Response to Petition Read

So I got this lawyer's response to my petition and she has basically said the same thing she said last time. There is no mention of the fact that my daughter was REMOVED from my home, no response to the fact that Clark v. Wade is premised upon the parent-child relationship or that it distinguishes between a reunification case and a removal case. She keeps focusing on the fact that my daughter was "living" with her grandparents and once again, has not addressed the fact that they broke a criminal statute when they threw my ex out of their home and kept our child or failed to inform me that the he was gone. She has even re-cited the two cases that I've pointed out have clearly been overruled: In re Brandon LE, 183 W.Va. 113 (1983) to Clifford K. v. Paul S. ex rel. Z.B.S., 217 W. Va. 625 (W. Va. 2005) and Gazaway v. Brackett, 244 S.E.2d 238 (1978) has been overruled to Durden v. Barron, 290 S.E.2d 923 (1982). I know for sure now that she has not read one single case that I've cited probably because I'm "Pro Se" and can't possibly look up and articulate a valid argument from a case, even though she is fully aware that I'm a paralegal or maybe because she isn't sweating it, because she's knows she already has it in the bag. Gazaway v. Brackett is the case that says it's okay to replace a parent's parental rights with visitation. She makes the point that I supposedly have ample visitation (from 1,000 miles away) so supposedly my parental rights weren't terminated,  but she is careful not to address the fact that Gazaway v. Brackett has been overruled and replaced and is no longer "good law" and steers completely clear of the fact that I was a CUSTODIAL parent and NO, you cannot replace the rights of a CUSTODIAL PARENT WITH VISITATION. She also cites all over again, the final elements of the best interest standard, including element three which has been overruled from: (3)have the competing parties evidenced interest in and contact with, the child over time, In re Brandon LE, 183 W.Va. 113 (1983),  to (3) has the parent consented to the third party having custody of the child and is the parent unfit., Clifford K. v. Paul S. ex rel. Z.B.S., 217 W. Va. 625 (W. Va. 2005) . Instead of citing case law to refute the case law I've cited, she is simply telling her own story that she would like the court to believe. This is not a response as she has responded to NOTHING I've said and none of my arguments, but then again- maybe once again that won't matter. We'll see.
She has asserted that my Certiorari shouldn't be granted because my case isn't of grave importance to the public. I guess it isn't important that the remaining mothers and fathers of Georgia- or America, keep their constitutional rights to their children intact and it isn't important that people be prevented from abducting children and then filing for custody.
I shouldn't be ASKING for a review in the first place. I had a right to a review by the Court of Appeals and they did everything in their power to deny that right. This is why the Grand Jury needs to be returned to the public. If these judges were held accountable for their crimes and corruption, there wouldn't be anymore cases like this one.
Oh yea, and now she's claiming that ALL FIVE OF THE MOTIONS were ruled upon and not just the Motion to Dismiss but cites to NO SUCH ORDERS IN THE RECORD. Instead she cites to the final order...um...no. Again, if there is no written order in the record- he didn't rule. This is what happens when lies and deceit catches up to you. You try to clean it up, but have you ever tried to clean up a flood?