Two schools. Two children. One loving mother—left completely in the dark.

---

This is the deeply disturbing and harrowing account of an incident that took place on May 1, 2025, in San Marcos, California—where heavily armed individuals allegedly posing as law enforcement—entered not one, but two public school campuses and attempted to abduct two siblings. They carried no lawful sui juris authority—no valid warrant, no court order, and no parental notification. Siblings, facing down armed strangers, without an attorney, and the school not on their side, had to act to protect their own rights.

At the center of the incident is their mother, Giselle Smiel, who has been fighting for years, not just for her children—but against an entire system designed to strip away due process of law and parental rights in the shadows. And she isn’t reeling over what occurred with her children. She’s enraged from this past week’s events and the lack of answers. So are her children. And so is anyone who dares to understand what this story really means about the collapsing safeguards around our children, schools, and families.

The schools involved were Mission Hills High School and Double Peak K–8 School, both part of the San Marcos Unified School District.

The individuals who appeared at the school were not confirmed sworn peace officers. Based on their conduct and lack of proper identification, they appear to be agents operating under the guise of law enforcement—most likely through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), a parallel legal structure increasingly embedded in family court systems. ADR agents often present themselves with authority, but unlike real officers, they operate outside the bounds of constitutional due process, enforcing private mandates under the color of law.

ADR is not law in the traditional sense. It replaces trials with tribunals, judges with administrative officers, and due process with policy-driven outcomes enforced by private contractors. In family court, ADR often overrides constitutional protections such as the right to a jury, the requirement of evidence, and the presumption of innocence. What’s left is a system of coercion masquerading as justice—one where agreements are treated as law and courtrooms resemble corporate boardrooms more than courts of record.

---

The Mission Hills High Intrusion: It Began with the Daughter

The ambush began at Mission Hills High School, where Giselle’s 15-year-old daughter was cornered by the assistant principal and pulled into a room—alone. Waiting inside was a group claiming to be from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Child Abduction Unit dressed in what appeared to be “police uniforms.”

They presented a script of lies:

“Your mom is going to jail.”
“She lied to you.”
“You’re going with your dad now.”

But none of it was true.

This was ADR in action—extrajudicial enforcement dressed up to look like justice. But it wasn’t law. It was coercion.

Unafraid, Giselle’s daughter held her ground. Taught by her mother how to assert her constitutionally protected rights, she refused to comply. She refused to be manipulated. She said the words no child should ever have to say:

“I DO NOT consent.”

---

The Double Peak Elementary Confrontation: The Son Was Targeted Next

Shortly after, the same operation commenced across town at Double Peak K–8 School, where Giselle’s 10-year-old son was similarly ambushed—this time near the school gate, where other students recorded the scene on their phones, wondering why that child was being targeted.

At least two individuals—armed and wearing jeans, dressed in what appeared to be police uniforms—recorded him with private cell phones, cornered him outside, and attempted to isolate him.

Again: no judicial warrant. No court order. No notice to his mother.

Despite the San Marcos Unified School District’s stated policy that ICE agents are not allowed on campus, these unsworn ADR contractors were freely allowed access to a minor child, a U.S. citizen. The school did not verify judicial documents, did not contact his mother, and did not require a federal court order—as they do for immigration enforcement.

Worse, it was the principal and vice principal of Double Peak who physically grabbed the child’s arm in an attempt to pull him to the office, further escalating the trauma. Multiple school officials witnessed the incident—because they had allowed the agents on campus, without proper verification and despite having no authority to remove the child or conduct questioning.

Giselle’s son resisted. He physically grabbed onto a light pole. And with his mother just arriving on the school grounds, following her son alerting her, and with a third-party witness on speakerphone, they reminded her son of his rights. He stood firm. He stated those exact words as his sister, that no child should ever have to say:

“I DO NOT consent.”

Again. And again. And again.

---

Who Is Ruby Kazmirske—and What Is Her Real Authority?

At the center of both school incidents was one common thread: Ruby Kazmirske—a woman whose role seems to change depending on the setting:

• Early April, at a previous visit to a parent’s home in Los Angeles County, Ruby was decked out in full tactical gear—vest, gun, radio, backup—where she and her team attempted to take a child from a mother named Maria. That incident was captured by the mother on her phone.
• At the schools in San Marcos, she donned a blazer, clipboard, cross around her neck, no ID, no badge—just vague threats and the claim, “I’m an investigator.”

Two roles. One woman. Multiple stories. Zero accountability.

She claims to be an investigator, yet never provides credentials backed by Article III or Article VI judicial authority.

What she brought that day: scripts, threats, manipulation—and a school district willing to cooperate.

---

This Wasn’t Law—This Was Performance

The system is the predator. Both schools failed to protect the children.

Worse—they aided in what amounted to an attempted kidnapping under the color of law.

By opening their doors to unsworn, unverified agents with no lawful authority, the schools became access points for administrative abduction.

The individuals who confronted the children were not sworn peace officers—they were policy contractors operating under the fraudulent structure of ADR. Their refusal to present valid warrants, provide identification, or follow lawful protocol made one thing clear: they couldn’t possibly be acting under legitimate law enforcement authority.

This is what ADR looks like in action—costumed authority figures enforcing private mandates without judicial oversight or public accountability.

These weren’t isolated events either. They are part of a larger, more terrifying trend: the growing use of non-sworn “investigators” who impersonate law enforcement, leverage the court system for private custody battles, and use schools as access points for unsanctioned removals.

This is what family court has become in California—and across the United States:

• No jury trial
• No due process of law
• No judicial oversight
• Just intimidation disguised as intervention

---

The Face of Family Court Fraud

Let’s say it plainly:

Family court has been replaced by an Alternative Dispute Resolution system.

ADR has replaced law.

Children are being targeted based on policy agendas, not judicial rulings.

This was not lawful custody enforcement.
This was coercion by contract, fraudulently enforced under the color of law.

And it nearly succeeded—until a mother and her children refused to participate in the lie.

---

A Mother’s Fight Against a Shadow System

Giselle states, “This is about a man who tried to choke me in front of my children—and got diversion. Now they send rogue agents to my kids’ schools because I’ve demanded a judicial and lawful process. ADR lets anyone with a clipboard and a lie walk onto a campus and try to take your child. That’s not law. That’s policy. That’s betrayal.”

Giselle has been warning families for years: “Don’t wait until it’s your turn. Learn your rights.”

---

Questions That Demand Answers

This incident raises several questions that need answers:

• Why were armed ADR agents allowed into two school campuses without a judicial warrant or a lawful court order?
• How are immigration officers banned from schools, but child abduction agents with no judicial authority are welcomed in?
• Why does the school district protect immigrants, but not U.S. citizens?
• Why did neither school notify Giselle Smiel before interrogating her minor children?
• Why are children being filmed by unverified strangers carrying firearms?
• Why is a person claiming to be Ruby Kazmirske allowed to impersonate multiple roles across jurisdictions, unchecked?
• Why are California public schools enabling this dangerous practice?
• What about the students who are no doubt left confused and traumatized over what was happening to their friends? 

---

If They Hadn’t Said “I Don’t Consent”…

Where would Giselle’s children be right now? Who would be held accountable? Would anyone even know what happened?

But they did, because their mother had taught them to ensure they knew their rights. She told them the one phrase that could save their lives:

“I do not consent.”

They repeated it. Refused to sign anything. Refused to go anywhere. They remembered: no engagement, no agreement, no compliance. Just:

I. Do. Not. Consent.

---

Accountability — Who Will Answer for This?

What happened to Giselle Smiel’s son wasn’t just traumatic. It was a direct violation of his rights—and those who enabled it must be held accountable.

The principal and vice principal at Double Peak Elementary School did more than just fail to protect a student. They physically laid hands on her son, attempting to force him into the school office at the request of armed strangers claiming authority they could not prove.

No warrant. No court order. No parent.

That alone should be grounds for immediate suspension and termination pending a full investigation.

In a world where schools are supposed to act as safety zones, what does it say when the very adults tasked with protecting children instead become agents of coercion? It wasn’t just neglect—it was complicity.

They allowed unverified adults—not sworn law enforcement—to corner a minor and use lies to psychologically break him down.

“Your mom’s going to jail.”
“She lied to you.”
“You’ll never see her again.”

These are not things police say to children.

These are tactics used to manipulate, isolate, and abduct.

And that’s precisely what they were trying to do.

These “investigators” wore guns, carried radios, and filmed children on their personal phones as they tried to talk their way through school doors.

If it weren’t so dangerous, it would be laughable.

But this isn’t a joke.

---

This Is the Warning Shot

This story isn’t just about one family — it’s a warning. The line between state protection and state overreach is no longer thin. It’s gone. Neither of the San Marcos schools protected the children they are entrusted with by the parents. School officials owe a duty of care to protect minors on campus. Allowing unverified agents to isolate, film, and attempt to remove children without notifying a parent is grounds for negligence.

If this can happen in San Marcos, it can happen anywhere.

The shadow system of ADR must be exposed. It is not law. It is a privately managed, AGREEMENT-enforced scheme that impersonates judicial authority while stripping families of their rights.

We must abolish the unconstitutional ADR architecture, defund the private actors behind it, and restore due process of law for all families.

Because if we don’t:
No child is safe.
And no parent is free.

📢Contact your local school board. Demand transparency. Insist that no child is removed from campus without verified judicial oversight and a lawful warrant. Your children’s future depends on it.