PROTECT A CHILD-GO TO JAIL

PROTECT A CHILD – GO TO JAIL

The author of this diary is the grandmother of children who were placed into the full custody and control of their identified and confirmed rapist. Helen and her husband spent one and a half million dollars fighting for their grandchildren’s safety in a corrupt family court system. The mother was unable to write her story because she is still suffering from PTSD from being imprisoned for having challenged the authority of the wealthy father. She was tormented in prison for an entire year before she was released, thanks to a 20/20 investigation. Warning: graphic content.

My story is part of an attempt by Safe Kids International to raise awareness regarding divorce court judges covering up abuse and awarding custody to abusive fathers.

The DOJ Investigative Report explains-the nation’s divorce courts award custody to abusive fathers-while “good fit” mothers are court ordered supervised visits – or no contact.

The U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s-comments to the National Summit on Domestic Violence: Why are mothers who are victims of domestic violence losing custody of their children to the courts-even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers?

I was driven mad by the horrific injustice.  I was compelled to save [not only] my grandchildren-but other abused children in the nation’s divorce courts.  To no avail.  Every night I pray [Lord give us the strength for this journey].  We are still on that journey.

During an intact marriage, physicians diagnosed child sexual abuse-based on five-year-old son’s torn bloody rectum. Father’s reaction to the diagnosis was to go into divorce court with a criminal attorney.

Child Protective Services/CPS opened our case on March 4th, closed March 5th due to custody issues.  Because when father was contacted by CPS, he stated the magic words [“There are custody issues”] which shuts down CPS investigations of child abuse.

The custody decision states: father is awarded sole custody based on parental alienation.  Parental alienation is used in the nation’s courts to cover up abuse – it has nothing to do with alienating behavior.  Minor’s attorney, Kevin Busch and custody evaluator Robert Shapiro recommended custody to father-based on parental alienation.

The physicians who diagnosed child sexual abuse-refused to testify.  Illinois law book POF 6 2D 353 explains: physicians fail to report child abuse for a myriad of reasons -from a fear of harming their practice to a fear of entanglement as a result of reporting.  Legislation has not achieved the desired goal-only a small percentage of cases are ever reported.]

At age 7 daughter drew and labeled a picture [Lynn Dad] of dad’s penis in Lynn’s mouth.  Lynn had blood in her panties-when mom picked her up for visits. CPS and police investigated.  The allegations were found credible and father was placed on no contact.

The court found: father sexually abused son and daughter-including, but not limited to, repeatedly sodomizing and forcing oral copulation.  The judge’s court transcript states: In the case at bar, the danger is extraordinarily disturbing sexual assaults perpetrated many times-skillfully concealed. CPS explained to mother that father is on “no contact” and has no legal standing, recommending mother go home to California.

However, despite CPS giving mother permission – mother was criminally charged with leaving the jurisdiction by Kane County Illinois Assistant State’s Attorney, Clint Hull. The jurisdiction law is based on the parent-child relationship – the only inquiry is the status of the parent left behind.

Despite a court appointed psychologist concluding it was emotionally destructive for Mac and Lynn to have contact with their father, the children were ordered back to father.  At which time, Mac + Lynn ran away. Mac [age 14] found a way to enroll in college-where he was a straight A student, studying law and psychology.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited children does not discern missing children running away from abusive fathers…from children being missing or exploited.

Mac and Lynn were hunted down.  Twenty U.S. Marshall’s broke down the front door…pointed semi-automatic rifles at skinny Mac and Lynn-pinned them on the floor-and handcuffed them. Mac and Lynn were brought into court where U.S. Marshals championed father and championed parental alienation.

READ MORE


20/20 actually did their job of investigative reporting and helped bring justice to this Illinois family.
I wish we could say the same about their coverage of our cases. As most of you are aware, 20/20 did a hit piece on the Grazzini-Rucki case entitled  Footprints in the Snow in April of 2016. They actually aided and abetted in the cover up of abuse in this case and have refused to make any corrections in their portrayal of this ongoing story. In fact, 20/20 actually asked an investigative reporter that has covered this case extensively, to refrain from sending any more documents that show the truth in this case.
Elizabeth Vargas was extremely biased and hostile when interviewing Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and very sympatheric toward the father in this case. The People Magazine article below shows the false secret network narrative that 20/20 had planned from the beginning. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest a “secret network” was involved in the Grazzini-Rucki case or involved in the disappearance of the eldest two daughters. In fact, both S.R. and G.R. openly admit they ran away due to safety concerns, and raised numerous abuse allegations prior to running away and after being found 2 years later. During all this time, their story is consistent, and does not change.

Elizabeth Vargas

 

Recently, 20/20’s Elizabeth Vargas announced her resignation from the show “to pursue new ventures”.

Here’s Vargas’ note to 20/20 staffers: 

To my 20/20 family,

I want you to hear some news about me, from me. I will be leaving ABC News, and 20/20 at the end of this historic 40th season. It has been a profound privilege to be the anchor of 20/20 for 14 years, and a true honor to work with each and every one of you. I am incredibly lucky to work alongside the very best in the business: the producers, editors, writers on this show, and the enormous team working every week to get our show on the air. I am so very proud of the stories we have told together.

I am sorry only to have to share this news with you as we celebrate the holidays. I had hoped to make this announcement after the first of the year.

This is not goodbye – I will be here through May, and cannot wait to do more work with all you in the months ahead.

Have a happy holiday with your families, and I will see you next year.

With gratitude,

Elizabeth

Stay tuned for more information on Elizabeth Vargas and 20/20.
Advertisements

Minnesota Teacher-Student Sexual Relationships

Dakota Co. Attorney James C. Backstrom

 

”Quite frankly, it should be a crime,” said County Attorney Backstrom.  He pushed to change the law after a similar case nearly a decade ago.

In light of the new cases, he says he will once again encourage lawmakers to make teacher-student sexual relationships illegal, regardless of the student’s age.

“I’ll raise this issue again with legislators here in Dakota County and hopefully get the bill introduced again next session, Backstrom said. “I think it’s worth another try.”

KARE 11 Investigates: Teacher-student sex not always illegal in Minnesota

Lou Raguse, KARE 10:22 PM. CDT October 04, 2017

BURNSVILLE, Minn. – A county prosecutor is calling for a change in Minnesota law – to make it illegal for teachers to have sexual contact with high school students, regardless of their age.

Currently, it’s not a crime in Minnesota for a teacher to have sexual relations with a student who is at least 18 years old.

And recent cases reviewed in a KARE 11 investigation, raise questions about how Minnesota holds teachers accountable if they do have sex with their students.

In some cases, KARE 11 learned state education officials won’t even investigate.

“It just eats at you, because you put this trust in these people to protect them,” said the mother of one student.

Continue Reading: http://www.kare11.com/news/kare-11-investigates-teacher-student-sex-not-always-illegal-in-minnesota/480903753


Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Media promotes stories that create societal outrage and the solution is always more legislation and initiatives, tougher laws, more law enforcement, more training, etc. None of these solutions make a meaningful difference in preventing sex offenses and really just appease our need to feel that we are protecting children and that our legislature is addressing the issue.

State laws regarding “consensual sex” (referred to generally as statutory rape laws) prohibit adult-child relationships but define childhood differently, depending upon the state.

What is the Minnesota Age of Consent?

The Minnesota Age of Consent is 16 years old. In the United States, the age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 15 or younger in Minnesota are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape.

Minnesota statutory rape law is violated when a person has consensual sexual intercourse with an individual under age 16, although it is raised to 18 when the offender is an authority figure. If the younger party is 13-15, their partners must be no more then 2 years older, and children under 13 may only consent to those less than 36 months older.

Age of consent laws are tied into other statues such as those of rape and sexually assaulting and raping somebody is already a crime.

A very wise saying. Those who expect a new law to magically make all that nasty bad behavior disappear fool themselves. You can change said behavior by several means, but making laws is not one of them.

“There is no simple fix to the devastating problem of sex abuse. Instead of politically popular measures that make no difference we need to turn our attention and resources to ways of addressing the epidemic of sex abuse that, while perhaps not as politically popular, will actually work so that more potential victims can be spared.” Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.

Continued Lawlessness

Learn More:
“Dangerous State of Justice” Executive Summary
Minnesota’s Decriminalization of Child Sexual Exploitation
Examples in the News Now
To read or download full report, click on cover image
Check back for new links and information

NEWS RELEASE

Tuesday November 29, 2016
New Report Examines Minnesota’s “Dangerous State of Justice”
Most Child Predators Get Probation, Child Pornography Decriminalized

(MINNESOTA) Minnesota courts are granting probation for most sexual assaults on children and have virtually decriminalized trafficking in child pornography, according to a report just released by the National Association to Protect Children (PROTECT).

PROTECT’s 45-page report, “Dangerous State of Justice,” found that 65% of all offenders convicted of felony sexual assault against children (Criminal Sexual Conduct 1-4) never see a day in prison. In those crimes, 90% of victims are girls and 40% are under age 13.

“When a Stanford student got probation for raping a woman earlier this year, the nation erupted in outrage,” said J. Christian, CEO of PROTECT. “Yet, behind these Minnesota numbers are hundreds of similar cases, where judges gave rapists probation for attacks on children.”

The report also examines the Minnesota Incest Loophole, which allows judges to grant probation instead of prison for the most serious sexual assaults against children if the court deems it to be in the best interest of “the family unit.”

Perhaps the most shocking finding, says PROTECT, is that Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines have decriminalized trafficking of video and photographs of children being raped, tortured and sexually displayed. A review of 909 cases from 2001-2014 found that 90% of those convicted of possession and distribution of child abuse imagery (child pornography) were given probation.

“Dangerous State of Justice” lists sentencing patterns of specific Minnesota judges, details the state’s outrageous sentencing guidelines, and discusses problems with how child protective services responds to public reports of child maltreatment. It also makes 19 specific recommendations for legislative action.

“These judges haven’t gone rogue,” said Grier Weeks of PROTECT, one of the report’s authors. “Tolerance for sexual violence is deeply embedded in the Minnesota justice system. But it is deeply hypocritical to decry sexual violence and exploitation then treat it like a trivial crime.”

PROTECT is urging Minnesotans to ask their state representatives and senators to read the report and take action.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

Below are the two judges that have been involved in my case no. 19HA-CR-15-4227.  

What’s interesting is that I have received a probation violation for discussing my own case on social media ( a major free speech violation). My hearing is scheduled for September 28th, 2017. The recommendation is that the stay of execution be vacated and I would serve the remainder of my sentence, (4 more months in jail). As you’ll see in the documents below, Judge Knutson and Judge Asphaug gave a higher percentage of probation vs. prison time to criminal sexual assailants of children.

So, the bottom line is that you will get more time for protecting children than abusing them.

Give these Judges a call and ask them for an explanation of their sentencing decisions and if it’s normal procedure to give a harsher sentence to those that protect children vs. assaulting children.

Judge Karen Asphaug
Judge Karen Asphaug                                                    

Assistant Chief Judge David L. Knutson

Assistant Chief Judge David L. Knutson

 

 

Deceptive Dakota County

Image result for mn judicial branch

Continue Reading: https://www.scribd.com/document/353993982/Reply-Brief-Evavold

Respondent’s Brief (Dakota Co.)

Original Appeal 2017


Related Articles:

We’re Not Crazy…The Systems Are!

Corrupt Officials and Crooked Media

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.


The State Really Does Own Your Children

Watch Lawmakers Claim The State Owns Your Children

By Annabelle Bamforth

Legislators in Texas have been working toward passing a host of laws to reform the state’s Child Protective Services agency. New legislation has been crafted to improve the agency which has seen multiple dilemmas resulting in detrimental safety problems for children in the state. There have been several bills introduced this year aimed at improving the agency. One bill, in particular, House Bill 39, seeks in part to require medical exams to be performed more quickly on children who have been newly placed into the foster care system.

HB 39, introduced by Rep. Gene Wu (D-Houston), would mandate that the state’s Department of Family Protective Services schedule a medical examination for children who have been in temporary state custody for longer than three business days. Children in rural locations would be required to receive a medical exam within seven business days.

While the bill was originally centered around hastening medical exams for new foster children, questions arose regarding whether vaccines would be included as part of these medical exams. Rep. Bill Zedler (R-Arlington), the vice chairman of the Texas Freedom Caucus, introduced an amendment to HB 39 to make vaccinations exempt from the required medical treatments. The bill saw a turbulent debate upon Zedler’s amendment as the discussion turned to childhood vaccines and who should be responsible for crucial medical decisions when custody is obscured.

“You get that child back five, eight, 10 days later, and they’ve now had that surgery or they’ve had these vaccinations,” Zedler said according to Dallas Morning News. “That’s an issue of liberty.”

Wu was vocal about his belief that the law allows the state to assume authority in such situations. “Let me make very clear: the moment a child is removed from their home – the moment the child is removed – by law, the child is now a child of the state of Texas,” said Wu. “We have the responsibility to make sure that child is safe and is given proper medical care. That is the law.”

“When we put into the law that we are limiting the ability of our agency that is tasked with taking care of a child that is in their custody and they are legally responsible for, we are setting a dangerous precedent,” Wu continued. “This is the same thing I told you when we argued over my bills and this is the same thing I will tell you again when we argue over this bill.”

Rep. Jonathan Stickland (R-Bedford) questioned Wu’s choice of wording: “Mr. Wu, you used the word ‘belongs to the state of Texas.’ Do you want to rethink that wording?” he asked. Stickland then interrupted Wu’s response and went on to ask “True or false: that CPS has taken children and found that they were wrong in doing so? And returned the child? Has that happened, Representative Wu?”  Wu acknowledged that it has occurred “on rare occasions.”

Stickland challenged not only Wu but also Rep. Sarah Davis (R-West University Place), who sought to add an additional amendment in response to the amendment of Zedler’s, which would allow “cancer-preventing” vaccines to be administered, particularly the HPV vaccine.

Davis noted statistics related to cervical cancer deaths and low HPV vaccination rates in Texas and said that “the HPV vaccine will eliminate cervical cancer.” Stickland asked Davis if she believed that parents had the right to choose medical procedures for their children. Davis responded that she believed “children that have been taken from their parents and are in protective custody undergoing a medical examination should be given a vaccine that prevents them from developing cancer.”

You can’t handle the truth about vaccines (Ad)

Stickland asked Davis if she understood that they were discussing the issue of children in temporary custody with no parental rights terminated during the medical exams. “Agreed, but cancer is not temporary,” Davis answered.

Stickland repeated his question of whether she thinks parents have the right to choose medical procedures for their children, and Davis said that “we have to find a balance because there is absolutely in my opinion zero science behind the fact that any vaccines are systematically harming children.”

Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Plano) also challenged Davis’ amendment and said that it appeared that her amendment would transfer decision-making authority from families to a physician. Leach asked Davis if her amendment “goes against the wishes” of a child or the parents.

Leach added that he was not interested in deciding which vaccines are “good or bad” or who needs to be vaccinated, but was focusing on the question of who would have the authority to make vaccination decisions under her amendment. “Who at the core at the very basic level, who should make this decision?” Leach asked Davis.

Davis’s amendment was tabled in a 74-64 vote; Zedler’s amendment to prohibit vaccines during medical exams was passed in a 74-58 vote, with another amendment attached by Wu to allow for tetanus shots to be administered in emergencies.

Zedler later said to The Texas Tribune that the majority of parents that he’s communicated with are not overall opposed to vaccines but are troubled by the scheduling. He also said that  “the only one that might possibly be [an emergency] is a tetanus shot.”

In the video below, Wu makes the ominous claim that parents — who’ve not been found guilty of any wrongdoing — no longer have care over their children and that those children now belong to the state. When the state begins to claim they own our children, something is very wrong.


New Hampshire-based writer Annabelle Bamforth is focused on breaking the left/right paradigm through new media and local politics. Annabelle is the editor-in-chief of Emmy-winning journalist Ben Swann’s Truth In Media Project and a producer for Mr. Swann’s Truth In Media episodes. This article first appeared here at The Free Thought Project.