LInda Kogel

A picture of the “attorney” that helped Amy Lyngstad get away with felonies such as identity theft,credit card fraud and child abuse. She got her assed kicked in Court by someone that is not even an attorney and the Court found a deputy sheriff an unreliable witness. Linda Kogel filed a document with the court that was perjured. The document is posted and she got a way with out right lying to the Court. An attorney commits perjury in a SD Court and Judges along with law enforcement ignore it, it happens all the TIME!

Quite the picture of her out partying, looking quite dumb in my opinion.

Image

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