Declaration for Audio Recording
From: cam huegenot (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sent: Fri 12/04/09 11:28 AM
My name is Cameo Garrett and I am over the age of 18 and qualified to make the following declaration:
I need the block and ban on audio recording visits to be removed.
When I began visits with my son, I was allowed to video record, take photos, and audio record. There is no law against it.
However, someone decided it would be easier to lie about the quality of my visits with my son, if I was unable to document the truth.
As soon as I was blocked from recording, especially audio recording, it was possible for state workers to lie about the quality of my visits with my son. Not only that, lying was done before the Judge, in court, where it has been claimed on two separate occasions, that the need for a security guard is because I am "abusive" to the visitation monitor, or harassing.
This is a lie. I have never once even been rude to the visitation monitor.
The quality of my visits with my son is also, and has always been, superior to what is claimed.
It is my word against theirs. They are lying, and they are the ones who are most interested in preventing visits from being audio recorded. This makes it impossible for me to prove my visits are good, and that I do not harass others, and that a security guard is unnecessary.
The state has made false claims that they "need" a guard at the door when they do not, but I am prejudiced from proving this when I am blocked from recording. The state refuses to increase my visits with my son, when my son appeals to see me more every single visit he has with me.
My defense is severely prejudiced and compromised by the block to audio recording. This case is to determine whether I am a "risk" to my son, and putting a security guard at the door is an attempt to create an appearance of something being wrong, when nothing is wrong. The state has also used this "additional expense" as a way to claim they should not increase visits.
In the meantime, my son is prejudiced from seeing his mother more, when even Anne McIntosh stated three months ago that visitation should be increased. With every "hoop" I jump through, they take more of my and my son's rights away.
Not only that, I believe it is very close to amounting to crime, to so lie about a mother and then prevent the mother from being able to document what the reality is--it amounts to "obstruction of justice".
There is absolutely zero harm to my son, or distraction, in audio recording. He doesn't know it's going on, and it doesn't impair anyone in any way. It keeps the record straight and those who ARE telling the truth would be in favor of this.
Because the STATE has made the quality of my visits and behavior an issue, and I am stating they are lying, I must be allowed to audio record and there should be zero objection from anyone who should care about the truth.
It would keep Michelle Erickson, who has lied on two separate occasions at court, from being able to lie about me and prejudice my son from seeing his mother. Michelle has claimed they "need" a guard because I am harassing and disruptive and this is absolutely false.
The visits are between me and my son. The monitor is supposed to just sit there quietly, observe, and make notes. There is no recording of the monitor if she doesn't speak and she doesn't need to talk in the visits. If she does wish to speak, she should realize there is nothing to prevent a mother from recording the visits, as was done in the past, without argument for a short time.
It is imperative to my case, and to my and my son's civil rights, that we be allowed to audio record for our own protection and protection of the accuracy of the record.
I and my son have been refused increased visitation for almost 2 years. It is more than reasonable to increase visits from 4 hours a week, however, in the last hearing, they went so far as to even sneak in an order to block make-up visits when someone (besides me) is sick and my son doesn't get to visit afterall.
Cameo L. Garrett