Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

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

Beware, the next blog post may be a threat to someone’s safety

Repost: Beware, the next blog post may be a threat to someone’s safety

David Rucki Says Blog Threatens Him

Michael Volpe

All rights reserved under the 1st Amendment regarding free speech. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Asphaug appears to be David Rucki’s personal judge. She presided over each of the four criminal trials in this case- Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Dede Evavold, Dough Dahlen, and Gina Dahlen.

Asphaug ruled to disallow nearly all of David Rucki’s criminal history and forced Gina Dahlen to testify in multiple trials even though she was a defendant still awaiting her trial.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Beware, the next blog post may be a threat to someone’s safety.

That’s the allegation made in an ex-parte restraining order filed by David Rucki against Dede Evavold.

“Respondent (Evavold) continues to post information about my family, photos of my family, myself and other members of my family,” Rucki said in his ex-parte harassment restraining order application, “Respondent also continues to make allegations which are false but may incite others against me. My children are frightened for their safety and feel their privacy has been violated.”

The application continued, “This is a proven pattern that has been going on for years.”

Rucki does not specify what Evavold has said which is harassing or threatening; an email to Rucki’s attorney, Lisa Elliot, was left unreturned.

Evavold has a blog called Red Herring Alert, where she writes about the Rucki case among other blog posts.

This is not the first time David Rucki has used the legal system to try and shut Evavold’s blogging down. In the Summer 2016, his then attorney, Marshall Tannick, sent Evavold a letter threatening a lawsuit if she didn’t remove her blog immediately.

“I am writing to you on behalf of David Rucki,” began a letter from Tanick to Evavold from June 7, 2016, “and his daughters, Samantha and Gianna, with regard to the matter relating to the removal and concealment of the girls and related incidents that have occurred during that episode and thereafter.

“There are various civil claims arising from your involvement in this matter.”

Tannick did not respond to an email for comment and it’s not clear if he is representing him regarding the restraining order.

Evavold did not respond to the letter at the time and continued blogging.

On April 18, 2013, Rucki’s two oldest daughters- Samantha and Gianna- ran away from home and stayed for approximately two and half years with strangers- Doug and Gina Dahlen- after a judge- David Knutson forced them to live with Rucki’s sister- Tammy Love; even though all five Rucki children complained vociferously at the time that David Rucki and his family were violent.

Rucki has lived in the Minneapolis suburb of Lakeville throughout the process.

Evavold was one of four people convicted in relation to this disappearance after she recommended to the girls’ mother- Sandra Grazzini-Rucki- that she take her two daughters to live with the Dahlen’s; the Dahlen’s pled guilty for their role in hiding the two girls earlier in 2017.

Ironically, David Rucki is no stranger to restraining orders as nine people- his five children, his ex-wife, two neighbors, and an in-law- all successfully took out a restraining order against him after threatening and stalking behavior.

This case has been covered internationally and Rucki has conducted hundreds of interviews, making his pleas for privacy curious.

Rucki has a long history of violence including: includes: a bar fighta road rage incidentincidents of stalkingmultiple violations of restraining orders, and choking his wife with an organ leg.

The trial judge- Karen Asphaug- disallowed any mention of his criminal history; when his ex-wife testified at her trial she wasn’t even allowed to allude to the restraining order she and her children took out against him.

The four defendants argued they hid the girls because they feared for their safety in Rucki’s care; Rucki once chased after his daughter on her birthday, according to a police report and stuck a gun in his son’s head according to a Child Protective Services report.

Not surprisingly, Asphaug also granted him this restraining order ex-parte, which means without the other parties- in this case Evavold- knowledge.

Normally, an ex-parte restraining order is only granted in cases where someone is under immediate threat of physical danger and the granting of a restraining order based on blog posts should raise first amendment issues.

I contacted Brandon Stahl (Minneapolis Star Tribune), Laura Adelmann (Sun-Current), Michael Brodkorb, Elizabeth Vargas, Sean Dooley, and Beth Mullins (the last three the team behind the controversial 20/20 broadcast on this case which ignored Rucki’s documented history of abuse)- but none provided a response.

Adelmann, it was recently revealed, approached the jury during Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s trial and asked if any would like to be interviewed after the trial was over; her behavior is now the subject of a jury tampering allegation.

Asphaug appears to be David Rucki’s personal judge. She presided over each of the four criminal trials in this case- Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Dede Evavold, Dough Dahlen, and Gina Dahlen.

Asphaug ruled to disallow nearly all of David Rucki’s criminal history and forced Gina Dahlen to testify in multiple trials even though she was a defendant still awaiting her trial.

The 1st Judicial District, where Asphaug sits, would only say that judges are chosen to a case “by statute” but would not explain how Asphaug wound up repeatedly on Rucki’s cases.

A phone call and email to Lissa Linne, a public affairs officer for Minnesota Courts, was left unreturned.

A call to Asphaug’s law clerk, Jennifer Williams, was also left unreturned.

Asphaug taking over legal proceedings related to Rucki continues a pattern.

Judge David Knutson placed himself on every legal case related to the Rucki’s when he took over their divorce in 2011.

“The above referenced matter has been assigned to the Honorable Judge David Knutson,” a letter written by Knustson’s clerk in August 2011 stated, “all future matters shall be scheduled in front of Judge David Knutson.”

Knustson proceeded to issue approximately 4,000 orders, almost all regulating Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s behavior; he gave 100% of a multi-million estate to David Rucki and forcibly- under the threat of jail- removed Sandra Grazzini-Rucki from her home, and awarded David Rucki sole custody of his children, despite his documented history of violence.

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has not seen any of her five children since early 2013.

Evavold has twenty days to challenge the restraining order.

The terms of the restraining order forbid Evavold from speaking about the Rucki family in public or approaching the family; the restraining order appears to be overkill as the terms of Evavold’s probation already forbid all this.

Evavold’s probation is overseen by Judge Asphaug, though she’s yet to violate her probation.

Evavold has four months left to serve on her prison term, but like Grazzini-Rucki, Asphaug has ordered her to serve it over the next six years.

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.”

 

Abuse of Power in Grazzini-Rucki Case

Blogtalkradio TS Radio: Mike Volpe reports on the Rucki divorce/custody case | The PPJ Gazette

Hosted by Marti Oakley  Follow

M. Volpe

Click to listen to podcast:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/marti-oakley/2016/05/23/ts-radio-mike-volpe-reports-on-the-rucki-divorcecustody-case

__________________________________________

Mike Volpe joins the show to report on the Rucki divorce/custody case here in Minnesota.  After an April 8, 2016 on 20/20, where Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was interviewed, it is uncertain what the actual situation is.  Why didn’t the court respect the wishes of the girls allowing them to live with their mother?  Why did the court give custody to the father who had a history of abusive behavior, documented in police reports?

“Despite his history, David Rucki currently has sole custody of their five children; Sandra Grazzini-Rucki last saw her children in early 2013 and she is scheduled to go on trial for parental interference for her alleged role in her two daughters’ more than two-year disappearance.

The Rucki family came to the attention of the media when the two oldest daughters ran away on April 19, 2013, after their pleas to live with their mother were shut down repeatedly by the court.

They remained missing until November 2015, when U.S. marshals discovered them on a farm in Herman, Minnesota”

Read more at  http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/police-reports-paint-disturbing-minnesota-family-court-picture-62949/

Facebook Bans Conservatives For Complaining About Censorship

Social media giant back to its old ways despite much heralded meeting with conservatives

The ban came after a post was removed which merely argued that Donald Trump was not anti-Muslim.

Lauren 2

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading: http://_wp_link_placeholderhttp://www.infowars.com/facebook-bans-conservatives-for-complaining-about-censorship/

 

 

Police reports paint disturbing Minnesota Family Court picture

Communities Digital News

by Michael VolpeMay 7, 2016

Four new police reports paint a troubling picture of a violent and dangerous man that has sole custody of his five children, yet the media says he is wrongfully accused. Why?

rucki-700x350WASHINGTON, May 7, 2016 — Communities Digital News has unearthed four police reports involving David Rucki, whose divorce, custody battle and two daughters’ disappearance was the feature of the April 8 “20/20” episode entitled “Footprints in the Snow.”

Those police reports paint a troubling portrait of David Rucki, who presently has sole custody of his five children with ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki accused David Rucki of physical and emotional abuse of her and her children for several years.

The Rucki family came to the attention of the media when the two oldest daughters ran away on April 19, 2013, after their pleas to live with their mother were shut down repeatedly by the court.

They remained missing until November 2015, when U.S. marshals discovered them on a farm in Herman, Minnesota, according to the Star Tribune.

CDN had reported information that backs up Grazzini-Rucki claims of abuse by Rucki.

Rucki has more than 10 criminal arrests and multiple convictions. Four new police reports further substantiate Grazzini-Rucki’s  claims of violence by David Rucki.

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/police-reports-paint-disturbing-minnesota-family-court-picture-62949/#qbczOjHyuh0pVkyl.99

Court Takes Child From Mother After She Mentions Chemtrails At School

Screen-Shot-2014-08-04-at-7.12.51-PM

‘I can now only see my daughter with a social security worker standing over me taking notes, and the judge said this was so that if I mention chemtrails they would put a stop to that.’

Posted on May 2, 2016 by Baxter Dmitry in News, US // 210 Comments

Colorado Mom

A Boulder, Colorado judge has removed a child from her mother’s care because the mother believes chemtrails are being sprayed into the atmosphere, court documents reveal.

Boulder Judge D.D. Mallard told Becca Vandb that ‘99% of people would know those are just contrails,’ and said that she is ‘so immersed in a fringe subculture’ that ‘she is a danger to her daughter.’

I can now only see my daughter with a social security worker standing over me taking notes, and the judge said this was so that if I mention chemtrails they would put a stop to that.’

Becca pointed out that there have been no neglect or child abuse allegations from the court or her daughter’s school.  There have been no criminal charges and no protective services visits.

I am being railroaded for expressing my views about chemtrails.’

Becca Vandb’s daughter wants to be with her mother, but is being kept away from her, with only supervised visits allowed, because Judge Mallard believes Becca is ‘immersed in a dangerous fringe subculture.’

I bought up chemtrails at my daughter’s school and was immediately banned from the premises.  Schools and courts in Boulder, Colorado have flat out denied there is any such thing as geoengineering or chemtrails, so has my kid’s dad who works in atmospheric research at the University of Colorado – seriously.’

DANGEROUS PRECEDENT

The school helped him take away custody because I had the gall to argue with them when they severely embellished my comments (made to adults only) about chemtrails.’

Continue Reading: http://yournewswire.com/court-takes-child-from-mother-after-she-mentions-chemtrails-at-school/

%d bloggers like this: