Category: OKLAHOMA

Case Dismissed

OK DHS Takes Both Kids [Rogers County, OK]

Criminal Charge:
Case: ITIO E.C. and L.C., Alleged Deprived Children
Court: [JD-22-39][Rogers County, OK]
Result:
Case Dismissed


What you are about to read is the kind of abuse that plagues families in the juvenile court system.  We cannot publish the evidence of this abuse because the courts, OK DHS and prosecutors exploit the “confidentiality” of juvenile proceedings. 10A O.S. 1-6-107.

Two kids were seized from their parents when the 6 yo boy’s Anglo teachers called OK DHS claiming he said his dad hit him in the eye. The bilingual boy had serious speech issues, scoring in the 1%-6% in communications skills while in therapy. While examining his phantom black eye, these women decided to strip him and spread this child’s cheeks. And photograph it.  Meanwhile, mom immediately complied with DHS’ demand she come to the school with her infant daughter – where OK DHS unceremoniously claimed her birthmarks were signs of abuse and took her, too. Then they filed a petition to adjudicate the kids “deprived”. Typical DHS.

The parents called Haslam seven months into the case desperate for an aggressive defense. Haslam immediately rounded up years of medical records showing the boy had a congenital tear duct obstruction that caused seasonal eye blowups. He also exposed a serious material falsehood in the OK DHS investigator’s report.  Then he got a court order returning the kids to the parents because the State – despite all its claims about abuse and neglect – failed to try the case within the obligatory 180 days. 10A O.S. 1-4-601[B][2].

Nonetheless, the State still planned to try the case and take the kids back.  After running headlong into several troubling pretrial decisions by the judge with only four months in a black robe, Haslam filed his motion to disqualify the judge for conducting unlawful ex parte communications with opposing counsel and other violations of the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct.  Hours later, the judge signed an order granting the State’s motion to dismiss the entire case.

Probation

First Degree Murder [Wagoner County, OK]

Criminal Charge: First Degree Murder
Case: State v. Karen Bly-Rana
Court: [CF-05-317A] [Wagoner County]
Result: Probation and drug rehab!

Oklahoma State Courts Network
For more details on this case, open the Docket View.

Karen and her spouse were charged with the murder of a Coweta, OK man upon their arrest after a lengthy Wagoner County car chase. The victim’s body was found in a bloody shower curtain in a rural field. The State’s evidence included significant blood in the Bly’s apartment that matched the victim.

Haslam subpoenaed about 10 witnesses to Karen’s preliminary hearing and arrived ready to mount an aggressive examination of the State’s evidence. In response, the prosecutors expressed an interest in an arrangement that involved Karen’s testimony in Mr. Bly’s jury trial. An arrangement was struck.

Mr. Bly sailed into his trial, impaneled a jury and heard from several State’s witnesses. He entered his guilty plea minutes before Karen took the stand and was sentenced to forty [40] years in prison [CF-05-317, see 10-25-06 docket sheet entry].

In exchange for her cooperation, the State amended Karen’s charges to accessory to a felony and Judge Norman sentenced her to twenty [20] years probation. She was immediately released from the Wagoner County jail straight into inpatient drug rehab.

She will be released to unsupervised probation upon her completion of rehab.

Case Dismissed

Texas Mother Absconds With Sons to Oklahoma and Gets Protective Order Against Dad [Choctaw County, OK]

Case: Crow v. Crow [PO-20-08][Choctaw, OK] and [Cause FM20-00269][Van Zandt]
Result: Dismissed with prejudice and Mother ordered to pay Dad’s attorney fees

Oklahoma State Courts Network

Haslam represented this father of two young boys whose mother absconded with them to Oklahoma – in direct violation of a Texas court order issued when she filed for divorce the day she left Texas. On top of that, once she got to Oklahoma, she sought an ex parte victim’s protective order [VPO] against the father seeking to forbid his contact with the boys and her.

Ex parte VPO’s are among the most abused legal tools – they permit the filing person to get legal relief against the accused without his presence to defend himself: just one product of decades of successful lobbying by our culture’s Feminist-Victimist Complex.  Here, the mother filed for divorce in Texas and made all kinds of claims about Dad to an Oklahoma judge before Dad even knew she’d moved out of their Texas house.  Remarkably, this judge heard her claims and granted her VPO without a court reporter present to record her allegations, leaving Dad unable to challenge those oral allegations later.

Once Dad hired Haslam, he quickly succeeded in removing this judge from the case.

Licensed in Oklahoma and Texas, Haslam urged Oklahoma motions to return the VPO to Texas per the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act [UCCJEA]. After cross-examining the mother under oath in Oklahoma, the new Oklahoma judge dismissed the VPO “protecting” father’s two sons  and agreed to return the surviving VPO “protecting” mother to Texas: Haslam wanted the Texas divorce court judge to know exactly what she’d been up to. Crucially, Haslam also persuaded the Oklahoma Court to make a finding that mother had behaved inappropriately in removing the boys to Oklahoma.  This finding of “inappropriate conduct” as defined in the UCCJEA is a way to obtain legal fees and costs down the road….

With the VPO now before the Texas divorce court judge, Haslam persuaded the judge to dismiss the remaining VPO forever.  THEN, Haslam persuaded the Texas judge to award Dad $17,000+ in attorney fees and costs! Not only does this restore Dad financially, it educates the Texas divorce judge about the mother’s months of falsehoods and violations of Texas orders, setting Dad up well as his divorce lawyer fights for custody and child support before that very same Texas judge.

1-22-2021 Filemarked Order Dismissing with Prejudice and Awarding Fees