Please note: This article is reprinted directly from MedicalKidnap.com. It is being presented here in three installments due to length. This is the 3rd and final. The article in its entirety can be found here: link to complete story here
Part 3: The Hospital/Doctor
In what can only be characterized as an extreme miscarriage of justice, the Texas Department of Child Protective Services (CPS) got an emergency court order in Kaufman County to remove a 4-year-old boy from his family.
On June 20, 2019, the 4-year-old was forcefully taken by CPS with the assistance of law enforcement. Following that, on July 2, 2019, a Kaufman County judge upheld the order.
The doctor from Children’s Hospital, who apparently initiated the process which resulted in the forceful removal of a 4-year-old boy from his family by CPS, had no history of treating the child, had never seen the child, never spoke with the parents, and did not even make a complete review of all of the child’s medical records before submitting an affidavit simply expressing some concerns about the child’s medical history.
CPS then used (perhaps “misused” is more appropriate) this affidavit to get an “emergency” court order to remove the child from his home and start the process of permanently terminating all parental rights.
There are several problems with the affidavit submitted and the testimony of the hospital doctor who was responsible for the initiation of this CPS action.
The first problem is that all of her statements about the child and parents are pure speculation. She never saw or spoke with either parent or the child before submitting the affidavit.
All the “concerns” she expressed in her affidavit were simply “concerns.” She presented no firsthand or even secondhand knowledge of any wrongdoing by either parent.
Also, she did not express any urgency for an “emergency” action, and she made no recommendation related to a need for CPS to remove the child from his family.
Some of the highlights of inconsistencies between the affidavit, testimony, and the conclusions intended to be used are:
- In her testimony, she questioned the decision made by the cerebral palsy doctor to provide a wheelchair for the child. Yet she admitted that she did not know and had not talked with that doctor. In paragraph 2 of her affidavit, she said, “I do not have access to the child’s records from the cerebral doctor.”
- The doctor discussed several medical issues, doctor visits, treatments, and medications the child has faced in his short four years. These include a brain surgery; before allowing it, the family got four second opinions from other doctors regarding the necessity of the surgery. He was also diagnosed, tested, and treated for many issues. These included autism, sleep apnea, restless leg syndrome, RSV viral lung infection, milk-protein allergy, cerebral palsy, and reflux. However, not all doctor-ordered treatments produced good results. According to the doctor’s seven-page affidavit, every medical diagnosis and treatment the child received was from a certified medical doctor. Yet under the medical findings on page four of the doctor’s affidavit, the doctor appears to criticize the mother by stating in Item 4, “. . . mother has expressed concerns for multiple problems over the years.” Wow. What loving, caring, and doting mother would not be “concerned” with so little progress being made by multiple doctors? But, the two big questions are:
- Why would CPS accept a sworn statement like this one when that doctor had never met nor talked with either parent or the child?
- Why would an allegedly impartial court system accept such a document as fact?
The only “significant” concern expressed by this doctor in her affidavit is directed at the competency of the other doctors, not at the parents.
In fact, almost all the “concerns” expressed by the doctor in her affidavit appear to be criticism of the previous doctor’s diagnosis and treatments.
On page 6, “Kaleb is a 4 yo male that is currently being seen by multiple doctors in the Dallas area. With much review, I have significant concerns about the accuracy of some of his diagnoses. I am very worried about medical abuse for this child.”
So, if this is truly her belief, why has she not reported these concerns to the Texas Medical Board for a malpractice investigation of the doctor for every procedure she questioned?
After all, it was the doctor, not the mother, that made the diagnosis and performed the procedure.
Even though there appeared to be some conflict in testimony between hospital doctor and the CASA representative, it was quite obvious that they had coordinated their testimony. They both used very similar words and scenarios to describe the child in the hospital.
However, one of them got their facts reversed on the issue of potty training. One said that “he only pooped in the toilet but he peed in his pull-ups,” while the other stated, “he only peed in the toilet but pooped in his pull-ups.”
Then, after the abduction but before the court hearing, the doctor did meet with the parents to discuss her concerns. It was noted by several people that attended the meeting, either in person or via telephone conferencing, that the doctor said her concerns had been answered and saw no reason for the child to remain in the hospital.
Why, then, does CPS insist on continuing to seek custody of the child and permanent termination of all parental rights?
These are just the highlights of the concerns with the doctor’s affidavit that began the persecution of this family.
In addition to the above, citizens should have serious concerns with the way that CPS and officers of the court twisted and misused her statements.
Next Article: Part 4 – “Was Justice or Injustice Served” will be a discussion of the role the court system played in assisting CPS in its mission to remove the child from its family.
Source: SenatorBobHall.com
end of article
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
Then there they were, standing in the little alcove outside the door of The Clock, hugging tight. Robert kissed Bill on the cheek, something that might have been uncomfortable under other circumstances but which seemed quite natural at the time.
“Keep in touch,” Robert said.
Bill knew he would not keep in touch. Bill knew it was one of those moments, one of those things. He’d already had some like this one, not quite as deep, but similar, when he’d said goodbye to several of his friends upon heading off to Columbus, and before that too, with friends and even relatives on his mother’s side who he’d lost contact with after his mother died.
There was so much to remember, even then in his short twenty years of life.
Trish had asked him if he could fix Patsy’s grade. She’d stood there with those black lips in those high-heel, open-toe, open-heel mules, in just a full, black slip and no underwear. She’d already told him that.
She was hot just the way she was. But as she asked him about Patsy’s grade, she sucked at one of her fingers and fussed with the bottom of her slip, lifting it ever-so-suggestively.
“Please?”
“I don’t know.”
“Pretty please.” She’d drawn her knees together, then let them separate, looked at him with puppy-dog eyes. “I’ll do anything for it.”
“Like what?”
“Like your wildest dreams. And I do mean anything. From tying me up to…” She’d leaned in on over the trunk that separated them to whisper in his ear.
He could see the slip fall away from her body, could see her tiny breasts with their prominent nipples. He remembered thinking he’d died and gone to heaven, or something to the effect of how lucky he was at the moment.
What she’d whispered in his ear had been so far from his dreams it might never have come into his mind, just like being a cook had never come into his mind until the moment Robert stepped into Bailey’s office that morning and whisked him off to Suburban West.
“Well,” Bill said, “for that I might just be able to fix that grade.”
“I know you can,” Trish said. “I know you will. I know you would even if we didn’t do anything here tonight. I know, knowing you now, that you wouldn’t let Patsy fail if there was anything you could do about it.”
“You think I’m that much of a softy?”
Trish just smiled at that.
They spent the night together. They drank some wine, smoked some weed, popped more Quaaludes than they should have. Then they drank more wine and got so wasted they could hardly stand up.
They sat a long time on the sofa making out. Petting. Petting in that old sense of the word. They kissed and they touched and then they kissed and touched some more.
And then they walked hand in hand, very late at night/early in the morning, into Bill’s bedroom where Trish pleased herself with him in every way she wanted while Bill let himself enjoy what would end up being one of the very best nights of his life.
Patsy could never get an A. Bill fixed it so Patsy went to talk to Hank who told her he couldn’t just give her a grade, but that since she was having such a hard time with the exams, he could arrange for her to write an extra paper. He even allowed her to be able to get help with the paper. She had to write it, but she could get help.
That, of course, was an allusion to Bill’s helping her with the paper. Which he did. Which, mostly, he wrote for her sitting outside in the backyard while she and Trish sunbathed. For which Patsy was ever grateful in ever so many ways. And Trish too.
Leaving Columbus meant leaving so many memories.
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
Please note: This article is reprinted directly from MedicalKidnap.com. It is being presented here in three installments due to length. This is the 2nd installment. The article in its entirety can be found here: link to complete story here
Part 2: CPS Caseworker
This government agency, Child Protective Services (CPS), is the genesis of this problem and others like it. As has been confirmed multiple times, CPS does not know when or under what circumstances it is in the best interest of the child to remove the child from parental custody.
All too often, it seems CPS errs on the side of “the parent is guilty of child neglect or abuse” instead of ensuring the protection of the child from the true evil in the world. Unfortunately, from the testimony given last week, there appears to be little or no supervisory oversight to ensure that overzealous case workers are actually working in the best interest of the child.
The sworn affidavit and testimony of the caseworker has several issues. Remember, she testified that she had never seen or talked to the child or anyone with firsthand knowledge of the statements that she swears to be true.
Some of the questionable statements in her affidavit in support of removal, dated June 20, 2019, are: (Her affidavit paragraph titles and numbers are below, in bold.)
- ALLEGATIONS (page 2)
Essentially, every statement is either untrue, a twisting of a similar statement, or just plain hearsay.
Examples of some of the misstatements:
“… referral alleging the physical abuse of Kaleb by Ashley Pardo.” – No such statement is in the hospital doctor’s affidavit.
“Ashley is displaying behavior associated with Munchausen syndrome by proxy.” – On what basis? The caseworker is not a doctor and has never seen Ashley.
“Ashley convinced a doctor to put in an NG tube … .” – There is no evidence or testimony to support this. How does anyone “convince” a doctor to do a medical procedure against his will?
“Ashley constantly wheels Kaleb around in the wheelchair.” – This statement is not in the hospital doctor’s affidavit, and the caseworker could not possibly have any firsthand knowledge.
“Ashley began telling everyone that Kaleb had epilepsy.” – There is no evidence or testimony to support this statement. Again, the caseworker is swearing this to be true, even though she has never heard Ashley speak.
- CPS HISTORY (page 4)
This is a particularly outrageous section in which the caseworker uses “allegations” against Ashley’s previous husband—who, it appears, has some real problems—to make it appear to the casual reader that the problems were with the current family; nothing could be further from the truth.
The caseworker began this section with the statement: “The family appears to have previous CPS history” – She then uses four pages to list several law enforcement allegations against Ashley’s first husband; none of which had any finding of neglect or child abuse.
In the second to last sentence of the 05/23/2014 allegation statement, the caseworker makes an outright lie when she states:
“Ashly Pardo said Daniel Pardo struck Ashly Pardo while Ashly Pardo was pregnant with Linzey Pardo.” This could not possibly be true. Ashly and Daniel did not meet until long after Linzey was born.
It appears that the caseworker knew her case against the Pardo family was extremely weak, therefore she chose to include these “red herring” allegations to mislead the court into thinking this was a really bad family with a lot of violent history.
- CONCLUSION (page 7)
The caseworker misquotes the hospital doctor’s affidavit and makes a statement that is contrary to courtroom testimony. One of the two statements has to be untrue.
“The Reach clinic has provided its findings as highly concerning for medical child abuse.”
The word “highly” is not in the hospital doctor’s affidavit. In fact, in testimony, the hospital doctor made it quite clear that she simply had “some” concerns after a partial review of the child’s medical files, and those concerns were resolved after discussion with the parents. (This discussion took place after the affidavit but before the court hearing.)
“The Department has attempted to identify safe family members or fictive kin with whom the child could be placed as opposed to placement in foster care, however, no such individuals could be found.”
“Reasonable efforts had been made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of these children from the Prado’s home … .”
In the court hearing, the caseworker could not describe any effort made by CPS to resolve the concerns without removing the child from the home.
In fact, her testimony confirmed that the only action CPS pursued was that of an “emergency.”
However, the “emergency” was allowed to go on for two weeks between the time the CPS worker put a business card on the family’s door and the time the child was removed—more than ample time for parents to be allowed to address the allegations without further traumatizing the child.
The court hearing testimony and behavior of the caseworker can only be described as strange or bizarre. On almost every question that could be answered with a “yes” or “no,” the caseworker would first look down and appeared to be shuffling through papers, looking for the answer.
Then she would look up at the CPS attorney who would be nodding her head in either a “yes” or a “no” movement. The caseworker would then answer accordingly.
Even though there was an exhaustive series of questions asked, the caseworker refused to answer why the first and only official action by CPS had to be an “emergency” order for removal.
The only thing close to an explanation the caseworker would give for refusing to tell the parents or their lawyer the allegations was that she was afraid the parents would run and hide.
It was also quite clear, to me, that the CPS caseworker’s ego led her to take it upon herself to pursue an “emergency” order to show the family’s lawyer that she was from the government and she could do anything to that family that she wanted to do.
(end of second installment)
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
Please note: This article is reprinted directly from MedicalKidnap.com. It is being presented here in three installments due to length. This is the 1st installment. The article in its entirety can be found here: link to complete story here
Texas Senator Exposes Corruption with CPS and Child Abuse Doctors Over Medical Kidnapping of 4-Year-Old Child
Commentary: CPS Heavy-Handed Overreach
When the overreaching heavy hand of the government leads to even one instance of injustice, a little bit of liberty is lost for all citizens.
On July 2, 2019, in Kaufman County, Texas, another piece of liberty was chipped from our society. Once again, in a very sad courtroom scene, the “legal” abduction of a 4-year-old child by the Texas Child Protective Service (CPS) was upheld by what can only be described as an egregious miscarriage of justice.
During a hearing, that lasted more than six hours, little to no evidence was presented that indicated either parent, of the 4-year-old boy, had actually done anything remotely close to child abuse. In fact, no one involved in the whole prosecution process had ever met or talked with either parent, or met or talked with the child.
The doctor from Children’s Hospital, who apparently initiated the forceful removal, had no history of treating the child, had never seen the child, and did not make a complete review of all of the child’s medical records.
The CPS caseworker, responsible for initiating the legal process, as an “emergency” necessity, had no firsthand knowledge of any of the alleged charges she levied against the parents, had never met or talked with the child, and had made no attempt to complete a background investigation, as required by CPS policy.
Yet, the courtroom judge insisted that the process to permanently terminate parental rights be continued, that no further interaction between the child and the parents be allowed except with CPS approval and supervision, and that CPS be granted total control over all needs of the child.
Yes, that is the same Texas CPS that is notorious for the extensive abuse and high rate of suicides of children, in their care and in their foster child care system.
How Could This Have Happened?
Each of the four parties (Hospital/Doctor, CPS, Court System and Child’s Ad Litem Attorney) involved failed in its primary responsibility to act in accordance with its role of “protecting the child first”.
While all four parties failed their responsibility, CPS is the root of the failure.
This government agency is the real genesis of this problem and others like it. There has been multiple confirmed cases that CPS does not know when or under what circumstances it is in the best interest of the child to be removed from parental custody.
All too often it seems CPS errs on the side of the parent is guilty of child neglect instead of ensuring the protection of the child from the true evil in the world.
Unfortunately, from the testimony given last week, there appears to be little or no supervisory oversight to ensure that overzealous caseworkers are actually working in the best interest of the child.
In this instance, the CPS caseworker had:
1. never seen or talked to the child;
2. not seen or talked to the parents;
3. not seen or talked to family members;
4. not seen or talked to neighbors;
5. not conducted a background investigation;
6. not attempted to resolve the issue without removal;
7. refused to disclose the allegations to the parents or to their lawyer;
8. misquoted and misrepresented a hospital doctor’s affidavit to obtain the court order and;
9. had no firsthand knowledge of any wrong doing by the parents;
By declaring it an “emergency”, the caseworker was able to forcefully remove the child by requiring his father to put him in a waiting police vehicle without having to first complete any of the procedural steps which were supposedly put in place to ensure that removal from the home was done as a last resort action.
The court hearing testimony and behavior of the caseworker can only be described as strange or bizarre. On almost every question that could be answered with a “yes” or “no”, the caseworker would first look down and appeared to be shuffling through papers looking for the answer.
Then she would look up and at the CPS attorney who would be nodding her head in either a “yes” or a “no”movement. The caseworker would then answer accordingly. After a while, I began watching the judge and it appeared to me that he, too, was watching the CPS attorney appearing to be coaching the witness, but he never called them out.
Even though there was an exhaustive series of questions asked, the caseworker never gave a reason why the first and only official action by CPS had to be an “emergency” order for removal.
It was also quite clear, to me, that the CPS caseworker’s personal push led her to take it upon herself to pursue an “emergency” order.
Doing so, in essence, showed the family’s attorney that she was from the government, she could do anything to that family that she wanted to do, when he indicated he was going to take the case up the CPS chain of command.
Knowing that judges, for self-protection, almost always side with CPS was the only path to ensure that she got a pelt-for-her-belt.
(end of first installment)
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
“Boy,” Robert said, “you’re gonna be fine up there.”
They had ordered beers and were sitting at a small table for two off in a quiet space, as quiet as could be found in a noisy restaurant/bar in downtown Columbus. People around them, they could hear, were still talking about the Buckeyes’ romp, what had happened on Saturday which had been the Bucks’ first game of the season, mostly a walk over as very often those first games were.
Still, it had made for great business in both Suburban East and Suburban West, so, as both Bill and Robert talked about it, Bill’s last Saturday night had been busy start to finish.
Which, Bill said, was the best way to go out. A quick, deep-down hug with Mary P, an even quicker lukewarm hug with Bea, shakes of the hands with Henry Lee, Esserine and Tommy. Kisses for Lorraine and Victoria, Lily and Brooklyn, and then a more intimate moment with Arlene who’d insisted he take her phone number, which he already had.
And that was that.
“You are one of the best broiler cooks I’ve ever seen,” Robert said. “You be working inside a week once you start looking.”
When Robert said that, Bill remembered the conversation with Trish, now so long ago, it seemed, even though it wasn’t but about a year and a few months.
Nothing worth much in this world. She had asked what he was reading when she came in the door that night and he said something to that effect. It was true too.
He’d been reading some required stuff for his philosophy class. Later in that conversation with Trish he would tell her that he was friends with his recitation instructor, a grad assistant.
“What kind of friends?” she would ask.
Get-high-together friends, Bill told her, and he told her he’d lived with him and his girlfriend, Hank and Paula, for several months after breaking up with his live-in girlfriend, Pam. Hank and Paula lived over on the next street, literally. Norwich and Northwood were two consecutive streets up on the north end of campus just a few blocks up from the horseshoe, close enough to the Bucks’ stadium such that they got parked in, blocked off by cars on home-game days.
Trish said she recognized him, his friend Hank. He was already going bald, even as a young grad student in the doctoral program in Philosophy. She had noted that. But mostly it was his big, bushy beard and how he bounded in and up the stairs at all different times, sometimes late at night. She said Patsy had his class and was failing.
“I can’t fail,” Bill said. “I’m getting a A+. And next semester too cause I know who my recitation instructor is gonna be and we’re getting high together too.”
“That’s messed up,” Trish said.
“Not really,” Bill said. “We have a deal, which is why I’m doing the reading. Deal is that I ace every test and all the papers better than anyone else. That way, if my work is more than A+ exemplary, if it can pass muster, no one can say shit.”
“That’s messed up even more.”
“Was either make the deal or give up the friendship.”
“They should just give you the grade then.”
“That would be messed up,” Bill had said.
Then, as Bill recalled it sitting there with Robert, he’d said to Trish, “Let’s see what kind of grade I can earn with you.”
“You really think that?” Bill asked Robert.
“Boy, please! Not only will you be working, but you’ll have your choice of jobs and whatever one you take, they’ll be lucky to have you.”
They drank two beers. Then it was time to say goodbye. Saying goodbye was a bittersweet moment, one Bill had dreaded and Robert too, so he would find out when Robert told him this.
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
There is nothing they can do! More precisely, there is nothing they can do about all the shootings by enacting more Federal regulations or State regulations. As usual, and almost as always these days, the government is bass ackwards and looking in all the wrong places.
One more time: the government is bass ackwards and looking in all the wrong places.
First, in general and overall, for the most part legal gun owners and legal gun carriers don’t commit gun crimes. They are ever-conscious and ever-concerned about maintaining their permits (to own and carry), which in most places are not easy to obtain in the first place.
Second, most of the people referred to in the paragraph above are trained in regard to their guns and how to use them, store them, keep them safe from children, etc. The training courses needed to get permits to own and/or carry a gun also go over the basics of gun laws, so…
That said, one of those old sayings: guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
And it is here that the government is all wrong, is looking in all the wrong places for the causes of all “the shootings” and how to prevent them.
No regulation is going to prevent a criminal from obtaining a gun if s/he wants one or from committing a crime with that gun.
Most gun crimes are committed by criminals who do not have permits to be having the guns they use in the committing of a crime. Not all, most. One doesn’t have to look any further than at the crime rates in the inner cities, and all the shootings therein, to see that the vast majority of them are committed by people who don’t have permits.
So more regulation, quite frankly, is bass ackwards.
And that raises several questions.
First, what is all the regulation about? What is the intent behind the regulation?
Second, are our (overwhelmingly liberal, Despicable Democrat) leaders oblivious to all the studies about the actual facts of who commits gun crimes and mass shootings?
[Just as an aside, these same overwhelmingly liberal, Despicable Democrat leaders, some of them aspiring presidential hopefuls, should be asked the same questions about the climate change issue, the energy issue, and a lot of other issues. They should be asked and challenged about the facts behind their idiotic policy and regulation proposals.]
Third, are they really so blind? Do they not see that certain things don’t work? That heaping more regulation onto policies that are already proven not to work meets the definition of insanity? You know, the one that says doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, that definition of insanity.
It would be truly wonderful if they, our Despicable Democrat overwhelmingly power-hungry leaders and presidential hopefuls, were simply misguided and/or ignorant of the facts. Then they would be teachable, and even better, then we might even believe they were well-meaning, even actually concerned about the populace and the country.
But alas, they are not misguided, ignorant of the facts, blind or crazy. No! Much worse than any of that, they are cunning, sly and arrogant. On top of being cunning, sly and arrogant, they are selfish, greedy, narcissistic and power-crazy.
So the answer to the question about regulation (above) is simple. They don’t give a rat’s ass about us, about you or me or America, the environment, the planet or even the illegal immigrants they so vehemently pretend to support and defend.
They see clearly the effects of what they are proposing — that push to socialism — and they understand that it will catapult them and their families and their families’ offspring to the “gated city,” to the upper, upper class, forever and ever.
The hell with everything else, they say among themselves, laughingly to be sure.
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
An Inconvenient Truth: Liberal Climate Inquisition Can’t Explain Past Temperature Changes
link to original printing of story here
In the week prior to the administration signing what should constitute an international climate treaty, one think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was subpoenaed for casting doubt on the agreement’s associated science of climate catastrophe.
As disturbing as such thuggery from state attorneys general would be in any case, the premise of the subpoena is faulty. The Competitive Enterprise Institute did not cast doubt on the dubious climate science. The actual data cast the doubt. The think tank and others have simply pointed out what the data show.
It looks like thoughtcrime has now moved from George Orwell’s novel “1984” to the twisted reality of our judicial system. Pointing out facts should never be a real crime.
The Heritage Foundation’s new Paris-bubble-popping science summary is also a case of letting the numbers tell a story. A story many never hear in the media-hyped spectacle that is international climate policy.
For instance, the chart above shows reconstructed average world temperature data for the past 500,000 years. Depending on the magnification and size of your monitor, each pencil dot would span something on the order of 1,000 years. The myriad 10-degree Celsius temperature flips all happened before man-made carbon dioxide could have had any impact—the final temperature spike started at the end of the last ice age.
Now see if you can follow this: The “science thought police” insist that even though none of the temperature variations for the first 499,950 years had anything to do with human activity, virtually none of the temperature increases of the past 50 years had anything to do with nature. Got it?
A question some overzealous attorneys general might be asking right now is, “Where did this ‘denier’ data come from?” The answer is: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center website (to be very clear, it is part of the federal government).
If those who merely point to data that are inconsistent with an imminent climate crisis are thought criminals, how much more subpoena worthy would be those who actually created the data? This expands the thoughtcrime conspiracy to an entirely new set of perps.
Should the hyperventilating attorneys general subpoena the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in its entirety or just the researchers? If donors to think tanks are subpoenaed simply because the think tanks pointed to this data, should not the U.S. Treasury be subpoenaed for actually funding these doubt-creating data?
In any event, it seems disingenuous to wave off huge past temperature changes as entirely natural while branding as science-denying fraudsters those who assert that natural forces are likely still to be playing a significant role. This is a problem for the U.N. Climate Agreement and its signers.
If natural forces have played a significant role in the moderate and unsteady temperature increases of the past 60 years, then what’s the climate hysteria about? If there is no need for hysteria, there is no need for the Paris climate agreement.
Pick up a copy of Bill Wynn: The Second Hundred and all my works here:
By Peter Weiss
So the lawyer and I had to talk. The talk, of course, cost me money, three-quarters of an hour’s worth, or on toward three hundred dollars.
First, he told me he thought maybe we ought to see if they would offer some kind of settlement. He said I might think about copping to neglect if they would return my children.
In essence, then, we could talk about this at the next court date and if everyone were amenable, within about a month after that I could have my kids back.
But I didn’t do anything, I told him. My boy was hit with a baseball that his friend threw with competitive exuberance against one of those “return the ball” screens. Except he was distracted and missed it.
The lawyer said he knew what happened and how it happened and he said he knew I wasn’t guilty of anything. He said that sometimes we find ourselves in a position where someone else is holding all the cards and at times like that it’s usually better to fold.
What does that mean? I asked him.
It meant that they had me beat financially, that they could drag the case on for maybe eighteen months or so which would cost me a fortune and during which time they would file a permanency plan which in all likelihood would recommend the judge terminate my rights as a parent and that my children be kept in foster care until such time as they were adopted by loving, caring people who wanted them.
So my lawyer stopped the clock then, so to speak, and said he wanted to tell me a story, but that he wouldn’t charge me for his story. He had his paralegal pull out a court transcript — apparently it was one she was familiar with because she knew exactly what he was referring to and where to find it.
It was a case that had seventeen court dates. His client hadn’t done anything wrong, nothing, but they managed to make it seem as if the client was about ten shades worse than Jeffrey Dahmer.
The bottom line of the case and what was in the transcript was a simple spoken line where the DAG said to the judge that the truth didn’t matter. Straight out. She said the truth didn’t matter. She said this after my lawyer claimed that what she had presented was simply not true, that it was an outright lie, a pure fabrication and he could prove it. The DAG held to it, that the truth didn’t matter, that the only thing that mattered was the presumption, or the mere possibility that it might be true.
My lawyer went off. He told the judge that if the truth didn’t matter it could not be a serious court. He said he had presented and was again presenting truth, facts and records that showed the truth and which totally belied what the DAG was claiming.
So my lawyer looked at me when we finished reading and said that the judge peered out kind of blank-eyed, that he stared out into nowhere off beyond where they all were. Then he yawned and put his hands up in the position of “what should I say?”
He didn’t stop what was going on. He didn’t find for my lawyer at all. He just, as my lawyer told it, “looked at me kind of sheepishly, and let it all go on.”
It’s all fixed, my lawyer said. So think about making a deal. The worst that we would accept is your going on the registry, but at least you’d have your kids back.
I didn’t do anything wrong. I didn’t do anything.
So I sat there in his office and cried.
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
Please note: This article is reprinted directly from MedicalKidnap.com. It is being presented here in two installments due to length. This is the 2nd and final installment. The article in its entirety can be found here: see entire story here all at once including video
by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
continued…
Reguli goes on to explain the order from DCS to remove the children was not even signed by a judge in their county. They went to a different county to get the ex parte emergency order, and even then Reguli states that the order was not even signed by the judge.
These kangaroo courts, this donkey justice system that is going on – there is not another type of litigation that goes through this.
If I have a contract case, and I want to go get a restraining order against somebody or some other business, I have to file the document with the court, and then it goes to the judge, and then the judge makes the decision.
This being able to cart your documents off by DCS workers to another county, under the claim that they’ve got some freakin emergency – it has got to stop!
Reguli goes on to explain that the rationale behind ex parte orders is to deal with emergency situations where there is no time to wait for a court to convene and hear the case. The standard is supposed to be: “There is a risk of irreparable harm before a court hearing can be held.”
But DCS workers abuse the system by using ex parte orders to immediately remove children from homes when there is no emergency.
“They’re making these ex parte orders on antonymous tips, on vague allegations that they have no substance, they’re doing no investigation.”
Concerning the case where she is being charged with criminal charges of “Facilitation of Custodial Interference and Accessory after the Fact” Reguli states:
They made allegations that mom was a drug dealer. They never showed mom was a drug dealer. And that was last August.
The kids are home with mom. And DCS dismissed their case.
I filed four different complaints with the Department of Children’s Services, showed them all the violations. They had taken these children, they had shipped them 300 miles away in foster homes in which there were needles, and bars on the windows in a culturally inappropriate setting that was totally not the setting that foster care was supposed to be.
They have been in six placements in less than a year.
They told these kids that they would never go home to their mom.
Retaliation Against Attorney for Exposing Corruption?
When asked if she thinks this criminal charge against her is retaliation, Reguli states
Absolutely. And they know in this case it is a federal “case” – it has civil rights violations, it is a civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen. And in Tennessee we have a very short statute of limitations. I already have the complaint about 80 percent drafted. This is just a distraction to steal my time..
So we’re going to make it a distraction for everybody.
When we have a preliminary hearing, I’ll get cameras in the courtroom, and we’ll video tape it.
I’m going to have my opportunity to cross examine some of these people, including the judges, the caseworkers, the police officers – we’ll get them up there and cross examine them.
Because there was never a finding that this mom was a drug dealer. And that was their whole basis for running off and snatching these kids.
Based on her phone call with the police, Reguli knew that they were charging the mom with “Custodial Interference” and charging her, as the mom’s attorney, for “facilitating a crime.”
And yet, the case had already been dismissed, and the children were already back home with the mom.
Reguli then goes on to give her perspective as to why they are so upset with her to the point of filing (bogus) criminal charges.
Here’s another reason they are mad at me. So, I record everything. I have Olympus digital recorders that plug into your computer. I carry them with me all the time. I lay them down on the desk. There is no secret. Everybody knows it.
When I go into a courtroom, I lay a recorder on the table.
When we had a hearing on February 26th, I got my recorders out on the table, we take a short break to do something, and I left my recorder on. I just left it on. I didn’t turn it off as I walked out.
I came back in, and we finish what we are doing.
When I get back to my office, I’m downloading my audios and I was trying to find something on my audio.
So I pull up my audio, and I realized what I had done by keeping it on.
Well, during the break, the DCS attorney and DCS workers were talking smack about me. Along with the court officer, the judge’s court officer who works for the sheriff department, is talking smack about me and my client. They’re sitting over there giggling and laughing it and I posted that online as well.
They are livid about that. They’re absolutely livid that they’re basically saying that the barrier to reunification is Connie Reguli.
Well, that shows you that it was personal right then.
This was a personal vendetta.
end of article
Pick up a copy of all my works here: By Peter Weiss
Trish came by that night. Actually she came by in the early evening first, at dinner time. She carried up a plate of BBQ with homemade potato salad and slaw. She was wearing sneakers, tight jeans and a low cut-blouse. She also had beer, two of them, one for her and one for Bill.
She didn’t knock. She just let herself in, called out “Hello?” even though she knew he was there. Bill came out from the bedroom.
“Hi,” he said. He wore a man’s shirt, open, and white navy surplus bell-bottom pants. He was barefoot.
“Brought you some dinner.” She set the plate down on the trunk, set the beer bottles down and plunked herself down on the sofa.
“You really are skinny,” he said.
“Very. Small tits too, but you already know that. Nice nipples though, huh? Anyway, if I want, I can wear boy’s clothes. Makes it cheap for me, specially at the second hand store.”
Bill sat next to her and took up the plate to eat.
“Patsy’s a really good cook. And that’s not all as you know now.”
“She’s wild. You too.”
“She and I have been friends forever, since public school. Anyway, no matter how free they are with other people, I don’t do her guy. I just live there. I live there because it’s good economically for all of us. And Patsy and me, well, we hang out together.”
“I’d say that’s pretty accurate.”
“We’re not gay or bi, not really. I’m hetero even though I enjoy doing what we did this afternoon sometimes. I think when I get married, I’m just gonna be straight with my man, not in an open marriage. That’s okay for now, while we’re young and free, you know?”
Bill sipped his beer. “You don’t have to tell me this stuff. You don’t have to explain anything to me.”
“Can I read your poetry?”
“Sure.”
Bill got up and went into the bedroom. He returned with a notebook and a binder, handed them both to Trish. Then he sat back down and finished eating.
She read. She spent twenty minutes reading. Bill went about doing things he had to do, some of which was homework. In the midst of the things he did, he washed the plate and fork Trish had brought up and poured them both some wine. Trish said she had more beer downstairs and if he wanted she would bring it up. But Bill went on to drink wine and so did Trish. They smoked a joint too. Then she told him she’d be back later, took up his binder and notebook and left.
Bill was reading when she came back. It was after eleven and he was thinking she wasn’t coming, which was alright with him. He had just a little more to read for tomorrow’s class which was why he hadn’t gone to sleep.
This time she was wearing a black slip and open-toe, high-heel mules. She’d done her hair and her make-up too, dark eyes and deep, black lipstick. She didn’t knock this time either, just let herself in through the unlocked door.
“What you reading?” Trish asked. She stood before him, legs slightly spread, hands on her hips.
Bill looked at her, really took her in. “For my philosophy class,” he said.
“What’s it about?”
“Nothing particularly useful in this world.”
“So why you reading it?”
“Expanding my mind.”
Trish smiled. She shifted on her feet, one foot to the other. “Lots of ways to expand your mind,” she said. “Let’s get wasted.”
“What you want?”
“Quaaludes, lots of them. And wine. And weed. And then some good speed in the morning. You got all that?”
“You know I do.”
“I’d do anything for speed. Anything.”
Bill closed his textbook, got up to get the drugs. She was sitting on the sofa, legs spread wide when he returned.
“I’m not wearing underwear,” she said.
