Minnesota Appellate Upholds Free Speech Rights of Bloggers – Is Evavold Protected?

In a historic ruling from 2012, the Minnesota Appellate Court upholds the free speech rights of bloggers, rules that bloggers cannot be held liable for publishing true statements…

flag

How will this ruling bear on the case of Dede Evavold, who faces both a HRO hearing and a probation violation hearing, in relation to her blog “Red Herring Alert”. Evavold has even been held liable for true statements, which include multiple sources to verify their authenticity, which she did not personally make but were posted on her blog. “Red Herring Alert” includes articles from multiple authors and sources.

Blogger Dede Evavold has been slapped with a fraudulent HRO and faces jail time for publishing a blog, “Red Herring Alert”, after being banned by Judge Karen Asphaug, Dakota County, from mentioning the Grazzini-Rucki case for the next 8 years as a condition of probation.

Evavold was convicted of felony parental deprivation for her role in assisting two teenage sisters who ran away after a family court in Dakota County, presided over by Judge David L Knutson, failed to protect them from physical, emotional and sexual abuse. The father accused of abuse is wealthy and well-connected, and has been shown special treatment by both Judge Knutson and Judge Asphaug – who both, presided over previous criminal trials involving him. (See: Did judges in Sandra Grazzini-Rucki case previously fix husband’s cases?)

While Dakota County has branded Evavold as a “criminal”, may say she is a hero for her efforts to protect these children who vowed that they “would run away with or without help” after raising dozens of abuse allegations, and even speaking personally to Judge Knutson, that all went ignored. (See: The court created horror of the five Rucki children) The girls were called “liars” by the Guardian ad Litem, and accused by the court appointed therapist of being “brainwashed” despite the father’s lengthy criminal history, numerous police reports, HROs, and witness statements that attested to his propensity towards violence. (See: The definitive dossier documenting David Rucki’s violence: 99 pages of police reports, orders for protection, letters, affidavits, and more…)

(Judge Karen Asphaug, Judge David L Knutson)

 

Through blogging, Evavold has continued to raise awareness, and bring attention to, systemic injustices and corruption occurring across America’s political system today; and the devastating effect on individuals, families and children. As a wife and mother, Evavold feels a strong purpose in blogging – to inspire needed change so that this world can become a better place, and justice will be restored, not just for her family but for all future generations.

Just as egregious is the message being sent to abused children everywhere by Judge Karen Asphaug in this ridiculous condition of probation, and related charges, against Evavold and her free speech rightsA clear message is being sent to children, and victims of abuse, to remain silent because you will not be believed, and the system will not protect you but, instead, protect the perpetrator. The Grazzini-Rucki case has set a horrifying precedent, that, if you are a child who speaks out abuse in Dakota County, or reports abuse to the family court, police, social workers, therapists as these children did… you risk being called a “liar” and accused of being “brainwashed”. Social services and the court system will then force the child to “reunify” with the perpetrator against their wishes, despite their cries for help, and to the detriment of their safety, which is also what happened to these abused children – who now reside in the sole custody of the identified abuser.

dakotacojudicialctr

Will the Courts of Dakota County recognize Evavold’s Constitutional protections, and the precedent set by the Appellate, or strike a blow against freedom of speech?

 Stay tuned to “Red Herring Alert” for updates on Evavold’s shocking case, that will have far-reaching implications, and especially for writers and bloggers everywhere.

_________________________________________________

THE JOHNNY NORTHSIDE LAWSUIT – “THE BLOGOSPHERE TRIAL OF THE CENTURY” AND BLOGGER’S RIGHTS

(August 20, 2012) In a 2012 defamation lawsuit against John Hoff, who publishes the blog “The Adventures of Johnny Northside”, the Minnesota Appellate Court, overturned a judgment issued against Hoff in defense of his 1st Amendment right to free speech.

A three-member panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals overturned a $60,000 award for damages against Hoff.

Judge Jill Flaskamp Holbrook, appointed to that panel, stated in her decision that “Hoff’s blog post is the kind of speech that the First Amendment is designed to protect. He was publishing information about a public figure that he believed was true (and that the jury determined was not false) and that involved an issue of public concern . . . Attaching liability to this speech would infringe on Hoff’s First Amendment rights.

The lawsuit resulted after Hoff exposed Jerry Moore as being involved in a high-profile mortgage fraud case, and accused him of various misdeeds. At the time of the blog post. Moore worked at the University of Minnesota Urban Research and Outreach/Engagement Center, where his job was to study mortgage foreclosures. Moore was fired from his job the day after Hoff’s post. Moore then filed a lawsuit for financial damages against Hoff for two counts of tortious interference – meaning he was fired because of the blog. Hoff said he told the truth and had documentation to back up his claims.

The Court of Appeals reversed the jury’s decision, saying that Hoff can’t be sued for publishing statements that are true. The Court also found that there wasn’t evidence that there was anything besides Hoff’s protected speech that interfered with Moore’s contract.

Hoff declared his trial to be the “Blogosphere Trial of the Century”. Johnny Northside’s blog retired in June 2015, but archives can still be read online. The MisAdventures of Johnny Northside

More Info:

Justice Delayed But Not Denied – Appellate Court Overturns $60K Verdict Against Blogger for Posting “Not False” Information

Minnesota Court of Appeals: Johnny Northside blog IS protected by First Amendment

Advertisements

Shocking Details Emerge – Fraudulent HRO Filed Against Blogger Dede Evavold

Source: Realty Websites Shine Reality on Rucki’s Fraudulent HRO vs Dede Evavold

Public Domain: redherringalert.wordpress.com

Update on Dede Evavold HRO… one of the complaints against Evavold in the fraudulent HRO filed by Davd Rucki is that she posted pictures of Rucki’s home on social media.

Dede Evavold on HRO: When We Lose Free Speech

Turns out that, in fact pictures of both the Ireland Place property and the property in Farmington, owned by David Rucki, were previously posted online in a realty listing. The photos of both homes have existed online for many years, and were made publicly available even before Evavold’s criminal trial began. These pictures are now in the public domain. 

What’s next an HRO filed against the realtor, against Google??

See for yourself:

Fraud on Farmington Property

Movato – Farmington Home

At some point Rucki listed this home in Farmington for sale, and his realtor created a site including interior and exterior photos of the home. Rucki then de-listed the house… if he was so poor and in need of public assistance, why not just sell the home and use the proceeds to support his family?

Rucki continues to keep ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki listed on the mortgage to the Farmington home — even to this day. Why? Rucki admitted in court that he masterminded a “paper divorce” and with the help of Judge Knutson, worked to destroy Sandra by depleting all of her financial assets. What came next was a series of court motions that made it impossible for Sandra to financially support herself, more court orders were issued to ban Sandra from all contact with family so she would not be able to receive any help or assistance. The sum of the 4,000+ court orders issued by Judge Knutson is the attempted murder of a loving stay at home mother, who became a liability to her abusive husband when she sought a divorce, and exposed his abuse of her and the children to the family court.

Judge Knutson drafted a court order that gave David Rucki 100% of the marital property, including the Farmington home. Sandra has zero rights or ownership to the property. At the same time, Judge Knutson allowed Rucki to leave Sandra on the mortgage of the Farmington home so that she could be held financially liable for the property. The Farmington property supposedly is also being used as a rental property, meaning Rucki generates income on it. A homeless woman is now being held financially responsible for the mortgage of her millionaire husband’s second home… by order of Judge Knutson.

Sandra is destitute and homeless. She has slept in the darkest corners…places most could not imagine, with only the rats scampering across the dirty streets to witness her desperation.  Huddled in castaway clothing to keep her warm, Sandra clutches legal papers to her chest, hoping that one day the truth will be revealed and she will exonerated and set free from this hellish life.

In comparison, abusive ex-husband, David Rucki, has been given exclusive ownership of not one but 4 separate homes, that they owned jointly during the marriage by order of Judge Knutson. In addition, Rucki has been given 100% of property inside all four homes – including every item of Sandra’s personal belongings down to from her family mementos down to her socks. Sandra’s name is listed on a mortgage of a home that she cannot step foot in even though she is so desperately in need of shelter. The Farmington home is beautifully remodeled with 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, cherry cabinets in the kitchen and adjacent to a city park. It is the perfect home for a family, but the happy laughter of children will remain forever silent in these empty rooms.

If that is not outrageous enough, while Sandra is living on the street, homeless, Rucki uses the pole barn in the back of the home as a luxury suite for his collection of classic cars. The cars even have a home, and are protected from the elements, while ex-wife Sandra is living on the streets. Rucki owns a total of 9 fully restored classic cars, with a specially designed lift to stack the cars so they will fit in the luxury suit. The rest of the luxury suite is Rucki’s own version of the playboy mansion and includes a fully stocked bar with the most expensive taste in liquor, includes a bedroom, kitchen and bathroom. The taxpayers are footing the bill for Rucki’s life of luxury since he is living off public assistance PLUS he writes off the entire Farmington property as a business expense on his taxes.

Public Domain: wall.alphacoders.com

While Sandra is living on the streets, Rucki is even able to provide his collection of cigars with a home. Rucki pays for 3 separate, exclusive memberships to house his collection of expensive cigars in a humidor, with personal use of a temperature controlled wall vault. Each vault is beautifully decorated with Rucki’s name engraved in gold (every welfare recipient should have their own humidor inside a cigar lounge!).

Clearly, Rucki doesn’t need to be on welfare, he is just scamming the system. Each cigar Rucki smokes, he burns up cash while he demands nearly $1,000 a month in child support from ex-wife Sandra. Sandra  is not only  homeless but the State of Minnesota has denied food support and general assistance to her, leaving her utterly destitute. Sandra should not even have to ask for welfare, nor should be homeless, had Rucki complied with the divorce on it’s original, mutually agreed upon terms, she would be living very well today, and financially stable, raising the five children she loves.

Judge David Knutson

If that is not bad enough, Sandra has also been court ordered by Judge Knutson to pay the millionaire’s credit card debt — and she has ZERO income. David Rucki is also using the Farmington address, and using Sandra’s name to charge up thousands of dollars of debt on credit cards, one example is this publicly listed notice from September 25, 2014: Capital Finance LLC v Rucki

According to the complaint, on May 1, 2004, Rucki opened a charge account with U.S. Bank, with $31,417 owed at the time of this notice posted in the newspaper. According to the complaint Rucki was “unjustly enriched” and refusing to pay back the amount owed.

David Rucki 3rd Party Complaint Against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki

So what is Rucki’s defense for going on a shopping spree and ringing up $31k in debt? Blame the debt on destitute, homeless ex-wife Sandra! In fact, Rucki actually cites a court order from Judge Knutson stating he has the right to shift ALL of his personal debt, that he acquired after the divorce, onto ex-wife Sandra. The summons here, filed by attorney Lisa Elliott (who charges $310 to “poor” Rucki living on public assistance) does not include the name or contact information for Sandra’s attorney in the notice. Which means Elliott is manipulating the legal process so that Sandra will not be able to respond, and Rucki will receive a favorable settlement by default.

While David Rucki lives like a king in any one of the 4 fully furnished, beautifully decorated house of his choosing, he is purposefully driving ex-wife Sandra further into debt each day, and attempting to murder her by making it impossible for her to survive… Sandra is living on the street, somewhere.

Public Domain: wallpapercave.com

Judge Knutson should also be held responsible because he willingly took part in Rucki’s scam, that destroyed a family and is costing the taxpayers in the State of Minnesota millions the longer the Grazzini-Rucki case, and Rucki’s “paper divorce” continues. David Rucki “Paper Divorce” Scam

It’s Not Right On Ireland Place

David Rucki is claiming that Dede Evavold is harassing him by posting pictures of his home on Ireland Place, that property is was also previously listed for sale on a realty site and posted online… and has remained online, in public view, for many years. Evavold is not responsible for actions that happened before her criminal trial, Rucki consented to put pictures of his home into the public domain, where they sit today.

The Ireland Place property owned by Rucki has been subject of a mortgage fraud complaint, that Dakota County and the State of Minnesota refuses to investigate.

Rucki put the Ireland Place home in foreclosure 7 times in one year and then bought the home at a rock bottom prices, far below market value.

Read the complaint at this link: mortgagefrauda

Another Day in Lawless Lakeville: Fraud & Financial Abuse Allegations Surround David Rucki

Just like the property in Farmington, the Ireland Place property was fully remodeled, listed for sale and then delisted and put back into Rucki’s ownership as part his “paper divorce” scam.

The (former) realty listing describes the luxurious home on Ireland Place: “Pack the bags and bring the family this fantastic 1 owner, 2 story awaits you. Cul-de-sac, walk to schools, Lake  and more. Lots of updates, stainless, carpets, paint, gorgeous hickory floors. Quality throughout. McDonald Built!

Read More: Ireland Place on Zillow

The photos on Zillow are from a prior real estate listing for Ireland Place, MLS #4464616.

Note the family photo on the wall of the Rucki children, by court order of Judge Knutson that was also confiscated and turned over to Rucki. Sandra was not allowed to take even one picture of her children with her when she was removed from her home by order of Judge Knutson in Septmeber 2012. Then Rucki systemically removed every picture of Sandra from the house, every reminder, and through de-programming and reunification therapy has worked to remove Sandra’s memory from the minds of the children who have begged for their mother since the day she was forcefully, and unjustly removed from their lives. All of this done with the consent, and approval, of Judge Knutson who has been enriched by Rucki’s “paper divorce” scam.

Will Rucki File an HRO Against Elizabeth Vargas and 20/20 Next?

Let’s not forget that David Rucki appeared on a nationally televised show, 20/20 with Elizabeth Vargas on two separate occasions where he allowed his house to be filmed inside and out, and allowed filming of the minor children during a private family Christmas. The episode also featured family photos, including those of the minor children, and video footage that Rucki provided to 20/20. 20/20 also included the full legal names of the minor children.

Pictures of Rucki’s home and children were blasted across the country, and went viral, with his consent and now he is claiming his privacy is invaded and he feels harassed??

Rucki also requested the filming of the Grazzini-Rucki criminal case. Again, no concerns for privacy then, and the names of minor children were also made public.

And we are to believe Dede Evavold is to blame? Or to throw out the 1st Amendment to make blogging an illegal activity?

The HRO Rucki filed against Evavold is clearly fraudulent and constitutes legal abuse, if not a malicious lawsuit.

Judge David Knutson Retaliates Against Red Herring Alert

Source: Judge David Knutson Retaliates Against Red Herring Alert

Public Domain: https://www.pexels.com

And for anyone who would dare press the complaints and issues beyond the initial “status quo guardians”, demonization, discrediting and economic retaliation are used to neutralize these voices of discontent and dissent…” ~ Don Mashak~ Political Google Site

Breaking News… Corrupt in Dakota County, Judge David L. Knutson retaliates against blogger and co-defendant in the Grazzini-Rucki case, Dede Evavold.

Judge Knutson issued a probation violation summons the very same day Evavold published an article Secrecy Is The Freedom Tyrants Dream Of criticizing the lack of transparency, and accountability in the judicial system.

The article mentioned Judge Knutson as an example, and included copies of a complaint previously raised against him. The article also suggested that Judge Knutson be removed from the bench or impeached.

Judge David Knutson — who has played role both in the Grazzini-Rucki criminal trial and the divorce of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and David Rucki — issued a probation violation summons against Evavold for publishing articles on a blog called “Red Herring Alert”. The violation stems from a court order prohibiting Evavold to mention the name of the Grazzini-Rucki family in social media for the length of her probation, an estimated 8 years!

Red Herring Alert is a blog that includes contributions from many authors, and there is no evidence that Evavold actually created or published the content in question.

Dede Evavold is not a criminal – she is a wife and a mother, who as a hobby, enjoys writing about current events and political news.

Evavold’s life was turned upside down after being convicted of 6 felonies, and sentenced by Judge Karen Asphaug (November 10, 2016) for felony parental deprivation for her role in assisting two teens S.R. and G.R. who were desperate to escape an abusive father (and paternal aunt) and feared for their lives after the courts and police failed to protect them. S.R. and G.R. openly stated they would run away with or without help and remained in hiding for over 2 years. When given opportunities to return to the care of their father, David Rucki, both girls refused, due to safety concerns. Witnesses say the behavior and emotional state of both S.R. and G.R. is consistent with abuse: Multiple Witness Reports: Rucki Sisters Fearful of Father, Felt Safe at Ranch

Judge Knutson ignored their cries for help of all five Rucki children and court ordered them into reunification therapy, and then the sole custody of, the identified abuser, father, David Rucki. At the time of the custody order, Rucki was on probation for a violation of a protective order, stemming from an incident involving ex-wife, Sandra. Sandra says she is being stalked, harassed and threatened by Rucki.

Judge Knutson made his ruling despite overwhelming evidence of Rucki’s propensity towards violence, and evidence supporting abuse of the children had occurred. For example, during a “telephonic conference” held on  September 7, 2012, Judge Knutson admitted that he was aware of allegations of sexual abuse involving the girls. Instead of protecting the children, Judge Knutson ordered their mother, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, from the home and worked to reunite the children with their abusive father. Just a few months later, the Rucki children personally met with Judge Knutson in chambers, and disclosed allegations of abuse. Immediately after disclosure, Judge Knutson ordered the Rucki children into visiting Rucki and placed a bailiff at the door to prevent their escape.  Judge Knutson then ordered that the conference with the children be sealed, in an apparent cover up.

Judge Knutson is involved in every aspect of the Grazzini-Rucki case, and acts outside the law in such an extreme way that it could be said that he is David Rucki’s hired thug. Judge Knutson was involved in criminal cases against David Rucki, giving preferential treatment. Judge Knutson was involved in both the the divorce and criminal trial. Judge Knutson assigned himself to Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s criminal case and gave her a million dollar bail in Novmber, 2015. Judge Knutson is also connected to all of the judges appointed to every level of this case – including a connection to Judge Karen Asphaug, who is now presiding over the criminal trials of both Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Dede Evavold.

Dede Evavold has a constitutionally protected right to express her views, and should not be punished for the exercise of her 1st Amendment right to free speech. That Judge Knutson would take these actions against her, and be allowed to do so, shows just how corrupt the courts, and judicial system, in Dakota County really are. 

Beyond that, the public and people of Minnesota should also be expressing concern about the lawless and dangerous actions of Judge Knutson; who has court ordered five children into the care and custody of a dangerous abuser and destroyed the mother who sought to protect them.

That Dede Evavold is speaking out, despite enormous pressure against her to remain silent, and threats of jail, is courageous. To remain silent on this issue would mean complicity in the abuse of the Rucki children, and enable the destruction of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, a loving, mother, who is being persecuted for her efforts to keep her children safe from harm after the family court system failed to protect them.

Hear more from Dede in her interview on Village Connection Radio: DEDE EVAVOLD, PAYING FOR BEING AN ACTIVIST FOR CHANGE

 

Read More About Judge David Knutson:

Commentary: Bailiffs Acting Like Judge Knutson’s Personal Thugs

Did judges in Sandra Grazzini-Rucki case previously fix husband’s cases?

2013 Complaint Against Judge David L. Knutson Alleges Misconduct, Malice

Never Forget: Judge Knutson – Stayed Sentence for Child Rapist

Florida Mom Julie Price Ordered by Judge to Shut her Blog and Stop Talking (Repost)

Yet another grieving mother was forced to stop talking, in an effort to mask the continuation of abuse in the Family Courts. This court order by a family court judge violating her constitutional right to Freedom of Speech, was in response to the Naples News highlighted the story of Julie Price.

The Naples News, in their story, told about alarming details from the court file and the felony child abuses charges being faced by her former husband in regards to hog tying Julies daughter to a bed, for which Jon Parrish admitted to.

Just like other courageous mothers all over the United States, Julie created a blog to expressing her right to freedom of speech. On August 4, 2011 the trial court of Judge Brodie told Julie to take down the blog. During the hearing, the judge was not concerned that the former Husband was non-compliant with court orders, and then admonished Julie for her blog, which only expressed her concern for the safety and well being of her daughters and how the “court appointed” experts were handling her case. These “experts” were named, causing alarm to the courts and their cronies, concerned about exposure to the illegal practices.

One wonders, when will justice prevail for Julie Price, her children and all of America’s children involved in the child-custody visitation scandal cases happening all over the US….”

Read Full Story: Florida Mom Julie Price Ordered by Judge to Shut her Blog and Stop Talking

Bloggers Have Same First Amendment Protections as Traditional Journalists – HRO vs Evavold Should Be Dismissed

This ruling should be a clear reminder to misguided attorneys, corporations, developers or those with affluence to cease bullying or intimidating those who report the issues of the day.” ~ Choon James

The purpose of the free press clause of the First Amendment was to keep an eye on people in power and maintain a check on corruption.

Given the cutbacks in traditional media, bloggers have taken up the slack, serving as watchdogs — with attitude…Yet we still see an uninformed attitude from some lawmakers and judges who seem not to understand that digital and social media deserve the same respect as newspapers, magazines and broadcasters. ” ~ Ken Paulson, USA Today: Bloggers have rights, too: Column

IMG_2953

The Crystal Cox lawsuit is a landmark court case that defines, and upholds, the 1st Amendment protections of bloggers.. and is relevant when considering the recent HRO issued against Dede Evavold – blogging is an exercise of protected speech and does NOT constitute ‘harassment’!

Judge Karen Asphaug violated the 1st Amendment Rights of Dede Evavold by issuing a harassment restraining order against her that constrains, and censors, her exercise of free speech. A court cannot issue an order that violates the Constitutional rights of a party; as such the HRO issued by Judge Asphaug is void and should be immediately dismissed.

Dede writes about the HRO: “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)

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 witnes..”  For more info on the Evavold HRO please read: When We Lose Free Speech-We Lose Everything

CONSIDER THIS….

Court: Bloggers Have Same First Amendment Protections as Traditional Journalists

(Source: Slate, Daniel Politi, 1/18/2014)

“A blogger—and, really, the public at large—has the same protections for free speech in the United State as a traditional journalist and can only lose a defamation lawsuit on an issue of public concern if plaintiffs manage to prove negligence.

In a ruling that may come as a surprise to many bloggers who probably didn’t even realize this was even a question, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Crystal Cox, a blogger who had lost a defamation lawsuit in 2011 over a blog post that accused an Oregon bankruptcy trustee and Obsidian Finance Group of fraud, reports the Associated Press. A jury had awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million.

 

To be precise, the Ninth Circuit concludes that all who speak to the public, whether or not they are members of the institutional press, are equally protected by the First Amendment,’ writes Eugene Volokh, who represented Cox.”

 

__________________________________________

Confirmed: Bloggers Have First Amendment Rights as Corporate Media

(Source: Huff Post, ‘The Blog’. Choon James, 1/24/2014)

“On January 17, 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Crystal L. Cox from Eureka, Montana who was sued by for defamation by Kevin Padrick, an attorney and his company – Obsidian Finance Group, LLC. Cox had written posts exposing fraud, corruption, money-laundering and so forth…
This ruling should be a clear reminder to misguided attorneys, corporations, developers or those with affluence to cease bullying or intimidating those who report the issues of the day.

Many concerned citizens have no choice but to create their own blogs and websites to level the playing field in this blossoming social media warfare.

The government has its plentiful public relations specialists, paid for by taxpayers. Corporations and special interests have their hired PR consultants. There are hired mercenaries who feel no qualms about spinning the facts. News media can be bought or controlled by big money or shut down.

It’s not uncommon for the public to read articles or watch the TV news only to lament the irregularities or inadequate reporting. Oftentimes, critical issues are shunned or ignored by corporate media because of entwined relationships.

Bloggers with information or have intimate experiences and understanding of issues are critically needed now, more than ever.

Blog away!”

_________________________________

Court Says Bloggers are Journalists Too

(Source: Law Street, Anneliese Mahoney, 1/21/2014)

Last week, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the same standards that apply to journalists in print media also apply to bloggers and anyone else. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press member Gregg Leslie said, ‘it’s not a special right to the news media. So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others.’

The case came from a Montana blogger named Crystal L. Cox….

The Court stated,

The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable.” They went on to cite cases in which individual speakers have been granted First Amendment rights, despite not being a part of the established press. For example, the First Amendment rights of authors have often been protected, regardless of their training, background, or affiliations.

This is very good news for anyone who has a blog or even a desire to post things in an individual capacity on their social network…”

39580866-office-wallpapers

Public Domain Image

Censorship

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas without fear or interference. Well, ALMOST everyone.

Probation Conditions in State of Minnesota vs Deirdre Elise Evavold- Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227

“You will not reference any of the XXXXXXXX-XXXXX family on any social media.”

I previously posted a press release on Darren Chaker, who reversed his conviction in federal court on First Amendment grounds. A Good Day For The First Amendment.

After corresponding with Mr. Chaker regarding my own First Amendment violations as well as numerous other violations in my case, I was enlightened further about our inherent rights.  See Below

“Rights might be inherent, but ideas need to be taught.” Maida Buckley, retired classroom teacher in Fairbanks, Alaska

Image courtesy of Pixabay

Focusing on the First Amendment issue,  I see a few flaws in Condition 2 preventing referencing to specific people in social media:  Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227

What if you want to criticize the police/DA, the judicial process, etc but cannot even reference to your case since it makes reference to the names of the people you cannot make reference to? Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government because criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion. Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1217, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 23728, *1, 33 Media L. Rep. 2569 (9th Cir. Cal. 2005)​ Yes that is my first First Amendment case where I overruled the California Supreme Court. See also, https://www.scribd.com/document/3698825/Press-Release-CAL-SUPREME-COURT-Reversed-by-Chaker-v-Crogan

Additionally, you have a First Amendment right to re-distribute information contained in a public record.

     Preventing Blogging is Not a Governmental Interest.

For government to regulate speech, it must be “integral to criminal conduct.” United States v. Meredith, 685 F.3d 814, 819, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13012, 7, 2012-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,421, 110 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5157 (9th Cir. Cal. 2012) Typically, restriction of speech concerns a gang member not associating with other gang member; a child pornographer being monitored or restricted from the internet, defendant not speaking to victims, etc. The only nontypical First Amendment challenge relates to a defendant speaking or writing about the unconstitutionality of tax laws and was reversed, but prohibiting advocating tax evasion was affirmed. Speech is presumptively protected by the First Amendment. The burden is on the government to show that a defendant’s website is within one of the narrow categories of unprotected speech. United States v. Carmichael, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1270, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, 1 (M.D. Ala. 2004) The Government would in its burden as it did not prove the speech at issue would be outside the scope of the First Amendment.

Suppressing speech rarely is justified by an interest in deterring criminal conduct, and in any event the justification “must be ‘far stronger than mere speculation about serious harms”’ and supported by “empirical evidence” Barnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S 514, 530-32, 121 S.Ct 1753, 1763-64, 149 L Ed 2d 787 (2001) (citing U.S v. Treasury Employees, 513 U S 454, 475 (1995))  

Protecting Reputation is Not a Government Interest.

If the Government were to say, ‘the families have been through enough and do not want to cause embarrassment or harm to there reputation’ – such would not be a proper Governmental interest. Specifically, protecting ones reputation is not a governmental function unless it violates criminal law.  United v. Alvarez, 617 F. 3d 1198. (Stolen Valor Act held unconstitutional) “At issue here is the First Amendment exception that allows the government to regulate speech that is integral to criminal conduct. . . .” Id. at 819-20. United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939, 946, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10377, 17-20, 2014 WL 2498131 (9th Cir. Cal. 2014)

Further, you have the right to attack people if you believe such behavior was unethical. See Wait v. Beck’s N. Am., Inc., 241 F. Supp. 2d 172, 183 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (“[A s]tatement[] that someone has acted . . . unethically generally [is] constitutionally protected statements of opinion.”); Biro, 883 F. Supp. 2d at 463 (“[T]he use of the terms ‘shyster,’ ‘conman,’ and finding an ‘easy mark’ is the type of ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ and ‘imaginative expression’ that is typically understood as a statement of opinion.” (quoting Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20)).

 Loss of Privacy Due to High Profile Case.

Also, due to all of the publicity in the case, it is likely the names you cannot blog about are deemed public figures. Public figures are entitled to less protection against defamation and invasion of privacy than are private figures with respect to the publication of false information about them. Carafano v. Metrosplash, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1059, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10614, 1, 30 Media L. Rep. 1577 (C.D. Cal. 2002)

         

Purpose of Probation is to Rehabilitate and Prevent Future Criminal Conduct, Blogging is Neither.

Consideration of three factors is required to determine whether a reasonable relationship exists: (1) the purposes sought to be served by probation; (2) the extent to which constitutional rights enjoyed by law-abiding citizens should be accorded to probationers; and (3) the legitimate needs of law enforcement. (Citation omitted.) United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 1977). United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18287, 11 (9th Cir. Wash. 1981) See also, United States v. T.M., 330 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The conditions imposed run afoul of the supervised release statute because there is no reasonable relationship between them and either deterrence, public protection or rehabilitation.”)


“The Minnesota legislature delegated the authority to prosecute criminal matters to the county attorney, who was elected by the voters of that county.”

But, according to the Minnesota Attorney General’s website, the office does sometimes get involved in criminal matters:

The Dahlens have pled guilty in an associated case for their role xx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx, while another defendant, Dede Evavold, was found guilty as well. Inexplicably, Judge Karen Asphaug presided over all four cases.

A message left with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office concerning the current legal situation was left unreturned. An email to Laura Flanders was also left unreturned and an email left with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office was also left unreturned. The current Minnesota Attorney General is Democrat Lori Swanson, and she has held that position since 2007.


Excerpts from The “Justice” blog authored by an anonymous group of concerned citizens.
The Attorney General’s Office has been receiving documentation concerning the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX case for over 5 years and has refused to investigate or take any action in the face of serious allegations, and evidence, showing corruption in local government and law enforcement. However, when opposing President Trump’s immigrant order, Lori Swanson said “It does not pass constitutional muster, is inconsistent with our history as a nation, and undermines our national security.” The same can be said for Dakota County; yet instead of taking a public stance on a very real concern that affects not only the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX family but the entire state of Minnesota, and possibly tens of thousands of families victimized by an out of control court system, Swanson remains silent. Now is a time for leadership, not silence.

Another article written by Michael Volpe on indicates that other MN citizens have encountered the same type of cover-up by the MN Attorney General’s Office.
Excerpts Below:
The tact does not surprise John Hentges, another parent battling court officials on behalf of his children and suffering from disingenuous actions by the court, who told CDN that rather than representing the people of Minnesota the office covers up and represents the corrupt public officials.

“I reported the corruption to her (Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General) and to the governor and to the Minnesota Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.” Hentges.

Hentges said he spent time in jail for failure to pay child support for a bill which had already been paid in another state and his trials in the Minnesota Justice System opened his eyes.

“I found several other things they were doing in the criminal justice system.” Hentges said. “I firmly believe that nearly every single case in the 1st Judicial District is fixed in one way or another.”

 

Lion News: Exclusive Video Of Samantha Rucki Testifying Her Testimony Is Not Of Her Free Will?

ArrestAJudgeKit

SubscribedUnsubscribe1,5801K