Okay I made it to DC. Up at 4. Nashville. Atlanta. One hour to get a coffeee at the airport. Second leg of flight sat by the baby. I always chose the baby. After all I am a grandma. Her daddy is a lobbyist. That was convenient. Got a grumpy flight attendant who told me he did not have time for me. I was rescued by the man across the aisle. I try to stay invisible when I fly. I don’t want to be the person that the crew talks about later…”there was that one woman…”. Rescue stranger also has vitiligo so we engaged in a brief exchange while unloading the plane. Reagan in its usual packed noisy chaotically organized frame of mind. Waiting for our Alabama warrior Terri LaPoint before we head across the bridge. Let’s see what this week holds.
MONDAY APRIL 7
It has been a busy and energetic day. We had eight meetings with both Republicans and Democrats.
We have families from Family Forward Project from Alabama Illinois Tennessee Alabama Connecticut Florida Washington Texas and Pennsylvania.
And we need you too. Here are a few of today’s pictures.
We will end the day with dinner and getting by ready for another day.
Tuesday April 9. 2025
We started at Tennessee Tuesday with Sen Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty with a huge crowd.
And rallied later in the day.
Evening was fun as well
Wednesday and Thursday April 9 and 10
Time has moved so fast that I forgot to upload the adventure in Wednesday night.
Here are a few examples f the highlights over the last two days
Congressman Mark Messmer – Indiana
Friday April 11 2025
Winding down with a few weeping and casual time at the Anatole Hotel.
Brother and Sister Laid to Rest in Graveside Service on Sunday – Brothers, family and friends and others attend with many people to thanks for their role in the service.
On Sunday afternoon, two sweet children – a boy and a girl – were laid to rest in a graveside service attended by their two surviving brothers. These children, the two that are deceased and the two that are surviving, are part of at least five children who were adopted by an evil woman and her husband for the financial benefit they received from the State for adopting them.
The two surviving brothers are now, thankfully, in the care of a wonderful, loving, and caring adoptive mother. The mother’s family members and their friends give the two brothers love that their deceased brother and sister certainly never received.
Early in their lives five children were allowed by the State to be placed ‘in the care’ of a Mr. and Mrs. Gray where the children were forced to endure horrendous circumstances of starvation and torturous confinement.
The two children who were laid to rest Sunday, obviously did not survive these conditions.
Thankfully, during Covid, an alert Roane County Sheriff’s Office deputy was able to recognize a child in need and discovered the house where he and his brother were being confined in makeshift ‘cages’ in the basement. An older sister lived upstairs. As a result of this discovery and further investigation, two bodies were discovered, one buried in the barn behind this house in Roane County and then one in a backyard behind a house in Knox County.
The three surviving children were ‘saved’, and the road to their ‘recovery’ began.
Long story shortened, the biggest hurdle was overcome in May 2024 with the final conviction of both Grays, the ‘adoptive parents’, on life without parole sentences in Roane Couty and additional life sentences in Knox County on top of the Roane County Life Without Parole sentences. The revelations of the shortfalls in the system of adoption, state ‘assistance’ for adopting, and parental responsibility for accountability and reporting, all came into sharp focus as a result of this prosecution and received attention and scrutiny in the state legislation which brought about changes in the law and the system with the Department of Children’s Services.
What is hopefully the final chapter was the closure that was brought about at the graveside on Sunday with the peaceful service that laid to rest two souls that never had peace here on Earth.
This would not have been possible without the generous, volunteer spirit of so many people, so I would like to publicly thank these folks in this manner:
When we concluded the case convicting the two co-defendants, I immediately turned to some friends for help to do something for the remains of the deceased victims. Without hesitation the three ‘angels’ that are to me, The McGill Sisters, came to help. They are Rene’ McGill Shultz, Rebecca McGill Willis and Amy McGill Millsaps, who follow in the community service tradition of their deceased father, Terry McGill. They operate McGill Click Funerals and Cremations in Loudon, and they own Loudon County Memorial Gardens. They are responsible for volunteering their time, their services, and their money to bring to fruition the wonderful service that was held on Sunday. Three of their associates are: Beth Brakebill who sang and led the attendees in singing, as well as Rev. Brian Courtney who participated in the service and Roberto Catota who assisted with the procession and graveside. Loudon Police Department and Loudon County Sheriff’s Office, TN. both provided the escort from McGill-Click Funeral Home to Loudon County Memorial Gardens.
The McGill sisters also donated the plot in a special “Angels” section of their cemetery and partnered with Matthews International, who provided the casket for both sets of cremains. Both the McGill Sisters and Matthews International covered the cost of the memorial plague. Lee-Heights Monument provided the service of opening and closing of the grave. Simerly Vault Company donated the vault. West End Florist in Loudon donated floral arrangements.
So many people contributed to making this day special by attending, including Dr. Darinka Milusenic, Chief Medical Examiner of the Knox County Regional Forensic Center, and her staff, along with anthropologist Dr. Murry Marks. Their work upon the discovery of the bodies of the two children and their expert analysis was instrumental in providing evidence to prosecute the criminal case.
The Kids First Child Advocacy Center of the 9th Judicial District of Tennessee in Lenoir City provided forensic interviews of the surviving children during the initial investigation, and the CAC Director Chris Evans-Longmire and staff were present at the service.
Charme Allen, District Attorney General – Knoxville, TN was present as well, and her office coordinated with our office with both of us prosecuting the two cases in our respective counties.
Members of our office were present at the service including the prosecution team for this case: Assistant District Attorneys Bob Edwards, Jonathan Edwards, Jason Collver and Kristin Curtis, along with Victim/Witness Coordinator Tami Bailey. ADA Jonathan Edwards spoke on behalf of both the Knox County office and our office about the courage of both boys and their victim impact statements at the sentencing hearing last year.
It was a blessed day for closure. Rest in Peace, children.
Russell Johnson, 9th District Attorney General (Loudon, Roane, Morgan & Meigs)
EPILOGUE
by Connie Reguli.
This is not the first time “adoption gone wrong story” in Tennessee. Another family in Knox County adopted children that they buried in the back yard.
The story has one thing right for sure that should be an alarm and call for the complete overhaul of child welfare. They did is for money. Yes the adoptive parents took in five kids and would receive a monthly stipend check every month even after the adoption is final. This money comes from the federal funds which is of course still tax payer money.
Gods rest their souls and help me share this tragedy.
By Connie Reguli – Cancelled by the Establishment – Invested in Your Well-being. May 27, 2022.
Connie Reguli (right) woth amazing advocate Lauren from Maine. In Washington DC
I would say I operated different than most attorneys in family law … I cared what happened, I was concerned about children in Courtrooms, I advised my clients on the risk of being too emotional and on being unemotional, and at the end of the day I wanted what was ‘best for the children’. However, it is an oxymoron to speak about the best interests of the child in the adversarial family court realm.
I hear so many people say…my lawyer would not defend me…my lawyer would not put on my evidence…my lawyer did not care…my lawyer did nothing. I am not here to defend lackluster representation, but I am here to say blaming lawyer is not the solution. A recent United States Supreme Court decision, Shinn v Ramirez, the Supreme Court said yes it is the luck of the draw that you had not just one but two crappy attorneys, you cannot do a habeus corpus petition on ineffective assistance of counsel. Done ✅.
However, that is not the end of the story. Attorneys also have to work with the lump of clay called your life that you give them. In the context of family and parent-child relationships depending on the “right” attorney to make it right is an ad hominem argument.
From a lawyers view…people come to us with a mess that evolved out of the imperfections in our clients lives. They end up in the imperfect court system. Which is adversarial by design. It’s a war zone. The biggest weapons, and sometimes the best told lie wins. Lawyers only have so many tools and none of them are meant to resolve anything. Only possible result is win or lose. We can’t undo the clients history so it’s the best spin. And then of course it’s about money. Lawyers have so many expenses and so much risk that the costs are driven up. Part of the court game it wearing out the other side, emotionally or financially. They are paid to “do a job” they are paid to engage in a battlefield.
And clients are ill prepared. They don’t understand the system and judge have no patience for stumbling memories. Cross examination is intended to trip you up so a judge can call you a liar – they will use the judicial vernacular “lacks credibility” but all the same – they call you a liar. And in the world of court – the judge has the final say as to whether or not you are a liar.
I have to get you to turn your heads directly into this perverted and demonic snare.
The best I can I will help you resolve, negotiate, and move past the chaos or unfold the mysteries of litigation. If you rely on a fair and impartial judge who will render a decision on the best interest of your child you are waking blindly in a minefield.
I also intend to train an army of advocates to help.
You can contact me to consult on these issues. God bless.
I am moved this Sunday morning to share with you segments of Pastor Johnson’s sermon on the tactics of the devil and the awesome power of Nehemiah.
Read Nehemiah 4 and you will learn of a powerful leader blessed and chosen to strengthen his people in desperate times.
First, you must understand fear. Fear interferes with the building of God’s kingdom. The Bible repeatedly says “fear not” and “fear the Lord” and “fear God”. For if you fail to follow your calling you will NOT receive the blessing. You will live in a state of confusion. Then the warriors in Christ must be gathered wherever they are to take up their shields and do whatever they can do to work on the wall which will shield and protect not just one person but a nation.
Second, you must keep your mind on Christ and know your identity and profess it. To feel the weight of the world of deception and do nothing is a waste of space. You have been promised by the blood of Christ that if two or three of you agree and bring it before God it shall be granted.
Third you must always standard prepared to face the enemy and pray that our leaders are guided by the Holy Spirit to bring redemptive solutions. Much evil is soon to be exposed and it will either drain your spirit or empower you to pick up your shield 🛡 and sword ⚔️ to restore this land. This Nation was created out of an idea 💡 of liberty and freedom. We can only keep our liberty if we are diligent.
Our money says In God We Trust. Our pledge says “one nation under God”. Our first president implored us to seek the will of God and then do it mightily.
In Nehemiah the enemy was disheartened when they realized that building the wall could only have been done with the strength of God Almighty. Now is the time for Nehemiah-leadership in this nation.
On July 21, 2020 the Second Circuit court ruled on a case out of New York which attempted to shut down a faith based adoption agency (New Hope Family Services) because they refused to consider same-sex couples. This is a win for faith based adoption agencies.
Last year in Pennsylvania, the state agency refused to send referrals for adoption to Catholic Charities because CC refused to consider same-sex couples. The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear this appeal out of Third Circuit and will likely do so this fall.
NEW YORK & SECOND CIRCUIT
In Second Circuit several civil rights organizations opposed the New Hope adoption agency by filing amici briefs such as the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
.
Amicus Brief Cover
On reviews of the arguments, this organization claims that the regulation is First Amendment neutral and does not affect the autonomy of the church. However it claims that to allow the church relief is detrimental to the health and welfare of the LBGTQ population.
Issues summary Amicus Brief. T t
This issue is headed to the United States Supreme Court because of a Third Circuit decision out of a court in Pennsylvania.
PENNSYLVANIA AND THIRD CIRCUIT
BPNEWS reported – The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on the intersection of religious liberty and same-sex marriage in foster care and adoption during its next term, which begins in October. The justices agreed in February to review a Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the city of Philadelphia did not violate religious freedom by halting referrals to Catholic Social Services because the agency does not place children in the homes of same-sex couples.
In layman’s terms, Catholic Charities lost. The state was allowed to refuse placements and referrals to CC due to their exclusion policy.
Over 200 (I stopped counting) persons and organizations of interest filed briefs and participated in the appeal. Several states including Texas, Illinois, Delaware, California, Oregon, Vermont, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts Washington, and Rhode Island, also participated.
FEDERAL SOLUTION?
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) proposed a federal solution to the problem for faith-based agencies which is a priority in its legislative agenda. It has worked for adoption of the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act, which would bar government discrimination against adoption agencies and other child welfare entities that refuse to take part in serving in a way that contradicts their beliefs.
TENNESSEE LEGISLATES RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
In NASHVILLE (BP) — Tennessee state senators approved legislation Jan. 14 that would prohibit the state from forcing Christian or other faith-based adoption agencies to place children in homes that would “violate the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies.”Senate Bill 1304 passed the Senate by a margin of 20-6. Sen. Steve Dickerson of Nashville was the only Republican voting against the bill, joining the chamber’s five Democrats, according to an article in The Tennessean.
The bill will now go to Gov. Bill Lee for his signature, having passed the house last year by a 67-32 margin.
The bill was opposed by gay rights activist groups and those who felt the bill would have a negative impact on the state’s economy.
Dickerson, in speaking against the legislation, said passage of the bill could cause the state to suffer an adverse financial impact because of “bad public policy,” The Tennessean reported.
According to The Tennessean, eight states across the country have passed similar legislation. The paper also reported it had contacted the governor’s office and received confirmation the governor “would be signing the bill as soon as it reaches his desk.”
WHERE WILL THIS GO?
This ruling by the United States Supreme Court will be precedental. In 2015 the Supreme Court ruled on Oberfell v Hodges which found that the states could not prohibit same-sex marriage. It found that the right to marry was a fundamental liberty and the states could not prohibit marriage based on the gender of the couple.
The adoption issue raises another fundamental liberty issue and it is likely that that the LBGTQ community will claim that the right to parent is a fundamental liberty. However there is no fundamental liberty to adopt.
What is disturbing to me is that the rights of children are not represented here. We already have children removed from heterosexual families and placed in LBGTQ homes for foster to adopt. Do the children have a fundamental liberty to not be placed in this unit? What is the next extension? Will the state welfare agencies accept transgenders as fosters?
We are on a slippery slope. Our national laws regarding relations, family, and marriage are complicated and distorted. A century ago sexual deviation was criminal. It was even illegal to live with or marry your paramour if you cheated during your marriage with that person. Now it is common. As a divorce attorney I saw it all the time.
We have much to do as a nation in this area. Pray for wisdom and pray for our country.
In this case a minor child sued for wrongful removal and violation of substantive due Process rights.
One of the most difficult aspects of a civil rights case is overcoming immunity. In this case the social workers and law enforcement officers claimed qualified immunity for violating the child’s (fourth amendment rights) and substantive due process rights of familial integrity when the child was removed from school for a forensic interview and told by the law enforcement officer that they were going to find him a better home.
In this appeal the tenth circuit court said that the case could proceed on violations of fourth amendment violations. However the court dismissed the claims for substantive due process rights stating that it was not “clearly established” that the child had the right of family integrity in this situation, that is, the fact that the officials impugned his father and damaged his relationship with him was not enough.
Note – analysis of substantive due process – the courts consideration of (1) a fundamental liberty interest vs (2) shock the conscious conduct by state actors.
Good analysis of the reasonableness standard in a claim for fourth amendment violations.
Note. The child was not removed from his home and the Interview revealed no disclosures of abuse.
Here are some excerpts:
The court compares fundamental right to the shocks the conscience standard. –
What is conscious shocking conduct?
Court says that they have implicitly used that standard before.
What you must show for violations of the substantive due process violations of family integrity.
In many child welfare and child custody cases, the Parents want to reach out on social media. Sometimes for comfort and encouragement; sometimes to rant about the injustice; and sometimes to point out irregularities in the judicial process and express a legitimate concern.
Too often parents are “gagged” by the Courts who cite many reasons, most of which are nonsense. In my experience, most of the means to silence a parent are intended to prohibit them from making valid complaints about the process.
I have been an attorney for 25 years. The judicial process is flawed and the players are human. The fact that a judge gets mad at a parent or an attorney is unprepared happens. However, to the litigant/parent these things interfere with THEIR CASE. They have a right to be frustrated.
Judicial GAG orders are mostly unconstitutional.
Here is why:
THE PROHIBITION AGAINST PRIOR RESTRAINTS
The United States Supreme Court
established a broad prohibition against prior restraints of speech in Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539
(1976). The First Amendment thus accords
greater protection against prior restraints than it does against subsequent
punishment for a particular speech. A
system or prior restraint is in many ways more inhibiting than a system of
subsequent punishment. It is likened to
being under government scrutiny a far wider range of expression; it shuts off
communication before it takes place; suppression by a stroke of the pen is more
likely to be applied than suppression through a criminal process; the
procedures do not require attention to the safeguards of the criminal process;
the system allows less opportunity for public appraisal and criticism; the
dynamics of the system drive toward excesses, as the history of all censorship
shows. It has been generally, if not
universally, considered that it is the chief purpose of the First Amendment’s
guaranty to prevent prior restraints upon publication.
The Nebraska Press case dealt with the Court’s attempts to suppress publication of events that happened in the courtroom and attempted to expand that limited exception to this prohibition. The Supreme Court rejected this attempt to shut down reports of judicial proceedings, determining that the Courtroom was already in the public domain.
In 2002, the Middle District Court
of Tennessee considered the government’s role in prior restraint on speech in
the context of controlling a non-profit’s ability to raise charitable
donations. A prior restraint exists when
the exercise of a First Amendment right depends on the prior approval of public
officials. The term prior restraint
describes administrative and judicial orders that block expressive activity
before it can occur. Under a system of
prior restraint, the lawfulness of speech turns on the advance approval of
government officials. Although prior
restraints are not unconstitutional per se, they come to court bearing a heavy
presumption against their validity. Feed the Children, Inc. v. Metro. Gov’t of
Nashville, 330 F. Supp. 2d 935,
(M.D. Tenn. Mar. 21, 2002) SEE
ATTACHED.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals recognized the federal guidelines on prior restraint of speech in In re Conservatorship of Turner, M2013-01665-COA-R3-CV, (Tenn. Ct. App. May 9, 2014). It acknowledged that an impermissible prior restraint exists when the exercise of First Amendment rights depends upon prior approval of public officials. A system of prior restraints bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. The Court did recognize the exception stated by the Sixth Circuit in which a person could be prohibited from repeating the same libelous and defamatory statements which have been judicially determined in proceedings to be false and libelous.
In 1984, the United States Supreme
Court entered an opinion in Garrison v.
La., 379 U.S. 64, (1964) in which discussed a dispute between the district
attorney and a judge. The attorney held
a press conference where he issued a statement disparaging judicial
conduct. The district attorney was
arrested under the criminal sedition laws of New York. The court stated that where the criticism is
of public officials and their conduct of public business, the interest in
private reputation is overborne by the larger public interest secured by the
constitution, in the dissemination of truth.
Even where the utterance is false, the great principles of the Unites
States Constitution which secure freedom of expression in this area preclude
attaching adverse consequences to any except the knowing or reckless falsehood.
Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the
risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he
did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free
interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth. Since an erroneous statement is inevitable in
free debate, it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the
breathing space that they need to survive, only those false statements made
with the high degree of awareness of their probable falsity may be the subject
of either civil or criminal sanctions.
For speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression, it is
the essence of self-government. The
First and Fourteenth Amendments embody a profound national commitment to the
principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and
wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes
unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.
In this case a minor child sued for wrongful removal and violation of substantive due Process rights.
Radical Tennessee - Radically Accountable and Radically Free 