OHWOW....I'm sorry kids, it's been a craaaaaaaaazy week. We just received word that our little stall with the Indians did NOT work, mostly because, even though there is indeed full Cherokee in our child;'s heritage, evidently the great grandmother didn't feel like registering herself or any of her children in the Governments mandatory registration rolls...so we're back to square one.
We have, then, decided to fore go all things termination related, and just shoot right for a shot in this trier of fact's balls....yeah, I said it...SO WHAT? WHATCHA GONNA DO?
ANYWAY...here is our affidavit...be sure and read to the end, even though the body contains more of the same crap, you're gonna really like where it ends up (snickers): This will, naturally, be filed in the court for all to see, immediately:
Now comes ELIZABETH BRUCE in her affidavit
1. My child was removed from my care on 7/21/14 due to lack of bond with my child (as well as with the legal father’s lack of bond); and my husband and I’s alleged inability to care for an infant in addition to failure to provide adequate supervision.
a.
There were no REASONABLE EFFORTS provided to my husband and
in order to help us keep our child in our home before Iowa DHS removed
her.
b.
The services provided to reunify our family, as REASONABLE
EFFORTS, were not useful or reasonable because they had nothing to do
with our situation.
2.
Concerning THE Reasonable effort this court listed (after the removal hearing), then called IT (a reasonable EFFORT, singular); reasonable effort(S) made;
a. DHS failed to provide a house/apartment for the baby and parents at a time when the parents had no income and were forced to live separately.
b. DHS did not offer to expedite the application for FIP that we had applied for, denying us the very help we needed during this time of temporary unemployment for both parents.
c. The only “reasonable” effort DHS supposedly made prior to the removal (and this was NOT listed or recognized as such, until the order came from the removal hearing) was to get the mother’s consent to make her and the baby stay at Methodist, using false information to keep her there the whole weekend (even though she had thought to be gone only an hour or two, according to what the workers told her) until, as stated in the doctor’s discharge plan for the baby; so that “DHS could find a home in which to place her”, without both proof of the allegations made as yet (or ever), and without a court order, which is allowed, per Iowa Code (amongst other things it has recently begun allowing). This effort to prevent or eliminate the removal wasn’t reasonable to anyone, let alone these parents; in the situation they were in at the time; and would not be to anyone except those trying to kidnap our daughter for the purposes of adoption.The legal and rightful father, at the time of this affidavit, who has had his rights terminated even before this is officially done, and not allowed to participate in this hearing, will have, as of the time this court receives it, posted this document to everyone on the list to follow, as well as on his blog; and THEN will I file this document with the court system of Des Moines, Iowa; making it impossible, due to the posting and mailing of this document to the others to be mentioned PRIOR TO filing it with the court, will, because of the date and time stamps provided, both by emails and as postmarks on the letters delivered; to deem as confidential, and excluded as the crime defined in Iowa Code in publishing confidential court documents in a juvenile proceeding.
4. This document, relating to the most hated phrase in our home “Reasonable Efforts Made”, will be our last testament...in this case, and in my life, relating to our daughter, where this matter is concerned. I wish to hear no more about it, until this judge recuses this case due to his bias; whether about my color of skin or about my socio-economic status matters not, only that this is so obviously so. Therefore, the time for “borderline threats” and wondering if all or any of this applies to you is over. Here, is where I intend to make it known once and for all, who this list pertains to, and that, once on this list, you are either to be the recipient of information concerning this case, or the person who will be paying for it with your job...and that’s final. Sounds pretty simple doesn’t it? It is.
5. Here is where we make our final stand. We will, of course, be attending a few more hearings; one for the assessment appeal, which will be asked to be expedited to take place immediately, instead of two months from now, after our rights are to be terminated. After we clear our names (and records) in this; it should be time to address the appeal to the Permanency hearing. This one promises to be a winner as well. Lastly, we should be closing up the termination case, although this could take longer than expected, due to the attorney for the biological father asking for a continuance. I highly doubt that his honor will grant this continuance, due to his bias, but then, this would be of absolutely no surprise to these defendants, considering the massive list of serious felonious infractions this judge has already committed. Let’s get this started then, shall we?
6. First, I fully back up only this fact: That on July 21 of this past year, 2014, CPS worker SW4 Emily Nieman and SW0 Amanda Barton brought DHS/CPS, the trier-of-fact, William A. Price, and all members of this court action into our lives, for no reason, with no grounds and no proof of allegations made against us by a lunatic woman and her puppy dog husband; as they were fleeing the state, in order to escape charges of harassment that had been filed against them by the defendants; and in retribution, after we had asked of them only to find other living arrangements in order to facilitate the safe return of the mother and her newly born baby to her new home, without stress.
7. They refused, then caused a scene. We had to forcibly have them removed. Their revenge on these parents was a single phone call to DHS, and they were never heard from again; nor were they able to be contacted to confirm these allegations. Ms. Nieman, due to these allegations, then interviewed us about this for exactly one hour, asked of us to please take a drug test to alleviate the charge of drug use and drug dealing, then left our home at around 5 p.m, and informing the parents as she did, that she believed our story; and that the actions taken by the reporter where out of vindictiveness, obviously, and the matter unfounded. Later, Ms. Nieman would claim that the child named herein was in some sort of imminent danger of her life, yet Ms. Nieman left this child in our care, as well as the alleged “imminent danger” the child was supposedly in. This fact alone shows this child to have NEVER been in imminent danger, for the child, who had been held almost throughout the entire interview by the other CPS social worker for the entire time, was then left in our care after her return to the arms of the mother, for the next 17 hours. This action, alone, by this social worker, should have immediately labeled her as deceptive; and was, in and of itself, the first of many times this worker would later contradict herself, in the assessment and on the stand, under oath.
8. Then these two social workers returned to the parent’s home (after this father had left); 17 hours later. They prodded the mother to come with them to a pediatrics appointment they had made at Methodist (which any person might believe would only be for an hour or two) had her checked out by an initial emergency doctor (Dr. Jill Jasper), and found the baby to be wonderfully healthy....but in the middle of the whole thing, she states that the baby appears to be starving, because she’s sucking vigorously on anything that comes near her mouth...and yet Methodist, on their website, states this to be an inherent reflex babies are born with, and states that this behavior is perfectly normal, and is not a recognized sign of anything but inherent reflex.
Primitive Reflexes
Infants are born with a number of instinctual responses to stimuli, such as
light or touch, known as primitive reflexes, which gradually disappear as
the baby matures. These reflexes include the: sucking reflex, which
triggers an infant to forcibly suck on any object put in the mouth
(http://kidshealth.org/PageManager.jsp?dn=BlankChildrensHospital&lic=145&cat_id=20730&article_set=22211&tracking=P_RelatedArticle#)
Her action then was to admit this child to the hospital.
9. Three hours later, a 2nd exam was performed, utilizing the same exact tests, and with all found as before. and that it’s believed (even though the baby weighed in at 5.72 lbs.; and Methodist’s website states that your baby will lose a slight bit of weight off of the birth weight, then after two weeks will gain up to and over that same weight. This child was just seven days old and already weighed more than the birth weight) that the mother was more than likely only feeding her mostly water. These doctors, with Dr.Michael Line at the fore, state that this baby’s discharge plan is now, on the first day, with no documented proof as yet that the child is indeed neglected by the mother, to: “Hold the baby until DHS can complete their investigation; and alternate placement can be found for her”. Let’s take a look at what Methodist states, once again, on their own website, to maybe shed some light on what they say about the baby’s growth:
How Newborns Grow
Babies are born with some extra fluid, so it is perfectly normal for a
newborn to drop a few ounces when that fluid is lost in the first few
days of life. A healthy newborn is expected to lose 7% to 10% of the
birth weight but should regain that weight by about 2 weeks after birth.
(http://kidshealth.org/PageManager.jsp?lic=145&dn=BlankChildrensHospital&article_set=21535&cat_id=162#)
10. Mentioned, all through this worker’s assessment, is that the mother only feeds the child 4 ounces every 2-4 hours, and tries to stretch it out to as close to 4 hours as she can. Yet this worker later states that it’s 2 oz. every 4 hours, then it goes back to 4 again later. Also mentioned is that the only food this mother had was what was given to her by Methodist, also a false statement, since the father had bought her plenty of those little bottles as well. At the time of the interview, the mother had just run out of those bottles, and was opening the Similac mix for the first time. This is almost presented as criminal or neglectful behavior on the part of this first-time mother, because she has to read the directions. Also mentioned is that the mother is mixing a bottle for the baby using a dirty used bottle...yet, when she’s finished, and hands the bottle to Amanda Barton, she takes it from her and FEEDS THE BABY WITH IT...as stated in her assessment. Obviously this worker is OK with this as well, because she obviously didn’t stop her from using that bottle to feed her either, since it’s not mentioned. Oh, and on Methodists website, it says this about feeding:
Is My Newborn Getting Enough to Eat?
Once your milk supply is established, breastfeeding should be "on demand”
(when your baby is hungry), which is generally every 1-3 hours. As newborns get
older, they'll need to nurse less frequently — some may feed every hour and a
half, whereas others may go 2-3 hours between feedings. Babies who are
getting formula will likely take about 2-3 ounces every 2-4 hours. Newborns
should not go more than about 4 hours without feeding.
(http://kidshealth.org/PageManager.jsp?dn=BlankChildrensHospital&lic=145&cat_id=20731&article_set=21869&tracking=P_RelatedArticle#)
11. The mother has NEVER stated that the baby goes more than 4 hours without a feed, except when she’s sleeping...which this baby does an awful lot of; quite unusual for a newborn, evidently. It states, on METHODIST’S WEBSITE, this about that subject:
Sleeping and Breathing
In the first weeks, infants usually spend most of their time sleeping.
(http://kidshealth.org/PageManager.jsp?dn=BlankChildrensHospital&lic=145&cat_id=20730&article_set=22211&tracking=P_RelatedArticle#)
12. After this, the worker then tells the mother that she’ll need to stay the night with the baby, due to an electrolytes test result; then claims on her assessment that this is when she made it known what her expectations for the entire weekend stay would be for the mother (and made a special effort to claim one of the nurses at her command to be witness to this and ONLY this statement; as well as claims her to be the mother’s personal nurse; another obvious attempt at a 2nd deceit). The mother, then realizing that she wasn’t nearly ready for an overnight stay; and having been gone 4 hours already; realized the dog hadn’t been out in this time and wouldn’t be for a while longer, and that she needed to get things for an overnight stay, as well as tend to our pet; then stated this. The worker states that if the mother were to leave the baby now, it would be considered an act of abandonment (in a hospital filled with Doctors and nurses, as well as 2 social workers); then, in a 3rd deceitful and contradictory action, offered the mother a ride home some 20 minutes later, in order to leave her in a place where there was no transportation available to her, and create the initial “showing of neglect on the part of the mother”. After the mother returned to the hospital (to, ON HER OWN VOLITION; stay with the baby for what would soon be revealed to her as the ENTIRE weekend); The overly attentive staff of Methodist nurses were then ordered to watch the mother at all times, in which to find situations with which to find this neglectful, carefree FIRST TIME MOTHER to be neglectful, and document it. This is then claimed, in our case, to be the ONLY listed reasonable effort these people made in order to later claim to have made it, in order to say that A SINGLE reasonable effort(s) was made, prior to the removal in order to prevent or eliminate it. Again, for anyone to claim this to be reasonable, they would have to be either mentally unstable, or be a party to something much more sinister. I’m sure no mother would thank DHS for their “reasonable effort” either, put through an ordeal like this.
13. Three days later (when the mother had asked if she could go on Saturday morning; because the worker had told her that she would be going then, the doctor then told her that DHS had ordered the hospital to keep her until Monday) the worker came back alone, beat the mother over the head to get her to adopt out the baby, then when that didn’t work, the worker illegally produced a situation that forced this mother to sign the baby into foster care. Three hours later, the child was given to the foster parents, Lindsay and Nathan Pritchard of Ankeny, Iowa.
14. The worker, upon her return, and speaking to the mother alone, now saw an opportunity. Knowing her socio-economic status, the fact that they were (because of her being processed for FIP) on their way to being homeless; too poor to afford to pay a real attorney...and BONUS, she’s black; naive in the ways of the law and DHS; and, let’s just say this, thought the mother too stupid to fight back, and would therefore be easily swayed to sign documents she had no business signing without a lawyer. Not aware of the fact that the father had asked the mother to record the interaction, a recording was made of the entire 18 minute removal to its end; and brings forth a host of felonies that were committed in the performance of her duties here, including, but not limited to:
a.
Forgery, 2 counts
(1). She says the mother will be asked to initial where she’s read to her, understands what’s being said and agrees to it...yet only reads her three lines of a nine line order, excluding
the reasons for the removal; all lies, of course; and all lines that present to the mother any rights she has in this; then fills in X’s for the mother on all of the lines, knowing she can get the mother to sign it. When this mother is asked to do something, she does it as instructed, and would have put initials in the lines as told to.
2). It is determined, since Judge Price, in every order he’s given us, in our case, anyway, STAMPS his signatures on them. These defendants have yet to receive one paper signed by the judge as SIGNED, in his own hand. The signature at the bottom of the order has very significant differences in its execution, an obvious forgery by the worker).
b.
Fraud (see count 1 of forgery, above. Additionally, the worker
mentions, long before the mother signs it, that “the court has already ordered this”, that “the child is officially in the system now”, and that “it’s too late, it’s going to happen, whether you sign it or not”; then, at the end when asked what will happen if she doesn’t sign it, is told “It’ll look bad to the judge in court. Sounds like legal duress to these parents).
c.
Falsifying Legal/documents: See letter a. Forgery. See also letter d. to follow)
d.
Depriving the mother of both her civil rights/ICWA rights. This mother, when asked by the worker if she had any Indian in her heritage said YES. The worker, then opted to put NO in that box...both on the order, and on the legal form she needed to provide to the administration office of DHS. This, of course, would have totally changed the game for all involved in our case, and would have meant that jurisdiction might have also fallen to the Cherokee Indians, of which it is determined that the child AND the mother have more than enough to qualify to fall under this welfare act, and in so doing, would have deprived this worker the joy of having us fall under the offensive and dishonest rule of this trier of fact, as well as telling her lies on the stand in order to condemn these parents without prejudice (see letter e., below)
e.
Perjury. This, of course, being this worker’s most SERIOUS crime
against the parents, will be
brought in full force, once the U.S.Attorney’s office is consulted; and relief in the form of retribution will also be sought. the U.S. Attorney will also be urged to file charges concerning both the removal and the hearing that followed, where this worker testified to ridiculous accusations, all the while looking down her nose at this mother and smiling. The assessment that followed this event, filled with over 55 lies that damage these defendants, shall also be used in this charge, and falls under its umbrella.
See also charge f., below.
f.
Libel/Slander. The parents thank this worker whole-heartedly for both writing down AND testifying her accusations in full.
g.
Conspiracy and Collusion. Please see paragraphs - when they appear shortly.
h.
Conspiracy to falsely embezzle state and federal funds. When
Conspiracy is indeed proven here, proving federal embezzlement of Federal Monies should follow close behind. DHS, Methodist and this court greatly benefit from a child being in the system, as well as from the profits generated when a child is then adopted; something DHS mentions widely in their motion to terminate ALL of the parent’s rights. Strange it is then, that all services and “reasonable efforts”; offered to these parents (and subsequently rejected as unneeded by these parents) are either run by or affiliated under/with Methodist Hospital and DHS, the very two agencies 100% responsible for the removal of our daughter.
15. Before his Honor or the D.A. consider that this evidence might be inadmissible; due to the worker not having knowledge of it, think again. In the commission of a felony (of which we have several here), recordings, if clearly heard, are OFTEN, and in some cases, ALWAYS admitted; even though mine was never admitted in THIS court, something these defendants just recently discovered. How convenient it is that they weren’t, since, even though stating these things needed addressing at our hearing, even though we had filed them with more than enough notice (the judge’s own order states these exhibits should be filed 7 days or more prior to the hearing...and these were filed just 7 days prior to it) weren’t admitted even; or shown or addressed at this permanency hearing, mostly because the recording would have started showing crimes that were not only committed by the worker, illegally; but would have also presented to this court that the Judge obviously condoned this removal, regardless of its illegality; and therefore was found to be moot, following his attempt (and success) in removing the father from the case; also an illegal move; because this father’s rights had yet to be terminated. The motion to establish paternity (as well as have this father removed) was also presented to be heard in the same hearing as the permanency; and filed in a 2nd case, concerning the termination of his rights...but also was never addressed here, even though it was at the top of his Honor’s to do list in the permanency hearing, and had been filed only 2 days prior to the hearing. How is it then that he can be found to be extraneous to this case, and not dismissed in the other? He cannot. This further adds to the conspiracy allegations these parents wish to address, soon enough.
16. Because of this situation, these parents were caused to be homeless, due to the actions (and inaction as well, per the incomplete processing of our FIP assistance by DHS) of all involved in this, at this time.
17. These parents, then, were thrown into a Post-Removal conference the following day, involving the parents, our daughter, 3 attorneys (one for each one of the family, mother, daughter and legal father), Kristen Cooley, a mediator/facilitator from Visiting Nurse Services (a Unity Point Healthcare affiliate), Ashley Andrews and an as yet unknown Supervisor (Jamie) of Children and Families of Iowa (A DHS affiliate), Katie Gosch and Stephanie Rhinehart, our caseworker and her Supervisor, of DHS/CPS of Iowa; and Nicky, a DHS provided “parent partner”, (a DHS paid affiliate, naturally) and was presented to us as the mother’s new BFF; and finally Nathan and Lindsay Pritchard, the happy foster parents. After an hour of accusatory actions made by all at this meeting, these parents, who were upset and angry were then flooded with paperwork, by the attorneys, by DHS, and per the other agencies involved. Visitations were offered the parents four times a week, and needed to be verified 2 hours ahead of time. At this time, the parents, who were homeless, in possession of a single bus pass and a single phone; only a week before a removal hearing to determine the needs of the baby, as well as to determine whether the child was removed properly and whether she should remain in foster care; with a full complement of paperwork to lug around with them that needed to be filled out, as well as actively struggling to get a place to live and a full visitation (and confirmation schedule), these parents were then thrown to the mercy of the outdoors and left to their own survival. This would be deemed as reasonable effort #3, made after the removal, in order to affect reunification of this family. It would be later claimed, in subsequent hearings from the court that DHS and CFI, the agencies themselves, would be deemed to be reasonable efforts made the parents #4 and #5.
18. Concerning the “reasonable efforts” supposedly made us in order to claim this court as “doing everything, reasonable, in order to reunify this family”, these defendants claim that DHS has made NO efforts at all in order to reunify this family, because of their intent, first to hold the baby in order to make the state money, then to terminate our rights for the same purpose, except through the avenue of adoption instead.
19. Due to poor representation provided by this court; as well as the attorneys propensity to serve the interests of this court, its trier of fact, as well as the prosecution; added to the fact that, because of this, we fear to use this option further; we state that we have been served Notice of a petition to terminate our "Parental Rights". We also state that our child has been wrongfully detained in foster care for 7 months. Visitation with her is denied us, but for DHS’s terms which are having the visits out of the home, once a week only, and with a worker who has falsified reports on how the mother is doing in her visits. Visits for the father have been rescinded totally because he won’t come in and talk to a supervisor about the things he writes about in his blog, and is used to punish him for it. He has not had a visit with our daughter since September, 2014. Our motions requesting it are ignored entirely, or are found in some way, by the trier of fact, to not be addressed.
20. The remaining efforts supposedly offered to us in order to help us reunify only serve to make other entities money, due to their affiliation with either DHS or with Unity Point Hospital, and are not needed by these parents. Other efforts they list are exhibits; and some of these were filed by the defendants. Others are false reports meant to make us feel like terrible parents and terrible people, and serve no purpose for reunification. Other efforts this court and DHS claim are entities in and of themselves that they claim to be efforts made. An effort made to someone is a service provided to someone, and to these parents, it’s meant to help them reunify with their daughter.. DHS is responsible for our daughter’s illegal removal, so how can they claim themselves to be a reasonable effort to help us now, after that removal? The same thing applies to CFI, an agency. They already list their service , and in order to claim more efforts they’ve made, they list the whole agency as an effort made. Add to that, the list of exhibits (21-40) filed in this court are never described, nor is reason given as to how ANY of these efforts they claim help us period. In our statement concerning the disposition hearing, we describe fully how the efforts this court lists as efforts does nothing for these parents, and the exhibits they list are part of a collective term, not defined for us as efforts made, giving us no chance in even knowing what these efforts are, or to give us an opportunity to refute them as such. Listing them collectively without identification is no help whatsoever to these parents.
21. We could have continued this court and this trier of fact’s illegal actions all the way to this present day, including his Honor’s calling “Lunch” a half an hour into a motions hearing set to hear all of the father’s filings in December, in the middle of the father sentence proving that DHS falsely accused him of harassment (and failed) in an attempt to deprive him of his inaliable right to free speech, then continuing the hearing a week later to finish him off; covering up for Attorney Dale Mays’s actions against the mother’s best interests, in asking the mother to fill out a 2nd financial affidavit; knowing she was still living at the homeless shelter, in order to cut off the defendants means for defense for nearly two months; etc...but why bother? These parent’s opinion of the “reasonable efforts” provided us, under the guise of reunification, but have only served to detrimentally stop the parents in their defense. in order to keep moving along in order have their rights terminated; are very well documented in several motions filed by the father, prior to this date. This trier of fact has no proof of the facts he makes up in his orders, and rules against us, regardless of evidence glaringly obvious to the contrary; weasels out of hearing motions and statements and throws out evidence at his convenience, as well as ignores things that help these defendants get their daughter back, such as legitimate changes in address, and obvious dispositional changes. These parents, then, choose instead to present to this court and his Honor that we, the parents, openly accuse this court of the following charges, and once all hearings are done and rulings found, this court will then be brought up on these charges by the U.S. Attorney’s office:
a. Fraud
b.
Embezzlement of Federal Funds
c.
Falsifying Records
d.
Falsifying Documents/Legal Documents
e.
Libel/Slander
f.
Conspiracy/Collusion
g.
Kidnapping/False Imprisonment
And will be brought, along with seeking restitution in full against these major players without delay;
named herein, including conspiracy of all named::
a.
DHS/CPS employees Emily Nieman, SW 4, Katie Holmes, Case
Manager, and Stephanie Rhinehart, Supervisor
b.
Children and Families of Iowa employees Ashley Andrews and Jamie, her
supervisor
c.
The Polk County District Attorneys Office, including Justin Remaly,
A.D.A.s Stephanie Brown and Kevin J. Brownell; and D.A. John P.
Sarcone
d.
Benzoni Law Firm, and Dale Mays, attorney for the same firm
e.
Paul White, GAL for our daughter
f.
Tony Reed/”Central Iowa Family Services” employees, a drug testing
facility in the service of and with exclusive contract to DHS; 2911 Merle
Hay Road, Des Moines, IA
g.
Governor Terry Brandstad, Governor of Iowa
h.
Charles Palmer, Director of DHS’s Administrative branch
I.
Unity Point Healthcare/Methodist Hospital
j.
Dr. Haugen, D.O., Unity Point Healthcare
k.
Dr. Michael Line, .D.O., Unity Point Healthcare
l.
Amanda Harris, D.O., Unity Point Healthcare
m..
Joyce DeGroote, S.W., Unity Point Healthcare
n.
VNS (a Unity Point Affiliate)
o.
EFR (a DHS beneficiary)
p.
The Polk County Sheriff’s office
q.
The Polk County Records Department, Juvenile Division/Randy Osbourne
r.
The Polk County Court Reporter’s office
s.
Judge William A. Price
Before this document is efiled, copies will be emailed and traditionally mailed or hand-delivered to these specific entities, and in this particular order, until my progress is halted:
a.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, both the Des Moines and
Headquarters offices in Washington D.C.
b.
Senator Grassley’s Office, in Des Moines and in Washington D.C.
c.
CNN, MSNBC and HLN News
d.
HHS Headquarters in Washington D.C., and the Regional Headquarters
in Kansas City
e.
The Reverend Al Sharpton
f.
The Reverend Jesse Jackson
g.
Terry Brandstad’s Offices
h.
President Barack Obama’s Office
I.
NAACP
j.
The Civil Rights Commission
k.
The AAPD
l.
The ACLU
m.
The Eastern Band of the Cherokees
n.
Creative Visions/Representative A.K.O.’s office
o.
DHS/CPS of Iowa Offices at River Place, with copies earmarked to the
offenders.
p.
All Local News in the Des Moines Area, both radio and TV
q.
The Des Moines Register
r.
Chuck Palmer
s.
The DHS Administration Offices
t.
The U.S. Attorney’s Offices, in Des Moines and in Washington
u.
Benzoni Law Firm
v.
The DHS of Iowa Advisory Board
w.
The Iowa Supreme Court
x.
Polk County Sheriff’s Office, Administration
y.
Randy Osbourne
z.
Juvenile Records, Polk County Court House
aa.
The Office of The Polk County Reporters
bb.
Judge William A. Price, 209B, whether’s he’s in session or not
We the parents have had about enough of His Honor’s kangaroo court, and fully intend to follow through with this threat, due to the fact that we fully disbelieve that the Supreme Court of Iowa, considering it’s just made up of judges who used to be where his honor is, will rule or find any better than his honor, and are, more than likely (due to the majority of them being appointed by the Governor, in the back pocket of the Governor anyway), going to find for the state as well, regardless of this case’s utter ridiculousness.
Elizabeth Bruce
.png)
.jpg)
