D H S D O G S

CHAPTER ONE

TARI HUGHES

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT

IN AND FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

                                                                                                                 FILED      

John E. Schoonover U.S.N. Ret.                                 ]              5 / 21 / 10

An individual; and John E. Schoonover                  ]

Appearing as Natural Father and                              ]             

NEXT OF KIN of ELMS AND HAW                              ]

                                      Plaintiffs                                       ]

                                                                                              ]      

                             Vs.                                                           ]                    CASE No.

                                                                                              ]

1. Brad Henry, Governor of Oklahoma                     ]          10- CV -054 JHP TLW

             And his agents or assignees                              ]                                          

3. Larry D. Stuart, Pawnee County Dist. Atty.      ]

              His agents or assignees                                      ]

                                                                                                ]

4. Patrick Pickerill, acting attorney for                     ]

                                 ELMS & HAW                                    ]

                                                                                               ]

5. Howard Hendrick, Director Okla. D.H.S              ]

              His agents and assignees                                  ]

                                                                                               ]

6. Mikah McCray, individually and in her              ]

              Capacity as an employee of D.H.S.               ]

                                                                                              ]

7. Donna Pace, individually and in her                   ]

               Capacity as an employee of D.H.S.             ]

                                                                                             ]

8. Tari Hughes, individually and as a                    ]

               Volunteer/employee of CASA                     ]

                                                                                            ]

14. The District Court of Pawnee County Okla.   ]

                                                                                            ]

      The Cleveland Area Hospital                               ]

                                                                                            ]

                             Et ali                                                     ]

RESPONSE TO TARI HUGHES MOTION TO DISMISS

1 of 8

Comes now, John Edward Schoonover, U.S.N. Ret., the Plaintiff in the above numbered case and Natural Father of ELMS and appears herein pro se and as such being uneducated and untrained of the mechanics of the law invoking the protections and latitudes and protections of Haynes v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 [1972] and Hall v. Bellman 935 F.2d 1106 10 Cir. [1991] and under and through authority of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 and files with this Honourable Court his Response Tari Hughes MOTION TO DISMISS for the following reasons:

Tari Hughes fails to understand that this suit is not seeking federal court review of the Oklahoma state court’s previous adjudication of these same claims.  Tari Hughes fails to understand this suit is solely for the purpose of seeking monetary damages for the wrongs, particularly those in violation this Plaintiff’s Civil Rights and Due Process violations of the various Defendants. 

Tari Hughes fails to understand that even President Nixon was not protected under the cloak of immunity when he violated another’s Civil Rights.  Nor was past Governor of Oklahoma’s David Hall.  The Cloak of Immunity was not designed for the protection of those electing to violate, either deliberately with malicious intent or unwittingly, the Civil Rights of others. 

“Summary of relevant facts”

“As alleged in the Complaint, {3} ELMS [Plaintiff’s infant son] allegedly rolled off the bed on the evening of November 14, 2006, while under the supervision of Plaintiff.  After noticing that ELMS was favoring his right arm, Plaintiff took him to Cleveland Area Hospital the following day.”

[QUOTE FROM DOCUMENT TARI HUGHES FILED IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT]

This is an example of how Tari Hughes sees what is not there and does not see what is. 

2 of 8

In footnote {3} “Defendant Hughes does not concede that the allegations of fact contained in the Complaint are true and correct.”

Neither does this Plaintiff because as she has interpreted the facts, above, they are not true. 

The report filed by Deputy Steve Melton quoted this Plaintiff accurately; in that ELMS did scream out upon contact with the floor but quickly calmed to this Natural Father’s coddling; took his bottle and fell to sleep before finishing it.  Upon waking the following morning, he seemed to favour his right arm and this Plaintiff took him to the Cleveland Hospital where questions were asked and answered and it was noted the SIGNS OF ABUSE box was circled “NO.”  The photographs Deputy Melton took clearly show ELMS was not in distress of any kind at that time.

The ‘rewriting’ of facts as Tari Hughes has done, as the first time it was possible “noticing” ELMS favored his right arm would have been when he woke and took his bottle the morning of November 15, 2006, and as Tari Hughes states, “took him to Cleveland Area Hospital the following day” which could not be sooner than November 16. 

“While Plaintiff and ELMS were waiting to see a doctor, an employee of the Department of Human Services took ELMS to Tulsa Regional Medical Center for evaluation of his injury, which was suspected to be the result or abuse.”  [QUOTE FROM DOCUMENT TARI HUGHES FILED IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT]

If this is true, then it is fact that no X-rays were taken at Cleveland , and, as the ‘SIGNS OF ABUSE box was circled “NO,” then who is this un-named party that took ELMS to OSUMC for the X-rays and gives the reason “Suspected Abuse” and the X-rays show no fracture and unremarkable flesh?  Obviously, DHS’ Mikah McCray. 

“After arriving at Tulsa Regional Medical Center , Plaintiff was placed in a waiting room and was advised that ELMS suffered a spiral fracture to his arm.”  [QUOTE FROM DOCUMENT TARI HUGHES FILED IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT]

3 of 8

This is true, as Tari Hughes knows, but fails to mention WHO advised this Plaintiff ELMS suffered a spiral fracture as it could not have been any OSUMC staff because their secreted X-rays and radiologist report clearly show no injuries of any kind.  Only that ELMS was carried in and admitted “Smiling and Alert” and “Playful.”  Where are the records that OSUMC treated ELMS for anything?  Did they ‘send him on his way’ untreated when he had a serious injury?  Is OSUMC guilty to declining treatment to a minor when he is brought in with a seriously broken arm?   Did OSUMC fail to ask about “Next of Kin” or did they ask and were told ELMS has only DHS as “Next of Kin”?  That should have ‘opened the door’ for OSUMC to treat this alleged “badly broken arm!”

Perhaps OSUMC did not treat this terrible “Spiral Fracture” because it did not exist!  At least that is what their X-rays and radiologist report, that DHS and the District Attorney’s office had concealed from this Plaintiff show.

So far, Tari Hughes, unwittingly, is this Plaintiff’s best witness!

Teri Hughes stipulated, under oath, that she told this Plaintiff ELMS was “In excruciating pain” which would be consistent for a child with a badly broken arm.  Contrary to OSUMC report of “Alert and Smiling / Playful.”

When I further questioned her on this subject I asked her to explain as the only time she saw ELMS at a hospital was when his foster parents took him to St. Francis November 21, 2006, where it was found that he did in fact have a freshly broken arm into fragments and could not help but be in excruciating pain!  That date she ‘checked out’ the original X-rays from St. Francis; never to return them.  They, too, were kept [whereabouts unknown] secreted by the Pawnee District Attorney’s office until September 10, 2008.

4 of 8

Tari Hughes was, knowingly, concealing exculpatory facts and evidence that perpetuated the suffering of this Natural Father and kept ELMS into custody where he has suffered many “accidents,” photographs of two of which Dr. Debbie Lowen  introduced herself to the mother of ELMS and this Plaintiff, who she did not recognize, with the question, “How long has this abuse been going on!”  The major one of concern is the head-first fall on concrete adjacent to a play area in violation of every state’s safety codes.  Tari Hughes protested the loudest against my pleas to DHS and the Pawnee District Court to have this potentially lethal injury examined by a professional neurologist with an MRI.  Though two years past, a professional MRI would show, as does the November 15 OSUMC X-rays, that there was either no serious injury, or there was an intracranial injury. 

In whose “Best Interest” is it to not look?  The “Immunity” and “Protection of the Child” laws were not written to protect those who use them in an effort to protect themselves from their wrong-doings.  Ten years from now something could trigger a reason for an MRI and any intracranial injury happening in 2008 will have no answers as to how it happened or who is responsible because “Those records will have been sealed for the protection of the child.”  For the protection of who?

Based on a photograph, Dr. Debbie Lowen concluded this injury was child abuse, but when she was advised it occurred while ELMS was in DHS custody, clammed up like a vise. 

This Plaintiff also reminded Tari Hughes that she could not have had any way to ascertain that “He was in excruciating pain” unless she was referring to being at St. Francis, which she was, but she was NOT at Cleveland Area Hospital.  Her answer was straight forward, “I only reported what others told me.”  This is the totality of her credibility.

5 of 8

Page 4, paragraph 1, DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS, location, OSUMC:  “ELMS was taken into custody by the Department of Human Services at that time.  In truth, as Mikah McCray, acting for DHS, ELMS was taken into custody at the Cleveland Hospital before any examination, if what Tari Hughes previously stated.  Nevertheless, if this statement is true that Tari Hughes now makes, ELMS was taken into custody AFTER the X-rays at OSUMC prove no fractures; not before.  This is worse than the taking of ELMS before knowing there are no fractures.  Either way, it was without any Court Order as that was not approved before the afternoon of November 21, 2006, at which time, over this Plaintiff’s objections, that is, never stipulating that his son was a “Deprived Child” as he never has been, UNTIL DHS took him into custody.  This Plaintiff has stated numerous times, that such status of taking him with no just cause, placed ELMS in the status of being a Deprived Child; by DHS depriving him of his Constitutional Rights without considering the fact that Mikah McCray committed perjury to justify her taking of ELMS without any Court Order.  Defendant Tari Hughes is in fails to see that fact. 

Tari Hughes’ statement that this Plaintiff alleges she took the OSUMC X-rays and altered them is totally untrue as it is factually an impossibility.  These are the exculpatory X-rays and it is insulting that this Plaintiff would suggest this Plaintiff is ignorant enough to make such a ludicrous statement.  Fact dictates she did take them.  Preponderance would indicate she attempted to use them to alter X-rays from a Dr. Nebergall’s  office because his secretary, Iris Ballou, wrote a letter that Mr. Robertson handed me that made it quite clear that attempt was made with their X-rays, rendering them useless. 

6 of 8

The X-rays at OSUMC, as well as those at St. Francis, absolutely can not be tampered with short of a feat greater and with more risk than Nixon’s Watergate, as they are stored locked, on di-com and pi-com discs accessible only to those radiologists accessible to the respective facility’s Radiology vaults.  Only by registering with DiComWorks can anyone even pull up the images; much less tamper with them.  Not so with smaller facilities such as CAH and Dr. Nebergall’s office. 

In her footnote [4] page 4, Tari Hughes reminds this Court “can take judicial notice … etc.” and this Plaintiff would add to that the fact that the S.Ct. [a Defendant] would not look at the X-rays but simply ruled there was sufficient evidence that the right arm of ELMS was broken; but ignored the key element of when it was broken. The case of HAW is being stalled from being appealed by Lynette Quitone, Court Reporter, refusing to provide the pre-paid transcript, of which this Plaintiff can not proceed without it. 

It is a fact that Tari Hughes, when suborned by Patrick Pickerill, another Defendant, to commit slander and perjury  sufficient for the Judge to comment on this deliberate harpoon, to prejudice the Jury, which it without a doubt did, in her endeavor not to seek the truth but to seek destruction of this Plaintiff’s family, and who has no foundation whatever beyond attempting to protect those in DHS from being responsible from their acts of taking ELMS without any Court Order; attempting to alter X-rays to favor the State [This Plaintiff certainly does not need any X-rays altered as those unalterable are sufficient to show the truth].

What is In the best interest of the child?  Not even, arguendo, if Schoonover is responsible for the break as clearly shown in the St. Francis X-rays, is there any best interest to take a child without a court order.  As Tari Hughes prejudicially purports to believe.  When Tari Hughes learned, February 26, 2007, that the arm of ELMS was NOT broken, and she already knew ELMS had been taken illegally, just what should her duties have been? 

7 of 8

She chose the opposite route.  That is, what is in the best interest of DHS and the Pawnee District Attorney’s office who charged this Plaintiff with willfully and maliciously using excessive force and breaking his son’s arm.  A charge which, at this writing, is six months beyond the Statute of Limitation for prosecuting. 

This Plaintiff requests she not be dismissed

as her hands are far too dirty.

Respectfully Submitted;

                                      with certification that an exact copy has been mailed via Certified Return Receipt mail to the principal Defendant and to all other defendants via First Class Mail within twenty four hours of this filing.

Signed

_________________________

John Schoonover, USN Ret.

RR 1 Box 67 Cleveland Oklahoma 74020

8 of 8

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The VFW prints on page 4 that September 17 is “Constitution Day.”  How proud the VFW is of its members . . . even those VFWs that are not members of this organization, who supported our Constitution by being what they did for it while in uniform.  Of course, that applies to all those who donned a uniform issued by the Department of Defense.  For this writer it is somewhat depressing to read these types of articles when I live with the fact that those in Pawnee County, those I have labeled DHStapo agents, containing both the civil members as well as the legal/police members, have taken this writers copy of our Constitution and treaded it in the mud making it worth less than the waste of  pigs, the value of which makes pretty good fertilizer.

Another article in this same issue Is titled “VETERANS Have an Obligation to TEACH”  It is a three page article that hits home with this writer.  In the center of the third page is an ‘attention getter’ stating a fact, “Unless veterans share their memories with children, grandchildren – - history will die with them.  “What was it really like, Daddy” is a question my babies will never get to even ask. 

Little would this Disabled Veteran know, at the time, that Mikah McCray’s destruction of our Constitutional Rights  just how far she would go in that destruction.  It would not be for just a few days or a few weeks but it would continue on for, well, she started November 15, 2006, and this is being written September 1, 2010.  Four years, so far. 

There is a movie,  “What did you do in the war, Daddy?”  My babies will not be asking me that question or any other in the foreseeable future.  Mikah McCray assured, by her perjury committed November 21, 2006, and everything else that she has done that will be outlined later on in this documentary. 

It is her plan, and as Donna Pace took over her position it became Donna Pace’s plan, to deprive Elan and Haley any knowledge of their father’s activities in the military.

Was what their father did so important that they need to know?  No, but they should not be deprived of their right to ask!  And yes, those memories will die with me.  All of my memories will die with me.  ALL of it.  As well as ALL of my knowledge!  Is that important?  It is the destruction of this man’s bloodline.  All he is and all he has learned from his father who learned from his father before him, dies with me. 

to be continued