Purpose Of This Site:

My Side of The Story | Social Awareness Lgislative Reform | Donate

Sunday, November 15, 2020

the last bit of this

 https://minnlawyer.com/wp-files/fulltext-092412/opa111795-091712.html


also.. hmm where have I seen Lori Swanson before, oh yeah (sarcasm(




after helping the seiu leaflet for her campaign. 

almost like with dfl ags seiu vps get to own their children.. I'm well aware the current is Keith Ellison. I put this picture here because Paul purgers himself claiming that in 2018 that kicked out their mentally ill son who was off his meds. I wasn't required to be on any meds I had mild PStd from 2004 that I sought counseling for. That was my decision even at 18 I'm not sure I would do it again considering it might only hurt me. But for the record at the time Paul and Marlene were telling 18 year old me in 200
Things like why do you think we messed you up so bad you need counseling . I have come home let off of work in mm for 3 hours early, my dad almost dead from an aortic aneurysm . At the time I didn't realize they messed me up at all some of the messing up I've done to myself but I'm not that messed up if laws we're enforced equally without age discrimination or fraternal membership another possibility I would probably be somewhere with my life by now. I don't want to think about how they messed me up I do need my stuff back and compensation for what they have screwed up in my life I need to not be poisoned by their decisions about their house and the toxic growth that resulted. They used ofp is in a manner basically take everything someone owns it start labor it's short more labor while destroying it while threatening to get rid of it will not letting someone touch it or stop the damage and then much like the rumors that ins is often called on payday.. ofp

boom threats to my animals threats to my personal property well telling me things like I'm not holding it from you come get it and then when I show up Maple Grove Police are called for simply sitting outside the house wondering why they're not answering. I never was given notice to move out my mom said she was my landlord when I move back in $6,300 of services at minimum rendered
My mom attempted to kill me during that timeframe of 8 months will throwing away will generally creating hell Terror and threatening to use commitment for the crisis center and have me medicated for what was confirmed by professional real mold that she insisted was delusional so they start filing false police reports. Between demanding labor that I've done in the past professionally and every time I turn around my ability to leave is gone because the keys are missing I put a key finder on it it was like burning $20 there was no ability there to maintain commitments because if I left or if I went in another room anything that I have would be in a new location including the garage floor or The Moldy basement carpet if I should so happen to raise my voice from across the room the police were called it was pure Terror done in such a manner where one moment they're demanding something so you think just fulfilled what they're asking for and it'll be okay but meanwhile they've already got a new list of what they're going to attack with next at one point I told my mom those are conflicting directives and she looks at me and says I know that's the point but then in the true sociopathic nature the next day they're not doing anything that never happened but tell tale is you push it far enough and fuck your recording is the response


But relevant to the link posted above I had 30 days to vacate the lease in St Cloud they forced under threat to all of my things held at their Maple Grove home and originally one still living therapy pet. Correction when they filed March 11th I had till the end of the month to vacate because the landlord wasn't happy with nine months of do the impossible remediate are moldy vehicle set Paul and Marlene forced. I had something like 19 days. I have recorded phone calls they knew the car broke down March 6th. They chose to file in Hennepin on March 11th 2020 Hennepin County 4th District Court I have text that demonstrate they were well aware I had to be out of phone calls demonstrating they were well aware why I had to leave this least they forced and that they knew the car was broken down screaming things like you have made me go hungry 30 days already last year because you're demanding this labor and not providing the budget to do it or realization that the conditions you have chosen make it impossible and burning money. But the relevant point above I did not and still don't have a real ability to manage even an appeal I did attempt to contact the court even without covid-19 scared for my life I am terrified


.

    We proceed to analyze whether the ex parte OFP that was served on Phipps and is the basis for his prosecution and conviction is unconstitutionally vague.

    The district court’s order finding Phipps guilty is based on paragraph 7 of the ex parte OFP, which states: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following additional relief is granted. No contact in person, by phone, by mail, by third party, or by any other means.” The phrase “no contact” is clear and understandable. The common meaning of the word “contact” is “[a] coming together or touching, as of objects or surfaces,” “[t]he state or condition of touching or of immediate proximity,” or “[c]onnection or interaction; communication.” The American Heritage College Dictionary 299 (3d ed. 2000). Paragraph 7 clearly states that all contact is prohibited. In context with paragraphs 1 and 2, it is obvious that Phipps is prohibited from having contact with Y.S.P. When faced with a challenge to a similar restraining order, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals concluded that “[t]he meaning of the sweeping negative ‘no contact’ . . . seems plain without need for any refined lexical exploration.” Butler, 661 N.E.2d at 667.

    Phipps contends that the OFP is vague because it does not expressly state that it prohibits contact even if Y.S.P. first contacts him. In fact, the order does prohibit contact in that situation; it does so because, without qualification or exception, it says that Phipps shall have no contact with Y.S.P. Phipps’s real concern may be the breadth of the no-contact provision. But breadth does not imply vagueness. If anything, the breadth of paragraph 7 undermines Phipps’s vagueness argument because the unqualified nature of the no-contact provision makes it clear that no contact whatsoever is permitted. We need not consider whether a person may be convicted of violating an OFP if the person is completely passive when confronted with a petitioner’s contact and does not reciprocate the petitioner’s first contact. Phipps cannot make such a claim because he apparently spent an entire day with Y.S.P. at his home.

    We conclude that the language of paragraph 7 has “sufficient definiteness” such that “ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited.’” Bussmann, 741 N.W.2d at 83 (quoting Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357, 103 S. Ct. at 1858). Thus, the no-contact provision of paragraph 7 is not unconstitutionally vague.

    D E C I S I O N

    The “no contact” provision in the ex parte order for protection is not void on the ground that it is unconstitutionally vague. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying Phipps’s motion to dismiss.

    Affirmed.

1The state did not argue that Phipps’s constitutional challenge is barred on the ground that it is an impermissible collateral attack because he did not appeal from the issuance of the ex parte order. See State v. Romine, 757 N.W.2d 884, 890-91 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Feb. 17, 2009). It is unclear whether Phipps had an opportunity to appeal from the issuance of the ex parte OFP. Thus, it is unclear whether Phipps could be precluded from challenging the constitutionality of the ex parte OFP following his conviction for violating that order. See State v. Ness, 819 N.W.2d 219 (Minn. App. 2012).








No comments:

Post a Comment

Minnesota Criminal Covictions with Civil Standards of Evidence after you put the lotion on your skin

 Minnesota has a VAWA law that they now claim is open to men to. I have no doubt it is but I would bet the arrests for men against men, men ...