Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

We’re Not Crazy. . .The Systems Are!

The degree of insanity in the courts is something that is indescribable unless you have witnessed it for yourself. Small is big, left is right, slow is fast, up is down and weak is strong.

A term  has even been coined for individuals that experience psychic injuries due to assaults by legal abuses, ethical violations, betrayals, and fraud in the court system. It’s called “legal abuse syndrome” and was identified by Dr.Karen Huffer, a marriage and family counselor who was also brutally defrauded in the courts.

In my case State of Minnesota vs Deirdre Elise Evavold- Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227the court ordered that I complete a forensic psychological evaluation and cognitive skills assessment as I “showed no remorse or comprehension” for my actions. “The absence of remorse should never justify additional punishment because due process guarantees defendants the right to assert their innocence, and defendants cannot be expected to show remorse if they do not admit the crime.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24618518 

The goal was always to get me to plead guilty or be found guilty when I’m not!

My sister also wrote a letter to the judge stating that I may have an undiagnosed mental health issue, hoping this would persuade the judge to apply leniency and a downward departure in sentencing. At that time, my family believed I could receive up to 12 years in prison due to the six felony convictions. In actuality, this was one alleged “crime” charged 6 different ways, which made someone with no prior criminal history, into a multiple offender in a single court case.                                                                     

Remember, it is an affirmative defense if a person charged under 609.26 DEPRIVING ANOTHER OF CUSTODIAL OR PARENTAL RIGHTS proves that: (1) the person reasonably believed the action taken was necessary to protect the child from physical or sexual assault or substantial emotional harm.

You can’t however, use the affirmative defense if you are deprived of your evidence and if the court prevents certain evidence from being presented at the trial of the case. As I’ve stated before, the overall goal is to break you down and get you to accept any injustice thrown at you. This was done through the use of perjured testimony,  illegal withholding and suppression of evidence to use in support of the affirmative defense, due process violations, witness tampering, abuse of discretion, judicial bias and malicious prosecution.

Anyhow, I completed my court ordered evaluation and unfortunately for those that wanted me to be diagnosed with a mental illness, I passed!

Am I being paranoid that the courts would want me to be diagnosed with a mental illness? I don’t think so . . . If the judge commits someone to treatment, it is typically for a six month period. The case is then reviewed with a hearing to determine whether the commitment should be extended. The exception to this is cases involving Mentally Ill and Dangerous Persons, Sexual Psychopathic Personalities, or Sexually Dangerous Persons. In those cases, there is not an end date to the commitment period; instead, periodic reviews are conducted by the court to determine whether the commitment continues to be necessary. http://www.mncourts.gov/Help-Topics/Civil-Commitments.aspx

The article below shows what happens when you speak out against court corruption.

Twin Cities lawyer suspended over mental health issues

Jill Clark faced discipline for accusing judges, others of misconduct. 
An outspoken and controversial Twin Cities attorney who repeatedly ran for a seat on the state’s high court has been suspended from practicing because of “serious mental health issues.”
According to an order filed Wednesday by the Minnesota Supreme Court, Jill Clark is unable to competently represent clients because of the unspecified mental illness experienced in 2012, which, according to the order, “raised substantial questions regarding Clark’s … ability to competently represent clients.”
The suspension puts a hold on disciplinary proceedings involving Clark. The Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR), which is responsible for lawyer discipline, filed a petition against her last February alleging that she falsely accused judges of misconduct and filed paperwork that made it appear a judge signed an order that he actually had denied.
Clark repeatedly tried to move the disciplinary proceedings to federal court, and the matter was eventually heard by District Judge Gerald Seibel, who was appointed as a referee by the state Supreme Court. Clark was hospitalized shortly before a hearing could take place last June, and Seibel recommended that the Supreme Court place her on “disability inactive” status. She appeared before the state Supreme Court in October to argue against that recommendation. Seibel recommended “disability inactive” status for a second time.
OLPR Director Martin Cole said Clark indicated she would again challenge the recommendation, but had not done so before her suspension. It remains in effect until either disability or disciplinary proceedings are completed, Cole said.
The suspension means Clark cannot represent other clients, but can represent herself in further court proceedings. She did not immediately respond to an e-mail or phone message seeking comment Thursday.
In December, Clark filed a federal lawsuit against Hennepin County District Court, the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Minnesota Court of Appeals and more than a dozen other defendants. In a complaint more than 100 pages long, she alleged the OLPR complaint against her stemmed from discrimination, retaliation and several other constitutional violations because she spoke out against judges or planned to run against them in upcoming elections. The case has been transferred to a federal judge in Iowa for further proceedings.
Clark has written about the case on her blog, Jill Clark Speaks, in which she refers to herself as a judicial reformist. She has repeatedly run for Minnesota chief justice and placed third in a primary in August with more than 61,000 votes, or 20 percent of the ballots cast.
Clark, who has practiced law in the state since 1988, is controversial in some legal circles for zealously defending clients and has been accused of obstructing the legal process and causing trouble. She and Jill Waite earned notoriety for several cases, including their successful defense of two Iowa brothers accused of assaulting an off-duty Minneapolis cop and of a former state representative accused of spousal abuse.
Waite was suspended from practicing in 2010 for failing to file tax returns in a timely manner and for other reasons, but Clarke continued practicing. In 2011 she obtained a $60,000 jury verdict against a local blogger, but the award was overturned last year by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Abby Simons • 612-673-4921

http://www.startribune.com/twin-cities-lawyer-suspended-over-mental-health-issues/187367881/

THE REAL STORY SUMMED UP IN ONE PARAGRAPH

John Remington Graham                               

Jill Clark is one of the most gallant and capable lawyers in Minnesota. I think I can assess the quality of a lawyer, because I have been one 46 years, including service as a public defender, public prosecutor, and law professor. Jill is on “disability” status, because she has asked for judicial reform. That’s the real story in a nutshell. — John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X)


  Same song, different verse. . .

(credit:Minnesota Judicial Branch/Michelle MacDonald For Supreme Court)

Attorney Michelle MacDonald also ran for the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2014 endorsed by the Republican Party but lost, getting 46.5 percent of the vote. MacDonald  ran again in 2016 however, Natalie Hudson won re-election. She was chosen by Gov. Dayton to take Justice Alan Page’s spot when he retired.

According to MinnPost, an incumbent hasn’t lost a re-election bid since the 1940s.

Michelle MacDonald also sued a judge on behalf of a client. Going up against a judge and the legal system has made MacDonald a target of the very system she is fighting against every day. Judge David Knutson has continually demonstrated misconduct and went to extreme measures to intimidate MacDonald at the trial of her client in 2013. During a recess on the second day of the trial, MacDonald was placed under arrest for the offense of Contempt of Court due to taking a photo when court was not in session.

In April of 2013, a Rosemount police officer arrested Michelle MacDonald on suspicion of driving while intoxicated and resisting arrest. Denying she’d been drinking, MacDonald refused a field sobriety test unless she was in the presence of a judge. Minnesota Statute 169.91

Michelle was labeled with a “DUI”, which had nothing to do with the forensic facts of what happened. Michelle’s case was a traffic stop, and more accurately an unlawful pullover by Alex Eckstein.  Michelle did not have any alcohol on the night she was stopped without probable cause.

  1. After dialogue with the officer about the reason for the stop, she was not asked to take a Breathalyzer or perform a field sobriety test.
  2. She asked to see a judge pursuant to Minnesota Statute 169.91 because it was obvious this officer was using questionable measures to fill his quota and was clearly abusing his power and authority. Any citizen can invoke this statute however, as can be seen from this incident, the system does not take kindly to exposing those who are not playing by the rules.
  3. Michelle was held and released from the Rosemount Police Station with NO CHARGES filed against her.
  4. On her own initiative, she went directly to a hospital for a drug and alcohol blood test to put to rest any questions about this incident. The tests came back zero alcohol and zero drugs. 
  5. Michelle filed an employee complaint against the Police Officer who unlawfully pulled her over.
  6. In response, she received a Citation in the mail with five criminal charges against her including charges for driving under the influence.
The Result: Jury convicts Michelle MacDonald of test refusal, resisting arrest

A Dakota County jury convicted Minnesota Supreme Court candidate Michelle MacDonald of refusing to submit to a breath test and obstructing the legal process in connection with an April 2013 traffic stop.

This should have been the headline in ALL media coverage of this insanity!   

MacDonald has stated that in order to demonize and discredit anyone that is exposing corruption, they either portray you as “Crazy, a Criminal or a Conspiracy Theorist.”

Michael Brodkorb, source: startribune.com

We also have Mr. Michael Brodkorb who became the main mouthpiece for spreading disinformation when MacDonald ran for Supreme Court. Brodkorb was and has been fixated on MacDonald and our criminal cases, covering them exclusively and not covering any other case or other news story. Brodkorb has lied by ommission and has refused to report facts and details of these cases. (Brodkorb and Judge Asphaug also made sure that the private letter my sister wrote to the judge was made public).                                        

In journalism the term hack writer is used to describe a writer who is deemed to operate as a mercenary or “pen for hire”, expressing their client’s opinions in articles. (I think it’s pretty obvious who Brodkorb’s clients are)!

Comments Brodkorb has made in some of his writings about me:

Evavold connected to Michelle MacDonald

Evavold previously served as Michelle MacDonald’s campaign manager for MacDonald’s campaign for the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2014.

Evavold is not an attorney, but is an activist, who also ran a blog focused on exposing what Evavold and her supporters believe are injustices and corruption in the judicial system


Last but not least, we have the 20/20 hatchet job on this case that originally aired in April 2016 and was rebroadcasted in March 2017. What do they have to gain in pushing this false narrative? Well, six enormous media conglomerates combine to produce about 90 percent of all the media that Americans consume. The mainstream media is the mouthpiece of the establishment and promotes the agenda of the establishment.

The big news networks have developed an almost incestuous relationship with the federal government in recent years.  But of course the same could be said of the relationship that the media has with the big corporations that own stock in their parent companies and that advertise on their networks.
This is one of the reasons why we very rarely ever see any hard hitting stories on the big networks anymore.  The flow of information through the corporate-dominated media is very tightly controlled, and there are a lot of gatekeepers that make sure that the “wrong stories” don’t get put out to the public.  7 THINGS ABOUT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA THAT THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW 

Family Courts are “government” and as such are supported by public funding. A multibillion dollar enterprise has been created by the family court divorce, domestic abuse and child abuse industries. Currently, non-profit and for profit advocacy groups nationwide and in the state of MN are obtaining court connected federal funding through Health and Human Services to infulence custody cases.

FEDERAL & STATE GOVERNMENTS DEFRAUDING MILLIONS IN CHILD SUPPORT SCAM ON MASSIVE PROPORTIONS !

Bottom Line

 

Advertisements

CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE

Land of the Unfree – Police and Prosecutors Fight Aggressively to Retain Barbaric Right of “Civil Asset Forfeiture”

Efforts to limit seizures of money, homes and other property from people who may never be convicted of a crime are stalling out amid a wave of pressure from prosecutors and police.

Their effort, at least at the state level, appears to be working. At least a dozen states considered bills restricting or even abolishing forfeiture that isn’t accompanied by a conviction or gives law enforcement less control over forfeited proceeds. But most measures failed to pass.

– From the Wall Street Journal article: Efforts to Curb Asset Seizures by Law Enforcement Hit Headwinds

The fact that civil asset forfeiture continues to exist across the American landscape despite outrage and considerable media attention, is as good an example as any as to how far fallen and uncivilized our so-called “society” has become. It also proves the point demonstrated in a Princeton University study that the U.S. is not a democracy, and the desires of the people have no impact on how the country is governed.

Civil asset forfeiture was first highlighted on these pages in the 2013 post, Why You Should Never, Ever Drive Through Tenaha, Texas, in which I explained:

In a nutshell, civil forfeiture is the practice of confiscating items from people, ranging from cash, cars, even homes based on no criminal conviction or charges, merely suspicion. This practice first became widespread for use against pirates, as a way to take possession of contraband goods despite the fact that the ships’ owners in many cases were located thousands of miles away and couldn’t easily be prosecuted. As is often the case, what starts out reasonable becomes a gigantic organized crime ring of criminality, particularly in a society where the rule of law no longer exists for the “elite,” yet anything goes when it comes to pillaging the average citizen.

One of the major reasons these programs have become so abused is that the police departments themselves are able to keep much of the confiscated money. So they actually have a perverse incentive to steal. As might be expected, a program that is often touted as being effective against going after major drug kingpins, actually targets the poor and disenfranchised more than anything else.

Civil asset forfeiture is state-sanctioned theft. There is no other way around it. The entire concept violates the spirit of the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments to the Constitution. In case you have any doubt:

The 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The 6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Continue Reading: http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/06/04/land-of-the-unfree-police-and-prosecutors-fight-aggressively-to-retain-barbaric-right-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/

%d bloggers like this: