Here is the Nexus complaint and it's debunking.
My comments will be in red.
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH
Type of Case: Other Civil
Nexus, a Minnesota
Janette J. Swift,
[a nonprofit activist]
STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE
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
Dated: June 4, 2008.
MAHONEY, DOUGHERTYAND MAHONEY
[Vic's signature stuff
here. See original document]
Mark 1. Manderfeld
Attorneys for Plaintiff
801 Park Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Plaintiff, Nexus, a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation, for its Complaint against defendant,
Janette J. Swift, states and
alleges as follows:
Nexus is a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation with a registered corporate office in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
[ Not in Mille Lacs County?
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.
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
and the Mille Lacs News (http://www.millelacsnews.com).
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.
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.]
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???]
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
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.
On or about March 3, 2008, defendant appeared
at a public hearing before the Onamia City Council on the subject of the re-zoning
of the property on which Nexus planned to build its
new facility. At that hearing,
defendant asked the City Council whether they were aware that
young boy under Nexus' care "died at the
hands of one of their employees." Shortly thereafter, defendant posted a video of the hearing on
YouTube, an internet site on which almost anyone
may post a video,
entitled: "3/3 Onamia Public Hearing-Nexus Employee kills a Child."
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
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"
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.]
On defendant's "Mille Lacs
News" website, at http://millelacsnews.comlObituaries.htm,
defendant has posted the
W_ was killed by a NEXUS staff member, while in a prone restraint
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
was suffocated to death. He was 11 years old. T_'s death was ruled a
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.
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
"murder." [Hey, no one except the
plaintiff has ever sued
me for telling the
truth. It was ruled a homicide by a
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
upon motion of the prosecution when the
validity of the opinion of the
medical examiner, the
only person who called the event an "asphyxiation
questioned by the state's own consulting expert.
The contents of the blogs and
the YouTube posting by defendant
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
and injured its reputation.
The statements tend to
lower Nexus in the esteem of the
statements tend to
call into question Nexus' competence
in its field and have
monetary damages in an amount
yet to be
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
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?
On May 19, 2008, one of the
undersigned as counsel for Nexus, wrote to
demanding that she retract all of the above-described statements
and remove the defamatory
material from her web pages and
next day, defendant
published her blog containing the following, which
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
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
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
Why? Because the people who
run Nexus are deficient. They lack things like
common sense, and especially
- compassion. They are
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
Even if Nexus is a
[they admit it...]
defendant made the
[they don't know this. It is just their
opinion, which of
course, they have a right to express.]
reckless disregard for whether the
statements were true or false.
[This is a blatantly FALSE statement. What do
Should I sue them?]
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
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.]
plaintiff prays for an order of the court
Janette J. Swift from
repeating the above-referenced defamatory statements
enjoining defendant from making further defamatory
plaintiff, and requiring her to remove defamatory
statements from her web
postings and YouTube, and awarding
monetary damages, costs, disbursements, and
such other relief as may be
[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
[Vic's signature stuff again. See
Mark J. Manderfeld
Attorneys for Plaintiff
801 Park Avenue
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.