Conspirators Leading All the Way to the Supreme Court


An appeal is when you ask one court to show its contempt for another court. It just ain’t gonna happen folks! They are simply all in cahoots in this fraud.

We are on our own.  The agencies and elected officials that should be jumping to our defense are sitting idly by watching the deterioration of the very core of our nation.  It occurs to me that when the law enforcement and judicial systems break down to this extent, we are witnessing government sanctioned anarchy. ~Marti Oakley




Project Veritas: Twitter Release 3 (live)

Before you watch Part III of our investigation into Twitter, I have to warn you that the discussions held by these Twitter employees IS NOT family friendly.

If you’re at the office, turn down your speakers or put on your headphones.

If the children are in the room, ask them to cover their ears.

With that warning out of the way, here’s what you should be really worried about . . .

If you have held a private conversation on Twitter, and possibly any other social platform, your conversation was NOT private.

Even if you deleted sensitive discussions you held privately online, not only are they still there, the information you discussed — attached to your personal profile — is being traded like a commodity.

Have you discussed personal family matters with others over private messages?
Have you talked about your health or the diagnosis of a loved one?
Have your vented relationship challenges to a close friend?
Have you expressed intimate sentiments to your spouse or partner?

If you’ve done any of those things, and again, even if those messages have been deleted, they are now attached to your personal “virtual profile” and bought and sold thousands of times over.

As one Twitter employee called it, “it’s creepy big brother.”

Twitter has over 300 million users across the world and in essence has turned itself into a giant database of virtual personalities with preferences, likes and dislikes all attached to each and every one of us . . . . even if you don’t use Twitter!

Clay Haynes, Twitter’s Senior Network Security Engineer, admits that “You leak way more information than you think… Like, if you go to Twitter for the first time, we have information about you.”

I’d guess that 99.8% of people never read Twitters terms and conditions, and those that do have a 99.9% chance of not understanding the depth and implications of them.

That’s why, as an avid Twitter user myself, I was shocked to hear what is really going on behind the closed doors of this tech giant.

Watch this video and tell others to do so, and we will wait and see how Twitter responds to this one.

Our video is already being featured at the top of the Drudge Report site, which has had over 890 million site visitors over the past 30 days alone.

Thanks again for everything and as always . . . stay tuned.

In Truth,

James O’Keefe
Project Veritas

Can I count on you? Please pitch in your most generous contribution to Project Veritas right away:Project Veritas has exposed a shocking culture of bias and censorship inside Twitter — but we can’t make sure this story reaches the American people without your immediate help.

Unlike the tech companies, we aren't owned by billionaires.
Unlike the mainstream media, we don't have major Wall Street advertisers.
Please support our work with a small gift today.

Part II

Engineers To “Ban a Way of Talking” Through “Shadow Banning,” Algorithms to Censor Opposing Political Opinions

 by Staff Report  January 11, 2018

Steven Pierre, Twitter engineer explains “shadow banning,” says “it’s going to ban a way of talking”
Former Twitter software engineer Abhinav Vadrevu on shadow banning: “they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it”
Former Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Norai explains banning process: “if it was a pro-Trump thing and I’m anti-Trump… I banned his whole account… it’s at your discretion”
When asked if banning process was an unwritten rule, Norai adds “Very. A lot of unwritten rules… It was never written it was more said”
Olinda Hassan, Policy Manager for Twitter Trust and Safety explains, “we’re trying to ‘down rank’… shitty people to not show up,” “we’re working [that] on right now”
“Shadow banning” to be used to stealthily target political views- former Twitter engineer says, “that’s a thing”
Censorship of certain political viewpoints to be automated via “machine learning” according to Twitter software engineer
Parnay Singh, Twitter Direct Messaging Engineer, on machine learning algorithms, “you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck…” “the majority of it are for Republicans”

(San Francisco) In the latest undercover Project Veritas video investigation, current and former Twitter employees are on camera explaining steps the social media giant is taking to censor political content that they don’t like.

This video release follows the first undercover Twitter exposé Project Veritas released on January 10th which showed Twitter Senior Network Security Engineer Clay Haynes saying that Twitter is “more than happy to help the Department of Justice with their little [President Donald Trump] investigation.” Twitter responded to the video with a statement shortly after that release, stating “the individual depicted in this video was speaking in a personal capacity and does not represent of speak for Twitter.” The video released by Project Veritas today features eight employees, and a Project Veritas spokesman said there are more videos featuring additional employees coming.

On January 3rd 2018 at a San Francisco restaurant, Abhinov Vadrevu, a former Twitter Software Engineer explains a strategy, called “shadow banning,” that to his knowledge, Twitter has employed:

“One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting and no one sees their content. So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it.”

Twitter is in the process of automating censorship and banning, says Twitter Software Engineer Steven Pierre on December 8th of 2017:

“Every single conversation is going to be rated by a machine and the machine is going to say whether or not it’s a positive thing or a negative thing. And whether it’s positive or negative doesn’t (inaudible), it’s more like if somebody’s being aggressive or not. Right? Somebody’s just cursing at somebody, whatever, whatever. They may have point, but it will just vanish… It’s not going to ban the mindset, it’s going to ban, like, a way of talking.”

Olinda Hassan, a Policy Manager for Twitter’s Trust and Safety team explains on December 15th, 2017 at a Twitter holiday party that the development of a system of “down ranking” “shitty people” is in the works:

“Yeah. That’s something we’re working on. It’s something we’re working on. We’re trying to get the shitty people to not show up. It’s a product thing we’re working on right now.”

Former Twitter Engineer Conrado Miranda confirms on December 1st, 2017 that tools are already in place to censor pro-Trump or conservative content on the platform. When asked whether or not these capabilities exist, Miranda says, “that’s a thing.”

Unlike the tech companies, we aren't owned by billionaires.
Unlike the mainstream media, we don't have major Wall Street advertisers.
Please support our work with a small gift today.

In a conversation with former Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Norai on May 16th, 2017, we learned that in the past Twitter would manually ban or censor Pro-Trump or conservative content. When asked about the process of banning accounts, Norai said, “On stuff like that it was more discretion on your view point, I guess how you felt about a particular matter…”

When asked to clarify if that process was automated Norai confirmed that it was not:

“Yeah, if they said this is: ‘Pro-Trump’ I don’t want it because it offends me, this, that. And I say I banned this whole thing, and it goes over here and they are like, ‘Oh you know what? I don’t like it too. You know what? Mo’s right, let’s go, let’s carry on, what’s next?’”

Norai also revealed that more left-leaning content would go through their selection process with less political scrutiny, “It would come through checked and then I would be like ‘Oh you know what? This is okay. Let it go.’”

Norai explains that this selection process wasn’t exactly Twitter policy, but rather they were following unwritten rules from the top:

“A lot of unwritten rules, and being that we’re in San Francisco, we’re in California, very liberal, a very blue state. You had to be… I mean as a company you can’t really say it because it would make you look bad, but behind closed doors are lots of rules.”

“There was, I would say… Twitter was probably about 90% Anti-Trump, maybe 99% Anti-Trump.”

At a San Francisco bar on January 5th, Pranay Singh details how the shadow-banning algorithms targeting right-leaning are engineered:

“Yeah you look for Trump, or America, and you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck. Then you look and parse all the messages, all the pictures, and then you look for stuff that matches that stuff.”

When asked if the majority of the algorithms are targeted against conservative or liberal users of Twitter, Singh said, “I would say majority of it are for Republicans.”

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe believes the power over speech Silicon Valley tech giants has is unprecedented and dangerous:

“What kind of world do we live in where computer engineers are the gatekeepers of the ‘way people talk?’ This investigation brings forth information of profound public importance that educates people about how free they really are to express their views online.”

Project Veritas plans to release more undercover video from within Twitter in the coming days.

Mr. O’Keefe has just completed a book about this series entitled “AMERICAN PRAVDA: My fight for Truth in the Era of Fake News.” The book will be released by St. Martin’s Press on January 16, 2018.

Pre-order James O’Keefe’s new book – a treatise on modern media, a true crime spy thriller, and a rollicking adventure story. Follow James and his undercover journalists as they expose mainstream media outlets like CNN and the New York Times and reveal dirty political tricks during the 2016 national elections.

Part I

UNDERCOVER VIDEO: Sr Network Security Engineer Reveals Twitter Ready to Give Trump’s Private DMs to DOJ

Undercover Video of Twitter Engineer Clay Haynes Saying “We’re more than happy to help the DOJ with their little investigation”
Content Disclosed to DOJ Includes: “Even the ones he’s deleted, any direct messages”
Engineer is Self-Proclaimed “Bleeding-Heart Liberal” Stating “It comes with the territory [at Twitter]”
Goes on to Explain Additional “Big Brotherish” Practices at Twitter

(San Francisco) A Project Veritas undercover investigation has revealed a senior network security engineer at Twitter stating that his company is “more than happy” to turn over the private communications and deleted tweets of President Donald Trump to the Department of Justice. If true, it is yet unknown whether Twitter is voluntarily disclosing this sensitive information or acting under a court order. Twitter is currently in the midst of defending itself from left-leaning criticism that President Trump hasn’t been removed from the enormous media platform for violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service.


From The Archives

Long custody battle produces guilty verdict

by Richard Crawford
6 years ago | 8724 views | 13 13 comments | 6 6 recommendations | email to a friend |

A group, including Lauren Rice, at right, and Lea Banken light candles outside the Carver County Courthouse in Chaska on Tuesday. Organizers said the vigil was for Caroline Rice and victims of injustice. Rice is being held in Carver County Jail and is awaiting sentencing.

A long-running custody battle involving a Chanhassen family produced a guilty verdict from a Carver County jury Dec. 23.

The jury found Caroline Rice, 46, guilty of three counts of depriving her estranged husband of parental rights.

Caroline Rice and Brent Rice, of Chanhassen, have a lengthy litigation history in Hennepin County and Carver County. The cou-ple divorced in 2004 and custody battles have been ongoing regarding their five children.

Caroline Rice was charged with deprivation of parental rights as a result of an incident in the fall of 2010, in which their 13-year-old daughter, Annelise, who was in legal custody of Brent Rice, ran away from home for nearly a month and was found, along with Caroline Rice, after crossing the Canadian border back into the United States.

Rice is expected to be held in Carver County Jail until her sentencing, which has yet to be scheduled. Her daughter Lauren, who testified in support of her mother during the trial, said an appeal is likely. Lauren Rice, 19, who is enrolled at the University of San Diego, testified on her mother’s behalf. She was accepted to the U.S. Military Academy, but said she chose not to attend to help her mother with her legal battles.

The seven-day trial, which began Dec. 14, took many twists and turns. Caroline Rice chose to represent herself after previously dismissing private attorneys and a public defender. The initial jury was dismissed after an inadvertent judicial procedural error.

Several people were dismissed from the public gallery during the trial for inappropriate behavior. Several residents affiliated with a website called carvercountycorruption have supported Caroline Rice.

During the course of the trial, Rice took issue with testimony provided by social workers and other legal professionals regarding their involvement with the Rice children. Caroline Rice also testified that she feared for her children’s safety with their father. In the past several years, there have been restraining orders against both Caroline and Brent Rice.

Caroline Rice testified that she didn’t plan for her youngest daughter to run away from her father’s home, and that she wasn’t prepared for her to run away.

According to the official county complaint, on Oct. 31, 2010, Annelise Rice, who was 13 at the time, contacted a woman, who in-structed Annelise to meet somebody at Cub Foods on Highway 7 and Highway 41. This person drove for the day and Annelise spent the night at a stranger’s home.

The next day another stranger drove her to the home of yet another stranger and this continued until she arrived in Michigan. At trial, Annelise said she didn’t know the people who took her to Michigan.

Once in Michigan, she met up with her older sister, Lauren, who eventually took her to meet up with their mother inside Canada.

During the trial, border authorities testified regarding the incident. When they crossed back over the border into the United States, Annelise and Lauren came separately. When Caroline Rice followed, she told border officials she was in Canada with her daughters to explore refugee status. She was held in a holding cell for six days by border authorities who contacted the Carver County Sheriff’s Office.

During the trial, testimony was taken from Brent Rice, several of the Rice children, and social workers and law enforcement offi-cials involved with the fall 2010 incident.

Annelise Rice testified that she ran away on her own because she wanted to see her mother and she had run away on prior occasions, including one time when she fled a foster home.

Jurors also heard testimony regarding a confrontation at the Rice home that prompted Annelise and her older sister Christina to run away to their grandparent’s home.

On the final day of the trial, county social worker Carol Cole said Caroline Rice didn’t follow through with supervised therapy sessions with Annelise and that Caroline Rice had undermined the therapy sessions by filing complaints.

Brent Rice, county social workers and a school counselor indicated that since returning from the fall 2010 incident Annelise has been doing well socially and at school.

On Dec. 22, the jury deliberated for about four hours before finding Caroline Rice guilty of three counts of depriving parental rights. The first count was for “causing or contributing” to someone being a runaway. The second count was for concealing a child from a custodial parent, and the third was for not immediately returning a missing child.

The presumptive sentence for depriving parental rights is a year and a day in jail.

Assistant County Attorney Peter Ivy, who prosecuted the case, referred to it as a low-level felony. He said after the verdict was announced, the guilty finding was significant and validated that representatives of social services, child-protection workers and legal professionals have been “acting in the best interest of the children.”

The state had offered a settlement in advance of the trial that was denied.

Judge Richard Perkins had to excuse the sitting jury on several occasions to reinforce legal protocol and dozens of objections were registered by Ivy.

After the verdict, Judge Perkins cited Rice’s history of avoiding services, court appointments and her crime that involved leaving the country as grounds for holding her in jail until sentencing.

Lauren Rice said efforts are under way to get her mother out of Carver County Jail. She joined a group on Tuesday night holding a candlelight vigil outside the Carver County courthouse and jail, where Caroline Rice is being held.


From a Women Hater Fathers’ Rights Group 

Fathers Rights Upheld By Clear Minded Minnesota Court…Mom Gets 3 Felony Convictions

Fathers’ rights principles came out the winner in a long and drawn out Minnesota custody battle which ended with a verdict that squarely supported fathers custody rights and left a town, two counties, and the families involved who were unnecessarily  desperately divided and essentially torn to shreds.

One woman, egged on, no doubt, by hysterical sexist supporters (male and female), put up the fight of her life with a ‘ law, consequences, and pain be damned ‘ attitude and lost her bid for judicial support in her quest to force her own reality construct on the court and her former mate.   Her position apparently was that fathers rights to see children are subordinate to those asserted by the mother, if they exist at all!  As runner up in this absurd fight, she came away with 3 felony convictions, as she well should have!  Moms beware — joint parenting rights are alive and well!

Fortunately this clear minded judge, correctly, did not view this case as being about any sexist issues but rather a simple matter of whether or not the criminal defendant (the mother) actively and knowingly deprived her former husband of his parental rights.

Society appears to be getting the message that if you mess with the parental rights of fathers to the extent that the children are denied the benefits of their dad, all of society suffers. 

Parents (mothers in particular) need to take careful note that the big loser in this case was the mom.  She has lost her liberty and is facing the loss of more; she is a convicted felon – losing rights connected therewith; she has economically self destructed; she lost her marriage which at one time had potentially incalculable short and long term benefits ; she has wrongfully manipulated the alienated children’s natural affections for their father; she has socially damaged her children; she has selfishly deprived them of a safe nurturing home environment and the love and affection of their father.

All of that aside, it is this writer’s opinion that she should not be allowed to keep her nurse’s license because she is unable to distinguish or control the exercise of her feelings, likes, and opinions from the wisdom and  rigidity of the law.

Fathers Rights Supporters Send Huge “Thanks” To The Father

And, lastly, a huge “thank you” to the father in this case for standing up to the ferocious and devastating attack on his parental and fathers rights, in the face of  tremendous personal economic costs!  Hopefully, the children will in time understand their father and will insist on their mother’s contrition and soundly  reject her “poor me, victim” psychology”.

Appellant Caroline Marie Rice challenges her conviction of three counts of deprivation of parental rights in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.26, subd. 1 (2010). 2

Because the cumulative effect of various evidentiary rulings, an erroneous jury instruction, and prejudicial judicial conduct deprived appellant of her due process right to a fair trial, we reverse appellant’s convictions and remand for a new trial.

Read Appeal In Its Entirety Here:


It’s easy to spot the heavily funded abusive fathers’ rights groups because a good father, good man or good woman would never write an article like the one above. The biggest hypocisy is always applauding judges who remove mothers from their children’s lives and cheering for false convictions and imprisonment. These people are not promoting shared parenting, they are promoting motherless children.Come on, there was never a plan to reunite Sandra Grazzini-Rucki with her children. She also didn’t choose to not see her other three children. Sandra was threatened with incarceration if she would have attempted to have contact with them like so many others that are alienated from their children by the courts.

Also, if everyone was so concerned about helping this family, they would have listened to the kids from the beginning. Flipping the narrative is the name of the game and Red Herring Alert will be addressing the root of the financial corruption scheme that calls for diverting grant program funding through “high conflict” cases in upcoming posts.

Elder Abuse And Child Abuse Have The Same Court Players

Woman Refuses To Give Up List Of Fellow Activists, Gets Three Years

By Janet Phelan

The plea offer was clear: Give up the names of your fellow internet activists who are blogging about guardianship abuse and you get a “Get out of Jail Now” card.

The plea offer, which embattled litigant and guardianship reform activist Barbara Stone refused on January 8 in a hearing in Miami Dade Court, reflected the idea that, according to her attorney AJ Amoroso, the prosecution believes that there is a “Mafia” of unknown bloggers who are putting up websites and otherwise engaged in social media efforts to expose problematic guardianships.

“I don’t think there are secret meetings or like a secret society engaged in this,” said a somewhat puzzled Amoroso, who as a criminal defense attorney confessed little knowledge of the machinations going on in probate court, machinations which bloggers, unidentified as The “Mafia” simile was scoffed at by a guardianship activist from Tucson. “The Mafia has money,” she said. “We don’t have any money. We just have dead relatives.”

In refusing to give up the names of the partisans, oops, I mean the other individuals who are regularly posting about how adult guardianships have resulted in the wholesale liquidation of estates as well as — all too often — the untimely death of the elderly or disabled ward, Barbara Stone lost any mitigation in sentencing and was then sentenced to thirty months in prison by Judge Tim Bailey. Following release from prison, she must then serve six months of a contempt of court sentence levied by the guardianship court judge, Michael Genden.

Stone’s saga began in 2013, when, alarmed at the condition of her mother in a facility into which she had been remanded by her court-appointed guardian, Jacqueline Hertz, Barbara took Helen Stone out of the facility and to lunch at a nearby Denny’s. Barbara was then arrested and charged with a multitude of crimes, including custody interference, elder abuse and kidnapping.

Only the custody interference stuck, a felony which carries a potential five year prison sentence. Barbara was offered a plea agreement but something went wrong in the mix and in August of 2016 she was apparently hit with a contempt of court charge by Judge Michael Genden. At that point Barbara Stone, who had already served substantial time in jail for feeding her mother, jumped probation and took off.

Continue Reading:


Activist Alert-Lawyer Activist Barbara Stone complains about judges and lawyers abusing the elderly in guardianship and gets arrested and disbarred


From Ken Ditkowsky-the Barbara Stone case is a horror show-demand her immediate release today

Time’s Almost Up To Have Your Voice Heard On GALs

April 07, 2017 01:03 PM

A legislative commission on Thursday approved several state programs it would like the Legislative Auditor to evaluate, including the health department’s Office of Health Facility Complaints and the Minnesota Guardian ad Litem program, both subjects of 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Investigations in November.

The Office of the Legislative Auditor said its evaluation will look into management, governance, oversight and processes of specific program areas.

Excerpt: Guardians Ad Litem Review

The Legislative Auditor plans to review the Guardians ad litem program, which advocates for children and vulnerable adults in the legal system.

According to OLA documents, the state has made frequent changes to the program’s governance, management, and funding over the past 20 years.

“As the GAL board and program staff are committed to continuous improvement in providing services to children, we welcome the opportunity to work with the Legislative Auditor,” a state program spokeswoman wrote in an email to 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS.

The OLA plans to review the board’s policies, procedures and program standards while surveying judges, attorneys, and families about their experiences working with those in the program.

In November, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS reporter Katherine Johnson exposed that some children in the system have had their wishes ignored by their guardian ad litem.

RELATED: Guardian ad Litem Board Works to Improve Complaint Process

Since the story aired, KSTP has received countless tips from families who feel their assigned guardian ad litem failed them.

“Despite efforts to improve oversights, concerns remain about the quality of guardian ad litem services,” the OLA wrote to House and Senate members earlier this week.

The OLA program reviews are expected to be completed by January or February. (2018)

If you want to provide written comments regarding the GAL program or ideas for improvement, contact Jodi Munson Rodríguez, the program evaluation manager. You may reach her at

Related image
Information below is from a MN parent that has been subjected to the evils of the family court system.
The GAL program and those collateral’s profiting off family court orders often name and handpick therapists in their recommendations. That is RICO by definition. If you want your kids back you pay to play. 
They use the legal system to make you destitute and take the kids. This is textbook and the dim witted or malicious or both GALs side with the abuser. 
The audit of the GAL program is closing soon and now is your chance to speak out about the effect GAL’s have had on your family and the reasons this program needs to be dismantled.
Please flood Jodi’s inbox with your very specific examples of how they are ruining your relationships and limiting your contact with your children,
Provide examples of them using therapeutic terminology, false reporting, no accountability when you complained, rubber stamping recommendations, refusal to retract when details were verified false, lies, etc.
Please share this with any parent in Minnesota harmed by a guardian and their lack of accountability from the top down.

Image result for guardian ad litem memes


Federal lawsuit filed to dismantle Lackawanna County’s guardian ad litem system


First Amendment Court Case #19AV-CR-17-16709

Contrary to the false tweets put out by Michael Brodkorb, I did have my pre-trial hearing for my false harassment restraining order (HRO) violation. This was not a hearing related to additional criminal charges and in fact, I still have not received documentation regarding these “new charges”. Brodkorb always seems to have the inside scoop as to what’s going down before I’m ever notified.  Hmmmm……


Michael Brodkorb: “At the hearing on December 13, 2017, Elliott said that Evavold’s post published the private address of the Rucki family on a platform with a “dangerous” audience. Evavold did not respond to Elliott’s claims in court, but Judge Kanning said he would grant the motion filed by Elliott.”
Judge Asphaug presided over yesterday’s hearing and indicated that the motion hearing to vacate the harassment restraining order will take place prior to any further hearings. This is the same judge that signed the ex-parte harassment restraining order against me for my crime of referencing the petitioner    on this blog and presided over our “Parental Deprivation” cases.
Click to view: Supreme Court Petition
BTW, I’ve NEVER had an HRO against me, but petitioner has had several filed against him as well as an endless stream of police reports, CPS reports, letters, and orders for protection.
Below are examples of petitioner’s patterns of behavior that he is empowered to continue due to the cover-up by law enforcement, attorneys and judges.



(Double click to zoom)






The above case was in front of  none other than Judge Karen Asphaug and prosecuted by Elliot Knetsch who is now prosecuting me.  A preliminary hearing was held on December 31, 2009 and as a result of the hearing, a trial was scheduled for February 8, 2010. On the eve of the trial, the defense filed a motion to dismiss for “lack of probable cause.” That motion was granted without a hearing by Judge Asphaug and the case was thrown out.

Image result for save the date

My free speech hearing is scheduled for March 14th at the Dakota County Western Service Center in Apple Valley.


 Dakota County Western Service Center
Dakota County Western Service Center in Apple Valley, MN.14955 Galaxie Ave. West
Apple Valley, MN 55124






Actress says Oprah duped her into thinking Weinstein would help her career