Disputed Custody Cases

The Declaration of Independence states that one of the self-evident truths is that all men are created equal.

This does not mean that any two human beings are exactly alike in any respect.  They are born different with different natural skills.  They acquire different tastes and develop along different lines.  They vary in physical strength, mental capacity, emotional stability, inherited social status, and many other ways.

All men are created equal in just three ways.  They are treated as equals by God, law, and the protection of their rights.  The task of society is to accept people in all their vast array of individual differences, but treat them as equals when it comes to their role as human beings.

The assumption of numerous states of joint legal and sole physical custody to the mother is clearly not acknowledging the equality of men and women.  The law is essentially saying that based on their sex at birth, parental rights are already decided in the case of a custody dispute later in life.  The protection of the mother’s right trumps dad’s rights to custody.  The claims of “primary caretaker” and the “tender years” doctrine are interpreted as assumptive roles of the mother.  Notably, the “tender years” doctrine was rewritten as “primary caretaker”, yet holds the same assumptions.  The duties assumed by mothers and fathers are not deemed equal in importance.  “The best interests of the children” is the official terminology of the courts to disguise their bias against fathers.  The best interests standard is skewed to favor the mother, giving her the benefit of all custodial interests, because of her “physical birthing” of the child.

The laws regarding custody fails the equality before the law standard of the constitution.  This standard means that every man’s [male and female] is tried by the same law governing any particular case.  Simply, it means there are no different laws for different classes and orders of men [as there were in ancient times].  (Constitutional writer Clarence Carson.)

The Declaration also refers to the equality of rights….Each man is equally entitled to his life with every other man; each man has an equal title to God-given liberties along with every other.  (Clarence Carson, The American Tradition [ Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.; Foundation for Economic Education, 1970], pp. 112-13.]

God does not distinguish the rights of women from that of men when it comes to the custody of their children.  There are many reasons why God would desire the maximum amount of time be spent with each parent, as equally as possible.  Fatherless homes, and those where the role of the father is diminished to four days a month is devastating to the well-being of the child and to society as a whole.  Countless studies show that fatherless homes, as well as diminished father time, leads to higher incarceration rates, higher teenage pregnancy, higher drug use, higher suicide rates, and several other social ills.  Many fathers commit suicide once their children are taken from them simply because they were born male. 

The states are increasing the costs to society by destroying countless lives while benefitting itself through higher federal funds (based on child support cases), higher employment rolls, and more influence in the personal lives of Americans.  They “create” social ills so they can “govern” the fallout.

Mothers do not benefit either as this process is typically used to get as much child support, property, and alimony as possible.  The kids are just the pawns used to get what they want.  The mothers become dependent upon their check each month, often doing little or nothing to improve their positions.  Many of them come become dependents of the state gratuity program, failing to see the value of fathers to a child’s upbringing.  Experience has demonstrated that government gratuities are as corrupting and debilitating to one group as it has been to the Native Americans.  Entitlements, by legal rulings, financial handouts, or otherwise are debilitating to any group, because it fails to provide the incentive for one to better themselves.  The Creator has imposed on every human being of normal mental capacity, among many:  The duty of parents [not just mothers] and elders to protect, teach, feed, clothe, and provide shelter for children and; the duty to become economically self-sufficient.

The truth is that just around 15% of women believe in taking everything they can from the dad when divorcing.  Yet, this group gains full physical custody and joint legal custody nearly 100% of the time.  The assumption is that the children are better off in one home, than splitting time between two, even when they live in the same school district.  This assumption is merely a theory with no statistical support.  In fact, nearly all studies show the social problems that result from removing the father from the children’s lives.  Ironically, and hypocritically, the courts will allow joint physical and joint legal custody when the parents both agree to it.  If they agree to it, it is legal, but the court itself will not recognize the same agreement [joint physical and joint legal custody] in its rulings when custody is contested.  It is all or nothing, and means the mother wins nearly 100% of the time.  This is neither equality before the law nor equality of rights.

If every person is entitled to protection of his life and property, the decision of custody is not one for the state to determine.  In the interests of the children, they [the courts] may decide that for joint physical and joint legal custody, the parents have to live in close proximity, and partake equally in their upbringing.  Beyond that, the presumption should be one of joint physical and joint legal custody.

The power of the government to strip one parent of their parental rights based on sex automatically cancels out the principle of “guaranteed equal rights.”  What government has the right to penalize a person based upon their sex and yet call itself a true republic with an equal protection of rights?

A summary of Benjamin Franklin’s views, taken from Smyth, Writings of Benjamin Franklin, 10:64, on counter-productive compassion includes:

• Compassion which gives a drunk the means to increase his drunkenness is counter-productive.  (Ibid., 5:538.) [Many women are having multiple children with multiple fathers and collecting child support from each one of them.]
• Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counter-productive.  (Ibid., 5:123.)  [Mothers who won’t release themselves of their own self-interests in the name of their children are dependent and weak.]
• Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counter-productive.  (Ibid., 3:135-36.)  [The desire to better oneself is hindered by the desire to keep the ex-husband paying her out of his hard-earned money.]
• Compassion which smothers the instinct to strive and excel is counter-productive.  (Ibid., 3:136-37.)  [These are dependent, weak women who will not strive to excel at anything unless forced to by the actual need.]

There is nothing that should construe the compassion that should be shown to the true needy and deserving.  Any support should be expected to decrease yearly, as a person should pursue a better, more independent life.

Franklin expressed “calculated” compassion intelligently when he wrote:  “To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary ever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.  (Ibid., 3:135.)

Highlights from the writings of the Founders suggest the following in regards to helping those in need:

1. Do not help the needy completely.  Merely help them to help themselves.
2. Give the poor the satisfaction of “earned achievement” instead of rewarding them without achievement.
3. Allow the poor to climb the “appreciation ladder”—from tents to cabins, cabins to cottages, cottages to comfortable houses.
4. Where emergency help is provided, do not prolong it to the point where it becomes habitual.
5. Strictly enforce the scale of “fixed responsibility.”  The first and foremost level of responsibility is with the individual himself; the second level is the family; then the church; next the community; finally the county, and, in a disaster or emergency, the state.  Under no circumstances is the federal government to become involved in public welfare.  The Founders felt it would corrupt the government and also the poor.  No Constitutional authority exists for the federal  government to participate in charity or welfare.

This excerpt of highlights come from the book, “The 5000 Year Leap, Principles of Freedom 101,” by W. Cleon Skousen, 2006, p. 121.

The current child support payment scheme clearly promotes futility, dependency, and weakness.

The unalienable rights of each individual, mother and father alike, is well stated by John Locke in one of his writings.

“The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which…teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property…And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another.” (Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, Great Books of the Western World, vol. 35 [Chicago:  Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952], p. 26, par. 6.

The law of Nature then would not make a father a subordinate of the mother in custody disputes, and in the process allow him to be destroyed.

William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, state in part: “…no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them [nature rights, such as life and liberty], unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.”  (Commentaries, 1:93.)  Divorce in itself is not a forfeiture of rights.  An individual cannot be said to forfeit his rights simply because he is born a male.  This is a violation of the law of nature.  Furthermore, the right to parenting is an inalienable right endowed to us by the Creator.

Among the unalienable rights endowed to individuals by the Creator is "the right to a fair trial" and the "right to beget [father] one's kind."  There can be no fair trial if the presumption is in favor of the mother in a winner take all custody battle.  Secondly, if their is an unalienable right to father a child, their is presumptively a right to also raise that child equal to that of the mother.

If we are a country founded upon the law of Nature as provided us by our Creator, why has Minnesota and other states, interfered with the unalienable rights of fathers?  The results are devastating, yet our legislators sit idly by, ignoring its effects.  Government remains larger than it needs to be, refusing to acknowledge its error in determining disputed custody cases.  The attorney general has the power to intervene when this is challenged and yet sits on its backside, ignoring the problem.  The blood of thousands is on the hands of everyone with the responsibility of serving the public interest, the constitution, and above all, the Creator.

United Nations Human Rights Council has Tyrants on its Rolls

The human rights council has China, Cuba, the Russian Federation, and Saudi Arabia on its board with its membership ending on 12/31/12.  Petition your legislators to press for a termination of these members.  These are some of the greatest oppressive regimes in the world and should not have any say on human rights when they are responsible for so many of them in their own countries.  Their membership should never have been allowed and should now be terminated until they show a true history of protecting human rights.

See the rolls at .......

Follow the human rights violations at.......

The Bakken Formation has much more oil than originally forecast

3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate—
Released: 4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM

Get Obama out of the way and let's get this country rocking again.

Keystone Pipeline - The facts revealed by a Canadian Source

Everyone standing in the way of the Keystone Pipeline and supporting the Marxist/Socialist ideologies of President Obama (O'Blama everyone else) needs to leave office and find work in another country because you are simply anti-American, anti-capitalism, and anti-jobs. Sitting on your butts while we personally fund our enemies/dictatorships/ and terrorism is unconscionable!

The Tea Party/Libertarians/Independents and believers of the U.S. Constitution and its religious principles (yes religion - particularly Christianity) will not have another four years of the debauchary and destruction of everything our Founders sacrificed everything for. What have you given to your country other than rhetoric, redistribution of wealth (Abomination Care), unemployment, green energy disasters (redistribution), corporate bailouts (redistribution and donations payback), Soros (Master Puppeteer), Black Panther abuse at the voting booth, Fast and Furious, lies, deception, universal show of weakness (bowing and apologizing to ruthless dictators and enemies of our country), abuse of Executive Priviledge (Obama overriding Congress at will), and the class warfare created by Pelosi and Obama (and some of you).

This president would be impeached if he weren't black. Yes I said it, he would be impeached if he wasn't black. I'm not a rascist but just pointing out what everyone seems ashamed to admit. This country needs a person or persons strong enough to stand up to this incredibly disastrous president and his anti-American agenda. This country will need God's help to recover from the mess Obama put us in. A leader is out front, not leading from behind, and not out golfing when things need attending. A leader spurs the nation to rise, not overburden them with double-talk and endless regulation. This guy would throw any one of you under the bus, that is if any of you are left to throw under. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Democrats wouldn't run someone else from their party because this guy will have destroyed the message of the Democratic party for decades to come. History will clearly show him as the most dangerous president to American exceptionalism, democracy, and the inalienable rights of people around the world. The U.S. looked for a leader and got the laziest, most bumbling, sheep of the Marxists.

A country founded on religious principles now has a president in Obama who promotes abortion, the removal of religion from the public, encourages upheavel, and stands by while the United Nations sits idly by as people are slaughtered in the Middle East, the same U.N. that has Libya, China, and Russia on its human rights council.

Obama killed drilling because of an oil spill offshore and let it become a disaster by refusing help from other countries. Then he blamed the oil companies and used that as an opportunity to stop drilling. This spill would have been quickly contained if the well was onshore to begin with, but God forbid, we can't allow that. Just like we can allow the Canadians (our great ally and neighbor) pump oil via the Keystone Pipeline into the U.S.

This President and his kronies (non-tax paying cabinet members, Pelosi, Reid, etc.) are going to comprise the ugliest chapter in American History ever. It would properly be titled as the "Dismantling of America." We've promoted a community organizer with no executive experience, marxist beliefs, unknown religion, questionable influences, and a horrible attendance record as a junior legislator to become our president. Shame on all Americans who voted for him regardless of party affiliation - you simply didn't do your homework and take into consideration the danger he posed to all of us. If we re-elect him, we our essentially throwing our arms up in the air and telling the world that "America is Dead."

I personally am sick of canned messages and deaf ears from my legislators and would like to know what you are going to do about it. I only have faith in our Tea Partiers and persons of strong faith. Among our true representatives I count Michelle Bachmann, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, and a few others. You wonder why your approval ratings stink, where are you standing on moral issues, the constitution, deregulation, energy independence, small government, and lifting the bottom up without pulling the top down (it doesn't work), living within a budget, that government spending NEVER fixes or helps an economy, just prolongs the recession.

Obama sold a message of hope to the desperate, ill-informed, and the entitlement sector the first time around. What will he sell now except hollow promises, media sold rhetoric (bought and paid for by the Administration), and that everything is the fault of George Bush, the lazy American, and the tooth fairy? A leader does not blame everyone else, especially after three years, but takes ownership of the problem. If the teleprompter was a lie detector it would simply go crazy and break in minutes.

One term was too many, two completely unacceptable.

Video: Canadian Talk Show Host Destroys Obama Over Keystone Decision

Trespassing without consequence

Carlton County, as well as the higher courts of Minnesota, would have you believe that building inspectors and fire chiefs can simply enter your building at any time they like.  The laws are clearly against such trespasses or "entry without consent", yet like many laws they are of no effect if they are consistently not enforced.

We bought property at 1 N Cloquet Rd W in Esko, MN, from Thomson Township in 2006.  The main building was built in 1907 and the gymnasium in the 1930’s.  Thomson Township themselves occupied this property for roughly 13 years, with no accounting for the keys issued during their ownership.  The township routinely operated from the same building. 

           Fire Chief Jeffrey Juntunen had no knowledge of any key policy at Thomson Township.  The owners believe Thomson Township users retained keys and used them to make illegal access to the property after their sale.

 These trespasses, along with the "censuring" of building inspector John Gulland, led to the owners filing a lawsuit against Thomson Township, Jeffrey Juntunen, Duane Grace (Plan Reviewer), and John Gulland.  The owners shared the facts of case, seemingly egregious in nature, to the court under Judge Dale A. Wolf.  Judge Wolf has the belief, or would have us (owners) believe that local officials can do anything they desire under their cloak of immunity.  In fact, he went so far to suggest that the building inspector would have to be off duty, make illegal entry to our building and rape one of the tenants for this immunity to be lost.  The insanity of this explanation was baffling and outright outrageous.  We were in civil proceedings and he was talking about a criminal matter and in his mind that was the only way immunity was lost.  The laws of this state clearly say immunity is lost when officials fail to do their ministerial (mandatory) and operational level (day-to-day) duties.  It is lost when there is a failure to act in good faith, malice, and/or gross negligence.  Trespass itself is an intentional tort and should have dismissed any claims to immunity.

 From the beginning of the hearing it was clear that the Township was getting a clear pass, citing case history taken out of context.  It didn't matter at all what the facts were, it was merely one government agency giving a secret handshake to another under the guise of immunity.  Finding any case where immunity has been waived is nearly impossible because the courts are too busy creating law rather than enforcing it.  Legislators don't care because they are only interested in passing laws to appease their current constituents.    Passing a law is nothing without enforcement, but that's why no one likes his or her politicians.  On its face they sell the bill as noteworthy, but could care less about its' long term effects.

Facts

Defendant Gulland accompanied Thomson Township Plumbing Inspector Paul Sandstrom on August 1, 2008, unbeknownst to plaintiffs¹.  Building inspectors generally do not attend plumbing or electrical inspections, and should not without the consent of owners or the ones performing the work.  Plumber Leroy Lindstrom did not request building inspector John Gulland's presence.  His [Gulland's] presence was a surprise to the plumber as well as everyone else.  This was simply one township employee inviting another² so he could perform an unauthorized search of premises.  Defendant Gulland used this opportunity to produce a letter alleging building code violations the same day.  Defendant Gulland’s attendance does not constitute consent, making his resulting report illegal.

The person doing the work authorized by permit is supposed to notify the building official that the work is ready for inspection per Minn. R. 1300.0210, Subp. 4.

Defendant Gulland is prohibited from entering “the unoccupied property to attempt to locate someone to communicate building code issues or unpermitted construction.”  This is covered by Minn. R. 1300.0110, Subp. 7 which includes “…if premises is unoccupied, the building official shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other person having charge or control of the structure or premises and request entry.  If entry is refused, the building official shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry.”

Plaintiffs scheduled an inspection by defendant Gulland in March of 2009 in hopes of receiving a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.  The plaintiffs asked Nick Perfetti to join them, as they wanted another person to witness the verbal discussions they had with defendant Gulland.  Gulland had failed up to this point and beyond to put orders in writing, despite several requests by petitioners.  Mr. Perfetti arrived around 4:25 pm and found locked doors.  He returned home for 20 minutes before returning at the same time as plaintiff Ms. Francette.  They found defendant Gulland’s unoccupied vehicle and entered the building to find that Gulland was already inside.  Petitioner Francette immediately confronted Gulland and asked him how he gained entrance and he ignored the question.  After plaintiff Pirila arrived, he also asked defendant Gulland how he got in through a locked door and received no response³.

During the hearing for summary judgment defendants acknowledged that entry was made without consent of owners, but that plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of privacy⁴.  Petitioners moved into the residence on April 7, 2009.  The plaintiffs took the normal precautions of locked doors and posting "no trespassing" signs throughout property in order to maintain their privacy.  Some of these trespasses occurred during the petitioner's residency (May and June of 2009), and outside of their period of residency all of their personal effects were on site.

On the two occasions in May and June of 2009 defendant Gulland accompanied Architect Alan Adams on forced progress inspections⁵, both without consent of plaintiffs.  After the first surprise visit by the Architect and defendant Gulland, plaintiffs specifically objected to these inspections, and insisted that defendant Gulland contact them for inspections or wait for them to call.  He ignored their requests and made yet another unauthorized inspection with Architect Adams⁶, who also had his consent withdrawn by petitioners.  The MN DOLI was contacted, and Barry Greive, Senior MN DOLI Investigator, immediately contacted Architect Adams, and defendant Gulland to discontinue what plaintiffs considered punishment and retaliatory visits.  These visits ended once the MN DOLI intervened clearly showing a lack of legitimacy.

Defendant Gulland forced plaintiffs out of work to make “his” scheduled weekly meetings that had little significance, done against the consent of plaintiffs, and were unreasonable, retaliatory, and illegal.  This retaliation⁷ is subject to Minn. Stat. § 326B.082 Subd. 11 (7).  These forced inspections came only after the initiation of the MN DOLI investigation and during the residency of plaintiffs.  There was only one contractor working at that time and progress was slow.

Minn. Stat. § 326B.082 Subd. 11. Licensing orders; grounds; reapplication.  (7) retaliated in any manner against any employee or person who is questioned by, cooperates with, or provides information to the commissioner who seeks access to property or things under subdivision 2; (8) engaged in any fraudulent, deceptive, or dishonest act or practice; or (9) performed work in connection with the permit, license, registration, or certificate or conducted the person’s affairs in a manner that demonstrates incompetence, untrustworthiness, or financial irresponsibility.

These inspections were not consented to for Architect Adams and plaintiffs told defendant Gulland the same.  Lacking consent Architect Adams possessed no authority to invite or participate in these illegal visits.  Defendants chose a time they knew the plaintiffs were not home, expected no one on site, and had free reign to all areas inside the building, including petitioner’s personal belongings.  Defendant Gulland traveled from Duluth to Esko and must have possessed the keys necessary to grant him and Mr. Adams access to the locked building⁸.

            There are no records for defendants Gulland or Juntunen, as required by statutes, recording inspections on file at the Hall of Thomson Township or the Fire Department.

            Defendant Juntunen does not disguise his entry without consent simply responding he “entered plaintiffs’ property to enforce fire code regarding large pile of debris”⁹.  The large pile of debris defendant Juntunen refers to was a pile of slats piled near the west wall of the building, outside.  This pile did not constitute an immediate problem that would justify a visit without consent of plaintiffs.  There is not a single phone record, email, record of inspection, or any other document to substantiate any attempt at consent.  Juntunen also did not leave any notice that he had been inside plaintiffs building.  The building was vacant at the time and did not necessitate emergency access¹⁰.  Advance consent or a search warrant is a statutory requirement.  If this were an authorized inspection, there should have been a record on file at the Thomson Township Fire Department or proof of consent¹¹.  Despite any lack of attempt at consent, including any evidence of the same, defendant Juntunen denies the charge.

Contractors Mark Blomquist and Jake Field entered the locked building to find defendant Juntunen already inside¹².  Mr. Juntunen did not identify himself personally, but only as the fire chief, and declined to leave a message of any kind for plaintiffs.  In his Interrogatories defendant Juntunen acknowledges he does not know whom he talked to¹³.  Defendant Juntunen claims, "The doors were open"¹⁴.  Juntunen claims his "main concern was the lath from the demolition that was stacked on the exterior of the building...”¹⁵.  This pile was on the west side of the building and fails to explain his entry inside plaintiffs building from the east door.

Defendant fire chief Jeffrey Juntunen failed to follow Minn. Stat. § 299F.09...the chief of the fire department...at all reasonable hours may enter into all building and upon all premises within their jurisdiction for the purpose of examination, after proper consent from the occupant or owner or pursuant to an administrative search warrant.  Defendant Juntunen possessed neither.

The key words here are “after proper consent from the occupant or owner…”

Defendants entered plaintiffs' property at times they knew they would be working, easily verified by the lack of any vehicle in either parking lot.  Absent the cars and the consent of plaintiffs, both defendant Gulland and Juntunen, made their way to a door they reasonably expected as locked¹⁶.  Even so, they had every expectation of getting inside leading one to believe they possessed keys to the doors.  The lack of consent being sought before entry is evidence of ill intent/malice.

The plaintiffs expressed their concerns with trespasses to defendants Attorney Pritchett in their September 9, 2008 letter and received no response¹⁷.  Mr. Pritchett, like Thomson Township and the Thomson Township Fire Department, failed to make any recognizable inquiry into the actions of either Gulland or Juntunen.

Plaintiffs filed trespassing charges against defendants Gulland and Juntunen with the Town of Thomson Police Department on June 24, 2010¹⁸.  The defendants violated the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 609.605 Trespass, a misdemeanor and Minn. Stat. § 609.748 Harassment, Subd. 1.

 Whether a party has given consent is a fact question for the jury.  Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting Inc., 526 N.W.2d 405 (Minn App. 1995).  See also Rieger v. Zackoskis, 321 NW.2d 16,20 (Minn. 1982) (jury issue as to whether entrant became trespasser by exceeding scope of possessor’s invitation or permission).

The Carlton County attorney, Thomas Pertler, claims his department is investigating the trespassing charges.  As of yet, in a year and eight months all we have gotten are promises to investigate and nothing more. 

On 1/4/12, Thom Pertler sent us an email with that included the following, "The last time I updated you on this matter I think I told you we needed some follow up and Tom Foldesi wasn’t comfortable handling the investigation so he asked FDL investigator Rule to help out. I’m not sure if we have seen the investigative materials yet, but I’ll ask around the office to see if anyone knows. As soon as I get the follow up, I’ll have one of my attorneys go through it and give me their opinion." 

Now its February 21, 2012, and still nothing.  The six year statute of limitations is likely to run out before anything is done by this inept department of Carlton County.  It's hard to maintain faith in a system ill-equipped and unwilling to pursue justice on behalf of its citizens.  This is an open and shut case of trespassing and yet nothing has been done in 20 months.  Like the courtroom, this is pure politics and nothing more.  There is no law here other than that written by the judges based on their latest whim.  Why aren't our judges and county attorneys overseen by a department to ensure they are doing their duties, instead of deciding which ones, if any, they will follow?  Why aren't random cases pulled from the files and re-examined by other professionals not personally positioned among those they are determining justice for. 

Since 2000, I have personally seen a guardian ad litem (Annette Jantzen) do nothing in my child custody case, the guardian ad litem coordinator disrupt the closing arguments of a child custody trial without any chance of cross-examination, which was then used by judge Robert Macauley to dismiss the properly done evaluation by the Carlton County Custody Evaluator (recommending joint physical and joint custody).  After dismissal of charges brought by my ex-wife, Judge Robert Macauley committed res judicata and collateral estoppel, by including them yet again in a rehearing. 

I have seen Judge Dale A. Wolf dismiss charges against Thomson Township etal., based on unfounded immunity rights and disregarding well-founded trespassing charges. Judge Wolf refused to hold Admissions admitted when very late stating that Minnesota is a liberal state.  When Heat Mechanical Inc. completed destroyed the discovery process with the intent of filing bankruptcy they were given a pass by Mr. Wolf. In my experiences with Carlton County, everything is construed against the individual representing themselves.  The facts and the results of discovery are supposed to have some meaning in court proceedings. 

Child Support Magistrate Steven Running is perhaps the most biased of all Carlton County self-appointed "Kings of the Court."  In each hearing with Mr. Running he would grill me on my submitted paperwork, item for item, while giving my ex-wife a complete pass.  She showed up several times with no paperwork but was given a pass.  It was only when I threatened to take it to the Appellate Court that I finally received a just decision.  In my last hearing, following the decision of my girls to move in with me half time, Running played games about how child support would be adjusted.  My ex said that that her and her current husband split their bills and Mr. Running claimed that he couldn't tell her what her belief system was when I questioned him on it.  Running did not want to give me a break even though the law clearly stated the rules by which adjustments were given and they had nothing to do with "beliefs".  The Department of Human Services (DHS) has a website where a person can calculate exactly what they should expect, and amazingly it has no section on "beliefs."  Magistrate Running simply chose to play another round of legal roulette. 

Now we wait endlessly for trespassing charges to be brought against our intruders.  Carlton County should come with a warning sign that says, "You're looking for justice in the wrong place if you're looking here!".

References

¹ Defendants Thomson Township, Thomson Township Fire Department, John Gulland, and Jeffrey Juntunen's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions (Revised), #42, 8/16/10.

²Id., #43.
³Transcript of District Court Proceedings, 10/14/10.
⁴ Id.
⁵ Id.
⁶Plaintiff email to MN DOLI senior inspector Barry Grieve, 5/13/09.
⁷Summons and Complaint, #27.
⁸ Transcript of District Court Proceedings, 10/14/10.
⁹ Defendants Thomson Township, Thomson Township Fire Department, John Gulland, and Jeffrey Juntunen's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions (Revised), #46, 8/16/10
¹⁰ Transcript of District Court Proceedings, 10/14/10.
¹¹Id.
¹²Building contractor Mark Blomquist statement.
¹³Interrogatory 14, 27.
¹⁴Interrogatory 23, 34.
¹⁵Interrogatory 41.
¹⁶ Transcript of District Court Proceedings, 10/14/10.
¹⁷Letter to Attorney Pritchett, 9/9/08.
¹⁸Trespassing charges filed with Town of Thomson Police Department, 6/24/10.

The American Fight for Freedom from Tyranny

In his first inaugural address, President Ronald Reagan told the American people:

"If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before.  Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth.  The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price.  It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government.  It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams.  We’re not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline.  I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do.  I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.”

The question every American must ask oneself right now is if they want to be part of a socialist society or if they want to be truly free.  Secondly, individuals need to be proactive, because the passive are doomed to the decisions of everyone else.  Those willing to fight for freedom need to study the problem in depth to understand it completely.  You cannot fix what you do not understand and you cannot win a war that you will fight with all of your heart.  All champions have heart.  Find your purpose, your mission, and if necessary, chase it to the end of the earth.  If freedom is what you really want, you must do whatever you can to protect it, sacrificing all if necessary.  A war cannot be fought alone either, so do whatever you can do to enlist others.  You might want to blog, join or start a group, comment, call in, write your legislators, or something else, but the important thing is to do something.

As Mark Levine states in his book Ameritopia¹, “The Tea Party movement is a hopeful sign.  Its members come from all walks of life and every corner of the country.  These citizens have the spirit and enthusiasm of the Founding Fathers, proclaim the principles of individual liberty and rights in the Declaration, and insist on the federal government’s compliance with the Constitution’s limits.”

The illusion of “social justice” is just that, an illusion.  Wiser people than us have seen socialism for what it truly is.

 “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.  Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”  Winston Churchill

"Socialists cry “Power to the people”, and raise the clenched fist as they say it.  We all know what they really mean --- power over people, power to the State.”  Margaret Thatcher.

“All socialism involves slavery” – Herbert Spencer

“I’ve always doubted that the socialists had a leg to stand on intellectually” – Friedrich Hayek.

“The trouble is with socialism, which resembles a form of mental illness more than it does a philosophy” – L. Neil Smith.

Socialism creates dependency and is used by those lusting power.  Capitalism must be destroyed so the profit motive is removed, leaving otherwise independent and proactive people to be controlled.

Utopian believers attempt to convince the American public that the Constitution is outdated and in need of changes.  This propaganda is used to convince people of the need for more and more centralized government.  The truth is that the Constitution will stand as is forever, and is needed as is, to ensure our individual rights and country’s exceptionalism.  The Constitution was not created by the founders for a specific age or set of circumstances, but was the structuring of a framework of government to fit the requirements of human nature.  This is what made the United States great and the only thing that will keep it great.   

The bigger the government, the greater the risk of tyranny and the greater loss of individual freedoms.  Government is now growing at a brisk rate and intruding farther and farther into the personal lives of individuals.

• Medicare (2010:  38.7 million people over 65 and 7.6 million people with disabilities)²
• Medicaid
• Social Security (2010:  54 million individuals)³
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (March 22, 2010:  affects every single American).  This is the landmark case of excessive government intrusion upon the rights entrusted to states and individuals.  This Act comprises 3,000 pages in length, and is understood by very few.  This legislation was simply shoved down the throat of every American as shown by poll after poll.  It’s passing was an egregious act defying the very foundations of the U.S. Constitution – the rights of the individual.
• Welfare

Every one of these programs has the effect of redistributing the wealth from the richer to the poorer.  A government of economic socialistic principles tend to highlight unmerited equality among citizens.  Through the extension of socialistic welfare policies, it provides unmerited equality of income between the chronically employed and chronically unemployed.  This policy enables people otherwise healthy to not seek gainful employment because they will receive income no matter their actions, thus provided no incentive to produce.

As an economic theory, a welfare state is created through calls for equalization of incomes through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending.  The government sponsored universal health care plan is a welfare state idea.  The state control of key industries is another welfare state idea.  The state has taken control by over-regulation, bailouts, and propaganda campaigns.

Both Testaments of the Bible state that capitalism is clearly supported, ⁴ and indolence [laziness] is not subsidized, but penalized by poverty, while diligence in work is rewarded by its fruits.  (Proverbs 6:6-11; 13:4; 20:4; 2 Thessolonians 3:10-12; 1 Timothy 5:17-18)

Do not take lightly the freedom that came from struggle and death of so many Americans.  Every American must be ready to engage all threats to their inalienable rights and freedoms, whether it is as a soldier, writer, speaker, man, woman, or voter.  This fight must never end because tyranny is always in the waiting.  Fight every instance of unconstitutional government intrusion and injustice.  A dormant man becomes the slave, while a free man remains free as long as he fights for it.  Do not mistake incremental changes as petty, because each step, however small, will be one that will have to be fought for when the tyrant(s) has reached his goal of making you a servant of the government.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Chas. Yancey in 1816, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

“The choice before us is plain, Christ or chaos, conviction or compromise, discipline or disintegration.  I am rather tired of hearing about our rights and privileges as American citizens.  The time is come, it now is, when we ought to hear about the duties and responsibilities of our citizenship.  America’s future depends upon her accepting and demonstrating God’s government.”  (Peter Marshall, The Rebirth of America, page 205, Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation.)

The enemies of our freedom lie within our borders.  They are the liberals, communists, atheists, and socialists.  They are the ACLU, ACORN, Obama, Soros, and Pelosi.  They are the judges that invoke personal ideologies in place of law, justices that fail to uphold the Constitution, and representatives that fail to represent the individual.  The enemies include Presidents that grow government and minimize the individual, grow dependence rather than individualism, and demand agreement rather than respect differences.  They are those that exceed the powers granted to them by the people, those believing in entitlements, and those demanding that the successful sacrifice what they have so all are equal.  They are those that do not believe that the principles of the U.S. Constitution, like the bible, are infinitely required to maintain the freedom of the individual.

Our country is under attack by the media and organizations spreading propaganda selling the idea of socialism.  They would have everyone believe socialism was social justice and the best policy for all human beings.  You can see how well it is doing in the current socialist countries of Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela.    

Instead of facts or experience, propaganda won the election for Obama.  No one seemed to care that he was a friend of William Ayers, a community organizer for ACORN, had no executive experience, no business experience, and was a junior legislator who skipped as many sessions as he attended.  In no way did he believe in the U.S. Constitution or the exceptionalism of our great country.  Like ACORN, he devised the plan to cause the country to implode so he could instill his ideologies.  As a puppet of George Soros, he also became the puppet master of many ill-informed American’s disillusioned with the state of the country.  Obama sold a message of hope he never intended to pursue.  His goals were not what he sold to the young, uninformed, strict Democrats, liberal, entitled, minorities, and racist.

With a majority of Democrats in the House and Senate, President Obama wasted little time instituting his plan.  This country began printing so much money that one wondered if there would be a tree left to make more paper by the time his first year was over.  The reason given was that it was needed to boost the economy.

Since the Great Depression studies have proven that government spending does not boost the economy, it merely extends the recession.  The Troubled Assets Recovery Program (TARP) has led to any “true” unemployment drops, higher consumer confidence, or home sales.  Like true propagandists, this Administration claims the recession is over and things are improving.  The question is where?  The truth is that the government is now responsible for 24% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total value of this country’s services and goods.  This administration has now driven the national debt to nearly $14 trillion dollars and steadily rising.  This equates to 100% of GDP and places the U.S. as the largest country in the world with a national debt of 100% or more to GDP.  Greece, with all its troubles, and much smaller economy, sits at 166% of debt to GDP.  There are now roughly 42 million Americans dependent on food stamps and yet this president says things are getting better.

This president incites class and racial warfare, backs Occupy Wall Street (OWS), and uses “executive privilege” as he sees fit.  Obama was quick to apologize to foreign countries for the aggressiveness of the U.S., even when dealing with ruthless, autocratic regimes, such as Saudi Arabia.  Our advocacy of freedom and democracy should not be apologized for, it should be promoted.  Obama mocked the unemployed by saying “shovel ready jobs were not as shovel ready as we first thought” laughing.  We cannot afford another day of President Obama or politicians with his same beliefs let alone another term.  In four more years, let there be no doubt, if Obama is left in charge we will become Greece, highly over-regulated, and self-destroyed.  Get the facts before the worse case scenario unveils itself. 

1. Levine, Mark, Ameritopia, Threshold Editions, 2012, p. 247
2. The 2011 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds (Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Government Printing Office, May 2011), 4.
3. The 2011 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees, Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Trust Funds (Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Government Printing Office, June 2011), 2.
4. North, Gary, Capitalism and the Bible

The ACLU needs to learn it place

ACLU Sues to Remove 10 Commandments Display From NM Courthouse Lawn

If you are like me you are sick of the ACLU trying to abolish Christianity from our Christian based country.  It's simple treason to take action against your own country.  Any act trying to remove Christianity and its principles from our schools, public buildings, and everywhere else is simply anti-American.  If you don't like the foundation upon which our country is built, get a passport and leave, for good.  You are the voice of those that would choose tyranny over choice, atheism over faith, and evil over good.  The founding fathers of this country created our constitution upon Christian principles and faith in God.  If you don't believe in it, you are living in the wrong country.  Find a country that supports your ideology rather than trying to change the one that has been the most successful, innovative, and productive in the world, ever.  The principles of Christianity are the moral and ethical standards by which the individual is guaranteed their personal liberties and freedoms.  The efforts of the ACLU to incrementally remove Christianity from the lives of America is a movement towards changing our country altogether.  The ACLU is nothing more than an enemy of the United States and everything good that it stands for, particularly FREEDOM.  ACLU - Disband or leave, no one wants you.

Hillsdale College Opens Constitution Course to the Public — For Free!

Hillsdale College Opens Constitution Course to the Public — For Free!

The Michigan-based college is offering a free, online 10-week course beginning Feb. 20. Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution sets out to provide participants with an understanding and ability to defend the “timeless principles of liberty” upon which the nation was founded.

The American Path to Bondage is Underway

The average age of the world’s greatest civilization from the beginning of history, has been about two hundred years. During those two hundred years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage.

-- Commonly attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler

Constitutional challenges to the MN Government Data Practices Act, Sovereign Immunity (under guise of other immunities), MN DOLI powers, and late Admissions

Marvin Pirila & Gail Francette
1 N Cloquet Rd W
Esko, MN 55733
December 21, 2011


Eric H. Holder Jr, U.S. Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Solicitor General of the United States

Room 5614, Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Lori Swanson, Attorney General

Minnesota Attorney General's Office
1400 Bremer Tower
445 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, MN 55101

Attn: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, Solicitor General of the United States

One:  In their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, petitioners Marvin Pirila and Gail Francette challenge the constitutionality of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.  This case is Appellate Court Case No. A11-276, Petitioners, Marvin Pirila & Gail Francette vs. Respondents, Thomson Township, Thomson Township Fire Department, John Gulland, Duane Grace, Jeffrey Juntunen.

Only five metropolitan areas are required to follow the Data Practices Act, leaving all citizens outside of those areas at the mercy of townships and cities.  In our case, Thomson Township agreed to provide information voluntarily, and then never delivered on that promise, despite numerous requests.  A legislator said they amended the reach of the Data Practices Acts reach to alleviate costs for smaller municipalities and townships and those excluded were to provide the information voluntarily.  This was a monumental mistake as there are no repercussions for their failure to provide transparency to their actions.  This is a violation of the public citizens’ right to know what his and her taxes are paying for.  Ironically, after discovering they were not subject to the Data Practices Act, Thomson Township suddenly would not provide the information requested.  However, during legal discovery they used the objection that the Data Practices Act forbade them from sharing information.  On one hand, they do not have to provide information because they are not subject to the Data Practices Act, and on the other, they do not have to give the information because of the Data Practices Act.  The MGDPA fails to uphold the need for transparency, the rights of citizens, and the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

The Act is unconstitutional, we argue, because it is not serving the citizens of this state equally.

Two:  Is the Department of Labor and Industry, not the courts, the correct and legitimate authority to determine ministerial and operational level duties of building inspectors?  Petitioners are also arguing that the Exceptions to Immunity under Minn. Stat. § 466.02 require clarification, as they are unrecognized by the Minnesota courts.  Almost every exception to immunity applied in this matter, yet the lower courts ignored them in favor of granting immunity.  The case history of Minnesota shows a cloak of sovereign immunity being granted to all levels of government under the guise of qualified, statutory, official, and vicarious immunities.  Even if this guise did not exist, the exceptions to immunity existed and should have defeated any request for summary judgment.

There is a nationally renowned problem of blanket, unwarranted immunity granted to county, municipal and township officials.  Only States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law".  Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County (2006 emphases added).  Thus, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County (2003), and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they "exercise a 'slice of state power'".  Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1979).  Thus, the state courts practice of granting blanket sovereign immunity, while ignoring Minnesota Statutes exceptions to immunity to township officials, is unconstitutional.  The courts ruled contrary to the powers expressly granted Congress “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” [Congress’s Article I § 8].  These powers included those that Congress expressly granted the MN DOLI in Minn. Stat. § 175.171.

Rather than limiting immunity, Minnesota like several other states, are essentially granting sovereign immunity to township officials in error.  The U.S. Supreme Court has undertaken the rights of states to be sued in Alden v. Main, 527, U.S. 706 (1999), deciding in favor of the states in a 5-4 vote.  This close vote shows the contention in the U.S. Supreme Court as to whether states should be granted sovereign rights.  The sovereign rights of the state are being too broadly applied to include municipalities and townships in the courts despite the ruling in Jinks v. Richland County (2003).

The failure of the judicial courts to enforce notable exceptions to immunity has the broadest impact upon citizens of the United States.  The power to create law exists strictly with Congress, yet the courts are creating law when routinely ignoring the statutes, rules, and laws rightfully created by the legislative branches of government.  Without strict adherence to the laws, as well as the constitution of the U.S. and states, individuals are stripped of their rights and left without proper, due recourse in the court system.

In this specific case, the lower courts failed to take into account the numerous violations of Minnesota Rules and Statutes, criminal trespass, the censuring of defendant Gulland, and State and U.S. Constitutional violations.  Moreover, the courts did not take the operational level and ministerial duties that defendants neglected or refused to complete into account.  These are clear reasons for defeating summary judgment as they meet the definitions of exceptions to immunity under Minn. Stat. § 466.02. 

An operational level decision involves “conduct which merely puts into effect a predetermined plan”.  Gonzales v. Hollins, 386 N.W.2d 8452, 845 (Minn. App. 1986).  Operational level decisions are not protected.  Pletan v. Gaines, 494 N.W.2d 38, 40 (Minn. Dec. 31, 1992).  Plaintiffs argued that the censuring of defendant Gulland was proof that he failed to follow operational and ministerial duties.  The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry was expressly granted powers by congress to oversee Minnesota State Building Codes and its inspectors (Minn. Stat. § 175.171).  The MN DOLI, a department of the state, has the legal authority to determine the operational and ministerial duties of building inspectors.

Statutory Immunity (Minn. Stat. § 466.03, Subd. 6) is improperly granted when the dispute involves day-to-day (operational) duties.  Similarly, official immunity is defeated when ministerial duties are involved.  A ministerial act is “absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.”  Rico v. State, 472 N.W.2d 100, 107 (Minn. 1991).  By default, if official immunity is lost, so is vicarious immunity.  Malicious conduct is not immunized.  Elwood v. Rice County, 423 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1988).

"A person who is under a duty to act has no discretion and must act whenever that duty arises while a person with a power to act can do so as he or she feels appropriate in his or [her] discretion".  Robert W. Macauley and James L.H. Sprague, Practice and Procedure Before Administrative Tribunals (Toronto:  Carswell, 1988-) at 5-7.  The defendants were required to act or exercise discretion within narrow confines set by statutes and Minn. Rules.  Instead, the defendants acted arbitrarily and beyond their statutory authority.

A citizen's ability to access the courts to enforce their rights should not be restricted, and if restricted, be kept to a minimal as much as possible.  The real threat of legal action is the only effective way to ensure individuals take proper care in carrying out their duties.  This case is indicative of what occurs in the absence of true accountability, the accountability already embedded in Minnesota Statutes and Federal Laws as exceptions to immunity, but not enforced by Minnesota and other state courts.  There is no case history to show that Minnesota or other states are enforcing these exceptions.  This leaves private citizens no legal recourse to which they are entitled.

Three:  We find equally appalling that the lower courts do not allow Admissions be admitted when the other party fails to submit them on time, particularly when represented by counsel.  We would like the constitutionality of this matter addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The purposeful delay of submitting admissions in a timely manner only delay proceedings and increase costs to all involved.  This reduces the matter to a law of economic advantage rather than one of justice.  Many states have ruled that late admissions are granted as acknowledged, allowing the case to proceed as properly scheduled.

Minnesota is holding onto old interpretations of these matters, long ago abandoned by other states that realized the importance of holding public officials accountable for malicious conduct.

Fourth, were the unconsented entries/trespasses violations of petitioners fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendment rights?

Trespassing by two different defendants (building inspector and fire chief) on different occasions were in known violation of existing law, including the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments.  The U.S. Supreme Court needs to define the rules regarding entry for building inspectors and fire chiefs for the states. 

The Attorney General of Minnesota has claimed that this is a matter left to the discretion of the County Attorney because of the autonomy involved.  However, these are state laws, and more importantly Federal laws, involving constitutional rights of individuals.  As previously stated, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County (2003), and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they "exercise a 'slice of state power'".  The county attorney has been reluctant to say the least in pursuing the responsible defendants for obvious political reasons.

If a building permit were to allow free and legal access to property as defendants suggest, building inspectors would have “bullet-proof” protection against the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments.  Similarly, if a fire chief can merely enter into the private property of another because he has the right to “interpret” a possible situation as a fire danger, he, or she would be receiving unjust immunity to trespass.  There is nothing reasonable about entering the private property of another, minus emergency conditions, without the simplest attempt at consent.  It is not relevant if the door was locked or unlocked.  If it was, we would be again be suggesting it is reasonable to enter the unlocked doors of anyone possessing a building permit or reasonable for a fire chief to enter under the pretext of an “interpreted” potential fire hazard.

The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.  In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Defendants failed to seek consent, possessed no warrant, and lacked probable cause when making entry to plaintiffs' personal property.  Plaintiffs argue that it unreasonable for searches to take place without their consent or the consent of the contractors on site.

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment's protections apply only when the searched party has a "reasonable expectation of privacy".  As these trespasses included times in which plaintiffs resided there, the property was privately owned, and their personal belongings were always there, they had every expectation of privacy.

The defendants’ entries without consent/trespasses lacked reasonable cause.  The reasonableness requirement applies not just to a search in combination with a seizure, but also to a search without a seizure, as well as to a seizure without a search.  Tennessee v. Garner 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

A "seizure" of property, we have explained, occurs when "there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property".  United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).  "At the very core" of the Fourth Amendment "stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home".  Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961).

Because these searches were done without the advance knowledge of plaintiffs, they had no opportunity to deny or allow consent, or the chance to attend.  These were planned illegal searches and plaintiffs' have no way of knowing if there was a seizure or what areas the defendants freely explored.  This “willful misconduct” is synonymous with the term “intentional tort”.  King v. Breach, 115 Pa. Commonwealth 355, 540 A.2d 976, 981 (1988).

The rights to privacy, like due process, are fundamental rights with special significance under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.  Pursuant to the equal protection clause of that amendment, the Supreme Court has held that some rights are so fundamental, that any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose, and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.  The Supreme Court has legally recognized some fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including the right to privacy.

Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides that:  "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress".  Minnesota courts failed to uphold the constitutional rights under the guise of immunity.  See Monroe v. Pape, [506 U.S . 56, 61] 365 U.S. 167, 184 (1961).  Section 1983 liability punishes only purposeful “deprivations” of constitutional rights, such as the trespassing/illegal searches committed by defendants Gulland and Juntunen.  These were 4^th, 5^th [151a], and 14^th Amendment violations used purposely to deprive plaintiffs of due process, the Constitutional right to privacy, and equal protection of the law.  Section 1983 lawsuits for money damages are allowable against local government officials in their individual capacity, since local officials acting in an individual capacity are “persons” for Section 1983 liability, and thus are not protected by the 11^th Amendment.  McDonald v. City of West Branch, Michigan, 104 Sup. Ct. 1799 (1982). 

Both defendants Gulland and Juntunen were the final policymakers for the local government entity when they committed constitutional violations.  Defendant Thomson Township was aware of these violations and engaged in them by writing letters citing concerns and alleged code violations.  Plaintiffs wrote letters to Thomson Township expressing their concerns with trespasses and the conduct of defendants Gulland and Juntunen.  A section 1983 claim was made in the complaint on March 16, 2010, depositions, and Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Summary Judgment.

In Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may enjoin state officials from violating federal law.  Defendant Gulland, while hired by Thomson Township, was performing the duties as determined by the MN DOLI, a department of the state.  If the state can be held accountable for federal violation, it reasons that those without any rights to sovereign immunity would be accountable.

Respectfully,

Marvin Pirila & Gail Francette, pro se
1 N Cloquet Rd W

Esko, MN 55733
marvindp@msn.com