Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny~Edward Snowden

MN GOP State Convention 2018

Andy Gildea, husband of Lorie Gildea, Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, makes inflammatory comments about Republicans supporting judicial reform at the Republican State Convention in June.

Andy & Lorie Gildea-Image from

I get that we have different views of those closest to us, but I would think that publicly stated views of a judge’s politically active spouse has to have some connection to the fundamental thinking of that judge. To say that he is in “vociferous opposition” to the motion to reform the judiciary didn’t just come out of thin air!

Gildea quotes Judge Roy Bean, “Never reward crooks, liars, and drunks” and adds, “these changes are being advocated by the worst republicans you can imagine.”

Phantly Roy Bean, Jr. .jpg

Judge Roy Bean~Wikipedia

Andy may want to reconsider who he quotes.

Internet research indicates that Judge Roy Bean was really a big phony in Texas history and was only a legend in his own mind. He wasn’t even a judge, but a justice of the peace for Pecos County who presided over small legal offenses, acted as coroner and conducted marriages. Most offenders were simply fined and sent on their way. Judge Bean usually pocketed the fine instead of turning it over to the county.

Bean gained his scant legal experience on the other side of the law and by the time he was 50 years old was known as a murderer, duelist, rustler, gambler, thief, wife beater, smuggler and all around no-good drunk. Some people say it takes a crook to catch one, but Bean hardly caught anyone. Bean was mainly known for giving goofy legal opinions on subjects that he knew nothing about.

The moral of the story: When the Judiciary is resistant to transparency and accountability you have to wonder. . . “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. . .or do you????


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:

%d bloggers like this: