Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

Paycheck and Pension

Longtime Stearns judge Landwehr to retire in September


Retirement in the judicial branch is really not retirement. There are currently 91 “retired” judges in MN that are practicing statewide as “senior judges”.

What are senior judges? Retired judges who are temporarily serving as judges.  Judges can retire, receive their pension and continue to get paid by taxpayers.

Double dippers: Senior judges’ combined compensation costs taxpayers millions

Click to see MN Senior Judges:→ Judicial Officer Directory    

Continue Reading: http://www.startribune.com/mn-district-courtrooms-seeing-unprecedented-influx-of-judges/282889361/

Image result for courthouse news serviceRetired Judges Fight for Right to Double Dip

ALBANY, N.Y. (CN) – New York is cracking down on double-dipping — the practice by which state judges collect both pensions and salaries after they hit retirement age — but the Court of Appeals focused Tuesday on whether putting retirees to work is actually cost-effective.

Arguing for the retired judges challenging the scheme, attorney Robert Spolzino noted that the state faces a new cost in trying to avoid paying his clients a salary.

Every time the state takes a judge off a case because they start collecting a pension, he said, the state begins paying into the pension of a new judge earning the same salary.

Meanwhile retired judges are “not getting anything extra by what they’re doing,” said Spolzino, of the firm Wilson Elser Modkowitz Edelman & Dicker.

“They are being paid for work they’re doing going forward,” he added.

Lee Adlerstein, an attorney for New York’s Administrative Board of the Courts, countered this position. Some retired judges pull in more than $250,000 a year between their fill-in salaries and their retirement pensions, he noted.

One of the jurists presiding over this afternoon’s appeal emphasized that the case will have far-reaching effects.

“It is relatively common,” Judge Eugene Fahey said of double dipping, noting  that he himself has heard of a number of judges fit the bill.

“So the question is then,” Fahey added, “it’s not the legality of the action but the criteria [used to limit it].”

New York judges must retire at age 70, but a provision in state judicial law allows retirees of the Supreme Court system to fill in as needed until age 76. In most states, a supreme court represents the highest tribunal, but the name is used in New York to designate trial courts for each of the 62 counties.

According to data from the fiscally conservative Empire Center for Public Policy, more than 500 people in New York sought and received permission to collect public pensions between 2015 and May 2016 while working for state or local government positions.

“These waivers are supposed to be used as temporary solutions for the rare instances when a retiree is the only person available and qualified to do a job,” Empire Center Executive Director Tim Hoefer said in a statement.

Taxpayers “have a good reason to question why they’re paying someone twice,” he added.

Retired justices who want to continue must seek recertification every two years from New York’s Administrative Board of the Courts, which evaluates for mental and physical fitness. When the state changed the rules in 2013, however, judges learned that they had to choose between staying on the bench of collecting pensions.

After the new policy went into effect, retired Judges Gerald Loehr, J. Emmett Murphy and William Miller filed suit. Case documents show that Loehr is entitled to a $66,000 annual pension, while Murphy and Miller receive a $91,300 and $89,000 yearly pension, respectively.

Their case hit the state’s highest court this afternoon after a three-judge panel in the Appellate Division found the new rules against double-dipping unconstitutional.

Court of Appeals Judge Jenny Rivera suggested today the rule might be overbroad.

“In this case, you just have a blanket rule that is ignoring the qualifications of the individual,” she said.

Rivera questioned Adlerstein why the state failed to define what was necessary in the board’s stated goal of “expediting the business of the court system.”

“Is there no line in the sand?” she asked. “Is it whatever the board says is necessary?”

Adlerstein argued that judges have no constitutional right to both a judge’s salary and a judge’s pension simultaneously.

Chief Judge Janet DiFiore did not appear to take part in this afternoon’s hearing with the other six judges on the Court of Appeals. How the  court will rule is still unclear. Some of the judges noted that the rule change costs the retired justices nothing: While retired judges serve on the bench, their pensions are merely suspended not revoked.

“No one is taking your pension away,” Judge Michael Garcia said.

Another key issue is whether judges have a right to be certificated. Spolzino said that there is no right to certification but that judges have a right to be considered for certification. “That is what this case is about,” he said.


MN Pera Logo

Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota

Retirement Benefits
What is Combined Service?

Combined service can provide you with benefits for public service under more than one retirement program. However, you must have at least six months of service with each fund to qualify. For many PERA members, this is service under the Police & Fire, Coordinated, Basic, or Correctional plans, as well as the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund division of the Association. In addition to PERA’s defined benefit plans, it can also be public service covered by any of the retirement funds listed below:

  • Minnesota State Retirement System:
    – General Plan
    – Correctional Employees Retirement Plan
    – State Patrol Retirement Fund
    – Unclassified Employees Retirement Plan
    – Judges’ Retirement Fund
    – Legislators’ Retirement Plan
    – Elective State Officers’ Retirement Plan
  • Teachers Retirement Association
  • St. Paul Teachers Retirement Fund Association
  • Duluth Teachers Retirement Fund Association (recently consolidated with Teachers Retirement Association)      http://www.mnpera.org/

EXCLUSIVE: ALEX JONES CHALLENGES NBC!

Alex Jones is challenging MSNBC and Megyn Kelly to release the full unedited version of their interview

Alex Jones is challenging MSNBC and Megyn Kelly to release the full unedited version of their interview with Alex Jones otherwise he will release it himself.

MSNBC recently published a heavily edited preview indicating their version of the interview will be used as a hit piece to vilify Alex Jones.

Having anticipated this move, Infowars recorded their own copy of the interview as a safeguard whereby, once again, the MSM could be exposed as fake news.

ALEX JONES LEAKS MEGYN KELLY’S INTERVIEW PITCH: ‘IT’S NOT GONNA BE SOME GOTCHA HIT PIECE, I PROMISE’

The video puts Kelly in a precarious position

Alex Jones Leaks Megyn Kelly’s Interview Pitch: ‘It’s Not Gonna Be Some Gotcha Hit Piece, I Promise’

Alex Jones leaked the audio of a phone conversation Thursday night revealing Megyn Kelly promising him a fair, non-“gotcha” interview as she invited him to appear on her new NBC News program.

“I don’t double cross,” Kelly tells Jones, repeatedly assuring him that her interview would not dwell on “conspiracy theories” or familiar left-wing attacks against the independent broadcast host. Rather, Kelly says that the focus of the news profile would be to humanize Jones and explore his personal life.

Jones himself appears in the video, revealing the private phone conversation on his website InfoWars in advance of Kelly’s Sunday broadcast. He annotates the audio clips with his own commentary, NBC’s preview snippet of the now-filmed interview, and news clips about the ensuing uproar — where a besieged Kelly has denounced Jones’ coverage of the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting as “revolting.”

The video puts Kelly in a precarious position. As her fledgling weekend news magazine show fights for viability, left-wing agitators have attacked her for interviewing Jones. A boycott sprang up before the broadcast ever aired, pressuring sponsors and reportedly convincing major brands to pull their advertisements. In response, she gave a statement contradicting nearly everything she promised in this phone call.

“The very question that prompted this interview,” she claimed, is: “How does Jones, who traffics in these outrageous conspiracy theories, have the respect of the president of the United States and a growing audience of millions?” However, Jones has revealed, her pitch was the exact opposite: “I promise you that’s not what this will be [a hit piece],” she says. “It really will be about, who is this guy?” Later on, she expresses her hope that some liberal viewers would come out of the segment saying, “I see the guy who loves those kids and who is more complex than I’ve been led to believe.”

So, which statement is true? That conclusion is not as easy as one would assume. Kelly now finds herself in the unenviable position of appeasing corporate sponsors spooked by left-wing outrage while also trying to establish herself as a trustworthy interviewer.bShe has nothing to lose if Alex Jones feels betrayed and never talks to her again, but she does express fear during their conversation that if he calls her out for a “hit piece,” she will have trouble getting any more controversial, ratings-draw subjects to appear on her show. And, based on the preview clips, Kelly will have to square that broken promise with this fervent declaration about her character:

She has nothing to lose if Alex Jones feels betrayed and never talks to her again, but she does express fear during their conversation that if he calls her out for a “hit piece,” she will have trouble getting any more controversial, ratings-draw subjects to appear on her show. And, based on the preview clips, Kelly will have to square that broken promise with this fervent declaration about her character:

All I can do is give you my word and tell you — if there’s one thing about me, I do what I say I’m gonna do. And I — I don’t double cross, so I promise you when it’s over you’ll say, “Absolutely. She did what she said she was gonna do.”

Jones states that he has only released “a few clips” of his full phone conversation with Kelly and that InfoWars taped the entire NBC interview “so that we can document post-mortem how she edited, how she manipulated.” He concludes: “It shows the arrogance of Megyn Kelly that she didn’t think we’d record her to document what she really said and did.”

Read selected transcripts of the Alex Jones-Megyn Kelly phone conversation below:

KELLY: It’s sort of a good opportunity just for long-form storytelling. You know, it’s like — it’s not like the three-minute interview, it’s like the in-depth profiles of people. And at the top of my list was you.

JONES: So it’s like an investigative report into “fake news”?

KELLY: No. No, what we’re doing?

JONES: Yeah. Come on.

KELLY: No no no. Hell no. The reason you — I mean, I know you guys, you know, [inaudible] — The reason you are interesting to me is because I followed your custody case. And I think you had a very good point about the way the media was covering it and for some reason treated you and your family and what was going on as fair game when they never would have done that to, if you will, a mainstream media figure. And I saw a different side of you in that whole thing and I just — here, you know, you became very fascinating to me. I just sort of thought you were this maybe, you know, one-dimensional guy — like, this is your thing — and the comments I heard from you during the course of that trial and your plea to the media to be respectful of you and your kids just reminded me that you’re just like anybody. You’re a dad, you go through the same things we go through, and I thought, “now, that would be an interesting story to tell.”

JONES: Wouldn’t the argument be, then, in the show, ’cause I’ve seen that as a standard Democrat talking point — I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing — “Well, he asked for privacy in his family, but he didn’t do that for Sandy Hook and he didn’t do that for the pizzeria.”

KELLY: No, I mean, I can ask you about that, you know, but this is not gonna be a contentious, you know, sort of “gotcha” exchange. I — That’s not what this show is and that’s really not what I want to do. I want to do in-depth profiles on people, just interesting people. So I can ask you that — “this is what the critics say” — but this isn’t gonna be a “A-ha! Let’s play a clip.”

JONES: I don’t mind questions. What I don’t like is, did you know or did your producers do that you, where I said Hillary Clinton personally — and it was tongue-in-cheek so I could get the satire out. You guys, took it out of context, but — did personally kill kids by the Iraq war and Syria war or the Libya situation, and you guys cut the back off of that  — it was in the same 30 seconds, where I said I’m not talking about the pizza place, I’m talking about in the Middle East.

KELLY: No, this is completely unfamiliar to me.

JONES: Remember you had James Alefantis on Fox News, you’re talking about fake news.

KELLY: The guy from Comet Pizza?

JONES: Yes, and then you played a clip of me saying Hillary personally kills children.

KELLY: I, forgive me, Alex, but I don’t remember the clip. I remember him [pause] and, you know, the nature of that exchange, which I think is the only time I’ve ever said — um, [inaudible] anything.

[In that Fox News segment, Kelly says to Alefantis: “And someone could have been killed inside of your restaurant for no good reason other than people like Alex Jones fanned a conspiracy theory that even the DC police say has no basis in fact.”]

JONES: Sure, sure, sure. I mean, all I’m saying is, I can send you the Right Wing Watch clip where first reported it, and they said, “Jones tongue-in-cheek,” you know, “said that Hillary killed all these kids but then said it in Syria and Libya.” So, I mean I’m just telling you, that’s the kind of stuff that scares me, because I can stand for what I’ve said, and I can even say, yeah I probably shouldn’t [crosstalk] Sure, sure.

KELLY: Listen, I’ll take a look at that. That’s very unfamiliar to me. All I can tell you is that I bend over backwards to make sure that doesn’t happen.

KELLY: I’m sort of — you know, for lack of a better term, I’m trying to create a different kind of program. And it’s fine. You know, I’ll ask you about some of the controversies, of course. And you’ll say whatever you want to say. But it’s not going to be some gotcha hit piece, I promise you that. I — it doesn’t do me any good. If I do that to you, then you go out there and you say, “She did a hit piece on me. This is what she said, and this is what she did.” And then the next time I want to get somebody, they’re gonna say, “Look what you did to Alex Jones,” you know. “Screw you.” So I promise you that’s not what this will be. It really will be about, who is this guy? And we’ll talk about some of the controversy, and I’ll ask you, and you can respond, and we’ll get into the whole, you know, what you’ve been through this past year. And my goal is for your listeners and the left, you know, who will be watching some on NBC, to say, “Wow, that was really interesting.”

[Note: At this point, the audio quality of Kelly’s phone call abruptly changes —

All I can do is give you my word and tell you — if there’s one thing about me, I do what I say I’m gonna do. And I — I don’t double cross, so I promise you when it’s over you’ll say, “Absolutely. She did what she said she was gonna do.” And you’ll be fine with it. I’m not looking to portray you as some boogeyman or, you know, do any sort of a gotcha moment. I just want to talk about you. I want people to get to know you. And the craziest thing of all would be if some of the people who have this insane version of you in their heads walk away saying, “You know what? I see, like, the dad in him. I see the guy who loves those kids and who is more complex than I’ve been led to believe.”

JONES: Sure, but just so you know,  like, on all the Sandy Hook things, I’ve had debates where I’ve shown both sides where I go back and forth, but I believe people died there. And then they never show me really saying that, over the years, you know, you can look where the people that think nobody died are the ones all that hate me on the other side of it. And so what I’m saying is, people take clips out of context — and I know I’ve done a lot of stuff, some of which I’m not proud of. So if people want to do a real piece or something, I mean, obviously, I don’t want to sit here and, like, dodge all these interviews. Like, I told — they wanted me to tape something for Charlie Rose’s show, they wanted me to tape something for The View. I’m not saying, oh, I’m such a big, you know, famous guy, it’s just that —

KELLY: No no, I understand.

JONES: These taping things really just lends itself to be, you know, to ask yourself to be run over. But I understand, obviously, this is a magazine show, so it’s highly produced.

KELLY: It’s like a whole new world over there [at NBC]. They deeply care about this kind of thing [fact checking]. And it’s not that we didn’t care on cable, it’s just a different game on cable. You know, you move faster, and it’s more real time and, you know, that’s just the fact that more mistakes get made. But I will promise you to personally look at any clips we want to use of you and have a producer run by you whether we are taking it in context and what you are saying about —

JONES: Well, I say some pretty wild stuff, and I’ll admit to a lot of it’s satire, but also, I’m not trying to be, I’m not being fake about what I’m saying.

JONES: So this is like a reboot, relaunch for you — that you’re not the, you know, right-wing or left-wing pundit from Fox. You’re an investigative journalist that does magazine, you know, investigations, or —

KELLY: Exactly. So it’s like an entirely different set of muscles. And trust me when I tell you, my goal is not to go out there and be like, “Oh my god, if I sit with her, she’s gonna kill me!” Like — but of course I’m gonna do a fair interview. I’m still me! You know, I’m not gonna go out there and be Barbara Walters. You know. You just trust me. It’s — I will ask you about the controversies. I will ask you in a non — you know, I’ll be fair about it. I’ll give you the chance to respond. And I really just want to talk about you, you know. You.

KELLY: I have not enjoyed being, in any way, on the pointy end of the political spear, you know. It was never anything I wanted to do. And so it’s not — you know, I would say that I’m a combination of Mike Wallace, Oprah Winfrey, and Larry the Cable Guy.

JONES: [Laughter] I know the Larry the Cable Guy. He’s a good guy.

KELLY: I love him! And, so, like, that’s what you’ll get in the interview. [Laughter] That’s — that’s what you’ll get in the interview. [Laughter] Get, you know, a little bit of all three of those. And hopefully, everybody will walk away feeling like they had a good dinner. You know, nutritious, some red meat, with some dessert at the end.

MEDIA BLACKOUT

BREAKING: DNC Lawsuit Attorney’s Want Protect For Witnesses, Cite Seth Rich

Published on Jun 17, 2017

In a major development, again ignored by the mainstream news, the lawsuit against the DNC took another interesting turn as the attorney requested the judge provide witness protection, citing Seth Rich.

Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we’re reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family: http://www.infowars.com/show


The DNC’s New Hillary Clinton and She’s Got the Trail of Bodies to Prove It

CSS-Offical-New-Logo2

wasserman 1

Hillary’s health may be in severe decline. However, she has a successor and her name is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This woman strikes terror in the hearts of those who would oppose her. With the unfolding of the Clinton emails, the Podesta connection, the Seth Rich murder, etc., this woman is headed for stardom as a Democrat, unless this new version of Hillary Clinton can be stopped.

Deborah Wasserman Schultz is the U.S. Representative for Florida’s 23rd congressional district. She is a member of the Democratic Party and was a former chairperson for the Democratic National

Wasserman Schultz Connections to the Seth Rich Murder

After the readers listen to the following account of Wasserman Schultz’s complicity in the Seth Rich Murder, a whole new paradigm will be created for the Democratic party.

The Murder of a Federal Prosecutor In Wasserman Schultz’s District

The federal prosecutor was murdered in Wasserman Schultz’s district and would you care to speculate what he was investigating?

federal prosecutor 3

Another Set Rich murder? Only this time the victim is a federal prosecutor.

The mainstream media is really getting out in front of the story regarding a federal prosecutor who was looking into DNC voter fraud and possible Florida connections to the murder of Seth Rich.

In their search engine, Google has listed this story under all MSM major publications.

  1. The NYT
  2. The Washington Post
  3. The Miami Herald
  4. ABC News
  5. Politico

This is called controlling the narrative. What narrative? Hollywood police spokeswoman Miranda Grossman said Thursday that the body of 37-year-old Beranton J. Whisenant Jr. was found early Wednesday by a passerby on the city’s beach. She said detectives are trying to determine if the death was a homicide, suicide or something else.

Homicide or suicide?  The man’s skull was crushed. There are many stunning facts connected to this case which are discussed in the following video.

Smoking Gun: Wasserman Schultz’s Federal DA for DC Blocks Further Investigation Into Seth Rich Murder

 

wasserman

 

In an amazing conflict of interest, Steve Wasserman a Federal District Attorney for DC has shut down the Seth Rich murder investigation.

This represents the real obstruction of justice allegation.

Fearful Democrats File for Order of Protection Against Wasserman Schultz

AS I pointed out in Part One, Wasserman Schultz is being sued for perpetrating voter fraud. However, the litigants fear Wasserman Schultz.

Given the Set Rich Murder and the distinct trail of bodies that are following Wasserman Schultz, is it any wonder that the litigants against Wasserman Schultz are fearful for their lives. They have filed for and were denied an order of protection against the new version of Hillary Clinton, Wasserman Schultz.

June 13, 2017 57 57 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order of Protection and Request for Hearing
June 13, 2017 57 57-1 Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order of Protection and Request for Hearing
June 13, 2017 57 57-2 Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order of Protection and Request for Hearing (SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL)
June 13, 2017 57 57-3 Composite Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order of Protection and Request for Hearing (SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL)
June 13, 2017 57 57-4 Composite Exhibit 4 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order of Protection and Request for Hearing (SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL)
June 13, 2017 57 57-5 Exhibit 5 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order of Protection and Request for Hearing
June 14, 2017 58 58 Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order of Protection and Request for Hearing
June 15, 2017 60 60 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order of Protection and Request for Hearing

Please Donate to The Common Sense Show

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL AND DON’T FORGET TO “LIKE” US

2 Sets of Laws

KNSI Radio Logo, AM 1450 and FM 103.3

Elderly Man Accused Of Sexually Abusing A Child, Again

Elderly Man Accused Of Sexually Abusing A Child, Again

Photo: Stearns County Jail

JUN 1, 2017 AT 11:18 AM

ST. CLOUD, Minn. (KNSI) – A St. Cloud man convicted of sexually abusing a child is now accused of abusing another child.

A criminal complaint filed in Stearns County District Court states that 87-year-old Amoud Omar Yusuf had been abusing the girl starting when she was four-years-old.

Investigators say the abuse took place from April 2009 to April 2010 on the 1400 block of 9th Avenue South in St. Cloud.

No reason was given why the alleged abuse stopped.

Police began investigating after a complaint was filed on November 30th.

No reason was given as to why the victim, now 12, waited to come forward.

Investigators say at the time of the abuse Yusuf lived in the same apartment building as the victim and her family.

The victim claims Yusuf would call her into his room and have her perform sex acts on him including oral sex.

The victim says she did as she was told because she felt she had to.

On December 6th, the victim’s mother told police that she never left her daughter alone with Yusuf but says at the time, she was Yusuf’s personal care assistant.

On May 26th officers found Yusuf and arrested him.

Yusuf told police that the child is lying but admitted to babysitting the children.

His next hearing is June 16th. He was released after posting bond.

Prior to this incident Yusuf was found guilty in February of 2009 by a jury of 2nd degree criminal sexual conduct.

In that case he abused a child under the age of 13 and was sentenced to 25-years-probation.

Jake Judd

Posted By Jake Judd

ANCHOR/REPORTER JAKE JUDD’S PROFILE


Comments from St. Cloud Residents

This guy lives three blocks from my home…less than 6 blocks from two schools, HUNDREDS of children in the area…yet this man was given on his first offense PROBATION…no having to register as a sex offender, picture not plastered on the front page of the times (for either offense), no press conference to inform the people..NOTHING And now “OOPS—he’s done it again”

SO where is little Natalie when it comes to defending the rights of the CHILDREN abused…so where is Pastor Dee…Mr. Mayor, isn’t it your job to alert the community?

Is this excused because of a “cultural thing”?

Can we allow this to continue?

KNSI is the ONLY ONES reporting on this…

Times…where are you???

Do the laws apply to all equally? Are we a nation of laws or cultures overriding laws? Is it right to ignore the facts because it might hurt someone’s feelings, raise tensions….this story on the other hand I venture will NEVER make the news…this is his second offense (Prior to this incident Yusuf was found guilty in February of 2009 by a jury of 2nd degree criminal sexual conduct. In that case he abused a child under the age of 13 and was sentenced to 25-years-probation.)!? Didn’t we just recently have a major news story (front page even) of two SEXUAL predators moving into the area, pictures and all YET this goes unreported TWICE (second offense) AND he for some reason does not get the (dis) honor of being called a sexual predator and WE the people are not informed (it must be that “cultural thingy”) going on YET again!

We can not have the “it happened in their community with their “own kind” defense”…there is not “their community and our community, there is no their laws and our laws, there is a (however) barbaric culture that wants to continue it’s practices and wants us to accept them for what they are. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE! No one (even those in their own community) cried out for these CHILDREN which tells me they are perfectly fine with what was going on! THIS CAN NOT BE! Keep in mind this SEXUAL PREDATOR did not have to file as such, did not serve time, was sent back into OUR community without any warning to anyone…AND he happens to live within short walking distance of the BOYS & GIRLS club/southside, St. E’s, School and So. Jr. High and also within walking distance of Talahi and Tech…


In response to the above comment: ↓

Thank you for your superly well stated plea for justice for the child who was violated by this reprobate who should be behind bars and and forced to compensate this child and his/her parents by extracting every ounce of hard labor which this savage can be forced to perform for the balance of his days on this planet.  

This labor should be forced to be performed in a public venue in a confinement with a flashing sign proclaiming that this site is where child molestors are to be confined a public place while making restitution to their victims and their families.  

There also should be another caged confinement area within 250 feet where the public officials who have turned deaf ears to the victims who have suffered these indignities.  They too are to be confined while making similar restitution

Half way between those two pens should be another pen for those who are obligated to report these local tragedies.  These actions might halt or at minimum abate the occurrences of these malignancies upon civility.

I hope that a few others can add to this call for true justice and start routing the social justice advocates from within our local spheres of influence.

Thank you again for your outstanding report.  We all owe you a debt of gratitude.

Erasing Parents

MN Mom Denied Parental Rights Regarding Transgender Son

A district court judge dismissed the case but affirmed that the teenager was never emancipated.

MINNEAPOLIS – A Minnesota mother who was denied parental rights over her male to female transgender son’s medical and education decisions has lost her court case at the district level.

Anmarie Calgaro filed suit against her son, St. Louis County, Fairview Health Services, Park Nicollet Health Services, and the St. Louis County School District. She claimed that her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated by the above organizations as they determined her son, referred to as E.J.K. in court documents, was emancipated, and withheld E.J.K.’s records from her.

U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson took issue with that wording, saying that the organizations did not determine E.J.K. to be emancipated, as only a court order can do that. While Magnuson stated numerous times in his decision that E.J.K. was in fact not emancipated and that “Calgaro’s parental rights over E.J.K. remain intact.”

“The judge here makes some very strange and contradictory statements,” Julie Quist, Chairman of the Board of the Child Protection League told Alpha News. “On the one hand he says that EJK is not emancipates because there’s been no court action. He specifically says that the mother’s parental rights ‘remain intact’ and so therefore the defendants did not terminate her parental rights.”

However, Magnuson also ruled that Calgaro’s claims against the defendants were meritless, as she did not allege a specific execution of a policy by the School Board or County caused the deprivation of Calgaro’s parental rights. With regards to Fairview and Park Nicollet, Magnuson stated that because they are private entities and they did not act in collusion with the state, they cannot be held accountable.

“It’s a bizarre statement,” Quist said. “Obviously she is not being acquitted her parental rights, but somehow nobody has violated anything.”

“We’re going to appeal. Our principle concern is the law in this area is confused,” Erick Kaardal, Calgaro’s attorney, told Alpha News. “That the state of Minnesota hasn’t addressed emancipation procedures in a way that protects parental rights is unfortunate. As a consequence the court has to step up and tell us what the law is.”

Kaardal said that the court failed to do so in this decision.

E.J.K. was under the sole custody of Calgaro, but had been living outside of Calgaro’s house for some time, first with his biological father, then with family and friends, and currently by himself.

In June 2015 E.J.K.  in court documents, consulted with a lawyer with Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid who provided him with a letter concluding E.J.K. was legally emancipated under Minnesota law.

“Its really sad because parental rights are really important,” Kaardal said. “In other issues like paternity, marriage dissolution, they get notice and opportunity to respond.”

Calgaro never had a chance to respond. As her son began gender transition services at Fairview and Park Nicollet she was not notified of any procedures, and her request to view her son’s medical records was denied. Similarly, as E.J.K. began to explore post-secondary education options, Calgaro’s request to view educational records was turned down by the St. Louis County School District.

“My client has always taken the position that she wants a say, she’s not necessarily opposed to the transgendering medical services but she wants a say,” Kaardal said of Calgaro.

“This is not an issue primarily about transgenderism at all. This ruling is about the rights of parents to protect and guide their children,” Quist said. “Parents are a protection. When the state gets in and destroys that protection it leaves children at the mercy of people who can and will manipulate them.”

E.J.K. turns 18 in a few months, which would render the actionable part of the case moot. Kaardal said that his client still plans to appeal, citing Roe vs. Wade as an example of the capable-of-repetition doctrine. The woman in the Roe case had already given birth to her child, but the court case was allowed as future situations of similar legal principles were likely to occur for other women. Kaardal thinks this case could be used to decide parental rights in future cases.


WINNING! THEY KNOW THEY’RE GOING DOWN!

Podesta Laundering Clinton Foundation Assets Before RICO Steps In Under Civilian Asset Forfeiture

CSS-Offical-New-Logo2

podesta 2

John Podesta is buying up gold, art and other valuables as he converts Clinton Foundation laundered money to hard assets and is hiding these assets around the world. Clearly, they think RICO is going to be seizing Clinton Foundation assets.

The complete story is contained in the following video.

Please donate to offset the costs of The Common Sense Show

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL AND DON’T FORGET TO “LIKE” US

Manchester Attack

MANCHESTER ATTACK: WHAT THEY’RE NOT TELLING YOU

The truth they hide

Which is more important – not hurting Muslims’ feelings, or our children being blown up?

Please share this video! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4vWR5BpDdQ

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Paul Joseph Watson

 

Follow on Twitter:

Follow on Twitter:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

%d bloggers like this: