43 Tape 27
Judge: And we are back on the record in JU88.01and Mr. Kirby…
Christian: Okay, your honor. Because we are not residents of this state and
because of religious rights we are going to have to file an appeal, and it is
our decision to not call anymore witnesses.
Judge: And so you are not going to be calling the persons that you have
under subpoena…
Christian: But we ask that Carey Pollard be made available for a deferred
Mr. Kirby: A motion to dismiss the dependency. The state needed five
days to respond.
Judge: Okay. I understand. So you are not calling any witnesses on your
behalf in your case in chief in response to state’s case?
Mr. Kirby: That would be correct.
Judge: But in regard to the motion to dismiss that was filed and is still
pending then you need Ms. Pollard.
Mr. Kirby: Yes. We need Ms. Pollard.
Judge: Okay, so she will remain under subpoena, and the remainder…who
all did you…you subpoenaed Ms. Busby.
Mr. Kirby: Uh…we subpoenaed Ms. Busby Ms. Pollard, Ms. Jackson, Ms.
Judge: Ms. Martin, maybe?
Mr. Kirby: Martin, yeah Ms. Martin. That’s correct. The only one that..I
mean…course I want Ms. Pollard but I’d like to get Ms Busby’s testimony,
so…with the documents she filed that’s…
Judge: Well, I don’t know that that would be appropriate at the motion to
Mr. Kirby: No, no, no, no…I’m saying…I would like to have Ms. Busby
testify about one thing and if the Holms don’t want anymore testimony
then that’s fine.
Judge: So at this time, Mr. and Mrs. Holm, you would like to proceed with
your rebuttal to the state’s case in chief, your case and not necessarily a
rebuttal. Very well.
Mr. Kirby: Is Ms. Busby available?
(female voice): Yes. She is. She is waiting in the hall.
Judge: If she is getting her, Mr. Kirby, Monday afternoon, can we set that
dismissal for a hearing? Tuesday afternoon, you are coming here anyway…
Mr. Schlenker: Yeah, Judge, I would say Tuesday afternoon because I am
on leave otherwise.
Judge: Mr. Kirby, are you going to be here Tuesday afternoon? It’s
dependency docket.
Mr. Kirby: Uh…let’s see.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I’m trying to think if I can go ahead and do it now.
I’ve not had the chance to look so I would like an opportunity to at least
Mr. Kirby: Tuesday afternoon…Oh, as a matter of fact I will be here that
Judge: Okay. Let me look and see on the docket how stacked we are at
certain times so I can give you a certain time for you all throughout the
day. Tuesday afternoon.
Mr. Kirby: Tuesday. Yes, ma’am. I mean, I am going to be here anyway so
I use that time to go see people.
Judge: You’ll make use of your time wisely.
Mr. Kirby: I’ll make use of my time, yes.
Judge: Okay, so we are looking at setting that probably at the end of the
docket, Tuesday afternoon, which would probably be 3:30 or 4:00 o’clock.
Work with you? Ms. Miller, work with you? DHR? All right, we are still
on the record. Ms. Busby, if you will raise your right hand. Do you swear
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Ms. Busby: I do.
Judge: Okay. Now you’ll have to speak up, okay?
Mr. Kirby: Ms. Busby, thank you for coming. Can you give us your…we
got your name…what is your title?
Ms. Busby: Director.
Mr. Kirby: Director of?
Ms. Busby: Cleburne County Department of Human Resources.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. What are your responsibilities at the department?
Ms. Busby: My responsibilities, they are hiring, any personnel actions,
kind of general oversee all the financial and child welfare programs.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Ms. Busby, you are represented by a counsel, aren’t you?
Ms. Busby: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kirby: And would that counsel be Mr. Schlenker and Mr. Hamlin?
Ms. Busby: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Have you discussed any documents that you filed with
this court with Mr. Schlenker or Mr. Hamlin?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I am going to object because that’s attorney client.
Anything that she would discuss with the department.
Mr. Kirby: I’m not asking her the content of the conversation, you know.
I’m just asking her, did she discuss it?
Mr. Schlenker: And judge, anything that she would discuss, if she’s elected
to discuss it with her counsel or not, would be privileged, and we would
object to her acknowledging any conversations with her counsel.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Kirby: Ms. Busby, I’m going to show you what’s been entered as
parent’s exhibit 5 and ask you if you recognize that document?
Ms. Busby: I recognize this first part. I have not…I don’t believe I have
seen this five page…
Mr. Kirby: Okay.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, for clarification, there is an order attached that Ms.
Busby does not see.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Ms. Busby, what is…can you tell the court what this
document is?
Ms. Busby: This is a motion for a temporary restraining order, a
preliminary injunction, a final injunction against the defendant asking for
a restraining order against filing liens against personal property.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. And Ms. Busby, whose names are on the back of that
document, please? Whose names are signed to that?
Ms. Busby: The signatures on this are Marsha Busby, Leslie Smith, Stacy
Jackson, and Alexandra Martin.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, and can you identify the other people other than your
name on back?
Ms. Busby: Yes. Leslie Smith is supervisor at my office, Stacy Jackson
and Alexander Martin are workers.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Do you know any of them to be attorneys?
Ms. Busby: No.
Mr. Kirby: Are you an attorney?
Ms. Busby: No, sir.
Mr. Kirby: And you are represented by counsel, is that correct?
Ms. Busby: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Ms. Busby, what was plaintiff’s exhibit 5 in response to?
Ms. Busby: That was in response to a large document that I saw that the
Holms had mailed out to a lot of places, that had a page in there…a page in
the document that stated that liens might be filed against…it named a lot of
employees with the department.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, did you turn…did you turn…let me ask you this, before
you filed this did you verify this with counsel?
Ms. Busby: I’m not sure I know what you mean by verify.
Mr. Kirby: Did you bring this document with you to file over at the
courthouse? Parent’s exhibit 5?
Ms. Busby: I personally did not bring it. I signed it. I think I was the first
person who signed it and it was going to be filed after all the signatures
were complete.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. Do you know who brought this document over to be
Ms. Busby: I do not know who filed it.
Mr. Kirby: Did you send a copy of this to your counsel?
Ms. Busby: It was my understanding that they had a copy of it.
Mr. Kirby: And how was that your understanding?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, and again, at this point we have already been
through this.
****(Mr. Schlenker needs to surround these lawbreakers with his cover.
They were practicing law without a license and weren’t too worried about
it either. His lie is a good one, and his representation is the best.
Unfortunately, his skills are being wasted in protection of corruption.)
Mr. Schlenker: I have already represented to the court. It was drafted by
counsel for the department, there was an intent for me to put my signature
on there. It was an oversight by my part based on a distance issue that the
department has, and unfortunately it was a drafting error, and therefore an
escribner’s error as well because the department…it was the intent of legal
to sign that document as well. So, again, that has already been in. That’s
already on the record. I believe it is the same with this witness. I don’t
think that she could testify as to anything that legal has or hasn’t done, and
again I think she can certain…again, I think it is clear that we are now
being just duplicative of other information because again, this is the exact
same evidence that’s involved with Ms. Jackson’s testimony.
****(Technicalities, legal technicalities, and they only matter if they are
being used to crucify the opposition. This judge will continue to overlook
it, I am sure.)
Judge: Mr. Kirby?
Mr. Kirby: Mr. Schlenker testified beautifully creating this document but
is…let me ask..while let me go ahead and you can…I mean…
Judge: And your response to his objection?
Mr. Kirby: I’ll move on. I withdraw. Okay. Let me ask you, Ms. Busby, is
your counsel’s signature on this page, either one of your counsel’s
signature, any counsel’s signature?
Ms. Busby: No, it’s not.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. That’s all I have, your honor.
Judge: Anything from the state?
Mr. Schlenker: Ms. Busby, when you signed that document were you
concerned for the safety and welfare of your staff?
Ms. Busby: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: And was that because of what you perceived to be threats
of the Holms?
Ms. Busby: Absolutely.
Mr. Schlenker: And again, that was the sole purpose of you filing that,
Ms. Busby: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: No other questions.
Judge: Anything further, Mr. Kirby? Oh wait! I forgot the guardian.
Guardian: I don’t have any questions.
Mr. Kirby: What the…do you understand what a lien is Ms. Busby?
Ms. Busby: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Do you understand that this is not a civil case about liens and
civil suits? This is a dependency case.
Ms. Busby: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: What is your understanding of a lien?
Ms. Busby: My understanding is that some documents are filed where a
freeze is put on personal property, that you could not sell or do any kind of
business with that property until the lien was removed.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. And that’s a correct understanding. That’s good. How
would…how would…well, let me ask you, what kind of threat did you take
that as? Did you take that as the Holms were dangerous to you and your
Ms. Busby: Um…I don’t know when you say dangerous. I mean, I think
that if that were something they were able to follow through with I do
think that it could cause some personal injury to an employee if that were
to happen…for them to have to go through some kind of event or expense
to get a lien removed.
Mr. Kirby: But you are not…are you talking about physical personal injury
Ms. Busby: Not on the lien per se, but I do think that that is a threatening
statement. You know, it may not be physical in that particular part, but I do
think it’s a threatening statement.
Mr. Kirby: It threatens…does it threaten a lawsuit?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection, judge, because it———–back on evidence and
it also…the document speaks for itself, and it also…Mr. Kirby is leading.
Judge: Mr. Kirby?
Mr. Kirby: Judge, the documents are in evidence. I think the demands that
the Holms made were entered as State’s 1, 2, and 3. So those documents
are into evidence and I wasn’t leading with the question.
Judge: Okay. If you recall speak to a lawsuit, if you recall.
Ms. Busby: Can you re ask me the question?
Mr. Kirby: Due to the demands….is there anything physically threatening
in those demands?
Ms. Busby: When you say physically threatening, if you are talking about
physically injuring someone?
Mr. Kirby: Yes. Danger to a human, danger to a person. Were you afraid
for your caseworker’s physical safety?
Ms. Busby: My answer to that is in some respects, yes, because the
thought processes when I read the document, the thought processes of that
document are troubling to me.
Mr. Kirby: Did you read the document?
Ms. Busby: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: Did you read all of the documents that were submitted by the
Ms. Busby: My…my recollection is I read three pretty large documents.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, and did any of those documents contain a physical threat
that would cause you concern for your caseworker’s physical safety and
well being?
Mr. Schlenker: Objection. It has been asked and answered.
Judge: Sustained. She has answered that.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, I’ll pass on this.
Mr. Schlenker: Are you aware of other cases where people have filed liens
without first having obtained a law suit?
Ms. Busby: I have heard that that has occurred. Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: And so was that part of your concern?
Ms. Busby: Yes.
Mr. Schlenker: No questions.
Judge: Guardian?
Guardian: No questions.
Mr. Kirby: To your knowledge, has there been any liens filed?
Ms. Busby: Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Kirby: Um…that’s all I have, your honor.
Judge: May Ms. Busby by excused?
Mr. Schlenker: Please.
Judge: Mr. Kirby, anything else on behalf of the parents?
whispering between Danielle, Mr. Kirby, and Christian. Inaudible.
Christian: I don’t know anything else. We can’t twist her hand and make
her tell the truth—————-for what I would hope, for what laws have
we broken?
Mr. Kirby: Your honor, I guess the parent’s case will rest.
Judge: And Mr. and Mrs. Holm, is that indeed your position that you rest
at this time. Rest means that you are done.
Christian: Uh…we’re…we’re going to go higher. I don’t know what you are
trying to…
Mr. Kirby: Well done today…
Judge: Today.
Mr. Kirby: You are not calling anymore witnesses on your behalf.
Christian: Yes.
Judge: Okay. Thank you for helping me clarify that. Alright, so I will take
this portion of the case under advisement and before I issue a ruling I want
to hear argument on the last pending motion, and that’s the motion to
dismiss that was filed Monday afternoon. Today is Wednesday, okay. Are
there any other pending motions that have not been resolved that you are
aware of, Mr. Kirby?
Mr. Kirby: I can’t think of any. No there is no pending motions that we
have right now. Is there anything that you guys can think of?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I don’t know of any other motions that are pending
so I think…other than that one…so I think we are at a done stage with that.
Judge: Guardian, can you think of any pending motions that are filed with
the court.
Guardian: I don’t believe so, your honor, except for the one that is set on
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Kirby: I guess the only issue we have right now is visitation. Get it
started back as quick as possible.
Guardian: And judge, I believe after talking with the department and kind
of talking about that yesterday, I believe there is visitation today. Is that
(female voice): Yes, we have arranged for their to be a visitation from 3:00
to 3:45. The sheriff’s department has agreed to be present.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Kirby: 3:00 to 3:45…(a bit sarcastically spoken)
(female voice): Judge, we asked them what time they could give us an
officer and that’s the most they said they could allot to was.
Judge: Well, it’s a start and I will take the case under advisement until
Tuesday afternoon.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: