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.”

 

REVELATION: Dawn of Global Government

New documentary film featuring Charlie Daniels: Exposes fall of American sovereignty Infowars.com

 

Looming world government, a world “elite”, The United Nations…loss of American sovereignty! The light of our “shining city on the hill” dims. Dissecting America under judgment, Lieutenant General William Boykin and Alex Jones join Charlie Daniels in a primer for the uninitiated on The New World Order with Biblical perspective. The global feudal police state unfolds…We were born for such a time as this!

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/

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

 

Fatherhood.gov

Deconstructing Fatherhood Propaganda

The article “Deconstructing the Essential Father” by Louise B. Silverstein and Carl F. Auerbach of Yeshiva University, was originally published in the journal American Psychologist in June 1999.

“Deconstructing the Essential Father” was written as a criticism of David Blankenhorn and David Popenoe’s work, which claimed, “fathers are essential to positive child development and that responsible fathering is most likely to occur within the context of heterosexual marriage.”

In their opening statements, Silverstein and Auerbach noted how “this perspective is generating a range of governmental initiatives designed to provide social support preferences to fathers over mothers and to heterosexual married couples over alternative family forms,” and propose that the “neoconservative position is an incorrect or oversimplified interpretation of empirical research.”

The term “essential” in “essential father” refers to the concept of essentialism, that is, the idea that there are biological sex differences between women and men that create a difference in parenting methods and emphases between the genders. Feminists believe that this concept of “separate spheres” has been discredited since the turn of the last century.”

In opposition to the neoconservative position, Silverstein and Auerbach argue that neither mothers nor fathers are essential to child development, that parenting roles are interchangeable, that the significant variables in predicting father involvement are economic rather than marital, and that responsible fathering can occur within a variety of family structures. Over the past six years, they have studied the fathering identities of men who are actively involved with their children. They used a wide range of cross-species, cross-cultural, and social science research, including their own study of 200 men, to reach these conclusions. Those 200 men were divided into 10 different subcultures with U. S. society, including Haitian Christian fathers; Promise Keeper fathers; gay fathers; Latino fathers; White, nongay divorced fathers; Modern Orthodox Jewish fathers; and Greek grandfathers. They have concluded that children need “at least one responsible, caretaking adult who has a positive emotional connection to them and with whom they have a consistent relationship.” They have also found that “the stability of the emotional connection and the predictability of the caretaking relationship are the significant variables that predict positive child adjustment.” In the end, they examine why the neoconservative perspective has become so widely accepted within popular culture. They then offer social policy recommendations that support men in their fathering role without discriminating against women and same-sex couples.

Continue Reading: http://www.xyonline.net/content/deconstructing-fatherhood-propaganda

NOT BUYING WHAT YOU’RE SELLING!

Sam 2

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and children

I wanted to follow-up on a comment made by Tim Kinley on the Speechless Show 2016/07/07 Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Children (Click to View)

Tim references Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s criminal case which is scheduled to begin on July 18th, 2016 at the Dakota Co. Courthouse in Hastings, MN. At the 21:13 minute mark of the video, Tim indicated that Judge Karen Aspaugh ordered Sandra Grazzini-Rucki to complete a new IN FORMA PAUPERIS eligibility form to proceed in her criminal case.

Empty Hands

Image courtesy of marcolm at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

 

 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Lat. ‘in the form of a pauper.’ Someone who is without the funds to pursue the normal costs of a lawsuit or criminal defense. Upon the court’s granting of this status the person is entitled to waiver of normal costs and/or appointment of counsel. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tim stated that the State is withholding Sandra’s evidence until she pays for her data/discovery. He misstated that the evidence should be given to Sandra and then the State should send the bill. (Dakota County is just continuing to give Sandra the bureaucratic run-around when in fact they are illegally withholding readily available, free, electronic data from Sandra and others involved in this rigged case.They are also in violation of the Minnesota Gov’t Data Practices Act (Chapter 13.09) and criminal misconduct of a public official (Chapter 609.43(1)). Motions need to be filed for sanctions and subpoenas issued to people like Robyn Sykes, MCIT Executive Director, Peter Tritz, LMCIT Administrator, and Mike Garris, LOGIS Executive Director who could testify that not only corrupt Dakota County but the corrupt City of Lakeville is illegally withholding data and discovery and is obstructing justice.

“We have held that when the State suppresses or fails to disclose material exculpatory evidence, the good or bad faith of the prosecution is irrelevant: a due process violation occurs whenever such evidence is withheld.”Illinois v. Fisher.² 2. 540 U.S. 544, 547, 124 S.Ct. 1200, 1202 (2004). George R. Dekle, Sr, Prosecution Principles: A Clinical Handbook, Page 145...

Here’s the deal: We live in the age of technology and public data/discovery is now FREE, ELECTRONIC and READILY AVAILABLE, This data can easily be file-shared by email.

ID-100430238

Image courtesy of cookie__cutter at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Effective July 1, 2015, attorneys, government agencies, and guardians ad litem are now required to electronically file and serve documents in all court cases filed in the 11 eCourtMN pilot counties.

This includes all cases filed in Cass, Clay, Cook, Dakota, Faribault, Hennepin, Kandiyohi, Lake, Morrison, Ramsey, and Washington counties. eFiling now mandatory for attorneys, agencies, GALs in 11 pilot counties, effective July 1 Posted: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 http://www.mncourts.gov/About-The Courts/NewsAndAnnouncements/ItemDetail.aspx?id=1109

One of the key elements of eCourtMN is the establishment of eFiling and eService – giving case participants the ability to submit documents to the court and serve documents to opposing parties electronically, through an online portal. This allows court customers to file documents without traveling to the courthouse or paying for postage or courier costs, allows filers to submit documents immediately and outside of courthouse business hours, and allows court documents to be sent to filers electronically. eFiling now available in all 87 Minnesota district courts Posted: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 http://www.mncourts.gov/About-The-Courts/NewsAndAnnouncements/ItemDetail.aspx?id=1232

Each department has file share capabilities through their joint powers agreement with Local Government Information Systems – LOGIS.

Headquartered in Golden Valley, Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS) is a Joint Powers, intergovernmental consortium of Minnesota local government units. The mission of LOGIS is to “Facilitate leading-edge, effective and adaptable public sector technology solutions through the sharing of ideas, risks and resources in a member-driven consortium.”

Each LOGIS member is allowed to be on the LOGIS board of directors. The Board, which controls LOGIS, is made up of a variety of member city and county professionals, from police chiefs to city managers to finance directors

There is no law that requires a charge for this free electronic public data/discovery, but there is a law that any fee charged must be clearly demonstrated by the government entity to itemize the actual development costs of the information. The responsible authority, upon the request of any person, shall provide sufficient documentation to explain and justify the fee being charged. 13.03 ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT DATA. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=13.03&format=pdf

Actual Cost – These can be included: Cost of media (paper, CD ROMs, DVDs, etc.) … Entities cannot
charge search for and retrieval time when the requester is the data subject.

Cost Calculation Form

 

Dakota County is required to explain in detail how they arrive at their costs, when the readily available, free, electronic, public data has already been created and they have already been compensated for creating the data through their salaries. The public also has a right to know if they are creating data by printing out the electronic public data onto pieces of paper and then scanning the pieces of paper to manufacture bills. Sizes of the electronic files must also be revealed (Actual costs for a CD is only (2) two cents– not $15.00. Plus, (6) six CD’s can fit onto one (1) DVD).

ID-10061387

Image courtesy of sscreations at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

 

Dakota County is demonstrating contempt for the rules of the court and seem to be above the laws of the state. Only the defendants are required to follow the rules of the rigged court and the laws in lawless Dakota county. Sandra nor anyone else can trust any arrest, prosecution or conviction in this county!