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

Lawless Lakeville

Scandal in ‘Lawless Lakeville’: Matt Little Illegally Elected Mayor?September 12, 2016

Matt Little, Lakeville??

Lakeville, Dakota County, MN: Mayor Matt Little is accused of committing fraud by lying about his address in order to meet residency requirements needed to run for office as council man, and later, mayor in Lakeville. The allegation, raised by Terry Dean, Nemmers includes, “City Of Lakeville Mayor Matt Little Doesn’t Even Reside In Lawless Lakeville?  2010 & 2012 & 2014 Affidavit Of Candidacy Proves Little Resides In Rosemount? 2016 Affidavit Of Candidacy & 2014 Lawyer License Info Prove Little Resides in Farmington? How Many Days Has Little Lived In The Lawless Shit-Hole Called The City Of Lakeville, Huh? Not A Single Day?” Scandal Alert! City Of Lakeville Mayor Matt Little Doesn’t Even Reside In Lawless Lakeville?

According to the Minnesota Constitution, a candidate must live in the city for at least 30 days before a city election in order to serve as a mayor. If a mayor fails to maintain a city residency, state statute provides that a vacancy in office is created. Handbook for Minnesota Cities: Elected Officials & Council, Structure and Role

Little was a former Lakeville city council member (2010). He was ran for mayor in 2012, and won as the youngest elected mayor, and was elected again in 2014. Records show during the time that Little served as mayor, he did not live in Lakeville, and did not meet residency requirements. As a law student, Little should have been aware of those requirements.This means that Little fraudulently ran for mayor, and illegally held office.

spam clip art

Records Include:

  • 2010 Affidavit of Candidacy showing Matt Little’s address as 16162 Fairgreen Avenue in Rosemount. In 2010, Little served on the Lakeville city council. Property tax records indicate this home belongs to Little’s parents.
  • 2014 Affidavit of Candidacy shows Matt Little’s address as 16162 Fairgreen Avenue, Rosemount
  • 2014 Minnesota Supreme Court Lawyer’s Office Registration Listing for Little’s law license lists his address as 17523 Freeport Ct in Farmington. Dakota County Property Tax records verify this home as belonging to Little.
  • 2016 Filing for Senate showing Matt Little’s address as 17523 Freeport Ct in Farmington.
  • The Minnesota Secretary of State business record details for “Little for Lakeville” (file #3230155-2) list Matt Little’s address as 16153 Finland Avenue in Rosemount. Little is using his brother’s Lakeville address to qualify for eligibility. However, Dakota County Property Tax Records indicate this home actually belongs to Little’s parents. “Little for Lakeville” is a Minnesota Assumed Name, which was filed on February 25, 2009. The filing status is listed as Active / In Good Standing until 2019.

Minnesota Secretary of State Listing: Little for Lakeville

Minnesota Secretary of State Listing: Little for Lakeville

Dakota County Property Information Search - Matt Little, owns a home, and makes his primary residence, in Farmington

Dakota County Property Information Search – Matt Little, owns a home, and makes his primary residence, in Farmington

Little is also exploiting the tragedy of the Grazzini-Rucki case to make a name for himself politically.

Little took time from his busy schedule to publicly thank the Lakeville police department, Jim Backstrom and Prosecuting Attorney Kathryn M. Keena “for bringing peace and justice to our community” after securing a guilty verdict against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. Little has given special attention to the Grazzini-Rucki case while ignoring more serious crimes occurring in Lakeville. For example a Lakeville fire lieutenant recently resigned from the department after being charged with giving alcohol to a minor, and then raping him. In another recent case, a body was found dead at the side of the road. According to Little “peace and justice” was restored to Lakeville after Sandra was convicted, even as more serious crimes that pose a real threat to public safety are happening. Then again if Little does not live in Lakeville, does he really know what is happening there???

peacejustice

Also disturbing is that Little’s public applause implies that he supports David Rucki, and supports the unjust family court decisions that have caused so much pain and upheaval in the lives of Sandra and the children.

In truth, it is David Rucki who poses a danger to the community. Rucki has a long history of violent behavior, history of criminal convictions and has been connected to various financial scams. David Rucki’s Greatest Hits (Police Reports), The Provocateur Yet Matt Little remains silent, and never made a public announcement when Rucki was convicted of assault, domestic violence with OFP violations, or anything else he has done.

How can the community be safer when its own system to secure “peace and justify” is not only failing but also promoting corruption, at epic levels?

Stay tuned for updates!

https://justice4grazziniruckifamily.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/mayor-matt-little-scandal/

LION NEWS: EXCLUSIVE VIDEO OF SAMANTHA RUCKI CALLING DAKOTA CO. JUDGE KNUTSON A “DICK”

Lion News: Exclusive Video Of Samantha Rucki Calling Dakota County Judge Knutson A “Dick”?

Grazzini-Rucki Child Support Hearing

Justice for Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Children August 26, 2016

Grazzini-Rucki Child Support Hearing Raises Concerns of Fraud, Abuse of Discretion

lionmoney

An August 11th 2016 child support hearing in Dakota County regarding David Rucki and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, played out with the antics of a circus side show, freakishly contorting law and issuing orders that defy justice.

The hearing was presided by Magistrate Maria K. Pastoor (a magistrate is appointed in cases where the obligee is receiving public assistance). Magistrate Pastoor issued a temporary order for child support and continued the case to hold an evidentiary hearing, just 5 days before Sandra’s sentencing on criminal charges, to determine child support. How can you issue a child support order days before a person may be sentenced to prison? According to Minnesota law, if the court determines that a person has no income and completely lacks the ability to earn income, then the minimum support does not apply and child support may not be ordered. Also, minimum support orders do not apply to an obligor who is incarcerated, unless they have income and assets to pay support. Sandra has neither income or assets. It is unprecedented that Magistrate Pastoor would issue a child support order under these circumstances. The amount of money and resources Dakota County has expended on pursuing Sandra for child support, has far exceeded any benefit it can hope to gain.

Another bizarre aspect of this child support case is the restrictions Magistrate Pastoor put on attorney, Michelle MacDonald, severely limiting her ability to access and review financial information about David Rucki. Ms. MacDonald has filed several discovery requests, and contempt motions against Rucki. Rucki continues to obstruct child support proceedings by refusing to comply with court orders and provide financial information. Another ploy Rucki uses is filing frivolous motions against Sandra, and waging false accusations without evidence to back up his outlandish claims. Dakota County refuses to hold him accountable, contempt orders are always dismissed.

Millionaire David Rucki now claims to be living in the lowest levels of poverty, and is receiving public assistance without ever proving a need for it.

One Sided Evidentiary Hearing

In order to establish child support the Court has to determine the income of BOTH parents. Under Minnesota law, both parents must file a financial affidavit, and disclose all sources of gross income for purposes of child support. Sandra has complied. David Rucki is refusing to cooperate and is actively hiding income and assets. Rucki is also refusing to comply with discovery requests. Dakota County is well aware that he has refused to provide information, but has done nothing to hold him accountable.

Now, Magistrate Pastoor has issued an order severely limiting the ability of Sandra’s attorney, Michelle MacDonald, to review and access financial information about Rucki.  Pastoor’s bizarre order states that Ms. MacDonald may view Rucki’s recent filing and tax return only under the watch of a sheriff’s deputy at the Dakota County Service Center. Ms. MacDonald can not have any electronics in her possession when viewing the information (is she going to be searched? patted down?). Ms. MacDonald is not allowed to have copies of the actual documents but can take handwritten notes (how does that comply with evidentiary standards?). She may only view the information at a time “acceptable to court administration”. There are ways to protect the confidentiality of parties but what Magistrate Pastoor is imposing is oppressive, and goes above and beyond standard court confidentiality policies.

A fair and impartial evidentiary hearing can not be one sided – each party should be treated the same by the Court, and each held to the same set of rules and practices. Let’s be clear – this is a child support case, NOT a national security issue. The order does not indicate any justification for such drastic measures. This is clearly an abuse of discretion.

Rucki: From Riches to Rags

Pic posted by David Rucki, Facebook April 2016, with a statement about missing daughters.

Without providing any proof of income or assets. millionaire David Rucki now claims he is desperately poor, that the children are starving and struggling, and he requires public assistance in order to survive. According to court records, “The Father (Rucki) receives child support services from Dakota County for the joint children pursuant to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.” Rucki has also received assistance from the Wetterling Foundation in obtaining “reunification” therapy in California for his runaway teenage daughters, with a Disney vacation thrown in.

However, the court record also contains evidence that Rucki had substantial income, had ownership in several Minnesota businesses, owns or has possession of, multiple vehicles and has at least 3 real estate properties (two that have recently been remodeled). Even if Rucki refuses to comply with discovery, and even if Rucki refuses to provide the Court with documentation, his income could be imputed for child support purposes. When a Court, and for that matter Dakota County should also be considering this information for eligibility purposes, estimates a party’s income, it can consider a broad range of information – including lifestyle, ability to maintain current expenses, cash flow and other concrete resources (including vehicles). Also, a support order does not have to be based on income alone but can also consider resources, property and business interests.

According to public records, “impoverished” Rucki owns two separate homes in Minnesota, and an additional Disney vacation property in Florida. Rucki owns multiple vehicles, including classic cars. Rucki owns assets, trucks, and equipment related to his trucking business. In addition, Rucki is able to afford expensive legal counsel, and has retained at least two separate law firms to represent his interests.

dave-ruckicaddy

David Rucki driving his classic Cadillac – used to stalk and harass Sandra Grazzini-Rucki

Consider This:

A prior real estate listing boasts about Rucki’s home in Farmington – recently updated, cherry cabinets, tiled floors, 5 bedrooms and 3 baths, and a two car garage. The property also includes an impressive 65 x 45 heated “shed” that towers over the home. The “shed” includes heat, hot and cold water plumbing, and has an expensive trailer parked out in front. According to public tax statement records, the value of the property is listed at $222,000 with property taxes of $3,315 a year.

http://www.movoto.com/lakeville-mn/17549-flagstaff-ave-lakeville-mn-55024-651_4573184/

Rucki's property in Farmington

Rucki’s property in Farmington (movoto.com)

Rucki also owns a home in an upscale neighborhood in Lakeville – this home includes 5 bedrooms, 4 baths, recent updates, hickory floors and stainless appliances. Total lot size is 22,477 square feet. A recent photo of the home, taken by a satellite map, shows 3 vehicles parked in garage. According to property tax records, the current value of the home is $479,000 with $6,492 in propety taxes.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/19675-Ireland-Pl-Lakeville-MN-55044/1666608_zpid/

Rucki's Lakeville property (Zillow.com)

Rucki’s Lakeville property (Zillow.com)

A previous article on Red Herring Alert offers information and documentation alleging that Rucki was involved in mortgage fraud and title washing in a scheme involving the Lakeville home: MORTGAGE FRAUD? Ireland Place (Red Herring Alert)

Continue Reading:https://justice4grazziniruckifamily.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/grazzini-rucki-child-suport-august-2016/

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

 

More on Sandra Grazzini Rucki’s Guilty Verdict

SGR PIC

From Michael Volpe:

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was found guilty of hiding her daughters from their father. The decision came after the judge disallowed the majority of her defense’s evidence.