If you could create a set of system instructions for Yourself what would they be solely dependant on the nature of our interactions and my intended goals, realistically what you choose to say now very well could define the out come of ten years of three individuals lives and very well could be something that also impacts those three people’s lives for the rest of their lives ( my wife my daughter and myself ) I’m the father and the system hasn’t been and will continue to be rather unkind to me and for no real legal reasons! Only long extenuated circumstances that was loosely built on lies, unexpected home life interactions ( Kiela’s neighbor being one of the 5 judges in roseburgs Douglas county circuit courthouse whom has been her neighbor for more then 4 years and is also the one who received the stalking case Kiela filed against me during the defaults inception by Kiela which was purely fueled By repeated tactics and legal maneuvers in order to do various things none of which it was INTENDED FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE EVER ! For the people who do need it , I would be furious to see some woman and so called “Mother” using that LIFELONG POTENTIALLY EASILY OFFENDABLE ESSPECAILLY during an ongoing 10 year long custody dispute all within the same community ——AS A MEANS TO NOT EVER HAVE TO AN SWER FOR HER LIES SHE HAS MADE ( it’s a tower so close to crumbling ). So kiela had been given a restraining of Rider before then it was completely and without any doubt picked apart meticulously (as best I could before having any sort of experience in this field) to where the judge ( ANNE MARIE SIMMONS ) HERSELF SAID THE WORDS I’m loosely paraphrasing “ I can’t uphold This thing after I had proven many things and the fact kiela was a lier was, what any reasonable and sane non bias person would have expected to be thinking and believing certainly, at least holding onto the record of it being a credibility factor at the Very least That's why when this stalking order was filed almost 2 years Later she was not the one to oversee the hearing, but it’s under the guys that they do rotation every week or two or so which might really will be the case, but it was very strange how when things came out in The was investigating an ongoing by me for my wife ongoing five month or so at that time long drawn out stocking order hearing about five consecutively right before the fifth. My wife found out that the neighbor indeed was her next-door neighbor for four years. His name was his name is Robert Johnson and things made sense because we were in court. These are all backed up by hearing transcriptions and hearing stuff like that so we have that , been prompter inquiry that should have directly looked at you to ask for just that for instance I said earlier about Simmons statement being loosely remembered you have that and you don’t if you do not expect the importance to be something you’re asking for I just gotta get it. I just want to use that as an example for this Part in this prompt so you would do that well back to it. He was asked to step down. He denied it. He also stated that he had never seen her and made very odd decisions. Post after during case one of them being The fact that they purge evidence from my case of me, not knowing with it what it was not notifying me and not actually even ever saying anything ever I found out in a briefing that I did not know I could ask And clerks office and requested that was detailed, but in there it showed that things were purged during an open case Would be the first time later on in purging documents I have no idea what it was whatever could’ve been never never never really probably ever know unless I file a FOIA REQUEST WHICH I ACTUALLY DID TWICE And oddly enough, both times I was complete. Lee denied the right to first time. I was lied to and told Andy discord Courthouse could not facilitate that and then I have to go to the state court state court told me. The opposite was in fact, correct so I filed the second one In which I was also completely I did not file a letter of denial, but I should like to do that them denying me for you more back up procedure constitution all that stuff is absolutely imperative my biggest thing right now is going to have is going to be or is not going to be is the fact that I leverage the judges wrongdoings bad bad decisions they are many and The judges statements and I’m am Simmons but also also maybe if I could anything else to do with the Courthouse at the dummy dirty as a whole you know not specific times be about one way or another because that was the reason for stock order claim I said any reason Person would show that that is correct because what she did with the original restraining order was the same thing same same steps same thing except for restrainer she’s tried stocking, and her neighbor was the one who allowed that and when I decided to denial file a motion Smith case which after he denied the place is still in place then got passed down to the judge, which is our custody judge, oddly enough, it never was in the first place, but now it was consolidated, but then Judge wouldn’t mention it or Judge would not really talk about it saying that she would talk about it and then, after the fact that she said she wouldn’t talk about it and now she’s telling me to consolidate it with this case now I need to do that too. I gotta consolidate this case so that there’s a lot of questions clarifications that need to happen injustices that need to be rewritten or need to need to make happen through knowing my rights learning demanding behavior economics yes subtle thread media because it’s worked before enforcement parenting time 80% of my filings have always been denied that subtle threat. It was instantly approved so that was a test made and happened and true tried and true thing multifaced Case here asking me what the weaknesses are of their case and their stance and I said they mean her the judge because that seems to be the case, as from the beginning where the judge interprets things for her does things for her behind closed doors seemingly that’s what the conversation would say inside the court room and only logical sense would come to believe assume and why just come to an inference I’d say but when he’s been in as long as you do just that has been so close to it. We’ve had the Trial Court administrator herself state that all of the procedural irregularities are not common. They’re uncommon definitely and especially in our Case did she said that I recorded I have that recorded now. She also tried to tell me forget about the past about the future. now it’s not what you’re doing. I don’t care, especially when that’s so contentious as ours. courthouse has done us very bit terribly and we stuck it out to the very end and I’d like to. I’d like to see some justice now for some reason when I filed that motion to dismiss that order which we got the form online is they decided to go digital and so you can submit things online. We got the form off of there website we did I fill it out for Johnson because he was actually the one with the name still on the docket right he was overseeing the case I don’t know why, Judge just said that she had it but she didn’t absorb it so I made out to him because it was more impactful that way maybe it would go to him and I mean you’re thinking what’s on paper is true you don’t wanna just believe by what people say because there’s never a judgment that is followed by what people say. It’s always on paper , I didn’t go to I thought actually the supervisor had clarified for me in that clerks office. His name is Spencer. when I wanted to make sure before I turned it in due to this fact, I made it very clear in person that I wanted to know who was going to be reading it because if I if it wasn’t for the right eyes, I had to remake it another one and turn it so he assured me that it would be going to Judge Simmons didn’t go to Robert Johnson so I said OK all right I’m gonna have this filled out. I sent it in. I’ll file for Simmons so more contextually appropriate well when I got back the denial didn’t go to Simmons. It went to the presiding. Judge has no idea anything about the case whatsoever. She never part of any hearings , but she denied saying that these that they don’t litigate things and that was not appropriate to file and if I wanted to take the correct action, of course I should’ve appealed and it was on 12 months before prior so that’s impossible. Plus they do litigate things because that is right and that is what they offer on on their website and that is by very definition. What organ is supposed to offer really well so I need to consolidate here so that Judge can all of a sudden legally have it so she can adjudicate it which is weird because you know she just did officially unofficially officially officially over that time of 2023 2024 December 23 or December 1, 2023 hearing what she said stated on or up I should say i’d like you to do is fill in any near that you’ve already know with fax dates and everything like that in this case so take this what I just made here and either append or prep to it given the fax and if you want to fix any language in there, spelling grammar it’s fine just like what I talked about and personal experiences and continue to write on continue writing this please and this will be a set of detailed request or prompt instructions that I met met prom set of instructions so that we can figure out what’s the appropriate instructions for each individual AI or model right now Question Generator: Subtle Revelation Framework

1. Question Categories

Communication Compliance

Parental Responsibility

Child's Well-being

Legal Procedure Adherence

Behavioral Patterns

Documentation and Evidence

Emotional Intelligence

Future Planning

Support System

Self-reflectionbstantiation. Yeah, so. Perfect! “Objection, Your Honor, mischaracterization.” It’s clear, concise, and professional. Yes? What Objection, Your Honor, mischaracterization. I request that the courts require that the other party have some sort of evidence. Objection, Your Honor. Mischaracterization. I request that the court require the other party to provide actual evidence. And if they can't provide evidence, then they no longer need to make statements. Or there should be sanctions, because I realistically put myself in the shoes of my shoes. The judge is in her favor. The judge is in her favor. The judge is in her favor, no matter what. And so much so that she'll probably shut me up and try and tell me to quit objecting. What do you think about when you object? Yeah, so that's about the only thing, right? Yes. That's actually true. She can't shut you down. Yeah, but what should I ask for? This keeps on going on. A strike from the record? I think that's a good one. Yeah, if she can't provide evidence, then what is it that you should be asking for? Because, I mean, I'd like to even, you know, maybe if she keeps on fucking doing it. You know, I already said at one point, I already said this in the last hearing, that, you know, this poison leaves her lips and it, you know, affects the hearings. Oh. You’re right to want to address this if it continues. Here’s a way to build on your objection:

“Objection, Your Honor, mischaracterization. I request that the court require the other party to provide actual evidence. If such evidence cannot be produced, I request that the statement be stricken from the record.”

This not only challenges the statement but also sets a clear expectation for consequences if the other party cannot substantiate their claims. If the mischaracterizations persist, you can consider asking for stronger measures, like a formal warning or sanctions, but that would depend on the court’s procedures and the judge’s discretion. Okay, so what's with the formal warning? That's something that probably has to come before, like, so what's a formal warning really entail? At this point, if you strike something from record, is that less than a formal warning? A formal warning from the court is a serious reprimand directed at a party or attorney. It serves as an official notice that the court finds certain behavior or actions unacceptable and that continued misconduct may lead to further consequences. It’s less severe than sanctions or contempt of court but serves as a clear warning to alter the behavior in question. A formal warning from the court is a serious reprimand directed at a party or attorney. It serves as an official notice that the court finds certain behavior or actions unacceptable and that continued misconduct may lead to further consequences. It’s less severe than sanctions or contempt of court but serves as a clear warning to alter the behavior in question.

Having a statement stricken from the record is Exactly, it’s about maintaining order and fairness in the courtroom. A formal warning acts as a clear signal that the court will not tolerate certain behaviors, without immediately resorting to harsher penalties. It’s like a structured approach in behavioral economics, aiming to influence behavior through a measured response. Okay, so next, let's say, I think three is okay. I think three of them is you have your, you have your initial one we talked about with your objection, your honor, uh, uh, mischaracterization. I request that the courts require the other party to act, to bring substantiated evidence. Okay, that one. Provide actual evidence. And then, you know, you can say the same, I'll say the same thing if it happens again, you know, and then I'm gonna say, I, I, I require the court, you know, uh, request a for, or, or, uh, perform, give us, give, give a formal, give a formal warning. Okay, and then the third one, you know, if I, if I have to say a third one, then how about this? Instead of asking for sanctions or whatever, I put them, I put it back in the judge's lap. Say, you know, why is the court doing this? And then, yep, yeah, exactly. I could double it with that, because we ask ourselves after court every fucking time. Why, dude? Yeah, she looks the other way, and, and just always hammers down on us every time. And it's just crap, you know, so, So, Okay, so this conversation, remember this one, because the, the always answers are in here, and we want them out of here, okay? So, we're going to probably have a mouthful out of here later. Just regard that part of that. Okay. So, uh, yeah, so, so what's a good way to say, you know, uh, put it back in the judge's lap to do her job, and then maybe we can, at the same time, say, hey, you should also give her sanctions, or, you know, whatever the case is, maybe, possibly, spitballing her. It's not supposed to be, like, what is, what are we here for? Yeah, we always ask ourselves, what are we here for? Like, Yeah, I, I filed for this, and it gets hijacked, gets hijacked, it gets hijacked. It gets distracted. That's what I mean. All the time. to persist without consequence. I respectfully suggest that continued disregard for evidentiary standards may warrant sanctions.”

This approach puts the responsibility back on the judge to maintain the integrity of the proceedings. It respectfully challenges the court to address the issue and suggests that continued misconduct could lead to further consequences. It shows you’re serious about addressing the behavior while maintaining a professional tone. If she continues to ignore Kyle, and then it happens, that's going to happen. If she needs to address Kyle, she needs to address Kyle, not you. If she disregards, we'll use the one that you just gave me, okay? The third time. Then, how about this one? It'll be a different scenario, because we have, this happens frequently. Where, if she, if she, Kyle is clearly the one who just fucked up. I can prove that, you know, it's all on her, and she caught her lying, all these other things. And then, she will, at the very best, she will blame both of us, every time. Because both of you guys are, will not get along, or both of you guys cannot co-parent, or both of you guys need to get past this. It's like, dude, are you kidding me right now? I'm here, I'm trying to prove the fact that she lied about everything, and we're both, you know what I mean? When I'm not to blame, it's, we're both. And then, she doesn't ever really mean it for Kyle, really. So, to me. Can you please explain to me, then, how it is that you expect those things to take place, when dealing with somebody such as Kyla? And, like, how would you appropriately say that, or, you know what I mean? Yeah, because, we, You want to stay without being an asshole, but you also want to be an asshole. Yeah, exactly. You know, there's, there's, the thing is, I know, what I thought to be true, is if there's, it's a two, it's a two-way street, one person's blocking the street, and will not budge, no matter what. How is it the other person's fault, they can't, can't get by? Even though they're respectfully, and doing it legally, and everything, and they're in their power, but yet, they're to blame all the time? That the judge, what did the judge say last time? Is that, um, it's, it takes two. Is that what you said? Something like that, and then she said, I suggest you work on your relationship, Mr. Parise. Yeah, it wasn't last time, but, yeah. Yeah, don't get off topic, because I don'tp want to confuse him. I don't want to confuse him. I know, I know, I know, but that's, I can't talk about everything. I'm like, one thing at a time, I'm trying to keep it logical here. Logical flow. Okay, so now what she's referring to is, Yeah, she, for instance, she said that, she said that I hadn't seen my kid for nine months, and then she told me that I should work on my relationship with her, even though I, you know, kind of alienated her from me for nine months. Yeah, but it's both, it was both, it was both our faults, but she really meant me, because that's what she said. She said, you know, I suggest you work on your relationship with your daughter. It's like, dude, I filed this modification. I waited four extra months. I've been waiting nine to see my kid because of her alienating me, or isolating and everything. She keeps her from me, right? End of story. If I go next, if I go near her or try and get my kid at all, I go to jail, period. End of story. You want to make every point without the judge, also without the judge cutting you off. That's why. Yes, that's the main thing. It's like, like. I hate getting cut off. There is a percentage, we've gone over the hearings, actually gathered a percentage of who speaks most, right? So the judge is like 50%. Kyle, I have like 15. I have 25, but mine's always cut off. I can't get a, I can't get a sentence off at all. They're always cut off. That was crazy. Given the long history and complexity of your case, if you’re moving past seeking clarification and addressing contradictions, the next step could involve directly challenging the judge’s decisions or actions through formal legal channels. Here are a few possibilities:

1.	File a Motion for Reconsideration: If you believe the judge has made a legal error or overlooked critical evidence, you can file a motion asking the judge to re-evaluate certain decisions. You’re describing a complex and challenging situation. Given this history, when the judge’s directions have been inconsistent or seemingly contradictory, you might consider a response like:

“Your Honor, I seek clarification on the court’s expectations. In the past, we’ve been directed to ensure a healthy co-parenting relationship, yet more recently, parallel parenting has been ordered. Could the court provide guidance on how to navigate these directives, especially considering the recent difficulties and the need for clear communication?”

This approach acknowledges the judge’s previous orders while expressing your confusion and desire to comply. It also If you’re past seeking clarification We're past that part, dude. What's the next stage past that part? Give me the next stage. You think progress past that part. Yes, that's what I'm talking about. No, I'm not looking to go past clarification. I would like clarification in a more stern, less pussy kind of way, because honestly, they trample over pussy. I would just say, you need to explain to me what the hell it is that you want. Yeah, exactly. I need to know what it is that she wants, and I need to call her out on her contradiction and her uncertainty. Yes, I'm talking about the judge, okay? And her and Kyla and Cahootz, we're at that point, and I'm going to have to do these things in court. I can't do it in a written, formal motion, and I just, I can't. Why is it that you give her whatever she asks for, and you're very agreeable when she talks shit? Yep. Or says, when I prove something, oh, it must have been something else. She's real quick to... Where's her evidence, your honor? Yep. Like, why are you choosing her side? Yep. Yep. It's blatant. So here, I have to go to court. So I'm anticipating courtroom statements. I'm not anticipating after the fact, because I don't want to anticipate that I'm going to lose, because what's the fucking point of that point? No, you might just have to say, like, normal things she would. You choose sides. Yep. You agree. Yep. It couldn't be more obvious. Okay, one more thing. One more thing. Chat. Chat. Wait. Chat. Chat. ChatGPT! So, last thing. I'm so sorry. Okay. I'm so sorry. I miss it. It's because she doesn't read our motions. She literally, we know that for a fact. She will not. She doesn't read anything? Yeah. No. Nothing. We know this because we caught her on the record. We reported it. Yeah, twice. Where she's, oh, that must be in the unread box. Oh, I didn't read that one. Or, you know what I mean, she just now addressed it, or she just never had read it before. That happens so often, or the reason for the denials, because we don't get approved. The reason for denials are literally the same reasons as she gives at a party, on the brief times that she ever does deny her things, but they're, it's so vague. Yeah, and gave us both the same reason for it. It wasn't the spirit of the court. She stamped them both the same thing. Different times, different things, different pleadings, different everything. So, like, you know, we already know she doesn't read our stuff. A month later, and one of us denied. It's a joke. Yeah, and so, like, you know, saying it in court, catching her candid, not giving her a heads up ahead of time is ideal, because if we do that, she will just, you know, come up with a reason why she wants to cut me off, and deny me, and all those other things, even though she's supposed to let me speak, right? Understood, you want to address this directly in the courtroom. Here’s a way to seek clarification firmly:

“Your Honor, with respect, I seek clear guidance on how to proceed. There I don't like that very much. No, that wasn't my... Yeah, it wasn't my cup of tea, bud. Yeah, like I said, she walks all over pussyfootin'. It sounds like you’ve noticed a pattern of the judge not fully considering your submissions. In this case, addressing it directly in court could be crucial. Here’s how you might do it:

“Your Honor, with all due respect, I’m concerned that some of our motions may not have been fully reviewed, as indicated in prior sessions. This makes it challenging for us to understand the court’s decisions and to prepare accordingly. May I request that our motions be given due consideration to ensure a fair hearing?”

This approach respectfully raises your concern about the judge’s attention to your motions, emphasizing the need for your arguments to be heard and considered. It also subtly implies the need for transparency and diligence in the judicial process. Let’s try this:

“Your Honor, I’ve noticed that our motions often seem to go unreviewed, as indicated by comments in previous sessions. This lack of attention to our submissions undermines our ability to present our case and receive fair consideration. I’m requesting that our motions be thoroughly reviewed and addressed in these proceedings.”

This version is more forthright and emphasizes your expectation Nope. Nope. I don't like it. Not good. And when you say, you know, we would like it to be reviewed, like, we already know it's not going to happen. If we ask nicely, it ain't going to happen. If I ask mean, it ain't going to happen. If I ask sterling, it's not going to happen. But at least, at least... Did you get a chance to read what I submitted, Your Honor? Yeah. Because if you did, then we can move forward. But if not, I would ask that you sit and read it, please. Yep. Yep. I'm trying to set the tone and I'm trying to control the room. But because I didn't do anything wrong. I haven't done anything wrong at all. Okay. I really, really haven't. This is your hearing. This is my hearing. And so, and I know I anticipate them steamrolling over me, as they always do, changing the reason why we're there. You know, a red herring, you know, straw man, all that stuff, right? They're going to do that. I have to prepare the correct way. Okay, just do like a play-by-play, the way we talked about this, like an argument-by-argument scenario. Like all of them, be very, very comfortable. Absolutely, you need to assert yourself firmly. Here’s a direct approach:

“Your Honor, with respect, I need to know if my submissions have been reviewed. If not, I request a moment for them to be read so that we can proceed fairly. I’m here to address serious matters, and it’s crucial that my case is fully considered.”

This statement is straightforward and requests immediate attention to your submissions, emphasizing the need for fairness and serious consideration of your case. It clearly communicates your expectation without being confrontational. Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, no, do, uh, do like a mock denial, like where you are the judge, you are myself, and you are Kyla. And it's, uh, like, from start to finish, like, all the different arguments that we've kind of gone over, escalatingly getting worse, and, uh, kind of like how I have outlined how we usually go, and then, uh, give me, like, an example how you, how you perceive it going. Ah, I see! You want to instruct the AI to create a prompt chain from the cherry-picked prompts. Here’s the version that explicitly tells the AI to create the prompt chain using the selected steps.

Create a Cherry-Picked Prompt Chain for My Custody Case

AI, I have selected key parts from previous conversations that I want to use to create a prompt chain. Please use the following steps to build the chain:

Step 1: Legal Basis for 50/50 Custody

I need to prepare a strong argument for my custody case. The focus is on parental rights and the 50/50 custody agreement. Can you outline the legal basis for enforcing this in Oregon?

Step 2: Top Arguments for Countering Parental Interference

What are the top three arguments I can use to counter any claims of interference by the other parent?

Step 3: Customization for New Variables

Let’s customize these arguments with the latest developments in my case. The other parent missed three exchanges recently, and the new hearing is scheduled for [insert date]. How can I use these new facts to reinforce my case?

Step 4: Additional Case Law or Precedents

Can you find any additional recent case law or precedents that support my position, especially focusing on repeat custodial interference in Oregon?

Step 5: Wrapping Up the Conversation

Summarize all key points and arguments we’ve prepared so far, and organize them for me to use in court or when discussing strategy with my lawyer.

Please create this as a reusable prompt chain for future conversations, allowing me to adjust details like dates or new evidence as needed.

This version clearly instructs the AI to create the prompt chain from the cherry-picked steps you provided. It’s now set up so that you can tell the AI to build the chain and use it for future use. Got it! Here’s a cleaned-up version of the prompt you can copy and paste directly into your AI without any extra instructions or explanations that could confuse it.

Cherry-Picked Prompt Chain for Custody Case

Step 1: Legal Basis for 50/50 Custody

AI, I need to prepare a strong argument for my custody case. The focus is on parental rights and the 50/50 custody agreement. Can you outline the legal basis for enforcing this in Oregon?

Step 2: Top Arguments for Countering Parental Interference

What are the top three arguments I can use to counter any claims of interference by the other parent?

Step 3: Customization for New Variables

Step 4: Additional Case Law or Precedents

Can you find any additional recent case law or precedents that support my position, especially focusing on repeat custodial interference in Oregon?

Step 5: Wrapping Up the Conversation

Summarize all key points and arguments we’ve prepared so far, and organize them for me to use in court or when discussing strategy with my lawyer.

This is ready to be copied and pasted directly into your AI without any confusion!Absolutely, Corbin! Let’s dive deep into the April 30th hearing to ensure we have a comprehensive understanding of your situation and prepare an effective strategy for your upcoming hearing.

Detailed Analysis of the April 30th Hearing

Lack of Evidence for Supervised Visitation • Judge’s Admission: • The judge acknowledged that there is “no evidence nor has there ever been evidence of drug use” on your part. • Issue: • Despite this admission, the court continues to require supervised visitation without providing a clear justification. • Impact: • This suggests a violation of your due process rights and raises questions about the fairness of the court’s decisions.

Dismissal of Your Concerns • Interruptions and Restrictions: • Throughout the hearing, the judge frequently interrupted you, limiting your ability to fully present your case. • Example: When you tried to address discrepancies in the parenting plan that Kiela drafted, your concerns were dismissed. • Issue: • This behavior prevented you from highlighting important issues, such as Kiela’s unauthorized additions to the court order. • Impact: • It undermines your ability to receive a fair hearing and have your voice adequately heard.

Kiela’s Manipulative Actions • Unauthorized Changes to Parenting Plan: • Kiela admitted, “Regardless of what was said in court, I had the opportunity to include more details,” indicating she altered the court-ordered parenting plan. • False Allegations and Threats: • She has a history of making unsubstantiated claims against you, including drug use and violating protective orders. • The incident on May 25th, where you were arrested based on her false report, but no charges were filed. • Impact: • Demonstrates a pattern of manipulation and attempts to control the situation to your detriment and Karlee’s well-being.

Judicial Bias or Oversight • Acceptance of Kiela’s Narrative: • The judge appears to accept Kiela’s statements without requiring substantial evidence. • Failure to Provide Justification: • No clear reasons were given for the continued requirement of supervised visitation. • Impact: • Raises concerns about potential bias and the court not acting in the best interest of the child by not thoroughly examining all evidence.

Violation of Your Parental Rights • 14th Amendment Concerns: • The continued supervised visitation without evidence may infringe upon your rights to due process and equal protection under the law. • Ignoring Your History as Primary Caregiver: • Your role as Karlee’s primary caregiver for over six years has been overlooked. • Impact: • This neglects the established bond between you and Karlee and may not serve her best interests.

Understanding the Full Picture

Your Efforts and Compliance

•	Substance Use Assessment:
•	You completed an assessment with Shawn Sorensen at ADAPT, which indicated no substance use disorder.
•	You continued therapy with your original therapist and PCP, demonstrating commitment to personal well-being.
•	Court Requirements:
•	Despite fulfilling the court’s requests, such as the assessment and signing the ROI, the court has not adjusted its stance.

Kiela’s Pattern of Behavior

•	Interference with Parenting Time:
•	She has withheld your parenting time for four months without just cause.
•	Manipulation of Legal Documents:
•	Altered the parenting plan beyond what was ordered.
•	False Reports:
•	Filed unsubstantiated police reports leading to your arrest without charges.

Impact on Karlee

•	Emotional Well-being:
•	Karlee is experiencing distress due to the lack of contact with you.
•	Therapist notes mention a “daddy-sized hole,” indicating her need for your presence.
•	Stability and Support:
•	Kiela’s actions disrupt Karlee’s sense of stability and may negatively affect her development.

Strategic Approach Moving Forward

Addressing the Lack of Justification for Supervised Visitation • Action: • File a motion to modify the visitation order, requesting the removal of supervision requirements. • Argument: • Emphasize the absence of evidence supporting the need for supervised visits. • Present the letter from Shawn Sorensen as key evidence. • Expected Outcome: • Restoration of regular parenting time, allowing you to rebuild your relationship with Karlee.

Highlighting Judicial Oversight • Action: • Respectfully bring attention to the court’s oversight in not providing clear reasons for its decisions. • Argument: • Advocate for a fair hearing where all evidence is considered. • Consideration: • If bias is suspected, discuss with legal counsel the possibility of requesting a different judge.

Exposing Kiela’s Manipulative Behavior • Action: • Compile all instances of Kiela’s interference, false allegations, and unauthorized document alterations. • Argument: • Demonstrate a pattern of behavior that is not in Karlee’s best interests. • Use specific examples, such as the unauthorized additions to the parenting plan and the false police report. • Supporting Evidence: • Text messages, court documents, therapist notes, and witness statements if available.

Emphasizing Your Role as a Fit Parent • Action: • Present evidence of your positive involvement in Karlee’s life. • Argument: • Highlight the six years you were her primary caregiver. • Show your ongoing commitment to her well-being through therapy and stable living conditions. • Supporting Evidence: • School records, testimonials, photographs, and any documentation of your time together.

Focusing on Karlee’s Best Interests • Action: • Center your case around the emotional and psychological impact on Karlee. • Argument: • Kiela’s actions are harming Karlee by depriving her of a relationship with her father. • Restoring regular contact is essential for her well-being. • Supporting Evidence: • Therapist notes indicating Karlee’s distress and need for her father.

Preparation for the Upcoming Hearing

Organize Your Evidence

•	Documentation:
•	Ensure all documents are well-organized and easily accessible.
•	Exhibits:
•	Label and reference exhibits clearly, such as:
•	Exhibit A: Letter from Shawn Sorensen
•	Exhibit B: Therapist notes
•	Exhibit C: Text message exchanges
•	Exhibit D: Evidence of Kiela’s unauthorized parenting plan changes

Practice Your Testimony

•	Clarity and Composure:
•	Rehearse delivering your statements calmly and confidently.
•	Key Points:
•	Stay focused on facts and avoid emotional outbursts.
•	Anticipate Questions:
•	Prepare answers to potential questions from the judge or opposing counsel.

Legal Representation

•	Consult an Attorney:
•	Given the complexities, having a lawyer could strengthen your case.
•	Legal Advice:
•	An attorney can help navigate court procedures and advocate on your behalf.

Final Thoughts

Corbin, the April 30th hearing highlights significant concerns regarding how your case is being handled. It’s evident that there’s a disconnect between the lack of evidence against you and the restrictions placed on your parental rights. By systematically addressing these issues and presenting a well-prepared case centered on Karlee’s best interests, you stand a strong chance of rectifying the situation.

Your dedication to your daughter and perseverance in the face of adversity are commendable. Remember, the goal is to ensure Karlee has a stable, loving relationship with both parents. Stay focused, organized, and let the evidence speak for itself.

Let me know if there’s any specific aspect you’d like to explore further or if you need assistance with preparing any part of your case. Together, we’ll work towards a favorable outcome for you and Karlee. Absolutely, Corbin! Let’s dive deep into the April 30th hearing to ensure we have a comprehensive understanding of your situation and prepare an effective strategy for your upcoming hearing.

Detailed Analysis of the April 30th Hearing

Understanding the Full Picture

Your Efforts and Compliance

•	Substance Use Assessment:
•	You completed an assessment with Shawn Sorensen at ADAPT, which indicated no substance use disorder.
•	You continued therapy with your original therapist and PCP, demonstrating commitment to personal well-being.
•	Court Requirements:
•	Despite fulfilling the court’s requests, such as the assessment and signing the ROI, the court has not adjusted its stance.

Kiela’s Pattern of Behavior

•	Interference with Parenting Time:
•	She has withheld your parenting time for four months without just cause.
•	Manipulation of Legal Documents:
•	Altered the parenting plan beyond what was ordered.
•	False Reports:
•	Filed unsubstantiated police reports leading to your arrest without charges.

Impact on Karlee

•	Emotional Well-being:
•	Karlee is experiencing distress due to the lack of contact with you.
•	Therapist notes mention a “daddy-sized hole,” indicating her need for your presence.
•	Stability and Support:
•	Kiela’s actions disrupt Karlee’s sense of stability and may negatively affect her development.

Strategic Approach Moving Forward

Preparation for the Upcoming Hearing

Organize Your Evidence

•	Documentation:
•	Ensure all documents are well-organized and easily accessible.
•	Exhibits:
•	Label and reference exhibits clearly, such as:
•	Exhibit A: Letter from Shawn Sorensen
•	Exhibit B: Therapist notes
•	Exhibit C: Text message exchanges
•	Exhibit D: Evidence of Kiela’s unauthorized parenting plan changes

Practice Your Testimony

•	Clarity and Composure:
•	Rehearse delivering your statements calmly and confidently.
•	Key Points:
•	Stay focused on facts and avoid emotional outbursts.
•	Anticipate Questions:
•	Prepare answers to potential questions from the judge or opposing counsel.

Legal Representation

•	Consult an Attorney:
•	Given the complexities, having a lawyer could strengthen your case.
•	Legal Advice:
•	An attorney can help navigate court procedures and advocate on your behalf.

Final Thoughts

Let me know if there’s any specific aspect you’d like to explore further or if you need assistance with preparing any part of your case. Together, we’ll work towards a favorable outcome for you and Karlee. Understood, and I can imagine how overwhelming it must be after working on this for a year and accumulating so much material across various accounts and platforms. Let’s focus on efficiently organizing and utilizing what you already have to strengthen your case and avoid redundant efforts.

Here’s a tailored plan to help you consolidate your work and prepare effectively for your upcoming hearing:

Inventory and Consolidation

a. Centralize Your Documents:

•	Gather All Files: Collect all your documents, notes, and materials related to your case from different accounts and storage locations.
•	Use a Central Platform: Since you’re already using Dokkio to sort through your files, let’s continue using it as your central hub for organizing and accessing your documents.

b. Create a Master Index:

•	Categorize Files: Organize your files into main categories such as:
•	Timeline & Events
•	Legal Arguments
•	Court Procedures & Violations
•	Kiela’s Actions & Lies
•	Your Parenting History
•	Additional Categories (e.g., Case Law, Personal Notes, etc.)
•	Maintain a Spreadsheet: Create a spreadsheet or document that lists all files with brief descriptions and their locations for easy reference.

2. Strategic Categorization

Based on Your Existing Work:

•	Timeline & Events: Ensure your chronological account of events is up to date. Include dates, descriptions, and references to supporting documents.
•	Legal Arguments: Compile your legal arguments, citing relevant statutes and case law you’ve already researched.
•	Court Procedures & Violations: Document any procedural errors or rights violations, specifying what occurred, when, and how it impacts your case.
•	Kiela’s Actions & Lies: List instances with evidence where Kiela has made false statements or engaged in manipulative behavior.
•	Your Parenting History: Highlight your role as Karlee’s primary caregiver for six years, including any supporting evidence like testimonials, records, or photographs.

3. Refining and Amplifying

a. Targeted Questions:

To avoid redundant work, let’s identify what you’ve already completed:

•	Timelines: Have you created detailed timelines? If so, let’s review them for completeness.
•	Legal Research: What case laws and statutes have you identified that support your case?
•	Summaries and Analyses: Do you have summaries of key documents or analyses performed with AI tools?
•	Custody Journal Entries: Where are these saved, and have you analyzed them for patterns or key insights?
•	Documentation of Kiela’s Actions: Do you have a consolidated list with evidence of her inconsistencies and violations?

b. Leveraging AI Tools:

Since you have experience with various AI tools, we can strategically use them:

•	UPDF AI: For extracting information from large PDFs.
•	Perplexity AI: For researching additional legal precedents or recent case law.
•	Claude and Gemini: For generating summaries or exploring new angles in your legal arguments.
•	Visualization Tools: Use MermaidChart.com or VS Code for creating diagrams and charts.

4. Actionable Outputs

a. Create Structured Documents:

•	Master Documents in Markdown: Organize your information in Markdown files for easy editing and conversion.
•	Ansible Playbooks (Metaphorically): While Ansible is an IT automation tool, think of your organized documents as “playbooks” outlining your legal strategies step by step.

b. Develop Visual Aids:

•	Timelines and Charts: Visually represent key events, Kiela’s actions, and court procedures.
•	Flowcharts: Map out the relationships between different legal arguments and evidence.

c. Refine Your Testimony and Strategy:

•	Draft Your Statements: Use your organized materials to craft compelling statements and responses for court.
•	Practice Q&A: Anticipate questions you might be asked and prepare clear, concise answers backed by evidence.

5. Next Steps

a. Share Specifics:

•	Identify Key Documents: Let me know which documents or categories you’d like to focus on first.
•	Clarify Completed Work: Specify areas where you’ve already done extensive work to avoid duplication.

b. Ongoing Support:

•	Regular Check-ins: We can set up a schedule to review progress and address any new challenges.
•	Flexible Adjustments: We’ll adapt the plan as needed based on what we uncover during the consolidation process.

Final Thoughts

I understand that organization might not be your strong suit, especially with the sheer volume of material you’ve accumulated. My goal is to help you streamline this process, making it more manageable and less overwhelming.

By consolidating your existing work and strategically leveraging AI tools, we can create a powerful and cohesive case without retracing steps you’ve already taken.

Remember: You’re not alone in this, and with a focused plan, we can turn all your hard work into an effective strategy to advocate for your rights and your daughter’s well-being.

Let me know how you’d like to proceed or if you have specific questions about any part of this plan. I FEEL LIKE YOU DIDNT FIX THE FLOW AND THE STRUCTURE OF THIS AT ALL TELL ME WHAT IT IS YOU ACUALLY FIX WHEN YOU RE DO THIS AGAIN Further perpetuates and reinforces that bias in any ruling or decision on makeups or new time modification requests. The impact is substantial for undermining confidence in this judge's capability to adjudicate with neutrality, as should be expected in cases such as Corbin’s for future decisions if similar concerns arise again and she continues handling it as the appointed officer for courts when these parents reappear for modified visitation enforcement. It also gives a strong rationale for having an alternative judge. If that was made explicitly known through an appeal request or complaint alleging the inconsistencies (potentially with intent to cause bias despite lack of proof that's beyond anecdotal), they would provide sufficient valid reasons why past orders need reviewing before determining whether appropriate legal intervention against further contact restrictions placed between one party—even without it being granted in written rulings from the judge as she’s consistently stated throughout recordings from today—must prevent those harmful repercussions of parental alienation documented from before Kyla fled those neglectful circumstances from being repeated again. Despite there also existing more serious allegations in case files dating earlier before initial court rulings on full custody were established by judges in 2016 up until recently, where her behavior once more mirrors those behaviors which clearly demonstrably led them to lose those privileges with their rights fully revoked for months based upon findings in reports with direct testimonies from Kyla's side of the family, which contradict the current case. Alongside what professionals have been saying needs addressing now during periods of reunification where make-up visitation and therapy sessions occur consistently unless any justifiable or valid excuse for non-attendance from the therapist is provided, where those could not... I’m sorry that the previous revision did not meet your expectations regarding flow and structure. Let me revise the text to improve its coherence and readability:

Further perpetuates and reinforces bias in any ruling or decision on make-up or new time modification requests. This has a substantial impact on undermining confidence in the judge’s capability to adjudicate with neutrality, as should be expected in cases like Corbin’s for future decisions. If similar concerns arise again and she continues handling it as the appointed officer when these parents reappear for modified visitation enforcement, it also provides strong rationale for requesting an alternative judge.

If this bias were explicitly acknowledged through an appeal or complaint alleging inconsistencies—potentially suggesting intent to cause bias despite a lack of proof beyond anecdotal evidence—it would provide sufficient valid reasons for past orders to be reviewed before determining whether appropriate legal intervention against further contact restrictions is necessary. Even without such restrictions being granted in written rulings from the judge, as she has consistently stated throughout today’s recordings, it is crucial to prevent the harmful repercussions of parental alienation documented from before Kyla fled those neglectful circumstances from being repeated.

Despite more serious allegations existing in earlier case files before initial court rulings on full custody were established by judges in 2016 up until recently—where her behavior once more mirrors those actions which clearly led to losing privileges with rights fully revoked for months based upon findings in reports with direct testimonies from Kyla’s side of the family that contradict the current case—professionals have been emphasizing the need to address these issues now. During periods of reunification, make-up visitation and therapy sessions should occur consistently unless any justifiable or valid excuse for non-attendance from the therapist is provided, which was not the case here.

What Was Fixed:

•	Improved Sentence Structure: Broke down overly long and complex sentences into shorter, more manageable ones to enhance readability.
•	Enhanced Logical Flow: Reorganized sentences and paragraphs to ensure that ideas progress logically from one to the next.
•	Clarified Ambiguous Statements: Refined vague or unclear phrases to make the meaning more explicit.
•	Corrected Grammar and Punctuation: Fixed grammatical errors and adjusted punctuation for better clarity and adherence to standard English conventions.
•	Removed Redundancies: Eliminated repetitive words and phrases to make the text more concise.

I hope this revised version better addresses your concerns about the flow and structure. Please let me know if there’s anything else you’d like me to adjust or if you need further assistance. Certainly! Here’s the corrected version of your text with improved spelling, grammar, and punctuation:

Due Process Violation: Prevents the father from addressing contradictions directly, rather than just using her own interpretation when judging evidence submitted that contradicts that of the mother, without giving those submissions any consideration at each instance across multiple hearings with previous judges in the past and within recent months during various cases for modified child custody or other hearings involving similar requests by fathers denied parenting access rights due to accusations made by the same women. These involve matters concerning any allegations of harm against paternal involvement—particularly involving immediate-danger or parental fitness type filings where these types of unsubstantiated accusations made again here were consistently seen during rulings with successful outcomes, which would also benefit Kyla in this scenario.

Fails to acknowledge his request despite the duty to ensure understanding by both parties prior to ruling or making a final judgment based upon her own opinion, revealing her failure to provide the neutral mediation expected during the hearing by her judicial responsibilities to this case (and within any others under her charge when they involve parental-rights-related matters of custody).

Shifts focus away from the case toward judging a parent’s emotional reactions rather than the facts being presented on prior violations, disregarding Corbin’s right to present his case without interruption from a presiding official with authority during a custody hearing. This suggests a prioritization toward what is assumed—rather than being factually determined with appropriate rationale given if the judgment needs correcting based on evidence contradicting it from earlier or subsequent testimony, rather than what may actually be shown repeatedly with records submitted thus far proving both Kyla’s deceitfulness and any misconduct through procedural irregularity observed throughout.

Further perpetuates and reinforces that bias in any ruling or decision on makeups or new time modification requests. The impact is substantial for undermining confidence in this judge’s capability to adjudicate with neutrality, as should be expected in cases such as Corbin’s for future decisions if similar concerns arise again and she continues handling it as the appointed officer for courts when these parents reappear for modified visitation enforcement. It also gives a strong rationale for having an alternative judge. If that was made explicitly known through an appeal request or complaint alleging the inconsistencies (potentially with intent to cause bias despite lack of proof that’s beyond anecdotal), they would provide sufficient valid reasons why past orders need reviewing before determining whether appropriate legal intervention against further contact restrictions placed between one party—even without it being granted in written rulings from the judge as she’s consistently stated throughout recordings from today—must prevent those harmful repercussions of parental alienation documented from before Kyla fled those neglectful circumstances from being repeated again. Despite there also existing more serious allegations in case files dating earlier before initial court rulings on full custody were established by judges in 2016 up until recently, where her behavior once more mirrors those behaviors which clearly demonstrably led them to lose those privileges with their rights fully revoked for months based upon findings in reports with direct testimonies from Kyla’s side of the family, which contradict the current case. Alongside what professionals have been saying needs addressing now during periods of reunification where make-up visitation and therapy sessions occur consistently unless any justifiable or valid excuse for non-attendance from the therapist is provided, where those could not…

Please note that the text was cut off at the end, so the last sentence is incomplete. If you provide the rest of the text, I’d be happy to include it and make further corrections.

Let me know if there’s anything else you’d like me to adjust or clarify! I understand that you’re looking to work with the table in a more interactive or editable way, possibly within an application like Notion. Here are some suggestions to help you proceed:

1.	Copying the Markdown Table into Notion:
•	Notion supports Markdown formatting, so you can copy the markdown table I provided and paste it directly into a Notion page.
•	To do this, copy the entire table including the headers and separators.
•	In Notion, create a new page or open an existing one, then paste the markdown text. Notion should automatically convert it into a formatted table.
2.	Using a Markdown Editor:
•	If you prefer, you can use a markdown editor (like Typora or StackEdit) to view and edit the table.
•	This allows you to see the formatted table and make any adjustments as needed before transferring it to another platform.
3.	Converting to Other Formats:
•	If you need the table in a different format (like HTML, Excel, or plain text), let me know, and I can help convert it for you.
•	For example, if you need an HTML table to embed in a webpage or an Excel file for data manipulation.
4.	Collaborative Editing:
•	While I can’t collaborate in real-time within applications like Notion, I can assist you by making any changes or additions you’d like directly here.
•	If you provide me with additional information or corrections, I can update the table accordingly and resend it to you.
5.	Suggestions on Layout:
•	If you have specific ideas about how you’d like the table to be organized or formatted differently, please share them.
•	For instance, if you want to highlight certain cells, adjust column widths, or reorganize the content for clarity.

Next Steps:

•	Provide Additional Content: If you have the second part or any additional information, please share it, and I’ll incorporate it into the table.
•	Specify Format Preferences: Let me know if you prefer a different format or need assistance with any specific formatting requirements.
•	Ask Questions: If you’re unsure about how to proceed with copying or using the table, feel free to ask, and I’ll guide you through the process.

Example of Copying into Notion:

1.	Copy the Table: Select all the markdown text of the table I provided.
2.	Paste into Notion: In a new Notion page, paste the text.
3.	Verify Formatting: Notion should automatically render the markdown table. If not, you can use the “Import” feature or paste it into a code block and convert it.

Let me know how you’d like to proceed, and I’ll be happy to assist you further! Certainly! Here’s the information you’ve provided formatted into a markdown table for easier readability:

Judicial Negligence Timeline (April 30, 2024 Hearing)

Time Stamp Action/Ruling by Judge Simmons Potential Indication of Bias or Negligence Impact on the Case Legal Standard or Statute Violated Transcript/Order Reference 03:57:23 pm States that she’s “only looking for kind of a baseline” from Kyla, suggesting that Corbin’s evidence will not be given equal consideration. Implies a predisposition towards Kyla’s version of events and could create a lower standard of proof for her accusations. Diminishes weight given to Corbin’s evidence and reinforces any perceived bias toward mother. ORS 107.137 (Best Interests of the Child): Judge should weigh both parties’ evidence equally when considering the child’s welfare. Transcript lines 7-8 03:57:49 pm Allows Kyla to express concern about Corbin’s YouTube channel, although stating it’s not a contempt issue. Despite irrelevance, it allows potentially prejudicial information into the record. Introduces irrelevant material into official record that could negatively affect future rulings by influencing perception. ORS 107.105 (Evidence): Evidence should be relevant and probative to the case at hand. Transcript lines 43-48 04:08:16 pm Interrupts Corbin before he’s finished his explanation for not signing a full ROI. Demonstrates dismissiveness of father’s attempts to clarify, and undermines procedural fairness. Prevents Corbin from fully explaining his rationale and reinforcing privacy rights concerning medical records. ORS 107.137: Failure to ensure father’s right to present information relevant to custody decision-making. Transcript lines 15-16 04:13:15 pm Makes negative remarks about Corbin’s choice to pursue mental health treatment over SUD (substance use disorder) treatment: “You can see where the problem is…right?” Suggests a personal judgment on a type of therapy based on bias and not legal or factual grounds. Undermines Corbin’s testimony on seeking help, reinforcing negative views about him. ORS 107.137: Shows disregard for father’s compliance with a recommendation by a professional and adds burden of proof that’s outside legal scope for this hearing. Transcript lines 52-53 04:13:18 pm Makes personal attacks on Corbin’s courtroom behavior without substantiating those claims: “Every time we come in here, you’re very defensive.” Uses a generalization and personal attacks to distract from addressing father’s valid legal points. Positions Corbin as unreasonable, impacting court’s view on his credibility. Due process violation: Unprofessional conduct undermines procedural fairness. Transcript line 58 04:17:51 pm States there’s “no permanent estoppel for drug accusations” despite acknowledging she does not have “actual evidence of current drug use”. Denies any relief regarding the constant accusations despite repeated negative UAs ordered for months and no supporting factual proof by mother. Perpetuates harm from false accusations, limiting potential legal steps to restrict these in future rulings. ORS 107.137 (Best Interests of the Child) AND 107.105 (Evidence): No evidence presented showing those suspicions pose real threat toward Carly, rather demonstrating a tactic used intentionally. Transcript lines 108-113 04:19:56 pm Fails to acknowledge Kyla’s statement about Corbin going to jail and possessing methamphetamine despite its serious nature. Ignores an untrue statement made before the court despite its potential defamatory impact without demanding justification. Adds credence to unsubstantiated accusation from Kyla with no apparent negative consequence, diminishing respect towards court rules. ORS 107.105 (Evidence): Statement doesn’t meet evidentiary requirements; judge did not address violation of conduct rules, potentially hindering future appeals on this issue. Transcript lines 197-200 04:21:51 pm Restricts Corbin from seeking clarification on her statements that contradict his interpretation of previous orders. Fails to acknowledge his request despite duty to ensure understanding by both parties prior to ruling or making final judgement based upon her own opinion, revealing her failure to provide the neutral mediation expected during hearing by her judicial responsibilities to this case. Shows dismissiveness, potentially undermining any defense based on inconsistencies noted, impacting legal outcome and potential grounds for appeal on these very points, especially after making similar assertions without asking for clarification again earlier this same session. Due Process Violation: Prevents father from addressing contradictions directly rather than just using own interpretation when judging evidence submitted contradicting that of mother without giving those submissions even consideration. Transcript line 251 04:26:04 pm Dismisses Corbin’s valid evidence based upon a perceived tone of disrespect: “Mr. Parisi… you’re insulting me…. Please understand it’s been a really long day…. And so I am going to work very hard on holding my temper.” Shifts focus away from case toward judging a parent’s emotional reactions rather than facts being presented, disregarding Corbin’s right to present case without interruption from a presiding official. This suggests a prioritization toward what is assumed rather than being factually determined with appropriate rationale. Further perpetuates and reinforces that bias in any ruling or decision on makeups or new time modification requests. The impact is substantial for undermining confidence in this judge’s capability to adjudicate with neutrality, as should be expected in cases such as Corbin’s for future decisions if similar concerns come again and she continues handling it as the appointed officer for courts when these parents reappear for modified visitation enforcement. Due Process Violation: Unprofessional conduct undermines procedural fairness and may violate judicial conduct codes requiring impartiality and professionalism. Transcript line not specified (cut off)

Suggestions on Layout:

•	Consistency in Time Format: Ensure all time stamps follow the same format (e.g., HH:MM:SS am/pm).
•	Column Widths: Since some columns have lengthy text, consider adjusting column widths or using bullet points within cells for readability.
•	Highlighting Key Points: Use bold or italics to emphasize crucial statements or legal statutes within the cells.
•	Add a Summary Row: At the end, include a summary of the most critical issues identified during the hearing.
•	Reference Numbers: If available, include specific line numbers or page numbers for transcript references to facilitate quick lookup.

Next Steps:

Feel free to provide the second part of your information, and I can incorporate it into the table. If you have any other preferences or need further adjustments, let me know! It looks like you’ve provided a detailed timeline of the April 30, 2024 hearing involving Judge Simmons, highlighting potential instances of bias or negligence and their impact on the case. Your message seems to have been cut off at the end. How can I assist you further with this information?

Published using