February 27, 2018
Feb 27 01:11 Close the elder care loophole Feb 27 01:59 LFR Exclusive: City Council tyranny Feb 27 02:10 LFR exclusive: Dr. Palmer's civil rights Feb 27 12:27 President Kaler's blatant bias
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Close the elder care loophole
When I read this article , I got pissed. First, it's bad enough to learn that an elderly lady "was sexually assaulted by a worker at Heritage House Assisted Living." This isn't an allegation. According to the article, "David DeLong was eventually criminally convicted of the assault." That's a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.
It's a finding of fact. Period.
Imagine how her son, Bob Krause, felt when he told the reporter "She couldn't cry out. She couldn't push him off. She couldn't tell anybody. She just had to lie there and take it." Krause would've been totally justified if he'd wanted to rip his mother's assailant's head off. That isn't what happened, though. Imagine Bob Krause's outrage "when state regulators investigated, they found Heritage House did nothing wrong, even though court records obtained by KARE 11 showed when another worker discovered DeLong in Krause's room with his pants and underwear around his thighs, Heritage House waited more than an hour and a half to call police."
Unfortunately, that isn't the end of Bob Krause's grief:
Bob says he wasn't told about the attack until a prosecutor called him several months later. By then, Jean Krause had died. "I've asked myself over and over again, why wouldn't they say anything and the only thing I can come down to is, you know, fear of being exposed," Bob said.
Why is that delay so significant? In part, because it may have shielded Heritage House from a lawsuit. Unlike most states, in Minnesota the law says a civil suit dies with the victim. So, when Jean Krause passed away, so did Bob's chance to hold Heritage House accountable in court.
"It's one of two states in America where if you run out the clock and that person dies for an unrelated reason, the lawsuit dies with the person ," said Mark Kosieradzki, an attorney who specializes in nursing home abuse and neglect cases.
Unfortunately, it's too late for Bob Krause to obtain justice for his mother's attack. If the legislature doesn't pass a bill to fix this stupidity, then it's time to throw all of the bums out. It's the legislature's affirmative responsibility to fix situations like this.
Nobody deserves this lengthy string of tribulation. Heritage House let an elderly woman get assaulted. Then staff at Heritage House sat silent after the attack was detected. At minimum, the staffers who noticed the attack and did nothing should be tried as accomplices. They aren't as guilty as the attacker but they should face prison time for their actions.
[Video no longer available]
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:11 AM
No comments.
LFR Exclusive: City Council tyranny
A little while ago, I received a phone call from Dr. John Palmer. Dr. Palmer informed me that he'd just been kicked out of the St. Cloud City Council meeting after attempting to speak about Costco's proposed purchase of land on the west end of St. Cloud.
Dr. Palmer is putting an article describing what happened. I will publish that article verbatim when I receive it. I won't edit it. I want LFR readers to learn what happened that led up to this tyranny. Before he started writing his article, though, Dr. Palmer wrote this email to the St. Cloud City Council:
I guess I should have insisted on my 1st amendment rights even thou I was not disrupting the meeting. Maybe next time I should toss a chair?
I do believe I am owed a public and formal apology. I was waiting for the council members to finish their discussion as suggested by my 1st Ward councilman when I was ordered to leave and given no reason. Each council member present could have defended my rights but you ignored the unlawful actions of the city attorney. When you read the post regarding the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling on public meetings you will understand my reference to chair tossing.
As a citizen of the City of St. Cloud, I am offended by your failure to act to protect a citizens rights. This was not the Administration's meeting; it was your council meeting. What message did your inaction send to the Citizens of St. Cloud. You lost the opportunity to be better informed by not allowing me to address the council regarding the sale of the Heritage Park land. I followed your rules respectfully, listened to Dave Master's wise counsel and then was removed from the council chambers. What are you afraid of that prevented you from allowing a citizen to exercise their constitutional rights. What choice did I have in the face of unreasonable use of police force? Based on what was happen nothing would have prevented an escalation of police action. What would you have done if the officer started to handcuff me and perp walk me out of the chamber? I certainly did not want the trouble of having to defend my rights in a court of law or spend a night in jail and that is why I did not stand my ground and assert my rights. Just because people in authority can abuse their power does not mean others should allow this to happen.
Here's the article written about the court case to which Dr. Palmer is referring. Here's the part pertinent to Monday night's tyrannical actions:
It's no longer illegal in Minnesota to disturb a public meeting, the state Supreme Court has ruled, reversing the conviction of a Little Falls woman who was charged with disorderly conduct for protesting before the City Council.
The 54-year-old law was deemed overly broad and potentially criminalized free speech , the court ruled Wednesday. "I feel like justice was finally served," said Robin Hensel, whose refusal to move her chair at a 2013 Little Falls City Council meeting was at the heart of the court's decision.
This ruling is directly on point to what happened with Dr. Palmer Monday night.
This isn't the first time Council President Lewis has ignored the Council's rules. She ignored the Council's rules during the Nov. 6 meeting when she adjourned the meeting while an open motion still hadn't been voted on. She adjourned the meeting after getting upset with City Councilman Jeff Johnson.
If Council President Lewis thinks that the gavel gives her unlimited authority, which she apparently thinks, she needs a refresher course in civil rights. Her actions were those of a tyrant, not of a public servant.
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:59 AM
Comment 1 by Justice Forall at 02-May-19 12:46 PM
Saint Cloud City Council Member & Local Attorney - This so called attorney is arrogant and condescending. Carol Lewis claims on her website that she is personal, caring and professional.... what a joke...she misleads ailing and incapacitated individuals who are desperately seeking legal help and advice with their SSA disability claim. She claims other practicing SSA disability law firms are part of the SSA Disability processing paperwork/rubber-stamp "Mill" ! When you ask her a question, she often will not reply or when replying she offers an offensive sarcastic remark. STAY FAR AWAY - FIND ANOTHER ATTORNEY/LAW FIRM !!!
LFR exclusive: Dr. Palmer's civil rights
Being Escorted Out of a City Council Meeting Was Not on My Bucket List
By John W. Palmer, Ph.D.
At tonight's St. Cloud City Council meeting, the sale of a portion of Heritage Park was up for consideration. As has become my practice during council meetings, I use an internet search engine to find facts related to the matter being discussed. Having previously searched for some basic information about Costco's business practices, my curiosity was peaked regarding investment in Costco. With the council discussion focused on their fiduciary responsibility, some information relevant to that discussion came to my attention. I moved to the dais as Councilman Hontos was finishing his commentary supporting his position on the sale. Having reach the dais, I waited for a pause in the debate and when the pause happened I asked if any council member would recognize me to speak to the issue before the council.
Under council rules, any council member may recognize a person to speak to the issue at hand. When no response was given, I repeated my request. Council President Lewis then said we are not doing that now, we're discussing the matter among the council. I unsuccessfully tried to have Council President Lewis follow the council rules and give all members of the council a chance to exercise their right to recognize a speaker. She repeated that that was not going to happen. Councilman Masters spoke up and advised me to wait until the council had finished its discussion to be recognized to speak.
While waiting for the council discussion to end I stayed at the dais. After a few minutes, I heard a voice behind me and to the right say: You need to leave where I was standing. I asked why and heard the voice repeat their statement. I then asked whether the speaker had heard what Councilman Masters had said and that I was waiting to be recognized. The voice which, I later learned, was that of the City Attorney said that I'm going to have the police officer escort me out.
When I returned to my seat and began to sit down, the officer said I had to leave the council chambers. Having believed that once I left the dais that the matter was resolved, I was shocked. Not wanting to create a scene and believing that a reasoned conversation with the officer could result in my return to the council chambers I left the council chambers.
In my conversation with the officer it became clear he was not going to allow me to return to the chambers, I asked him who had directed him to remove from the chambers. That is when I learned the voice was the City Attorney's. When I had a chance to search the internet for the recent Minnesota Supreme Court Ruling regarding behavior by citizens at public meetings, I found the following:
How a Chair Brought Down Minnesota's Law Against Disturbing Government MeetingsWhen I read the full article , it became crystal clear that what happened to me tonight was not within the legal power of the City Attorney, who is not an employee of the council, and was also outside of the powers granted to the City Council.
TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE | SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 By Matt McKinney
It's no longer illegal in Minnesota to disturb a public meeting, the state Supreme Court has ruled, reversing the conviction of a Little Falls woman who was charged with disorderly conduct for protesting before the City Council.
The 54-year-old law was deemed overly broad and potentially criminalized free speech, the court ruled Wednesday.
"I feel like justice was finally served," said Robin Hensel, whose refusal to move her chair at a 2013 Little Falls City Council meeting was at the heart of the court's decision.
Hensel, a grandmother and peace activist who frequently protests at Camp Ripley, said she never thought she would actually get charged when she moved a folding chair to the open space between the public galley and the City Council's dais.
"All I wanted to do was sit there quietly within eyeshot range of them and look them in the eye so that their conscience would be pricked," she said Wednesday. A video of the incident shows that it was peaceful and that she eventually agreed to leave the chambers with an officer of the law.
In its ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court sided with Hensel, saying: "The statute is broad and ambiguous, prohibiting any conduct or speech that 'disturbs an assembly or meeting,' whether expressive or not. An individual could violate the statute by, for example, wearing an offensive t-shirt, using harsh words in addressing another person, or even raising one's voice in a speech.
What happened tonight felt like I was living in authoritarian city and state. I hope no one ever has to endure what I endured this evening and that St. Cloud citizens will express their disappointment and outrage with the behavior of the City Council and City Administration.
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2018 2:22 AM
Comment 1 by Dave Steckling at 27-Feb-18 03:11 AM
Thank you Gary for this forum and allowing John to explain his ambush by Lewis henchman- an unauthorized city attorney. For the sake of the general welfare, all council members present tonite need to be ousted. Will all voters please contact their councilman and register your complaints.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Feb-18 07:48 AM
Thanks for compliment, Dave. It's important to stand up to tyrants. I can tolerate Hontos. After that, I'm unimpressed.
Comment 2 by John Palmer at 27-Feb-18 08:20 AM
Early this morning I got an Email from Council President Lewis stating 'I did nothing to have you escorted out.'. She clearly did nothing to prevent a violation of my first amendment rights. To paraphrase a often repeated admonition, all it takes for bad behavior to persist is for good people to do nothing.
Comment 3 by Patrick Mattson at 27-Feb-18 12:22 PM
Is this the same Carol Lewis who was on the STC school board? I seem to recall there was a lot of "her way or the highway" during those years.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Feb-18 12:41 PM
I'm not sure about that but this Carol Lewis ran against King Banaian for the HD-15B seat in 2010.
Response 3.2 by Gary Gross at 28-Feb-18 08:10 PM
That's the same Carol Lewis.
President Kaler's blatant bias
U of M President Eric Kaler is blatantly biased against conservatives. He's quoted as saying "We are : mindful of the fact that he is a controversial speaker and that at several places where he's spoken, protests have objected, and we intend to ensure the event is safe for all who attend." That's dizzying spin and then some. Ben Shapiro isn't controversial to anyone that's mainstream. Period. That President Kaler thinks he's controversial because a bunch of left wing anarchists say he's controversial indicates that Kaler is either an intellectual lightweight or that he's a far left sympathizer.
PS- I'm tired that academicians immediately cave the minute far left anarchists (like Antifa and Black Lives Matter) threaten to protest. The thought that Ben Shapiro is controversial is laughable.
The U of M didn't move Elizabeth Warren's speech when she spoke there. She's significantly more controversial than Shapiro. That's because conservatives cherish free speech while anarchists don't. That's verified in this:
He said that in a harshly critical review in The Washington Post of a new book, "Must We Defend Nazis?: Why the First Amendment Should Not Protect Hate Speech and White Supremacy." In that book, authors Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic advocate what Dershowitz says amounts to a "free speech for me, but not for thee" credo favoring the left.
Further, that's a wimp's excuse. If the U of M won't stand up to these anarchists/rioters, they'll continue disrupting events. They'll keep censoring conservatives with a publicized threat.
What's required is for the U of M, starting with President Kaler, to grow a pair and stand up to these anarchists. Have lots of security for the event. If the anarchists get out of hand, arrest them and prosecute them to the maximum extent allowed. If some of them get convicted of felonies and it ruins their lives, so be it.
Further, these aren't kids. They're adults . If they won't act like it, put them in prison and teach them that society won't tolerate their spoiled brat behavior. But I digress.
I couldn't put it better than this :
Wittingly or unwittingly, university administrators are often complicit in the suppression of conservative speech on campus, cloaking it in a concern for public safety.
The article continues, saying:
The University of Washington sought to charge the College Republicans group a $17,000 security fee, but was blocked from doing so by U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman, who held that such an exorbitant fee would effectively shut down the group's free speech rights.
Free speech shouldn't cost $17,000, especially when public safety wouldn't have been an issue at all were it not for the intolerant, violent left. Pechman, a 1999 judicial appointee of President Bill Clinton, rightly vetoed what effectively would have been a heckler's veto.
That's fantastic. It's time to veto the heckler's veto. It's time to tell these punks that they won't get their way just because they're threatening conservative events.
I'd love hearing President Kaler's explanation of whether this is controversial:
[Video no longer available]
The U of M (and other universities) need to grow a pair.
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:27 PM
No comments.
