Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

First Amendment Wins Again!

The Volokh Conspiracy

Court order banning speech about a person (and banning gun possession by speaker) reversed

 May 2, 2016

I’ve blogged often about how criminal harassment bans, “cyberstalking” bans and restraining order laws have been morphing: They began by restricting unwanted speech to a person, but they’ve often been used to restrict speech about a person.

Many recent appellate court decisions, fortunately, have been rejecting this process. Here’s the latest example from the Florida Court of Appeal (Scott v. Blum) reversing a “stop talking about plaintiff” order. (Incidentally, like many such orders, this came with a ban on gun possession by the defendant.)

First, the facts (some paragraph breaks added throughout):

Mr. Blum is a process server and a member of the National Association of Professional Process Servers (NAPPS). [Randy] Scott is a former process server and former member of NAPPS…. Mr. Blum testified that Mr. Scott sent emails about Mr. Blum and Mr. Blum’s family, partners, and former employees to 2200 NAPPS members.

The emails consisted of links to articles, blog posts, or videos. In some instances, the articles or blog posts were written by Mr. Scott. The tenor of the emails, articles, blog posts, and videos was derogatory, and the allegations within them were potentially damaging to Mr. Blum’s business and reputation. Copies of the emails supported Mr. Blum’s testimony.

Mr. Blum testified that none of the emails were sent directly to him but that he knows about them because they were forwarded by the recipients to him or he received phone calls about them. The emails, articles, blog posts, and videos did not contain threats against Mr. Blum. However, Mr. Blum claimed that the content of the emails, articles, blog posts, and videos caused him emotional distress; he had trouble sleeping and eating, the emails were constantly on his mind, and he constantly had to defend himself to people.

Mr. Scott testified that his emails discussed many people within NAPPS or connected to NAPPS and were not directed at Mr. Blum.

Continue Reading: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/02/court-order-banning-speech-about-a-person-and-banning-gun-possession-by-speaker-reversed/?utm_term=.be93d44ebee8

Advertisements

FIRST AMENDMENT UPHELD IN MN

MN Supreme Court throws out law against disorderly conduct at meetings 

Bob Collins 

The Minnesota Supreme Court has tossed out a disorderly conduct law aimed at people who disrupt public meetings.

The Court ruled in the case of Robin Hensel, of Little Falls, who was cited for disorderly conduct after she moved her chairs closer to city councilors at a meeting, days after the Council rescheduled a meeting when Hensel displayed signs that depicted dead and deformed children, blocking the view of others in the audience.

She was convicted after a judge refused to allow her to enter a defense under the First Amendment.

“The Court has made clear that “the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one’s views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired,” Court of Appeals Judge Michelle Ann Larkin ruled last year upholding the conviction.

Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals, ruling the statute about disturbing public meetings is overly broad (See full opinion).

Here’s how the law reads:

Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
. . .
(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character . .

“An individual could violate the statute by, for example, wearing an offensive t-shirt, using harsh words in addressing another person, or even raising one’s voice in a speech,” Justice David Stras wrote for the majority in today’s opinion.

This statute presents us with a “criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.” Stevens, 559 U.S. at 474. It criminalizes a public speech that “criticize[s] various political and racial groups . . . as inimical to the nation’s welfare.” It prohibits an individual from wearing a jacket containing an offensive inscription to a meeting. And certainly, it would forbid someone from burning the American flag on a public street.

In addition to being disruptive of gatherings of all kinds, all of these actions share a common quality: they are protected under the First Amendment. Due to the countless ways in which [the law] can prohibit and chill protected expression, we conclude that the statute facially violates the First Amendment’s overbreadth doctrine.

Continue Reading: https://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2017/09/mn-supreme-court-throws-out-law-against-disorderly-conduct-at-meetings/

MINNESOTA: COME ON VACATION-STAY ON PROBATION

Yes, Minnesota has a low prison population, but that’s not the whole story

__________________________________
Policymakers often cite Minnesota’s low prison population, but the state also has one of the highest rates of probation in the country — a restrictive punishment that often serves as a back door to incarceration.

A familiar argument broke out at the Minnesota Legislature recently.

The committee on public safety was debating a bill that would make it a felony to tamper with a police car, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Rep. Raymond Dehn, a DFLer, commented on the number of similar bills the committee had been hearing, turning lower charges into more serious ones likely to feed the prison population.

If the goal is simply to lock more people up, Dehn said, “I just question why we call this a public safety committee.”

Image result for tony cornish

Rep. Tony Cornish, Committee Chair~Public Safety and Security Policy and Finance

His Republican colleague, Rep. Tony Cornish, swiftly chimed in that he doesn’t mind sending more people to prison if they deserve it. Besides, said Cornish, “we’re still very near the bottom on incarceration per capita in Minnesota.” My comments in red (Hey Tony, who decides if they deserve it? Oh yeah, the judicial mafia that’s who!)

COMING SOON: Audio on Cornish’s views regarding judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.

This is a common refrain in discussions about prison policy. And Cornish is right: Minnesota’s incarceration rate is one of the lowest in the United States.

But that’s not the whole story. Minnesota also claims one of the highest rates of people on probation in the country. One reason this matters is that people on probation or supervised release — Minnesota’s version of parole — frequently do end up in prison for “technical violations,” such as missing meetings with a supervision officer or failing drug tests. Last year, two-thirds of the state’s prison admissions were there because of technical violations.

Critics like Rep. Marion O’Neill, R-Maple Lake, think it’s time for that to change. Last week, O’Neill brought advocates in to testify on a proposal in the House that would mandate supervision officers to look for alternatives to prison when non-violent drug offenders commit technical violations.

Continue Reading: http://www.startribune.com/yes-minnesota-has-a-low-prison-population-but-that-s-not-the-whole-story/416958333/

__________________________________________________________________________________

Below is my alleged probation violation

Judge Asphaug has already had me serve more time than 80% of her perpetrators of sexual violence against children.

Click to enlarge

See Dangerous State of Justice  I don’t know about you, but this looks a lot like retaliation to me! See Appeal Reply Brief Evavold

Judge Karen Asphaug

Judge Asphaug stated I was “motivated by political ill will and distrust of government.”

At the sentencing hearing Judge Asphaug once again stated, “The mother perhaps was motivated by animosity or malice towards the father. Perhaps her motivation was a misplaced belief (or misplaced evidence) that the girls weren’t safe, but what motivated you to become involved? Not to become involved in, but to intrude into the life of another family? Not friendship for the girls or with the girls: You never met them before the day they were taken from their home. Not friendship with their mother because you knew her only briefly. We’re left to wonder if you were motivated by political persuasion, by distrust of the courts, by a desire to pursue an activist agenda of some sort.”

What’s really interesting is that my probation officer has never even addressed this false order in any of my face-to-face meetings and suddenly, I’m violating probation? This comes on the heels of the false HRO that was filed against me and signed by Judge Asphaug. → NOTICE OF OBJECTIŌNE

Clearly, my probation is being supervised by Judge Asphaug and the Communitiy Corrections staff are “just following orders”. Also, below is an email regarding my psychological evaluation that suddently and mysteriously doesn’t seem to meet probation requirements.

From: Dede Evavold
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 1:11 PM                                                    Image result for dakota county community corrections apple valley
To: ‘greg.stoeckmann@co.dakota.mn.us’
Subject: CASE NO. 19HA-CR-15-4227

Greg,

I have completed my psychological evaluation which was approved by Natalie Christensen, Dakota County Community Corrections (see attachment). I was told that I was to complete an MMPI with an interview afterwards, which I did.

I’m curious as to why there was ex-parte communication with the judge and why this was flagged by a probation officer months after the acceptance of the evaluation.

A neutral evaluator found nothing wrong with my cognitive abilities or mental health. My concern is that something is needing to be found by Gregory Hanson, PhD, LP who is a for-profit evaluator under contract with Dakota County.

Also, Gregory Hanson was the practitioner that conducted evaluations of two other persons involved in the Grazzini-Rucki case. “The potential for a conflict of interest, or even the appearance of one, can compromise objectivity.” AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Assessment

Normally, forensic psychological evaluations are ordered to determine competency to stand trial, asserting a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, sentence mitigation or testamentary capacity. I have already been falsely convicted and sentenced, so clearly this is just further harassment by Dakota County.

I am also confused as to why I was contacted by probation officer Jeremy Lehto from Stearns County regarding transferring my probation. I was not made aware of this by Dakota County and Jeremy also found it odd that I was not contacted. I was told by Dakota County at my initial meeting that I do not meet the requirements of a probation transfer to my county of residence due to the low risk status.

I have complied with my probation requirements and the unwarranted request to take another psychological evaluation is clearly being done to harass, punish and retaliate against me for exposing the obstruction of justice in this case.

Let’s talk about the right to free speech…

The First Amendment provides in part that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”

All convicted felons still have the right to free speech, even while in prison. Falsely convicted felons also have the right to free speech, even when they’re not in prison.

Judges often call gag orders “protective orders,” and say they are necessary to protect a person’s right to a fair trial, the fair administration of justice or the sanctity of jury deliberations. Judge Asphaug ordered the gag after the trial and no one else has been gagged except me. Go figure. Everyone else can write about my case and I can’t? Hmmmmm …

Another interesting factor in this case is that Michael Brodkorb (Blogger Extraordinaire for Dakota County) was also slapped with an HRO due to actual harassing and stalking behavior as well as misrepresentation in covering this case. He stated that it was a “violation of his First Amendment rights.” Wait a minute, he’s applauding the court’s decision to violate my rights to free speech. Hypocritical much??!

Anyhow, read excerpts below from the article Blogger Restraining order raises worry for journalists  

“Journalists must, of course, follow the law when doing their job. But aggressive reporting focused on a high-profile suspect of a crime is a legitimate and necessary role for the media.

The chilling effect is that if someone doesn’t like coverage they could go to a courthouse and file what I believe to be a fraudulent document with fictitious information to game the system,” he told the Star Tribune.

Restraining orders are sometimes given quickly by a judge in order to err on the side of protecting someone from being harmed. Later, those restraining orders are sometimes lifted if the judge, upon further evidence, realizes it’s unsupported. In this case the order was tossed out on a technicality before further judicial review could measure its validity. (Those pesky technicalities of illegally withholding/suppressing evidence, witness tampering, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct didn’t really matter in my case did they?!)

The case leaves open the potential that restraining orders could be filed against journalists by anyone who doesn’t like the scrutiny they are receiving. That’s not a comforting thought for journalists or for a society that relies on an unfettered press.”

I’ll leave it at that!

Time For A Class Action

DIAMOND AND SILK RIP YOUTUBE, SAY 95% OF VIDEOS DEMONETIZED OVER TRUMP SUPPORT

“Not Suitable For All Advertisers.”

Diamond and Silk rip YouTube, say 95% of videos demonetized over Trump support

Two of President Trump’s most ardent supporters, the YouTube stars known as Diamond and Silk, say a financial stranglehold has been placed on their videos.

Lynnette Hardway and Rochelle Richardson of North Carolina, whose support of Mr. Trump and no-nonsense delivery during the 2016 U.S. presidential season turned them into online sensations, said Thursday their YouTube videos have become casualties of the company’s attempt to silence “extremism.”

“@YouTube @TeamYouTube stopped over 95% percent of our videos from being monetized, stating: ‘It’s Not Suitable For All Advertisers,’” the two said in a series of tweets. “Wonder if @YouTube @TeamYouTube stopped the monetization of our videos because we are loyal supporters of the @POTUS. Hummmm. Sounds like Censorship to us, which is a Violation of our First Amendment. A Bias Method used to Silence our Conservative Voices. @YouTube, how was it OK to monetize our videos for the past two years and now those same videos are no longer eligible for monetization?”

The popular duo, who were also paid $1,275 for “field consulting” work by the Trump campaign, boast 89,000 subscribers on YouTube and another 361,000 on Twitter.

Read more

Police/Surveillance State

Court Sets Ominous Precedent: Informing Jurors Of Their Rights Is Now ILLEGAL

By Justin Gardner

Big Rapids, MI — As constitutional rights are steadily eroded in the U.S. through the burgeoning police/surveillance state, one case in Michigan provides an example of just how dire the situation has gotten. Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights.

Woods was exercising his First Amendment rights and raising awareness about something the courts deliberately fail to tell jurors when beginning a trial – jury nullification, or the right to vote one’s conscience. For this, Woods – a father of eight and former pastor – was charged with jury tampering, after an initial felony charge of obstructing justice was dropped following public outcry.

Even with the reduced charge, the case has very troubling implications for free speech rights. The county prosecutor, seemingly furious that a citizen would dare inform the public on jury nullification, said Woods’ pamphlet “is designed to benefit a criminal defendant.”

The prosecutor then seemed to contradict himself in a statement, saying, “Once again the pamphlet by itself, fine, people have views on what the law should be, that’s fine. It’s the manner by which this pamphlet was handed out.”

Woods, who testified in his own defense, stated under oath that he did not ask anyone walking into the courthouse if they were a juror, remained on the public sidewalk and never blocked any area. He decided to hand out the pamphlets at a Nov. 24, 2015 trial of an Amish man accused of draining a wetland on his property in violation of Dept. of Environment Quality rules.

Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to defense attorney David Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool.

I thought this was going to trash my jury trial, basically,” testified Judge [Peter] Jaklevic. “It just didn’t sound right.

Jacklevic ended up sending that jury pool home on Nov. 24, 2015 when Yoder took a plea.

Jaklevic continued to testify that he stepped into the hallway with Mecosta County Prosecutor Brian Thiede when Det. Erlandson and a deputy brought Wood into the courthouse that day. Mecosta County Deputy Jeff Roberts testified he “asked Wood to come inside because the Judge wanted to talk with him,” then threatened to call a city cop if Wood did not come inside.

Wood testified Judge Jaklevic never spoke to him that day, or him any questions, before ordering his arrest. He tells FOX 17 he had concerns his case was tried in Mecosta County where all of this happened, involving several court officials including the judge.”

To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying informational pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Woods arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Woods was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired, where county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place.

“So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Woods. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.”

Defense attorney Kallman notes that during Woods’ trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury.

Family Survival System – Free Book (Ad) 

“And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” said Kallman. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.”

When asked how he felt about his First Amendment rights, Woods replied,

Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.

We had briefs about the First Amendment, free speech. It was very clear today, I know the jury doesn’t hear that, but it was very clear that the government did not meet their burden to restrict my free speech on that public sidewalk that day. It was very clear.


Justin Gardner is a peaceful free-thinker with a background in the biological sciences. He is interested in bringing rationality back into the national discourse, and independent journalism as a challenge to the status quo. This article first appeared here at The Free Thought Project.

Censorship

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas without fear or interference. Well, ALMOST everyone.

Probation Conditions in State of Minnesota vs Deirdre Elise Evavold- Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227

“You will not reference any of the XXXXXXXX-XXXXX family on any social media.”

I previously posted a press release on Darren Chaker, who reversed his conviction in federal court on First Amendment grounds. A Good Day For The First Amendment.

After corresponding with Mr. Chaker regarding my own First Amendment violations as well as numerous other violations in my case, I was enlightened further about our inherent rights.  See Below

“Rights might be inherent, but ideas need to be taught.” Maida Buckley, retired classroom teacher in Fairbanks, Alaska

Image courtesy of Pixabay

Focusing on the First Amendment issue,  I see a few flaws in Condition 2 preventing referencing to specific people in social media:  Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227

What if you want to criticize the police/DA, the judicial process, etc but cannot even reference to your case since it makes reference to the names of the people you cannot make reference to? Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government because criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion. Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1217, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 23728, *1, 33 Media L. Rep. 2569 (9th Cir. Cal. 2005)​ Yes that is my first First Amendment case where I overruled the California Supreme Court. See also, https://www.scribd.com/document/3698825/Press-Release-CAL-SUPREME-COURT-Reversed-by-Chaker-v-Crogan

Additionally, you have a First Amendment right to re-distribute information contained in a public record.

     Preventing Blogging is Not a Governmental Interest.

For government to regulate speech, it must be “integral to criminal conduct.” United States v. Meredith, 685 F.3d 814, 819, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13012, 7, 2012-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,421, 110 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5157 (9th Cir. Cal. 2012) Typically, restriction of speech concerns a gang member not associating with other gang member; a child pornographer being monitored or restricted from the internet, defendant not speaking to victims, etc. The only nontypical First Amendment challenge relates to a defendant speaking or writing about the unconstitutionality of tax laws and was reversed, but prohibiting advocating tax evasion was affirmed. Speech is presumptively protected by the First Amendment. The burden is on the government to show that a defendant’s website is within one of the narrow categories of unprotected speech. United States v. Carmichael, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1270, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, 1 (M.D. Ala. 2004) The Government would in its burden as it did not prove the speech at issue would be outside the scope of the First Amendment.

Suppressing speech rarely is justified by an interest in deterring criminal conduct, and in any event the justification “must be ‘far stronger than mere speculation about serious harms”’ and supported by “empirical evidence” Barnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S 514, 530-32, 121 S.Ct 1753, 1763-64, 149 L Ed 2d 787 (2001) (citing U.S v. Treasury Employees, 513 U S 454, 475 (1995))  

Protecting Reputation is Not a Government Interest.

If the Government were to say, ‘the families have been through enough and do not want to cause embarrassment or harm to there reputation’ – such would not be a proper Governmental interest. Specifically, protecting ones reputation is not a governmental function unless it violates criminal law.  United v. Alvarez, 617 F. 3d 1198. (Stolen Valor Act held unconstitutional) “At issue here is the First Amendment exception that allows the government to regulate speech that is integral to criminal conduct. . . .” Id. at 819-20. United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939, 946, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10377, 17-20, 2014 WL 2498131 (9th Cir. Cal. 2014)

Further, you have the right to attack people if you believe such behavior was unethical. See Wait v. Beck’s N. Am., Inc., 241 F. Supp. 2d 172, 183 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (“[A s]tatement[] that someone has acted . . . unethically generally [is] constitutionally protected statements of opinion.”); Biro, 883 F. Supp. 2d at 463 (“[T]he use of the terms ‘shyster,’ ‘conman,’ and finding an ‘easy mark’ is the type of ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ and ‘imaginative expression’ that is typically understood as a statement of opinion.” (quoting Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20)).

 Loss of Privacy Due to High Profile Case.

Also, due to all of the publicity in the case, it is likely the names you cannot blog about are deemed public figures. Public figures are entitled to less protection against defamation and invasion of privacy than are private figures with respect to the publication of false information about them. Carafano v. Metrosplash, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1059, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10614, 1, 30 Media L. Rep. 1577 (C.D. Cal. 2002)

         

Purpose of Probation is to Rehabilitate and Prevent Future Criminal Conduct, Blogging is Neither.

Consideration of three factors is required to determine whether a reasonable relationship exists: (1) the purposes sought to be served by probation; (2) the extent to which constitutional rights enjoyed by law-abiding citizens should be accorded to probationers; and (3) the legitimate needs of law enforcement. (Citation omitted.) United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 1977). United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18287, 11 (9th Cir. Wash. 1981) See also, United States v. T.M., 330 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The conditions imposed run afoul of the supervised release statute because there is no reasonable relationship between them and either deterrence, public protection or rehabilitation.”)


“The Minnesota legislature delegated the authority to prosecute criminal matters to the county attorney, who was elected by the voters of that county.”

But, according to the Minnesota Attorney General’s website, the office does sometimes get involved in criminal matters:

The Dahlens have pled guilty in an associated case for their role xx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx, while another defendant, Dede Evavold, was found guilty as well. Inexplicably, Judge Karen Asphaug presided over all four cases.

A message left with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office concerning the current legal situation was left unreturned. An email to Laura Flanders was also left unreturned and an email left with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office was also left unreturned. The current Minnesota Attorney General is Democrat Lori Swanson, and she has held that position since 2007.


Excerpts from The “Justice” blog authored by an anonymous group of concerned citizens.
The Attorney General’s Office has been receiving documentation concerning the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX case for over 5 years and has refused to investigate or take any action in the face of serious allegations, and evidence, showing corruption in local government and law enforcement. However, when opposing President Trump’s immigrant order, Lori Swanson said “It does not pass constitutional muster, is inconsistent with our history as a nation, and undermines our national security.” The same can be said for Dakota County; yet instead of taking a public stance on a very real concern that affects not only the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX family but the entire state of Minnesota, and possibly tens of thousands of families victimized by an out of control court system, Swanson remains silent. Now is a time for leadership, not silence.

Another article written by Michael Volpe on indicates that other MN citizens have encountered the same type of cover-up by the MN Attorney General’s Office.
Excerpts Below:
The tact does not surprise John Hentges, another parent battling court officials on behalf of his children and suffering from disingenuous actions by the court, who told CDN that rather than representing the people of Minnesota the office covers up and represents the corrupt public officials.

“I reported the corruption to her (Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General) and to the governor and to the Minnesota Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.” Hentges.

Hentges said he spent time in jail for failure to pay child support for a bill which had already been paid in another state and his trials in the Minnesota Justice System opened his eyes.

“I found several other things they were doing in the criminal justice system.” Hentges said. “I firmly believe that nearly every single case in the 1st Judicial District is fixed in one way or another.”

 
%d bloggers like this: