The Order dated July 22nd, 2010 says it all. Starting with the second page (3) identity theft that the SD Supreme Court did not want to hear about. This site is replete with documentation of Amy Lyngstad committing id theft with the latest known instance being last December. The South Dakota Supreme Court knows all about the on going id theft and refuses to do anything about it in addition to punishing the complainant by sanctions so nothing gets filed.
Brief History of an id theif, Amy Lyngstad link.
Canon 2 states, “A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPOROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES”. Gilbertson allows identity theft in the name of payback.
Gilbertson kicks JAIL to the curb webpage and since Wagner was a supporter of J.A.I.L. for Judges Gilbertson is able to abuse his office to no end.
But suppose — and Kaplan says she’s heard tales of such situations — a parent whose credit has been ruined uses a child’s name and identity to open new credit accounts. Illegal? You bet.
“It’s illegal to pose as someone else,” Kaplan says, “but there is also a moral question: Do you want to punish your child and wreck their credit as well?” Amy Lyngstad has no morals, nor apparently do SD Judges and prosecutors. Linda Kogel her Vermillion attorney is complicit in such immoral acts.
Subject: ID Theft of Ashley Wagner CIV 97-597 Confidential Information
Sent: 4/4/2010 5:18 PM
was read on 4/5/2010 11:45 AM.
Rule of nine, Tyranny of one. Judge Gilbertson and his cronies are accountable to no one, not even the law.
South Dakota Supreme Court
Amy Lyngstad First Judicial Circuit of SD
V. CIV 97-597
Michael Wagner Response to Motion to Show Cause
Based on the terse wording of the Motion to Show Cause the Court seems to want the evidence and pleadings in the same standards as an attorney which this Court is not allowed to do. Crimes are being committed against Ashley Wagner, minor daughter while Amy Lyngstad uses Ashley’s name to commit felonies, with the evidence overwhelming which the Court refuses to acknowledge.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 520 (1971) In finding plaintiff’s complaint legally sufficient, Supreme Court found that pro se pleadings should be held to “less stringent standards” than those drafted by attorneys.
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants’ pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
To use a time line Ashley Wagner’s, minor daughter, credit report from Experian is attached as evidence and exhibit 1.
To establish Ashley’s birth date and social security number copies of her birth certificate and social security number are attached to exhibit 1.
First entry of the Experian Credit report shows that a judgment was entered against Ashley in February of 2005.Amy Lyngstad was on federal probation at the time for id theft. Sheriff’s Return, Exhibit B packet number 1, shows that Amy Lyngstad was served March 1st, 2005. The judgment was for an unpaid bill to Valyou.net a copy of the bill dated 12/20/2003, exhibit B (2). A utility to an apartment rented to Amy Lyngstad. Ashley would have been 10 years old at the time the bill was incurred. A variation of Ashley’s name was used. Judge Anderson asked her to pay the Judgment last a hearing last year. There is not time to get the transcript. The State’s Attorney was notified of id theft being committed by Amy Lyngstad in 2005 as shown by the letter from Yankton States Attorney, exhibit B(3).
The Judgment was vacated May 10th, 2010 by the Court, exhibit b (4). A letter from the Plaintiff, Collection Services, expressing concerns why nothing was done when the judgment was served to Amy Lyngstad by the Sheriff’s office, exhibit B (5). Officers of the Court knew that either Ashley or someone was using a fake name as shown by the Notice of Small Claims; exhibit B (6).
When the notice of hearing was sent to Ashley her mother could have went to the hearing and showed the Court that Ashley was a minor and the bill was not Ashley’s and the judgment would not have been placed into the record. Exhibit B (7) When Amy Lyngstad was served the judgment by the Sheriff she could have gone to Court and proven that Ashley was a minor and kept it off of Ashley’s record. Neither took place and the only logical conclusion was Amy Lyngstad used Ashley’s identity to get a utility hookup. A parent that cared and loved the children would have done something about a judgment against their child. The Judgment was vacated and B Y Electric and Credit Collections are out their money. Based on this alone the sanctions should be lifted as no legal or logical reason for a parent to commit id theft against the child or commit felonies in the child’s name should not be tolerated by the Court. Officers of the Court and Law Enforcement knew this was taking place.
On the last page of the Ashley’s credit report are 2 entries, one for Social Security number variations and one for birth date. Ashley was not born in 1968. Since the Court will not grant subpoenas it limits the evidence of what applications the fake information exists on. Since Amy Lyngstad has used fake social security numbers and birthdates there is no telling what our other daughter’s credit history is since she is a minor too.
Yankton Sheriff’s report, exhibit C, shows an investigation of id theft of Ashley but since the States Attorney in his letter states incorrectly that Amy Lyngstad can commit id theft since she was convicted in 2005 for Identity theft. The Sheriff’s office was involved in serving a judgment to a minor and would not want to bring attention to that fact in a prosecution of Amy Lyngstad I believe.
March of this year I was notified by Experian that someone had used Ashley’s name to get a credit card at First Premier Bank in Sioux Falls South Dakota, exhibit D (1). Even with a credit block on Ashley’s name a credit card was issued in her name.
After sending the Bank the required documents and spending my money and time I was informed of what had transpired. Using the internet someone had filled out and gotten a credit card in Ashley’s name, exhibit D (2). Information used to establish the account was sent to me, exhibit D (3) using Ashley’s real name, a real Massachusetts social security number, and a fake birth date. The February bill from First Premier shows the account was reported lost or stolen, exhibit D (4).The March billing shows the account maxed out, exhibit D (5). The Yankton Sheriff’s office has all the evidence that id theft took place this year against Ashley. Either Ashley is following in her mother’s footsteps or Amy Lyngstad used a Ashley’s name in committing identity theft and credit card fraud. Since the bill was sent to 100 Robin Street #3 there can be no other conclusion since the Court limits my ability to get other information. A federal crime was committed against First Premier regardless.
Amy Lyngstad’s credit report personal information from several years ago shows she has used many aliases, addresses and a fake social security number in addition to the ones listed on her federal indictment for identity theft of which she was convicted in 2005.Exhibit E (1)
Amy Lyngstad was jailed for 10 days in April of 2007 for second driving while intoxicated conviction Exhibit F (1). The children were left alone for those 10 days. The Court nor Social Services notified the other parent, which should have been done.
Order dated August 14th, 2008 concerning child abuse of Michaela Wagner. Abuse was occurring and I was to see the report which I never was allowed to see. The Court ignores its own Orders in order to cover up child abuse. Exhibit G
The fact that someone is using Ashley’s identity while Amy Lyngstad does nothing is not frivolous. The credit report and First Premier documents show there is merit to my claims of ongoing identity theft of Ashley. It is inconceivable that a minor would get utility services for her mother’s apartment. An account for internet services was put in Ashley’s name and a judgment was issued against Ashley. Officers of the Court knew they had served a minor. There is a telephone and electrical hook up also on Ashley’s credit report. Amy Lyngstad did nothing about the Judgment. Amy’s criminal record is long including a conviction of identity theft. Her credit report shows she uses aliases, fake addresses and fake social security numbers.
This matter of allowing a felon to commit felonies against a child while the Court denying the facts and the other parent an opportunity to show that Amy Lyngstad is an unfit parent is an abomination of justice and the legal system. There is legal merit and legal reason for a change of custody. Judge Anderson knows about it and was notified per the previous sanction yet refuses to act. Email confirmation enclosed.
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)
The trial court and the Supreme Court have done nothing to protect the children. That the father who has not seen his children in 12 years had to clean up the bad credit of his daughter so she can start her adult life without bad credit that resulted from a felonious mother and vindictive Courts is an abomination of the Court and the legal system.
This is one of those situations where the trial court had the obligation to do more. Judges in these cases have the awesome responsibility to protect children and “the parents’ personal wishes and desires must yield to what the court in the discharge of its duty regards as the children’s best interest.” Shoop v. Shoop, 460 N.W.2d 721, 727 (S.D. 1990) (Miller, C.J., dissenting) (citing Jasper, supra; Williams, supra).
The Court has clearly not protected Ashley or Michaela but Amy Lyngstad a felon who continues to commit felonies knowing she has the Courts and prosecutors blessing.
22-11-12. Misprision of felony–Misdemeanor. Any person who, having knowledge, which is not privileged, of the commission of a felony, conceals the felony, or does not immediately disclose the felony, including the name of the perpetrator, if known, and all of the other relevant known facts, to the proper authorities, is guilty of misprision of a felony.
There should be no need to break down the laws in this matter. S.D. Codified Laws§22-40-1 to § 22-40-8 to 22-40-10 Identity theft
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Therefore based on the evidence and law the sanctions should be lifted and Motions Granted. Nowhere does it state that South Dakota State Court Judges should not be notified.
The legal abuse of the Courts is being done by the Judges not I.
Nowhere under law is it legal to commit felonies using your child’s information along with fake information. The evidence of the credit report, sheriff’s return, SD Court documents, sheriff’s report and First Premier documents along with the history of Amy Lyngstad shows the Court in issuing its sanctions errored. The Court cannot say there is not enough evidence when the Court limits the ability to get evidence. The Court has no reason to believe that Amy Lyngstad will not use either child’s identity since she has gotten away with it in the past with the Courts blessing. Amy Lyngstad’s history speaks for itself along with Ashley’s credit report and recent credit card fraud. The Yankton States Attorney and the Courts have been complicit in felonies committed against Ashley and felonies committed in Ashley’s name.
Therefore based on law and the evidence the sanctions should be lifted and the Motions Granted in the interest of the integrity of the Judicial system not condoning and being complicit in identity theft and child abuse. The Courts own records support the ongoing crimes against Ashley committed by the mother.
The Petition for Writ of Mandamus should be granted under law.
Judge Anderson to be ordered to hold a hearing on the change of custody based on the overwhelming evidence of id theft.
The Court to issue a written explanation on why id theft was allowed to occur with officers of the Courts intimate knowledge of the fact of felonies being committed.
Respectfully submitted this 28th day of July, 2010
Open Government, Open South Dakota, Open SD