On May 16, 2018, I had a motion hearing to vacate the temporary restraining order filed against me on July 31st, 2017. Judge Kanning indicated that he would tee up an order to appeal the restraining order vs. hearing it at the District Court level.
The following written objections were provided to the District Court:
PETITIONERS OFFER NO EVIDENCE OF HARASSMENT – There is no allegation or evidence of direct contact by Respondent. Instead, the focus of this action is a number of blog posts written by Respondent that are either about Petitioners or at least mention Petitioner in some way.
The blog posts by themselves cannot meet this definition, and to the extent the Court believes this definition can be expanded to included blog posts, then the statute must necessarily run afoul of the First Amendment
THE BLOG POSTS ARE NOT HARASSMENT AS DEFINED UNDER LAW
THE ORDER IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR RESTRAINT – Because there are no findings of unprotected speech making up the conduct of Respondent and because the Order prohibits a large category of protected speech, the Order is an unconstitutional prior restraint.
THE MINNESOTA HRO STATUTE, IF APPLIED TO SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WOULD VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Yesterday I received a Memorandum and Order from Judge Kanning stating, “Respondent, through her attorney raises constitutional issues relating to the First Amendment and Prior restraint. The Court has considered these and finds no merit to these.”
Keep in mind, no case law was presented, no cogent arguments were made in support of his position and no factual findings based on evidence were made because no evidence was ever presented. We only submitted written objections and never had a hearing to contest the temporary restraining order and dismiss the petition based on the petitioner’s unfounded accusations. The petitioner would not be able to substantiate the harassment allegations because I have not engaged in harassing conduct.
Judges are supposed to make reasoned decisions based on the facts and the law rather than on the basis of hostility or empathy for litigants.
Clearly Judge Kanning was unable to keep his disdain for me to himself and wrote in the order, “In the 34+ years the undersigned has served as a District or Senior Judge, never have I seen a case that represents harassment most evil.”
“In failing to state his reasons, the judge has . . . left us in an unwelcome zone of speculation. Judicial action is not an exercise in ipse dixit — the bare assertion of an individual resting not on expressed reason, but merely on the authority vested in an office. Accordingly, when a judge takes action, it is fundamental that a basis grounded in law is articulated.” United States v. Taylor, 55 F.3d 481, 487 (10th Cir. 1995).
Below are cases that Judge Kanning was involved in when he was a judge in Carver County.
An ongoing dispute between Caroline Rice and Carver County took another turn on Tuesday morning when First Judicial District Judge Richard Perkins said after listening to arguments from the prosecution and defense that he would take “under advisement” the motions made by Rice’s attorney, Rachel Nelson, for a change of venue and removal from the case of all four chambered judges in Carver County.
Nelson made a motion that the case should be transferred to another district, possibly Hennepin, Ramsey, or Wright county. She alleged the county had consistently violated Rice’s “due process rights” and said all four judges in Carver County — Janet L. Cain, Kevin W. Eide, Philip T. Kanning and Richard C. Perkins — would be biased against her client, based on their previous dealings with the Rice family during an ongoing custodial dispute between Caroline and her ex-husband.
County prosecutor Peter Ivy, on behalf of the county, said Nelson had produced “no legal basis” to remove the case from Carver County.
“A more dramatic motion could not be made,” Ivy told the court room.
Perkins said he would take the issue “under advisement” and communicate at a later date with the opposing attorneys. He did not set a date for a future trial.
The county alleges that on Oct. 31, 2010, Caroline, who divorced her husband in Hennepin County in 2004, encouraged their 13-year-old daughter, identified in court documents as “A.C.R.,” to run from Chanhassen to live with her in Michigan.
Carver County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a missing/runaway complaint on Oct. 31, according to county documents. For the next two weeks, law enforcement agencies coordinated their efforts to return the child to Chanhassen. According to the official county complaint, A.C.R. met up with a woman in Excelsior who drove her for two days to Michigan, where she met with her older sister, Lauren, who eventually took her to meet up with their mother inside Canada. In November, Caroline and the two daughters were apprehended when they crossed the border back into the United States.
The city of Chanhassen also alleges Rice violated an order for protection preventing her from contacting her children. The city’s prosecutor, Elliott Knetsch, did not show up at the hearing on Tuesday morning but said during a telephone interview on Tuesday afternoon the city would pursue the three violation charges against Rice when the case is set for trial.
Excerpts from Annelise Rice, 19, describes her Family Court nightmare, Communities Digital News – May 2017
In an exclusive interview with this CDN reporter, Annelise Rice described a nightmarish childhood in which she was taken away from her mother without explanation and forced to live with a father who, she alleges, while mostly absent, she alleges he was abusive when he was present. Rice ran away multiple times, including on incident during which she spent approximately one month on the run with her mother.
Rice ran away multiple times, including on incident during which she spent approximately one month on the run with her mother.
She was repeatedly forced to live in foster care when not living with her father.
Rice argues in her lawsuit that the family court repeatedly violated her due process rights and used pseudo-science to support forcing her to live with her abusive father while being kept away from her mother. In part, the lawsuit states
“By coercing and financially harassing Plaintiffs mother into abandoning her legal efforts to protect Annelise through the courts, by knowingly allowing the introduction of false testimony, by allowing into evidence and/or the court’s consideration the bogus, disreputable, and pro child-abuser ‘Parental Alienation Syndrome’ theory concocted by the discredited misogynist Richard Gardner, by failing to disclose to the court the unethical and prejudicial relationship between Defendant Brent Rice and Defendants, by prohibiting Annelise Rice (or any older siblings) from testifying on her own behalf in order to obtain protection from the abuse, by falsifying child protective services reports on Plaintiffs abuse, and other acts.”
Philip Kanning – Carver County Judge
Bonnie Roy was divorced by her wealthy ex-husband who retained a vicious lawyer with a large, major law firm to whom he paid many thousands of dollars for his fees and then deducted them as business expenses – clearly tax fraud. He insisted on joint legal custody and then used his legal custody to interfere with the medical and dental needs of his children. Then, he again committed tax fraud by reporting less than half of his construction company/storage company income so he could keep child support payments to less than a livable amount.
Bonnie, a cancer survivor who still has serious and painful medical problems cannot work and still receives medical care. She tries to feed herself and her two children on $300 per month and is forced to accept medical assistance and food shelf items and borrow substantial sums from friends. Her son, now in college, receives no help from his father for tuition and is relying on loans, grants, and work. Neither child will have anything to do with their father. In court,
Judge Kanning insists on letting father get away with his frauds, refused to accept evidence from Bonnie of father’s earnings, rejected Bonnie’s evidence of poverty and disabilities, and accepted the incomplete and false testimony of a guardian ad litem who was paid thousands of dollars by father for her report. Bonnie`s case was recently transferred to Dakota County. Judge Sutherland of Dakota County continued to allow the father to leave the mother and children destitute. Sutherland also denied Bonnie`s In Forma Pauperis – which allows her to file motion papers with the court free of charge. This was denied even though Bonnie`s income was $8000 last year. This is clear abuse of power.