funds under Title IV or something far more sinister.)
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Personally as well as for the parents?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: So simply going to the concerns that Mr. Holm is going to
in regards to that, you said that…
Judge: With regards to what? You said…
Mr. Schlenker: I’m sorry, with regards to…I’m confusing myself…
Judge: I’m sorry. I know you got lost there.
Mr. Schlenker: With the demands that were made in the first letter, did you
feel threatened by those demands?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: With the demands made in the second letter, did you feel
threatened by those demands?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: With regards to a document being received with blood on
it, did you take that as threatening?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Did that concern you at least somewhat for your safety?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Several questions were asked of you about whether or not
you had a order with you when you removed the child. Is it customary for
you to be able to rely on the work of a fellow employee?
****(She just got through answering a question that this was her FIRST
hospital removal. Doesn’t sound like she can answer a question regarding
something being customary when she has NEVER done this before.)
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: And so if a worker has done something to remove the
child, do you rely upon that?
****(We learned in EMT school that we are solely responsible for ALL of
our actions and documentations, and that they must be legal or we could
go to prison.)
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Do you go back and reinvent everything or do you pick it
up from where they have it?
****(Since she is inexperienced and doesn’t know what she is doing, she
is definitely a liability for the state. Nevertheless, she is legally
responsible for her own illegal mistakes. It hasn’t been that long since she
got the diploma. It should still be fresh, those little law things.)
Ms. Martin: I pick it up from where they have it.
Mr. Schlenker: Would that include removing…would that include them
having secured the child through a pickup order?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: And them having executed a pickup order?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: And they would have made sure that that pickup order was
with whoever it needed to be?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Has the department made reasonable efforts in this case?
****(She would know, correct? I mean with the wealth of her experience
and education, and all of her extensive knowledge about these
things…not.)
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: Are you asking for a finding of reasonable efforts?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: And would that be the services that you previously testified
to?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: And what are your recommendations in this case?
Ms. Martin: That Mr…Mr…let me start over…that baby boy Holm remain
in our custody until the parents can get a psychological evaluation and get
treatment for their mental illness, and have adequate housing.
****(So having the wrong religion makes you mentally ill, makes you
need to receive enforced pharmacological treatment for an imagined
mental illness, and causes you to now be subject to state licensing to even
be CONSIDERED to have your own child. This young social worker just
out of school has never even removed a child from a hospital before, but
she is a mental health expert giving testimony as to the mental illness she
observes in both parents. The psychological testing being paid for by the
state virtually insures that the state will get what they pay for. The multifaceted
child trafficking business under color of law knows exactly what
to put in their narratives, just as you are observing this courtroom drama
of all the state’s actors performing in sync to justify their kidnapping, or
should I say procuring another commodity for their job security. In most
cases, these children are never returned but turned over for adoption. The
Holm’s infant will not be considered for relatives even if relatives would
want him because federal incentives under Title IVe are not available
when that is done, and all because if they did that the money trail would
stop. So, all neat and tidy and another one bites the dust.)
Mr. Schlenker: No other questions.
Judge: Mr. Holm.
Christian: Has it ever been ordered for us to go get any type of medical
assistance?
Ms. Martin: Ordered?
Christian: Ordered. By the courts.
Ms. Martin: No.
Christian: So really it was based on our own opinion if we needed to go
and do it, or not, correct?
Ms. Martin: I’m not understanding.
Christian: You said as far as your examination and for keeping the child, it
was due to us going and doing a psychological evaluation of all the things
that were not met, right?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Christian: So, I’m saying to you that there is no court order that was ever
showed that we had to go do that, so how are you justifying that that has to
be right or done?
Ms. Martin: Do to your actions. We are just concerned that you have
untreated mental illness.
****(Which are virtually nothing. You do realize that, don’t you?)
Christian: So it’s your opinion?
Ms. Martin: No, I believe it’s a fact.
Christian: Well, how can you back that up behind facts?
****(Yes, really? It is an opinion being stated in court repeatedly as fact.
Even the assertions are twisted lies that all the actors have conspired to
repeat together. Scary.)
Ms. Schlenker: Objection, your honor. Argumentative.
Judge: Sustained. I think you will have to ask a proper question, Mr.
Holm.
Christian: What actions?
Ms. Martin: The three documents that you have sent to the department,
your medical records…
Christian: The medical records that you have gotten after you all have
taken our child?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Christian: Okay. Now the demand notices. Did these notices recite laws?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Christian: They did?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. Asked and answered.
Christian: I don’t think we ever spoke about what was on the…
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, the question was “they did”.
Judge: Did these notices recite laws? They did. Next question.
Christian: Could you tell us what those laws are?
Ms. Martin: No.
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, judge. The documents are in evidence. Let them
speak for themselves.
Christian: Can I get them?
Judge: Mr. Kirby, do you need a minute? Go off the record right now?
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.