Judge Allegedly Tries to Gag Former Amish Mother Over Medical Kidnap Story

Judge Nancy Vernon – Image Source. Contact Info.

by Health Impact News/Medical Kidnap.com staff

A woman identifying herself as Debora HOLCHIN has contacted Health Impact News stating that Judge Nancy Vernon has ordered that all photos and Internet stories about the Byler children in Pennsylvania are to be removed.

See our original story here:

Medical Kidnap of Children from Former Amish Mother Reveals History of Abuse in One Pennsylvania Amish Community

Our original story was published on December 11, 2016.

Ms. Holchin also supplied MedicalKidnap.com with a copy of the alleged court order, which is reproduced below. Elizabeth Mason is apparently the name of the former Amish mother before marrying her current husband, Rudy Byler.

Debora HOLCHIN is also apparently the woman referred to as “Betsy” in the original story. She stated to Health Impact News/MedicalKidnap.com:

This is a FALSE STORY. She was given a court order to get all of this off the internet Story & pictures it has also been turned over to the DA”s office… [sic]

Health Impact News has a healthy respect for the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, and the protected right to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

Supporters have set up a Facebook group that other supporters are welcome to join called Justice 4 the Bylers.

A petition to help Elizabeth get her children back, Non-Amish Woman Steals Children from Amish-Born Woman, is here.

The Governor of Pennsylvania is Tom Wolf at 717-772-2500. He can be contacted here. His Facebook page is here.

Here are the legislators for the Bylers’ district:

Senator Michelle Brooks is at 717-781-1322. She may be contacted here.

Representative Tedd Nesbit is at 717-783-6438. He may be contacted here.

Fayette County Children and Youth Services Director Gina D-Auria is at 724-430-1283. She may be contacted here.

Published on December 26, 2016

2 Comments

T June 17, 2017 at 3:09 pm - Reply

Seems these judges and CPS workers that insist stuff be taken off line have no idea how the internet works. This isn’t the only case I’ve heard tell of them demanding anything telling the truth about them be taken down. Anyone who’s had even a ‘free at the library’ class in computers and internet knows that once something is posted online it’s there forever. Even if it’s removed, it can still be accessed. archive.org has it’s ‘wayback machine’, and it’s not the only source that archives internet pages, just one of the biggest.

I’ve not met a teenager yet that hasn’t googled their own name, their parents, their grandparents, etc.

The workers, the judges, want the posts and pages taken down because it shows the world how they operate. Like a vampire hiding from the sun they are frightened of the truth coming out. They don’t want their own children to google their names and find this stuff, how would they explain to them ‘Mommy/daddy make a living by taking children away from their mommies and daddies using lies, false evidence, etc, all so we can make more money.’ Well, what about the families who are ripped apart? What will that child say when he/she gets old enough to google themselves or their parent’s names and find out what really happened? How is that child supposed to react when they learn their lives were ripped apart for lies and profit?

If workers and judges don’t want to see posts online exposing them, then they should stop destroying innocent families then there wouldn’t BE that damaging information to post.

Ohio Joe December 27, 2016 at 10:35 am - Reply

I can tell you right now that "order" is null and void.

The judge didn’t sign her name.

She didn’t state what her jurisdiction is/was.

She has therefore, no authority and should be arrested – but she won’t – if there were really a justice system anywhere near her.

In short, she’s just another "judge" perpetrating fraud amongst those who would like to have nothing to do with her.

Jurisdiction should be challenged. What right, office or power does she have over anyone? What is her office? and what does the DA therefore have any regard in this matter?

None.