Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

Illegal Gag Orders

A gag order or suppression order is a formal directive which forbids people from discussing something publicly. In other words, the gag order is a form of censorship in which intimidation and threats are used to control information being disseminated to the public.

Below is an article regarding how the legal system is misusing harassment restraining orders to restrict free speech, which is what is being done in my case.  MA’AM, YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE!

‘You are also ordered not to post any further information about the [plaintiff]’

By Eugene Volokh August 24, 2015 Blue Email Symbol images Email the author

As many readers of this blog know, I’ve long been interested in how criminal harassment laws and restraining order laws have been morphing from restricting unwanted speech to people into restricting speech about people.

Such laws have traditionally covered unwanted phone calls, unwanted letters, unwanted attempts at face-to-face conversation and the like: again, speech to a particular person. Courts have generally upheld such restrictions on speech, and in many instances, plausibly so. As the Supreme Court held in 1970 in upholding a statute that let people block continued unwanted mailings into their homes, “no one has a right to press even ‘good’ ideas on an unwilling recipient.”

But in recent years, courts and prosecutors have increasingly used these laws to cover statements said to the public at large about particular people. Speakers have been prosecuted for posting repeated offensive messages or distributing offensive flyers about people (including about political and religious figures). Courts have issued orders barring speakers from saying anything about a person and ordering speakers to take down existing posts about that person. I wrote a law journal article about this two years ago, “One-To-One Speech vs. One-To-Many Speech, Criminal Harassment Laws, and “Cyberstalking,” 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. 731 (2013); I’ve also filed friend-of-the-court briefs on the subject in six different cases (in GeorgiaMassachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin) and last year had the pleasure of arguing on behalf of amici in one such case, Chan v. Ellis — this March, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the speech-restrictive order in that case.

Friday, I filed a friend-of-the-court brief in another such case, Van Valkerburg v. Gjoni, now pending in Massachusetts appellate court. The brief is on behalf of Prof. Aaron Caplan (author of “Free Speech and Civil Harassment Orders,” 64 Hastings L.J. 781 (2013), and one of the amici in Chan v. Ellis) and me; Daniel Lyne and Ted Folkman of Murphy & King (and, in Ted’s case, of Letters Blogatory: The Blog of International Judicial Assistance) were kind enough to agree to be our pro bono counsel, for which I’m very grateful. (For our nonlawyer readers, a “friend-of-the-court brief” simply means a brief by people or entities that aren’t the plaintiff or the defendant or some other party to the litigation, and who thus have no direct stake in the case but just want to argue in favor of what they think is the correct result. It doesn’t mean that the brief was invited by the court, though occasionally courts do indeed expressly invite the filing of such briefs.)

In Van Valkerburg, a Massachusetts trial court issued an order providing that Gjoni is

        Ordered not to post any further information about the [plaintiff] or
        her personal life on line or to encourage “hate mobs”

That order, we argue, is a clear violation of the First Amendment, for reasons we explain in the brief, which I’m also quoting below. A court can’t order someone to just stop saying anything about a person. Certain narrow categories of speech about people are constitutionally unprotected (such as true threats of violence, speech that is intended to and likely to incite people to imminent criminal conduct, and possibly certain kinds of speech that reveals highly private information). But this order goes vastly beyond any such narrow First Amendment exceptions.

Now the story behind this case is considerably higher-profile than the ones I’ve written about before: The post that led to the order is at the heart of the so-called “Gamergate” controversy, which some readers might be acquainted with. Eron Gjoni was briefly romantically involved with Chelsea Van Valkenburg, a computer game developer who used the pen name Zoe Quinn, and who I am told has recently changed her name legally to Zoe Quinn. (The case was entered into the court system under the name Van Valkerburg rather than Van Valkenburg or Quinn, so the briefs use Van Valkerburg.) After they broke up, Gjoni wrote a series of blog posts about Van Valkenburg, in which he accused her — whether or not accurately — of mistreating him in various ways during his relationship. This post in turn led to various accusations about supposed misdeeds in the video gaming industry, and various threats of violence against Van Valkenburg by people who have apparently taken Gjoni’s side.

Naturally, there are many possible legal actions that might be contemplated here. If Gjoni made false factual assertions about Van Valkenburg, she could sue him for libel or under the “false light” tort. If he said things about her that were highly personal and not viewed by courts as of legitimate public concern, she could sue him under the “disclosure of private facts” tort, though that doctrine is quite narrow and complex (for many reasons, including some you can see from Part II of the brief).

Certainly, people who send death threats could be prosecuted for that, though of course it’s often hard to track them down, or even to get the police and prosecutors interested in the matter. In principle, if it can be shown that some statement was intended to and likely to incite people to imminent criminal conduct — i.e., conduct within the next few hours or maybe days, rather than at some unspecified time in the future — that could be punished as well, though that’s an extremely narrow First Amendment exception. (The Supreme Court has struggled since the 1910s with the question of when speech can be restricted because it may lead some of its readers to commit crimes; this ultimately led to the development of the incitement exception, which I just paraphrased, and which the Court set forth and elaborated in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)Hess v. Indiana(1973), and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982).) Such criminal and civil liability might be constitutional, under the right circumstances, since there are indeed some narrow exceptions to First Amendment protection into which this liability could fit.

Continue Reading: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/24/you-are-also-ordered-not-to-post-any-further-information-about-the-plaintiff/?utm_term=.e292245bdcae

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and an intensive editing workshop at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.

Black Twitter Icon | www.imgkid.com - The Image Kid Has It!Follow @volokhc


RELATED

Chelase Van Valkenburg A/K/A Zoe Quinn v. Free Speech

Huffpost Gjoni ‘Gamergate’ Hit Piece Backfires

Advertisements

MA’AM, YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE!

Excerpt from Michael Brodwhore’s Missing in Minnesota:

“Lisa Elliott, who serves as the attorney for the Rucki family, filed an emergency motion with the court yesterday which included over 200 pages of exhibits documenting Evavold’s repeated violations of an Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) granted by a court in Dakota County in July 2017.

Late yesterday afternoon, the court granted Elliott’s request for an emergency hearing and scheduled the hearing for February 27, at Dakota County Western Service Center in Apple Valley, Minnesota.”

DOUBLE CLICK TO ZOOM↓

   

 


David Rucki is going to have to get legislation to become a protected class that qualifies for special protection by a law. You know, all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.

All he has to do to gain an advantage over someone and throw them under the legal bus is make claims of “Ruckiism”. Oh, I guess he already has that advantage!

Next hearing scheduled for February 27th.

You Can Learn A Lot About the Weaknesses of Your Enemies By Studying What They Attack

MaryGSykes.com

CONFIRMED BY ILL. SUPREME COURT– YOU ARE VIEWING THE MOST DANGEROUS BLOG IN ILLINOIS. This blog warranted a 3 year suspension by the ARDC/Jerome Larkin! Mottos: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”. Justice Louis Brandeis ; “If the truth can destroy something, then it deserves to be destroyed” Carl Sagan; “Justice is Truth in Action” Benjamin Disraeli. Illinois uses the ARDC to quash dissenting attorney activist blogs ; “The freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic Governments” — (1776-First Amendment preamble adopted by 8 US colonies)

Cease and Desist Letter from Circuit Court Judge Diane Joan Larsen–why would she even care about this humble corruption blog?

Posted on August 1, 2017

So last week, I received a cease and desist letter from Judge Larsen of the Circuit Court.  I called right away to find out what it was about and asked for her email.

No response.

So then I drafted a letter in response.

She claims I published her “personal information” and that of her husband, which I don’t get, it’s all public information and SHE, not me, caused it all to be published with her own signatures and that of her husband.

It all runs smack dab up against the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the Illinois Free Speech clause.

She is making these douments public herself, by her own personal signature and her own personal actions.  She doesn’t want them on a blog.  I think it looks questionable.  Many of my readers think it all looks questionable.

She asks for a response in 72 hours and doesn’t give enough information, including the specific URL what is offending her and her husband.

Hmmm, more fish to look at.

She perfectly knows well the rule is now according to SCOI, you have to put your email on pleadings.  She has not sent me her email or any email at all.

But I have angels on my side and after a period of time and prayer, they got the entire situation to me, as they always do.

So, below is her letter, which I don’t get.  Why would she accuse me of divulging personal information when she well knows that the Cook County Recorder of Deeds puts property information on their website?  Seems strange.

It’s also relevant to her job and the right of the public to know who is taking salaries that are really taxpayer funds.

It’s nothing that should not be published every time the Sun Times recommends a judge or politician for that matter.  They recommend, they should publish property records in a discernible manner.

Here is her very strange letter, which I can’t figure out and which she has not responded to any inquiry.

State of Illinois
Circuit Court of Cook County
Chicago. illinoiS 60602

July 21, 2017

Joanne Denison
5330 W Devon Ave
Chicago, IL 60646

It has come to my attention that you have published on the internet personal information regarding myself, Including but not limited to information concerning my residence. In accordance with the provisions of “The Judicial Privacy Act!’ (70S ILCS 90/2-5 et seq.) (the “Act”), I hereby request that you cease and desist in publishing any personal information regarding myself. I further request that you remove from any internet site under your direction or control any personal information regarding myself that has already been posted. This request specifically includes, without limitation, the personal information posted on the following web address http://www.Marygsykes.com.Thisjudicial request also includes a request to cease and desist in the publication of any personal information of my spouse Edward Maliszewski and a request for removal of all such personal information posted to date.

To assist. you in compliance with the Act, I am enclosing a copy along with this request of the Rule. Your prompt attention to this matter within 72 hours, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, is expected.

Respectfully,

Diane Joan Larsen
Judge of the Circuit Court
of Cook County

Continue Reading: https://marygsykes.com/2017/08/01/cease-and-desist-letter-from-circuit-court-judge-diane-joane-larsen-why-would-she-even-care-about-this-humble-corruption-blog/


What others have said about Hon. Diane Joan Larsen 

ROBEPROBE.COM

http://www.robeprobe.com/find_judges_result2.php?judge_id=4620&judge_Diane%20Joan__Larsen

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

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

%d bloggers like this: