https://www.facebook.com/groups/1826254040954882/permalink/1914412948805657/

(“Shared” with FaceBook & Holm permission.)

From: C. Clarke Holm

Date: May 10, 2017

Time: 3:30 PM MT

.

This is the audio of when I was asking about the Grand Jury results.

.

As you will hear I was told that the Jury did not have enough evidence to push the trial forward. Well this is very disappointing since the investigator Brian Tumlin of the Cleburne County Sheriff office did not speak with the two individuals that we gave to him and to the District Attorney Eric Snyder where Eric told us before the Grand Jury he would make sure the investigator spoke with them.

.

Also keep in mind that this investigator is the same one from the audios already posted about them trying to say no crime happened before they even investigated.

.

Another reason for not having enough evidence is because the information that was given to them by Tammy Power was false.

.

So they couldnt find the so called nurse that Tammy brought into our camp site that then assaulted my wife.

.

How convenient for them.

.

We were not allowed to record the Grand Jury, so this audio is all we have for results.

.

As you will here I get a little frustrated when I’m told they didnt have enough evidence.

.

Also when I confront the District Attorney about giving him the other names for the investigator to speak with he dances around my question.

We sure hope that everyone that has been following us can see the truth here and the darkness that surrounds us.

.

I have spoken with the sheriff.

Everyone in this town has become passive and docile to the evil.

.

Recording made by C. Clarke Holm of his conversation with those associated with the Grand Jury:

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyfM6Zr9zO4

.

A cast 984

,

From the above audio recording C. Clarke Holm falsely represents the circumstances surrounding the State of Alabama taking custody of Baby Holm:

.

https://youtu.be/dyfM6Zr9zO4?t=8m10s

.

I am letting you know right now it was an

illegal search and seizure, there was no

warrant, there was no probable cause,

there was no injury.

You now know.

You have known before.

– C. Clarke Holm

– May 10, 2017

.

There was no illegal search and seizure.

A warrant was not required.

There was probably cause.

Present injury was not required.

.

FaceBook Group: “Understanding The Baby Holm Case”

Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1425578747477117/

A cast 956

.

See Petition & Pick Up Order as presented by C. Clarke and Danielle Holm to the U.S. Federal District Court in their failed federal suit.

Link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lwptnexcfezo3kp/Holm2.pdf

.

Commentary by Matthew Simechak, Alabama lawyer with specialty in child welfare issues and active Guardian ad Litem:

.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1425578747477117/permalink/1543461015688889/

.

(Begin commentary.)

.

Christian is not interpreting the law correctly (and by “law”, I mean the interaction of Alabama Statutory Law, with the Constitutions of Alabama and the United States). Per Alabama Code, the officer and/or DHR worker are the only people who get to exercise the initial discretion over whether or not one of the enumerated statutory elements is met in order to effectuate a summary removal. Nobody else has the statutory authority to make that decision. It doesn’t matter what the parent’s opinion is with respect to the veracity of the officer/worker’s interpretation of the statute.

.

The “check/balance” on that potentially horrific authority to make that judgment call is the necessity for a hearing, before an actual judge, within the 72 hour mark. If the judge does not concur that the worker/officer had the authority to remove the child, then the child is returned after only 1-3 days worth of deprivation from his/her parent.

.

The government has the ability to make minor incursions on our constitutional rights if the state has a “compelling interest” to do so (saving a child from potential harm is a compelling state interest), and narrowly tailors how the incursion works to make the smallest possible impact on the rights as possible (72 hours delay while an initial investigation is performed is a small incursion). ALL of our constitutional rights have small incursions like this. There are time, place, and manner restrictions on first amendment rights, licensure requirements for the exercise of other rights, eminent domain, etc etc etc. None of our constitutional rights are literally absolute.

.

If the judge decides that the initial removal was warranted based on the evidence and testimony provided at the 72-hour hearing, then that is a judicial determination that it was, in fact, warranted (meaning that it was a justified incursion on the parents rights). Appeals courts typically do not disturb the judgments of trial court judges hearing live testimony from witnesses (ore tenus).

.

What the Holms are failing to understand is that there has, de facto, already been a judicial determination that their rights were not violated. While it is acceptable for them to believe that their constitutional rights have still been violated by the State, they aren’t going to be able to raise that argument until there is a final, appealable judgment in the case. That argument is premature at this point.

.

They really should be trying to speed along the final resolution of the case one way or another to enable themselves to file such appeal. They can claim that our laws are either unconstitutional on their face, or that they are unconstitutional as applied to them in particular, but they have to preserve that argument for appeal by actually making that argument to the trial court, and then file an appeal containing that argument as well.

.

They can’t do either of these things right now. They really need to concentrate on getting the child back FIRST, and then after the final order in the case, they can either (a) appeal the case on constitutional grounds if they do NOT like the final decision of the court, or (b) sue the State for damages based on constitutional violations, in the event that the case does turn out in their favor.

.

All of this posturing right now does nothing other than increase the odds that the trial court matter will not turn out in their favor.

.

(End commentary.)

.

PROPOSITION FOR DISCUSSION – BABY HOLM DEBATE
.
The State of Alabama was bound constitutionally
to issue a warrant before taking custody of
Baby Holm.
.
– C. Clarke Holm: Affirm

– Robert Baty: Deny

.

Reference:

.

(Begin quote.)

.

Alabama Code Section 12-15-306

.

Removing a child from the custody of a parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian.

.

(a) A child may be removed by a law enforcement officer from the custody of a parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian if there are reasonable grounds to believe any of the following:

.

The child is suffering from an illness or injury or is in imminent danger from the surroundings of the child and that the removal of the child is necessary for the protection of the health and safety of the child.

.

The child has no parent, legal guardian, legal custodian, or other suitable person able to provide supervision and care for the child.

.

(b) The person removing the child shall immediately deliver the child to the Department of Human Resources.

.

So all that is needed is a “reasonable grounds” to believe that any type of abuse and/or neglect has happened or that there is a imminent risk of it happening. Then that triggers the 72 hour clause found here:

.

(End quote.)

.

More from Matthew Simechak.

.

(Begin quotes.)

.

Alabama Code Section 12-15-301

.
(2) ABUSE. Harm or the risk of harm to the emotional, physical health, or welfare of a child. Harm or the risk of harm to the emotional, physical health, or welfare of a child can occur through nonaccidental physical or mental injury, sexual abuse, or attempted sexual abuse or sexual exploitation or attempted sexual exploitation.

.
(8)NEGLECT. Negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child, including, but not limited to, the failure to provide adequate food, medical treatment, supervision, education, clothing, or shelter.

.
(11) REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PARENT STANDARD. The standard characterized by careful and sensible parental decisions that maintain the health, safety, and best interests of a child, while at the same time encouraging the emotional and developmental growth of the child, that a caregiver shall use when determining whether to allow a child in foster care under the responsibility of the state to participate in extracurricular, enrichment, cultural, and social activities.

.

Note: This doesn’t only mean that abuse/neglect has “already” occurred.

.

Notice the language “harm or risk of harm”. It can also mean that it is imminently about to occur. If you telegraph your intentions to not provide adequate shelter for the child by saying you have no intention of doing so, it can meet the definition.

.

Alabama Code Section 12-15-306

.
Removing a child from the custody of a parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian.

.
(a) A child may be removed by a law enforcement officer from the custody of a parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian if there are reasonable grounds to believe any of the following:
.

The child is suffering from an illness or injury or is in imminent danger from the surroundings of the child and that the removal of the child is necessary for the protection of the health and safety of the child.

.

The child has no parent, legal guardian, legal custodian, or other suitable person able to provide supervision and care for the child.

.
(b) The person removing the child shall immediately deliver the child to the Department of Human Resources.

.

So all that is needed is a “reasonable grounds” to believe that any type of abuse and/or neglect has happened or that there is a imminent risk of it happening. Then that triggers the 72 hour clause found here:

.

Alabama Code Section 12-15-308

.
Filing of petition and conduct of 72-hour hearing as to necessity for continuation of shelter care of a child.

.
(a) When a child alleged to be dependent has been removed from the custody of the parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian and has not been returned to same, a hearing shall be held within 72 hours from the time of removal, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays included, to determine whether continued shelter care is required.

.

(c) At the commencement of the 72-hour hearing requirement, the juvenile court shall advise the parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian of the right to counsel and shall appoint counsel if the juvenile court determines he or she is indigent. If the juvenile court already has not done so, it shall appoint a guardian ad litem for a child who is a party to the proceeding. It is the responsibility of the guardian ad litem to present evidence supporting the best interests of the child. The parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian shall also be informed of the contents of the petition and, except as provided herein, shall be given an opportunity to admit or deny the allegations of the petition.

.
(d) All relevant and material evidence helpful in determining the need for shelter care may be admitted by the juvenile court, even though not admissible in subsequent hearings.

.
(f) If the child is not released, the juvenile court, at the earliest opportunity in the case, including the 72-hour hearing requirement or the adjudicatory hearing, may order the parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian to provide a list of names and, if possible, addresses and telephone numbers, of known paternal and maternal relatives to the juvenile court.

.

There, the court hears that “reasonable grounds”, decided if it agrees, and if it does and finds it necessary to do so, will continue the child in shelter care. There’s nothing illegal about this process (it is literally in the statutory law), and it’s not a “kidnapping”. It’s literally the process that Alabama has inserted into the statutory law.

.

Alabama Code Section 12-15-309

.
Alleged dependent child to be released when continued shelter care not required; conditions imposed upon release; amendment of conditions or return of child to custody upon failure to conform to conditions imposed.

.
(a) When the juvenile court finds that continued shelter care is not required for a child, the juvenile court shall order the return of the child, and in so doing, may impose one or more of the following conditions singly or in combination:

.
(1) Return the child to the custody of the parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian and, if necessary, place the child under the supervision of the Department of Human Resources.

.
(2) Place restrictions on travel, associations, or living conditions of the child pending the adjudicatory hearing.

.
(b) An order releasing a child on any conditions specified may at any time be amended to impose additional or different conditions.

.

Guess what it means for the court to “find” something?

.

The court has to be able to determine that the child no longer need shelter care. The court has to be provided with evidence that the child no longer needs shelter care (which would include the address of the shelter, pictures of the shelter, a home visit or home study of the shelter).

.

The easiest way to do that is to prove to DHR and the GAL that the child no longer needs shelter care, by complying with an ISP plan (which includes those dreaded “services”), and then allowing DHR to withdraw the petition themselves, or by giving the GAL a reason to advocate that the child should be returned to the parents even if DHR disagrees that the parents are ready.

.

No, a parent is not “required by law” to accept the services that DHR offers.

.

But which do you suppose is easier:

.

(1) having DHR convince themselves you are cool to parent your child by jumping through a couple of hoops that they offer you, and then them voluntarily asking the court to return the child, or

.

(2) to get a hearing in front of the court and prove that you privately completely better reunification steps than DHR offered, and that the court should disregard the opinion of DHR, and the parents refusal to cooperate with DHR, and return the child anyway?

.

Hopefully I don’t have to answer that rhetorical question.

.

I hope the above helps people understand what is going on here, how the law works, why this is not a “kidnapping”, and that once the court places a child in shelter care, there is an entire process that has to occur, where things have to be proven to the court in order for parents to get their children back.

.

Non-compliance with the process results in delays in the process.

.

That’s reality, whether anyone likes it or not.

.

Whether or not someone has to participate in the process isn’t determine by the parents’ opinion of the status of the law.

.

It’s determined by the judge finding legitimacy in the allegations.

.

The law is what it is.

.

(End quotes.)

.

UPDATE May 11, 2017 – C. Clarke Holm adds this:

.

https://www.facebook.com/danielle.holm.395/posts/111660366077173

.

From: C. Clarke Holm

Date: May 11, 2017

Time: 7:30 PM MT

.

The people that assaulted my wife were not first responders.

.

If they were, the real first responders of Heflin Alabama here

would know who they are.

.

No ONE knows who they where and lies to cover it up.

It’s that simple.

No means no.

We had our baby at the hospital where yes meant yes.

.

The people that Tammy Power brought into our camp site

where people she knew and then lied about it later and said

she had no idea who they were.

.

What’s happening here is perception of authority and abuse.

Meaning that one within authoritative positions abuse this title

and force their way on you and then tell the people on the outside lies.

.

A cast 988

.


Comments

C. Clarke Holm whining about the Grand Jury! — 1 Comment

  1. Danielle Holm on the Grand Jury
    .
    From: Danielle Holm
    Date: May 11, 2017
    Time: 12:05 PM MT
    .
    This has been an eye opening and a veil lifting experience
    that has been the most painful experience one could imagine
    but also one which has brought us closer to the Creator.
    .
    At the very beginning of all of this, we were under severe
    duress and stress after the illegal kidnapping of our baby
    by authorities.
    .
    We testified, we complied, we swore oaths.
    .
    That only caused more harm, abuse and torture to our family
    which is why we chose to stop and rely on the Creator even more.
    .
    At the grand jury that had to do with one of three assaults on
    my body that I did not consent to nor did I deserve since I was
    innocently just trying to bring life into the world, the jurors
    interrogated us more about our beliefs than anything, as if to
    justify ANYONE getting assaulted is okay.
    .
    Apparently in the town of Heflin and in the state of Alabama,
    when someone gets assaulted, the assault does not matter unless
    you believe what the authorities believe.
    .
    Someone even asked Christian “Are you sure your religion didn’t
    make you think she was getting assaulted?”
    .
    His response, “I would hope it would be everyone’s religion to
    not be okay with assault especially when they say no”.
    .
    A juror asked me, “what religion are you exactly if you do not
    believe in swearing an oath?”
    .
    I then responded, “this is not relevant to what happened to me”
    we had to combat these “belief” and “religion” questions constantly.
    .
    The assault was barely even spoken about.
    .
    Why we choose to no longer swear oaths:
    .
    When we go into a court room and the judge or attorney asks you
    to swear with your right hand up to them that “you swear to tell
    the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you
    God”, how is that not using the Lord’s name in vain?
    .
    Even more than that, in that very moment you are committing
    idolatry by swearing to whatever god that man or woman is forcing
    you to swear to.
    .
    We are children of Yahweh.
    .
    It is our absolute duty to tell the truth at all times as best
    as we can. When a court demands you to swear just to tell a story
    of an experience in your life, they are already calling you a liar
    and telling you you can only speak if you swear to tell the truth.
    .
    If we speak the truth to the best of our ability why would one
    need to swear to anyone?
    .
    This is the trap of the enemy.
    .
    Already call you a liar so then they can twist your story around
    and trap you some more. Swearing an oath to us, is the same as
    lying. When you swear an oath, you are telling them you MAY lie,
    therefore you need to raise your hand as proof of the truth.
    .
    “Thou shall have no other God besides me”
    “Thou shall not bear false witness”.
    .
    It’s already there, stated plain as day in God’s law. God’s law
    does not need oaths. Just follow the way, do no harm and love
    and the truth will always shine.
    .
    We cannot allow this court system to make us falter from the Creator.
    .
    It did at first as we were naive, but the more familiar we become
    to the ways of the court, the more we realize God has no part in
    their ways.
    .
    We have since repented and no longer can we turn from Yahweh.
    .
    Yeshua (Jesus) spoke plainly in Matthew 5:33 “you must not break
    your oath, but you must keep your oaths to the Lord. But I tell
    you, don’t take an oath at all: either by heaven, because it is
    God’s throne, or by the earth, because it is his footstool, or
    by Jerusalem because it is the city of the great king. Neither
    should you swear by your head, because you cannot make a single
    hair white or black. But let your yes be yes and your no be no.
    Anything more than this comes from the evil one.”
    .
    Also James 5:12 “now above all, my brothers, do not swear ,
    either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. Your yes
    must be yes and your no be no, so that you won’t fall under judgement.”
    .
    When speaking truth, yes should be yes. No should be no. If anyone
    tries to force you into more than that, who are they working for?
    .
    It’s not God.
    .
    A few of these jurors mocked at our beliefs and cared not about
    the abuse against our family.
    .
    We only work for and speak for the most high Creator of all of us.
    .
    Our yes will always be yes and our no Will always be no from here
    on out.
    .
    As we grow closer to love and away from fear and hate, the stronger
    we get in the word.
    .

Leave a Reply