Ortman requests review of county’s family court    

Posted: Wednesday, April 18, 2012                                                                                                     

By Richard Crawford

Julianne Ortman
State Sen. Julianne Ortman is asking top court officials to undertake a comprehensive review of family court cases in the First Judicial District, especially those originating in Carver County.

In a letter dated April 17 to Lorie Skjerven Gildea, chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, and Sue Dosal, Minnesota State Court administrator, Ortman calls for the review to commence prior to the adjournment of the Legislature.

In her letter, Ortman, a Chanhassen Republican who serves as Senate deputy majority leader, said concerns about recent court cases have made their way to St. Paul.

“The examples and controversies now being brought to the attention of members of the Legislature have cast a shadow of injustice over our courts,” according to Ortman’s letter, “and questions as to whether there is some systemic problem. Your thorough review, investigation and report is needed before residents of my community all will again have confidence that disputes in family court are being managed in an impartial manner.”

The letter specifically asks for investigation of processes and procedures for recommending and determining child protection issues, child custody and visitation issues and child support payments.

Lea Banken, who has been involved with a recent high-visibility custody case in the county, said she was delighted when Ortman handed her a copy of the letter on April 17 at the state Capitol. Banken has been attending legislative hearings this session pushing for judicial reform.

Banken’s former husband was awarded custody of their three young children and she said it’s been “nearly impossible” to see them. Banken said she has little money in the wake of the custody battle and the court requires her to take another psychological evaluation and pay $100 per hour to visit her children. She said she’s taken two psychological evaluations in the past two years that revealed no problems.

Banken also was a founder of a website blog – called Carver County Corruption – that has included information on her case as well as others in Carver County. The blog has become a sidebar issue to her custody case as Carver County Judge Richard Perkins has attempted to have Banken take portions of the blog down.

Banken’s custody case is expected to be heard in appeals court this summer.

At a Banken court hearing on Feb. 9, state Rep. Ernie Leidiger, of Mayer, was in attendance and he has expressed concerns about freedom-of-speech issues as well as mothers’ ability to see their children. Leidiger has signed on to Ortman’s letter requesting a review of the family court system. Rep. Joe Hoppe, of Chaska, has also signed the letter as well as other legislators, according to Ortman.

Besides the Banken case, there have been several other recent custody battles in Carver County. However, Ortman’s letter doesn’t mention any specific cases.

On April 18, Ortman emphasized that her concerns don’t apply to any one person or any one case.

“As you may be aware,” Ortman’s letter said, “concerns about these issues, and perceived administrative and judicial bias, have been raised by numerous participants recently, but you may not be aware that these issues and concerns have long persisted – actually, similar concerns have been raised in my community for over a dozen years.”

Prior to being elected to the Legislature, where she has served on the Senate Judiciary Committee since 2003, Ortman served on the Carver County Board. She has been an attorney for more than 20 years.

During her time in the Legislature, Ortman said she wasn’t aware of a similar request to have a review of specific court proceedings.

Carver County is one of seven counties in the First Judicial District. Carver County Court is a court of general jurisdiction with four resident judges who hear all types of cases including criminal, family, civil, juvenile, probate and conciliation court.

In 2011, there were more than 642 family court cases in Carver County, according to court records.

Read Julianne Ortman’s Letter Below

(Click to enlarge)

OrtmanOrtman 2

Family Court Matter                                                        

Posted: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 8:43 pm | Updated: 10:20 am, Thu May 3, 2012.

By Richard Crawford Chanhassen Villager



  1. the state courts cases that where heard in those non compliant administrative family courts are not even real courts but a criminal action involved in RICO and RACKETEERING incidents and those JUDGES, and ATTORNEYS involved in such CRIMINAL action after cases go through FEDERAL COURTS can and will lose their PRIVILEGE to serve in their current position and their right to practice law will and can be REVOKED by the actions of their VICTIMS across this great nation which there alone parents with even closed cases can get their cases investigated for JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT and get their closed cases reviewed , and judgement over turned and children returned Google US courts and forms for civil case anyone can file anyone can establish their own case and due to the fact these CPS case are Administrative courts and are non compliant to Judicial rules they are already in several violations of conflict of interest which is JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT which is grounds for every case to be reviewed and over ruled when an injunction is implied
    RICO and Racketeering every CPS case is criminal intent to defraud the federal government funding if parents have not been charged with neglect or abuse the state workers and foster parents even manipulate the court by their fake cry acts , talk of desperate criminals that have to resort to crying on the stand pretending to worry about children and judges are stupid enough to fall far these pitiful acts , when has a court become a stage for pathetic criminal actors that puit on a play for profit, and yes families have the CD to verify these action by state officials and placement providers, COMPLAINT (42 U.S.C. § 1983 Interference with Parental Rights, Retaliation, Privacy and Racketeering) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 RETALIATION AND INVASION OF PRIVACY, INTERFERENCE WITH PARENTAL RIGHTS AND TORT OF INVASION OF PRIVACY)
    The allegations set forth above are fully incorporated herein by this
    …This allegation involves the acts of those Defendants who stopped
    reunification of child /children in case _____________
    The above actions constitutes a scheme or artifice to defraud Plaintiffs of custody of ___________ __________ to damage or eliminate Plaintiffs claims against Defendants set forth in this litigation by manipulating _______________into believing the mother had drugs in system which was later proven fraud and falsified, that court needed to protect _________ and to make false allegations of abuse to assure termination of Plaintiffs parental rights in both cases
    … Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs parental interest in biological children constitutes a property interest that Defendants knowingly and intentionally schemed to deprive Plaintiffs of by manufacturing false allegations of physical and potential sexual abuse.
    . This racketeering count, based on the facts set forth above, is brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962, with the predicate offenses of scheme or artifice to defraud pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1962(c), retaliation against a witness ( 18 U.S.C. §1513(e) and witness tampering (CR) 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b).
    … Plaintiffs incorporates herein all the preceding numbered paragraphs as
    though fully set forth herein.
    … By reason of the aforesaid circumstances and events, the Racketeering
    Defendants, together and with the known and unknown, unlawfully conspired together
    and otherwise acted, and are currently conspiring together and otherwise are acting, in
    such manner as to violate the provision of Title 18 USC 1962(a) and Title 18 USC
    1962 (c) in violation of Title 18 USC 1962 (d).
    … By reason of Defendants conspiring to violate said provisions of 18 USC
    the Plaintiffs (a) have monetarily injured in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, the
    precise amount of which is presently unknown and will be proved at trial and
    (b)continue to be damaged and hurt by the illegal acts
    … Plaintiff incorporates herein all proceeding numbered paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
    … At all times relevant hereto, the Racketeering Defendants have collectively constituted an enterprise, as defined in 18 USC s 1961 (4) to wit, an association which enterprise has been engaged in and the activities of which affect interstate commerce. As such the defendants have witnessed tampered and retaliated against a witness and exploited them under 18 USC 1962(c).
    In committing the above referenced actions and/or omissions, the
    Retaliation Defendants, and each of them, acted under color of state law, and engaged
    in conduct that was the proximate cause of a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the
    Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of
    America, including but not limited to retaliating against Plaintiffs for asserting their
    constitutional right to seek redress of grievances from government and for exercising
    First amendment right to defend themselves from the false allegations raised by
    Defendants and providing ___courts___ with Plaintiff’s mental health report prepared by___state recommended provider evaluation __
    thereby violating Plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
    Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for the
    above described violations of Plaintiffs Constitutional rights. Plaintiffs are entitled to
    all rights, remedies, in law or in equity, available to them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
    Plaintiffs have suffered the loss of custody and time with and suffered
    humiliation and degradation because of Defendants’ Unconstitutional acts.
    … Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable costs and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
    … Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s