National Center for Rights                                                                    Even if the children complain, who will listen?

Maryland State Police Trooper Brian Hanford Murphy is a dangerous Pedophile:

Judge McDonald has unlawfully removed Murphy from the Sex Offender Registry. McDonald is a suspect and defendant in the same pedophile ring.
The following images demonstrate Attorney General Holder and Attorney General Lynch's refusal to prosecute this child trafficking case. Their obstruction of justice is evident when they claim that there is not sufficient evidence to arrest Murphy for ANY crime.
Probable cause is established by:

1) a picture of the TESTIFYING abducted, transported, disrobed, handcuffed child in the Murphy bedroom who is testifying against Murphy for abuse to manufacture child pornography. The other sets of pictures cannot be shown here. The depict: 2) Murphy's erection and this child. 3) They depict compelled prostitution of the other unidentified children. 

4) Another five year old child complains of similar abuse. 

5) The police report demonstrating Murphy's receipt of depicted child sexual exploitation through Austria of a Crimean Child rescued by the Belgian Police. 

6) A video of the children's complaint, including where a five year old child that demonstrates the provocative sexual positions she assumed while being photographed in the Murphy bedroom.

7) Text from the child protection unit are detailed in the brief.

8) A third rescued child unrelated to the above two children who also identified Judge McDonald and Bennett. 

As noted above Murphy State Prosecutors brought to three more arraignment hearings and each was scuttled by Judge McDonald and his staff given Holder's office refused to charge Murphy.

The Abduction cases are subsequent to the case mentioned above see case numbers 
Maryland v. Brian Hanford Murphy 21K08040734 (Wash. County Cir. Ct. MD 2008
Brian Murphy Appellant V. Washington County Department Of Social Services
OAH No. DHR-Wash 51-07-38818 (Wash. County MD 2008)
Department Of Social Services V. Murphy, 21C08032004, (Wash. County Cir. Ct. MD June 2009)

So when Judge Battaglia, Bennett, McDonald and Burrell write that there is no evidence of Murphy being brought to court for child sexual exploitation and sex trafficking, or needing legal services, the obstruction of justice and official false statements to prevent the prosecution of Murphy is well demonstrated. 
This is a direct order to the Director of Child Protection that she cannot send the children to a Doctor for the performance of a rape kit, or a psychologist to provide care and further questioning as to the extent of the abuse. 
1) The judge was replaced at the last moment, 
2) The new Judge Wilkerson is married to Trooper Murphy's one of state police supervisors, 
3) This judge did not allow the children to testify as shown on the witness list. 
4) Wilkerson did not allow the video of the children's testimony in. (There was no objection from defense counsel.)
5) Wilkerson did not allow the photographs in as evidence as shown on the evidence list. (There was no objection from defense counsel.)
6) Wilkerson admitted prior out of court knowledge of Murphy. 
7) The prosecutor, Ms. Reif, is a private attorney who specializes in Title and Real Estate Transactions. She was appointed by McDonald's Office. She admitted on the record having no background in criminal law. However, she did present "probable cause"- "indicated evidence of child abuse" evidence to have Murphy arrested and the children sent to doctors for care and proper questioning. 

Ross was MRPC 6.2 Appointed (Court Ordered) off the prosecution team and ordered to serve as Murphy's Criminal Defense Counsel
The Director of Child Protection who has another confusing title for the role, threw such a fit in the hallway when she found out that the judge was married to Murphy's supervisor, had prior knowledge of the case, and refused to allow any of the evidence in that she caused this disturbance in the next room hallway. 

Unfortunately Ross and the child had to sue the agency in her name in order to compel the agency to do its job and void Judge Wilkerson and later Judge Beachley's misconduct. 
Every Judge Knows that the Director of Child Protection is entitled to a de novo hearing on the evidence and is permitted to submit new evidence of additional acts of child abuse. Judge Beachley's citation of the DMV law to claim that the hearing cannot proceed is clear misdirection. In addition Beachley substitutes the complaining children. 

The case of the six year of the child was resolved six weeks prior to the hearing before Wilkerson. So the "lewd" picture of the sister is actually the complaining child. If it seems that Ross is a little bit angry, you can see why. Should you not be angry too.   

The difficulty also comes from the fact that Ms. Barnes is supervised by Judge McDonald then Senior Counsel at the Attorney General's office whose office procured the above fraudulent pension for Murphy and extorted the children's attorney to resign.