Alan Pendleton lied to voters about his residence.
In a petition for disciplinary action filed against Alan Pendleton in December, the director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to suspend Pendleton’s law license for 90 days. The court agreed in an order filed last week.
Pendleton was removed from office in October after he lied to voters about his residence on his affidavit of candidacy. He was living in his wife’s house in Minnetonka, which is in Hennepin County, for eight months starting in December 2013.
In its 39-page decision for removal, the court agreed to the harshest penalty. The majority’s decision said, “In order for the public to have confidence in the integrity of the judicial system, the public must believe that there is an effective system in place to ensure judges abide by our Constitution and follow their ethical obligations.”
I find it interesting that the court agreed to the harshest penalty for a fairly benign offense. In the Bench & Bar of MN article Summary of private discipline, Timothy Burke states, “Most complaints involving what appear to be allegations of isolated and nonserious misconduct are investigated by a district ethics committee (DEC). The DEC, after investigation, will recommend whether the Director’s Office should find a violation of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) has been committed and, if so, the appropriate form of discipline.”
Many matters in which a lawyer violated the MRPC are resolved through private discipline. In calendar year 2015, 124 admonitions were issued to Minnesota attorneys. Admonitions are a private form of discipline, issued for isolated and nonserious misconduct.
Ok, so the harshest penalty was recommended by the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and agreed to by the MN Supreme Court for living outside the district, but the complaints below were dismissed? GO FIGURE! I would like to know the real story behind this disciplinary action as most of the time when a judge or attorney is targeted, they are seen as a threat to the status quo of the corrupt system.
Complaint Against Members of “the firm” Pennington, Lies & Cherne, P.A. St. Cloud, MN (See Below-Click to Enlarge)
The Client Security Board is one part of the comprehensive system of lawyer regulation and public protection. The unique role of the Client Security Board is to help the victims overcome their financial losses caused by dishonest lawyers. The fund may reimburse up to $150,000 for dishonest conduct committed by a Minnesota lawyer. It covers the loss of money or property resulting from lawyer dishonesty, but not because the lawyer acted incompetently, committed malpractice or failed to take certain actions. Financially, the fund remains healthy and able to pay claims promptly should a major defalcation be uncovered. In short, the public remains protected and well-served by the Minnesota Client Security Board. NOT!!!
What do we know for sure?
Excerpt from: Legal Evil? In Their Own Words-Don Mashak
We know that “The Minnesota Legislature just set up “figure head” enforcement agencies to give the “illusion of oversight, law and order” (Simulated Justice) to the general public. The Minnesota Legislature rendered the agencies powerless to do anything about Citizen Complaints and Minnesota Governmental unit transgressions. Our Tyrannical Government counted on most citizens not having the financial resources nor knowledge to follow through on forcing their complaints and/or issues from being addressed and resolved. And for anyone who would dare press the complaints and issues beyond the initial “status quo guardians”, demonization, discrediting and economic retaliation are used to neutralize these voices of discontent and dissent.
SIMULATED LAW AND ORDER – DISTORTING YOUR PERCEPTION OF REALITY
Where are the Government agencies that are supposed to be the checks and balances on our Government?
Where is the Justice Department? Where is the FBI? Where are the County Sheriffs? Where are the County Attorneys? Where are the State Attorney Generals? Where are the people and agencies that are supposed to police the police, the lawyers and the judges? Why didn’t the Minnesota State Auditors Department do more?
All of this money is being spent for these people’s salaries for what? Aren’t these aforementioned Government Agencies supposed to protect WE THE PEOPLE from crime, corruption and the trespasses of our Government?”
Because Minnesota deserves the truth. Posted Saturday, March 31st 2012
Radio Talk Show Host, Sue Jeffers, Minneapolis, MN – News Talk/AM 1130
Guests: Tim Kinley and Lea Banken On Air this Saturday, March 31st @ 1 pm, Judicial Accountability/Judicial Reform
Further Historical Information on Minnesota Courts
Posted on September 6, 2012 Carver County Corruption
The Grim Truth About MN Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea
VOTE DAN GRIFFITH FOR MN SUPREME COURT
Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea is up for re-election this November 6th in Minnesota. Lorie Gildea received Banken mother’s Writ of Prohibition (an emergency appeal) last August 2011. Gildea signed the paper denying Lea`s emergency appeal stating Lea had a remedy; a regular appeal that would take up to a year and thousands of dollars, of which time Lea would have no contact with her three young children. Lea filed her regular appeal and it has now been over a year since she has seen her children ages 2, 6 and 8. Lea`s case is still in appeal, no decision has been made.
Carver County`s Senator Juliane Ortman sent a letter to Chief Justice Lorie Gildea asking for an immediate investigation into Carver County Family Court practices back in April 2012. Link: ORTMAN LETTER Senator Ortman has been approached for years by citizens in Carver County about numerous family court horror stories where mothers lose custody of their children to wealthy ex-spouses with a history of abuse convictions. It is a pattern in this county no one can deny. Senator Ortman and Lea Dannewitz (previously known as Lea Banken) were interviewed by KARE 11 after the Ortman letter went out. Lorie Gildea got wind of the coverage by KARE 11 and sent a letter back to Senator Ortman immediately stating a full refusal to conduct an investigation. KARE 11 stopped the airing of the investigation for reasons unknown.
Lorie Gildea (incumbent) is up for re-election this November 6th. Gildea was appointed into office, not elected. Gildea is not a mother herself and is fully aware of the corruption in Minnesota`s judicial system. Gildea has allowed this corruption to continue. As a result hundreds of Minnesota parents, children and citizens suffer daily.
Every ballot in Minnesota this November will have a judicial section. Lorie Gildea`s opponent is Dan Griffith. Dan Griffith`s quest is to bring accountability back to the judicial system and ensure judges abide by laws and statutes that are enacted by the legislature and approved by the Governor. Currently, judges do not have to abide by the law – there is no remedy to hold them accountable.We have many readers contacting us and asking what they can do to help. Answer: get out to vote this November 6th. Vote Dan Griffith for Minnesota Supreme Court Justice and help us bring change to a very broken court system in Minnesota.
Minnesota Supreme Court race
As featured in JP Election Brief: The Supreme Court Special on October 18, 2012.
This year, there are three Minnesota Supreme Court seats up for election: Place 1, Place 4, and the Chief Justice seat. Only 2 of the 3 Supreme Court races were considered in the primary, the Chief Justice and Place 4 seats. In those races, three candidates competed for each seat and the two candidates receiving the most votes proceeded to the general election. In both of the primary races, the incumbent was successful.
In the race for the Chief Justice position, incumbent Justice Lorie Gildea and challenger Dan Griffith won the highest vote percentages and will compete against one another in the general election. In the race for Place 4, incumbent Justice David Stras and Tim Tingelstad will face one another in the general election.
Both incumbents received higher vote percentages in the primaries than their closest competitor. In their respective races, Gildea received approximately 50% of the vote to Griffith’s 29%, while Stras received approximately 49% of the votes to Tingelstad’s 29%, making it very likely that both incumbents will be re-elected.
Place 1 was not contested in the primary, but will see incumbent Barry Anderson compete against challenger Dean Barkley in the general election. Barkley previously served as a lobbyist and campaign manager for former governor Jesse Ventura and is a member of the Independence Party.
In all likelihood, all incumbents will be re-elected to their seats, maintaining the current state of the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Gee ya think?!!
Below are the results from the 2012 Election.
|Candidate||Incumbency||Place||Primary Vote||Election Vote|
|GriffithDan Griffith||No||Chief Justice||29.4%A||39.59% D|
|ClarkJill Clark (Minnesota)||No||Chief Justice||21%|
|GildeaLorie Gildea A||Yes||49.7%A||60.0% A|
|Candidate||Incumbency||Place||Primary Vote||Election Vote|
|AndersonBarry Anderson (Minnesota) A||Yes||Place 1||58.94% A|
|BarkleyDean Barkley||No||Place 1||40.65% D|
|Candidate||Incumbency||Place||Primary Vote||Election Vote|
|NelsonAlan Nelson||No||Place 4||21.7%|
|StrasDavid Stras A||Yes||Place 4||48.8%A||55.95% A|
|TingelstadTim Tingelstad||No||Place 4||29.4%A||43.62%|
By Guest Writer Angela M. Young
The statement “Where Law Ends, Tyranny Begins” is carved in stone on the Stearns County Court house in Minnesota, Seventh Judicial District.
John Locke states in Section 202 of Chap. XVIII “Of Tyranny” in Book II of the Two Treatises of Government that even magistrates must abide by the law:
Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street, may be opposed as a thief and a robber, if he endeavors to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant, and such a legal authority, as will empower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed.”
Where law ends, tyranny begins. Let us talk a bit about judicial immunity. There is an argument that judges must be free from liability in order to allow them to make controversial decisions in the spirit of justice without fear of retribution- Even if said judges are acting corruptly or in bad faith. Think about that! Not only are judges human and subject to human error, and in order to preserve justice and uphold the law, they should be accountable to “fix” their mistakes, but even if they act in bad faith they are completely immune no matter what damage is done.
According to the book Judicial Misconduct A Cross-National Comparison, by Mary L. Volcansek with Elisabetta de Franciscis and Jacqueline Lucienne Lafon, Complete judicial immunity was never intended, while it is our country’s current reality. Simply put, our district court judges have more authority and less “checks and balances” than the president of the United States of America. The word democracy comes from the roots power (kratos) and people (demos). In theory, US citizens have the power to regulate their leaders to a certain degree- to hold them accountable. This is not reality with judges.
Volcansek stated, “The issues of judicial accountability in democracies is a critical, though often neglected, force in achieving or maintaining democracy.” A judge’s role is to interpret and enforce the law, not to create law. However, Volcansek asserts that in the United States, “…at the national level the emphasis is on judicial independence, and accountability is clearly secondary.” Judicial accountability is beyond secondary, it is overwhelmingly non-existent.
The Minnesota Board of Professional Responsibility (that supposedly addresses complaints against attorneys) is privately regulated (verses state regulated) and funded by attorneys and judges. Doesn’t this seem like a conflict of interest? Or, at very least a lack of “checks and balances” that our country’s fore fathers found to be an imperative component of a government that is fair and just. ANY other profession that requires a license is state regulated in an attempt to protect consumers. Think about that- ANY other profession: teachers, mental health therapists, doctors, dentists, nurses, occupational therapists, physical therapists, foster providers, and the list could go on and on. But not attorneys or judges. The Board of Judicial Standards in Minnesota (that supposedly addresses complaints against judges) is supposedly a state regulated board, but if one files a complaint against judge, one will likely find no relief, blaming the consumer for not having the money for an appeal, or if one does, the board itself acknowledges the appellate court has “many inadequacies.” The executive secretary, Thomas C. Vasaly acknowledged to this writer, ““I do not want to imply that your situation is not serious, I don’t want to imply that you have a remedy when you don’t”. This leaves me perplexed! WHAT, IF ANYTHING DOES THIS “BOARD” DO? WHAT ARE OUR TAX PAYER DOLLARS PAYING FOR???????
In Criminal Court, defendants are at risk of losing certain freedoms: the right to vote, to own/possess fire arms, to avoid unlawful incarceration. Therefore, in theory, more rights afforded to such individuals being charged with crimes: the right to a public defender, and more attention and focus of the court of appeals and the Supreme Court to assure such fundamental constitutional rights are protected. The Constitution supposedly affords us the right to a trial by a jury of our peers. Why is that not the case in family court?
What about parental rights? What about the rights of children? Are they not at least as important as the rights of (alleged) criminals? Their rights fall under the blanket of the constitution. Parents wanting to protect their children and act in their children’s best interest- and more importantly- the children they attempt to parent and protect- are vulnerable in family court. If one looks up any appellate court decisions regarding statute violations they will see the Courts basically cutting and pasting case law giving district court judges unilateral discretion. You will find arguments such as “District Courts have broad discretion in determining custody matters,) Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W. 2d 279, 281-82, and that the Appellate Court is directed to “view the record in the light most favorable to the trial courts finds” In re the Custody of N.A.K. 649 N.W. 2d 166, 174 (Minn 2002). Finally, the appellate court asserts, “We cannot reweigh evidence presented to the trial court” Vangsness 607 N.W. 2d at 475. Let us also not forget that justice is not free. Many people are financially devastated by attempting to protect their children in family court. Often times the parent who “wins” is the one with more money for attorneys, bought and paid for custody evaluators, Guardians Ad Litem, and on and on.
Judicial immunity is unconstitutional. It allows judges to make human mistakes without rectifying them to uphold the law, and in worse case scenarios, allows them to make decisions in bad faith and perhaps, criminally without accountability. “Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” –John Emerich Edward Dahlberg-Action
12-15-2015: As we were researching.Caroline Rice’s case, we came across some corrections that need to be made. Jo-Anne Young, identified as a member of the jury, was Caroline’s father’s physician and not Brent Rice’s father’s physician as indicated on the Carver Co. blog. Ms. Young’s address was also incorrect as her address was St. Paul and not Victoria, MN.
Also, Caroline Rice’s parents were present and names were listed as witnesses.
One of the issues with blogging is that when you pump out new content, old content gets pushed aside. The Carver County Corruption blog writers have devoted hundreds of hours to exposing corruption in the MN courts. Information from this site provides not only a historical perspective, but content is still relevant today as we continue to fight this battle.
Below is a post regarding one of the many ways to rig a case.
State vs. Caroline Rice, Jury Members | Carver County Corruption
Posted on February 7, 2012
Some of you may recall the trial of State vs. Caroline Rice held a week prior to Christmas 2011. The shocking jury verdict post was the highest hitting post in the history of the CCC blog. State vs. Caroline Rice jury verdict
Some of you may recall during the first days of the trial judge Richard Perkins dismissed the entire first jury. Dismissing a jury is something rarely (if ever) heard of. This was a very bizarre move on the part of judge Richard Perkins. State vs. Caroline Rice, Trial day #2 – dismissal of jury
During the trial many of the Rice children testified to the horror of physical abuse in their home by their father, Brent Rice. Many of the children also spoke about the pain of losing their mother for many years – for reasons unknown. A few of the Rice children were heard after their testimony stating how embarrassing witnessing was due to the fact they recognized a few of the jury members while they were on the stand giving their testimony. This sparked an investigation into many of the members on the jury.
Four jury members were found to have children who went to the same school as the Rice children. T Rice and L Rice ran in track and other sports with the jury members` kids. This of course humiliated the Rice children as they testified during trial, since they recognized some of the jury members.
Members of the jury were asked questions as to their affiliation with Brent Rice, Caroline Rice, and the Rice children prior to sitting on the jury for over a week… they were asked if they had children that went to the same school as the Rice children, if they worked for or knew Brent Rice or Caroline Rice, if they worked for the county… etc. This is, of course, a very serious crime to lie during jury duty: an aggravated felony.
Member of the jury:
- Cara Weinzierl: Her daughter attended Holy Family Catholic High School. The same school L and T Rice attended. Her daughter was on the same cross country running team as Rice kids. Weinzierl daughter is the same age as T Rice. Cara Weinzierl lied to stay on the jury claiming she did not have kids that attended Holy Family Catholic School. Cara`s daughter, B Weinzierl, went to prom with T Rice, Caroline Rice`s oldest son.
Member of jury:
- Jo-Anne Young:http://www.idim.umn.edu/faculty/ummc/young/home.html
- She is Brent Rice`s father`s physician – worked with him when he was at the University of Minnesota hospital.
Young was seen smirking at Caroline Rice during reading of the verdict – while Caroline was cuffed and taken away.
- Paul Cluff: His daughter is the same age as L Rice. They attended Waconia High School at the same time. His daughter is also Facebook friends with K Rice. Paul`s daughter was on the same track and field team as L Rice. Paul also lied when questioned about where his children attended school.