I have been defamed by Victor E. Lund, attorney for Jim D'Angelo, Peter Freeman, and the Nexus Corporation.
Yes. He defamed me.
How? Victor Lund lied. He lied about me. He lied about what I'd written, about things I said. He personally testified to all the judges who have heard the lawsuits against me, and in doing so, he committed perjury. At least, to my knowledge, lawyers aren't suppose to lie to the court. They have a code of ethics they are bound to uphold. So if "perjury" is an incorrect term, please don't sue me. (They like to pick out certain words to sue me over... like "egocentric" and "arrogant", stuff like that.) Some of what he said is not defamation since it is his personal opinion, and everyone but me is entitled to his opinion... But I have to tell you, what he said about me? Its way uglier than anything Hannabelle said, even when she was really working at it. At least I based my opinions on facts. He just pulled his out of his ass.
Anyway, Victor Lund offered more than his opinion when he told the judges that I said that Jim D'Angelo sent me death threats. I never said that. I never said that JIM D'ANGELO is the one who threatened me. (I think I said "Poopsie and Company") Plus, I was being sarcastic. The fact is, Ladies and Gentlemen, that Jim D'Angelo told me that he was going to alert board members and employees as to my blog and website. At one point, he indicated that he was going to enlist them in opposing my opposition.... Does that make sense? You know - sic the dogs, round up the posse, rally the troops... That sort of thing. Shortly after he told me that, I began receiving harassing anonymous comments on this blog. I received one comment I interpretted to be a death threat. (Poncho agreed. So did the FBI agent I was in contact with.) I never said that D'Angelo is the one who sent the death threat. His LAWYER is the one who said I said it... His lawyer lied.
I can't accuse anyone of the death threat, but I have an idea who it was. And that person had MLA connections. But no matter who the individual is, the fact is that MLA supporters tried to intimidate me shortly after Jim D'Angelo told me he would be enlisting the assistance of his employees. That is why I said "Poopsie AND COMPANY" and not just "Poopsie". It is interesting to note that Jim D'Angelo himself decided that he was Poopsie. He claimed it as his own. I believe Jim D'Angelo had no knowledge of the actual death threat. But I also believe that he is, at least in part, responsible for the harassment and intimidation I endured prior to completion of the sex offender facility. I can tell you that I hold him totally responsible for the harassment and intimidation I've endured since. He chose to sue me, after all.
Victor Lund also said in his brief to the Minnesota Court of Appeals in the Nexus case that I have already been found guilty of dafamation. He says I admitted making the defamatory statements. I never admitted making defamatory statements. Not ever. I admitted making statements which he argues are defamatory. It has yet to be decided if by calling Jim D'Angelo a "snake" I am guilty of defamation. I'm not too worried about it.
What does worry me is that Victor Lund can get away with murder in front of these judges. He has told each judge: " [Victor] I think she just sits at her computer making things up because she thinks its funny." He has attacked my character with such vehemence that the judges are prejudiced against me from the get-go. He portrays Goliath as a victim of Little Davy. (And the only sling I ever had was on my arm - after I fell off a horse.) Victor calls me things like "gadfly", says I'm a malicious person who just wants a little attention. He implies that the OACRG only existed in my own mind. He says I like to pretend I'm the media. What's the difference between that and "we like to think he's kinky"? What I said was in the context of a blog. He said it in a legal document... He has presented my words out of context. He has claimed knowledge about my motivation - which of course he characterizes as NOT trying to procure favorable government action.
Everything. I mean EVERYTHING I said, wrote, or did was to procure government action favorable to my cause, i.e. to stop them from ruining my neighborhood and my life. How can Victor say otherwise? Why would anybody believe Victor? Folks, our justice system is in trouble.
A couple of the allegedly actionable statements on which Victor dwells are contained in the email I sent to Peter Freeman's department head. One says something about Peter being involved in "immoral, unethical, and possibly illegal" activities. That upsets the judges a lot. How dare I say such things!!!!! Well, Dear Readers, I said it because I believe it to be true.
I believe it is immoral to actively seek to remove a person's power of self-determination. What the Onamia city council did to us (and here I go- talking about the GOVERNMENT again... silly me) - what they did infringed on our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In fact, they knew that what they were pursuing was destroying our happiness - and did it anyway. Ho-hum. Again, we have been denied the power of the vote, and we as citizens had no representation. Remember - No Annexation Without Representation? Yeah. So it is my opinion that it is immoral to actively seek to remove a person's power of self-determination. This is still America, right? Peter Freeman was on the board of directors of the company that was forcing themselves into our neighborhood against the will of the people who live there.
I believe it is unethical to build a sex offender facility in a residential area. I'm not alone in this. In my research, one director of such a facility told me that the Nexus location was inappropriate and added that it was not only bad for the community, it was detrimental for the inmates. Peter Sex offenders do not belong next to elderly widows and day care. That should be a no-brainer.
Jim D'Angelo assured us that Nexus looked forward to working with the citizens. At the time, I believed him. I contacted most of the board members - but none of them would return my calls. Freeman was a Social Work professor at St. Thomas University. Who better to understand that Nexus would be making a mistake to relocate to the proposed site?
MN STATUTE 462.357 states that juvenile sex offender institutions are not permitted in R1 zoned areas. That could be why the Onamia city council zoned the Nexus sex offender facility as R2. They somehow managed to circumvent the law. Illegal? PERHAPS. But that wasn't even what I was referring to in the email. Anyway, similar institutions are zoned Government or Institutional or even Commercial. The Nexus facility was zoned R2.
So, I believe that Peter Freeman, as a professor in Social Work had enough training to know better. But there he was, definitely volunteering to put sex offenders next to my mom. Do I believe that's unethical? Hell, yeah! I had hoped that his colleagues could enlighten him, talk some SENSE to him. But instead, he became embarrassed and sued me.
Now the "possibly illegal" part. Hey, I'm not a cop. I'm not a lawyer (although I'm currently attending law school in the Minnesota Court of Appeals.) And most importantly - I'm not an accountant. We found some interesting financial figures and practices that were suspect. I won't take back what I said about "possibly illegal". I still don't know. But I'm sure things will come out at my trial. Make that trials.
Now, the felony conviction of Mille Lacs Academy Director Paul Lynn Smith for embezzlement, etc. doesn't have any bearing in my own legal troubles. I had nothing more than a suspicion and deep dislike of that crook. I didn't have any confirmation of Smith's illegal activities until long after Nexus found out. Is everybody okay with Paul working with disturbed kids up until his trial?
IMMORAL, UNETHICAL, AND POSSIBLY ILLEGAL....
I stand by what I wrote. But the judges haven't heard from Hannabelle yet. They will. I have a lot to tell the juries too. Victor is so wrong in so many things, but at the top of the list is his assertion that I want attention. No. I want all the attention focussed on his clients.
In my opinion, Victor Lund has performed brilliantly - and I would highly recommend him to any sleezy company who simply can't cope with a disabled, middle-aged music teacher - and needs a creative lawyer who will do anything - even cheat - to win a bogus case or two.