1. Ms. Pierce begins with the
statement, “The Office of the Guardian ad Litem represented the child’s best
interests at trial and on appeal.” We
take exception to that statement.
Contrary to its stated mission, our observation of the actions of the
Office of the Guardian ad Litem (as with DCFS and the Medical Establishment)
has been that career, career relationships and financial motivations have been
the over-riding factor – not our precious Daniel’s best interests. See documentation submitted to the court.
3. Ms. Pierce makes the statement “This
case involves a child with precarious medical needs.”
The present tense of that statement (as
opposed to a past tense verbiage) is misleading.
See the website www.danielinthelionsden.us
to see video clips documenting Daniel’s phenomenal progress.
Daniel has been a very happy, healthy baby
for months now – because he has been breathing carbon monoxide-free air.
The true cause of Daniel’s health problem was
State of Utah error induced carbon monoxide poisoning, which was ignored by
DCFS and the Medical Establishment, who were willing to just send Daniel and
his family back into that poisonous environment to be further sickened or
The mitigation of the carbon
monoxide problem was not accomplished by anything DCFS or the Medical
Establishment did – but by steps that the parents took in January – and through
the help of a friend Thomas Rodgers in February.
See documentation submitted to the court.
Daniel is now 9 months old.
At the time DCFS received referrals he was 5
While we can neither
confirm nor deny whether DCFS received referrals with the stated description
that was given of Daniel, the description given was not accurate.
He was breathing and nursing fine; he could
cry and hold his head up and actively move his limbs.
His skin color was not gray and his condition was not
deteriorating, but had been improving for about a month and especially during
the past two weeks of that month.
documentation submitted to the court).
In fact the statement in Dr Inouye’s report of 2-11-08 (in case file)
contradicts that alarming description with the statement…“I don’t think the
baby is in any acute danger…” .
also confirmed by the fact that upon checking into PCMC on 2-12-08, Daniel was
deemed to be in stable condition including with respect to vital signs –
respiration, heart rate, blood pressure, alertness, etc. per Dr Howard Kadish’s
report. (Dr Armstrong’s visualization of Daniel prior to his admittance for
evaluation at PCMC was a brief (60 second) visual observation of Daniel the
previous evening while sleeping at 10:30 pm in very poor light in a darkened
room…not a real exam).
4. Ms. Pierce’s statement, “After weeks of negotiation and
mediation, the Parents stipulated to a set of facts.” is a gross misstatement
of what actually occurred.
mediation/negotiation consisted of a one-and-one-half-hour mediation meeting
that took place on 3-14-08 with Dean Campbell acting as mediator…and then
another 10-minute session during the pre trial hearing on 4-3-08.
We made it clear at the pre-trial hearing
that in addition to the scant facts as set forth in DCFS’s Amended Verified
Petition, there were also many other non-stipulated facts, which needed to be
We did not agree that only
the scant stipulated facts as set forth by DCFS be used as the basis for
adjudicating a decision – in fact we objected to it…and we certainly did not waive
our right for an Appeal.
of the pre-trial hearing and earlier documents submitted to the court.
Certain stipulated facts and a
number of non-stipulated facts were ignored that pertained to our case with
respect to important points of the law.
Evidence which validates those facts was also ignored.
Furthermore, additional evidence which
further strengthens the validity of those facts has been brought forth since
the pre-trial hearing, which could not reasonably have been gathered, produced,
and submitted prior to the time that said evidence was filed.
The mail just arrived with a
Response also from John Peterson, counsel for DCFS.
It appears that he makes the same attempt to discourage the Court
from examining the facts and evidence that pertain to the case.
The above Counter Response applies to his
assertions as well.
As to his comment
about dependency – it is in essence a finding of incompetence – which we can
clearly demonstrate does not apply in our case.
As to his attempt to discredit the material facts that accompanied
the Petition on Appeal by calling them “strange conspiracy theories”:
we have overwhelming evidence that confirms
the validity of those facts…and there is nothing new or strange about them…just
people making mistakes; being unwilling to admit their mistakes; and placing
worldly gain over more noble motivations…this has been going on since the world
this 21st day of June, 2008