2 of 7
contained fabricated evidence portraying the victim they were trying to silence as mentally ill. That record, was built upon Ms. Reinhold's fraudulent claims about my mental health. 2. The Division's Position On Camille Reinhold, LPC Missouri’s Division of Professional Registration is in receipt of extensive evidence ( see 04/22/25 complaint ) that Ms. Reinhold's testimony was materially fraudulent, yet there has been no urgency. The fact that her testimony is memorialized in a public court record inherently affirms its legitimacy. The public trusts that a state agency in receipt of factual evidence to the contrary, would not allow it to persist. It would be bad enough for legitimate mental health records to be published. But in this case, the record is fabricated with the intent to harm. What follows are key points of evidence that illustrate the severity of the fraud, the subsequent harm it has caused, and the immediate risk posed to the public should Ms. Reinhold continue to practice considering her extensive role in committing it.
3. N o Contact
• There has been no contact of any kind between Ms. Reinhold and my teenage sons, or with me. Likewise, Mr. Ojeda has had no contact with my sons or me for years as the result of The Court’s increasingly restrictive orders and judgments ( see list of links to referenced records ). 4. Judge Green’s Only Court Order Related to Camille Reinhold, LPC • The only order naming Ms. Reinhold reflected in the court record resulted from a motion filed by Mr. Ojeda’s attorney on February 16, 2024 for “Additional Therapeutic Visitation” which they specifically requested be facilitated by Ms. Reinhold ( see motion ). Of note, there had been no prior therapeutic visitation . The choice to title it, “Motion for Additional Therapeutic Visitation” is consistent with the cumulative efforts of the perpetrators to distort facts throughout the record.
Case 2025-001167 | Ojeda v Reinhold
Made with FlippingBook Digital Proposal Creator