Most of you are aware of the fact that I was maliciously prosecuted and falsely convicted in the State of Minnesota vs Deirdre Evavold Case No.19HA-CR-15-4227.
There were several conditions beyond state sentencing guidelines imposed on me. However, the one condition that numerous attorneys and rank and file citizens are most amazed by is the restriction on my first amendment right to free speech (Judge Asphaug ordered that I may NOT reference the family involved in this case on any social media). Of course, this isn’t shocking to me as I know the overall goal is to target and block anyone reporting truth about the abuse of power and authority in our public entities.
On July 31st, 2017, I was also served with a false harassment restraining order (HRO) signed by the very judge that presided over my criminal trial. Affidavit for HRO.
Coinkydink? I think not! To locate the signing judge that will do your bidding, you just need to visit the Daily Judicial Schedule.
Anyhow, the restraining order was issued ex parte and the petitioner indicated that he is not requesting a hearing at this time. In order for me to access the courts for a hearing to have this harassing harassment order dismissed, I have to pay a $300 filing fee. I have already been charged thousands of dollars in court fees from the courtroom, to jail, to probation. This is the continued legal harassment that I am under because I refuse to accept the continued injustices being thrown at me.
“Restraining order abuse is the act of requesting an unmerited restraining order against an individual, and/or the misuse of that order for any sort of harassment, malicious mischief against the subject, or personal gain for the holder, rather than its intended purpose of protection.
An individual awarded a restraining order has significant capacity to abuse the state’s protection. The holder can manipulate circumstances, fudge facts, and even outright lie to achieve the arrest of the subject. Any time the holder of the order alleges to law enforcement that the subject has violated any of the conditions of the order, the police are required to arrest the subject for the alleged violation regardless of existence, level, or lack of evidence offered by the involved parties. Hannah Wallen
As previously reported, I filed a witness tampering complaint against the petitioner in 2016. I had received a harassing and threatening extortion letter from petitioner’s attorney to intimidate me into deleting this blog and coerce me into changing not only my plea but to coerce me into changing my testimony in Sandra’s case. Also, petitioner coerced and intimidated his daughter into recanting her testimony which led to the addition of 4 more felony charges against me.
Once again, the petitioner is violating the law by: retaliating against a person who was summoned as a witness at any criminal trial within a year following that trial or within a year following the actor’s release from incarceration, and retaliating against any person who has provided information to law enforcement authorities concerning a crime within a year of that person providing the information or within a year of the actor’s release from incarceration, whichever is later. §609.498 Tampering With Witness
More about an HRO
The effect of an HRO is generally to prohibit the respondent from having direct or indirect contact with the petitioner during the time the order is in effect. This includes verbal contact, mail, telephone calls, e-mail, or having a third party convey a message to them.
It doesn’t mean someone can’t talk or write about that person. It just means s/he can’t talk or write to the person that filed the HRO.
If the respondent is reporting facts about the case, that’s his or her Constitutional right (as is his or her expressing an opinion about those facts).
A restraining order in no way restricts the respondent from taking legal action against the plaintiff or reporting his or her misconduct to the police or the courts; it only forbids them from personally contacting or approaching the plaintiff.
If the respondent hasn’t contacted the person filing the HRO, they are not vulnerable to an allegation of harassment. If they haven’t lied about the petitioner, they’re also immune to allegations of libel or defamation. Additionally, people have a first amendment right to re-distribute information contained in a public record. Judge Asphaug apparently didn’t get the memo that preventing blogging and protecting reputation is not a governmental interest and posting information or opinion is protected under the constitution.