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

THE FIX

August 01, 2016  Sandra Grazzini-Rucki story/The Fix.   Podcasts: Archived programs

 August 01, 2016  Sandra Grazzini-Rucki story/The Fix

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/22387094

 

ABOVE THE LAW

AMERICANS REACT WITH FURY: ‘IF HILLARY DOESN’T FOLLOW THE LAW, WHY SHOULD I?’

Anger as FBI recommends no charges for former Secretary of State

JULY 5, 2016

Americans React With Fury: 'If Hillary Doesn't Follow the Law, Why Should I?'

Many Americans reacted furiously to the FBI’s announcement that Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges over her email scandal, with some asserting that since the former Secretary of State appears to be above the law, they would also now refuse to follow it.

“Why should we follow the law when our leaders don’t?” asked one respondent, adding, “This Clinton bullshit has sealed the deal for me. We are ruled by a corrupt cabal that is above the law.”

“If Clinton wins, I’m not paying taxes anymore or following federal laws,” wrote another, adding, “Simple as that. It’s over. They can jail or kill me, I don’t care. I’d rather live as a free American for a day, then spend a lifetime under criminals.”

“If Hillary Clinton is not indicted why should I ever follow another law? I’ve played by the rules my entire life. Every day,” wrote another enraged American.

Innumerable people on Twitter also asked why they should bother to follow the law given that it doesn’t even appear to apply to the nation’s highest elected representatives.

Continue Reading: http://www.infowars.com/americans-react-with-fury-if-hillary-doesnt-follow-the-law-why-should-i/

JUDICIAL WATCH DEMANDS DOJ INSPECTOR GENERAL PROBE INTO “SCANDALOUS” LYNCH-CLINTON MEETING

The political scandal of the day was the news that on Monday evening (coincidentally just before the Benghazi report was released), Bill Clinton and US Attorney General Loretta Lynch just happened to meet on the tarmac at a Phoenix airport – totally unplanned of course. Clinton saw the attorney general and wanted to say hello, so Clinton boarded Lynch’s plane to talk for a bit.

Sure, just a quick chat about the weather, his putting stroke, anything except oh, say, an update on what was about to be released on Benghazi, and especially not an update on the ongoing FBI investigation into Hillary.

Our conversation was a great deal about his grandchildren. It was primarily social and about our travels. He mentioned the golf he played in Phoenix, and he mentioned travels he’d had in West Virginia. There was no discussion of any matter pending for the department or any matter pending for any other body. There was no discussion of Benghazi, no discussion of the State Department emails, by way of example” Lynch told reporters.

Continue Reading: http://www.infowars.com/judicial-watch-demands-doj-inspector-general-probe-into-scandalous-lynch-clinton-meeting/

Unwarranted: Was the Arrest Warrant Against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Improperly Handled?

In August 2015, a sealed warrant for the arrest of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was “accidentally” posted on the public webpage of the Dakota County Sheriff’s office leading to the warrant being widely published, and shared, in news media outlets. Sensitive information about the sealed warrant was also given to abusive ex-husband, David Rucki, from The Star Tribune. Dakota County Sheriff Tim Leslie claims the leak was just a “glitch”.

The original warrant was then pulled down from the public website then re-sealed again, as if nothing had ever happened. The original warrant was put under a 2nd seal (re-sealed) and never served to Sandra but instead sent U.S. Marshalls after her, claiming she was a “fugitive”. How can you be a “fugitive” when you were never informed of proceedings, and never served with a warrant? 

Sheriff Tim Leslie

Sheriff Tim Leslie

Could that “glitch” cost Dakota County their case against Sandra? A recent court ruling states that improper service is grounds for dismissal; certainly in this case, there was not only improper service but outright negligence to protect information so sensitive that the judge ordered the warrant to be sealed. 

Signed, Sealed, but NOT Delivered

When someone is suspected of a crime, law enforcement obtains a warrant of arrest which is a document signed by a judge authorizing the detention of an individual, or authorizing the search and seizure of an individual’s property.

In the case of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, a nation wide warrant for arrest was submitted by Prosecuting Attorney Kathryn M. Keena before a judge, and put under a seal on August 12, 2015. Sandra was charged with 3 counts of felony deprivation of parental rights. According to Keena a seal was needed “because disclosure could cause defendant to flee, hide, or otherwise prevent execution of the warrant”. The seal was to last until Sandra is arrested, and returned to the state. What evidence did Keena have to substantiate a sealed warrant? To date, no evidence has been presented that would justify such an extraordinary measure. 

Kathryn Keena (Source:http://minnlawyer.com)

Kathryn Keena (Source:http://minnlawyer.com)

Was a Sealed Warrant Necessary?

A seal means that the warrant is filed in secret, and its existence will not be made public. The subject of the warrant has no idea that they are wanted on charges until they are apprehended. A sealed warrant is usually reserved for special circumstances where public knowledge may jeopardize the investigation and/or issuance of the warrant.

Putting a seal on an arrest warrant is NOT a common procedure; and is even more extraordinary when used against an ordinary Minnesota Mom. Sandra has no prior criminal history, and has attended all scheduled court dates (related to ongoing custody issues, she has NO prior criminal history) – even travelling from out of state to do so. Sandra has also worked at the same job for 28 years, and maintains a stable lifestyle. She posed absolutely no risk of danger to anyone, and was certainly not a flight risk. 

Further, the police knew exactly where to find Sandra – according to the police report, the Lakeville police had previously issued search warrants for the airline she worked for, and had no problem finding out her address, phone number, and employment information. Sandra was being monitored before the warrant was issued. While this was happening, Sandra maintained her normal routine, and did not display any signs that she would evade any legal process.

A summons to appear at a court date would have been sufficient, rather than going to these unnecessary and costly, efforts used by Dakota County.

Somebody’s watching me… (Public Domain: http://www.acclaimimages.com)

Sealed Warrant Goes Public Due to a “Glitch”

Despite the exhaustive efforts of Dakota County to seal the arrest warrant, there was a glitch (or perhaps a leak?) and out of all the warrants entered in the system…somehow only the sealed warrant belonging to Sandra was “accidentally” posted publicly on the Dakota County Sheriff website. Dakota County continued to issue a fugitive warrant on a woman who did not even know a warrant had been issue. Sandra had never been served, nor had her attorney been served (in fact the attorney was only notified of the existence of a warrant after a call from the Star Tribune!)

And if that was not bad enough (gasp!) the Star Tribune, who had been in contact with Lakeville police for months, was alerted and went public, announcing an arrest warrant had been issued for Sandra.

Brandon Stahl of the Star Tribune broke news of the arrest warrant on August 18th: Mother sought in case of two missing Lakeville girls

Brandon Stahl, Star Tribune

Brandon Stahl, Star Tribune

Follwed by Michael Brodkorb, also of the Star Tribune, posting an update on August 21st on his Twitter feed, mentioning the arrest supposedly sealed warrant: https://twitter.com/mbrodkorb/status/634764171125592064

The Star Tribune then informed Sandra’s attorney, Michelle MacDonald, about the sealed warrant…and gleefully spread the news across multiple social media venues. The seal had been broken on the warrant as the news spread nationwide thanks to the special efforts made by Stahl and Brodkorb at the Star Tribune. Keep in mind one of the common reasons that a warrant is sealed is to prevent news of the warrant from reaching the media, who could compromise the case with disclosure.  

Michael Brodkorb~ terminated reporter, Star Tribune

Michael Brodkorb~ terminated reporter, Star Tribune

By “coincidence” a local news outlet reports on the close relationship between Lt. Jason Polinski of the Lakeville Police Department and the Star Tribune,A Star Tribune story in April provided new information that helped police build a case for an arrest warrant for Grazzini-Rucki, who previously was considered a “person of interest,” in the case, Polinski said.Police looking for mother in disappearance of daughters in Minnesota

Even David Rucki himself acknowledged the connection,”..Rucki added he was “very grateful” for the assistance of law enforcement and media attention..” David had alot to be “grateful” for considering Michael Brodkorb of The Star Tribune tipped him off about the sealed warrant. Father of missing Lakeville sisters ‘relieved’ by warrant for ex-wife’s arrest/

At that point there is no reason for the warrant to remain sealed, instead providing Sandra with a notice to appear in court would have been appropriate. Instead, Dakota County relentlessly pursued Sandra. At great cost to tax payers, Dakota County had the warrant removed from the public website and then re-sealed. Sandra was apprehended by U.S. Marshalls, in Florida, and she endured a brutal journey being transported across the country, chained up in the back of a van for over 8 days. Keep in mind that Sandra works as a flight attendant, and she could have easily arranged her own transportation back to Minnesota – as she had done numerous times in the past to answer to proceedings related to her custody dispute. 

Recent Case Presents Compelling Reason for Dismissal

ID-100178787

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at freedigitalimages.net

 The common law and the Constitution afford the public a qualified right of access to judicial records and proceedings. 

The significance of the sealed warrant being publicly posted, and then making the news outlets, is that information about the sealed warrant was not only improperly released but also improperly served. Even more important, every individual is protected by laws designed to uphold personal liberty. These laws are in place to limit the government’s ability to take our freedom or property without due process. 

In the 2011 case of Jones v. Brown County (Civil No. 11-CV-568, SRN/FLN) the District Court found that, “ Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), improper service of process may be grounds for dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). In this case, none of the defendants have been properly served. “

The Court then dismissed a claim made against Brown County because, “It is clear that process was not properly served in this case. “ And, “With regard to the individual defendants, under Minnesota Law service may be effectuated “by delivering a copy [of the summons and complaint] to the individual personally or by leaving a copy at the individual’s usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(a). The only attempt at service upon the individual defendants in this case was by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the county offices in which these defendants work. These mailings did not constitute service by mail, as the mailings did not include two copies of Form 22, or a substantially similar notice and acknowledgment form, as required by Minnesota law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.05. Plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements for service upon an individual. Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed for insufficient service of process…

And because Plaintiffs improperly served the original Complaint, this action was never properly commenced. See R. 3.01. “ Source: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-mnd-0_11-cv-00568/pdf/USCOURTS-mnd-0_11-cv-00568-1.pdf

Given that the sealed warrant was improperly served, the Prosecutor’s Office should promptly dismiss all charges. Plz stay tuned to Red Herring Alert for news and updates!

An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. “ ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Egregious Behavior Behind Bars – Grazzini-Rucki PREA Complaint

As previously reported by Red Herring Alert, while being held at the Ramsey County workhouse, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki suffered a head injury on November 24, 205 that required brief hospitalizationSandra Grazzini-Rucki Hospitalized (With Updates)

In an exclusive update that you will hear first on Red Herring Alert, shocking details emerge from the Workhouse about the serious nature of Sandra’s injuries, and how she was mistreated and humiliated by the officer on guard, Deputy Timothy Gonder.

Sandra has filed a PREA Complaint with the Dakota County Sheriff’s Office in care of Sheriff Tim Leslie on May 17th detailing this incident, that can be read in full hereSandra Grazzini-Rucki PREA Complaint – May 17, 2016

Sheriff Tim Leslie, Dakota County

Sheriff Tim Leslie

According to the complaint, Sandra suffered a serious injury to the face that involved fractured bones and a substantial amount of blood loss. Sandra was transported handcuffed and leg shackled to a stretcher from the workhouse to a local hospital.

At approximately 0400-0500 hours Deputy Timothy Gonder arrived at the hospital to relieve the guard on duty and assume watch over Sandra; her suffering was greatly exacerbated by the cruel and humiliating treatment he inflicted on her.

The PREA Complaint filed by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki includes the following allegations:

  • Deputy Gonder intruded on her medical care, and denied her privacy, even when instructed to wait behind a curtain when instructed by medical staff. Deputy Gonder even refused to look away (as instructed) when she had to use the bathroom.
  • Deputy Gonder waited when medical staff left the room and then took out his personal cell phone and snapped pictures without her consent; and then was observed to be laughing and talking on the same phone – presumably sending out pictures (via text) of a vulnerable, and bruised woman who was incapacitated due to the hand and leg cuffs and totally unable to stop these violations against her person. Deputy Gonder also relayed confidential medical and personal information he received from medical staff to whoever was on the phone.              (PREA § 115.6 Definitions related to sexual abuse. Sexual abuse includes—(8) Voyeurism by a staff member, contractor, or volunteer. Voyeurism by a staff member, contractor, or volunteer means an invasion of privacy of an inmate, detainee, or resident by staff for reasons unrelated to official duties, such as peering at an inmate who is using a toilet in his or her cell to perform bodily functions; requiring an inmate to expose his or her buttocks, genitals, or breasts; or taking images of all or part of an inmate’s naked body or of an inmate performing bodily functions.)
  • Shackled her on the bed in a spread eagle position and refused to allow the nurse to shut the door for privacy. The nurse also asked to release the leg shackle so she could change positions, and that request was also denied.
  • Deputy Gonder is also accused of laughing and making inappropriate remarks at various times during her hospital stay, and after, at the Dakota County Courthouse.

Sandra asked for another guard because her attorney has an active case, involving various complaints, against Gonder. Her request was not only refused but Deputy Gonder laughed and allegedly stated “nobody else was available but him”.

When Deputy Gonder was finally relieved of his position, the incoming guard was reported to be much more professional, and to have treated Sandra with basic dignity and respect.

Inmates do have basic rights and are protected by the U.S. Constitution, “Any punishment that can be considered inhumane treatment or that violates the basic concept of a person’s dignity may be found to be cruel and unusual.” (http://civilrights.findlaw.com/other-constitutional-rights/rights-of-inmates.html)  Inmates also have the right to complain about how they are treated while incarcerated. PREA stands for The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and is a federal law that prohibits sexual misconduct and/or harassment in correctional settings.

Red Herring Alert will continue to keep you updated on the Grazzini-Rucki Trial, so please check back for breaking news and reports.

 

 

Still Fighting from the Other Side

Obituary: Dale Nathan, family court critic, dies at 81

By Star Tribune             April 12, 2016 — 9:32pm

itemprop

Dale Nathan

If not for Dale Nathan, two Lakeville teens missing for more than two years may never have been found and reunited with their father.

Not that Nathan was happy about that. About two months ago, he told the Star Tribune that the reunification was a “tragedy,” alleging it was another example of corrupt courts putting children with abusive parents.

Nathan, a longtime attorney who became an outspoken critic of the family justice system, died of lymphoma Saturday. The Eagan resident was 81

Below is the complaint Dale Nathan filed against the Lakeville Police Dept. prior to his death in April of 2016.

 

Click on documents to zoom to review full complaint.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: