Comments by "Dawn Smith" (@smithdawn1) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
111
-
58
-
38
-
@etishome4099 Advocacy for abused children is one of my passions. Especially foster/adopted children. It started in my childhood with my aunt & uncle being foster parents. My efforts are not confined to merely commenting, but I do think it is worthwhile to do and doesn’t take much time. The narrative of abusers should not go unchallenged, and countering it I think is important. For Natalia, for other similarly situated children/adult children, for other readers. The Barnetts are spending money and have employed a public relations firm in an attempt to shift public perception to their side. In addition, Kristine Barnett herself has a dedicated fan base working to advance the idea that she is the victim in this scenario. Meanwhile the real victim here is completely outgunned and is also under a gag order. Imagine that? The Barnetts go on a virtual character assassination tour and by the time Natalia decides to address these scurrilous allegations, the state takes action to protect her by gagging the defendants but in the process also gets her and her [new] parents gagged. That doesn’t sit well with me. This case is still ongoing. In fact, the Barnetts were recently handed a possible success in avoiding criminal sanctions. The judge has ruled that child neglect charges cannot go forward (disability neglect charges Can) due to the [fraudulent] age change obtained in 2012 that rendered her an adult in the eyes of the law. Legal technicalities of Res Judicata and collateral estoppel may result in the state being barred from presenting the virtually irrefutable evidence that her original birth certificate was authentic. The dismissal of 6 out of 8 felony counts was stayed and the prosecution is challenging the order. The trials are on hold while awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, Natalia is currently 17 yrs old with an amended birth certificate saying she’s 31. She cannot attend high school with her age mates. Her future, educationally and economically is in jeopardy. Worse, she is unable to obtain the surgeries she needs on account of the disparity between her apparent physical age and her legal age (this was recounted in the probable cause affidavit). The impact of the Barnetts actions has literally effected the trajectory of her entire life.
25
-
20
-
16
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@ChiefKeif506 We know they lied about her being an adult born in 1989. Her birth mother proves that. She really was born 2003. This is unequivocal. Even before her Bmom was found, hard science via medical testing proved she was a minor. She had ex rays. She still had growth plates. Adults do not have growth plates. Even her dental evals proved she was a minor. Twice, 2011 est 8-9, 2012 est 6-9. Once you realize how they’ve lied and virtually destroyed her childhood AND her future with the fraudulent age change, it sure raises the bar for the evidence necessary to prove any of their other claims. On a he said/she said, she ought to be believed because they are shown to have lied over something incredibly important. I will add, about the supposed hair, that Mrs DePaul, the potential adopter, was giving that child baths only 5 months before Barnetts did, and Mrs DePaul says NO, says she was NOT developed at all.
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@charliewaters5289 I imagine you do know VERY WELL that is sucks to be wrong. Time will tell if you have the moral constitution to come back here and admit it. In the meantime, sweetie, go pursue the Indiana Rules of Court- Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 14 Interlocutory Appeals. This appeal fell under part B, Discretionary Interlocutory Appeals. While your there, check out Part I, Death Penalty Cases. Maybe next time don’t get your legal education from Wikipedia, as I see that’s where you came up with the Erroneous idea that Interlocutory Appeals are only for civil cases.
Yes, I am also aware that 2 of the 8 felony counts were unaffected entirely by the stayed dismissal order. I believe I talked about that previously.
You also seem unaware of the reasons for the judges dismissal order to begin with. Look up Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel and Statute of Limitations. You’re talking like the judge looked at all the evidence and made an independent determination of her age. If that’s what you’re thinking, you’d be Wrong Again. The judge’s ruling, IF AFFIRMED, actually prevents the State from introducing the evidence that she was a child when left behind. Solid medical & dental evidence, along with her original Ukrainian birth records obtained from her biological mother. The 41 yr old biological mother who was married to her biological father at the time of her birth. It’s almost comical how little you know about this case.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4