I seriously don't know why they feel so comfortable being illogical and prejudiced here. You would not believe the kind of thing that's being said in this hearing.
Out of all the hearings I've been in, even with the church and shocked about some omissions, or with other matters, or hearing trials for other people, I have never heard the kind of thing I'm getting here. I mean, it wasn't this bad in any of the other hearings and I believe it's because these kinds of trials are "private" that there's no oversight or concern about it.
I honestly feel a little bit sorry for Michelle, the main worker on this case, because she is comfortable lying but it's like she doesn't even notice it anymore. She also contradicts herself so much there is no logical thread to follow. On pathological or compulsive liars and the definition and symptoms: http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/11655.html
As for the others, they are slightly more logical, but obstructive...I wouldn't give them the benefit of being pathological--it's more well placed and careful and doesn't contradict as much (not quite as much but is still pretty bad).
I honestly felt sorry for Michelle today because, I guess, I don't envy her position right now and where they are all at. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night but part of it, in a whole day of cross-examining her, is that she is able to be devious and knows, I guess, when she's lying most of the time, but the rest of the time, it doesn't seem like she even realizes she's not making sense. And what is really sad, is that someone like this is easily manipulated by other persons, and used as a puppet or catch-all.
They have her on the stand and not one of the others involved has ever dared to expose themselves. They're just comfortable resting everything on her (Michelle). In that sense, I almost feel they use her and go for the reward controls and try to groom her or stroke her ego so it's sort of a helpless fix of empowerment for someone who, as a little girl, felt very out of control of her own circumstances. So I feel she is probably someone who was abused or neglected in some way as a child or teen, or didn't have a healthy self-esteem, and then others who are in authority over her, bend this to their angle.
I'm not saying the others are very healthy either. But I do feel that while she is partly cognizant of exactly what she's doing, she is also vulnerable to manipulation and tends to the "emotional" side of the Meyer-Briggs category. She doesn't use logic to guide her decisions, but rests on emotions and her feelings. I think she has a difficult time understanding evidence, even though she's (gasp) had many hours of "forensic training" at a naval hospital (if that's correct that Harborview is military based--I might be wrong there).
She also did something really strange, which was like a Mykal Holt move, where she was most likely encouraged to file, and actually DID file an anti-harassment petition against me.
I wonder though, if while she has a lower self esteem, she does know more than she claims to know. Because in some of the past hearings, she has known exactly what "harassment" means and now she's claiming she doesn't know the definition, which might be helpful for her anti-harassment claim, if she wants to pretend she's innocent in some way. I have no idea. She contradicts almost everything she says herself so that's where I find a lot of inconsistency and I don't know what the reason is.
Her petition for anti-harassment is baseless and she is trying to BAN me from the DSHS office (where I get services and where I was recently harassed and have been harassed in the past). I think this is to both shut me out of services here and to prevent me from visiting my own son, whose visitation rights ARE terminated.
This man who I reported to police, about threatening and harassing me about how my visitation was TERMINATED, knew what he was doing and what Michelle would be up to. Then he stood there and lied to officers, and said only one visit was terminated and he never said they were in general. They knew, all along, what they were trying to do.
I just looked up one of Michelle's non-profits that she worked for and one, she said was through "Excelsior" and I'm hoping I spelled it wrong and that this is the wrong one, because I'm getting another military school, which might be tied into her own military connections. I would have to see if the spelling is right.
Today, I found out that the person in charge of delaying all the contracting, was coming out of Spokane and I think that's this Barbara woman, not Marty, but I'm not totally sure. I also found out Jennifer Godfrey was a main ship-steerer, but that Russ Haugen took more part in this case than average, maybe approx. 30% of the time sitting in and making decisions. I think Jennifer was a big part of this. I found out it was Jennifer who wanted Sue Just to do the visitation monitoring and that Anne (the next one) was specifically trained to fill in for Sue. They didn't allow any other normal visitation monitor into this case at all. They picked out their people carefully and steered it in one direction and blocked all audio recording. The person who hired the visitation monitors was a "Chris Collier" and I was never given this information.
I also requested a lot of discovery prior to this hearing, and some things that I've never requested before, and they haven't given it to me and they claim they asked for all my medical records from the East Coast and that every single facility refused to give them records.
There's a Justin Collier who is a lawyer here and I wouldn't be surprised if they're related, as most of the people on my case have some direct tie to a Wenatchee attorney.
Michelle and the others get up there and say what I've been through is "rare" and yet they try to flip the coin to "mental illness" or "not mentally ill" depending upon whatever point they want to make. They try to have it both ways in the same idea, and even an idiot knows it doesn't add up. Then she tried to equate "I.Q." with competency for court while asserting I am not competent to be a parent. So, according to her, I am "severely mentally ill" and yet she claims the state never needed to provide accomodations of any kind.
It's the most ludicrous turkey court I've ever sat in. She has even stated, on the record, that the State takes kids away from parents based on their ideas and that SHE could personally determine "negligence" of a child by having one phone call with a parent, or that a parent was "negligent" enough to have their kid removed. She also said she bases everything on what she reads in my blog, even though she has never confirmed what parts are creative or true. However, she didn't want to acknowledge that I even got pregnant or had a miscarriage. Her claims are incongruous.
No comments:
Post a Comment