A familiar argument broke out at the Minnesota Legislature recently.
The committee on public safety was debating a bill that would make it a felony to tamper with a police car, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Rep. Raymond Dehn, a DFLer, commented on the number of similar bills the committee had been hearing, turning lower charges into more serious ones likely to feed the prison population.
If the goal is simply to lock more people up, Dehn said, “I just question why we call this a public safety committee.”
His Republican colleague, Rep. Tony Cornish, swiftly chimed in that he doesn’t mind sending more people to prison if they deserve it. Besides, said Cornish, “we’re still very near the bottom on incarceration per capita in Minnesota.” My comments in red (Hey Tony, who decides if they deserve it? Oh yeah, the judicial mafia that’s who!)
COMING SOON: Audio on Cornish’s views regarding judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.
This is a common refrain in discussions about prison policy. And Cornish is right: Minnesota’s incarceration rate is one of the lowest in the United States.
But that’s not the whole story. Minnesota also claims one of the highest rates of people on probation in the country. One reason this matters is that people on probation or supervised release — Minnesota’s version of parole — frequently do end up in prison for “technical violations,” such as missing meetings with a supervision officer or failing drug tests. Last year, two-thirds of the state’s prison admissions were there because of technical violations.
Critics like Rep. Marion O’Neill, R-Maple Lake, think it’s time for that to change. Last week, O’Neill brought advocates in to testify on a proposal in the House that would mandate supervision officers to look for alternatives to prison when non-violent drug offenders commit technical violations.
Below is my alleged probation violation
Judge Asphaug has already had me serve more time than 80% of her perpetrators of sexual violence against children.
Judge Asphaug stated I was “motivated by political ill will and distrust of government.”
At the sentencing hearing Judge Asphaug once again stated, “The mother perhaps was motivated by animosity or malice towards the father. Perhaps her motivation was a misplaced belief (or misplaced evidence) that the girls weren’t safe, but what motivated you to become involved? Not to become involved in, but to intrude into the life of another family? Not friendship for the girls or with the girls: You never met them before the day they were taken from their home. Not friendship with their mother because you knew her only briefly. We’re left to wonder if you were motivated by political persuasion, by distrust of the courts, by a desire to pursue an activist agenda of some sort.”
What’s really interesting is that my probation officer has never even addressed this false order in any of my face-to-face meetings and suddenly, I’m violating probation? This comes on the heels of the false HRO that was filed against me and signed by Judge Asphaug. → NOTICE OF OBJECTIŌNE
Clearly, my probation is being supervised by Judge Asphaug and the Communitiy Corrections staff are “just following orders”. Also, below is an email regarding my psychological evaluation that suddently and mysteriously doesn’t seem to meet probation requirements.
From: Dede Evavold
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 1:11 PM
Subject: CASE NO. 19HA-CR-15-4227
I have completed my psychological evaluation which was approved by Natalie Christensen, Dakota County Community Corrections (see attachment). I was told that I was to complete an MMPI with an interview afterwards, which I did.
I’m curious as to why there was ex-parte communication with the judge and why this was flagged by a probation officer months after the acceptance of the evaluation.
A neutral evaluator found nothing wrong with my cognitive abilities or mental health. My concern is that something is needing to be found by Gregory Hanson, PhD, LP who is a for-profit evaluator under contract with Dakota County.
Also, Gregory Hanson was the practitioner that conducted evaluations of two other persons involved in the Grazzini-Rucki case. “The potential for a conflict of interest, or even the appearance of one, can compromise objectivity.” AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Assessment
Normally, forensic psychological evaluations are ordered to determine competency to stand trial, asserting a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, sentence mitigation or testamentary capacity. I have already been falsely convicted and sentenced, so clearly this is just further harassment by Dakota County.
I am also confused as to why I was contacted by probation officer Jeremy Lehto from Stearns County regarding transferring my probation. I was not made aware of this by Dakota County and Jeremy also found it odd that I was not contacted. I was told by Dakota County at my initial meeting that I do not meet the requirements of a probation transfer to my county of residence due to the low risk status.
I have complied with my probation requirements and the unwarranted request to take another psychological evaluation is clearly being done to harass, punish and retaliate against me for exposing the obstruction of justice in this case.
Let’s talk about the right to free speech…
The First Amendment provides in part that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”
All convicted felons still have the right to free speech, even while in prison. Falsely convicted felons also have the right to free speech, even when they’re not in prison.
Judges often call gag orders “protective orders,” and say they are necessary to protect a person’s right to a fair trial, the fair administration of justice or the sanctity of jury deliberations. Judge Asphaug ordered the gag after the trial and no one else has been gagged except me. Go figure. Everyone else can write about my case and I can’t? Hmmmmm …
Another interesting factor in this case is that Michael Brodkorb (Blogger Extraordinaire for Dakota County) was also slapped with an HRO due to actual harassing and stalking behavior as well as misrepresentation in covering this case. He stated that it was a “violation of his First Amendment rights.” Wait a minute, he’s applauding the court’s decision to violate my rights to free speech. Hypocritical much??!
Anyhow, read excerpts below from the article Blogger Restraining order raises worry for journalists
“Journalists must, of course, follow the law when doing their job. But aggressive reporting focused on a high-profile suspect of a crime is a legitimate and necessary role for the media.
The chilling effect is that if someone doesn’t like coverage they could go to a courthouse and file what I believe to be a fraudulent document with fictitious information to game the system,” he told the Star Tribune.
Restraining orders are sometimes given quickly by a judge in order to err on the side of protecting someone from being harmed. Later, those restraining orders are sometimes lifted if the judge, upon further evidence, realizes it’s unsupported. In this case the order was tossed out on a technicality before further judicial review could measure its validity. (Those pesky technicalities of illegally withholding/suppressing evidence, witness tampering, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct didn’t really matter in my case did they?!)
The case leaves open the potential that restraining orders could be filed against journalists by anyone who doesn’t like the scrutiny they are receiving. That’s not a comforting thought for journalists or for a society that relies on an unfettered press.”