Go to triangular compass
Left arrow

Judicial Overreach: Like a Mofo

Veteran News
Veteran News
September 24, 2019
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on Linkedin
Copy Link

Stay Up to Date on American Grit

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Jonathan Vanderhagen petitioned the courts for sole custody of his son, Killian, based on his belief that Killian's mother wasn't fit to be Killian's sole guardian. The judge ruled in favor of the mother. Shortly afterward, Killian passed away due to a medical condition. Jonathan believed that had his son been in his care, the boy would be alive. Those are the facts as we know. We're not here to dispute the boy's viability to survive had he been with his father or not. We don't know what condition he had and we're not doctors. This all really was just to set the stage for the next part.See Jonathan felt that the court system that denied him custody was corrupt. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't. We don't have any evidence...except well...Jonathan used Facebook to criticize the judge's decision. Fair enough. You should be able to criticize decisions you don't agree with. That's that whole liberty and free speech thing. Except, Jonathan's Facebook posts apparently bothered the judge. Despite the local P.D. investigating and finding nothing threatening in his posts, the judge felt threatened...and a warrant for Jonathan's arrest on the charge of malicious use of telecommunication services was issued. Seems kind of corrupt.Imagine that. You criticize an elected official. Official feels threatened and despite an investigation where nothing threatening was turned up, said official decides it still warrants action and a warrant is issued for that person's arrest.Look. We don't know every single facet of this case, but we do know that the sergeant who investigated Vanderhagen's posts said: "At no point does [Vanderhagen] threaten harm or violence towards Rancilio or Duross."Yet, a different judge in the emergency bond hearing states that Jonathan is indeed threatening both Rancilio and Duross. That's odd.This straight-up looks fishy. This looks like a judge protecting a judge and violating the shit out of someone's First Amendment rights. The court may not be corrupt, but fuck us if they aren't doing their best to make it look like they are.As for now, we're going to have to side with Jonathan, whether he is right or wrong about the cause of his son's death at this point doesn't matter. He is definitely right in being allowed to criticize those involved without fear of reprisal and based on the reports from the police department, we don't see how Jonathan has been threatening in the least.Here is our little disclaimer...when things seem this egregious, there is often more that is not being shared on either one or both sides. Best to read, absorb and follow this case instead of getting stirred up in a frenzy...after all, wouldn't want a judge to put you in jail because you thought a decision they made was fucking dumb...right? ;)

send a letter to congress
Adds section
Next Up
No items found.