Monday, September 21, 2015

J.P. vs. MCFD Trial Watch - Day 7 october 8, 2013 - William Strickland

Day 7 of the MCFD lawsuit run by Jack Hittrich

http://bit.ly/1buNukE (Phase 1 Trial decision by Judge Walker, 127 pages)

There is expectations the trial (witnesses) will be done by the end of October 2013, then closing submissions, written hopefully, will be complete by the end of November. The judge was clear of his wish this matter would not carry on into the New Year.

(My read on this is that the Honourable Judge Walker has heard enough to convict MCFD many times over, and is more than ready to award a few million to this family, possibly as a Christmas present.)

Social worker #3, the Hitler-youth slicked-back hair square-glasses weasel breath dude who looks to be in his mis-40's is STILL on the stand, day 3, under cross examination by lawyer Jack Hittrich.

Mr. William Strickland could be sweating. But,maybe I'm misreading his body language, but he seemed less composed than previous days; more yappy, too "explainy" for my short attention spanned brain. The SS dude is barely keeping his composure, as he continues to maintain, and many times repeats the correctness of his decision to remove was the right one (based on the expertise of a female VPD cop who stated mom was probably going to kill her children). Perhaps with enough repetition, the court will agree with him?

I would like to make my own Application for court to bring paintball guns into the courtroom.
Carrying on with MCFD's great concern for child endangerment: for two and a half years, the threat to the children from their mother was SO DIRE, according to social worker #3, that it was necessary to keep her four kids in "care" for 2-1/2 years.

Keep in mind that MCFD could have unilaterally withdrawn at any time, but it was only in the middle of trial in June of 2013, that MCFD decided the kids were in fact completely safe in Mom's care. It just took them 2-1/2 years to realize this. Or, they were cutting their losses. MCFD cried "uncle." The message to the public is unmistakably, "Screw the safety of children and evidence." and "No, we are not sorry we removed. That's life. suck it up. -- yours truly, BC social workers for MCFD.

We note today, that the children were "safe" and that there are no section 13 concerns, was the exact same position MCFD collectively held 6 days before the removal. This "mom is safe" conclusion occured on December 24, 2009 AFTER hearing (and ignoring) sexual abuse video evidence that mom provided to MCFD and police, that later turned out to be 100% correct. This is the finding by BC Supreme Court justice Walker. Go figure. It is pretty funny seeing three social workers on the stand so far, saying they were right (therefore the judge is wrong).

Perhaps one in every million highly trained vastly experienced social workers makes the occasional mistake. Keep in mind that no social workers testified in the first phase of the 60+ days of trial. (I see the newspaper story by Ian Mulgrew stated 92 days of trial.)
Mr. experienced and qualified weasel-breath social worker #3 testified today, starting from 2:15 PM to 4:00 PM. He talked. And talked. AND TALKED. He talked in circles. He remembered some things. He forgot other things. His memory is refreshed via emails, transcripts, VPD notes, and recordings of his words.

He alternates from fuzzy memory on meetings and phone calls that detract from his primary thought that did not support his conclusion that "MOM WAS ABOUT TO KILL HER FOUR CHILDREN", to razor sharp recollection, only on matters surrounding events that supported the idea that "MOM WAS ABOUT TO KILL HER FOUR CHILDREN." Selective recollection. (So THIS is what social worker school teaches.)

What is clear is that this is the singular individual, and only he, made the decision to remove, instructing and junior social worker to tell after hours staff to do the dirty deed on on the evening of Wednesday December 30th, 2009. Perhaps this is how social workers can claim deniability and separate themselves from the actual dirty work of removing screaming children from their home, and still claim it is a "team" action so no one individual can be attributed to making such a monumentally massive decision. Judges take weeks and months to evaluate such facts.

The long and short of it is that He ensured that Mom did not have her kids for the New Year's in 2010, 2011 and 2012 and 2013.

Oh, by the way, pedo-dad got unsupervised access despite BC Supreme Court Orders that said that he could only have supervised access. We will hear more on that later.
Mr. straight hair clarified that he was the ONLY person who made the final decision. Everyone else joined in to support his decision, (he referred to this as "collaboration" and "consulting"). Not one person disputed a single bit of evidence (it was overwhelming, preponderance of, and all that jazz). Removal could NOT ONLY be attributed to the cop who conveyed her learned non-expert, non-medically, non-mental-health-based "opinion" that mom was going to kill her kids.

He, Mr. Cool Hair, wanted full credit for that decision, but at the same time he appeared to distance himself from that conclusion, by claiming he would not have removed the four kids if the VPD lady cop did not say what she did. Peanut gallery commentary: can't we just stone that cop anyways, isn't is SHE who we should really blame for this needless removal? Or did Mr. Social Worker just tell VPD copy that was the trigger phrase needed to justify an emergency removal. Its not like the cop could ever be held accountable for speaking their opinion, THEY didn't perform the actual removal.

The deputy director who He had the five minute conversation with, to "collaborate" and "confirm" the absolute correctness of HIS decision to remove cannot take the credit/responsibility for the removal.

It should be noted that the social worker wished to impress upon us of the length and breadth of this lady's expertise in matters of removal, because her skill and experience, and all encompassing consideration of the relevant portions of the three-foot wide assembly of binders in the courthouse and DVD evidence and talking with relevant experts, apparently enabled her to quickly "approve" this removal and the resulting multimillion dollar tax-payer all-expense paid foster care and legal battle.

There was brief mention by an underling's email to Mr. Big of a s.17 application to permit access to the children for examination. This is what is commonly referred to as a "less intrusive" action to permit further discovery of facts. In other words, if, in a worst case scenario of clear evidence of harm by mom was found at this point, THEN this court-approved application would have provide iron clad justification for an emergency no-warrant removal decision after.

However, as it happened, the iron clad "immediate danger" reason was instead provided by Madam VPD cop. So much for s.17 application (which a portion of the CFCSA law which square-glasses admitted he knew nothing about prior to being reminded and after reading off his email in court discussing it.)

Getting back to the amazingly quick-thinking deputy director Ms. Robinson. No wonder Ms. Robinson was promoted to deputy director and now gets the big bucks. FIVE MINUTES, folks. Five minutes to discuss the single most traumatic event a family can imagine, removal of one's children for several years. Millions of dollars of taxpayer expense. Removal of four beds from the pool of available homes. Emergency removal of drug-addicted babies that might have to go to hotels instead because of bed shortages due to wrongful removals.
Ms. Robinson is up on the stand next, no doubt to accept congratulations on her rubber stamping approval of the removal of four kids. Let's see, $100,000 budgetary allocation per child per year, 2-1/2 years, $1.2 million dollar taxpayer cost (legal costs omitted, just triple this number), and lets not forget federal dollars subsidy / removal incentive funds the Province benefits from.

Thank god we have this collection of social engineering and legal experts to save us unsuspecting public from parents who might possibly THINK about emotionally abusing their tiny children. And, of course, thank god there are millions of dollars to spend on this exercise of "child protection" in a couple or three years before said kids are safely returned to their safe parents. (Well, at least one parent is safe in this story.)

Fortunately, there was a transcript of the conversation between mom and helmet head the day after the removal, where the Experienced One lorded the removal over mom and carefully explained His reasons for removal and his ongoing concerns. The exact danger to the children wasn't explained by Him.... However, His accusations centered around the fact that mom was "coaching" the kids to repeat their abuse disclosure on video and thus was the source of emotional abuse. He alluded, certainly, THAT fact alone was sufficient to justify removing the endangered children. His testimony was, that he waited patiently for mom to confess.

Apparently mom did not cooperate by providing this confession. Instead, she insisted that she was driven to provide evidence on the advice of her lawyer, to request the involvement of experts, psychologists, psychiatrists, MCFD "child protectors", police, what have you, to uncover the truth. Mom simply could not understand why no one would help and properly investigate. Mr glasses could not even hazard a guess as to why mom would deliberately fabricate and force her kids to fake sexual abuse disclosures. It was tough if the court did not "get it" as he did. Too bad Mr. Confident has not read Judge Walker's ruling. Mom already had full custody and dad had only supervised access, so there was nothing to be gained in an exercise of falsifying evidence, EXCEPT if she wanted to lose her children on purpose. How many social workers would it have required to arrive at the same conclusion as this judge?

It was clear during questioning that there was simply no way in hell Mr. square-glasses was going to accept that the disclosures by the children had the slightest ounce of truth. THAT was determined in an intake investigation that was closed for the reason that very clearly stated "no section 13 concerns". Mom was viewed as completely safe to care for her kids on December 24, 2009, 6 days before the removal on the evening of December 30, 2009 at which point she was deemed a potential child killer.

Safe mom + 6 days = child killer mom. Got it Mr. Social Workers 1, 2, 3, 4, Director 5 and Ms VPD investigator 6.

Gee, don't potential child killers get charged with "something" by police or put into a mental institution for electroshock therapy?

Some VPD chicky-boo (who we do not yet know how many dozens of kids she helped MCFD snatch) said mom was going to kill her kids, so that was a good enough of a trigger reason for Him to order a removal.

Oddly enough, the first male social worker who decisively closed the last intake 4 with "no s.13 concerns" before the next intake 5 started, was on undocumented "holidays". He would have been responsible for removing the children. Presumably, this would have been more difficult that he would be proven WRONG in not finding any s.13 concerns after a month or so of investigation, then a few days later, suddenly mom is a potential child killer. How could any social worker worth his University training salt miss THAT?

Be silent, you skeptics out there who say that square-hair simply has a bee in his bonnet with mom, and there really was no child protection concerns, and that he just used his child removal powers inappropriately. Lets not get ahead of ourselves, because justice must run its multi-million-dollar course.

"The unconscionable efforts of mom to video document evidence on the advice of her lawyer was simply a travesty of investigative corruption that those wee four children needed to be saved from" (my helpful paraphrasing of Mr. Social Sponge Worker). Suddenly, to Him, the video became a tangible post-removal concern, according to the day-after transcript. It is clearly "emotional abuse" he states in his transcripted conversation with mom.

Those silly child abuse reporting laws, maybe someone should publish a disclaimer on the MCFD website that states: "Making DVD videos of YOUR kids to report a possibility of abuse means YOU are committing child abuse, so if you call us at 1-800-4REMOVE, and we will happily put your kids in a better home."
As I wrote notes, I was thinking, "how fortunate that there IS a word-for-word transcript" between mom and this probably honest, but slightly memory impaired non-note-taking social worker"

By the way, recording all interactions is something PaPa suggests ALL parents do. Hidden-record every single interaction with any police or MCFD or doctor, or ANYONE associated with "helping" children and families.

On a closing note, I continue to be impressed with the amount of advance preparation that has been done that has greatly assisted the smooth flow of the trial. Transcripts are available in abundance. The exhibit count went up to 131 today. The ability to quickly pull a multi-hundred page exhibit and referring to a specific line and page without a computer is a significant accomplishment.

Additionally, the social workers underwent examination for discovery, allowing trial comparison of sworn evidence with outside of trial testimony to be compared with in-trial testimony. This important step greatly speeds large lawsuits of this nature.

It should be noted that audio recording by parents and examination for discoveries are like garlic, holy water, sunlight and the cross of Jesus is to a vampire. (Disclaimer: Yes, I am biased, social workers ARE like hard to kill blood sucking vampires, destroyers of families, creators of future prisoners and parasites of families.)

The cross examination continues tomorrow, Wednesday October 9th at 10:00pm in Courtroom 75.

(Security was dropped last week, however there were still three sheriffs manning the metal detector to help people through the gate.)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are manually approved to eliminate spam and off topic discussions.