1

From 1979 - 1990, I was employed by the State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services, as a degreed teacher at the Faribault Regional Center, Faribault, Minnesota. I had an exemplary work record and was well-liked and respected by all.
In 1989, I reported the abuse and neglect of the mentally retarded individuals at the Faribault Regional Center.
I was a Mandated Reporter. I was required by law (state statute) to report what I reported. The maximum penalty for me for failure to report was 90 days in jail and a $700.00 fine. Faribault Regional Center regulation stated, "Failure to report will result in disciplinary action. An individual who is aware of an incident and fails to report it becomes an accessory to abuse and neglect. Under Minnesota law, an employee’s intentional failure to report is a misdemeanor and may also make that person liable for damages caused by the failure."
After I reported, Faribault Regional Center retaliated against me. By anyone’s measure, the retaliation was brutal, inhumane, relentless, and consisted of just about everything. I have personal knowledge of other Faribault Regional Center staff who have been retaliated against such as myself for reporting abuse and neglect. Unfortunately, I did not learn of these persons until after I had reported. One person has a very credible account of physical injury due to FRC retaliation.

FRC management and those closely aligned with management retaliated against me in the following ways:

Demoted me.
Defamed me or told lies about me that were harmful to my reputation and caused me great loss. There was widespread defamation of me by multiple individuals, including the CEO, my supervisor, and other management personnel. I haven’t added up all the different times or incidents my supervisor defamed me but, for sure, there were hundreds of times, maybe a thousand or more times!
Fraudulent suspensions of me. Management lied in order to suspend me (Mr. Dennis Burgess, Day Program Services Director, lied about me and was caught in his lie).
Discriminatory surveillance of me on and off the job.
Total isolation and exclusion of me from staff meetings, social get togethers, and all other workplace activities.
Verbal harassment of me.
Sabotage of my office and contents and personal belongings.
Sabotage of my reputation among professional and direct care staff, department officials and others.

I was completely surprised by this retaliation against me because I had not heard of anyone else being retaliated against by FRC officials for reporting abuse or neglect or anything else. Also, management at the FRC made it very clear to all employees, through frequent and ongoing in-services and such, that all employees must report suspected abuse and neglect and that it was the right and good thing to do. In fact, I never even thought about it not being safe to report!

What I reported was accurate and true and has never been refuted (proved to be wrong) and can never be refuted. In fact, there is very much irrefutable (not capable of being proven wrong) and conclusive (putting an end to doubt, question or uncertainty) evidence to clearly show that this abuse and neglect occurred as I reported it.

At this same time, others were also finding the same kinds of mistreatment of these mentally retarded persons at FRC as was I, including the Office of the Ombudsman, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Human Services, and Minnesota Division of Licensing.

See attached Minneapolis Star Tribune news article entitled Reports Allege Abuse of Patients at Faribault.

Seeking help, I reported this retaliation through the chain-of-command, including Ann Wynia, Commissioner of the Department of Human Services. They all reassured me that they would look into this situation, but the retaliation or mistreatment of me only got worse.

Finally, after doing all I could to stop the retaliation short of a lawsuit, in February 1990, through my attorney, I filed a lawsuit in Ramsey County District Court naming the State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services and the Faribault Regional Center as defendants.
On April 5, 1990, through my attorney, I made a written offer to the State to settle this lawsuit. All I asked for was my job (not to be demoted), for the retaliation to stop and my costs (attorney fees, etc.). The dollar amount asked for was $23,700. I didn’t think my attorneys would ask for this much. I told my attorneys that I didn’t want any money for myself and that all I wanted was my job and to be left alone. The State made absolutely no response whatsoever to this settlement offer.
On April 19, 1990, I finally became unable to work as a result of the retaliation and took a medical leave of absence. I did not resign. The Faribault Regional Center would not renew my medical leave of absence and terminated my employment on July 20, 1991, even though I had formally requested this extension of my medical leave of absence and had presented to them my doctor’s order stating that I was unable to return to work at that time. I was unable to return to work because of the mistreatment by FRC officials. I was constructively discharged. The law considers a constructive discharge to be the same as being fired. In effect, then, I was fired.
On November 11, 1990, through my attorney, I made a written offer to the State to settle the lawsuit. Again, all I asked for basically was my job (not to be demoted), for the retaliation to stop, and my costs to date (attorney fees, lost wages, etc.). The dollar amount asked for was $94,000. The State flatly refused this offer of settlement and made no counter offer.
In a proceeding called Summary Judgment, District Court Judge DeCourcy ruled on October 3, 1991, that my lawsuit would not be dismissed or thrown out of court. He ruled that my lawsuit would go forward to trial.

After Summary Judgment and before trial, the State appealed Judge DeCourcy’s Oct. 3, 1991, ruling to the high courts of Minnesota or the Appellate Courts (the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court). The State wanted the Appellate Courts to rehear the Summary Judgment issues that had already been heard and ruled on by the District Court.

These courts granted the State’s appeal or request for review of the October 3, 1991, Summary Judgment ruling even though there was absolutely no basis or jurisdiction for these courts to hear this appeal. The hearing of this appeal by these courts was a hoax on me!

The question then is how could these courts hear the State’s appeal when there was, as I said, no legitimate legal issues to hear or no legal or legitimate basis for the hearing of this appeal. These courts made this appeal appear legitimate by misrepresenting the facts of my case! They used my name and my case number but not the facts of my case! These courts had all the relevant facts of my case regarding the issues of this appeal, but they ignored these facts of my case and "made up" facts regarding my case that in no way related to my case. They can hear any case on anything of they do not use the facts of the case.

A before trial appeal is allowed only if there are issues that need to be resolved before trial. These appellate courts have stated "During the delay caused by interlocutory (before trial) appeal, evidence grows stale and budgets are strained. This runs directly counter to the stated goals of the conduct of civil actions in this state to ‘secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.’ Minn. R. Civ. P. 1."

The decision or ruling by these courts regarding this appeal was irrelevant and of no consequence to my case and this holds true even considering in the fictionalized or "made up" set of facts that these courts used as I described in the paragraph above. There was no question of law or facts that needed to be decided here with the hearing of this appeal by these courts regarding my case or the fictionalized case that they made up. Whatever decision these courts made concerning this appeal made absolutely no difference to my case. These courts could’ve ruled in my favor or they could’ve ruled in the State’s favor regarding this appeal, but no matter what way they would rule, the ruling would have no value whatsoever to my case legally or otherwise.

This appeal took 3 years! Why should I have to pay for a costly (in money and time "justice delayed is justice denied") three year appeal that has no relevance to my case — an appeal that does not use the facts of my case and does not decide any issues or matters relevant to my case or needed in my case.

Trial was held in December of 1994. Before trial, Judge DeCourcy ruled that I was to receive a jury trial. Then, mysteriously, Judge DeCourcy, the judge assigned to my case since 1991, was removed from my case just before trial and replaced with Judge Connolly.

The jury ruled in my favor but Judge Connolly ruled that I would not get a jury trial. He completely ignored the law that was by law the law to be used and thereby took away my constitutional right to a jury trial. If this judge had used the law, he could not have taken away my jury trial right.

After this judge wrongfully (against the law) took from me my right to a jury trial, he then took the place of the jury and made a ruling in favor of the State. He did this by repeatedly misrepresenting the trial testimony and evidence and then he used these misrepresentations of the trial record as his basis for ruling in favor of the State. In other words, he created untruths about the trial testimony and evidence and then he used these untruths as his basis for giving me an adverse ruling. He also did not use the law at all in ruling in favor of the State. He could not have ruled in favor of the State if he had used the truth about the facts and evidence of my case! Likewise, he could not have ruled in favor of the State if he had used the law!

Judges are not allowed to do this. By law, they must use the law in making a judgment. They also must use the true facts of a person’s case in making a judgment. When a judge does not use the law and the true facts of a person’s case, a person does not receive their constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the law.

In addition to the above, this judge made other court room rulings throughout trial in which he did the same kind of things regarding the law and the facts of my case as I have described above. This was very harmful to the integrity of my case as presented to the trial court and to the jury.

I have prepared a complete and comprehensive written legal analysis which names all relevant facts, laws, documents, trial testimony and such that shows just exactly how Judge Connolly did as I describe here.

I appealed Judge Connolly’s ruling to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals is required by state law to release their opinions no later than three months unless there is a good cause to prolong the releasing of the opinion beyond the three months. This court took over ten months to release their opinion regarding my appeal and they had no good cause for doing so.

Finally, on October 22, 1996, the Minnesota Court of Appeals released their unpublished opinion regarding my appeal. I received an adverse or unfavorable ruling on all three issues that I had before this appellate court. This ruling meant that I would not recover any of my losses, including my job, pension, lost wages, reputation, career, out of pocket attorney fees and other costs that I had already paid out amounting to approximately $50,000, and that I was (and I still am) in great financial debt (approximately $225,000 in attorney fees plus compounded interest since January 1995). One attorney has now threatened legal collection action against me.

Following this ruling, I discovered that Judge Randolph Peterson, Judge Marianne Short and Judge R. A. Randall, through their Court of Appeals ruling regarding my appeal, committed fraud ( a deliberate deception for unfair or unlawful gain, swindle) against me. In other words, I discovered that this court panel maliciously committed a legal crime against me. If this court panel had not swindled me (by swindle I mean to cheat or defraud of money or property), I would’ve had a favorable ruling on all three issues that I had before this court panel and, therefore, I would’ve recovered all my losses as listed above. By swindling me, these judges have stolen from me my Constitutional rights to a jury trial and Due Process and Equal Protection under the law.

In a ruling, a judge can make errors or mistakes. A judge does have some discretionary power (some choices by law are left to a judge’s own judgment). But a judge cannot swindle a citizen of this state by way of their ruling as they have done to me. A judge at all times must follow the law in making their decisions. These judges repeatedly did not follow or use the law in their ruling of my case. These judges swindled me ( further in this section I describe how they did swindle me) and, by doing so, committed legal crimes against me that I can prove beyond any doubt.

I can prove beyond any doubt:

That these judges contrived (plotted with evil intent; schemed) to take away my constitutional rights to a jury trial and to equal protection and due process under the law.
That these judges did carry out this evil plot by stealing from me my constitutional rights to a jury trial and to equal protection and due process under the law.
That these Judges have committed serious legal crimes against me and are guilty of serious criminal misconduct.
That these judges, through illegal means and for personal profit, maliciously and knowingly have brought great harm and loss upon me and my family.
That these judges "fixed" (illegally prearranged as to outcome) their ruling of my case to give me an adverse ruling by using the fraudulent tactics I describe below, including lying about the law repeatedly.

The goals of these judges in their October 6, 1996, ruling of my case were not only to give me an adverse or unfavorable ruling through unlawful means, but they also wanted to fool or trick me into believing that their ruling was legitimate or lawful. And, I would’ve been tricked if I had not done the legal research of my ruling. My lawyer at this time did not inform me of what they had done to me.

These judges committed these criminal acts against me by cleverly weaving together into my ruling a number of fraudulent tactics. Please see below for a listing and a brief description of each of these fraudulent tactics that were used by these judges.

These fraudulent tactics, as referred to above, are as follows:

This Appellate Court panel misrepresented Supreme Court case laws. They fraudulently misquoted Minnesota Supreme Court case laws and then fraudulently used these misquoted case laws as the authority, reason and justification for their decisions in my ruling.

This Appellate Court panel horribly misrepresented the Restatement of Torts Second in my ruling. They fraudulently misrepresented the Restatement of Torts repeatedly in my ruling and used these misrepresentations of the Restatement as the authority, reason and justification for their decision in my ruling.

In this ruling, this Appellate Court panel repeatedly stated untruths concerning the trial record and used these untruths about the trial record to give me an adverse ruling. This is significant because when this court panel horribly misrepresented the trial record of my case by stating that information and documents were in the trial record when they were not and that information and documents were not in the trial record when they were, they can virtually make my case anything they want it to be and, consequently, give me an adverse ruling and this is exactly what they did.

Repeatedly, these judges did not use the required law and court rules in making decisions in my case. They just ignored the applicable Supreme Court case laws, court rules and applicable statutes set by the Legislature that was by law the law to be used in deciding my case and made decisions based on no law. The reasons they used for their decisions in my case were based on no state or federal statutes or state or federal case law or anything else. They just made it all up to fit their plan to give me an adverse ruling.

Repeatedly, in my ruling, this Appellate Court panel used the incorrect or non-applicable law that did not in anyway apply to my case or the legal issue being decided as the authority, reasoning, and justification for their decision to give me an unfavorable ruling.

This Appellate Court panel made this ruling of my case an "Unpublished Opinion." This ruling in every way qualifies as a "Published Opinion," not as an "Unpublished Opinion," and should have been classified as such.

By law, Judges have to follow the law in deciding cases. The Court of Appeals has to follow the law as set forth by the Minnesota Legislature in the form of statutes and they have to follow law as set forth by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the form of case law and court rules. Case law is law based on judicial decision and precedent. The Minnesota Supreme Court has to follow the law as set forth by the Minnesota Legislature in the form of statutes.

This Court of Appeals panel of judges did not use the laws as set forth by the Legislature in the form of statutes in my case and they did not use the laws as set forth by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the form of case law and court rules in my case. And not only did they not use the law but they lied many times about the law in my case. If these judges had used the law, I would’ve received a favorable ruling on all three issues that I had before this Court of Appeals. The only reason I received an unfavorable ruling on all these issues I had before the court was because these judges did not use the law.

I have prepared a 16 page document that outlines in detail exactly how this Appellate Court panel has defrauded me and names all relevant facts, documents and laws. This 16 page document and all other related materials (documents, etc.) are available upon request. With these documents, I can prove beyond any doubt that all that I state here is true.

The Court of Appeals does not rehear their opinions or decisions. So, on November 20, 1996, I filed a Petition for Review of the October 22, 1996, Court of Appeals decision with the Minnesota Supreme Court.

By order dated December 17,1996, Chief Justice A.M. Keith denied my Petition for Review by the Minnesota Supreme Court. This meant that the Supreme Court would not hear my appeal.

My attorney informed me then that there was no further viable legal procedure available to me.

By letter, I reported this wrongdoing of Judge Randolph Peterson, Judge Marianne Short, and Judge R. A. Randall exactly as I presented it in number 14 of "My Story" to the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards, Chief Justice A. M. Keith, and Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz and I asked for their help. I also provided them all with irrefutable proof (documents, written legal analysis, etc.) of these crimes committed against me by these judges as I outlined in #14 above. By letter, they all told me, in effect, that they were not going to do anything.

By letter, I reported my entire story, including the wrongdoing by the above named judges, to my government representatives and asked for their help. These representatives included Representative Lynda Boudreau, Representative Steven Sviggum, Representative Thomas Pugh, Representative Tim Pawlenty, Representative Len Biernat, Senator Roger Moe, Senator Allan Spear, Senator Dick Day, Senator Thomas Neuville, Attorney General Mike Hatch, U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone, U.S. Senator Rod Grams, and U.S. Congressman Gil Gutnecht. They all either told me that they would not help me or they would not respond to my repeated requests for an answer to my letter.
By letter, I reported my entire story, including the wrongdoing by the above named judges, to local and national media organizations and asked for their help. These media organizations included the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. They all either told me that they would not do my story or they would not respond to my repeated requests for an answer to my letter.
By letter, I reported my entire story, including the wrongdoing by the above named judges, to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), ARC (Association for Retarded Citizens) and several other such organizations, asking for their help. I received no response whatsoever from these organizations.