Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

ILLEGAL REMOVAL OF CHILDREN

Image result for DAKOTA COUNTY

Image result for mn department of human servicesThe Lawsuit below alleges claims against Dakota county and the Minnesota Department of Human Services for wrongful rermoval of children. The case is brought with the hopes of widespread changes to the child-protection system.

This case will definitely help shine the light on child predator services and the courts, however, once again, racial bias is the focus. The fact is  this is a system that is well designed to harm all families, regardless of race.

Lawsuit alleges Minnesota child welfare workers are illegally removing children from homes

In the civil rights suit, attorneys for a group of parents allege that Minnesota’s child protection laws are overly broad.
Star Jones wiped tears away as Dwight Mitchell talked Tuesday of his struggle to get his children back.

GLEN STUBB

Star Jones wiped tears away as Dwight Mitchell talked Tuesday of his struggle to get his children back.

A group of Minnesota parents has accused state and county child protection agencies of wrongfully removing their children and placing them in foster care for what they consider to be ordinary parental discipline, such as spanking.

In a civil rights lawsuit filed Tuesday, attorneys for the parents allege that Minnesota’s child protection laws are overly broad, triggering unnecessary investigations and putting children at risk for being removed from safe and loving homes.

The main plaintiff in the case is Dwight D. Mitchell, who founded an association of parents called Stop Child Protection Services From Legally Kidnapping, which has about 250 members across the state. Mitchell alleges that two of his children were removed from his home in Apple Valley by Dakota County child protection workers after a family babysitter reported that his 11-year-old son had received a spanking from Mitchell for stealing and disobeying his parents.

“It was every parent’s worst nightmare,” said Mitchell, 57, a management consultant. “My children were legally kidnapped for a bottom spanking that was done out of love, because I want my children to grow up to be hardworking members of society.”

The child, Xander Mitchell, was kept in state custody for 22 months, during which time his father was refused all contact. Mitchell’s other child was removed for five months, according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis.

A spokeswoman for Dakota County declined to comment, saying the agency had not had a chance to review the lawsuit. A spokeswoman for the Minnesota Department of Human Services, which oversees the child protection system, also declined to comment, saying the agency had not been served with the lawsuit.

Continue Reading


RELATED

Father who temporarily lost custody sues, alleging Dakota County racial bias
Black children disproportionately removed from their families; state lawmakers seek fix
Minnesota African American Family Preservation Act 
Advertisements

SEEKING JUSTICE

Supporters of judicial integrity attended the April 17th Judiciary and Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee to request legislative intervention in our wrongful prosecution cases.

These cases involve prosecution for ideological beliefs about the court system, obstruction of justice due to illegal withholding/suppression of evidence, numerous due process violations, witness tampering, serial prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, media interference of investigations and trials, violation of rules of the criminal court, significant upward departures in sentencing and false imprisonment of defendants as well as one of the attorneys representing a defendant.

Image result for justice quotesIndividuals have been denied access to justice and the basic right to a fair and impartial trial and the public officials have been and are continuing to act with impunity. Recently, I was jailed for information on this blog regarding these cases.

We have attempted to seek remedy and redress from the MN Court of Appeals, the MN Supreme Court, the FBI, the Attorney General, the Board of Judicial Standards, the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, Law Enforcement, Dakota County Commissioners, and the First Judicial District Administrator and Chief Judge, to no avail.

I am not at liberty to discuss the background on the case as I have been gagged by the judges involved and risk further incarceration for revealing details of this high profile case. What this amounts to is a weaponization of the legal system to bully and suppress my first amendment rights.

Here’s what I can say,  the Assistant Dakota County Attorney engaged in malicious and retaliatory prosecution by unrealistically overcharging defendants and allowing wrongful convictions when she knew the affirmative defense negated any criminal liability. The judge erroneously allowed evidence to be illegally withheld from defendants and excluded evidence critical to the affirmative defense, thereby making the affirmative defense ineffective. Evidentiary rules cannot prevent a defendant from presenting his defense. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S.284 (1972).

The courts are endowed with an abundance of power and yet have limited checks and balances. Dakota County has demonstrated a willingness to abuse the power entrusted to them and have managed to shield themselves from any accountability.

Cover of the first printing of the Minnesota Constitution, 1857

What we requested from the legislators:         

The MN Constitution provides numerous actions that the Legislature can take regarding the Judiciary:

ARTICLE VI, Sec. 9. The legislature may provide by law for retirement of all judges and for the extension of the term of any judge who becomes eligible for retirement within three years after expiration of the term for which he is selected. The legislature may also provide for the retirement, removal or other discipline of any judge who is disabled, incompetent or guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

ARTICLE VIII, Section 1. The house of representatives has the sole power of impeachment through a concurrence of a majority of all its members. All impeachments shall be tried by the senate. When sitting for that purpose, senators shall be upon oath or affirmation to do justice according to law and evidence. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the senators present.

Sec. 2. Officers subject to impeachment; grounds; judgment. The governor, secretary of state, auditor, attorney general and the judges of the supreme court, court of appeals and district courts may be impeached for corrupt conduct in office or for crimes and misdemeanors; but judgment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit in this state. The party convicted shall also be subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law.

Sec. 5. Removal of inferior officers.

The legislature of this state may provide for the removal of inferior officers for malfeasance or nonfeasance in the performance of their duties.

The Legislature appropriates significant tax payer funding to the courts with no oversight of how these tax payer dollars are being spent. Clearly, Dakota County has not demonstrated good stewardship of public funds in these cases as millions of dollars have been spent on carrying out personal vendettas. At my sentencing hearing, (and speaking on behalf of the state) Assistant County Attorney Keena states,

“As to the sentence that the State believes the defendant should receive in this case, it’s the State’s position that Ms. Evavold should be treated the same and receive the same sentence that xxxxxx  received in her case. And why she remained silent and her rationale for doing so I think is more reprehensible than actions taken by xxxxxx. This defendant did it purposely for her ideological beliefs about the family court system and her complete disregard for the family court system.”

Image result for justice quotesWe are asking for a special counsel investigation into these cases as the Legislature has the power, authority, and duty to investigate any government entity when there is clear evidence of misconduct. This case is of great public interest and must be reviewed to alleviate the adverse administration of justice.

Below are the members that received the information with phone numbers and emails listed. Give them a call or email them to hold them accountable for investigating these cases and take appropriate action against those that are guilty of corrupt conduct in office.

South Texas Judge Charged With Accepting Bribes for Favorable Rulings

Image courtesy of FrameAngel at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The FBI has charged a South Texas judge with accepting bribes after a lawyer working as a confidential informant helped agents record the jurist allegedly accepting $6,000 in cash in exchange for favorable rulings.

Federal agents arrested 93rd State District Judge Rodolfo “Rudy” Delgado of Edinburg on Feb. 2. Delgado was charged with “bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds,” and released on $100,000 bond. The criminal complaint filed against Delgado alleges the FBI worked with an unnamed lawyer, who confessed he had a history dating back to 2008 of bribing Delgado.

The lawyer-turned-informant, listed in the complaint under the initials CHS, worked with the FBI for over a year and participated in numerous recorded phone calls and meetings with Delgado.

The attorney provided Delgado with pre-recorded government funds on two occasions, according to the complaint. In each instance, Delgado allegedly accepted a bribe to place the attorney’s clients on bond.

The attorney wore a recording device as he met with Delgado at a restaurant to hand off an envelope containing the bribery money on Jan. 17, according to the complaint. Delgado allegedly accepted the bribe and then asked for the client and case number. Delgado placed the attorney’s client on bond the next day.

However, on Jan. 29, Delgado sent a text message to the attorney, which stated, “Good evening, please call me. The campaign contribution needs to be by check. I need to return that to you so you can write a check. Sorry about the confusion, I though you knew and I did not open the envelope till today.”

The complaint alleges the text message was an attempt by Delgado to cover up the bribe.

“Delgado had solicited contributions from CHS in the past, but when CHS offered Delgado the bribe, he did not say that it was a campaign donation. Furthermore, CHS offered and Delgado accepted a thick white envelope full of prerecorded government funds,” the complaint alleges. Delgado did not return a call for comment. Neither did his attorney, Adolfo “Al” Alvarez.

Eric Vinson, executive director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, said Delgado will automatically be suspended from the bench upon indictment.

The commission normally suspends judges without pay automatically if they are indicted for a felony or a misdemeanor involving official misconduct. Judges are allowed to petition the commission to resume their pay or to return to the bench after an indictment, Vinson said, but the commission has historically not allowed indicted judges to sit in Texas.

“The Feds have 30 days to indict and we’re going to kind of watch and see what happens and go from there,” Vinson said.

Delgado has a history with the commission. He was suspended from the bench in 2005 after a grand jury indicted him in connection with a driving while intoxicated incident. That suspension was later lifted by the commission in 2007 after the criminal charges against Delgado were dismissed by a visiting judge—a decision that was later upheld by Corpus Christi’s 13th Court of Appeals.

 John Council

 Dig Deeper


RELATED

South Texas Judge Enters Not-Guilty Plea to Bribery Charges

In Minnesota $150 a day `gifts` (bribes) For Judges Is Acceptable

Under a rule judges made for their benefit only, they can take $150 `gifts` (bribes) from lawyers, special interests and anyone else. They can keep these `gifts` (bribes) secret – they do not have to report them to anyone. They can take an unlimited number of these `gifts` (bribes) – as many as they want.

The rule is part of the Canons of Judicial Conduct. The paragraph that states the rule is very convoluted. In simplified language it states that a judge can accept:

`Any other gift, loan, bequest, or other thing of value not exceeding $150, if the source of person is not a party or other person who, directly or indirectly, has come or is likely to come before the judge, or whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge.` 

The rule allows a lawyer or person to appear before a judge even if a partner or associate gives the judge $150 gifts (bribes). Thus, law firms commonly designate a `DE` (designated entertainer) to give judge gifts up to $150 in value. DEs do not appear in court.

To see the rule, go to Minnesota Canons Judicial Conduct  3.13 (C) (2) to see the language quoted above. A judge must report the gift only if it is more than $150 in amount or value.

`That is scandalous` former Governor Quie said when he learned that judges can take up to $150 gifts from lawyers, special interests, and others. It is more than that – it is outrageous. Judges know they can take $150 `gifts` – as many as they want – and keep it a secret. They are well aware of their rules of judicial conduct. Many judges accept these secret gifts. If they do not, the rule would obviously be unnecessary and could be eliminated.

Legislators, legislative employees and employees of the executive (governor`s) branch of state government cannot accept `gifts` (bribes) in any amount over $5. This is because a code of ethics exists for the legislative and executive branches of state of government. There should be such a code for the judicial branch of government but there is not.

The legislature should outlaw `gifts` by anyone to judges except from members of their immediate family as other states have done. Judges should be required to publicly disclose all gifts received from anyone other than their immediate family. `Gifts` to judges promote judicial corruption and undermine justice. 
~Dale Nathan~

Results of Guardian ad Litem Program Evaluation Coming Soon

Since its inception, the Minnesota Guardian ad Litem Program has committed itself to giving abused and neglected children a strong voice in our court system.  The Program provides advocates who represent the best interests of abused and neglected children in court and are independent from the court and the child welfare system.  Guardians ad litem (GALs) are professionals who are paid staff or volunteers and are appointed by the Juvenile or Family Court to represent a maltreated child’s best interests in court proceedings. What it should say is the MN GAL Program has committed itself to giving abused and neglected children BACK TO THE ABUSER.


The results of our evaluation of the GAL Program will be released within the next few weeks. 

Jodi Munson Rodríguez | Program Evaluation Manager | Office of the Legislative Auditor | Program Evaluation Division
140 Centennial Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55155 | 651-296-1230 | Fax: 651-296-4712
Office of the Legislative Auditor
www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us

Legislative Auditor Set to Review Programs that Oversee Vulnerable Minnesotans

Comment on Carver County Corruption Blog 2013

The courts themselves were set up and designed by a nonprofit organization of judges, attorneys, and psychologists — promoting mediation in particular — which started as (I’m going to state as fact because evidence seems to support this) as a slush fund (means of money laundering) IN the Los Angeles County Courthouse. People who accept and understand this will recognize the same behavior in action generations (of related nonprofits contracting with or running the courts) since, and adjust their responses accordingly.

Generally speaking, AFCC is favorable to (abusive) fathers’ rights, and the industries of supervised visitation, parent education, and of course as much custody evaluation as possible. A related organization NACC (based in Colorado) tries to get a GAL appointed wherever. From what I can tell, the GALs are rarely neutral.

In all of these groups, some of the money is made and control established through the trainings,, (CLE, GAL training etc.) which can be written off.

The presence in any jurisdiction of a “Conciliation court” and with it “Conciliation Code” (usually at state level) generally means that any “rebuttable presumption against custody going to a batterer” is a moot point — because that courtroom (and presiding judge) BY LAW grabs jurisdiction and decides to order all kinds of services; a.k.a. “fees for friends.” The goal of the AFCC (ca. 1963 founded) is to transform the language of criminal law into a behavioral health paradigm, which is for control and profit.   

Conciliation is about “reconcililation” (co-parenting, allegedly) and is not interested in criminal matters. We need to recognize this; it happened when no-fault divorce replaced actual criminal matters as a cause of divorce across the country, ca. 1970s.

What this means is that Lundy Bancroft’s “Batterer as Parent” material, while mostly true, is irrelevant in this context. Access/Visitation funding, that the child support system extorts some and rewards others at will for its own (and the states)’ profits IS. That an entire industry of responsible fatherhood money (Hundreds of millions) funded by the public (and private philanthropies adding to it) IS relevant. It’s a racket, which is good to at least be aware of. At least if this is identified and put on the table, those involved might at least RESPECT individual litigators, or fear being “outed” and perhaps in individual cases, someone higher up the ladder might toss out a lesser lackey to the crowds, as they did a GAL in Lackawanna County, PA (Danielle Ross) on tax evasion.

Not only state laws, rules of court, etc. are changed to accommodate some of these goals, but also federal welfare law (access/visitation, etc.) such that people the incentives of all involved to favor (a) churning the case; (b) stripping the family’s assets as treatments are ordered and (c) while preaching about best interests of the children and child support, actually compromising arrears by increasing “noncustodial parenting time) which helps “balance” the state/federal budget. EVERYONE seems to have a vested interest in doing the wrong thing.

I am sorry for your situation, BUT, you are hanging around in the wrong crowd. Lawless America is not going to tell the relevant story — it’s going to encourage you to tell your victimhoood story. Get your head out of that and start examining the people in your case, andd the groups operating in your area. All over the country people have had similar experiences (I have; I’m a DV survivor, there was an abusive “step” figure in mine. I hadn’t done anything wrong or illegal for a parent, and a whole lotta lying took place, easily disprovable, which no one (in the courts) cared about. A GAL diagnosed me (by mail) long-ddistance with zero meeting and when asked what her scope of service was (I had no idea at the time what GALs did) couldn’t or wouldn’t give me any answer. And it’s been more than two years of my not seeing the children).
On that FACTS sight, I took the ABA Commission on DV fact sheet into a courtroom; no one gave a hoot about it. The MOST relevant information you have up there is a broken link — to the California-NOW-Family-Court-Report-2002-2. It can be obtained on-line and includes the writing of Marv Bryer on the development of these courts.
~ ~ ~
What is happening IS evil, in my terms — but even evil has to be organized to function. If people are simply not willing to figure out how it is organized, then they are part of the issue. It may take a while to comprehend, but only by comprehending can you lobby by some other means than telling the public that bad things are happening in the courts (they’re already stressed and don’t understand how; and paying for the courts), or telling the courts that your kids are getting hurt.

I have high respect for NOW (was never a member) and one of the former members was a partial witness when my kids were stolen overnight. NOW should’ve kept that report on-line; perhaps someone could remind them. Most of my information is on the blogs; I participate iin this blog from time to time, or comments elsewhere to keep communicating this basic information. Again, just because a group of people agrees there is a problem doesn’t mean they are telling you everything relevant they know. Many of the advocacy groups simply are not; I guess they just like the publicity.

I have been over ten years post-separation and watched these things developed as well as been a single mother, then a noncustodial mother (networking with others) then identified what some of the networks were encouraging mothers NOT to talk about, and since then am more particular about who I hang out with. This issue affects the entire country and should be, I believe, presented in that light. Most people are at least concerned about what’s happening to their tax money, and if they understood that a $4billion a year industry (OCSE/child support) is being used to expand (not reduce) welfare roles through the family courts, that the religious elements are having a heyday with contracting with the courts, and getting rich off it, and that millions of dollars are getting lost in the cracks (which the HHS/OIG/OAS also admits), THEN perhaps there might be more public support to restructure the courts.

Sorry to lecture, but I think it’s simply inexcusable that too many of us who know better, have not made sure that women coming into the system at least get to “family & conciliation court 101” level before joining groups, telling their stories, and blogging. There really are some BASICS. Not to know — as that missing CANOW 2002 report (about 171pp doublespaced) showed, and a CANOW 2005 letter to HHS said — that the federal funding is affecting the local custody outcomes, and that even well to do families are being affected by programs which were initially aimed at low-income families (single black mothers, to be specific) — is simply, well, it’s a shame.

Look up Anne Stevenson’s Huffington Post Blog on 5 HHS programs dangerous to women and children for a quick rundown. Even father’s rights groups don’t like them. We have to understand the courthouses better, who’s funding them and who’s running them. It’s a great study, something you can explain to your children when you see them again; they will grow up sooner or later..

We already know America is Lawless and don’t need this movement to say so. The question is, what to do about it, and how. That requires following the money and which organnizations and means are directing it where. Sorry if this is a rant, hope it was helpful.

The website on THIS comment isn’t mine; it’s a group you should know about — thoroughly— if you are a mother in a custody challenge. They conference to get the HHS grants and have the US divided up into regions.It’d be good to know who’s active in your region. FYI, many of the affiliates don’t pay their taxes or stay filed right; that may be some leverage we have to protest their getting that “marriage/fatherhood” funding. Judges, lawyers, “Bishops” (COGIC) and others are involved. Jeffrey Leving, Esq. of Chicago is a sponsor of the group which itself got started with Fathers’ Rights funding initially ca. 1994 in Arizona. Notice 1994 was right before 1996 welfare reform, and when the National Fatherhood Initiative (nonprofit ggetting HHS and private funding, Wade Horn, Daniel Blankenhorn, etc.) was formed and from which we now have a major federal program, taken for granted like a coat of new paint in the room. People pushing this KNOW that the public will just adjust and accept, rather than protest and shut down.etc. (My home blog available on other comments on this thread.)

Let’s Get Honest
March 16, 2013

You Can’t Handle the Truth!

June 2014 GOP News Conference

Disciplinary difficulties prompt suspension of Michelle MacDonald’s law license

The former state Supreme Court candidate will also be on probation for two years, when many restrictions will be in place.

By  Star Tribune  JANUARY 17, 2018 — 9:28PM


Justice Anne McKeig wrote: “MacDonald’s obstructionist behavior has undoubtedly delayed resolution for families in crisis…We fail to adequately protect the public by imposing discipline that does not fully account for the significant harms caused by MacDonald’s misconduct.”

The continued blatant demonization and discrediting of Attorney Michelle MacDonald is necessary as she is considered a threat to The Establishment’s status quo. The current court system translates into fraud and state sponsored corruption which is financially devastating individuals and families, harming children, and fleecing taxpayers.

Unless you are willing to act with impunity, indifference, and without shame and violate procedural rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, you will be marginalized or eliminated.

“If you would know who controls you see who you may not criticise.”
― Tacitus

RELATED

Cataclysmic Cover-Up

Time’s Almost Up To Have Your Voice Heard On GALs

April 07, 2017 01:03 PM

A legislative commission on Thursday approved several state programs it would like the Legislative Auditor to evaluate, including the health department’s Office of Health Facility Complaints and the Minnesota Guardian ad Litem program, both subjects of 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Investigations in November.

The Office of the Legislative Auditor said its evaluation will look into management, governance, oversight and processes of specific program areas.

Excerpt: Guardians Ad Litem Review

The Legislative Auditor plans to review the Guardians ad litem program, which advocates for children and vulnerable adults in the legal system.

According to OLA documents, the state has made frequent changes to the program’s governance, management, and funding over the past 20 years.

“As the GAL board and program staff are committed to continuous improvement in providing services to children, we welcome the opportunity to work with the Legislative Auditor,” a state program spokeswoman wrote in an email to 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS.

The OLA plans to review the board’s policies, procedures and program standards while surveying judges, attorneys, and families about their experiences working with those in the program.

In November, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS reporter Katherine Johnson exposed that some children in the system have had their wishes ignored by their guardian ad litem.

RELATED: Guardian ad Litem Board Works to Improve Complaint Process

Since the story aired, KSTP has received countless tips from families who feel their assigned guardian ad litem failed them.

“Despite efforts to improve oversights, concerns remain about the quality of guardian ad litem services,” the OLA wrote to House and Senate members earlier this week.

The OLA program reviews are expected to be completed by January or February. (2018)

If you want to provide written comments regarding the GAL program or ideas for improvement, contact Jodi Munson Rodríguez, the program evaluation manager. You may reach her at jodi.rodriguez@state.mn.us.


Related image
Information below is from a MN parent that has been subjected to the evils of the family court system.
The GAL program and those collateral’s profiting off family court orders often name and handpick therapists in their recommendations. That is RICO by definition. If you want your kids back you pay to play. 
They use the legal system to make you destitute and take the kids. This is textbook and the dim witted or malicious or both GALs side with the abuser. 
The audit of the GAL program is closing soon and now is your chance to speak out about the effect GAL’s have had on your family and the reasons this program needs to be dismantled.
Please flood Jodi’s inbox with your very specific examples of how they are ruining your relationships and limiting your contact with your children,
Provide examples of them using therapeutic terminology, false reporting, no accountability when you complained, rubber stamping recommendations, refusal to retract when details were verified false, lies, etc.
Please share this with any parent in Minnesota harmed by a guardian and their lack of accountability from the top down.


Image result for guardian ad litem memes

RELATED

Federal lawsuit filed to dismantle Lackawanna County’s guardian ad litem system

IT’S HALF-PAST GET OUT!

19-Year Old Forges Ahead

Annelise Rice

Annelise Rice, a hockey player at UND and graduate of Minnetonka High School, filed a lawsuit on March 17, 2017, in Minnesota federal court seeking damages for deprivation of civil rights by tortuous intervention in a mother-child relationship and deprivation of rights under color of the law (Civil Action No. 17-cv-796 ADM/HB).

 

As expected, U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery dismissed the case on September 19, 2017. Annelise will be appealing to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Conitnue Reading:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MINNESOTA CHILD VICTIM ACT

%d bloggers like this: