References:
 
Susan Dunn Cobb Blog Article:
 
 
Susan Dunn Cobb FaceBook Pages:
 
.
Books by Susan Dunn Cobb on Amazon:
.
.
Susan Dunn Cobb Post to #freebabyholm FaceBook Group:
 
 
Christian Holm FaceBook Page:
 
 
Link to Thread Discussion on Susan Dunn Cobb FaceBook Page:
 
 
Susan Dunn Cobb comment in #freebabyholm FaceBook group:
 
I have sent my blog with links to this #freebabyholm site to Governor, RMC Hospital, DHR, twitter, private and public facebook pages, and will soon begin the media blitz. Would appreciate all ideas. Also, I would appreciate opinion on the blog itself.
 
 
I pray to be accurate and I will change anything Christian and Danielle wish to have changed. My intent is to help, not hinder in any way.
 
Christian Holm comment to Susan Dunn Cobb: 
 
Right on Susan Cobb. We must unite as one against the evil that attacks us as individuals just as much as one human race. We must unite as one love under the creator of us all.
 
Susan Dunn Cobb comment on her own FaceBook page:
 
Click to learn more on their facebook page If it is learned that the state removes newborns who have just been delivered at hospitals and these taken for arbitrary causes, what parent would ever elect to risk delivering their precious babies at any hospital?
If anyone’s infant can be taken without evidence of wrongdoing and without conviction from a trial before one’s accusers, then the truth is the ability to bring your precious bundle home may well depend upon the discretion of minimally educated Child Protective employees.
 
Robert Baty comment January 2, 2017:
 
From what I have read, trying to use the Baby Holm case as a platform to rail against whatever you think is wrong with our civil system of child welfare may very well cost you your credibility and support for whatever merits there might otherwise have been in such a cause.
 
I’m still waiting for the parents, Brady Byrum, and others to take responsibility for bringing in Brady Byrum early on to meddle and make sure that there would be no speedy resolution to the custody dispute.
 
It appears things are still going downhill.
 
The following article explains how I happened to get to watching this train wreck which is another unfortunate scheme involving Brady Byrum; made all the more so because the parents and Brady have involved the life of a child as a victim of their misguided anti-government, sovcit theology.
 
 
Susan Dunn Cobb reply:
 
After having read the link, I am unsure of exactly what you are attempting to communicate.
On the one hand, taking the information at face value appears to validate your suppositions, but on the other hand (and this is the most important) when your infant is removed for unjust causes there is no panic equal to the situation one is suddenly thrust into. There is no one to trust, no one to turn to, and no way to calm down to think.
I judge NONE of their actions and their cause remains just.
When I faced similar threats and circumstances many years ago the lulus came out of the woodwork. Yes, guilt by association is always a danger and the associations are not by choice, but I promise you that there is a God who will defend the innocent and represent their cause.
These parents had their infant stolen at birth and they committed no crime. None.
 
Robert Baty Comment:
 
For all you know, Susan, God has defended the child in this case by having the State remove him from a couple of transients intent on refusing to give him an identity and disappearing with him back in to the woods.
 
God, and the child, it might as easily be supposed, are crying out for the State to not release the child to a couple of parents who simply want to disappear with him.
 
The matter might have been relatively quickly resolved had the parents NOT enlisted the help of Brady Byrum to meddle and delay any legitimate effort to resolve the matter. (The “not” has been added with emphasis as it was inadvertently omitted from the original post.)
 
Maybe they will one day, sooner rather than later, get off their high horse and demonstrate their interest in the child instead of a cause they come late to and are seeking to exploit for personal gain.
 
Just some of my thinking on all of that.
 
Thanks for taking a look at the reference I posted.
 
Susan Dunn Cobb response:
 
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I cannot read it without cringing, however, because a parent would never gamble with their infant for personal gain, attention, or causes. Perhaps you have to go through it in order to understand. We all disappear with our children in the privacy of our families and appreciate the respect of others to allow us our freedom. The bedroom that produces a child can be trusted to birth that same child without the management, involvement or overseeing of the Almighty state. There is no high horse when the government has you by the balls, and there is no recourse to consider in what you should or should not do about it. This is the worst thing that can ever happen to anyone.
 
Robert Baty comment:
 
I cringe when I read apologetics designed to promote what the parents and their promoters have been doing now for 3 months.
 
It’s as if I am one of the most informed as to the relevant details and the amount of secrecy the parents and promoters have preferred to open, honest discussion (i.e., the Brady Byrum involvement).
 
I cringe too, Susan, when I read such apologetics that promote a cause and claims that simply do not fit the facts as known in the Baby Holm case.
 
Surely, Susan, I don’t need to look up various articles to show that you are just wrong as to parents not being willing to exploit their children.
 
If you think the Holm parents are not above preferring their personal foibles over the best interest of their baby, you should be talking to them about changing their course in this matter.
 
Susan Dunn Cobb response:
 
I completely disagree with both the premise and the substance of your position. I would advise them to be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves, and without hearing this advice they appear to be following it. Secrecy about one’s actions would be critical when one cannot know who their enemies and who their friends are, especially if someone has your blessed infant.
 
Robert Baty comment:
 
I appreciate your consideration.
 
Thank you very much.
 
Susan Dunn Cobb response:
 
There are parents who abuse, exploit, damage, and kill their children, but there has been no such crime committed by these parents. The actual facts speak for themselves, in fact, they literally shout.
 
Robert Baty comment:
 
It seems to be a common and deliberate scheme to keep claiming the parents committed no crime as if that justified returning the child or not taking the child to begin with.
 
I don’t think that is going to be seen to be an issue in this case.
 
Watch and see.
I will try to.
 
Susan Dunn Cobb response:
 
If it is not an issue in this case, it will certainly be when we get done. If we are not to be allowed constitutional rights, then we at least need to inform citizens this is true. So many believe we have them.
 
Robert Baty comment:
 
Well, we will see and I will come back and say “I told you” so when that claim is shown to be frivolous in the context of the Baby Holm case, if it is so shown to be.
 
Everyone has an opinion, and many have their own agenda to push.
 
I’ve been expressing mine, and I happen to think that, based on the present state of the public record, my opinion is a lot better than those who have promoted Brady Byrum’s course in the case and other such antics independent of having the return of Baby Holm as the primary goal.
 
Susan Dunn Cobb response:
 
It will be no concern to me of your rightness or wrongness in the matter. My concern remains for the husbands and wives who suffer irreparable harm in the loss of their children. My concern is for my nation. My concern is not about opinions, not even legal ones, but my confidence remains with the court of heaven to prevail in the affairs of men. Any injustices against the poor will indeed be addressed in the eternal future but my concern is that I represent the heart of Christ for those who are brought to my attention. How can you not be touched for the pain of these families? They are not the only ones. There are many.
 
Robert Baty comment:
 
I am “touched” by the claims as well as the silent cries from children who have to rely upon the State to help them when their parents choose not to properly provide for their care, and the evidence in the Holm case certainly shows the parents were not prepared to properly care for the child at the time the decision was made that the State would take custody.
 
You might like to consider this related story:
 
 
Robert Baty comment:
 
Unlike in the Hovind case, it appears the Baby Holm parents had no family willing to step in and help out either with the birth event or to petition the State for custody after the State took custody.
 
Susan Dunn Cobb response:
 
Undoubtedly you have responsibility for the protection of children, and that quite possibly could include being a representative of the state. I accept your position and understand the terrible things you might have and continue to be subjected to in this capacity. Unfortunately we live in a very upside-down society in which a mother may elect to abort up until the moment of birth, and even living survivors of abortion may be encouraged to expire (all within the law). But paradoxically family law also dictates that the state has a prurient interest in living children and as such may directly intervene in their lives. What is not constitutional for children or their parents is that children become the property of the state without due process, without violation of established laws, and without even the opportunity for wrongdoing. In essence, the state owns our children. Parents become the incubators for the property of the state. This is not right. If Baby Holm was confiscated within the parameters of the law, then this law must change.
 
Robert Baty comment:
 
I’m just an old man with a keyboard, but I did use to work for the IRS and all the railing against child protective services reminds me of all the unfounded whining so many people did/do regarding the IRS and me in particular.
 
There may be legitimate problems with Government operations, but what the Baby Holm case has been allowed to become, in my opinion, is not the way to raise any legitimate concerns.
 
And, as I earlier noted, there seems to be a considerable amount of continuing secrecy regarding just what all that was; and invoking the gag order is no excuse for such secrecy.
 
I was sued once in my capacity as a civil servant, along with a host of other Government officials that “touched” the man’s case.
 
Yes, it was a frivolous suit.
 
I say, however, bring them on.
If they want to go that route, bring it on.
 
I have proposed the Holms don’t really want the truth to be known that would come out if they start prosecuting lawsuits.
 
It’s been almost 3 months?
What are they waiting for?
 
I saw where Christian gave your blog article some free press on his personal page.
 
Congratulations!
 
Susan Dunn Cobb response:
 
I think they call it Monday morning quarterback?? That is a reference to calling the shots from afar without being the one that is sitting in the hot seat. It is easy to judge another’s every action, and put them down for not doing things the way we think it should be done. There just isn’t a book of directions for what you do when someone destroys your life and your whole world. Managing to maintain in these circumstances is a total accomplishment and evidence of great success. What you do next, next, and next is of lesser relevance. I am praying for these people. It would appear you could use some prayer too.
 
Robert Baty comment:
 
You are pursuing the same course of covering up for the blundering by the parents and Brady Byrum.
 
I believe they need to accept responsibility for that and that the full and complete details of that be made public.
 
After all, Ernie Land, Kent’s handler, has announced that Brady is going to be trying his hand with these issues all around the country.
 
Don’t you think you should help me warn people NOT to allow people like Brady to challenge the State in custody issues??????
 
Brady may already be meddling in other cases and insuring the same unfortunate results.
 
That was not the result of some “oh my, who do we call; let’s call Brady”, or “woe is us, look who just showed up to help us, a stranger from Texas” scenario as you suggest.
 
Let’s warn people together to shun the likes of Brady Byrum should he appear, whereever he appears and want to meddle in child custody issues.
 
Maybe we’ll get to the bottom of it.
Maybe not.
 
Phyllis Jones comment:
 
Why did the state take the child ? Was it do to drugs?
 
Robert Baty comment:
 
No, that wasn’t it.
 
The transient, not poor, parents thought they would camp out in a state park and have a natural birth. After 2 days in labor, according to reports, they had to call for help and wound up with the birth taking place at the hospital.
 
There are some incidental details regarding their sovcit, anti-vaxx theology that came in to play, but the substantive reason, from what I have read, that the child was taken into custody by DHS is because the parents exhibited no present means for providing for the child; they just wanted to take the child, unidentified/unidentifiable child, and disappear back in to the woods.
 
Susan Dunn Cobb response:
 
There was no involvement with drugs. There was no criminal activity of any kind. The couple were missionaries and they were traveling through the state when she went into labor. They declined the vitamin K shot which has never been needed for babies and has proven to be dangerous for many. They were well educated and had held prestigious jobs before their decision to follow God. The baby was removed 24 hours after birth while she was nursing him due to the hospital’s concerns regarding failure to sign up for the social security number and not having named him for the birth certificate. They were still thinking about what his name would be and the social security number can be done at any time by the parents. It says so right on the form. They were not aware this combination of choices would bring the authorities in to remove their baby.
 
Robert Baty comment:
 
“Prestigious jobs”, Susan?
Really?
 
That’s all part of the history that I don’t think the parents and promoters really want to come out.
 
“Missionaries”?
Really?
 
Are you familiar with their “missionary” history?
 
More of the history I don’t think the parents and promoters really want to come out.
 
I think we will ultimately, at least those who follow the story through to the end, will find out that the sovcit/anti-vaxx silliness was incidental while the substantive cause for the State to
take custody had to do with two transients, not poor people, who tried to use a State park to affect a natural, unassisted birth and then disappear with or without their unidentified and unidentifiable child.
 
So, Susan, are you going to help me get the word out about Brady Byrum so he doesn’t, as much as we can help it, go about the countryside messing up other custody cases?
 
You can probably help more than I can with your celebrity.
 
Come on, help me out here and start putting out the word for parents involved in custody battles to NOT, NOT, NOT allow Brady Byrum to meddle in their cases.
 
Ernie Land, Kent Hovind’s handler, said Brady Byrum was going to trying to do just that all around the country.
 
Help me, Susan, try to put a stop to it.
 
OK??
 
Susan Dunn Cobb response:
 
Mr. Baty, I am at a loss to understand your perseveration regarding some unknown individual who has garnered a lot of your focus regarding this travesty against an innocent couple. If some unknown wannabe activist or lawyer person is inserting himself into
these types of cases then whatever the truth of that is it could never be as evil as what is being done to parents in the name of the law. The main issue that hospitals and child protective services collaborate to remove newborns from parents that have elected
NOT to abort their children but to cherish them shall continue to be the main issue. Whoever this person is that you are remaining focused on cannot be in all places and with everyone’s situation. No individual has that power but apparently that ability has
been reserved for the Child Protective Services. I will not be taken off focus by something you are obsessing about and which has no bearing whatsoever on what has occurred. Perhaps this is why you have been blocked from communicating with them. In simple
terms, you have become a distraction, and as such, reduced to irrelevancy. I am sorry. And yes, I am praying for you.
 
Robert Baty comment:
 
Susan,
 
If you were what you claim to be, doing what you claim to do, you would be helping me put the word out about Brady Byrum.
 
Despite his preference to do his dirty work in secret and get people like Jonathan Payton and Holm parents to let him, Brady Byrum is NOT UNKNOWN.
 
You comments above add to your demonstration that when it comes to the Baby Holm case you are quite uninformed as to the substantive details regarding the facts and history of the case.
 
I thank you for that demonstration, but, really, why not help out with some real help and start putting out the word on Brady Byrum.
 
Susan Dunn Cobb response:
 
No, Mr. Baty. I am going to just continue to pray for you. I will be praying that your heart will soften, that you will be given understanding for others who believe different than you, and that you will treasure all of the time on earth with the ones you love and care about. I am going to pray that Jesus becomes more real to you than someone named Brady Byrum or anyone else on the planet, and that you have great joy in everything you choose to do with the time allotted on this earth. Is there anything else you would like me to pray for you about?
 
Robert Baty comment:
 
Thanks for the continuing demonstration.
 
I also am a “missionary” and have my own “ministry”, and, as people like you, and the Holms, and the Paytons and the Hovinds, and their promoters like to say, there comes a time when you need to shake the dust off and save your pearls lest they go to swine, and all of that.
 
I tried to get you to help.
I tried to warn you.
 
Should you repent and desire my further assistance, you know where to find me.
 
For now, I think my ministering here is done.
 
—————————————————-
 

UPDATE January 4, 2017 10:00 PM MT

More evidence that the parents don’t have the interests of their child as their first priority.

 


 
 

Comments

Cobb-Baty Exchange on Baby Holm / Brady Byrum — No Comments

Leave a Reply