At this point, we thought all the criminal issues were over. We now only had to deal with the repercussions of what had been done to me. And so I made a request for the discovery in my case. I wanted to see if the statements made by Officer Wilson were on tape. Under MCA 2003 Section 44-5-214, an individual is entitled to any criminal history record information maintained about them by any criminal justice agency.
Imagine my surprise when my inquiry got the Police Chief himself, Frank Garner, to tell me he would not give me access to the files because the case was once again active and he was forwarding it to the County Attorney! As you will recall, no fewer than five seperate people were informed by the Police Department that the case was closed and that no further action would be taken! Chief Garner further insisted that the case had never been closed and that while the case was open, I was not entitled to access the investigative information. Keep in mind - per the MCA Code of Authority listed above, there is no such restriction. Anyone who has information maintained about them by a criminal justice agency has right of access to their files - there is no restriction on whether the information is part of an active investigation or not.
I pointed this particular detail out to Chief Garner, telling him the Code did not allow him to use an active investigation as a bar to my access and attempted to show him a printed copy of the law. His response was, "You can put that away. I don't care what the Code says, you are not getting access to your file." When asked what legal authority he had to withhold the records, his only response was, "What legal right? Because I say so!" So in other words, just because I asked for my records - a right I had under the law - now not only was my case open again, but now it was going to be prosecuted and I was still being refused my right to acess the information!
At this point, I started a campaign contacting every supervisor I could within the City Government. I spoke to the City Attorney's Office, specifically to Adjutant City Attorney Richard Hickle, Mayor Pam Kennedy, and City Manager Chris Kukulski. I wrote new letters demanding my files that I was entitled to under the law. I even filed a Petition with the Court to order the files to be released, a Petition, I might add that was ignored by the Court! The only responses I received to the Petition were from Adjutant City Attorney Richard Hickle who provided a print out of my criminal offense record (ie, a list of crimes I have been convicted of, which I have no criminal record and all they have is identifying information) and a denial that I was entitled to anything else, claiming that the word "Complaint" in the MCA Code refered to a Complaint filed in a Court of law, in spite of the Code specifically stating that Court records were not included in criminal history record information.
In the end, I was forced to file a lawsuit against the City, Police Department, and all parties that had denied me my records, had tampered with witnesses and were responsible for harassing me during the investigation. I filed the lawsuit on November 18, 2003 and may be referenced through the 11th District Court of Montana as Case Number DV-03-572C.
On November 20, 2003, Child Protective Services came and took my girlfriends daughters from her custody. This retaliatory act was based on new unfounded allegations from Dixie and Jerry Nezat (who had not had contact with the girls since July when they began their attack on me) and a made up allegation coming from the case worker, Kori Taylor, that had supposedly happened on the morning of November 13, 2003, in spite of there being a room full of witnesses who could dispute the entire incident.
The demand made by CPS is that Mara has to dissolve all contact with me or lose her girls forever. And since she and Lavitia are my primary witnesses, if they testify for me, they are considered in violation of CPS. Very neat. Very convenient. And unfortunately, completely "legal" since District Court Judge Lympus, as of December 5, 2003, gave complete authority to Kori Taylor to make any demand of Mara that she felt like.
To date, Kori Taylor, CPS and the District Court have violated at least half a dozen laws.
MCA 2003 41-3-427(1)(c), defining Petitions for immediate protection and emergency services, requires "the parents... must be given an opportunity to present evidence to the court before the court rules on the petition." Neither parent was notified of the petition at all, much less given an opportunity to respond or offer evidence.
MCA 2003 41-3-301(1), defining emergency protective services, requires "the person or agency placing the child shall notify the parents... at the time of placement is made or as soon after placement as possible." No effort whatsoever was made to notify either parent that the girls had been taken into protective custody. A phone number was left at the youngest child's school for Mara to contact, but that was not discovered until after Mara sent someone to pick up her daughter from school. The father of the children was not notified until he received copies of legal papers four days later.
MCA 2003 41-3-423(1), defining reasonable efforts required to prevent removal of children from the home, requires the CPS to make reasonable efforts including, but not limited to, voluntary protective services agreements and development of individual written case plans specifying state efforts. CPS made no effort whatsoever to prevent the children from being removed, have made no written statement of efforts between Mara and CPS to prevent removal of the children and in fact, removed the children before even investigating any of the allegations at all.f
MCA 2003 41-3-422(5)(a), defining abuse and neglect petitions, requires that CPS has the burden of proof to prove probable cause for removal of the children from the home, which is to say they must prove they acted in good faith and adhered to the law in removing the children. Section (4) of this Code also requires that the District Court must adhere to Montana Rules of Evidence. Inclusive in Montana Rules of Evidence as MCA 2003 Section 26-10-IV Rule 402, is the fact that all relevant evidence is admissable. In spite of this, District Court Judge Lympus refused to hear any evidence offered by the parents at the hearing which would have proven CPS did not have probable cause, that Kori Taylor's actions were premature, not based in good faith and that the reports made were false.
Additionally, Section (9)(a) of this Code allows any person interested in any cause under this chapter of the MCA has a right to appear before the Court. Judge Lympus again denied the parents' rights to allow individuals to appear which could have disputed CPS' position.
February 28, 2009 Update: Due to a glitch in this web page creator (Yahoo's Pagebuilder), I have lost Page III of this website. But I have saved it in a separate file and transfered it to my blog, The Great Monspiracy. Check out that blog for the lost entry, and follow that page for the full updates of what has occurred over the last five years...