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.”

 

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.

 

AIDING AND ABETTING IN THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

A Mayor, running to be the State Senator for Lakeville, Farmington, Hampton, Vermillion, New Trier, Miesville, Dennison, Randolph, Northfield, and 12 townships!
MLS

“I’ve always been a pragmatic policy maker. It’s not about party or labels, it’s about solving problems that matter to people and families.”          

Well, I’ve got some problems that matter to me, but Lakeville Mayor Matt Little hasn’t been willing to help me solve them. In fact, I have left numerous voice mails and sent numerous emails to make him aware of the witness tampering, harassment by the Lakeville police and illegal withholding of my evidence in rigged case no. 19HA-CR-15-4227 State Of Minnesota VS Deirdre Elise Evavold. The evidence of this misconduct was sent to Matt & is outlined in the criminal complaint  below.

BackstromCmplt01b

I was forced to file against Dakota Co. Attorneys: James Backstrom, Philip Prokopowicz and Kathryn Keena on February 21, 2016 for illegally withholding readily available, free, electronic, data in violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Chapter 13.09) and criminal misconduct of a public official (Chapter 609.43(1)). The so-called judge Karen Asphaug has also been aiding and abetting this miscarriage of justice by ignoring her own orders. “All discovery shall be exchanged PRIOR to the settlement conference. Probable cause, and scheduling order for: 19HA-CR-15-4227. Signed by Karen Asphaug 3-1-16.”  I have been to forced to travel approximately one and one half hours one way to multiple court hearings, only to be denied my discovery.

Click on document to zoom

Subpoena PicMatt has willfully refused to respond to a single email/voicemail and it would appear that lawyer Little wants to distance himself from this obstruction of justice. As an attorney, he knows that it’s impossible for me to prepare for my trial or for my testimony in the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki trial on Monday, July 18th without my discovery/evidence. Apparently trial by ambush is how Mayor/Lawyer Little believes our system of justice should function.

Elected Officials’ Duties & Responsibilities                                                 

It is the duty of the mayor, clerk, and councilmembers to ensure the city fulfills its duties under the law and lawfully exercises its powers.

City officials can sometimes be held personally liable for failing to act or for taking unauthorized actions on the part of the city. To avoid personal-liability lawsuits, city officials should gain a working knowledge of the laws that regulate city government  http://www.lmc.org/page/1/duties-resp-mayor-council.jsp

On June 24th, 2016 I was forced to travel to the Hastings Police Dept. to hand deliver the complaint against the Dakota Co. Attorneys James Backstrom, Philip Prokopowicz and Kathryn Keena. I was forced to do that because Hastings Police Chief Bryan Schafer willfully refused to acknowledge receipt of my emailed complaint. It’s ironic since Gary Hird of the Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility Board did. Even though I have audio and video evidence of hand-delivering my complaint to Lieutenant Joe Kegley, Chief Schafer willfully refuses to email me the public portion of the police report that I filed against Backstrom, Prokopowicz and Kathryn Keena.

On the same day, I attempted to file a criminal complaint with the Lakeville Police against David Rucki (ex-husband of Sandra). I have reason to suspect Rucki was engaging in witness tampering. Rucki was harassing, threatening, and intimidating me via the U.S. Mail.  The Lakeville police personnel claimed that Deputy Chief Kormann had them tell me that they did not have any officers available to take my complaint. The video that I have in my possession indicates that not one but two officers were witnessed at the Lakeville PD who could have easily taken my valid complaint.                                                                                                                        Hellmuth & Johnson

Facing potential civil litigation in Rucki case, owner deletes blog

609.498 TAMPERING WITH WITNESS https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.498&format=pdf

Subdivision 1. Tampering with witness in the first degree. Whoever does any of the following is guilty of tampering with a witness in the first degree and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 1a:

(a) intentionally prevents or dissuades or intentionally attempts to prevent or dissuade by means of force or threats of injury to any person or property, a person who is or may become a witness from attending or testifying at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law;

(b) by means of force or threats of injury to any person or property, intentionally coerces or attempts to coerce a person who is or may become a witness to testify falsely at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law;      

(c) intentionally causes injury or threatens to cause injury to any person or property in retaliation against a person who was summoned as a witness at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law, within a year following that trial, proceeding, or inquiry or within a year following the actor’s release from incarceration,whichever is later;

(d) intentionally prevents or dissuades or attempts to prevent or dissuade, by means of force or threats of injury to any person or property, a person from providing information to law enforcement authorities concerning a crime;

Subd. 1a. Penalty. Whoever violates subdivision 1 may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine not to exceed $10,000. 


Pitcher

Tim Pitcher, Farmington Councilmember (651-492-4982 tpitcher@ci.farmington.mn.us) State Senator District 58 Candidate (651-492-4982 tim@timothypitcher.com)

I contacted Tim Pitcher, Farmington Councilmember and State Senator District 58 Candidate via phone and email to inform him about his fellow Candidate Matt Little. Tim returned my call promptly and I was able to inform him that Matt Little has had no difficulty stepping on me to climb the political ladder and clearly serves a corrupt special interest group vs. the public’s interest.

 He agreed to contact Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom to request that my evidence be emailed to me immediately to prepare for my testimony in Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s trial (He assured us that he would send a follow-up email regarding contact with Dakota Co.)

Candidate Filings 2016 State General Election: State Senator District 58 Candidate Name Tim Pitcher Party Republican Website www.timothypitcher.com File Date 5/17/2016 

State Senator District 58 Candidate Name Matt Little Party Democratic-Farmer-Labor Website www.votelittle.com 5/18/2016 Email: matt@votelittle.com Phone Number (952) 2889660 Residence Address 17523 FREEPORT CT FARMINGTON, MN 55024 Campaign Address PO BOX 650 LAKEVILLE, MN 55044 Just wondering how you can be the mayor of Lakeville and reside in Farmington?


As stated before, apparently, the only way Dakota County can win their cases is by illegally withholding evidence from the defendants they are victimizing in criminal cases and forcing them to plead guilty without ever receiving their evidence. I did report this obstruction of justice to District 4 – Commissioner Nancy Schouweiler (Calls recorded). Schouweiler lawyered up and apparently has no intention of investigating the misuse of public funds nor the misconduct of the public officials at the Dakota County Attorney’s office. To protect myself and others, I have been educating the public that they cannot trust any arrest, prosecution nor conviction in lawless Dakota County and I’m also going to continue to educate the public that they cannot trust Mayor/Lawyer Matt Little.

STAY TUNED!