S
SlayerofDragons
Guest
STATE OF South Dakota ) IN CIRCUIT COURT
) SS:
COUNTY OF YANKTON ) FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CIV. 97-597
RESPONSE TO MOTION
TO QUASH
1.The matter of Mr. Chavis bringing up harassment by posts on the Internet is clearly meant to be inflammatory. Under law people have such a right to post information, especially information that is true including the behavior of public officials. Incorporated is a copy of a Federal Courts decision concerning posts on the Internet. Mr. Chavis has argued that because there is a protection order is in place that no postings concerning Amy Lyngstad’s crimes should be posted. The 6th paragraph of the Judge’s ruling clearly addresses the matter in the matter of speech the protection order is unconstitutional with the cited cases. Mr. Chavis has never cited any illegal action advocated by the posts. The Internet is an area of free speech .Bob Chavis alleges those copies of Ashley’s and Michaela’s faces containing bruises and the police report where Social Services claimed they were digitally altered. A legit question is why the police and States Attorneys office never asked to see the negatives. Mr. Chavis has alleged that Amy Lyngstad’s personal information was posted including her multiple Social Security numbers all information, which can be obtained through filed public Court, documents. Amy Lyngstad’s conviction record is a matter of public record with multiple convictions and her firings from her job are also public Court records and why is she allowed multiple violations when others serve jail time for less. Also on the day of 22nd of December 2000 Bob Chavis testified that “He also posted these on the Internet.” Referring to pictures of the children. In contrary to the Federal Court’s ruling Mr. Chavis says I have no Right to the Freedom of Speech.
The primary purpose of bringing up the matter of Amy Lyngstad is to stop criticism of the States Attorneys office from appearing on a public forum a clear violation of the First Amendment. (Exhibit A)
William Sheehan III v. King County, Experian aka TRW. No. C97-1360WD United States District Court. Also incorporated are 2 articles of a New Jersey’s Court ruling on Anonymous posts on a net bulletin board . In the case of CR. 00-42 which Mr. Chavis had a warrant issued to search for posts and email on the Press and Dakotan servers on which the Yankton Chat was hosted. According to the article the warrant on the Press and Dakotan was illegal, I never received a subpoena that they were doing such a search, there was no demonstration anyone suffered harm from the posts. The claim of email being sent to Amy Lyngstad by the police and the States Attorneys office in violation of a protection order is a false accusation in order to make a case although Amy testified she had no computer. Also in the February 4th, 1999 edition of the Yankton Press and Dakotan Chavis stated “ that it is more serious to (me), that perjury may have been committed by agents and employees of law...” referring to an investigation into Yankton bars. The matter that the Yankton police are accused of perjury by the States Attorney should cast doubt on the testimony by police in my case too unless there is a double standard.
2. On May 5th, 1998 Amy Lyngstad/ Wagner was sentenced by the Honorable Mary Dell Cody for insufficient funds checks with 30 days jail time suspended on the condition Amy Lyngstad not have any similar offenses for one year.
3.On April 26th 1999 a case of insufficient funds checks was against Amy Lyngstad was filed in Court and the sentence on June 6th 1999 was to have no similar offenses for one year. Under law Amy should have had to serve the 30 days for violating the conditions of the Court for her 1998 conviction.
4.Filed on November 2, 1999 there were 3 complaints of passing check against a nonexistent account, which violated her April 1999 conditions of the Court and again no jail time. Amy was placed on probation at the time yet has been allowed to violate her previous conditions of the Court. Her probation states “The Defendant shall obey all Federal, State, local and municipal laws and be a good law abiding citizen.”
5.On July 18,200 Amy was convicted in Bon Homme County of Disorderly Conduct and was to have no similar offense for one year.
6.On August 19,2000 Amy was convicted in Yankton County for Disorderly Conduct in violation of the previous conviction in Bon Homme County and her probation.
7.On June 6 2001, Amy Lyngstad pled guilty to no drivers license and no mention is made she did not have to my belief no valid drivers license from July 18 1999 to July 27 200l. She was convicted of DUI February 22 1999 and license was suspended and my belief she never renewed it. Amy drove for 2 years without a valid driver’s license. By reference Unified Judicial System report ID: 748677 is already incorporated in file 97-597.
8. Amy appears in the April 13,2002 edition of the Press and Dakotan for a conviction of speeding with a 91 dollar fine.
9. In the Sioux Falls Argus Leader on April 13 2002 she has a judgment entered against her for 538.22 dollars awarded to MoneyLenders in Sioux Falls SD. It is public knowledge one secures this type of loan by writing a check. It would be my belief that Amy wrote a bad check to the agency for a loan and their recourse in payment was to get a Judgment
10. October 27,2001 Amy was fired from Direct Check for reasons gave by Dan Henderson Director of Operations for Money Central. Amy did not have a job or attend school in November or December. The matter of Amy being fired from Direct Check, the police have a report, which could give the Court proof, Amy violated her probation. The letter referenced is already incorporated into file 97-597.
11. Amy was removed from her low-income apartment October 1, 2000 and lost her State Aid because of I believe Welfare fraud. She is in possession of a 25,000-dollar vehicle contrary to the laws governing who may receive welfare.
12. Attached is a letter from Bob Chavis to me concerning the matter of stalking by email, which was dismissed by his office. In the letter he mentions 2 charges of perjury being investigated against me for Court-Appointed counsel. He mentions a retirement fund not being included among his allegations. Attached is Amy Lyngstad’s application for Court-Appointed counsel. On it Amy makes no mention to her retirement benefits which are outlined in Judge Rusch’s Memorandum Opinion. Secondly the matter of some of the lines is blank and that Amy had no household goods is hardly believable. Also the matter at the bottom of the dates. It states Amy signed it on the 14 day of October 1999 and it was witnessed by Linda Kogel on the 15th day of October. Bob Chavis went over my application with a fine toothcomb yet Amy is allowed to do as she pleases in the same matter.
13. In the same letter Bob Chavis makes the accusations about e-mail. Already entered into the file is the Court transcript of Amy’s testimony that she did not own a computer and apparently Amy had not filed a complaint, the States Attorneys office did on it’s own. Amy did not have a computer so how she received any email was never explained. The only e-mail ever introduced as evidence was addressed to Linda Kogel and the matter of how someone can stalk someone else through an attorney was never addressed as Mr. Chavis dropped the charges. One page of the transcript is attached for easy reference. (Exhibit E)
14. The Motion brings up the matter of the False Reporting charge. Enclosed is a copy of the Yankton Police report on the matter. There are pictures copies of some already accepted by this Court in evidence. Brandi Adminski makes the allegation that the pictures were digitally enhanced and no one at the Yankton police department or the States Attorneys office wanted to see the negatives. The pictures were entered in file 97-597 with no objection that they were digitally altered.
16. Robert Mayer’s letter, which Bob Chavis has attached, is full of misleading statements. The pictures are mentioned again yet were accepted into evidence, Amy went to anger management for one year and has 3 arrests for simple assault and pled down to 2 convictions for disorderly conduct. Amy is quite capable of physical violence even in violation of her probation. The stalking, child abuse, violation of protection order complaints filed have been dismissed by the States Attorney or the Court on at least 3 occasions but no charges were ever filed for false reporting against Amy.
There is a lot more, Social Security number fraud , credit card fraud the question is why is this allowed and who in Federal Government investigates rights violations?
) SS:
COUNTY OF YANKTON ) FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CIV. 97-597
RESPONSE TO MOTION
TO QUASH
1.The matter of Mr. Chavis bringing up harassment by posts on the Internet is clearly meant to be inflammatory. Under law people have such a right to post information, especially information that is true including the behavior of public officials. Incorporated is a copy of a Federal Courts decision concerning posts on the Internet. Mr. Chavis has argued that because there is a protection order is in place that no postings concerning Amy Lyngstad’s crimes should be posted. The 6th paragraph of the Judge’s ruling clearly addresses the matter in the matter of speech the protection order is unconstitutional with the cited cases. Mr. Chavis has never cited any illegal action advocated by the posts. The Internet is an area of free speech .Bob Chavis alleges those copies of Ashley’s and Michaela’s faces containing bruises and the police report where Social Services claimed they were digitally altered. A legit question is why the police and States Attorneys office never asked to see the negatives. Mr. Chavis has alleged that Amy Lyngstad’s personal information was posted including her multiple Social Security numbers all information, which can be obtained through filed public Court, documents. Amy Lyngstad’s conviction record is a matter of public record with multiple convictions and her firings from her job are also public Court records and why is she allowed multiple violations when others serve jail time for less. Also on the day of 22nd of December 2000 Bob Chavis testified that “He also posted these on the Internet.” Referring to pictures of the children. In contrary to the Federal Court’s ruling Mr. Chavis says I have no Right to the Freedom of Speech.
The primary purpose of bringing up the matter of Amy Lyngstad is to stop criticism of the States Attorneys office from appearing on a public forum a clear violation of the First Amendment. (Exhibit A)
William Sheehan III v. King County, Experian aka TRW. No. C97-1360WD United States District Court. Also incorporated are 2 articles of a New Jersey’s Court ruling on Anonymous posts on a net bulletin board . In the case of CR. 00-42 which Mr. Chavis had a warrant issued to search for posts and email on the Press and Dakotan servers on which the Yankton Chat was hosted. According to the article the warrant on the Press and Dakotan was illegal, I never received a subpoena that they were doing such a search, there was no demonstration anyone suffered harm from the posts. The claim of email being sent to Amy Lyngstad by the police and the States Attorneys office in violation of a protection order is a false accusation in order to make a case although Amy testified she had no computer. Also in the February 4th, 1999 edition of the Yankton Press and Dakotan Chavis stated “ that it is more serious to (me), that perjury may have been committed by agents and employees of law...” referring to an investigation into Yankton bars. The matter that the Yankton police are accused of perjury by the States Attorney should cast doubt on the testimony by police in my case too unless there is a double standard.
2. On May 5th, 1998 Amy Lyngstad/ Wagner was sentenced by the Honorable Mary Dell Cody for insufficient funds checks with 30 days jail time suspended on the condition Amy Lyngstad not have any similar offenses for one year.
3.On April 26th 1999 a case of insufficient funds checks was against Amy Lyngstad was filed in Court and the sentence on June 6th 1999 was to have no similar offenses for one year. Under law Amy should have had to serve the 30 days for violating the conditions of the Court for her 1998 conviction.
4.Filed on November 2, 1999 there were 3 complaints of passing check against a nonexistent account, which violated her April 1999 conditions of the Court and again no jail time. Amy was placed on probation at the time yet has been allowed to violate her previous conditions of the Court. Her probation states “The Defendant shall obey all Federal, State, local and municipal laws and be a good law abiding citizen.”
5.On July 18,200 Amy was convicted in Bon Homme County of Disorderly Conduct and was to have no similar offense for one year.
6.On August 19,2000 Amy was convicted in Yankton County for Disorderly Conduct in violation of the previous conviction in Bon Homme County and her probation.
7.On June 6 2001, Amy Lyngstad pled guilty to no drivers license and no mention is made she did not have to my belief no valid drivers license from July 18 1999 to July 27 200l. She was convicted of DUI February 22 1999 and license was suspended and my belief she never renewed it. Amy drove for 2 years without a valid driver’s license. By reference Unified Judicial System report ID: 748677 is already incorporated in file 97-597.
8. Amy appears in the April 13,2002 edition of the Press and Dakotan for a conviction of speeding with a 91 dollar fine.
9. In the Sioux Falls Argus Leader on April 13 2002 she has a judgment entered against her for 538.22 dollars awarded to MoneyLenders in Sioux Falls SD. It is public knowledge one secures this type of loan by writing a check. It would be my belief that Amy wrote a bad check to the agency for a loan and their recourse in payment was to get a Judgment
10. October 27,2001 Amy was fired from Direct Check for reasons gave by Dan Henderson Director of Operations for Money Central. Amy did not have a job or attend school in November or December. The matter of Amy being fired from Direct Check, the police have a report, which could give the Court proof, Amy violated her probation. The letter referenced is already incorporated into file 97-597.
11. Amy was removed from her low-income apartment October 1, 2000 and lost her State Aid because of I believe Welfare fraud. She is in possession of a 25,000-dollar vehicle contrary to the laws governing who may receive welfare.
12. Attached is a letter from Bob Chavis to me concerning the matter of stalking by email, which was dismissed by his office. In the letter he mentions 2 charges of perjury being investigated against me for Court-Appointed counsel. He mentions a retirement fund not being included among his allegations. Attached is Amy Lyngstad’s application for Court-Appointed counsel. On it Amy makes no mention to her retirement benefits which are outlined in Judge Rusch’s Memorandum Opinion. Secondly the matter of some of the lines is blank and that Amy had no household goods is hardly believable. Also the matter at the bottom of the dates. It states Amy signed it on the 14 day of October 1999 and it was witnessed by Linda Kogel on the 15th day of October. Bob Chavis went over my application with a fine toothcomb yet Amy is allowed to do as she pleases in the same matter.
13. In the same letter Bob Chavis makes the accusations about e-mail. Already entered into the file is the Court transcript of Amy’s testimony that she did not own a computer and apparently Amy had not filed a complaint, the States Attorneys office did on it’s own. Amy did not have a computer so how she received any email was never explained. The only e-mail ever introduced as evidence was addressed to Linda Kogel and the matter of how someone can stalk someone else through an attorney was never addressed as Mr. Chavis dropped the charges. One page of the transcript is attached for easy reference. (Exhibit E)
14. The Motion brings up the matter of the False Reporting charge. Enclosed is a copy of the Yankton Police report on the matter. There are pictures copies of some already accepted by this Court in evidence. Brandi Adminski makes the allegation that the pictures were digitally enhanced and no one at the Yankton police department or the States Attorneys office wanted to see the negatives. The pictures were entered in file 97-597 with no objection that they were digitally altered.
16. Robert Mayer’s letter, which Bob Chavis has attached, is full of misleading statements. The pictures are mentioned again yet were accepted into evidence, Amy went to anger management for one year and has 3 arrests for simple assault and pled down to 2 convictions for disorderly conduct. Amy is quite capable of physical violence even in violation of her probation. The stalking, child abuse, violation of protection order complaints filed have been dismissed by the States Attorney or the Court on at least 3 occasions but no charges were ever filed for false reporting against Amy.
There is a lot more, Social Security number fraud , credit card fraud the question is why is this allowed and who in Federal Government investigates rights violations?