Blogger wins! Site protected by First Amendment.

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.

Advertisements

No Freedom of Speech for you! Linda Kogel, Attorney at Law.

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