Dissappearing Absences after suspension
Posted: February 13, 2012 Filed under: Arrest, Civil Rights, Courts, cover ujp, cover ujp, Fraud, FBI, Government, grades, Laws, Social Services, South Dakota, South Dakota Blogs, South Dakota,, States Attorney, Uncategorized, Yankton, Yankton Blog, Yankton High School, Yankton School Distirct | Tags: absences, Amy Lyngstad, Corrupt Courts Yankton High School, grades, Judge Jim Anderson, Linda Kogel, truancy policey, Yankton, Yankton School Board Leave a comment »Yankton Schools new attendance policy ” the results are overwhelmingly positive”. Just what the public sees.
The end of February she had 54 absences. March 3rd the absences are reduced to 44. The first and second periods are removed for some reason. A different teacher for periods one and two now. The Yankton High School principle has been called 3 times and is too ‘busy’ to address any concerns. Congres.org
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
She was suspended from school for cutting classes and in school suspension which is still suspended. Semantics as Michaela has almost 100 absences this yead. The Yankton High Assistant principle says she is back in school on Monday.Link to call. Why is Lyngstad not arrested yet again? Daughter goes to some classes, skips others in the day according to the phone call. States Attorney was notified. Attorney’s can lie so why the assistant principle dissembles the truth.
No Freedom of Speech for you! Linda Kogel, Attorney at Law.
Posted: January 20, 2012 Filed under: Civil Rights, corrupt judges, Courts, cover ujp, cover ujp, Ethics, Government, Governor of South Dakota, Laws, Social Services, South Dakota, South Dakota Blogs, South Dakota,, Uncategorized, Yankton, Yankton Blog | Tags: ACLU, Amy Lyngstad, censorship, child porn, civil rights, DCI, EFF, First Amendment, Free speech, Governer, James W. Anderson, Jim W. Anderson Pierre, Judge Jim Anderson, Kristie Noem, law blogs, Linda Kogel, Linda Kogel attorney, Linda Kogel Law Office, Linda Kogel Vermillion, Political blogs, SD gov, South Dakota, South Dakota Blogs, Vermillion, weblogs, www.SD.gov, Yankton, Yankton Blogs Leave a comment »A portion of Linda Kogel’s Motion regarding custody of Michaela Wagner. Kogel signed the Motion to Censor his right to Free Speech, which is illegal.
Lee D. Anderson’s letter directing a Home Study and visitation. One would think the requirements would have been met since to Ordered visitation and Home Study.Kogel can file perjured documents without accountability. Exhibit 5 is this website. Judge Arthur Rusch did issue protective Orders ordering this site taken down but was unable to enforce them. The Court does not want the public to know that the Judges in South Dakota do not follow the laws as written. Wagner never said that but Linda Kogel does not have to fear perjury charges. Such as the children’s social securtiy numbers are posted. Never ever were they posted but she can lie her ass off and gets away with it. Read the Federal Opinion just released how the Framers of the Constitution felt about freedom of speech. The SD Courts do not feel the same way. Really Linda who is May Lyngstad? Don’t you proofread? Kogel has no proof of the site owner as required by law to even make this absrud attempt.
The last sentence is particularly bothersome as it directly defies the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Note the date it was signed, 3 days before the hearing. 15-6-6(d). Time for motion–Affidavits–Briefs. A written motion, opposing affidavits or briefs may be served not later than five days before the hearing, unless the court permits them to be served at some other time. A reply brief or affidavit may be served by the movant not later than two days before the hearing, unless the court permits them to be served at some other time. Judge Jim W. Anderson could care less about the law.
In his 27-page order, Judge Roger W. Titus wrote that “while Mr. Cassidy’s speech may have inflicted substantial emotional distress, the government’s indictment here is directed squarely at protected speech: anonymous, uncomfortable Internet speech addressing religious matters.” Page 10 onward talks directly how this site is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which Linda Kogel spits on. Congress.org letter to leaders.
Addressed here is just how corrupt the State of South Dakota government is, with Judges having free rein to trample people’s rights.
III. The Broad Protections Of The First Amendment
Under the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of
speech.” U.S. Const. amend. I. From our nation’s founding, there has been a tradition of protecting
anonymous speech, particularly anonymous political or religious speech. See Watchtower Bible &
Tract Society v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 162 (2002); Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.,
577 F.3d 240, 248 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Courts have typically protected anonymity under the First
Amendment when claimed in connection with literary, religious, or political speech.”) For example,
the Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, but published
under the pseudonym “Publius,” are in and of themselves the best example of anonymous political
speech. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 343 n.6 (1995). And the opponents
of the federalists, the anti-federalists, also used pseudonyms to publish their views anonymously.
True we are not in the same leauge as the Framers of the Constitution but they believed that the people should have a voice while the South Dakota Court does not.
As found on the internet on a people search site. James W. Anderson age 66 1819 Flag Mountain Dr Pierre, SD (605) 224-9683
Linda Kogel age 64 405 S University StVermillion, SD (605) 624-5210
sd.gov South Dakota, South Dakota Government, Pierre
Hoarders and Intervention
Posted: January 8, 2012 Filed under: corrupt judges, Courts, cover ujp, Crimes, Ethics, Government, Governor of South Dakota, Laws, Office of Victims Rights, Social Services, South Dakota Blogs, South Dakota,, Yankton | Tags: Amy Lyngstad, Child protection, Hoarders, Intervention, Yankton 1 Comment »In my opinion judging from her latest FaceBook page a candidate for the tv shows Intervention and Hoarders. Look at the background and all the weight loss from previous pictures.
Office of Professional Responsibility
Posted: January 13, 2010 Filed under: Civil Rights, Courts, cover ujp, Crimes, Fraud, FBI, Government, Identity theft, Identity theft Blog, John Thune, Laws, Senator John Thune, South Dakota, South Dakota Blogs, South Dakota,, States Attorney, Tim Johnson, Yankton, Yankton Blog, Yankton School Distirct | Tags: corruption, Identity theft, Linda Kogel, Office of Professional Responsibility, SD Attorney General, South Dakota, Tim Johnson, Yankton, Yankton Press and Dakotan Leave a comment »Will they do their job and find out why their was no federal prosecution for a federal crime and why the State Judges ignore federal law with the Sioux Falls Bureau condoning it?
SD Judicial Qualifications Commission, delivery refused!
Posted: January 2, 2010 Filed under: Courts, cover ujp, cover ujp, Crimes, Ethics, Fraud, FBI, Government, Identity theft, Identity theft Blog, John Thune, Judicial Qualifications Commission, Laws, SD Judicial Qualifications, Senator John Thune, Social Services, South Dakota, South Dakota Blogs, South Dakota,, States Attorney, Tim Johnson, Uncategorized, Yankton Blog | Tags: Anderson, Chief Justice Gilbertson, Corrupt Judges, Credit Card Fraud, First Premier Bank, H.A.L.T., HALT, Judges, Judicial Qualifications Commission, Linda Kogel, Political, Political blog, Rapid City, SD Bar, sdjudicial.com, Senator Johnson, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, South Dakota Blogs, South Dakota Supreme Court., southdakotagov, southdakotagov info, Yankton Blogs 5 Comments »Judge Gilbertson Order to show cause here where he admits the courts know about id theft, a State and Federal Crime
He never opened letters and sent them back. Yet he knows what they contain. Opponents of Amendment E lied about there is a way to deal with bad judges. Using your daughter’s identity for 5 years, with Court approval violates laws to no end. Travis was part of no on amendment e and should have been disqualified. Corruption at its finest.
Procedure on submitting a complaint to the SD Judicial Qualifications Commission. Link Obviously they too are above the law. “2. avoid impropriety and appearance of impropriety in all of their activities;” Allowing identity theft and child abuse is not improper?
Delivery of complaint about a bad JUDGES REFUSED. A certified letter was sent to them asking why after a year they have not done anything about the obvious judicial misconduct. They refused to take delivery. The opponents of Amendment E all lied to the public and since it is published their misdeeds they just ignore the law since they are above the law. SD Constitution states they are, yet they just flip the Constitution the bird. See below article 9
Judge Anderson did not sign for his mail, someone else did 10 days later. Who signed is a mystery.
March 5th, 2010 and no answer still from the Judicial Qualifications Commission. A year later and no action on the matter. “Judge” Anderson on Senator Johnson’s letter. Note he is too lazy to sign the letter, does not list any laws even though Amy Lyngstad committed a federal felonies against the minor daughter. He is one crooked Judge who has no regard for the law.
A letter from the Chairman of the South Dakota Judicial Qualifications Commission which raises a lot of questions as a year has now passed.
First his letter then a letter to Senator Johnson on his concerns about the JQC and how they are going to cover it up. Everyone assumes the Courts are honest and not corrupt so this does not make sense to people that the courts are actually corrupt carrying out their own agenda ignoring the law as written.
The JQC letter from last winter are found here:
http://southdakotagov.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/senator-tim-johnson/
Dear Senator Johnson,
In reference to your last letter on the Judicial Qualifications Commission here in South Dakota, last week I heard back from them, since their letters from last winter, which I forwarded a copy to your office.
Enclosed is the letter I received, which to me sounds like they were not going to do anything but for reasons unknown they changed their mind to at least discuss it or Judge Wilber the secretary did not tell the members?
To reiterate Judge Gilbertson will not allow me to file anything with the courts without his approval. I sent the matter of Amy Lyngstad using our daughter’s identity, a federal and state crime, and he sent it back in the original envelope. Judge (ret) Anderson has copies of the sheriff’s report and credit report as does the S.D. Attorney General’s office and Yankton States Attorney. The U.S. Attorney General, and Inspector General as well as the FTC have copies too. It is a federal crime to use your child’s identity and ruin their credit with criminal acts. Except in this matter why?
The Judicial Qualifications Commission no doubt will find nothing wrong with Amy Lyngstad using our daughter’s identity while the Court looks the other way. The court is supposed to protect the children under law. You are an attorney and should know this. I do believe I sent you a copy of Judge Anderson’s Order there is nothing new about the matter. They would not allow me to get my motion file stamped on the matter of identity theft giving them plausible deniability. The Courts are not open and now they have egg on their face as what I said was true. The JQC will say it is up to the prosecutor and he has prosecutorial discretion. The Yankton States Attorney was at one time Amy Lyngstad’s Attorney. In addition I believe given the record the Court is suppressing a prosecution. Why else would you allow someone to steal their children’s identity and not be prosecuted, never mind the 1000s of bad checks and different fake and real social security numbers Amy Lyngstad has.
The JQC will blame someone else, as no one has heard of any Judge in South Dakota being disciplined. Even an internet search shows no Judge has been disciplined. Hardly believable but when the Courts are corrupt and answerable to no one that would be the end result. Judge Anderson is retired so there is little under law the JQC can do to him. The Justice Gilbertson has my motions returned so he can claim he never heard of it. 9 months later they are going to discuss the matter is absurd.
I realize this is confusing as people assume the Courts are honest and this does not happen. The Courts are to protect the children, not allow the custodial parent to ruin their credit before they even become adults and federal law is quite clear this is a federal crime which has gone unprosecuted.
The trial court has a duty to ensure the children are protected at every turn. Williams v. Williams, 425 N.W.2d 390, 393 (S.D. 1988); Jasper v. Jasper, 351 N.W.2d 114, 117 (S.D. 1984).
So why did the State Courts allow it and why is there no federal prosecution for identity theft?
Article V, section 9 of the South Dakota Constitution is titled Qualifications commission. It reads:
The Legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of a judicial qualifications commission which have such powers as the Legislature may provide, including the power to investigate complaints against any justice or judge and to conduct confidential hearings concerning the removal or involuntary retirement of a justice or judge. The Supreme Court shall prescribe by rule the means to implement and enforce the powers of the commission. On recommendation of the judicial qualifications commission the Supreme Court, after hearing, may censure, remove or retire a justice or judge for action which constitutes willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance, disability that seriously interferes with the performance of the duties or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings a judicial office into disrepute. No justice or judge shall sit in judgment in any hearing involving his own removal or retirement. [9]
History: Section proposed by SL 1972, ch 2, approved Nov. 7, 1972.
H.A.L.T.
