STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Type of Case: Other Civil (Defamation)

Nexus, a Minnesota

nonprofit corporation,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Janette J. Swift,

[a nonprofit activist]

Defendant.

You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon the attorneys for the plaintiff an

answer to the Complaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after

service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment

by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint.   [So you see, Nexus gave me no choice but to hire my lawyer.]

Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 543.22, you are advised that Rule 114, et seq. of the General

Rules of Practice for the District Court provides for a system of alternative dispute resolution

(ADR).

Dated: June 4, 2008.

MAHONEY, DOUGHERTYAND MAHONEY

Professional Association

[Vic's signature stuff here. See original document]

Victor Lund

Mark 1. Manderfeld

Attorneys for Plaintiff

801 Park Avenue

Minneapolis, MN 55404

(612) 339-5863

...

Plaintiff, Nexus, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, for its Complaint against defendant,

Janette J. Swift, states and alleges as follows:

I.

Nexus is a Minnesota nonprofit corporation with a registered corporate office in

Hennepin County, Minnesota. [ Not in Mille Lacs County? hmmm. ]

II.

Nexus has operated a residential treatment facility for juvenile sex offenders in the City of Onamia since the mid-1990s. Nexus has plans to build a new residential treatment facility for juvenile sex offenders approximately two miles from its current location. Nexus has followed the required legal procedures with the City of Onamia regarding permits, zoning and related matters, which proceedings have resulted in public hearings before the appropriate governmental bodies.

III.

Defendant Janette J. Swift lives in Bradbury Township near the City of Onamia in the County of Mille Lacs approximately one-half mile from where Nexus plans to build its new facility. She maintains web pages, popularly known as blogs, known as The Bradbury Buzzz (http://bradburybuzzzblogspot.com) and the Mille Lacs News (http://www.millelacsnews.com).

IV.

Defendant has appeared at many, if not all, of the public hearings concerning the building of Nexus' new facility and has expressed an opinion in opposition to the plans and intentions of Nexus and the City of Onamia. She has placed her opinions on these issues on her blogs on the internet which are available for the entire world to see. [Here they state that I have expressed "an opinion", "her opinion". The First Amendment of the Constitution gives me the RIGHT to do so. Its called Freedom of Speech, baby. Freedom of Speech!]

She has attempted to block Nexus and its attorneys from viewing her websites.    [Any webmaster can block whomever they choose. It is not illegal. This is another freedom/control issue, not a legal one. In my opinion, it does not belong in their SLAPP suit, but I'm glad they included it.]

V.

The name of the webmaster or author of the opinions appearing on the web pages is given as "Hannabelle." On information and belief, Hannabelle is defendant. [They sued me as Hannabelle without being certain? hmmm... Do they think they can just sue anybody???]

VI.

Defendant has published false and defamatory material [That's THEIR opinion. I have never published anything I've known to be false and according definition by MINNESOTA LAW, I have never ever ever published any defamatory material] on her blogs regarding the former chief executive officer of Nexus [Yes, I called Jim D'Angelo  "Poopsie"] and has sent false and defamatory  [See above] e-mails to the supervisor and co-workers of a member of Nexus' volunteer Board of Directors. [Indeed, I complained about Peter D. Freeman's RUDE and unprofessional behavior.] In each of these cases, a specific written request [nuh uh. A "request" is: Would you please.... This was a DEMAND.... an "or else" threatening my right to Free Speech.] was made to defendant to cease and desist from such actions and, after defendant refused and failed to do so, those individuals brought suit against defendant, which lawsuit is currently pending in Hennepin County District Court.

VII.

The video, posted at the web address of http://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=k5uLLyOMt4Man. [This is a link to nowhere because I removed the video from the Internet to avoid their damn SLAPP suit - and of course, Nexus sued me anyway... What do you think about this? What is YOUR opinion of Nexus?] shows portions of the zoning hearing interrupted by footage of large white text against a black background set to a somber musical background. In her statements to the City Council and in the interspersed text of the video, defendant states that the boy, whom she names, [Oh let's not forget the victim's name. His name is Tanner.]  was "killed" and "asphyxiated" * in 2001 by an employee of Nexus, whom she also names, that the death was "ruled a homicide" *and, just before ending the video with a picture of the boy, the text states: "Nexus Treatment Centers getting away with MURDER."  * [Please see sidebar to the right. Nexus, the company who professes to have "cornerstone values" is suing me over an IDIOM". Several sources have stated on the Internet - for the whole world to see - that Tanner Wilson was killed by a Nexus employee, dying from asphyxiation, his death ruled a homicide. I am, to my knowledge, the only one Nexus has sued over this.]

VIII.

On defendant's "Mille Lacs News" website, at http://millelacsnews.comlObituaries.htm,

defendant has posted the following "obituary:"

hold on February 9,2001 at Gerard of Iowa in Mason City, an institution for

children with behavior problems owned by NEXUS. An autopsy determined that

homicide. NEXUS, a multi-million dollar corporation, sold Gerard of Iowa, but

maintains several other facilities in Minnesota and Illinois, including Mille Lacs

Academy in Onamia.

The website contains the full name of the boy and his picture along with a link

 to the video

[NOTE: Nexus might have you forget Tanner Wilson, the boy who died at the hands of their employee (or if they want to sue me for saying "hands", perhaps I should say "butt" of the employee who sat on him until he died), BUT I believe that Tanner Wilson as well as other victims should never be forgotten.]

described in the preceding paragraph of this Complaint.

IX.

The contents of the blogs and the YouTube posting by defendant accusing

 Nexus and its employee of "murder" [Don't change my words! I said: "Getting away with murder". If they are suing me for my words, they could at least have the decency not to paraphrase what I say.] are false, scurrilous and defamatory.

No one has ever been charged with murder in the case. [EXACTLY! Thank you for proving my point!}

The staff member involved in the restraint of the boy performed it according to

 Nexus policy and procedures established and accepted in the industry and

 approved by the State of Iowa. No one except defendant has ever called the

 tragic accident "murder." [Hey, no one except the plaintiff has ever sued

 me for telling the truth. It was ruled a homicide by a well-known

 forensic pathologist, Ronald O'Halloren.  I used an IDIOM.

 Idioms are covered under the 1st Amendment. Using an idiom is NOT defamatory.]

For a time, criminal charges for Child Endangerment under Iowa statutes were

 initially brought against the employee but those charges were dropped before

 trial upon motion of the prosecution when the validity of the opinion of the

 medical examiner, the only person who called the event an "asphyxiation

 homicide," was questioned by the state's own consulting expert. [hmmm...]

X.

The contents of the blogs and the YouTube posting by defendant accusing

Nexus of murder [There they go again. I did not accuse Nexus of murder. I

 used the idiom "Getting away with murder". Like lying to the public about safety records and STILL getting 15 years tax abatement from the city. Like supplying false and misleading information to the county in order to obtain government assistance. Like threatening our "representatives" with leaving the area if they didn't meet D'Angelo's demands. Like pressuring government officials to procure SPOT-ZONING for an UNLOCKED  facility housing 94 convicted SEX OFFENDERS in a residential neighborhood... After all, NEXUS also attended the city council meeting where I spoke about Tanner Wilson. When I turned to the Nexus representatives and asked them about Tanner Wilson, no one corrected me or said I was defaming them.] have caused Nexus

 embarrassment and injured its reputation.

The statements tend to lower Nexus in the esteem of the public. The

 statements tend to call into question Nexus' competence in its field and have

 caused monetary damages in an amount

yet to be determined.

[Being embarrassed may be uncomfortable, but it is NOT ACTIONABLE. Embarrassing someone is not against the law. Nor is it my fault that Nexus  has something to be embarrassed about. It is my OPINION that Nexus has LOTS to be embarrassed about - including their law suits against someone who opposes their bullying ways.

I have told the truth. How could I injure their reputation? They make their own reputation. And if a child under their care dies, and I - in performing my civic duty - inform the city council of this fact, how can I be prosecuted for telling the truth?

XI.

On May 19, 2008, one of the undersigned as counsel for Nexus, wrote to

 defendant demanding that she retract all of the above-described statements

 and remove the defamatory material from her web pages and YouTube. The

 next day, defendant published her blog containing the following, which

 essentially republishes her defamatory statements:

[They neglected to include the title: The Mask of Benevolence. I stand by every word. It is my opinion, which I am entitled to, and entitled to publish under the First Amendment of a document Nexus doesn't seem to be aware exists. It is called the CONSTITUTION]

Once again Nexus' true nature is showing from behind its Mask of Benevolence.

Don't they pretend to be sumpthin special? Listen... Special, they're not. Rich,

 corporate thugs. That's what they are. Money is what they care about. They

 are devious, but not very bright. If they were, they wouldn't continue to use

 strategies that don't work. They choose brawn over brains. They have

 money, not ethics.

People, these are BAD PEOPLE.

They invaded my neighborhood and bullied the citizens into submission, using

our local government to remove citizens' rights. The city council, on behalf of

Nexus, ignored or changed the laws which prohibit a juvenile sex offender

 facility from relocating into a residential neighborhood. Nexus calls themselves

 an "Academy", which they aren't, but it sounds better than "Convicted Sex

Offenders". They call themselves "R2 Zoning Classification", which they aren't,

but it allows them to circumvent Spot Zoning laws. THEY ARE A BUNCH OF

PHONIES! They promised to work with the community, but they didn't. They

promised to consider the neighbors, which they didn't. They lied about leaving

town if they didn't get tax exemption from the state. They lied about crimes

 and escape records of the sex offenders. They claim to be a benefit to the

 community, but they aren't. Nexus puts on the Mask of Benevolence. But

 what is behind that mask is uglier than anything anyone but Stephen King

 could dream up.

Ugly, horrible people who IN MY OPINION have no business dealing with any

children, let alone kids with problems.

Why? Because the people who run Nexus are deficient. They lack things like

small-minded and self-involved. Ego centric. ME ME ME. They won't give an

inch. The end not only justifies the means, they actually seem to take

 pleasure in the "means", torturing innocent people who just want to be left

 alone. I certainly didn't go out of my way to pick a war with Nexus. THEY

 CAME HERE AND HARASSED ME! They have amply demonstrated that they

 employ bullying tactics which have caused physical, emotional, and financial

 damages to those who oppose them. They have shown a propensity for

 punishment and a sadistic approach to dealing with adversaries.

While speaking through the Mask, you will notice phrases like "1st Amendment

Rights" and "Freedom of Speech", but if you say something they don't like,

 their first action is to threaten to sue you. Their second action is to actually

 sue you. I believe that Nexus is out to destroy me. That is more than my

 opinion. That is my gut reaction to how they have treated me. Nexus

 certainly is an expert in the field of abuse. It is, after all, their specialty.

When I say that Nexus is getting away with murder, I'm not just referring to

 the little boy that one of their employees killed. "Getting away with murder" is

a phrase which means that someone is perpetrating bad behavior without any

consequences. Nexus certainly fits the bill.

And it is a bill that we all must pay - but especially me.

[Admittedly, this is quite an emotional 'rant'. But I have a constitutional right to express myself, including my feelings about yet another expensive and stressful SLAPP suit. (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.) I think that Nexus has amply proven my case, all by themselves.]

-

XII.

Even if Nexus is a public figure, [they admit it...] defendant made the

 statements with actual malice [they don't know this. It is just their

 opinion, which of course, they have a right to express.] and

with reckless disregard for whether the statements were true or false.  

[This is a blatantly FALSE statement. What do you think?

Should I sue them?]

XIII.

Nexus will continue to suffer injury to its reputation and other irreparable harm

 if the court does not enjoin defendant from repeating her false and

 defamatory statements and require her to remove such statements from her

 blogs and YouTube. [i.e., if the court does not remove my right to Free Speech.... The irony here: You should see the irreparable harm Nexus has done in my neighborhood! You should see the injuries they have caused me and my family and how we continue to suffer.]

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for an order of the court enjoining defendant

Janette J. Swift from repeating the above-referenced defamatory statements

 about plaintiff, enjoining defendant from making further defamatory

 statements about plaintiff, and requiring her to remove defamatory

 statements from her web postings and YouTube, and awarding plaintiff

monetary damages, costs, disbursements, and such other relief as may be

 appropriate.

[They want MORE money? They got everything they wanted from the city and county. What... THEY want ME to pay for THEIR lawyers because they decided to SUE me rather than listen to me, answer my emails and phone calls? They want ME to pay.... but I think in my case, its more than just money. I think its a little personal...]

Dated: June 4, 2008.

MAHONEY,DOUGHERTY AND MAHONEY

Professional Association

[Vic's signature stuff again. See original document.]

#160076

#6712X

Victor Lund

Mark J. Manderfeld

Attorneys for Plaintiff

801 Park Avenue

Minneapolis,MN 55404

(612) 339-5863

-6-

The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements, and reasonable

attorney and witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section

 549.21, subd. 2, to the party against whom the allegations in this pleading are asserted.

Victor Lund

COALITION AGAINST INSTITUTIONALIZED CHILD ABUSE

Deaths in Facilities

Victims

From Fornits WikiCopy

cause of death: "Restraint. A staff member - Lori Ann Ingham - was charged"

Injury Board. com

Officials have ruled the cause of death as asphyxiation -- he suffocated to death -- and are considering it a homicide.

Real Stories

On Tanner Wilson's, 9, first day at a program his leg was broken when staff physically restrained him. After surgery, he returned to the program with a walker. His leg was later broken a 2nd time.
Eighteen months after being admitted, Tanner died while being restrained in a "routine physical hold." He died of asphyxiation - he suffocated. He was 11 years old.