Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

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.

Landmark SCOTUS Ruling

Victory! Supreme Court Rules States Cannot Steal Money From The Innocent

By Jack Burns

Colorado, like most states, forces convicted criminals to pay court costs, fees, and restitution after they’ve been found guilty. But the question arises, “What happens when someone who’s been found guilty, has paid their dues, and then has their convictions overturned on appeal? Do they get their money back?” Not in many states, like Colorado. But all of that has changed after a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

The state not stealing money from innocent people sounds like common sense, right? Well, unfortunately, in the land of the free, it was necessary for SCOTUS to step in and tell the greedy state that they do not have a right to steal people’s money.

According to Forbes,

defendants, Shannon Nelson and Louis Madden, were convicted for sexual offenses and ordered to pay thousands of dollars in court costs, fees and restitution. Between her conviction and later acquittal, the state withheld $702 from Nelson’s inmate account, while Madden paid Colorado $1,977 after his conviction. When their convictions were overturned, Nelson and Madden demanded their money back.

Colorado refused, even after the plaintiffs won in a state-level appellate court. The state, instead, insisted that if they wanted their money back, they’d have to file a claim under the Exoneration Act, forcing the defendants to once again prove their innocence to retrieve their funds. The plaintiffs appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, who sided with the citizens in a 7-1 ruling, declaring Colorado’s law unconstitutional.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion for the court declaring “the Exoneration Act’s scheme does not comport with the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.”

Ginsburg wrote that Nelson and Madden are “entitled to be presumed innocent” and “should not be saddled with any proof burden” to reclaim what is already theirs. In other words, they shouldn’t have to demonstrate they’re not criminals after the court has already made such a determination. According to Forbes:

Ginsburg forcefully rejected Colorado’s argument that “[t]he presumption of innocence applies only at criminal trials,” and not to civil claims, as under the Exoneration Act:  “Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary exactions.”

The decision, on its surface, may not seem like much but holds promise for putting an end to the much criticized practice of local law enforcement agencies around the country who engage in civil asset forfeiture.

The Free Thought Project has worked diligently to highlight such fiscally abusive practices taking place all around the country. Take for instance rapper Blac Youngsta’s recent run-in with the law back in January.

He was detained by Atlanta police withdrawing $200,000 cash from his bank account. He’d planned to take the money and buy his favorite sports car but police were notified and Youngsta was detained as being a possible bank robbery suspect.

Youngsta and his entourage were apprehended while police pointed their weapons at them. The so-called authorities then put everyone in handcuffs, confiscated their personal weapons, and took half of the rapper’s $200,000 withdrawal saying he could get it back after it was processed as evidence at police headquarters.

In essence, the police seized his money and forced the rapper to reclaim his own funds after proving he was entitled to it. They robbed him. The police shakedown made international news and smacked in the face of common sense, as many were left scratching their heads and asking how police could get away with doing what common street thugs often do, take other people’s money.

Matt Agorist with TFTP reported, from 1998 to 2010, more than 12 billion dollars was raked in from law enforcement at all levels of government. This translated into the government taking away 600 million more dollars than all the robberies and thefts during that same period, making authorities seem more crooked than the individuals they’re trying to arrest.

And the practice isn’t limited to local law enforcement either. As we previously reported, the “DEA seized more than $4 billion in cash from people since 2007, but $3.2 billion of the seizures were never connected to any criminal charges. That figure does not even include the seizure of cars and electronics.”

The Inspector General of the Justice Department concluded their practices constituted a threat to everyone’s civil liberties, and now, apparently, the SCOTUS agrees. Everyone is entitled to due process under the law and are likewise entitled to keeping their assets once they’re found not guilty in criminal court. It’s a good day to be an American. Maybe now law enforcement at all levels will stop such controversial practices.

Jack Burns is an educator, journalist, investigative reporter, and advocate of natural medicine. This article first appeared here at TheFreeThoughtProject.com.

Funding Fraud in the Courts

Image result for mn state flagThe MN state court system is once again begging for more funding. The judicial branch is seeking a $51.4 million increase over its current funding levels. The bulk of the request ($42 million) would pay salary and benefits for judges and staff.

Chief Justice Gildea stated that “Public safety is jeopardized when we do not have a fully-funded, functioning judiciary.”  No, I think public safety is jeopardized anytime anyone sets foot in a courtroom! Throwing money at a corrupt institution just creates more corruption.

In 2008, a report was written by a committee of judges to show how the judicial branch costs could be reduced by $50 million or more annually-while also increasing judicial efficiency. There were 51 recommended reforms however, few are being implemented.

Minnesota Courts Waste Tens of Millions of Dollars Every Year

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea MNCCOURTS.GOV

 

MPR News Reporting on state politics and government

Chief Justice makes funding plea for MN courts

Tim PugmireTim Pugmire April 20, 2017

The chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court is urging state lawmakers to provide adequate funding for the state court system.

Chief Justice Lorie Gildea testified Thursday during a conference committee hearing, where House and Senate negotiators were working out the differences between their budget bills for judiciary and public safety. She said it was a rare appearance by a chief justice in such a gathering.

Gildea, who is the administrative head of the judicial branch, reminded committee members that the courts are a vital part of the government’s basic functions.

“The judiciary is not a mere state agency,” Gildea said. “The judiciary is a branch of government and it deserves to be funded as such.”

The judicial branch is seeking a $51.4 million increase over its current funding levels. The bulk of the request ($42 million) would pay salary and benefits for judges and staff.

DFL Gov. Mark Dayton included the full amount in his budget proposal. The House and Senate bills provided only partial increases.

Gildea said the judicial branch made a “modest, targeted” request that is needed to process cases in a timely manner and ensure access to justice.

“Public safety is jeopardized when we do not have a fully-funded, functioning judiciary,” she said.

Funding for the courts also came up earlier in the day during a private meeting that included Dayton, House Speaker Kurt Daudt and Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka.

Dayton told reporters that he stressed the importance of funding the chief justice’s full request. He said he hears about the growing demands on the court system every time he interviews candidates for judicial vacancies.

“Every one of them talks about the increased case load in their particular judicial district,” Dayton said.

Daudt, R-Zimmerman, said he appreciates and respects the judicial branch. But Daudt also stressed that he’s trying to keep spending in check.

“We have to decide how to take those resources and spread them across all of state government,” Daudt said. “We have to make decisions and sometimes you have to prioritize. Sometimes it means that people get 75 percent of their request, not 100 percent.”

Gazleka, R-Nisswa, said he was trying to schedule a meeting with Gildea to listen to her concerns.


Instead of granting the chief justice’s request, we need to keep the pressure on to initiate an investigation of criminal acts, due process violations and corruption among judges and legislators in Minnesota.

Read how other states developed teams to crack down on public corruption.

Federal Funding Fraud Underlying the ‘Cottage Industries’

Excerpts Below:

Dr. Sheila Mannix is the Co-Founder of Illinois Family Court Accountability Advocates (IFCAA). She states, “After working these past six years to help stop the apparent State-court based crimes which literally exploit the nation’s children as “commodities” in judicial system “profit centers,” I’ve found that an essential factor is differentiating between, on the one hand, the behaviors of traumatized parents being forced to watch their children irreparably harmed while being retaliated against, defamed, and impoverished and, on the other hand, the irrefutable sociopathic behaviors observed in public officials who have fiduciary obligations to stop that which they are participating in and enabling. I believe Mr. Fitzgerald summed it up best on June 27, 2011 after the solid conviction of ex-governor Blagojevich on 17 counts of federal crimes; he said, “There is legitimate politics. There are gray areas. Selling a Senate seat, shaking down a children’s hospital and squeezing a person to give money before you sign a bill that benefits them is not a gray area. It’s a crime.” Likewise, the evidence indicates that what is going on in the venue provided by the nation’s State courts in which private assets and federal funds can be unlawfully accessed are not “legitimate judicial proceedings” but crime, specifically, apparent violations of Federal funding laws and other Federal civil and criminal laws including alleged racketeering activity among public officials and State court actors.”

In addition to helping provide evidence to state and federal authorities in pursuit of indictments of allegedly corrupt public officials including Mormon judges, Mannix has networked with Virginia citizens as well as Utah citizens, the latter of which have specifically called upon their Mormon GOP state legislators to launch an independent forensic audit of all Federal taxpayers’ dollars coming into the State’s family court-related programs.

“No one will be able to balance any government budget until the public corruption involving hundreds of billions of the nation’s taxpayers’ hard-earned income, which, in part, is literally being using to perpetrate that which the U.S. Congress voted it is to prevent, specifically, child and elder abuse, domestic violence, parental deprivation, and child support avoidance, is stopped once and for all by more criminal investigations, forensic audits, and tough new laws which result in the loss of pensions in entirety and deterrent-based, long-term prison sentences for involved officials acting in positions of public trust. Onward for the children.”


 Bribes and slush funds in the courts.

Let’s Get Honest! Blog

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family –and “Conciliation” — Courts’ Operations, Practices, and History

Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption Through Common Law Discovery (1997)

Judicial Corruption

During 2016 blog “house-keeping” action, I re-read this 1997 Interview published in “Antishyster.com” but found posted in “Famguardian.org” (ads show it to be possibly a conservative/libertarian or perhaps even survivalist mag. So what, if the information in article stands on its own two feet?)  about Los Angeles County and a judges association, what happened to the proceeds from MCLE (Continuing Education) classes, and how to find out.  I added some quotes from it.

This interview has been HIGHLY underestimated and STILL valuable information.  If better understood, it would most likely end any questions about the vailidity of the “Broken Courts / Flawed Practices / (now more promoted as “Safe Child” loose coalitions of specific organizations and on-line followers.)

It would “Shine the Light” for real on the presumptions among these groups of the problem being “Judges, Mediators, GALs and Custody Evaluators  JUST don’t understand perps” or “They believe a psychologically unsound “parental alienation theory” and about any other excuse one might make up to exonerate the exceptionally bad custody and divorce (and visitation) decisions being made nationwide. That premise leads to a predictable solution of “we need more trainings.”  But the trainings is where the money is — and apparently, some of it — getting lost.

In my opinion (see this blog for why), it’s less “they just   don’t understand” and more “they just don’t CARE.” What’s more, think about how much any functional, ETHICAL judge already has invested in his or her career, social and professional life (and/or real estate).  If the core operations are corrupt, which this certainly indicates they ARE, to expose it is basically professional humiliation for having participated in the system, or feigned (?) ignorance, and financial destruction of the sort many parents are already familiar with.  I really think it’s up to the common people to, if possible, use “common law” to go get the financial facts and then compare them to the proper use and destination of public buildings (such as courthouses) and funds raised by private associations which may happen to have judicial memberships, or beneficiaries, regardless of WHAT buildings they are in, IF they violate certain laws.

Originally published 1/24/2013. This Post is Sticky (one of 9 sticky posts) meaning, it stays near the top. Current posts show below all sticky posts. Also, I just moved the “Supervised Visitation” section to a separate post (and of course expanded that one) on 6/6/2013.

File this Article under “What a Difference One Person can Make, if that person: Has Guts, Will Obtain Evidence, Look at Evidence, Come to Logical Conclusion regarding Evidence Obtained AND Publicize It! Includes Marv Bryer’s discoveries, especially in the mid- to late 1990s.

Marvin Bryer’s discoveries began when his daughter was involved in a custody battle for her son. Apparently a judge received a bribe to rule against Mr. Bryer’s daughter, and as a result Mr. Bryer discovered a judicial slush fund bank account, and a common law discovery for overcoming judicial immunity.

Right away, we are in the financial category: Bribe, Slush Fund, Bank account, overcoming judicial immunity.   Also in this (fairly short) post:

Another question: What’s the difference between a “Family” court and a “Conciliation” court? And why are so many programs in the courts being pre-planned by membership of a private nonprofit association which (eventually — after people started pestering it to get its own EIN# and quit hiding and evading taxes under the County’s EIN#) called “Association of Family and ConciliationCourts,” which previously was a “Conference of Conciliation Courts”?

Also in this post:

Report From Judges Blasts California Court Bureaucracy By MARIA DINZEO SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a sweeping call for reform of the Administrative Office of the Courts, a report from a committee of judges found the agency has been operated as the director’s fiefdom, has strayed far from its original path and has been deceptive about finances and personnel. The judges also criticized the bureaucracy as top-heavy, overpaid and badly organized. Their long-awaited report proposes a drastic reorganization that includes cutting the staff by one-third and moving the agency from its lavish San Francisco headquarters to a cheaper space in Sacramento.

Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption Through Common Law Discovery

[in ANTISHYSTER http://www.antishyster.com 972-418-8993 Volume 7 No. 4, p. 51ff]

1997 interview with Marv Bryer.
[ I ASK READERS: ] Can you read 7 pages “for the cause”? And think about it?  If Yes, and If given a brief pop-quiz of about 10th grade level on what it’s talking about, how much of the vocabulary or ideas could you remember?

Read the rest of this entry

A Good Day For The First Amendment

Jailed Blogger Darren Chaker Wins First Amendment Case

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – 12/27/2016 (PRESS RELEASE JET) — A California Blogger , Darren Chaker , recently reversed his conviction in federal court on First Amendment grounds where he said “Ms. Leesa Fazal, an investigator with the Nevada Attorney General’s Office, was “forced out” of her previous post with the Las Vegas Police Department.”  See Cato Institute article. Supporters included Cato InstituteACLU of San DiegoElectronic Frontier FoundationFirst Amendment Coalition, and Brechner First Amendment Project at University of Florida. ?

After spending months in jail, Mr. Chaker imprisonment was found unjust. The Ninth Circuit, Case. No. 15-50138/ No. 15-50193, found, see opinion “Chaker’s blog post, which claimed that former police investigator Leesa Fazal “was forced out of the Las Vegas Metro Police Department,” does not qualify as harassment.” The court continued to state in relevant part, “The government also failed to prove that Chaker’s blog post satisfied the elements of defamation, including falsity and actual malice. See N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 279–80 (1964).”

In this instance Nevada Attorney General Investigator Leesa Fazal of Las Vegas made multiple reports about the blog to her own agency, Las Vegas Metro Police Department, and FBI. None of them took any action to file charges.  Until she contacted Mr. Chaker’s probation officer alleging defamation, which people are typically sued for in civil court. Mr. Chaker was on probation for a white collar crime.

The Human Rights Defense Center published an article saying in part, “The First Amendment protects the right of everyone to use the Internet to criticize government officials – including people on supervised release from prison,” noted Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Adam Schwartz.

As reported by the Cato Institute in a post appeal article, “Chaker notes on his personal blog that he is “only one of 4,708,100 people are on probation or parole.” Millions of individuals’ political speech could have been swept up under the precedent set by the lower court’s outrageous decision…. The decision in Chaker v. United States is thus a victory for First Amendment advocates and political activists everywhere. It protects the rights of even the most downtrodden and implicitly applies the correct defamation standard to political speech aimed at public officials.”

During oral argument on June 10, 2016, it was conceded the speech was non-criminal. The Ninth Circuits YouTube Channel, shows oral argument where the former chief judge did not appear happy about restricting non-criminal speech:

23:16 Judge Kozinski to AUSA – “You managed to bamboozle…I mean the United States, managed to fool the district judge imposing the condition…”;

26:31 Judge Kozinski, “It’s okay for the district court to say obey all laws…but this is not at all limited to criminal conduct…this is conduct that is not illegal…agree this is conduct that is not illegal?”, reluctantly Government attorney said “agreed that the condition reached conduct that is not illegal.”

Jailing a blogger for non-criminal speech for criticizing government is precisely what sets America apart from oppressive regimes who seek to control the media and thoughts of those who govern its population. In this instance, the government lost, but sets a dangerous precedent of how resources can be used to silence critics.

Additional information may be found at, http://darrenchaker.com/darren-chaker-wins-appeal/

Media Contacts:

Company Name: Darren Chaker
Full Name: Darren Chaker
Phone: 213-915-6804
Email Address: darrenchaker@gmail.com
Website: http://darrenchaker.com/

Stearns Co. Has Some Splainin To Do!

FOX

Dan Rassier files defamation lawsuit against investigators for Wetterling case 

– Dan Rassier is suing the Stearns County investigators, including the sheriff, who once named him a person of interest in the Jacob Wetterling case.

According to the lawsuit filed Wednesday morning, Rassier and his mom, Rita, are seeking more than $2 million in damages, claiming the law enforcement agencies botched the investigation into Jacob’s disappearance.

“The thing you have to understand is people in Stearns County, we didn’t do any research, but people really thought he was guilty,” Mike Padden, Rassier’s attorney, told Fox 9. People really believed it. That’s the problem when law enforcement runs amok like that.”

Eleven-year-old Jacob was kidnapped at the end of Rassier’s driveway on October 22, 1989. During the initial investigation, Rassier told authorities he saw two cars drive onto the farm property the day of the abduction.

But in the years that followed, Rassier went from being a key witness to the focus of investigators.

In 2004, Stearns County Sheriff John Sanner and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension zeroed in on Rassier. He was formally named a person of interest in the Wetterling case in 2010 after investigators executed a search warrant was executed on his farm and took his personal property and some of his land.

The court documents describe a malicious, reckless and fraudulent effort on the part of the three investigators named in the lawsuit to obtain the search warrant. Rassier and his lawyers claim the investigators did not disclose certain details to the judge regarding the case because it would have kept them from getting the warrant.

The personal property that was taken in the search was not returned to Rassier until last November, two months after Heinrich admitted to the kidnapping and killing Jacob, the lawsuit says. The topsoil that was taken by investigators has still not been returned.

Rassier was finally cleared after Heinrich confessed to the crime last September. His claims in the lawsuit include defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and unlawful entry, search and destruction of his home and property on the part of law enforcement.

In addition to Stearns County Sheriff John Sanner, Rassier also named Pam Jensen who worked for Sanner as well as the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s Ken McDonald as co-conspirators against him.

Click to read more and view the video: http://www.fox9.com/news/244683777-story


2 Men Suing Stearns County In Separate Cases

November 21, 2016 6:37 PM

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — Two Minnesota men will file civil rights lawsuits against the sheriff’s office that led the investigation into Jacob Wetterling’s kidnapping. They claim the failings of investigators ruined their reputations, after accusing both of them of murders they did not commit.

Dan Rassier was the first publicly named person of interest in Jacob’s case. He wasn’t cleared until Danny Heinrich’s courtroom confession. Ryan Larson was arrested for the killing of a Cold Spring police officer. Another man who killed himself was later named as the killer in that case.

Continue Reading: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/11/21/stearns-county-lawsuits/


Stearns County Sheriff John Sanner Photo: Stearns County Sheriff’s Office 

Stearns County Sheriff John Sanner plans to retire next month

Career was shadowed by search for Jacob Wetterling.

Continue Reading: http://www.startribune.com/stearns-county-sheriff-john-sanner-plans-to-retire-next-month/416768503/

 


Stearns sheriff must clear innocent man

With the recent developments regarding Jacob Wetterling’s disappearance, many have been able to obtain much-needed closure from a crime haunted our region for over two decades.

Now that the healing can begin, one aspect has gotten lost among the shuffle; the systemic misconduct that has taken place within the Stearns County Sheriff’s Department. The manner in which the initial search, and eventual investigation was executed not only allowed Jacob’s killer to remain free for more than two decades, but also destroyed the reputation of an innocent man.

Throughout Sheriff John Sanner’s time, his investigation attempted to create a new theory for Jacob’s abduction and murder, one that is based entirely around one innocent man — Dan Rassier.

 The unsealing of the warrants, which formed the basis for the excavation of the family farm in 2010, detailed misrepresentations and false statements. They even went as far as to falsely portray Dan as being investigated by Interpol. I would invite everyone to listen to the recently released American Public Media’s eight-part podcast “In The Dark,” which details this further.

Despite finding no evidence linking Rassier to the crime, the sheriff continues to refuse to clear his name. It has been six years since that very public search of the Rassier family farm. Not a single item has been returned to the family, nor was Dan ever officially cleared from the case — leaving him forever connected to a crime he didn’t commit.

To top this off, we all had the pleasure of watching Sheriff Sanner stand tall during that news conference following the killer’s confession, praising himself and his department while ignoring that it was blogger Joy Baker’s hard work that ultimately shifted the investigation back in the right direction.

So, job well done Mr. Sanner, but our leadership of the department needs to be re-examined.

BACK FROM THE BIG HOUSE

So. . . there’s 120 days of my life that I’ll never get back!

Most of you know that my trial was scheduled from September 26th-September 29th, 2016.

The trial went forward despite my arguments regarding witness tampering and obstruction of justice due to illegal withholding of a portion of my evidence. Also, the evidence I did receive was not disclosed in time to afford me the opportunity to make beneficial use of it. (Received on September 1st and trial was scheduled for September 26th).

Image courtesy of suphakit73 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Judge Asphaug also demonstrated prejudicial judicial conduct by granting the State’s motion to have substantial exonerating evidence not introduced in the trial.

I did not have a settlement conference and was offered a plea deal on the first day of my trial. As I’ve said numerous times before, the goal was always to have me plead guilty or be found guilty without access to all of my evidence. After I declined the plea deal, the attitude of the prosecutor and the judge changed significantly and became quite hostile. Here’s the thing, a statement must be free and voluntary, not extracted by any sorts of threats or promises, however slight. Judge Asphaug indicated that if I lost by having a jury trial, she would have the ability to impose a harsh sentence which is exactly what happened. Plea bargaining extorts guilty pleas and the trial tax is just another way to tilt the playing field in favor of the state.

Below is an excerpt from Trial Tax And Plea Bargaining   BY  

“There’s no law written saying that exercising your right to a jury trial and losing will cost you more. There’s this euphemism in legal land called a “trial tax.”  If you exercise your constitutional right to a trial and lose, you typically get reamed even harder than if you took a plea deal.
Why? The incredible amount of unnecessary and unjust laws you could break bog down the courts. Rather than give every defendant his day in court, plea deals are offered. Courts use the “trial tax” as an excuse to discourage jury trials.  Judges, prosecutors, and court staff perceive this fundamental right of our American republic as an inconvenience and intimidate the accused into taking deals struck in back rooms.
Remember this next time it is presumed that our courts and laws are fair: Court personnel consider due process a punishable offense.”

Also, I was originally charged with two felony counts and four additional charges were added. This dirty trick is called charge stacking. Read more about this tactic below:

Prosecutors, Charge Stacking, and Plea Deals 

by  

As Attorney Michelle MacDonald once told me, “This is a process of torture where heavier and heavier weights are placed on the chest of the defendant until they either suffocate or confess.”

I did not suffocate nor did I confess to criminal behavior that did not exist.

Below are my special conditions of probation:

psipsi

Below are two additional conditions that were not in the community corrections document.

roa

roa0002It’s clear that this was a malicious prosecution and that I was deprived of the right to a fair trial before an impartial judge. This was also a manipulation of public opinion by false media reports and retaliation for putting the system on trial.

Stay tuned for further updates.

Modern-Day Debtors’ Prisons

hand-in-jail-100186945

Image courtesy of tiverylucky at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Too Poor to Make Bail? They’ll Cage You for That: Lawsuit Exposes Horrors of the US InJustice System

%d bloggers like this: