4 of 7
5. MO Law and Court Rules Govern Orders For Mental Health Evaluations
Missouri Court Rule 60.01 establishes strict requirements for a mental health evaluation for the purposes of litigation. It requires a motion, notice, order and consent - Ms. Reinhold had none of these which is reflected in the court record itself ( see MO Rule 60.01 ).
•
• There is no factual or lawful explanation for Ms. Reinhold’s testimony regarding her fabricated mental health evaluation and diagnoses. No legal motion/order/hearing/ consent existed to perform one. N o order even exists suggesting Ms. Reinhold would engage in contact with me. There is no manner in which Ms. Reinhold can escape that truth. When fraud is based upon material misrepresentations in a legal record, the “fact- finding” isn’t obscure.
6. Building A Fraudulent Record
• Prior to the materially fraudulent case record (16SL-DR03752-05) created by Judge Green, with the assistance of Ms. Reinhold, there are six years of prior public court records that directly disprove the facts they asserted ( see list of links to referenced records ) . Those court records include: ✓ In the Spring of 2017 Mr. Ojeda’s custody was suspended as the results of TROs for both minors, resulting in a preliminary injunction which suspended his custody pending a final Modification Judgment ( see pages 1-5, Ojeda Evidence ). ✓ A July 2018 Modification of Custody Judgment affirming Mr. Ojeda’s loss of legal and physical custody, which included orders preventing Mr. Ojeda from; having any contact with me; living within a specified radius of my residence; contacting the minors by telephone; having contact with the minors of any kind outside of highly restrictive supervised visitation; attending the minors’
Case 2025-001167 | Ojeda v Reinhold
Made with FlippingBook Digital Proposal Creator