responses to motions Show Details FromPeter Klages ToJustin Bishop Mr. Bishop I did get your messages today and am glad that you got assessments done. I think it is also wise of you to stay away from your wife as she also seems unsure of what she wants, but more importantly, if she later claims that she didn’t invite you and you imposed yourself on her, she is likely to be believed. As to the responses to the motion, since I am not sure you will be able to open attachments, let me set out the content below, even if the form of the response will be different. This is what I have drafted for the motion about communication with you. 1. Respondent has not been afforded the full 15 days to consult with counsel and prepare a thorough response. See, NMRA 10-111. 2. The allegations paragraph 1 of the motion are denied. Mr. Bishop affirmatively states that he did not threaten the person of Ms. Allen, but did indicate to her that her job performance warranted the loss of her job. He further states that other employees of CYFD accosted and threatened him. 3. The allegations of paragraph 2 of the motion are admitted, but the implication of the allegations that he tried to intimidate or threaten the foster parent are denied. He did ask the foster parent bluntly why she had time to take the children to amusement parks, but not have time to get his son new glasses, which he needed at the time. 4. The allegations paragraphs 3 and 4 of the motion are denied, except for the fact that Mr. Bishop left each of the events early. 5. The allegations the first paragraph 5 of the motion are denied, in that Mr. Bishop was making a report of the fact that his daughter was allowed to go out of state with foster parents without his knowledge or consent, which he thought could be a crime. 6. The allegations the second paragraph 5 of the motion are denied, in that he did not make threats, did make statements of what he believed CYFD should be doing to assist him and believes that CYFD personnel are misinterpreting information or relying on unprofessional opinions of or responses to Mr. Bishop. 7. The allegations the paragraph 6 of the motion are denied and are clearly based on hearsay or speculation. 8. The allegations the paragraphs 7 and 8 of the motion are denied and it appears that CYFD has not made sufficient attempts to overcome the problems that CYFD has with communication. Specifically, CYFD alleges that they are unable to communicate by email, but in the companion motion reference numerous emails attributed to Mr. Bishop. 9.The allegations of paragraph 9 are denied in that CYFD is raising a barrier to working with Mr. Bishop that only act to exclude him from working to reunify with his children and has failed to explore other alternatives to working with Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop further states that the motion seems to indicate that the assigned employees of CYFD do not have the clinical skills to assist Mr. Bishop and other resources should be explored. This is what I have drafted for the motion about disclosure of confidential information: 1.Respondent has not been afforded the full 15 days to consult with counsel and prepare a thorough response. See, NMRA 10-111. 2.The allegations of the motion do not state that Mr. Bishop has disclosed any confidential information, only that he has contacted different governmental agencies or entities, with the exception of igold. 3.Nothing in the emails indicates that any confidential information was provided to igold. 4.The information in the emails and attachments reference the fact that the children are in CYFD custody, but do not disclose any confidential information. The information was either from the direct personal knowledge of Mr. Bishop or available through sources that are public. 5.The emails primarily contain Mr. Bishop’s opinions as to the unlawfulness of the actions of CYFD and other agencies, which contributed to the family’s situation. 6.Mr. Bishop’s communications with Federal agencies is related to his complaints concerning other agencies, not CYFD and were made or begun prior to the intervention by CYFD. 7.Mr. Bishop has a right to seek redress through the various governmental sources to which he is addressing his concerns. Let me know if you have any questions. Peter Klages Attorney at Law P. O. Box 30865 Albuquerque, NM 87190-0865 Phone: 505.232.9332
Posted on: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 12:12:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015