Editors Note: This content is being reposted. It was written by Ronda Orchard.
By Ronda Orchard
“United States of America vs Eileen Clark,” the bailiff announced. Unlike the picture painted by her ardent supporters of a frail woman about to be extradited back to New Mexico on July 4, 2014, any reasonable person could see that she needed no assistance to reach the podium to answer to Judge Lorenzo Garcia. Even so she was flanked on each side by her lawyers. On October 23, 2014, Eileen Clark began the appeal process by recanting a previous “not guilty” plea on charges of International Parental Kidnapping.
With consistent due diligence Judge Garcia began to question Eileen’s competency to strike a new and lasting plea deal.
Judge: “Are you making this plea because you are guilty?”
Judge: “Were you coerced into making this guilty plea?”
Judge: “If a trial were conducted would the evidence against you convict you?”
Judge: “Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental illness?”
Judge Garcia continued to determine if Eileen understood the bargain she was asking for would strip her of fundamental civil rights and provide no further ability to withdraw her guilty plea. By recanting her previous “not guilty” plea her integrity is called into question for every encounter she’s had since 1995.
Obstructers should learn from this case that accepting at face value and not vetting claims of abuse from Abductors is like receiving stolen property. And in this case, in the form of parental alienation, Obstructers collude with Abductors in separating children from parents and the love, wisdom, protection and influence they have to give their children. Should human rights benefactors such as Liberty and Refuge be held accountable for impeding justice?
You have to conclude that the preponderance of evidence against Eileen influenced her to rethink her future behind bars as a matter of fact. Making a plea on one count of International Parental Kidnapping is the least she could do considering she ran the clock out on the two oldest children. This case highlights the idea that if you think yourself clever enough you may outlast a prison sentence. Perhaps this case begins to answer questions related to the statute of limitations: when does it start ticking and when does it conclude?
Judge Garcia not only declared Eileen Clark guilty under her special plea but he declared her mentally fit to pronounce herself guilty on all charges pending against her. When asked if she had ever been diagnosed or treated for mental illness Eileen added her voice to two High Court judges from Britain calling her PTSD claim “dubious”. Eileen’s very freedom now hinges on the fact that she can no longer malign, slander or defame her ex-husband, John Clark. Don’t you think her supporters should stop spreading the lies as well?
For those who will now weigh in with public opinion, I challenge you to correct the misinformed when they claim Eileen was abused. Ask them to reserve their sympathy for real victims of abuse. Remember, going forward, Eileen’s freedom is hers to lose.