|
From Bradbury Township Mille Lacs County, Minnesota |
Mille Lacs News Since 4/18/07
|
 |
||
|
|
Monday April 19, 2010 |
|||
|
|
The Law Suits Defending My Life Series
|
Please Contribute to Hannabelle's Legal Aid Fund
|
||
|
Home
__________________ Court Documents Freeman/D'Angelo Appellant's Reply Brief Freeman/D'Angelo Summons and Complaint Freeman/D'Angelo Motion to Dismiss the Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Affidavit in Nexus Case
the Anti-SLAPP Law Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation 554.02 PROTECTION OF CITIZENS TO PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT 554.04 FEES AND DAMAGES.
|
No Blood On My Hands - Peter D. Freeman
by Hannabelle Mille Lacs News Staff Writer January 22, 2010 In seeking the wisdom of professionals most knowledgeable about juvenile sex offenders, I ran across the fields of psychology, abnormal psychology, and yes - social work. I freely admit that when I needed the support and advice of an expert, I contacted Dr. Barbara W. Shank, Dean of St. Thomas University's Social Work Department. Naturally, I had hoped that she would discretely talk some sense into one of the faculty members - Peter D. Freeman, a board member of Nexus who is now suing me. Peter D. Freeman is suing me because I embarrassed him. As there is no defamation, I'll share one of the portions that Attorney Victor Lund claims is defamatory. BUT, unlike Victor, who chose to quote me out of context, I'll include the entire section: "Your faculty member - Peter Freeman - is making decisions down in St. Paul which are greatly impacting on the lives of many people in Bradbury Township. He will not even honor us by listening to us. His actions are responsible for so much suffering, yet he will not take responsibility for the harm he is causing. He is like the fellow who - in between sips of coffee - pushes the button that launches the missile which destroys the village, then holds up his hands, saying "See? No blood on MY hands." "1 This is not defamation, it is a metaphor. And since it has caused so much trouble, it probably isn't an effective one. What it means is that Peter D. Freeman does not live in our community. He is not our neighbor. He does not know us or care about us. Yet he had the power to destroy the integrity of our peaceful neighborhood with his decision to put sex offenders next to day-care. Peter D. Freeman also had the power to stop the town council from buying that particular property, simply by telling the council that it is the common knowledge in Social Work, his field of "expertise" to place sex offender institutions far away from residential. You don't put sex offenders next to little old ladies. You don't even have to be an expert in social work to understand that. Its pretty basic. I also said in the Shank email, part that Victor has never called to the judge's attention, knowing it would be a miracle if the judge's actually read the submitted exhibits: "There are other, appropriate places for the sex offender facility which won't jeopardize people. A residential neighborhood is no place for this type of institution. I hope that you will talk to Peter Freeman about finding a different location..." The problem it seems, isn't what I said in the email. It is that I sent an email to Peter D. Freeman's supervisor at all. But what recourse do we have for dealing with someone who hangs up the phone at the mere mention of our name, and refuses to communicate? Was I supposed to throw my hands in the air (no blood on my hands) and say, "Oh well. He won't talk to me. I give up. Go ahead and put sex offenders next to day-care"? Victor says: "The contents of e-mails sent by [Hannabelle] to Peter Freeman's fellow faculty members at the University of St. Thomas and the College of St. Catherine are false, scurrilous and defamatory. They have caused Peter Freeman embarrassment and injured his reputation. The statements tend to lower Peter Freeman's co-workers' estimation of him. The statements tend to call into question his competence as a member of the Department of Social Work. The statements have caused monetary damages in an amount yet to be determined."2 There you have it. I embarrassed someone so now he is suing me. We've all seen it happen a million times. First they turn red in the face, then KaCHING! another law suit hits the docket. But seriously, let me ask you this: Why couldn't Peter Freeman simply talk to his colleagues one on one, or send them his own email explaining that this Hannabelle chick is a half-crazed NIMBY nut who doesn't understand why its perfectly safe to put sex offenders in a residential neighborhood? He could have said anything about me. He could bash me to bits. I would never know what he said to them in a private conversation. And I wouldn't sue him for defamation even if I knew he called me a half-crazed NIMBY nut. (I wear it like a badge of honor.) He's entitled to his opinion of me. Free speech and all that. So why couldn't Peter Freeman just explain the Nexus/NIMBY conflict to his colleagues? He's the social worker. I'm not. He's their colleague. I'm not.
Think about it: Why was Peter Freeman embarrassed? How did my statements injure his reputation? How could my statements lower his co-workers' estimation of him? How could my statements call his competence into question as a member of the Department of Social Work? I'll tell you. It is because sex offender institutions do not belong in residential areas and as a professional social worker, Peter Freeman should have known better. His colleagues knew better. Yes, Peter should have been embarrassed - for his own unprofessional bad judgment. Peter D. Freeman, social worker, embarrassed himself by his own bad behavior. And then he blamed his victims, specifically me. He chose to take it out on me. He decided to "get back at" me. He decided to vindictively use the Judicial System as a weapon, letting his lying lawyer do his dirty work. No. There's still no blood on Peter Freeman's hands.
__________________________________________________________________________ 1. Plaintiffs' Exhibit A - email to Barbara Shank 2. Plaintiff's Summons and Complaint 11/6/2007
|
The Mille Lacs News an independent online news source. Bringing you information about the war between Bradbury Township citizens and the City of Onamia over the fate of a residential neighborhood and the sex offenders of the Nexus Corporation
|
||
|
The Plaintiffs Jim D'Angelo Peter D. Freeman The Defendant "Hannabelle"
Daniel Webster
"There is no happiness, there is no liberty,
there is no enjoyment of life, unless a man can say, when he rises in the
morning, I shall be subject to the decision of no unwise judge today."
You know, I've been thinking about how embarrassed I've been that so
many people in the community have chosen to support the sex offenders over
the non-sex offenders.
Non-sex offenders? HAHAHAHAHA!
Well, O.K. I mean the sex non-offenders.
Sex NON-offenders?
oh hoot hoot hoot! Teeheehee
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CALL PEOPLE WHO DO NOT MOLEST CHILDREN AND WHO
DON'T HURT ANYBODY AND WHO YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING RAPED BY
OR ABOUT THEM STEALING OUR CARS. LAUGH ALL YOU WANT! I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO
CALL THEM!
You call them good, law-biding citizens, Dear. That's all. Certain
people chose to support sex offenders rather than good law-biding
citizens.
Oh my. I'm so embarrassed!
OH NO! PLEASE
DON'T SUE ME FOR EMBARRASSMENT!
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
