Interference with a writ that was not to be seen

 

| Open Player in New Window

 

DSCF1764

Carol Gustin, attorney for Deanna Jo Robinson and Levi, explains why an indictment for interference with child custody is a no go in court 

Greenville, TX – On March 4 of this year, more than one and a half million YouTube viewers worldwide watched in shocked disbelief as a Hunt County Deputy beat a woman in the thirty-eighth week of her pregnancy with a closed fist because she asked to see the legal instrument by which he, another deputy and a Quinlan city police officer seized her 18-month old son.

Though Grand Jurors were confronted with the evidence that the officer used a closed fist to repeatedly punch Deanna Jo Robinson in the area of her kidneys as they bent her over a kitchen counter at her mother and father’s house, they declined to indict him for the assault more than a million persons viewed on their computers and smartphones.

An equally amazed worldwide audience reacted with disbelief when the mother of the child seized became the subject of a felony indictment for “intentionally or knowingly” seeking to retain her son Landry against a writ of attachment she asked to see, but was denied by a Texas Child Protective Services worker.

There is considerable evidence that no such order existed at the time of the seizure on March 4.

During a jail stay, she was given only a blanket to cover her nudity, denied medication and medical treatment, and subjected to suicide watch; her son was spirited away to a foster care home the whereabouts of which, or the identity of the foster parent she has no clue.. When she gave birth to a second son just days later, her boy Levi was similarly seized at the hospital.

She now has both boys in her custody.

Her attorney says it will be her defense strategy to hold the state accountable for the accusation, since it’s pretty much impossible to interfere with an order for which one has no personal knowledge and the persons in authority refused to produce.

It’s emblematic of the kind of treatment combat veterans receive on a daily basis from state officials and police officers of all types, says Ms. Gustin. She is interested in founding a veterans’ court in Hunt County, where Sheriff Randy Meeks told newspaper subscribers in a recent letter to the editor that he receives his authority to do what he does from God, himself.

Following her arraignment for the offense in 354th State District Court before Judge Richard Beacom, Ms. Robinson and her attorney Carol Gustin gave an exclusive interview about the facts of the case and why they will call on prosecutors to prove each and every allegation of the complaint to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt – something they insist cannot be done.

A pre-trial hearing is ordered for December 22, jury trial on January 11, 2016.

Behold, God’s handiwork, in the opinion of Sheriff Meeks…Had there been no vide depiction, there would never have been an opportunity to share it.

3 thoughts on “Interference with a writ that was not to be seen”

  1. Woah! I’m really digging the template/theme of this blog. It’s simple,
    yet effective. A great deal of times it’s tough to have that “perfect balance” between user
    friendliness and appearance. I must say you’ve done a awesome job with this particular.

    Additionally, the blog loads super fast in my opinion on Chrome.
    Outstanding Blog!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× one = 7