Amy Lyngstad got a Temporary Protection Order (TPO 12-585) against her ex husband. She testified that he is coming to her house at night. Problem for her was he was working and the Court found her testimony unreliable, legal speak for she is a liar. Lyngstad also put her daughter on the stand and had the daughter perjure herself. The Judge again found the testimony unreliable. The older daughter also testified and her testimony was deemed unreliable. Amy Lyngstad also testified that her ex goes to the daughter’s work and harasses her while her daughter testified he did not. Perjury seems to be Amy Lyngstad’s middle name and why not she knows she will not be prosecuted. The transcript too will be posted.
The best part was that Lyngstad wanted the Court to take the website down. After a thorough findings of facts and conclusions of law this website under the First Amendment of the United States is protected speech.
The findings of facts and conclusion of law will be posted when available. Amy Lyngstad now commits libel and slander against her ex husband saying he is stalking her with this website after the ruling. Under law the Judge has no jurisdiction on the matter of her attorney, Linda Kogel, filing perjured documents.
Bottom of page Lyngstad wants this site taken down.
Employer testified that her ex was at work, not in Utica. Her daughter testified her father did not come into her work and harass her as Amy Lyngstad testified too.
This site is NOT stalking Amy Lyngstad but the site is showing with a few exceptions that the Courts, Prosecutors and law enforcement don’t follow the law when it comes to Amy Lyngstad. Why is it Amy Lyngstad is not arrested for identity theft and child abuse when the evidence is quite clear she committed both child abuse and identity theft. Or her Attorney Linda Kogel along with her client and 2 daughters also committed perjury? Amy Lyngstad lied her ass off in Court.Even by a preponderance of the evidence she did not get a protection order, not the reasonable doubt standard. Amy Lyngstad does not want the public to know she is a child abuser, identity thief who social services, law enforcement, and prosecutors cover for. Where is the Amy Lyngstad exclusion?
22-29-1. Perjury–Violation. Any person who, having taken an oath to testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any state or federal proceeding or action in which such an oath may by law be administered, states, intentionally and contrary to the oath, any material matter which the person knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.
Source: SDC 1939, § 13.1237; SL 1976, ch 158, § 29-1; SL 2002, ch 113, § 1; SL 2005, ch 120, § 30.
22-29-3. Incompetence of witness no defense. It is no defense to a prosecution for perjury that the accused was not competent to give the testimony, deposition, or certificate of which falsehood is alleged. It is sufficient that the accused actually was required to give such testimony or made such deposition or certificate.
Source: SDC 1939, § 13.1242; SL 2005, ch 120, § 32.
22-29-6. Subornation of perjury–Violation–Punishment. Any person who intentionally procures another person to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury. Subornation of perjury is punishable in the same manner as perjury, and as if the suborner were personally guilty of the perjury procured.
Source: SDC 1939, § 13.1237; SL 1976, ch 158, § 29-3; SL 2005, ch 120, § 35.