Unconstitutional Courts Destroying Families for $$ – Hidden Truth Radio and John Hentges
“The whole thing is about control.. if they (the court system) encounters a non-custodial parent like myself in pursuit of justice, they will do anything to keep truth off the records…” ~ John Hentges
(Originally aired 7/13/2017): Katherine Hine, host of “Hidden Truth Revealed” and guest John Hentges discuss the lawless family court system where corruption, fraud and abuses of judicial power are commonplace.
CLICK on this link to listen: UN-CONSTITUTIONAL “COURTS” DESTROYING FAMILIES FOR $$$
Hentges, a victim of family court in both Colorado and Minnesota, shares his story of how the “judges threw the law book out the door” during his divorce, and describes the devastating impact the injustice in the family court has inflicted on his life. Hentges says his divorce case was “fixed” and resulted in him becoming estranged from his 5 children, becoming impoverished (child support was imputed at more than 4x times higher than his actual earnings) and stripped of everything he owns – his home, business, personal vehicles, and even his premarital belongings and inheritance. Hentges was also arrested on false charges, and jailed, on 3 separate occasions.
Hentges also discusses what he believes is “criminal racketeering” occurring in the court system, where cases are fixed, and parents ensnared in the system, and even jailed, for financial incentives.
Hentges has continued to fight for justice, and since has founded Pro Se Alliance (a charity to help educate those are representing themselves pro se, or without representation, in legal matters) and The People’s Branch. He also discusses his ideas for court and judicial reform in this episode.
The last 15 minutes of the show (1:45 in timing) is a brief discussion of the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki case. Both Hentges and Grazzini-Rucki have family court cases in the 1st Judicial District in Minnesota.
The discussion includes:
- How the court system “aided and abetted” to place the five Rucki children in the custody of an identified abuser; creating a situation so dangerous that the two oldest daughters ran away in order to protect themselves.
- The retaliation attorney Michelle MacDonald faced for representing Sandra Grazzini-Rucki orchestrated “by the organized control crime that the controls the judiciary and the bar in Minnesota”.
- That the State of Minnesota, and its leaders, have been provided with information, evidence and complaints concerning the Grazzini-Rucki case, and Hentges’ case, and others, and have failed to investigate or take action concerning systemic problems, and corruption, existing within the judiciary, and the family court system.
Hentges says about Judge David L. Knutson, the former family court judge on the Grazzini-Rucki case, “I hope he is listening or somebody is listening, I will do everything that I can to have that man put in prison for the rest of his life.”
Hentges is advocating for, and taking action, to request a formal investigation of 32 victims of family court, including that of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, and his own, and additionally asking for whistle blower like protection with the U.S. Attorney General and the Department of Justice.
Most of you are aware of the fact that I was maliciously prosecuted and falsely convicted in the State of Minnesota vs Deirdre Evavold Case No.19HA-CR-15-4227.
There were several conditions beyond state sentencing guidelines imposed on me. However, the one condition that numerous attorneys and rank and file citizens are most amazed by is the restriction on my first amendment right to free speech (Judge Asphaug ordered that I may NOT reference the family involved in this case on any social media). Of course, this isn’t shocking to me as I know the overall goal is to target and block anyone reporting truth about the abuse of power and authority in our public entities.
On July 31st, 2017, I was also served with a false harassment restraining order (HRO) signed by the very judge that presided over my criminal trial. Affidavit for HRO.
Coinkydink? I think not! To locate the signing judge that will do your bidding, you just need to visit the Daily Judicial Schedule.
Anyhow, the restraining order was issued ex parte and the petitioner indicated that he is not requesting a hearing at this time. In order for me to access the courts for a hearing to have this harassing harassment order dismissed, I have to pay a $300 filing fee. I have already been charged thousands of dollars in court fees from the courtroom, to jail, to probation. This is the continued legal harassment that I am under because I refuse to accept the continued injustices being thrown at me.
“Restraining order abuse is the act of requesting an unmerited restraining order against an individual, and/or the misuse of that order for any sort of harassment, malicious mischief against the subject, or personal gain for the holder, rather than its intended purpose of protection.
An individual awarded a restraining order has significant capacity to abuse the state’s protection. The holder can manipulate circumstances, fudge facts, and even outright lie to achieve the arrest of the subject. Any time the holder of the order alleges to law enforcement that the subject has violated any of the conditions of the order, the police are required to arrest the subject for the alleged violation regardless of existence, level, or lack of evidence offered by the involved parties. Hannah Wallen
As previously reported, I filed a witness tampering complaint against the petitioner in 2016. I had received a harassing and threatening extortion letter from petitioner’s attorney to intimidate me into deleting this blog and coerce me into changing not only my plea but to coerce me into changing my testimony in Sandra’s case. Also, petitioner coerced and intimidated his daughter into recanting her testimony which led to the addition of 4 more felony charges against me.
Once again, the petitioner is violating the law by: retaliating against a person who was summoned as a witness at any criminal trial within a year following that trial or within a year following the actor’s release from incarceration, and retaliating against any person who has provided information to law enforcement authorities concerning a crime within a year of that person providing the information or within a year of the actor’s release from incarceration, whichever is later. §609.498 Tampering With Witness
More about an HRO
The effect of an HRO is generally to prohibit the respondent from having direct or indirect contact with the petitioner during the time the order is in effect. This includes verbal contact, mail, telephone calls, e-mail, or having a third party convey a message to them.
It doesn’t mean someone can’t talk or write about that person. It just means s/he can’t talk or write to the person that filed the HRO.
If the respondent is reporting facts about the case, that’s his or her Constitutional right (as is his or her expressing an opinion about those facts).
A restraining order in no way restricts the respondent from taking legal action against the plaintiff or reporting his or her misconduct to the police or the courts; it only forbids them from personally contacting or approaching the plaintiff.
If the respondent hasn’t contacted the person filing the HRO, they are not vulnerable to an allegation of harassment. If they haven’t lied about the petitioner, they’re also immune to allegations of libel or defamation. Additionally, people have a first amendment right to re-distribute information contained in a public record. Judge Asphaug apparently didn’t get the memo that preventing blogging and protecting reputation is not a governmental interest and posting information or opinion is protected under the constitution.
The article below “Helping victims of lawyer dishonesty” was written by SUSAN HUMISTON, director of the MN Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and Client Securities Board.
Humiston took over the throne after Martin Cole retired in 2015, after nearly 10 years as director of the OLPR. ‘That’s a terrible job’: How this lawyer ended up director of the OLPR
(Can she really write that with a straight face? This is essentially an empty promise unless they have a political reason to go after the lawyer.)
Thirty years ago the Minnesota Supreme Court established the Client Security Fund to provide a funding source to pay victims of intentional lawyer dishonesty. It appears the genesis of the fund was the significant losses caused by two attorneys, Mark Sampson and John Flanagan, both of whom were disbarred in the late 1980s for misappropriation of client funds. The fund was initially created by a one-time $100 assessment of all lawyers (and a $145,000 gift from the Minnesota State Bar Association’s then-client security fund), and proved somewhat controversial to the extent that some lawyers did not like being required to pay money to cover the misconduct of other lawyers. (The legal profession stands alone in creating a voluntary system of restitution. Lawyers-unlike other professionals with access to client funds, such as stockbrokers and bankers-are not required to be insured or bonded The board doesn’t cover losses from lawyer malpractice or negligence, only misappropriated money and property.)
~Elizabeth Amon~American Lawyer Media, The National Law Journal
Attorney Michelle MacDonald has been politically targeted for suing a judge and running for MN Supreme Court in the 2014 and 2016 election. MacDonald attempted to expose the theft of her client’s money from previous attorneys. The outcome? The district court imposed monetary sanctions against her for issuing subpoenas to these attorneys to acquire billing information. She was also disciplined for other “transgressions” that were magnified and/or completely inaccurate. Michelle MacDonald receives ‘minimal’ discipline
The message to other attorneys is loud and clear….We can retaliate by disciplining you and destroy your career!
As of April 16, 2017, the Client Security Board has paid the amazing sum (emphasis mine) of $7,700,642.97 to 603 victims of lawyer dishonesty. (That’s $25,668.81 per year – yet we know that the majority of attorneys charge a $10,000 retainer fee just to start a case.)
While it is certainly disheartening to know that more than 170 lawyers over the past 30 years have stolen so much money from so many clients, I am very glad that the fund exists to repair a portion of that harm. As the director of both the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR) and the Client Security Board (CSB), I see firsthand the tremendous harm to the public and the profession caused by lawyers who steal money from clients.
WHO ADMINISTERS THE FUND?
The fund currently receives $12 from each attorney through the annual registration fee.1Thank you! While I can understand the concerns raised by the attorneys originally troubled by having to contribute to cover other’s misconduct, I believe the value to the profession and the public at large from a dedicated fund to make reparations for the harm caused by a few very bad apples (Again, emphasis mine) among us outweighs the nominal cost per year. (Come on, attorneys are going to bitch about 12 bucks a year? Clients pay that in parking in Mpls. just to consult with an attorney.)
The Client Security Board administers the fund, and is composed of five lawyers and two public members, all of whom serve without compensation. The Supreme Court appoints board members, and three of the five attorney members are nominated by the MSBA.2 The current board members are Robert Bauer (chair and MSBA nominee), Apple Valley; Greg Bistram, Minneapolis; Daniel Tollefson (MSBA nominee), Becker; Stuart Williams (MSBA nominee), Minneapolis; Kathleen Clarke Anderson (public member), Minneapolis; and Nancy Helmich (public member), Minneapolis. There is currently an opening for an attorney member on the board.
These individuals meet quarterly to review and consider claims, and in between meetings review substantial information regarding the claims. Staff from the OLPR provide administrative assistance to the board—including the investigation and analysis of claims—and the Attorney General’s Office (in particular Assistant Attorney General Scott Grosskreutz) provides litigation support to assist the board in pursuing its subrogation rights against the dishonest lawyers. Associate Justice David Stras is the Supreme Court liaison to the board.
Continue Reading: http://mnbenchbar.com/2017/06/helping-victims-of-lawyer-dishonesty/
Sixty-five lawyers were publicly disciplined last year, breaking the previous record of 55 set in 1990, the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board said in its annual report Friday.
Among other disciplinary actions, the Minnesota Supreme Court suspended 47 lawyers in 2015, smashing the previous record of 27, set in 1990 and matched in 1995 and 1996.
“I wish that we knew why there was a record year, but we don’t,” said Susan M. Humiston, who took over as director of the lawyers board office in March. “It really does appear to be the fact that more people were engaged in more serious conduct.”
The office has a backlog of complaints to investigate, although it has made progress in reducing that number.
Six attorneys were disbarred in 2015:
• Jeremy Thomas Kramer of Owatonna lost his license for misappropriating client money, neglecting their cases, failing to communicate with them, failing to deposit all of their money into trust accounts, keeping money they gave him for filing fees, and failing to return their property.
• Robert David Boedigheimer was found guilty of conspiring with his brother-in-law, a marijuana dealer based in southern Minnesota, to launder proceeds from drug sales through his St. Paul law firm.
• John Tedman Heim of Rochester was found guilty of forging a client’s signature on a check and depositing the proceeds into his own business account for his own personal benefit.
• David A. Overboe was found by clear and convincing evidence “to have had unwelcome sexual contact with multiple clients, including groping and exposing himself to them, and had offered to reduce his legal fees in exchange for sexual favors.” The alleged misconduct took place over 14 years. He also was found to have practiced law in North Dakota while his license was suspended.
• Douglas A. Ruhland of Eden Valley lost his license as a result of his seventh disciplinary action since 1989. He represented a client with whom he had a conflict of interest without providing written disclosures and obtaining written consent; he misappropriated client funds, he failed to keep trust account records and books and he failed to cooperate with the lawyers board investigators.
• Robert Andrew Huff lost his license in Minnesota after he was disbarred in Illinois, an action resulting from a 2009 conviction for conspiring to distribute a large cache of marijuana.
So far, 2016 is shaping up as another busy year for lawyers in trouble.
On Friday, Minneapolis attorney Paul Hansmeier dropped his opposition to pending disciplinary proceedings arising out of hundreds of so-called porn trolling lawsuits he and some colleagues filed nationwide. Hansmeier was accused of committing a fraud on the courts, and of making substantial misrepresentations in his pending bankruptcy petition. He and the board stipulated to a recommended four-year suspension of his law license.
As of June 14, the board reported 25 public disciplinary actions in 2016, including two disbarments, a dozen suspensions, nine reprimands that resulted in probation and two other reprimands.
The lawyers board investigates allegations of wrongdoing and takes positions on the cases, but the Minnesota Supreme Court makes all disciplinary decisions, said Humiston, who previously was with the Minneapolis law firm of Stinson Leonard Street.
“Misappropriation of client funds always leads to disbarment,” Humiston said. Sanctions for other kinds of serious misconduct are less predictable.
For instance, Todd Allen Duckson, who admitted to playing a key role in a scheme that defrauded hundreds of investors in a real estate investment fund, was suspended from the practice of law in 2015 for five years — after which he can apply for reinstatement.
Five other lawyers were suspended in 2015 for three years after they were convicted of felonies involving lying to federal officials, criminal sexual misconduct, online solicitation of a minor, and participation in a trust account scam.
Humiston declined to comment on why some felonies lead to disbarment while others result in suspensions.
“Those are decisions by the court,” she said.
Suspended lawyers seeking reinstatement must go through a rigorous process to prove they underwent a moral change and are fit to practice law, Humiston said, “and it can be difficult to show moral change.”
Humiston said the Supreme Court has indicated that it wants to clear the backlog of complaints, and the board has made progress in doing so, reducing the annual backlog from 650 at the start of 2015 to 528 by the end of the year. Between 70 and 80 percent of complaints are dismissed each year, with just under half dismissed without any investigation.
It can take a couple of years for a complaint to lead to a final order of discipline.
“It’s a concern,” Humiston said.
It can take about a year for the board to investigate serious complaints, and if the lawyer fights any resulting discipline, it can take about another year to get to a final decision by the Supreme Court.
I don’t know anything about the background of these attorneys, but I would assume they aren’t members of the “club”. These boards have a massive amount of power as they are structured with the regulatory powers of a government agency, yet are not subject to open meeting laws and public record requests because they’re actually private. They can make minor infractions sound egregious and minimize true criminal activities of attorneys and judges (Board on Judicial Standards).
They’re essentially granted a monopoly over the legal profession, and don’t need to perform very well since they have no competition and everything is secret.
Click to listen: Intercomm Radio Presents Michael Volpe Freelance Investigative Journalist (Bar shown below is at the top of the page)
About Michael Volpe;
After spending a decade in finance, Michael Volpe has been a freelance investigative journalist since 2009. His work has been published locally in the Chicago Reader, Chicago Crusader, Chicago Heights Patch, and New City. Nationally, Volpe’s work has appeared in a wide variety of publications including the Washington Examiner, the Daily Caller, Crime Magazine, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference Newsletter, and Counter Punch. Volpe has been recognized by whistleblowers as leading the charge in getting their stories out. His first book Prosecutors Gone Wild was published in October 2012, his second book The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers was published in February 2013 and his third book Bullied to Death was published in August 2015.