Before Amy Joan Schneider's Children Were Abducted By Karen Coates on August 28, 2002, They Had Never Been to Her San Angelo, Texas Home
Published on March 25, 2005 By trueandfree In Politics

Fourteenth Amendment Be Damned! Judge Albert G. Webber IV Forbids A Fit Mother To Parent Her Children Without Explanation or Deference to the United States Constitution.

Should you be allowed to raise your kids?

Weapons of Mass Discussion articles by Matt Hurley


The last piece on the Schneider Story was about Karen Coates, the guardian of the two children involved and Amy Joan's sister.

Rather than take the time to deconstruct and reconstruct this response piece, I have decided to let Amy Joan Schneider's words speak for themselves with the following disclaimers: I have not verified what Amy Joan has written here, but will do so if asked. The only "edits" I have done to Amy Joan's response has been formatting for the blog and some minor spelling. What few editorial comments I have inserted will be [bracketed and italicized]. Lastly, I do have a packet of information coming from Karen Coates that I will make relevant portions of available.

By Amy Joan Schneider


The Lies:
Karen: “temporary custody of the children was originally asked for in hopes that Amy and/or the father (Mark Sliney) might resume custody when they were capable of doing so…”
Christine would not allow Amy Joan to have her own children back after she gained Amy Joan’s confidence. Christine did not have children and simply kept Amy Joan’s children.

Matt Hurley writes: [I don't think either side can really prove their case on this point.]
Karen: because Amy wasn't involved in the kids' lives at all after 1995. She told me personally in July 2001 that 'If Christine dies, I don't want the kids back.'
A lie, this is how Karen operates, "He said...She said...” Amy Joan has denied the above allegation made by Karen. Again, there is no proof to support Karen’s derogatory claim against the Mother Amy Joan.

Matt Hurley writes: In 1995, the children became eligible for child support in the state of Washington. Mark has apparently been paying back child support, but the state of Washington had given up on locating Amy because she had, according to Karen, "vanished and hid from her family until 2001."

Amy Joan's response: It is an uncontroverted fact that Amy Joan has owned and operated her own photography business for the past 14 years. Amy Joan has corresponded on her letterhead and has run a business ad in THE YELLOW PAGES each and every year, how could it be true that Amy Joan “VANISHED AND HID FROM HER FAMILY UNTIL 2001”? A Lie!
Also, records show, and there is no dispute, that Christine and Benito collected Forty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($49,000.00) in Public Aid from the State of Washington for Amy Joan’s two children.

Karen: “Why are we spending money to protect the children from their mentally unstable mother? Because it is exactly what Christine would have wanted me to do.”

Amy Joan responds: Again, where is Karen’s proof that the Mother is mentally unstable. Amy Joan has provided a letter from an Illinois medical Doctor of Psychiatry which concluded that Amy Joan “is not unfit to parent her children.”

Matt Hurley writes: I think we have to question the "money" motive of both sides of this case.
If you remember, the Court found that Amy Joan Schneider did not express interest in her two children until she became aware of the trust fund established in their names.

Matt Hurley writes: [I'm not real sure that Amy Joan phrased that last paragraph correctly, perhaps she will clarify. It isn't a pull quote from my story, so the words are hers. And I don't recall ANYBODY saying that the Court found anything about when Amy Joan expressed interest in the custody of her children.]

Now in Karen’s own words, my proof that Karen is lying, the trial Court was factually wrong, and the Fourth District Court was factually wrong:
Karen Coates’ January 14, 2003 sworn deposition testimony starting at p. 28, line 19:

Q: And were there any discussions with Amy regarding the kids in the fall of 2001.
A: …during that telephone conversation, she began questioning whether or not the children should, you know, be in Seattle with Benito because he was not a blood relative. And I said, oh, please, you know, don’t start anything now. They just lost Christine. Don’t – I said, please, just, you know, leave them be…

Karen’s sworn testimony, which was in the record, proves that the prevailing story regarding Amy Joan Schneider responding only to “the money” is yet another BIG LIE.

Matt Hurley writes: In a number of the press releases that Amy has published, she states that she has had motions denied and witnesses that haven't been allowed to testify. Karen sheds some light on this situation: “there hasn't been an evidentiary hearing on the case since January 2003.”
Again, a lie.

Amy Joan responds: On October 30, 2003 and December 4, 2003 evidentiary hearings were held before Associate Judge Scott Diamond (Diamond works for Webber) on Benito, Dan, and Karen’s Motions. Judge Diamond granted their motions on December 5, 2003. Benito, Dan, and Karen were not present but they still won.

On February 17, 2004 an evidentiary hearing was held before Judge Webber. He granted the motion in their favor. Benito, Dan, and Karen were not present but they still won.

On June 11, 2004 Judge Albert G. Webber IV held an EVIDENTIARY hearing in his court on Benito DiTerlizzi’s Motion To Suspend [Amy Joan Schneider’s] Visitation. Again, Dan, Benito and Karen did not attend the June 11, 2004 evidentiary hearing but they still won.

On June 15, 2004 Judge Albert G. Webber IV GRANTED Benito DiTerlizzi’s motion and SUSPENDED the Mother Amy Joan Schneider’s visitation with her two Caucasian children who are being held in Texas by Dan and Karen Coates. I have copies of the motions if you want to see them.

The Macon County Illinois Court system was so corrupt that Karen Coates was able to foretell the eventual June 11, 2004 evidentiary hearing outcome regarding the Mother’s “visitation” with her children—18 months before it occurred. With hundreds of thousands of dollars spent, Karen’s prolific forecast was part of the record on January 14, 2003, in her sworn deposition.

Karen’s January 14, 2003 sworn deposition testimony this is what Karen had to say about “their mentally unstable mother”: “(Mother) Amy (Joan Schneider) is capable—a capable parent of Hailey and Eros” (African American) but that “I don’t think she should have regular visitation” with Kaela and Josh (Caucasian). Karen also testified, “I personally don’t believe that she should have more than one week of visitation. I personally prefer she have no court ordered visitation.”



Matt Hurley wrote: "And I don't recall ANYBODY saying that the Court found anything about when Amy Joan expressed interest in the custody of her children."
In response Amy Joan Schneider answers as follows:

My petition to terminate the guardianship was filed on August 28, 2002.

Paragraph16 of Associate Judge Scott B. Diamond's April 2, 2003 order:
“Amy Schneider filed a petition to terminate the guardianship. This was after she learned that Christine De Terlizzi had left a trust for the two children with about $550,000.00 in it.”

There have been direct allegations that I did not try to get my kids back until I found out about the trust fund. This is a very important point because Karen’s own sworn testimony shows that is wrong.

Karen's January 14, 2003 sworn deposition testimony, p. 37, line 15:

But Amy and I did talk about it. There was a day … August 14, I believe, about 5:45 in the afternoon, I had a conversation with her on my cell phone … when I talked with her on August 14, she – that was the first time that she said that she wanted to be considered … for guardianship of the children.

According to the Fourth District Appellate Court’s Opinion, Karen has a $600,000.00 incentive to keep the Mother Amy Joan Schneider’s children in HER home and serve as guardian:
Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court's March 30, 2004 Opinion:
…On August 17,2001, Christine died, leaving Benito as the sole guardian of K.E.S. and J.M.S. Christine's will named her other sister, Karen Coates, as the successor guardian of K.E.S. and J.M.S. in the event Benito was unable or unwilling to care for the children. The will also named Karen as successor trustee of a "$5-600,000.00" trust (estimates varied) established for the children's care if she were to become guardian

The whole thing is sadistic in a way. This incentive to Karen is the bottom line on the money controversy.

Under Illinois law, Karen should not be able to compete with any parent as long as the natural parent is willing and able:

Whether a nonparent petitioner may have the ability to provide a better environment for the child is not a factor to be considered where standing is in issue so long as the presumption that the natural parent is willing and able to care for the child remains unrebutted. In re Estate of Johnson, 284 Ill. App.3d 1080 (1996).

This is good law but was not considered. I did not have a petition to be named guardian pending at the time the trial court entered its order. The Appeals court only looked at my Petition to Terminate Guardianship and therefore applied the “change in circumstances" standard. Now I do have a petition to be named guardian. The question now is “whether or not Amy Joan Schneider is willing and able to care for the child.”

Comments (Page 1)
on Mar 25, 2005

Wow, the mother can't even visit the kids. is that right? Don't they need a Dr. to say if the mother is crazy?
on Mar 25, 2005

We are condemning an innocent woman to a fate we legislate against for even the lowliest of animals in florida.  We now see that judges can be as bigotted as they want, and steal from those that have just to further their own bigotted agenda.

I am afraid the American century is being swept into a sesspool of Judicial idiocy.  I am sorry I cannot impeach that creep.  I am only glad that I can in Va if it happens. 

How long is the MSM going to ignore this travesty?  Until it becomes a Liberal issue, and of that I am ashamed.  I hope he is impeached, and soon.

on Mar 26, 2005
This makes my stomach hurt. How did the sister get authority over the mother and her children?
on Mar 28, 2005
This woman is being totally screwed by Prince Albert G. Webber IV and his cronies. Yes, he is royalty in Decatur and the hell with the law. This guy was put in office by that supreme court justice over in Danville. Now regular folks have to be concerned about fighting it out for their own kids, gimme a break. We got crack people down here running around with their kids. This is bullshit, a waste of taxpayers money and I agree with that guy--Prince Albert should be thrown out on his ass.
on Mar 29, 2005
this judge is keeping the kids amd makes the other pay ehr sister child support. that is just wrong. if a parent owns a house and can raise theree kids she can raise 2 more. seems like this is againts the law and the jduge gives no reason for taking the children form their parent. just because the sister has lawyers she should not be able to keep this womans children like they are for sale.. lying to the kids, saying the mother hid from her kisds is something people say to kids to turn them agaisnt one of the parents. webber is a racist to split a family by race and keep people in court where they have to pay money. somebody has to take a lood at what the jduge is doing for money. the sister is treating the mother liek a kid. it is none of her business if the dr. says the nother is ok. i don't get it...who is watching the judge? who really ogot all the money?
on Mar 30, 2005
What have we come to in America; when a law abiding citizen is held hostage by a racist judge and his court without obvious or transparent reasons. Mrs Coates and and her weak allegations (above) against the natural parent amounts to nothing more than name calling. Without a legitimate diagnosis, and the judge finding this woman unfit somehow based on what Coates says should be a crime. Where is the protection of law?

We must then ask ourselves, who among us would be safe from this rogue judge and his well paid friends. Shame on the MSM for looking the other way. Matt Hurley and his blog provide the important but sickening facts of this case for us to see and learn reality. There are absolutely too many life altering questions unanswered here. The corruption behind the closed doors of our courts touches millions of Americans every day, including those who sleep comfortably in ignorant bliss. The Amy Joan Schneider case should serve as a wake up call. Viva Matt Hurley!
on Mar 30, 2005
This is a little of Judge Webber's history in Macon County (Decatur) Illinois.

See Albert G. Webber III and Albert G. Webber IV, the judge in the Amy Joan Schneider case. Click on link:


on Apr 01, 2005
We have been talking about this story at work. We all think that this family is very wierd and screwed up. The biggest concern is about the system that would let this happen to a person like the mother in this case. The judge "Prince Albert" (hee-hee-hee)... is whacked.

My oldest son (15) was killed in a car wreck. If we could somehow have him with us, even if he was like Terry Schiavo, I would just thank God. As a parent I know how it is to lose a child. You can not imagine if it has not happend to you. The Terry Schiavo case is tragic, and sadly that senerio is still playing out in too many families.

I draw a line between myself and Amy Joan Schneider. I have lost my son for ever and she is being needlessly tormented by this judge, her very sick sister and grandmother keeping her children away from her and their siblings. OK they are black, so what? Nobody can seem to say what she did to deserve to lose just 2 out of five of her children. And only the two white children? Come on.

It's interesting that the link above is talking about the Albert Webber family while this hypocrite jerk has reduced this woman to a desperate parent futilely fighting in court just to be with her own children, circa Terry Schiavo.

I first saw this story on the WMD Blog, Matt Hurley wrote several articles on this story. I posted a comment over there about the $211,000. spent against the mom in court. This Amy Joan Schneider story must not go un-noticed because of the broad reaching parental injustice. Like that one guy said AJS is no crack whore. And even crack people get to at least see their kids.
on Apr 01, 2005
The biggest concern is about the system that would let this happen to a person like the mother in this case.

SJ... A bad judge is a break down in one third of our total government. That's a serious matter.
on Apr 01, 2005
The biggest concern is about the system that would let this happen to a person like the mother in this case.

SJ... A bad judge is a break down in one third of our total government. That's a serious matter.
on Apr 01, 2005
This whole thing is just so screwed up that it's not funny. I think this judge should be:

1: forced from the bench altogether.

2: forced to seek mental help!

3: forced to give the children back to their mother.

Talk about being a racist and a bigot!
on Apr 01, 2005
Talk about being a racist and a bigot!

Frankly, I thought we as a society were past the race thing, especially in your face like this.
on Apr 01, 2005
Talk about being a racist and a bigot!

Frankly, I thought we as a society were past the race thing, especially in your face like this.

Guess not, huh?
on Apr 01, 2005
Well, when you throw in that kind of money, there are many cats that really end up showing their spots. Nearly a quarter million dollars and the unthinkible results of children being sold like chattle. This is a scandal.
on Apr 08, 2005
The whole thing is sickning. Parents under attack. Why is it that the Decatur IL courts are not explaining to the Parents why they are taking their children? Thats what they all seen to be complaining about.