“New” Gag Order in Stanley Case!

 Stanley Case  Comments Off on “New” Gag Order in Stanley Case!
Apr 242015

by Clay Herrmann

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” 
-from William Shakespeare’s play “Romeo and Juliette”-

Now There Is

An expansive gag order entitled “Protective Order” (see Judge Naramore’s gag order attached) that denies accused persons their civil rights in public, in private, and in a court of law is just as odoriferous an instrument as one titled “GAG ORDER”. The title doesn’t change what it is.

After unsubstantiated rumors and reports by various news media for approximately three months that Judge Naramore had issued a gag order in the Stanley Family case, Hot Springs Daily was able to interview Judge Naramore on April 15, 2015 behind the Juvenile Courthouse with audiovisual of the gag order question being asked and answered. The question was asked and repeated in the interest of absolute clarity. Judge Naramore confirmed that “there is no gag order”.

Note that the attached order is dated as signed by the Judge on April 10, 2015, and filed of record on April 14 with the Circuit Clerk.  and (with “March” lined through and “April” written in by hand … perhaps Cecilia Dyer prepared the document in March?) So it seems that despite Judge Naramore’s affirmation to the contrary, there was a gag order (entitled “Protective Order”) issued by him and of record when he went on the record with Hot Springs Daily saying there was not.  When government officials say things that aren’t true, they often later say they “misspoke”. Perhaps Judge Naramore misspoke. Regardless of the explanation, here is the gag order:

Protective Order-1 redacted

Protective Order-2

Protective Order-3

The following informational sources provide enlightenment on the subject of gag orders:

(Judges often call gag orders “protective orders, …” — see par. 2 of above linked article)



I Definitely Do Have Questions

 Stanley Case  Comments Off on I Definitely Do Have Questions
Apr 212015

Dear Citizens of Garland County,

Found this letter from Garland County Attorney Ralph Ohm in my mail today. It is interesting that he claims that the Stanley case “is an open investigation”. I had heard it was closed. If so, was it reopened  in order to prevent disclosure of requested information? One wonders how long an “investigation” can remain open? Three-plus months with no criminal charges … are we to believe that any day now some grounds will finally be “found” to prosecute?

Regarding the first item on the FOIA request, Hot Springs Daily did not ask who the custodian of the record is. Certainly the Sheriff’s Department has possession of an unredacted copy of the instrument since it was prepared and signed by Deputy Michael Wright.

Lois Lerner and Hillary Clinton have been more forthcoming.

We do have a number of question to convey back to Mr. Ohm in the very near future. In the meantime we suspect other interested persons will suggest questions for inclusion.


Clay Herrmann
for Hot Springs Daily

FOIA response - Ralph Ohm_1

FOIA response - Ralph Ohm_2

Freedom of Information Act Request


Judge Naramore – THERE IS NO GAG ORDER!

 Stanley Case  Comments Off on Judge Naramore – THERE IS NO GAG ORDER!
Apr 162015

by Clay Herrmann – Roving Reporter
for Hot Springs Daily

Judge Naramore

The Stanley Family had to endure yet another hearing (reportedly still not the last) with DHS in Juvenile Court which was scheduled to convene at 8:30 Wednesday morning April 15, 2015.  Q Byrum Hurst, legal counsel to Hal and Michelle Stanley, confirmed that yes, it is true that DHS was asking Judge Naramore to order administration of involuntary immunizations to the Stanley Children. Judge Naramore denied that DHS request, much to the relief of parents Hal and Michelle Stanley.

However another DHS request was approved, one that imposes a State psychologist into the Stanley home for 20 hours per week (4 hours per day, 5 days per week). The exact nature of what this DHS “specialist” will be doing in the Stanley home for all that time is unclear. Though the seven minor Stanley children are now back home with their parents, DHS employees remain free to come and go at will to the private residence, however often they wish and without notice, intruding as if DHS owned the place. Furthermore, the homeschooling parents are compelled to drive children to Lakeside School each school day, and to pick them up each afternoon when school is over. DHS control remains in effect as the parents try to cope with onerous DHS rules and regulations, similar to a status as DHS foster parents to their own children.

In a behind-the-building brief interview Judge Naramore did explicitly confirm that THERE IS NO GAG ORDER pertaining to the Stanley case. There is therefore, no gag order impediment to providing the information sought from the Sheriff’s Office in a Freedom of Information (FOIA) Request submitted on April 13, 2015. (see attached)

Freedom of Information Act Request



 Stanley Case  Comments Off on MISSING AFFIDAVIT FOUND!
Apr 132015

Judge Williams Intervenes

by Clay Herrmann– Roving Reporter
for Hot Springs Daily

According to Hal & Michelle Stanley, when Garland County Sheriff’s Department deputies, including Chief Deputy Jason Lawrence and GCSD Investigator Michael Wright came knocking on their door late-afternoon on January 12th of this year they weren’t there for a bowl of the aromatic gumbo simmering on the stove. Instead of greeting the friends they were expecting for dinner they were presented with the astonishing sight of what eventually became approximately a dozen vehicles parked in their driveway and along the road in front of their home.

Included were vehicles from the Sheriff’s Department, State Police, and DHS. There was an ambulance with a physician onboard as part of a tactical response team, and a marked car from the Coroner’s Office was also present. There was reported to be an entire tactical response team participating, with two groups set up in separate locations on nearby roads, presumably situated where they could engage a fleeing vehicle, should that contingency arise, or to advance quickly to the residence should “a Waco type scenario” develop.  There were reports from neighbors claiming there was a sniper seen in the ditch across the road and an additional report of another person with a shotgun supposed to be part of a tactical team, partially concealed in brush along one of the Stanley’s side property lines. Both allegedly had weapons aimed toward the Stanleys on their front porch where they were being detained.

According to their account, the seventy-three year old father and his forty-five year old pregnant wife were asked to step out onto their front porch several times before they complied.  Once on the porch and the door closed, they were then served a search warrant and told they could no longer go back inside.  What they were NOT given was the “Affidavit for Search Warrant” which according to Circuit Judge Lynn Williams is required to be attached to the search warrant.

Was the failure to provide the Stanley’s the required affidavit intentional on the part of Investigator Wright? That is a question he may not wish to answer. If the answer is no, then professional competence might be in question. If the answer is yes it would indicate deliberate disregard for the law.

In any event, had the Stanley’s been provided the affidavit and had they been able to read it on the front end, they would not have had to wait till the end of the approximately five-hour long takeover of their home before finding out that law enforcement had been intending to remove their children all along. This despite DHS investigator Lenny Robison’s announced conclusion to GCSD Deputy Mike Wright and others on the scene that there was no imminent danger to the children and that DHS was refusing to remove the children. Additionally the physician on-the-scene stated that he had found no evidence of harm to the children, and no indication of any immediate danger.

Pre-determined intent to remove the children, however, is stated in the Affidavit for Search Warrant. After being unavailable for approximately three months, that document was finally located on Friday afternoon, April 10th, thanks to direct hands-on intervention by Circuit Judge Lynn Williams (more on that later).

The Stanley’s were kept on the porch for a period of about 2 1/2 hours on a frigid January day and were not permitted to get a coat for protection against the cold when they asked to do so. They were not allowed to be present for the prolonged interrogation of their children. Nor were they allowed to be present for the unwelcome detailed medical examination of their children by a physician unknown to the Stanley’s who came as part of the Tactical Response Team.

MMS still on bathroom shelf day after

Interestingly the original-packaging bottle of MMS product with what remained of its contents inside the bottle was not taken in the execution of the search warrant, according to the Stanley’s. They have provided Hot Springs Daily a photo which they affirm was taken the day after the search showing the bottle still containing a quantity of the offending substance sitting on the bathroom shelf … the very same shelf from which the “brown bottle” listed on the Search Warrant Return was seized. Mr. Stanley stated that the single bottle of MMS is the only he ever purchased. It was bought online, is still available online, is not a “controlled substance”, and is entirely legal to possess.

The Stanley’s alleged crime was not possession, manufacture, or distribution of Meth in the county that Sheriff Mike McCormick reports has reputation as the “Meth capitol of the State”. Nor was it possession, distribution, or use of heroin, or any other controlled or illegal substance. (Evidently serving warrants at the many Garland County homes with children in them where those activities are known to be going on can wait.) Rather, the allegation made against the Stanley parents is that the legal MMS substance was used in ways that criminally endangered the well-being of the children.

The bottle and remaining MMS left on the bathroom shelf has since been disposed of … by the Stanleys. Those executing the search warrant did however inexplicably confiscate a bottle of hydrogen peroxide as listed on the Search Warrant Return. Against the objections of DHS personnel on the scene, and contrary to the task force physician, after dark on that Monday night, they also confiscated seven minor children and took them away.

Hopefully there will be a careful review and discussion of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by all county law enforcement personnel. Having raised their right hands on January 1st, 2015 and sworn (or solemnly affirmed) to uphold the Constitution, it would seem appropriate that they should actually know what it says. This should be especially true of the Fourth Amendment for law enforcement personnel dealing with warrants. Concisely written in unambiguous language it reads:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(The seven persons seized in execution of the search warrant at the Stanley home were not “particularly described” on the search warrant as is required and the “MMS” substance that was “particularly described” in the warrant was left behind!)

But back to the subject of the missing Affidavit for Search Warrant. Following the nightmare at their home, the Stanley’s became aware that there was supposed to be an affidavit attached to the single page search warrant they were served. The attorney they have engaged to represent them, Q Byrum Hurst, was also aware of the missing affidavit. Their repeated efforts to discover if it existed, and if so to obtain a copy from the Circuit Clerk’s office, from the Juvenile Court, or elsewhere were all unsuccessful. Attorney Q Byrum Hurst stated that in response to their subpoena of GCSD Investigator Michael Wright for a deposition, his response was that he didn’t have to tell them anything because there was an ongoing criminal investigation.

In hopes of being able to find out something regarding the missing affidavit, I went to the Judge who signed the search warrant on the second floor of the County Courthouse. Circuit Judge Lynn Williams was able to see me shortly after I arrived, and confirmed that there had to be an affidavit attached to the warrant. We discussed the fact that the Stanleys were not provided a copy of the affidavit which is referenced as attached in the search warrant, and that despite repeated efforts on the part of the Stanley’s legal counsel they were unable to procure a copy or even to verify the existence of the affidavit. I had also been unsuccessful in getting information on the case from the Circuit Clerk, the Juvenile Court, or the Sheriff’s office, all three citing confidentiality of Juvenile Court.

Judge Williams explained that he is NOT a Juvenile Judge, and that he signed a search warrant that alleged criminal activity. He considered that his search warrant, affidavit, and return should be filed as a public record with the Circuit Clerk … with his Circuit Clerk at the other end of the hall, and so saying removed his judicial black robe inviting me to accompany him as he got to the bottom of this. His armed Court Security Officer accompanied us as well, and we followed Judge Williams as he proceeded with deliberation down the hall, into the Circuit Clerk’s entry, and deeper in to where the ladies were who take care of his court records.

“We don’t have it. It never passed through here” he was told. They suggested that it must be at Juvenile Court, which is where the Court Security Officer and I promptly followed Judge Williams to next. Breezing by security with the Judge, I waited in a chair while his Honor went after his search warrant package. But he returned empty-handed.

He explained that fellow Circuit Judge Wade Naramore was present in the building, but his court was in session.  He further remarked that a judge can go into another judge’s courtroom and interrupt the proceedings to let the presiding judge know that a brief word was needed with him outside … which he did. “Can’t dare do that when you are just a lawyer.” As it turned out, Juvenile Court didn’t have the search warrant package either.

“That leaves only one place left where it could be”, Judge Williams pronounced. The Court Security Officer and I followed him to the Sheriff’s Office. Again I sat in a chair and waited as sheriff department personnel worked to locate GCSD Criminal Investigator Sgt. Michael Wright for Judge Williams. The Judge eventually went through a secure door to the right of the welcome counter of the Sheriff’s office. He was gone for perhaps fifteen minutes give or take a little, but emerged with papers in hand accompanied by Sgt. Wright.

“I want to show you the originals of these before making you a copy,” Judge Williams said addressing me now standing beside him at the counter along with Deputy Wright and several other persons in audience. He carefully described what each sheet was, one page at a time, as he laid them down spread out side-by-side: Search Warrant, two-page Affidavit for the Search Warrant, Search Warrant Return with hand-written itemization of property seized at the Stanley home, and a typed copy (for legibility) of the Return. Deputy Wright made me a copy of all five pages which I accepted with gratitude.  Shaking hands with Judge Williams and Deputy Wright, I thanked them and left with a copy of all five pages of the Stanley Search Warrant package, which you can now view here.

Affidavit for Search Warrant 300dpi_0003

Affidavit for Search Warrant 300dpi_0001

Affidavit for Search Warrant 300dpi_0002

Affidavit for Search Warrant 300dpi_0005

Affidavit for Search Warrant 300dpi_0004

The following Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request was submitted to Garland County Sheriff’s Department Chief Deputy of Enforcement, Jason Lawrence, on April 13, 2015. He responded with a note that he had forwarded the request to Sheriff Mike McCormick who is the custodian of record for the Sheriff’s Office:

Freedom of Information Act Request