Watch for Updates
Shara Michelle replayed her above-referenced video on October 5 and it is posted at the following link:
There are a lot of comments in that thread on Shara’s FaceBook page, from numerous people. My exchange with Shara is briefly summed up in the following 2 screenshots where I post some substantive questions to Shara about fundamental issues which she has historically evaded, and evades again while indicating she is able to provide a “fiery” debate on the subjects.
Four simple questions, four simple one-word answers, and Shara Michelle refused to give me her 4 words; instead suggesting some future “fiery” debate.
I have included “No Fire” in the title of this article because no matter what Shara might try to say in some future article about the Baby Sofia case or to me in the context of some “debate” with me on the subject, the simple fact of the matter is the subject is quite uncontroversial and not reasonably debatable as to the fundamental issues addressed in my questions.
I propose that no matter what Shara might come out with, what she says will, at best, when properly evaluated, indicate the following:
Shara doesn’t like the law in Connecticut and other states which allows the State to remove children before harm occurs. She may not yet be able to bring herself to admit that such is the law, but it is and will be the law regardless of anything Shara might have to say on the matter.
As far as how “we the people” determine what is and is not constitutional, the Connecticut law and other such laws in other states are constitutional. Whining about it not being constitutional won’t change that, and Shara will have no significant part, if any part, in any legal challenge to any such law in any state.
As far as how “we the people” determine whether or not a removal was made in error, deliberately or inadvertently (illegally), it has been repeatedly affirmed that the removal of Baby Sofia was appropriate and retention of custody by the State is appropriate. There is no good reason to believe that will ever change; whether or not custody in the future is returned to Baby Sofia’s mother and/or alleged father.
Shara Michelle doesn’t like the provisions made for due process in such cases, but her opinion about such things does not make the due processes go away. Due processes have been at work since before Baby Sofia was removed. Shara knows that. I know that. Shara knows I know she knows that. Shara doesn’t like the way things work in the real world. Due processes will continue to play out until the child is returned to Baby Sofia’s mother and/or the alleged father or until some other final resolution is made.
Links to Related Articles on This Site
I win either way it goes!
Update October 9, 2019
Update October 11, 2019
Article referenced by Shara Michelle on her page and dealing with “predictive neglect” issues:
Update October 17, 2019
Link to thread on the Suzy Theodoro page where posts below were made:
Link to post on “Stand for Sofia” page where post below was made:
Link to Sally Finck FaceBook page & graphic:
My (Robert Baty’s) Testimony About The Above
I believe it is the case that Sally Finck is one of the owner/operators of the “Stand for Sofia” FaceBook page and that she is the one who talked with the former NPR journalist.
I had a former NPR journalist call me shortly before the conversation Sally Finck references that she had with a former NPR journalist.
In discussing the Baby Sofia case, I mentioned some of the people behind the public promotions alleging the case is a classic example of corruption, sex trafficking and the like; such people as Shara Michelle, David Jose, Frances Amato, et al.
My contact indicated that his special interest in child welfare cases involving the State were from the perspective of exploring certain technological aspects of the decision making process.
My contact was already aware of some of the unanswered questions involved in the Baby Sofia case and the apparent aversion to truth-telling by Baby Sofia’s mother and alleged father. We discussed that at some length and he indicated, from a journalistic standpoint, how problematic that is.
In the final analysis, I got the distinct impression that for purposes of his journalistic endeavors and development of important public issues regarding how the State of Connecticut conducts its child protection efforts, the Baby Sofia case was not one conducive to consideration as a case study.
As is now being indicated by Sally Finck, after Baby Sofia’s mother and alleged father have had almost a year to pursue a more appropriate course in resolving their custody dispute with the State of Connecticut, it appears they and their promoters may be getting some feedback that they are and have been wrong-headed and legitimate media is unlikely to show any interest in what they have been promoting for almost a year.
From what Sally Finck is saying, it appears her former NPR journalist will be moving on and moving away from giving the Baby Sofia case his time, talent, and interest. He has better things to do, it appears, and, as a result, if that it be, his influence may also affect the prospects that other media, legitimate, mainstream media, will take up the case and report the Baby Sofia from any position supportive of what Baby Sofia’s mother and alleged father and their promoters have been doing for months now.
(He and I also discussed the feedback I was getting from legitimate reform interests that the antics of such as Baby Sofia’s mother and alleged father and the would-be activists/advocates they are associated with are detrimental to their legitimate efforts and destructive of what progress they have been making and “those people” are not likely to find much welcome in Connecticut.)