The 23-year journey of raising a child who tested positive for HIV was never just a set of documents on someone's desk that someone needed to get to. Every decision Cheryl and I made, right from the beginning of Lindsey's life until the very end, was filled with heart-wrenching choices influenced by a world of so-called "experts" spewing their "facts" from a mountaintop of dead children. Our entry into the realm of HIV was not a matter of choice, and we had no intentions of challenging Fauci's authority or disrupting Mayo Clinic's dominance. All three of us were unwilling participants, compelled to navigate Lindsey and now Rico through a treacherous landscape of failed research. Our sole objective was always to do what was best for Lindsey. However, this time, things would be different; a judge in a dusty little town a million miles away from HIV, with the stroke of a pen and an official stamp, would allow Mayo Clinic to continue to hold Rico hostage, even after the trial.
As the individual pages of Cheryl's vast collection of documents, recordings, and media accounts unfold, this thirty-year deception, especially in its application to infants and children, bears a striking resemblance to a scheme reminiscent of Bernie Madoff's infamous financial fraud. Lives are stacked, one atop the other, with the promise of well-being as the ultimate reward, provided one remains in the game or lives long enough for the next wave of unsuspecting victims to arrive.
The perpetration of injustice against the innocent is often minimized by its perpetrators, who view it as a fleeting event easily brushed aside, they never see each life as an individual life lived. This narrative underscores how, once the consequences of such actions are realized, researchers often retreat to their secluded domains in pursuit of their next fleeting endeavor. In the broader context of nation-building, one might liken significant moments to fleeting episodes with lasting repercussions. Consider the drafting of the Constitution during the formation of this continent into a nation. While the Constitution itself was time-sensitive, it failed to address the inclusion of slaves or indigenous peoples inhabiting this land. My intention here is not to overly emphasize race or racism, but rather to underscore the significance of the Constitution as the common thread that defines us as Americans. Despite this, diverse groups are often compelled to conform to the standards dictated by societal elites based on one's social status.
Top of Form
Amidst such challenges, it becomes imperative to delve beneath the surface and recognize the profound significance inherent in every life. In the shadow of the Holocaust, perpetrated by Nazi Germany during World War II, we are confronted with the systematic destruction of approximately six million Jews, as well as countless others, including Romani people, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, disabled individuals, homosexuals, and those deemed undesirable by the Nazi regime. This is not merely a matter of tallying lost lives; it is about acknowledging the diverse tapestry of humanity, where each individual existence represents a unique narrative of dreams, struggles, and aspirations. Within the stark reality they endured, they were not anonymous masses but rather a multitude of individuals, each facing their final destiny in solitary silence—a poignant reminder of human life's priceless value and fleeting nature. While authority and prestige may present a polished exterior, it is essential not to overlook the intrinsic worth of human experience and the fundamental importance of compassion, empathy, and genuine comprehension. Behind every facade of power lies a life that defies simplistic classification—a life deserving of recognition, acknowledgment, and celebration in all its intricate facets.
The readers of this story should question the actions and integrity of those involved, as their behavior goes against the very principles they are meant to uphold. It is a troubling realization that individuals tasked with protecting the vulnerable can be complicit in schemes that harm innocent individuals and undermine the foundation of justice. Among the numerous attempts, unfounded accusations, and the unwarranted vilification of a mother who only sought the safety of her son throughout this narrative, there is one paragraph that truly encapsulates the extent of the deception. In the countless paragraphs within this story, none can match the startling nature of the email sent by CPS Oelfke to his superior, Brekke. In this email, Oelfke proposes the unfathomable proposition writing, "What if I had the following discussion with the family: Continue to adhere to treatment recommendations, refrain from suggesting child protective services involvement from our agency, as a means to 'present their case' before a judge without creating a situation of non-compliance, thus overtly fulfilling neglect criteria and compelling the need for emergency protective care?"
Oelfke's statement presents a puzzling scenario wherein CPS could navigate the legal system to implement protective measures like emergency care without directly engaging CPS services. Despite knowing that the family had not violated any rules—an acknowledgment he later affirms in court—Oelfke seemed intent on pressuring Lindsey into a decision that would prompt judicial intervention to act first by creating a scenario of "non-compliance." This calculated approach would likely result in the judge prompting CPS involvement, effectively reversing the typical process where CPS initiates action. This fundamentally deceptive and manipulative strategy raises ethical concerns about CPS's intentions and methods. Moreover, this tactic suggests a deeper institutional issue within Mower County's CPS, indicating that such reverse thinking is not merely an isolated incident but rather ingrained in the unwritten norms of the organization. It underscores a concerning trend wherein Oelfke and Mayo Clinic, instead of seeking to preserve family unity, resort to legal maneuvers aimed at separation.
I understand that Oelfke's coercive email was previously used in the narrative; however, at this point in the story, the reader has had ample time to comprehend the depths of what transpired in a small town surrounded by cornfields of southern Minnesota. While my daughter's and her son's ordeal may seem unbelievably compelling, placing the legal system in Mower County within its own context is equally crucial. Moreover, it's an appropriate moment to shed light on how the CPS authorities in Mower County have chosen to allocate their time and taxpayers' resources in their mission to protect children.
During this very timeframe, these county authorities and entities were relentlessly pursuing Lindsey and her son, pushing them towards a harrowing fate. Simultaneously, another case unfolded in Mower County, where a 47-year-old man faced charges of "first-degree criminal sexual conduct and third-degree criminal sexual conduct." This appalling case involved the prolonged sexual abuse of a young girl, little girl "from the time she was 7 to 12 years old" and "According to the court complaint, the victim said…[he] forced her to have sex, made her wear costumes, watch pornographic movies and threatened to rape her if she didn't comply" This abuse persisted for five agonizing years, during which he forced the victim to "perform oral sex on him."
Inexplicably, the same Mower County Attorney, Kristen Nelsen, who was responsible for allowing Rico's abduction, extended a surprising deal to this child molester. Initially charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a conviction that would have mandated a minimum sentence of 12 years, he managed to "plead down" to a third-degree criminal sexual conduct charge, which carries no minimum sentence. The end result was a mere sentence of supervised probation, and he was also required to pay a paltry sum of $2,960 in restitution, which, presumably, Nelsen considered adequate compensation for the horrors endured for six years by the victim. Remarkably, this egregious situation garnered little attention from the local media until it was picked up by Fox News and Bill O'Reilly, who brought it to the forefront for two consecutive nights. Bill O'Reilly himself noted, "This is in Mower County, which is a corrupt county. The local newspaper is not investigating, so we may have to go out there."
In another shocking case within the same timeframe, and with the same Mower County courthouse and County Attorney Kristen Nelsen, a 35-year-old woman faced charges of engaging in sexual acts with a young boy. Similarly, her first-degree criminal sexual conduct charge was dismissed by Mower County. Instead, she received probation, citing her supposed inability to recall pertinent details due to intoxication or amnesia as her defense. While Mower County allowed child molesters back onto the streets with minimal consequences, they were simultaneously channeling their efforts and taxpayer resources into concocting a narrative about a neglectful mother, her black boyfriend, and the audacious presumption that researchers could transform her infant son into the Mayo Clinic's next medical experiment. While the nature of one's skin color has no bearing on me, I do believe it did have consequences in a small Minnesota courtroom.
In this intricate narrative, it's crucial to highlight the interconnectedness of individuals and systems, particularly regarding the email shared by Paul Oelfke from CPS. This email, outlining a plan to deceive Lindsey into fulfilling neglect criteria, was not only circulated within CPS but also sent to key figures in Mower County's legal and law enforcement apparatus, including County Prosecutor and Sheriff Steve Sandvik. As a member of the child protection team, Sheriff Sandvik's awareness of such a scheme raises serious doubts about his suitability for office. Similarly, the involvement of the head of child protection and an assistant county attorney in this conspiracy undermines their credibility and integrity.
All the key players in this narrative are held to the standard of acting in "good faith." This principle demands unwavering honesty, sincerity, and genuine intent when making decisions or conveying information, devoid of any deceit or ulterior motives. However, questions arise regarding whether the prosecutor upheld this principle in dealings with the judge and the guardian. Such conduct would be deemed highly unethical by the prosecutor. Furthermore, if the judge or guardian were privy to the contents of Oelfke's email, it could have compromised Lindsey's right to a fair trial, especially if the judge was aware of the coercive plan outlined within.
Given that the prosecutor and sheriff were directly emailed Oelfke's "plan," it stands to reason that the guardian ad litem, Alice Snater, would also have been made aware of this correspondence and Oelfke's intentions. Consequently, she would have been duty-bound to inform Judge Wellman. Both the judge and the guardian ad litem are bound by a "duty of candor," which mandates them to uphold truthfulness and transparency in all communications.
Furthermore, Dr. Huskins' failure to disclose crucial information about the functional cure and the Mississippi baby to Lindsey and John stands out glaringly. The disparity in transparency is alarming, particularly considering the potential life-and-death implications, as highlighted by Dr. Huskins himself. Had Lindsey and John been privy to this information, it could have significantly influenced their decisions regarding Rico's care and treatment, potentially negating any grounds for legal intervention. Moreover, the emphasis placed by the judge and guardian on Lindsey's previous AZT treatment raises suspicions of manipulation on multiple fronts. Despite their apparent awareness of the functional cure, they deliberately refrain from addressing it, indicating a calculated effort to sway Lindsey without acknowledging pivotal information that might have altered her decision-making process.
The fact that these individuals occupied positions of authority and responsibility extends beyond mere doubts about their commitment should be in protecting children and upholding justice. It raises significant concerns about their motivations and whether they prioritized the well-being of the child or pursued personal agendas. It becomes increasingly clear that in Mower County, the decision to separate an infant from his innocent 22-year-old mother took precedence over addressing the issue of child molesters being allowed back on the streets, while Rico remained under county control.
These actions can hardly be seen as anything less than exhibiting "guilty knowledge" on the part of all involved. Through their actions, they were aware of critical information that could either exonerate or significantly impact the case. Yet, they chose not to disclose it, even going so far as to input fabricated information. Oelfke, for instance, was privy to mitigating circumstances or information that suggested no wrongdoing on Lindsey's part or indicated flaws in the case against her. Despite this, he proceeded with actions to remove Rico from her care without disclosing or considering this pertinent information, which constitutes guilty knowledge.
Similarly, the medical professionals involved in Lindsey's case, including resident doctors and Huskins himself, appear to possess guilty knowledge. They were aware of medical evidence or crucial factors that contradicted the allegations they themselves were making against Lindsey. Yet, they failed to disclose this information in their assessments or recommendations.
Prosecutor Jones possessed evidence that could potentially undermine the case he was prosecuting, including witness statements contradicting his own theory and evidence pointing to alternative explanations that could exonerate Lindsey. Instead of acknowledging these facts, Jones manipulated information to fit the prosecution's narrative. The fact that Jones was aware of Oelfke's email outlining a plan to manipulate Lindsey into a scenario of "non-compliance" but failed to disclose this crucial evidence to the defense and potentially to the judge or guardian casts doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and undermines the prosecution's theory of the case.
It raises questions about whether Jones or perhaps the judge and guardian, were complicit in holding what could be deemed as guilty knowledge regarding the handling of Oelfke's email. If Jones neglected to inform the judge and guardian about its existence, it suggests his own culpability. Conversely, if Jones did inform them but they failed to act upon it, the responsibility would also lie with them. Additionally, with law enforcement being aware of the coercion plot, it also implicates them in misconduct. Not only did law enforcement fail to address the coercion plot, but they also actively participated in executing the petition to abduct Rico.
Jones further complicates the complexities of his involvement by seemingly manipulating legal precedent to suit his own agenda or misunderstanding the evidence he presented. In his notice of filing order, Jones asserts that "due to the unique issues presented by newborn HIV infection, the court has sought guidance from secondary legal sources." Jones's secondary choice was an article titled "No Way to Treat a Woman," which appears to reflect his incomplete analysis and selective use of facts.
Jones attempts to draw parallels between Lindsey's experiences and a court case from the mid-nineties involving a woman and her HIV-positive child. It's noteworthy that at the time cited in the article, Cheryl was in direct contact with this mother as she was also facing scrutiny from CPS. However, the connections Jones tries to establish between the article and Lindsey's situation are, at best, tenuous, lacking the substantial evidence necessary to support his legal arguments.
The article cited by Jones underscores the evolving nature of HIV treatment, especially concerning children who historically have been inadequately represented in clinical research, a fact acknowledged by the FDA. This presents challenges because the medications administered to Rico lack pediatric safety and effectiveness data, emphasizing the limited and incomplete information available for specific age groups among pediatric patients, accentually making any of the HIV drugs given to Rico experimental. Furthermore, the article recognizes that despite being the standard treatment, HAART may not alleviate symptoms or deliver substantial health improvements for certain individuals, rendering it speculative at best. Additionally, the treatment itself can impose significant physical and psychological burdens on those it is said to help. As more patients embrace HAART, the growing list of side effects further highlights the complexities involved. In essence, the use of HAART in any form remains largely experimental.
The article also reinforces our consideration of factors such as quality of life when making decisions regarding Lindsey's childhood treatment. It explicitly acknowledges that "definitive clinical trial data documenting therapeutic benefit from this approach are not currently available," mirroring the uncertainty surrounding "the long-term effects of AZT." Additionally, the article highlights long-standing criticisms of state child protection systems, including issues like insufficient funding, inadequate oversight, the employment of underqualified and poorly trained staff, and the potential for harm and bias within these systems, all outlined in detail in this narrative. Lindsey experienced from the beginning of Rico's birth until her demise. Cases similar to those observed in Minnesota and Mower County, where parents who deviate from conventional medical treatment decisions for their critically ill children are prosecuted, establish a hazardous precedent that can lead to the separation of children from their mothers, as did with Lindsey and Rico.
The article cited by Jones also includes the statement, "it is foolish and naive to believe that a family court judge can conduct a more thorough review of what is best for a child than the child's mother," which appears to contradict Jones's interpretation of the article's message. Furthermore, it suggests that in cases like Lindsey's, where she sought healthcare from a qualified provider, the court should refrain from intervening except in "the most extreme cases." In other words, Lindsey complied with all medical treatments, questioning only the AZT.
Even though not all women living with HIV/AIDS are mothers, it remains crucial to examine how state actors diminish the maternal capacities of certain women under the guise of child protection. In a medical neglect proceeding concerning an HIV-positive child, the prosecution's responsibility is to demonstrate to the court that the mother is unfit convincingly. Within this context, the fundamental principles of parental autonomy and due process ensure that when a mother declines consent for HAART treatment, she is initially presumed to have acted in the best interest of her child. However, the judge's impartiality becomes compromised once the case reaches trial.
In the case of Lindsey, Judge Wellman, vested with discretionary power, has already rendered the verdict to sever the sacred bond between Rico and his mother. This decision led to Rico's prolonged hospitalization for an additional 60 days. Regrettably, the judge's perspective has been limited to the viewpoints of the doctors and the prosecutor, leaving Lindsey, a young woman and mother, with the formidable task of persuading the judge of the erroneous nature of his judgment.
Judge Wellman's reluctance to acknowledge responsibility for the grave error committed in Lindsey's case is not surprising, given that he either disregarded or was intentionally kept unaware of critical facts that would have supported the parents' position. Moreover, Wellman based his decision to separate the child from Lindsey on the false premise that she had refused treatment during her pregnancy. Therefore, it is evident that Judge Wellman's actions lacked proper consideration for constitutional rights and amounted to an unconstitutional act, regardless of the veracity of the claims made against Lindsey. Once Wellman began assessing and scrutinizing Lindsey for something she didn't do, the door was open to undermining her autonomy instead of focusing on Lindsey's history and what was best for Rico.
In the face of Lindsey's challenging circumstances, her doctors and medical professionals failed to consider the remarkable resilience she had demonstrated throughout her life. They disregarded the fact that she had lived for over two decades without the use of AZT or any other form of antiretroviral therapy. It is essential to acknowledge that Lindsey's decision-making process was not isolated or uninformed. She had firsthand knowledge and drew from her painful experiences to make choices about her and her child's well-being.
However, the Mayo Clinic, echoing the sentiments of Lindsey's previous doctors, presented a bleak and predetermined narrative that treated both Lindsey and Rico as doomed. They focused solely on the potential negative outcomes without considering the element of quality of life. The doctors asserted that Rico would eventually succumb to HIV. Still, they failed to provide any definitive estimation of how long he would have survived solely by receiving AZT or other prescribed HAART therapies. This omission raises critical questions about the medical professionals' perspective and the consideration given to the individual's overall well-being and quality of life.
If one considers the assertion made by the elites that science has evolved, this is precisely the crux of the matter. Had a doctor prescribed Rico the same dosage of AZT administered and described as essential and lifesaving to Lindsey in 1991, it could potentially be malpractice due to the ever-changing nature of scientific understanding. The lack of concrete evidence to support the benefits of AZT Lindsey, her peers, and even her own son, who lived no longer than six years, raises questions about its true effectiveness and whether refraining from its use would have posed a greater risk.