Paranoia is the mark of a guilty conscience. This judge knows what she did was wrong. She just won't accept it.
Even so, shitposting cannot be illegal.Yeah and honestly I have to take the "deep dark secrets" shit with a grain of salt. If there was a there, there, he would cough it up already. This just sounds like a lot of standard idiot divorce drama. I think most likely scenario is both parents were overgrown teenagers and the kid was pretty doomed regardless.
The U.S. Constitution has spoken
http://archive.li/PNfJcJonathan Vanderhagen took to Facebook with a storm of criticism, with one post containing profanities, against a Macomb County judge and the court system that he believes failed his young son, who died nearly two years ago during a custody case.
The judge notified the sheriff's office when she was alerted to some of his posts like this one: "Exposing bad, corrupt & shady people like you is what the (expletive) I do Get this (expletive) out of our court system," according to a police report.
Two days later, the Chesterfield Township man was charged with a misdemeanor — malicious use of telecommunications services. He posted a $1,000 bond and was ordered not to have any contact with the judge.
But Vanderhagen continued to make Facebook posts about the system and his son, many including images of Snoopy and Batman, which were the boy's favorite characters, his lawyer says...
When the 35-year-old returned to District Court on July 24 on the misdemeanor, a different judge decided Vanderhagen had violated the no-contact part of his bond. He ordered him held on a $500,000 cash surety bond and to undergo a mental health examination while he was in the jail.
"This is unheard of — a $500,000 cash (bond) is for somebody who is very dangerous or who has the means to leave the country," said Vanderhagen's attorney, Nicholas Somberg of Bloomfield Hills. He said Vanderhagen is neither.
Other legal experts agreed the bond does appear to be high, while pointing out that few judges like to see their orders ignored.
Somberg said Vanderhagen has no prior criminal record, no firearms and no concealed pistol license.
Vanderhagen's mother, Deborah, said her son, who lived with her and who she describes as an artist and a musician, is "holding on" since being jailed July 24 in the Macomb County lockup.
She said he's told her: "I will not break. I'm not guilty of anything."...
The case was assigned to Circuit Court Judge Rachel Rancilio, but Killian died while in his mother's care in Genesee County in September 2017. No charges were filed in his death.
Rancilio contacted the Macomb County Sheriff's Office on July 8 of this year after some "troubling posts" she was alerted to on Facebook, according to a police report. The posts appeared that Vanderhagen was unhappy with the outcome of the case.
The Sheriff's Office report states there were multiple posts on Vanderhagen's page regarding Rancilio, many of them screen shots of her personal Facebook posts as well as items she had pinned on her Pinterest app.
There also were two videos and a post that it was time for him to speak about his personal experience of corruption in the Friend of the Court and how he believes his ex-girlfriend is responsible for their son's death.
One of the posts from July 8 reads: "Dada back to digging & you best believe im gonna dig up all the skeletons in this court's closet." There is a photo of Vanderhagen holding a shovel with the initials RR on the handle and MD on the shovel, with Families Of Corruption on his shirt, and the words: "The misuse of public power (by elected politician or appointed civil servant) for private gain." The Macomb County logo appears in the background.
According to the police report: "At no time does he threaten harm or violence toward Rancilio" or another person he identified as being involved. "However, he does appear to be very upset with them and feels they are to blame for not helping him."
A warrant charging Vanderhagen with the misdemeanor was authorized July 10. Vanderhagen was arraigned and posted 10% of a $10,000 bond.
On July 24, he returned for a pretrial. The prosecution had filed an emergency motion to raise Vanderhagen's bond for a violation after it said he continued to intimidate and harass those who filed the initial report by continuing to post about being mistreated by the system.
But Somberg argued that Vanderhagen "has an absolute constitutional right to redress his grievances against the government publically." He said Vanderhagen's posts are about his son, digging up the truth and exposing that he feels that has been wronged by the system.
"There's no threats. There's no reaching out to Judge Rancilio. There's been no contact. There's inadvertent messages. All the messages after the no contact are all very innocuous," he told the court.
http://archive.li/PNfJcLucido stated there are limits to First Amendment and freedom of speech, saying in a court transcript: "There cannot be anything of a threatening nature. ... We're talking about threatening a sitting Circuit Court Judge is the original allegation against Mr. Vanderhagen. When there's a no contact, it's a no contact directly, indirectly or social media. These are all though he likes to hint around the fringes of it, in my opinion they are of a threatening nature after the no contact was put in place."
Lucido raised Vanderhagen's bond to $500,000 cash surety. Vanderhagen has been unable to post that bond.
http://archive.li/PNfJcSgt. Renee Yax said the sheriff's office does not have a comment on the case against Vanderhagen.
Derek Miller, chief of operations for county Prosecutor Eric Smith, said: "We're not commenting on a pending matter that's scheduled for trial on Friday."
Messages were left at the offices of Rancilio; Lucido, and Circuit Court Chief Judge James Biernat Jr., who denied Vanderhagen's appeal of the higher bond last month.
On July 11, Biernat signed a personal protection order request that Rancilio filed in the circuit court against Vanderhagen. The order is in effect until Jan. 20, according to court records.
http://archive.li/rYhJYRittinger related his commentary to an often-used analogy of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. She said the most concerning was an image of Vanderhagen holding a shovel over his shoulder with the Rancilio’s initials scrawled over the handle.
“I think all of this behavior, especially in its totality, and some of the specifics -- like the shovel posting – on their own create this violation of the law,” Rittinger said. “You can speak freely, say all you want against the system … but when it comes to this level, you’ve crossed over into yelling ‘fire’ in a theater, and that’s not appropriate. It’s a violation of the law.”
Rittinger referred to the probable defense claim that Vanderhagen was merely digging up information about Rancilio.
“That’s possible, quite possible,” she said. “But there’s a threat in there as well, as perceived by the victim.”
http://archive.li/rYhJYVanderhagen’s attorney, Nicholas Somberg, in his opening statement said his client’s comments were not threatening but came from a “grieving father.”
“This is a grieving father who went to the internet and talked about his experience with a court system that absolutely failed him,” Somberg told the jury of four women and three men. “He believed that the Friend of the Court contributed to the death of his son. … His intent is to expose the people who didn’t listen so he can save more children in the future.”
He said Rancilio complained because she was “embarrassed” by Vanderhagen’s reposting of her posting of about three dozen cartoons, some of which contained questionable content for a judge, on the social-media site [Pintrest].
“This case is about power and privilege,” he said. “If someone was making these Facebook posts about you, they would laugh in your face. The only reason we’re here is because a judge with all the power and privilege in the world who can go send people to go arrest people.”
The shovel image posted July 8 was accompanied by Vanderhagen’s comment, “Dada back to digging & you best believe im gonna dig up all the skeletons in this court's closet.”
That same day, he posted a photo of Rancilio embracing her father in 2018 and criticized her appointment to the Governor’s Task Force for Abuse and Neglected Children.
On July 7, he wrote, "I won't stop till changes are made, people are held accountable, careers are ended, & these kids get the justice they deserve.”
http://archive.li/f3NKmRancilio said she was concerned about a posting of a photo of Vanderhagen holding a shovel over his shoulders with Rancilio’s initials scrawled on the handle and other posts mentioning her family. She said the culmination of posts created fear...
That image was accompanied by Vanderhagen’s comment, “Dada back to digging & you best believe im gonna dig up all the skeletons in this court's closet.”... Vanderhagen’s attorney, Nicholas Somberg, during questioning of Rancilio called the comment a figure of speech, meant to indicate he was researching the judge, allowed under the First Amendment...
“It wasn’t just one post,” she said, at one point appearing to choke back tears. “It was a compilation of it all. … I was scared something was going to happen to myself, my children.”
“The death threats I’ve been getting as a result of this stuff is horrifying. I’m terrified. It continues to this day.”
The Macomb County Sheriff’s Office was contacted about the threats and are “monitoring” the situation, according to a court spokeswoman.
She said threats may have been inspired in part by a Youtube video made by another person that included Rancilio's home address following publicity surrounding Vanderhagen's second jailing in late July.
http://archive.li/CHCVgRancilio said she became most disturbed about postings mentioning her family and information that “indicates he dug up all this stuff about me,” including a repost of a series of cartoon panels on her Pinterest account.
Also on July 8, he posted a photo of Rancilio embracing her father on her wedding day and criticized her appointment to the Governor’s Task Force for Abuse and Neglected Children.
Rancilio said she was upset by a video she viewed in which Vanderhagen mentions her "elite group of family," “mansions” “yacht clubs” and “silver spoons. In a post, he mentions “show time” and “judgment day.”
“That crossed the line from being angry at the system … to personally attacking me,” she said. “Now he’s coming after my family, which made me feel harassed and personally attacked.”
http://archive.li/CHCVgSheriff’s Detective Mark Morfino testified Vanderhagen admitted during his police interview that he could see how someone could view the posts as threatening.
Under questioning by Somberg, Morfino admitted he told Vanderhagen he didn’t think Vanderhagen intended to threaten.
However, under questioning by Rittinger, Morfino agreed he uses interview techniques to “minimize” a defendant’s actions to improve their rapport.
http://archive.li/CHCVgJudge Sebastian Lucido rejected Somberg’s request for a directed verdict after the prosecution rested, arguing his clients posts were not one of nine exceptions to the First Amendment.
The trial is scheduled to resume and conclude Thursday with Vanderhagen taking the stand in his defense.
In the grand scheme of things aren't we all comparatively near Detroit?
I can appreciate that he violated bond, and that a smarter man would have abided after his release and just confined his battle to the court, maybe try and find his way onto syndicated radio to air his grievances if he really had to. That particular charge will probably stick unfortunately. Still, in the big picture dude is totally in the right and I hope she is removed from office.He's literally in jail for calling a judge a cunt on facebook you bootlicker.
Eh its not all that surprising. Regardless of the specific circumstances, if he did violate his bond then it wouldn't make sense for the courts to show much leniency just so he'd have the chance to do it a second time no matter how ultimately in-the-right he is outside of this particular topic. At that point he's practically just harming himself, losing more bond money to the state for standing up.Is there anything stating that the judge he criticized is the same one that set his bond conditions? Or that the one setting the draconian half a mil bail for violating is the same?
Or is everyone being exceptional?
https://archive.li/eMHaRThe Facebook post in question shows Vanderhagen holding a shovel with the photoshopped initials R.R. and M.D., believed to be Rancillio and Duross, respectively. The caption says, "Dada back to digging [and] you best believe [I'm] gonna dig up all the skeletons in this court's closet."
The post was published to Facebook on July 8. Somberg explains to Reason that the date of this particular post should have jeopardized the case brought against Vanderhagen.
Vanderhagen received a letter from Sgt. Morfino, dated July 10, informing him that there was a warrant for his arrest for malicious use of telecommunications. The letter says the actions occurred "on or about" July 7. Vanderhagen was arraigned before the Macomb County District Court on July 11.
Vanderhagen was released on a $10,000 bond under the condition that he would not engage in direct or third-party contact with Rancilio. Vanderhagen was also prohibited from sending "inadvertent messages by way of Facebook" to Rancilio.
Following the arraignment, Vanderhagen continued to use Facebook to post about his son, his son's mother, and his case, topics Somberg argues are not in violation of the bond conditions set on July 11. Regardless, Vanderhagen was summoned to appear before District Judge Sebastian Lucido at the end of July for an emergency bond hearing, allegedly for "posting messages" about Rancilio.
A list of exhibits presented to the court highlights Facebook posts calling his son a hero, criticisms of his son's mother, and criticisms of "the system," none of which directly referenced Rancilio.
The only reference to Rancilio is found in Exhibit 1, which features screenshots of Vanderhagen's July 8 Facebook post. Considering Vanderhagen did not receive his bond conditions until three days after that Facebook post was published online, however, its inclusion seems like an inappropriate attempt to paint Vanderhagen as more of a threat than he actually is.