Why does an atheist join and defend the cause of
Bill Windsor, a man that claims he is led by God? Or,
the other side of the story: Naomi Parrish (or is it Naomi Chambers? ….no
wait, it might be Naomi Gutierrez or it could be Naomi Parrish Gutierrez?)
By NBTDT
The details of Naomi’s background and her “they done me
wrong” story became of particular interest with the posting of the video
produced for Lawless America by Bill and Naomi, titled ‘Windsor v. Overstreet:
Case No: 13LF-V00289’. Bill, as
we’ve come to expect, twists and omits facts to claim victory for a mission in
which he said he “felt God was leading me to do this”. Naomi
clearly takes sides on Bill’s behalf, stating that she knows Bill Windsor, he does
not sound or come across “like a whacko conspiracy theorist” and she absolves
him of all responsibility for vetting “victims”. Naomi states that she does not know
Allie, yet she offers a highly evolved opinion of Allie and her case. So,
who is Naomi Parrish Gutierrez? By what
right does she pass judgment on other past or current Lawless America ‘victims’
and the cases?
Naomi appears to be well traveled, well read, educated and
intelligent. She was married in 2010,
has two sons with her husband and a daughter from a previous relationship, for
whom she does not have custody. Naomi
writes several blogs on a wide range of topics and owns a soap making business. She defines herself as a “militant
atheist”, an Islamophobe, a linguist, self-sufficient and self-reliant. In
reading her blogs and viewing her You Tube uploads, it appears that Naomi also
considers herself to be an independent, critical thinker and superior to the
general population in most respects. She
gives a lot of lip service to independence and moderate feminist ideas, but
clearly she prefers more traditional female roles. I would have to agree with Naomi on one
point about herself – she is not a perpetual victim. In fact, except for discussion about her
daughter, she does not dwell on or even mention her past. And, as we have come to expect from most
Lawless America devotees, there is a lot more than meets the eye.
Naomi’s “they done me wrong” story starts in Arlington, VA,
in Judge Esther Wiggins’ court room.
Custody of Naomi’s daughter was awarded to the father, a French national
working in the US as a chef, when the girl was 15 months old (about 14 years
ago). Naomi joined with other mothers that felt
Judge Wiggins’ decisions were unjust, starting a petition to remove Judge
Wiggins from the bench. One of the
other mothers is Nancy Hey. Nancy Hey also
provided “testimony” for Lawless America.
DHS became involved in Nancy’s case when Nancy’s daughter
was a few weeks old; the baby was hospitalized for failure to thrive. Nancy’s “testimony” indicates her
daughter was removed from her custody and her rights eventually terminated as
the State used the baby’s loss of a few ounces immediately after birth, as is
common, as an excuse to give the foster parents an opportunity to adopt a baby. In
fact, Nancy’s baby was under fed. Despite
DHS efforts to assist and teach Nancy parenting skills, it was determined that
due to a developmental disability, Nancy is “unable to adequately respond to
the needs” of a child. There were no
relatives in a position to care for the baby.
The court’s decision was upheld on appeal.
Naomi posted a video discussing her opinion of the Hey
case. She ignores evidence presented in the case and
the higher court’s opinion. She calls
Judge Wiggins a liar and accuses the Judge of terminating Nancy’s parental
rights because a lawyer friend wanted to adopt a baby.
As regards Naomi’s custody case, Naomi accuses Judge Wiggins
of awarding custody to the father out of favoritism. Allegedly the Judge frequented the father’s
restaurant. Naomi alleges that the
father sent the girl to France to live with his family. Naomi was ordered to pay child support. It appears that Naomi did not pay as ordered. She felt she shouldn’t have to because the
child was not living with the father for about 5 years. It’s important to note that after living in
Virginia and DC where she lost custody, Naomi
lived in France and Mexico. It is
also important to note that Naomi’s husband is a Mexican national.
Details of the Judge’s custody decision are unknown. Other than favoritism, the only reason
Naomi offers for the decision is an accusation of abuse for allowing the child
to watch ‘Baby Einstein’. However, it
appears possible that the Judge’s decision may have been influenced by Naomi’s life
style and occupations at the time.
Naomi appears to have supported herself through adult entertainment and
other untraditional methods of making money.
The father appears to have had a more stable and traditional life
style.
I was an egg donor. I feel NOTHING for the children produced
from my DNA.
Naomi gives indications in interaction with her sons and
correspondence with her daughter that Judge Wiggins may have had other
concerns. In her “testimony” to Bill, she is obviously
irritated by her crying infant. In a video announcing pregnancy with her 2nd
son, Naomi indicates that she will put Benadryl in her older son’s bottle to
keep him quiet. On Facebook Naomi posts
a photo of her son in his 2012 Halloween custom; he’s dressed as Hannibal
Lector, complete with his arms in a straight-jacket, strapped to a back board
and a face mask. The caption reads “I thought this would be a great Halloween costume for my son
Damien. Then I realized, it could come in handy all year round.” In a suit brought against her daughter’s
father, Naomi says she sent the girl, now a teenager, from whom she’s estranged,
news of her pregnancy, along with an explanation that delivery of the baby may
kill her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nor1MQaZm_Q
With regard to Naomi’s custody case, the father was wrong to
deny Naomi visitation and move the child to France. The father’s decision and whether or not he
lied to the Judge does not relieve Naomi of financial responsibility for her
daughter. But, what happened when the child returned to
the US to live with her father? Did
Naomi begin to pay support as ordered?
Did she attempt to exercise her visitation rights? It appears that she did neither. In the following videos, Naomi provides
indication that she paid support, late, only as necessary to keep her
passport. She denies that she has
traveled outside of the US but that clearly is not the case. Although
the methods are unacceptable, the father appears to be attempting to collect
what is owed him in back support. Naomi’s excuse for not making a payment is
that she does not have a job, she is a stay at home mom with a baby on the
way. If Naomi were a man would those
excuses be acceptable?
The law suit attached above was filed by Naomi against her
father’s daughter, she is seeking $1 million in damages for personal injury. There are several inconsistencies found in
the suit:
·
Naomi claims that harassment over child support
issues caused risk to her health and happiness.
She states “Ms. Parrish has lost
enjoyment of life for the past 14 years and does not see an end to her grief in
the future”. There is no indication
that the pregnancy or delivery by C-section posed an abnormal risk and by all
accounts recorded by Naomi, she is very happy with her life.
·
Naomi claims that she “underwent an extremely
difficult surgery” during the birth of her son, in which “a vertical incision”
was made in her stomach. She is
describing the C-section, which was standard and uneventful, as recorded by
Naomi’s husband:
·
Naomi claims emotional distress at the father’s
threat to “tell the family court judge she was a prostitute”. Some might argue the father’s point to be
valid.
·
The father “threatens to give Ms. Parrish’s
daughter up for adoption”. Does he
really mean to attempt termination of Naomi’s parental rights? It
appears the father and child support office are accusing Naomi of
abandonment.
·
Naomi claims that child support payments were
“extorted” from her from 2000 through 2006, while the child lived in
France. Even if living in France is
a viable excuse for not paying as ordered, there is no excuse for not paying
per the order after 2006.
So once again, it appears we have a Lawless America “victim”
that appears to be cherry picking facts and evidence in attempts to convince us
that she is a victim of judicial corruption, when in fact her life condition is
a result of her own poor choices. We
end where we began: by what right does
Naomi pass judgment on Allie or Nancy?
None, she has no soul.
