Judge Rosenbaum ordered mandatory Mediation in September
2010. The purpose of Mediation is to help the opposing parties come
together and with the help of an impartial mediator, negotiate a
settlement agreement without actually going through a trial. Jim
D'Angelo failed to appear at the court appointed mediation. Peter
Freeman hid in a room somewhere. I never saw him. (Whereas I spent a lot
of time with D'Angelo at city and county meetings and such, I never met
Peter Freeman.) There was no
attempt by Plaintiffs at fair negotiation. After everything they put me
through, they actually demanded that I publicly apologize to Freeman and
D'Angelo and tell everybody that I lied about everything. They wanted me
to sign a paper that said I would never ever ever again talk about them.
If I did everything they demanded, they would drop BOTH of their
I refused to settle. I
was actually looking forward to my trial by jury. I would finally get to
tell my story to real people.
The trial was scheduled for December 28 and 29, 2010. In
November, Freeman and D'Angelo withdrew their request for a jury.
Hannabelle demanded a jury but
was not allowed to have one, thus being denied more Constitutional
Rights. After Hannabelle was forced once again to get a lawyer to help
her get a jury for her trial, Freeman and D'Angelo abruptly dropped the lawsuit in early December. "We can't
prove damages," Victor Lund stated during a telephone conference with Hannabelle and Judge Rosenbaum.
But it wasn't over yet. Freeman and D'Angelo still
pursued a court injunction to remove my First Amendment
Rights. The "injunction hearing" was slated for December 29, 2010.
Minneapolis attorney Andrew Jackola represented Hannabelle in what
turned out to be exactly what Frangelo wanted - a
trial without a jury.
"Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief is
Judge Rosenbaum's verdict
(I won, sort of)
But after all of the hoopla, despite all of the
Plaintiffs' shenanigans, Judge Rosenbaum denied their injunction. Having
waived any legal remedy and failing to get an injunction to silence
me, after nearly four years of spending thousands upon thousands
of dollars on legal costs, Freeman and D'Angelo walked away with
nothing. Absolutely nothing. (Later, I received $410 that Nexus had
to pay me. I turned it over to my lawyer...)
Whereas Freeman, D'Angelo and Lund were "Rosenbombed",
so was the innocent defendant - Free Speech champion Hannabelle. The
judge who simply couldn't comprehend the power of the Internet to influence
government (the Huffington Post?) and who said "The Anti-SLAPP law is
meant to be a shield, not a sword" - totally clueless about the
purpose of the Anti-SLAPP Law - while allowing Corporate terrorists
to use the Justice System as a nuclear weapon against a private citizen
trying to protect her neighborhood from Nexus and their sex offenders,
also ruled that calling someone second grader names such as "arrogant" and "egotistical" is
But when you think about it, why would any judge rule
against a mega-corporation with all those high ranking government
officials sitting on its board of directors - capable of possible
favors, and of course, with all that money... Contributions? If you were
a judge that didn't understand the law you were supposed to be ruling
on, why would you rule in favor of a now indigent, disabled musician
whose speech you've now surely "chilled" through your intimidation and
prejudice that she'll finally shut up forever and as D'Angelo said, will
just "go away"?
You have the Right to Remain
Silent - and Go Away
"I stand by
everything I wrote about Freeman and D'Angelo. They defamed themselves
by their own bad behavior. I just called them on it. As a kid, I was taught that
'actions speak louder than words.' The judge opted to just listen to the
lies of Victor Lund - and to believe him rather than to seek the Truth.
In the end, she gave something to both sides in order to avoid more
appeals - like splitting a popsicle between two children to get them to
stop bickering. Frangelo didn't deserve their half. I told the Truth and expressed
my Constitutionally protected opinions. It is scary that Minnesota
judges could be so wrong. It isn't about Justice. It's not even about
the Law. It's really all about their next election."
Back to Lawsuits