UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
David James Carlson

Plaintiff
Case No. 16cv765SRNBRT

vs.
DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
YES X

Defendant(s)
County of Ramsey,
State of Minnesota
County of Anoka,
State of Minnesota
Independent School District #624
White Bear Lake, Minnesota

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND ON ALL COUNTS

PARTIES

1. List your name, address and telephone number. Do the same for any additional plaintiffs.
a. Plaintiff
Name

David James Carlson

Street Address
County, City

Washington County, Woodbury

State & Zip Code

Minnesota, 55129

Telephone Number

651.307.5388

2. List all defendants. You should state the full name of the defendant, even if that defendant is
a government agency, an organization, a corporation, or an individual. Include the address
where each defendant may be served. Make sure that the defendant(s) listed below are
identical to those contained in the above caption.
a. Defendant No. 1
Name

Ramsey County
C/O Ramsey County Attorneys Office

Street Address

345 Wabasha Street North #120

County, City

Ramsey, Saint Paul

State & Zip Code

Minnesota, 55102

b. Defendant No. 2
Name

Anoka County
C/O Anoka County Attorneys Office

Street Address

2100 Third Avenue

County, City

Anoka, Anoka

State & Zip Code

Minnesota, 55303

c. Defendant No. 3
Name

Independent School District #624 (ISD 624)

Street Address

4855 Bloom Avenue

County, City

Ramsey, White Bear Lake

State & Zip Code

Minnesota, 55110

NOTE: IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS OR DEFENDANTS, PLEASE

PROVIDE THEIR NAMES AND ADDRESSES ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER.
Check here if additional sheets of paper are attached:
Please label the attached sheets of paper to correspond to the appropriate numbered paragraph above (e.g.,
Additional Defendants 2.d., 2.e., etc.)

JURISDICTION
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Generally, two types of cases can be heard in
federal court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving diversity of citizenship of
the parties. Under 28 U.S.C. 1331, a case involving the United States Constitution or federal
laws or treaties is a federal question case. Under 28 U.S.C. 1332, a case in which a citizen of
one state sues a citizen of another state and the amount of damages is more than $75,000 is a
diversity of citizenship case.
3. What is the basis for federal court jurisdiction? (check all that apply)
X Federal Question

Diversity of Citizenship

4. If the basis for jurisdiction is Federal Question, which Federal Constitutional, statutory or
treaty right is at issue? List all that apply.
I.

Plaintiff claims federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III 2, which extends the
jurisdiction to cases arising under the U.S. Constitution;

II.

Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to Title 42 U.S. Code 1983 for violations of
certain protections guaranteed to him by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,
Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the federal Constitution, by the
defendant(s) under color of law in his/her capacities and/or responsibilities in
either/or; County of Ramsey, Saint Paul, Minnesota; County of Anoka, Anoka,
Minnesota; and/or ISD #624, White Bear Lake, State of Minnesota;

III.

Plaintiff additionally brings this suit and claims federal jurisdiction pursuant to
Title 28 U.S. Code 1331, in claims arising from violations of federal
constitutional rights guaranteed to plaintiff in the aforementioned (1st, 4th, 5th, 6th,
7th, 8th, 9th, & 14th) amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

5. If the basis for jurisdiction is Diversity of Citizenship, what is the state of citizenship of each
party? Each Plaintiff must be diverse from each Defendant for diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff Name:

State of Citizenship:

Defendant No. 1:

State of Citizenship:

Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary & label this information as paragraph 5.
Check here if additional sheets of paper are attached.
6. What is the basis for venue in the District of Minnesota? (check all that apply)
X Defendant(s) reside in Minnesota

X Facts alleged below primarily occurred in

Minnesota

X Other: Explain

I.

Plaintiff has been in Second Judicial District, Ramsey County Family

Court, Saint Paul, Minnesota nearly annually from 2008 through 2016,
despite Ramsey County Social Services finding Plaintiff competent and
safe to for equal parenting time and joint legal and physical custody;

II.

Additionally, from 22 January 2014 until at least 17 April 2016, Plaintiff

has been before three judges and three hearings from the Tenth Judicial
District, Anoka County District Court, Anoka, Minnesota where a
Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) has exited against Plaintiff in
Anoka County, Minnesota, since 22 January 2014;

III.

Unproven allegations made in Anoka County in 2014 have become

statements of fact from Ramsey County Family Court in 2015 and 2016,
further linking the separate issues aside from the Quid Pro Quo agreement
made between Plaintiff and Mrs. Dickenson in July 2015;

IV.

Plaintiff has had an unreasonable and substantial burden that has had
significant impact on his qualify of life placed upon him by the Second
and Tenth Judicial Districts in Minnesota, at times having actions
simultaneously active in each County Court;

V.

Plaintiff without an evidentiary hearing or verifiable allegations that

would cause children to be removed from a joint-custodial parent with no
allegations, charges, or convictions against him, no psychological analysis
to substantiate a complete revocation of his parental rights, Ramsey
County Family Court removed Plaintiffs custodial rights, and thus
violated his Constitutional rights without due cause;

VI.

Plaintiff was forced to go from 22 October 2015 until 25 January 2016

with no contact whatsoever with his children, and no explanation provided
to the children as they were kept from Plaintiff until 25 January 2016,
when Plaintiff was provided his first highly supervised visitation at a
safety center, for 120 minutes; Plaintiff alleges keeping his children from
their father without just cause for 100 days continuously throughout the
holidays;

VII.

Plaintiff has experienced prolonged depravation of his civil rights by both

the Second Judicial District, and Tenth Judicial Districts in the State of
Minnesota between 2014 and 2016 continuously, including being jailed
for eight hours and held in Contempt of Court in Ramsey County Family
Court on 11 February 2016, and threatened with incarceration for 90 days
at the Ramsey County Workhouse if he did not immediately sign a
medical waiver for Ramsey County Family Court to receive all of
Plaintiffs U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) and Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA);

VIII.

Plaintiffs childrens school district, ISD 624, White Bear Lake,

Minnesota, has additionally contributed to Plaintiffs damages by
unverified actions, behavior, meetings, and interviews, occurring between
the Ramsey County Guardian ad Litem (GAL) and the childrens new
third grade teachers in fall 2015, as well as closed-door meetings alone
with Plaintiffs children not including the School Principal or School
Psychologist, nor any recording or witnesses to verify conversations
ranging from parenting, to physical and sexual abuse, to the opinion of
each parent, which played a substantial role in both the 26 October 2015
and 22 February 2016 Ramsey County Family Court hearings;

IX.

Due to Plaintiff having claims for depravation of civil rights, and damages
inflicted upon his family by employees of Second Judicial District,
Ramsey County Family Court, Saint Paul, Minnesota; Tenth Judicial
District, Anoka District Court, Anoka, Minnesota; and Independent
School District 624, White Bear Lake, Minnesota, all having codependence on allegations, findings, reports, and Orders, Plaintiff claims
the Federal Question of multiple connected cases, active simultaneously,
in multiple equal jurisdictions, and against multiple defendants, which has
placed--and continues to place an unreasonable and tortuous burden for
Plaintiff, impacted his quality of life, separated by Court Order his family,
and made his pathway to conclusive justice elusive for nine years;

X.

Plaintiff asserts defendants No. 1, and No.2, and upon further examination
potentially No. 3, have used Plaintiffs status as a disabled combat veteran
from the U.S. Marine Corps discriminatorily against him, violating state
and federal laws and constitutional rights and is continuing to do so by
ordering without charges, all of Plaintiffs military and VA medical
records turned over for further Court examination and scrutiny despite
receiving a report recommending Plaintiff be immediately have his full
parental rights restored and reinstated, along with his parenting time, and
an immediate cessation to Defendant No. 1 order for only highly
supervised visitation in the most supervised settings;

XI.

Defendant No. 1, has furthermore incarcerated Plaintiff, and upon a

subsequent hearing before the Court on 11 February 2016, the Court
attempted to coerce, threaten, and placed tremendous pressure using the
Court as a weapon against Plaintiff, threatening 90 days of further
incarceration unless Plaintiff immediately waived his medical privilege to
all his medical records to the Court;

XII.

Defendant No. 1 has placed incredible sustained duress on Plaintiff,

causing serious mental and physical anguish, causing Plaintiff severe
harm; therefore, Plaintiff prays for Federal relief from the U.S. Eighth
District Circuit Court, Minneapolis, Minnesota, against all defendants.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

23 March 2016
THE PLAINTIFF

7. Plaintiff, Mr. David J. Carlson, is a citizen of the State of Minnesota who resides in
the City of Woodbury with his two children; identical twin girls aged nine (9). Plaintiff is a
disabled combat veteran from the Iraq War, having served and been Honorably Discharged from
the U.S. Marine Corps (2003 to 2007) and awarded a Good Conduct Medal.
8. Plaintiff teaches part-time in Saint Paul Public Schools (SPPS) and has been pursuing
additional graduate work at Texas A&M University - Bush School of Government and Public
Service, College Station, Texas, since fall 2013. Plaintiff holds a Bachelor of Arts and Master of
Science from the University of Minnesota. Plaintiff is a graduate of the Entrepreneurial
Bootcamp for Veterans with Disabilities (EBV) Program at Florida State University - Jim Moran
Institute of Global Entrepreneurship. Plaintiff has been honored as a Horatio Alger Association
Distinguished American Scholar, and was accepted into the American Corporate Partners
Mentorship Program (ACP) in 2011 and continues to participate to this day.
9. Plaintiff has volunteered at his childrens schools every year, even receiving awards
from his daughters teachers for his contributions both years at Chelsea Heights Elementary
School, Saint Paul, Minnesota. Plaintiff has always maintained an active relationship with his
daughters teachers and the Principals of both schools, often discussing school safety and
security, both areas of Plaintiffs expertise.

10. Plaintiff had maintained consistently both equal parenting time and joint legal and
joint physical custody of his children since their birth in 2006 with his former spouse, Mrs.
Krista Ann Carlson n/k/a Dickenson. He had provided nearly exclusively since his transition
from the military in 2007 the childrens medical and dental care and insurance until his parental
rights were highly restricted in Ramsey County Family Court in October 2015.

THE DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANT NO. 1

11. Plaintiff and his ex-wife have had numerous custodial cases inside the Second
Judicial District, Ramsey County Family Court, Saint Paul, Minnesota, nearly annually since
2008 when the couple separated.
12. The current case involving Plaintiff and his former spouse in Ramsey County Family
Court is before the Hon. Judge Robyn A. Millenacker; the appointed Ramsey County Guardian
ad Litem (GAL) from Judge Millenacker is Ms. Ramona M. Olson. The current custodial matter
before the Court involving Plaintiff is at least his fourth (4) custodial case in Ramsey County
involving he and his ex-wife.
13. Defendant County of Ramsey is a county within the State of Minnesota that
encompasses Saint Paul and White Bear Lake, Minnesota. The County operates and administers
the Second Judicial District Court, and Ramsey County Family Court, and Ramsey County
Juvenile and Family Justice Center located in St. Paul, Minnesota, which has jurisdiction over its
GAL Program also located at the same address, 25 West 7th Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102.

DEFENDANT NO. 2

14. One day after Plaintiff had filed his In Forma Pauperis (IFP) in Ramsey County
Family Court on 21 January, 2014, his ex-wife filed the first action between the pair within
Tenth Judicial District, Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota, a request for a Harassment
Restraining Order (HRO) which was filed and granted on 22 January, 2014, by the Tenth
Judicial District Hon. Judge Barry S. Sullivan, stayed by Tenth Judicial District Hon. Judge John
P. Dehan in February 2014, and lastly, brought before Tenth Judicial District Hon. Judge Jenny
W. Jasper in April of 2014 where he was found guilty of the HRO at trial in Anoka. [Exhibit S]
15. Judge Jasper then Ordered Plaintiff to attend mediation with his former spouse, and
an arrangement was made on 31 July, 2015 at the mediation firm Cheney-Hatcher & McKenzie
Mediation, (14800 Galaxie Avenue West #301, Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124), which was
subsequently sent to both Judge Millenacker in Second District Court, and Judge Jasper in Tenth
District Court.
16. Judge Millenacker signed the agreement, however, Judge Jasper rejected the Quid
Pro Quo agreement that contained all the concessions Plaintiff was to receive from his ex-wife in
exchange for rolling the provisions of the HRO into a new agreement but dropping the HRO
from Plaintiff.
17. Defendant, County of Anoka is a county within the State of Minnesota that
encompasses cities including Anoka, Blaine, and Lino Lakes, Minnesota. The County operates
and administers the Tenth Judicial District Court, and Anoka County Child Protection Services at
the Anoka County Government Center, 2100 Third Avenue, Anoka, Minnesota 55303.

DEFENDANT NO. 3
18. Defendant, Independent School District #624 (ISD 624) is a public school district
and governmental subdivision of the State of Minnesota located in White Bear Lake, Minnesota.
ISD 624 is entrusted with the responsibility of providing public education to children residing
within its district boundaries. ISD 624 is headquartered at 4855 Bloom Avenue, White Bear
Lake, Minnesota 55110.
19. Defendant, for the academic school years of 2014-2015, and 2015-2016 have
provided public education to Plaintiffs children at Otter Lake Elementary School, an elementary
school within the ISD 624 District; pursuant to the concessions he made to drop the HRO in
2014, the children would attend school in his ex-wife and new husbands new district.
20. GAL, in her duties would be conducting interviews and offering a report to the
Court, including conversations about physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, the kids home life,
etc., with Plaintiffs children at Otter Lake Elementary School in September and October 2015.
21. Plaintiff has been an active parent volunteer while his children have attended Otter
Lake Elementary School, volunteering for multiple field trips at the school the childrens first
year, and signing up with both third grade teachers to volunteer during the current school year.
22. Mrs. Jill Peterson and Mrs. Leslie Vollhaber are both teachers at Otter Lake
Elementary School, and Mr. Timothy R. Schochenmaier is Otter Lake Elementary Principal, and
all three (3) are employees of ISD 624.

10

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
23. Mr. David J. Carlson and Mrs. Krista A. Carlson (n/k/a/ Dickenson) were married in
August 2006, and first initiated the divorce and custodial process in Ramsey County, Saint Paul,
Minnesota, in 2008, culminating with a joint-agreement and stipulation (including a mediation
clause) signed before the Hon. Judge Gail. C. Bohr in June of 2012, in Minnesota Second
Judicial District, Ramsey County Family Court, St. Paul, Minnesota.
24. Plaintiff without exception in every filing to Ramsey County Family Court has
maintained that the best situation for his daughters was equal parenting time and joint physical,
and joint legal custody of the children as both parents play vital roles in the development of their
children as they grow up in dual homes.
25. Plaintiffs filings have always reflected a strong preference towards co-parenting.
Plaintiff never filed for more than 50% custody in Ramsey County Family Court.
26. Plaintiffs former spouse repeatedly throughout their Family Court process from 2008
to present day, has consistently filed for sole physical and legal custody an allocation of at least
91% up to 100% parenting time to be awarded to her, with no more than 9% for Plaintiff; well
under the State of Minnesota presumption for custodial parenting under Minnesota State Law.
27. The only jointly agreed upon custodial arrangement between Plaintiff and his former
spouse was signed by Judge Bohr in June of 2012; it included a joint recommendation from
Ramsey County Social Services to Ramsey County Family Court a compromise of 50%-50%
equal parenting time, and joint legal and physical custody awarded to Plaintiff.

11

28. From 2006 until at least October 2015, Plaintiff exclusively provided health care and
insurance for the children through Minnesota Care and subsequently Medical Assistance (MA),
waiving multiple times child support payments from his ex-wife despite qualifying for it.
29. Plaintiff had taken the minor children to at least 50 appointments between the two
children, including to various specialists, check-ups, both urgent and emergency care, and dental
work from 2007 until 2015 with little to no assistance and support from his former spouse during
that timeframe; Plaintiff always ensured the mother always had the pertinent information for the
childrens insurance and provider, and on many occasions provided written medical documents
from providers to be sent home to both homes including medications and medicine.
30. Plaintiff was a full-time student at the University of Minnesota upon being
Honorably Discharged from the United States Marine Corps as a non-Commissioned Officer
(NCO) in August of 2007, when he then transferred from the University of Minnesota-Duluth
where he was a junior, prior to leaving the Marine Corps Officer Candidate Program and
enlisting in the infantry in 2003.
31. Plaintiffs ex-wife remarried Mr. Andrew Dickenson on 11 September, 2013
changing her name to Dickenson; her husband, Mr. Andrew Dickenson, has two minor children
from a previous relationship, and those childrens mother maintains joint-custody, and equal
parenting time to Plaintiffs understanding; conversely, during the same time frame Plaintiff has
been losing parenting time to the Dickensons, Mr. Dickensons children actually have been
given more time with their mother.

12

32. Mr. and Mrs. Dickenson together first violated Plaintiffs custodial rights and
infringed on Plaintiffs Court Ordered parenting time during Christmas break 2013, violating the
holiday stipulations portion of their joint agreement from the 2012 Ramsey County Custodial
Order.
33. Plaintiff offered to bring his children to his former spouses Thanksgiving family
celebration which occurred during his assigned parenting time, to celebrate with Mrs.
Dickensons family since they were celebrating two (2) days after Plaintiff celebrated
Thanksgiving; their celebration was on Saturday, 30 November, 2013 at approximately 2:00 PM
in St. Paul, Minnesota, and he was told to expect the children back around 6:00 PM that evening.
34. Upon Plaintiffs arrival with his children at Mrs. Dickensons mothers home, Mrs.
Sharon Geiger, Plaintiffs former spouse informed him that she and her husband were going to
take the children throughout some of Plaintiffs holiday family time--from 19 December, 2013
until 27 December, 2013.
35. Plaintiff stated his opposition to the change as it would mean Plaintiffs children
would not see their father or other family and friends during the entire preceding week to the
familys religious celebration of Christmas, and offered a compromise that they at least allow
Plaintiff until 6:00 PM on Christmas Eve, 24 December, 2014, leaving through New Years;
however, that was repeatedly rejected by Mrs. Dickenson.
36. Plaintiffs ex-wife--against the wishes of Plaintiff, and in violation of the agreed upon
Court Ordered schedule, took sole control of the children from 19 December, 2013 through 27
December, 2013, allowing no contact between the children and their father and his family during
that holiday time. During this hiatus, Mrs. Dickenson did say, however, that she was willing to
let the children come spend Christmas with their father starting on Thursday, 26 December, 2013

13

and Plaintiffs family and friends prepared to celebrate Christmas with the children on
accordingly on 26 December, 2013.
37. Plaintiff attempted to contact to his former spouse multiple times throughout the late
morning and afternoon on Thursday, 26 December, 2013 as Plaintiff, his family, and friends
were waiting at his home all evening to see the children and celebrate Christmas together.
38. Plaintiff finally heard back from Mrs. Dickenson regarding the exchange at 8:00 PM,
when she informed him she was not willing to let the children go with him that night, and he
could only get them the following morning, and that and she would text him the following
morning.
39. Prior to 27 December, 2013, there had never in Plaintiff or his former spouses history
had any police interactions between the couple, nor any restrictions, prohibitions, mediation, or
Court Orders regarding limiting contact between the two parents.
40. Additionally, there is no history of requests for such actions, or reports made to any
authorities or school officials regarding any issues, incidents, or alleged abuse between the
couple, or concerns regarding the safety of either Plaintiff or Mrs. Dickenson towards the other,
nor any reports of violence or abuse with their children.
41. The following morning, Friday, 27 December, 2013, Mrs. Dickenson text Plaintiff
around 9:00 AM, and gave him a small time frame to get approximately 23 miles from
Woodbury to Blaine, Minnesota, at the household of Mr. and Mrs. Dickenson, where Plaintiff
was instructed by both Mr. and Mrs. Dickenson to pick-up the children up at the Blaine home.
42. Plaintiffs former spouse told him if he did not meet the time line he would have to
coordinate with Mr. Dickenson to get his children sometime later that day; Plaintiff and a witness

14

quickly headed out to get the children at the Dickensons house on Buchannan Street in Blaine,
Minnesota, around 10:00 AM.
43. Upon Plaintiff and a witness arriving at the childrens mothers house in Blaine,
Plaintiff was met by a Blaine Police Department (BPD) Officer who was called by Mr.
Dickenson who frantically minutes prior called for emergency assistance from BPD, despite he
and Mrs. Dickenson requesting Plaintiff come pick up the children from their home in Blaine on
Friday moring, 27 December, 2013 to begin their Christmas break with Plaintiff and his family.
44. Plaintiff and a witness heard the phone conversations with Plaintiff and his former
spouse, as well as between Plaintiff and Mr. Dickenson; Plaintiff also has written communication
via text/email between Plaintiff and Mrs. Dickenson to support these claims, and upon further
examination from phone providers can provide conclusive factual resolution to that accusation.
45. In subsequent conversations between Plaintiff and his daughter in July of 2015, she
expressed to Plaintiff that there was a heated verbal disagreement between Mr. and Mrs.
Dickenson regarding involving the police report on aforementioned day, with Mrs. Dickenson
refusing to call the police and stating it was a bad idea; the first police report between Plaintiff
and his former spouse was made by Mr. Dickenson, due to Mrs. Dickensons unwillingness to
call the police and escalate between the two parents in that manner.
46. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Dickenson came outside their house to speak to the BPD
responding officer. Plaintiff and a witness proceeded to speak to the officer about the situation.
The responding officer informed Plaintiff that Mr. Dickenson and not Mrs. Dickenson had made
the emergency call, and urgently pleading for a BPD escort for Plaintiff before he arrived
because Mr. Dickenson feared for his familys safety despite stating over the phone for
Plaintiff to pick the children up in Blaine at the Dickenson home.

15

47. The responding officer noted, and inquired to Plaintiff as to why the two (2) Carlson
children were left outside unattended shoveling, seemingly counter to the claim of urgent need
for police presence. After speaking to the officer, Plaintiff took custody of the children without
any incident.
48. Subsequently, during the following month of January 2014, there were one (1) school
days off for teachers training, and three (3) emergency snow and frigidly cold days below -40
degrees (F) in the region that forced school closures that were later rescheduled, but fell
exclusively on Plaintiffs days he was to receive the children for his court-ordered parenting time
from his ex-wife following the school day.
49. On the first occurrence, Plaintiff informed his ex-wife he would be fine with getting
the children anytime after 3:00 PM on 7 January, 2014 when their first grade class would
typically be released, and was open to a time window as well if need be for convenience.
50. Mrs. Dickenson responded she was unwilling to transfer the children at or around that
3:00 PM, and stated she would only meet Plaintiff after sunset at 6:00 PM, per their weekend
non-school day schedule which she decided to revert to.
51. Plaintiff informed his former spouse he did not want to involve the police, however,
his time begun on weekdays during the school year at 3:00 PM, and if she did not meet Plaintiff
by at least 4:00 PM he would seek a domestic escort with either BPD or Saint Paul Police
Department (SPPD) to get his children, and safely transport them from either Saint Paul or
Blaine to Woodbury, where Plaintiff and his daughters reside.
52. Plaintiff was forced to call BPD three (3) times during the month of January 2014, on
the 7th, 21st, and 28th. Each time for the very same reason, however, prior to doing so, Plaintiff

16

each time tried to reason with Mrs. Dickenson to avoid the confrontation, unnecessary use of
limited police resources, and most damagingly, the distress being caused to the children;
53. Plaintiff exercised the utmost caution and sought verification and assistance from
relevant law enforcement, as he did not want to just show up at the Dickenson household.
54. Each incident that month, Plaintiff first called, consulted, then waited for BPD escorts
and only followed their lead and instructions to resolve the situation as he waited away from the
Dickenson house in Blaine.
55. Per the National Weather Services (NWS) Severe Winter Warnings, along with the
Minnesota State Patrol (MNSP), and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT), state
and federal authorities recommended that only emergency vehicles and essential traffic be on the
roads because of the severe and deadly frigid temperatures, black-ice on the roads, record
breaking wind-chills, and wind-gusts the region was experiencing, especially on Interstate 694
between Blaine, and Woodbury, Minnesota where Plaintiff would be traveling 28 miles in the
dark, putting the children at an unnecessary harm and danger Plaintiff chose not to engage in.
56. Plaintiff expressed to BPD on each incident he was unwilling to put the children at
risk during the most dangerous evening hours in these conditions, and if he could not take them
during daylight hours when it was safer to travel long-distance, he would be forced to wait until
the following day when it was safer to travel and school was in session.
57. Each time Mrs. Dickenson refused to let the children leave with their father, and
Plaintiff lost parenting time.
58. Plaintiff informed his ex-wife both in early and mid-January, 2014 that if he continued
to be harassed and denied parenting time with his children per the couples Ramsey County

17

Court Order of 2012, he would be filing for parenting assistance with Ramsey County Family
Court, Second Judicial District.
59. Plaintiff showed considerable restraint in allowing violations of his parental rights to
persist in effort to avoid the escalation in Court, where Plaintiff did not want to restart a process
that spanned over six (6) years at that point in time already. Plaintiff only filed for assistance
when he felt all other avenues were no longer viable, and he needed the Courts help.
60. Additionally, Plaintiff discovered two more attempts by Mrs. Dickenson demanding
he be arrested by BPD for his replying to her own emails on Gmail; first on 19 March 2014,
and again on 1 April 2014.
61. Neither of these incidents Plaintiff was ever notified or contacted by BPD regarding
the matter, and despite apparently a standing HRO in place that Plaintiff found out during the
Ramsey County Family Court Hearing in July of 2015. On both of these occasions, BPD
advised Mrs. Dickenson there was not sufficient reason or just cause to arrest Plaintiff.
62. In all, Mrs. Dickenson has demanded Plaintiff be arrested no less than five (5) times
since 2014.
63. Plaintiff had repeatedly requested to not have to meet the Dickensons for drop-offs
or pick-ups in-person, however, each time his ex-wife repeatedly rejected it, forcing Plaintiff to
continue to meet her and/or her husband each time for change over of custody of the two
children, even despite having an HRO filed and placed against him by Anoka County District
Court.
64. On 21 January, 2014, Plaintiff officially submitted his initial paperwork in Ramsey
County Family Court, Self-Help Desk and spoke to legal assistance there as well as the
secretary, and had been working with the Ramsey County Family Court Self-help desk and their

18

free legal clinic on multiple occasions the previous several weeks in early January 2014 due to
the increased hostility he was facing from his ex-wife and her husband. [Exhibit P]
65. On 22 January, 2014, Plaintiffs ex-wife filed Petitioners Affidavit and Petition for
Harassment Restraining Order (PHRO) against Plaintiff in Tenth District Court, Anoka,
Minnesota. [Exhibit F]
66. At the time of Mrs. Dickensons filing on 22 January, 2014, there had been no orders
or restrictions between Plaintiff and his former spouse communications prior to her filing for the
PHR; there was a mediation clause and stipulation in the couples joint agreement from Ramsey
County Family Court in June of 2012, that Mrs. Dickenson chose not to pursue.
67. In the initial filing from Mrs. Dickenson on 22 January, 2014, and sworn true to
Judge Sullivan, Tenth District Court Judge, Mrs. Dickenson (Petitioner for PHRO in this
statement) stated the following under oath against Mr. Carlson (Defendant for PHRO in this
statement):
1. I am the Petitioner in this case. The victim of the harassment is me. (Petitioner did not check
box for minor child for whom I am the parent of abuse or harassment, nor filed on joint
childrens behalf, despite claiming alleged physical abuse by Mr. Carlson.)
2. a) How many restraining orders have been in effect, ordering Respondent to stay away from the
victims you included above? (Petitioner checked None)
b) Does Respondent have a current Harassment Restraining Order or Order for Protection
(OFP) against you? (Petitioner checked No)
3. The following court cases involve me and the Respondent in issues of child custody or parenting
time: (Petitioner lists three court file numbers, all in Second Judicial District, Ramsey
County, Minnesota)
4. Respondent has harassed the victim(s) as follows: Check all that apply:
a. Respondent physically or sexually assaulted the victim as follows: Was physically
abusive after a school event for parties joint children when the children were unwilling to go with
respondent during his scheduled parenting time. Pushed and slammed in door! Witnesses
present. (Petitioner states, approx. date 1 yr ago)

19

(No report was made or submitted to childrens school, Principal, SPPS, SPPD, nor provided to
Anoka County Court for purpose of this PHRO).
(Additionally, Anoka County through three (3) district court judges never initiated or requested
any investigation into abuse, or appointed any guardian ad litem or child protective services to
investigate claims of physical/sexual abuse, or check on welfare of the children. At the time of
the alleged assault, the children were in Kindergarten at SPPS.)
b. Respondent has followed, pursued or stalked the victim as follows: Sat outside of
petitioners house during petitioners scheduled parenting time with petitioners knowledge and
stayed out of sight.
c. More than once, Respondent has done acts that meet the legal definition of targeted
residential picketing by: Unwanted visits to the house, threatening to show up, waiting down
the street in his car to find out when Im home. Sending the police to our house during my
scheduled parenting time and saying Im keeping the kids from him.
d. I told Respondent not to come to certain public events that I or the children attended
because: He was being harassing toward the petitioner and petitioners family.
e. After that, Respondent attended public events I/we attended: (List dates, place and
name of events) Received threatening texts message when I did not invite Respondent to events
to avoid contact and confrontation.
5. Describe the effect the harassment has upon the victims safety, security or privacy: Respondent
shows up to petitioners home with police during petitioners parenting time. Making it difficult to
be home with children because they ask questions. Constant texts messages that are demeaning
and threatening makes me scared he will physically escalate toward me or the kids. There are no
peace days. His harassment is constant everyday I am no longer comfortable at home alone with
the kids. I am scared to go to work because he threatens to show up there and has shown up
there.
6. Do you believe the harassment will continue? Why? Yes. The harassment has been continuous
for 6 years. I have asked him to stop many, many, times. He does not seem to realize he is being
harassing. He doesnt seem to think hes doing anything wrong.
7. I ask the Court to issue a Restraining Order as follows: Check all boxes (a through e) that apply:
a. Respondent shall not harass: Me [Petitioner did not check box for minor children
for whom I am the parent of; despite accusing Defendant of physical/sexual abuse
of his children, and being scared he will physically escalate towards kids.]
b. Respondent shall have no contact with: Me [Petitioner did not check box for minor
children for whom I am the parent of; despite accusing Defendant of
physical/sexual abuse of his children, and being scared he will physically escalate
towards kids.]
c. Respondent shall stay away from where I/we live (address listed in Blaine, Minnesota)
[Petitioner did not attempt to initiate any child abuse investigation despite accusing

20

Defendant of physical/sexual abuse of his children, and physical/sexual abuse of

Petitioner, and claiming Petitioner was scared he will physically escalate towards
kids.]
(Additionally, Anoka County through three (3) District Court Judges, never initiated or
requested any investigation into abuse or appointed any guardian ad litem or child
protective services to investigate claims of physical/sexual abuse or check on welfare of
children.)
d. Respondent shall stay away from my/the victims job site located at: (Addresses listed in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, and North Oaks, Minnesota)
8. Court Hearing: [Petitioner chose B: I am requesting a Court hearing.]
9. I request a Restraining Order for a length of: [Petitioner Chose: 2 years from date of issuance
- Ordered on 22 January, 2014]

68. Judge Sullivan allowed three (3) pieces of evidence to be submitted by Mrs.
Dickenson; a total of three (3) police reports, all from BPD; two (2), initiated by Plaintiff. The
first on 27 December, 2013 where Mr. Dickenson called requesting an Emergency Domestic
Escort for Plaintiff.
69. The second and third BPD reports, and only other submitted pieces of evidence for
the issuance of the HRO were all initiated by Plaintiff, and classified as Child Custody
Disputes; these reports are dated 7 January, 2014 and 21 January, 2014.
70. On 22 January, 2014, Judge Sullivan of Tenth Judicial District, Anoka County, found
and issued the following Order Granting Petition for Ex Parte Harassment Restraining Order:
[Exhibit F]
Based upon Petitioners Affidavit and Petition for a Harassment Restraining Order and
other information provide to the Court, THE COURT FINDS:
There is an immediate and present danger of harassment to justify temporary relief:
There are reasonable grounds to believe that Respondent has harassed Petitioner (or
minor children included in the petition) as follows:

21

1. Physically and/or sexually assaulted the petitioner;

2. Followed, pursued, or stalked the Petitioner;
3. Made unwanted visits to the petitioner;
4. Made harassing phone calls to the petitioner;
5. Made threats to the petitioner;
6. Frightened petitioner with threatening behavior.

The harassment has had or is intended to have a substantial adverse effect on Petitioners
safety, security, or privacy. Petitioner requested a court hearing.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The request for temporary relief is granted and: Respondent shall not harass: [Judge
Sullivan checked Petitioner]
2. Judge Sullivan also denied the option for the Defendant, to ask the court to change
or vacate the Restraining Order by filing a Request for Hearing within 45 days of the
date of this Order.

71. On 17 February, 2014, Plaintiff was first officially notified and served papers
regarding the HRO, and heard for the first time the serious and untrue aforementioned
allegations of abuse towards she and the children.
72. Even after being made aware Plaintiff had been served and the Order was in full
effect, Plaintiffs ex-wife repeatedly on 19 February, 2014, and 21 February, 2014, sent him
numerous texts messages requesting for him to, please confirm youll be meeting us regarding
the childrens soccer and their changeover; Plaintiff was told his reply or third party contact with
Mrs. Dickenson would be grounds to immediately arrest him, therefore, he was again denied his
Court Ordered parental time due to the circumstances Plaintiff was suddenly placed in.
73. Mrs. Dickenson told Plaintiffs children when he did not show to pick them up as
usual that Friday that, your Dad didnt want to see you guys this weekend.

22

74. At the time of the alleged physical assault by Plaintiff towards his ex-wife and/or his
daughters, they were age six (6), and in Kindergarten at Chelsea Heights Elementary School in
Saint Paul, Minnesota, in Ramsey County.
75. According to school records and Chelsea Heights Elementary School Principal Dr.
Jill Gebke, there was never any mention or reporting of abuse to school her or district officials;
Plaintiff throughout that academic year volunteered teaching reading multiple times per month
with Kindergarteners, as well as a half-dozen field-trips and received awards of appreciation for
his volunteering with both childrens kindergarten and first grade classes at Chelsea Heights.
76. Plaintiff had a right to the presumption of innocence, right to due process, and asserts
given the lack of any preceding harassment issues the couples entire history, and given
seriousness of the charges levied against him that were, if true, some of the most extremely
personally damaging that a person, father, veteran, and active member of the community could
have alleged against him, required a thorough examination of the evidence and high threshold to
enact such punishment on a person, thereby validating the unsubstantiated claims, which later
were the proximate cause for the proceeding and current family court issues.
77. Plaintiff was eventually brought before his second Tenth Judicial District Judge,
Judge John P. Dehan on the 25 February, 2014. Judge Dehan stated, he felt Mr. Carlson and
Mrs. Dickenson were both good parents, and he felt the issue was a family court one, and
Ordered both parties to go work things out at mediation.
78. Plaintiff agreed to mediation, but further argued against the continuation of the HRO
due to the extremely damaging nature of it by its very existence, and requested that Mrs.
Dickenson put forth evidence supporting her claims against Plaintiff.

23

79. Judge Dehan declined Plaintiffs request and continued the HRO, ordering mediation
per the joint stipulation and custodial order from Ramsey County Family Court in 2012; by
allowing the Order to continue, it gave credibility to inflammatory and unproven allegations
against Plaintiff that have plagued him ever since.
80. When Plaintiff and his former spouse met, Plaintiff was fulfilling the second half of
his enlistment in the U.S. Marine Corps; they were married during the last year of his contract,
and during the beginning of his process of filing for service connection from the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA).
81. Plaintiff is a service connected disabled veteran with the VA, rated for Traumatic
Brain Injury (TBI), Post-Concussion Syndrome, bi-lateral Concussion Induced Cataracts,
Extreme Light Sensitivity, 1/3 bi-lateral hearing loss, mild anxiety, bi-lateral tinnitus, irritable
bowel syndrome, degenerative changes and protrusions throughout his neck and back.
82. Despite being a combat veteran, Plaintiff has exhibited no signs of combat stress
through his behavior, actions, or treatment of any person(s), evidenced by a clean criminal record
both before and after his military service.
83. Plaintiff is a loving and compassionate man because of his twin daughters who he
loves and cares for with all of his heart. Plaintiff has a longstanding record as a community
volunteer since his youth, and teaches high-risk inner-city students part-time while finishing
school in the Saint Paul Public School District. Plaintiff does not have a history of violence.
84. Plaintiff strongly believes his experiences and background are positives, not just for
his children, but for his students, and veterans in general in our society offer many things and are
not unstable and dangerous because of having been sent to war.

24

85. Plaintiff firmly and vigorously opposes every aspect of Judge Millenackers current
violation of his rights by Ordering the release of over a decades worth of confidential and
protected military and veterans medical and service records released from VA, without bringing
about charges of any crimes against Plaintiff, nor at any point being under the care of the State.
86. Judge Millenacker and GALs actions are a violation of Plaintiffs right to medical
privacy and confidentiality, as well as defy, dismantle, and stand to destroy the physician-patient
privilege that veterans trust they will be afforded to them under law; except, under the most
serious and perilous of situations where a provider has a legal obligation to intervene.
87. The impact the active and intrusive inquisition currently being conducted by Ramsey
County Family Court into Plaintiffs protected VA medical records stands to devastate the already
fragile trust an already high-risk population of veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
have with the VA and their care.
88. Veterans are already more than twice as likely to commit suicide in America at a rate
of one (1) every 22 minutes in America compared to the civilian population, with nearly 30 per
100,000, compared to 14 per 100,000 with civilians; one (1) out of every five (5) suicides in
America includes a veteran. Veteran suicide has been declared an epidemic by numerous
Presidential administrations, VA, and a top priority in Minnesota, as the state has designated
special Veterans Courts in some Judicial Districts and tried to emphasize mental health
assistance.
89. If veterans and disabled veterans fear that even conversations and examinations they
had in confidence a decade or more ago can so cavalierly be seized by family court, based solely
off of the unwarranted, unsubstantiated, and unproven accusations from an ex-wife or exhusband and/or their new spouse, the likelihood of this at-risk population as a result not seeking

25

out medical help or care, because of even the slightest chance that what is happening to Plaintiff-could happen to them, can directly cause a significant ripple affect across the national veteran
community leading to more suicides and broken families as a result.
90. Notwithstanding the damage the ongoing actions of Ramsey County Family Court
can have towards specifically our veteran community and their VA care across America, an even
more sizable and dangerous precedence being set is directed at any person who experiences any
kind of traumatic event--and also has children.
91. By allowing the full and total removal of children from a parent with a dedicated,
active, and honorable unbroken history as father to his children such as Plaintiff, the shockingly
real prospect that any American who finds themselves opposite the other parent in family court,
simply by the alleging of mental health concerns that even if not supported by any facts or
actions, simply due to one experiencing a traumatic experience alone could open every protected
and privileged conversation someone has had in their entire history in order to maintain any
relationship with their kids; this precedent stands to destroy the foundations of trust people all
across the nation depend when talking with therapists, mental health, or their medical or care as a
whole. [Exhibit O]
92. Plaintiff strongly asserts to take a fathers children for a hundred days consecutively
with no absolutely no contact allowed through the entire holiday season, with no evidence to
support any allegations of any abuse, or danger to his children, and in the face of an expert report
that Plaintiff cooperated to provide to the Court, has not been in the best interests of his children
but were the polar opposite, causing severe and permanent damage not just for Plaintiff, but his
children, their entire family, and the prized relationship with his children that Plaintiff has always
made his top priority through his verifiable actions throughout his childrens lives.

26

93. The removal of Plaintiffs daughters has caused him undeserved disgrace, shame, and
fear, taking a law abiding and loving Dad and attaching the negative stigmas someone views a
person with a harassment order who know has suddenly and without warning, also lost total
custody of his children is catastrophic for Plaintiffs life and wellbeing.
94. The consequences of the HRO still being in place even after an agreement to remove
it was reached and sent to the judge, are causing unreasonable, unsustainable, and permanent
damage to Plaintiffs personal and professional lives that continue to this day, and will have
repercussions to him and his reputation and standing for the rest of his life.
95. Plaintiff and his children have suffered greatly already, losing many hundreds of days
of memories and lost bedtimes over the last two plus years, and he continue to suffers incessant,
prolonged, and extreme emotional damage that are having consequences to his entire quality of
life as a result of a County approved assault on Plaintiffs parental rights, reputation, and good
name.
96. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that an unbiased, thorough, fair, and
transparent investigation would be conducted both collectively and independently by all three
Defendants; Ramsey County, Anoka County, and ISD 624, and Plaintiff declares unequivocally
that he has been failed by each Defendant--and continues to be each day the injustices against
him continue.
97. VA must often depend on county and/or state veterans services and systems to aid in
protecting and caring for veterans, ensuring their fair and equitable treatment in our nations
processes, especially given their extreme minority status of OEF-OIF veterans, encompassing 2.6
million since September 11, 2001; this figure is equivalent to 0.5% of the entire U.S. population.

27

98. Veteran mistreatment by government agencies ranging from city, county, state, and
federal entities has been a problem for countless decades. Because veterans issues often
primarily involve some form of above mentioned government, there has been significant effort to
claim absolute immunity, even given extreme gross negligence, malice, and retaliation towards
whistleblowers, to the detriment of veterans, our military, and their families.
99. Therefore, despite many attempts at reforms, Plaintiff asserts because of the nature of
duty of care often falling to various government entities who continue to fail in their duties,
Plaintiff seeks to impose significant damages against the Defendants with the strong belief that
after similar entities nationwide see that actions similar to the allegations brought forth herein
can also carry severe financial penalties for them, and that they will not be automatically
guaranteed protection under sovereignty and immunity claims, the very prospect of similar
significant financial penalties will finally provide the necessary dissuasion thats been absent and
ineffective thus far, and future actions will be mitigated by the various local, state, and federal
entities charged with care for veterans, military, and their families due to this case and verdict.
100. Plaintiff as a licensed teacher in the State of Minnesota now in his third academic
year, has lived in constant fear and shame since the HRO has been issued in 2014; not only
regarding his ability to spend time teaching kids, but having various other constitutional rights
taken from him at any moment due to the seriousness of the unsubstantiated allegations against
him by his ex-wife, that form the basis for justification for the HRO that has been placed on
Plaintiff for more than two (2) years consecutively now.
101. Additionally, Plaintiff, as an Honorably Discharged Veteran and in otherwise good
standing regarding the law, fears his constitutional right to keep and bear arms could be infringed

28

because of the seriousness of the allegations and their subsequent weight by the issuance of the
HRO by Tenth Judicial District, Anoka County, Minnesota.
102. Plaintiff, as a vocal and active Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) and Iraq War
Combat Veteran who served with distinction, as well as a candidate for state and federal public
office in the State of Minnesota, has received many dozens of legitimate death threats including
comments and tweets on social media sites twitter and facebook from sympathizers of the
Islamic State (IS), and/or other groups who have supported radical elements of domestic and
international politics or opposed positions Plaintiff has taken publicly such as regarding abortion
rights or equality.
103. One tweet in particular--a video showing the decapitation of American soldiers sent
to Plaintiff, along with serious threats against him in 2008, 2012, and 2014 election cycles
caused Plaintiff to alert Woodbury Police Department (WPD) so they could increase patrols
around Plaintiffs house prior to the election.
104. Plaintiff lives in fear as a multiple-tour combat veteran of being disarmed and
arrested which has caused prolonged extreme emotional harm and duress every day these
allegations and the subsequent HRO hangs over his head and ruins his reputation and good name.
105. Due to the continued damage this HRO and the loss of his children has had upon
him, Plaintiff has suffered a worsening of all of his service connected VA disabilities due to the
unreasonable treatment he continues to face from Ramsey County, Anoka County, and ISD 624.
106. Plaintiff has fallen behind numerous times in his studies at Texas A&M University
since the HROs issuance, especially after losing all custodial rights in October 2015. It has
become increasingly difficult keeping up with his course loads, which also provide a significant

29

amount of financial support for his family as he continues his vocational retraining from the
Marines and now is again not receiving educational benefits during the spring 2016 semester.
107. Furthermore, as a result of the added stress and aggravation of his disabilities
without consideration for his continued pain and suffering, he has suffered great humiliation and
shame, having to write dozens of emails on account of the cases in Ramsey and Anoka Counties
to the Vice President of Admissions, Dean of the Bush School of Government and Public
Service, various expert professors, and or other departments at TAMU including but not limited
to, Vice President of Student Affairs, Vice President of Financial Aid, Director of Financial Aid,
Director Veterans Services, and Director of Disability Services at Texas A&M.
108. Plaintiffs entire quality of life has been impacted by the collective and
compounding failures of Ramsey County, Anoka County, and ISD 624, that have all been
proximate causes to one another, and continue to impact Plaintiff to this day, placing an
incredible and unreasonable burden on Plaintiff--a private citizen in otherwise good standing and
disabled veteran who is not even allowed to attend his childrens concerts at school, basketball,
or soccer games, or other activities since 22 October, 2015 and the order of Judge Millenacker in
Ramsey County Family Court.
109. Plaintiff held a Top Secret Clearance from the Department of the Navy - U.S.
Marine Corps, and virtually any job Plaintiff would be pursuing, qualified for, or has applied to,
all involve some kind of background check and clearance.
110. To date, despite applying for several hundred jobs since January 2014, Plaintiff has
not only not been offered any position since this HRO has been granted, he has not gotten past
the initial background check on any prospected opportunity. Plaintiff asserts the continuation of
the HRO against him has created and portrayed a negative image that is based off of innuendo

30

and hearsay entirely, including in the HRO that Plaintiff sent his former spouse 22 text messages,
and in a subsequent page listing Plaintiff had sent hundreds of text messages, yet, no evidence
was ever put forth to support that assertion of hundreds of text messages. The fact this HRO
has ever been granted by itself is highly damaging, and enough to warrant his exclusion from
many types of positions, impacting his future earning potential, and severely damaging Plaintiffs
otherwise honorable reputation permanently.
111. Plaintiffs hard earned personal and professional reputations, career, future
prospects, his familys livelihood, and over a decade of high-level academic instruction and debt
from five top public universities in the U.S. and U.K. has been severely and permanently
damaged, and as a whole, his future within the specialty areas he has pursued since 1999 as an
intern for the Office of the Governor of Minnesota, and the professional reputation he has
worked tirelessly towards, has subsequently and with little effort--and even less evidence, been
catastrophically impaled just by the very accusations of wrongdoings, behaviors, and actions,
that Plaintiffs former spouse put forth against him despite not having supporting evidence or any
history of Plaintiff harassing his former spouse he has been separated with since 2008.
112. A central pillar of America and our republican system of governance is the fairness,
impartiality, equity, and honor of our judicial system, as it is entrusted to provide to every
American regardless of circumstance, the rights and protections guaranteed in the Constitutions
of every State and United States.
113. Plaintiff appeared for trial regarding the HRO on 18 April, 2014 Anoka County
District Court, Anoka, Minnesota, before Judge Jasper and represented himself.
114. Judge Jasper, despite stating during trial that using the police for domestic escort is
not constitute stalking or harassment, and despite Plaintiff being told by Blaine Police he could

31

wait blocks away to attempt within an hour another domestic escort to get his children, found
Plaintiff guilty of the HRO, accusing him of threating his ex-wifes husband stating meet you
anytime, any place, which was not verifiable outside of their testimony, and found that Plaintiff
when told by BPD he could wait, had stalked his ex-wife when utilizing domestic escort, and
further restarted the HRO effective 18 April, 2014, instead of 22 January, 2014 when it was
issued or 17 February, 2014 when Plaintiff was personally served the HRO.
115. Plaintiff asserts that Tenth Judicial District, Anoka County, State of Minnesota,
violated his right to a fair trial and hearing, and reasonable expectation of gathering and
subsequent presenting of facts to support the charges gathered by members of the court and/or
their appointed officers, as enumerated in Plaintiffs civil and constitutional rights, guaranteed
under the Constitutions of the State of Minnesota, and the United States, as he is afforded the
presumption of innocence under the law, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
116. In their collective duties entrusted to them under the law, Tenth Judicial District
Judges; Judge Sullivan, Judge Dehen, and Judge Jasper, through their individual and collective
actions, failed to exercise what a reasonable person of the same circumstances would expect
given similar circumstances, and furthermore, displayed a lack of due care expected as the Court
performs its due diligence to investigate the serious charges alleged by Plaintiffs ex-wife and
show impartiality per the Judicial Code of Conduct.
117. Plaintiff retained Mr. V. Bradley, Esq., of Cornerstone Family Law Office (2915
Wayzata Blvd. #211, Minneapolis, MN 55405), and Cornerstone, when inquiring about fee
wavers for Plaintiff were told the same thing--there were not any fee wavers available for the
documents.

32

118. Following the April 2014 Order, there were limited options for appeal and limited
time and extraordinarily excessive fees of nearly $1,000 for court transcripts alone, just from the
one trial with Judge Jasper; in addition to any other fees associated for appeals that Plaintiff was
told by County court personnel that there were not options for him to obtain the transcripts for a
reduced rate.
119. The grossly inaccessible fiscal requirement for not just the printed court materials,
but also the appeal itself discriminate against Americans who cannot on their own pay the
outlandish fees local and state governments are placing on seeking Justice are the modern legal
version of the unconstitutional poll-tax, essentially placing an unreasonable financial burden
on the public to be able to exercise their constitutional right to appeal or trial by jury, and
therefore, akin to the poll tax is the appeal tax, which in its discrimination based of financial
capacity runs contrary to our Constitution, values, Judicial Cannons, and the blind pursuit of
Justice.
120. Plaintiff felt his only redress for removing the HRO would be in the mediation
process, therefore he would put what limited resources he could medication with the hopes of
ending the attack on his parental rights and HRO.
121. Plaintiff would be forced to pay expensive fees just to be placed on a list before any
of the private firms suggested, and despite he and his daughters being on Minnesota Care and/or
Medical Assistance, there were no reduced rates for these services, despite Plaintiff having a
current IFP in Ramsey County at the time.
122. Plaintiff and his counsel entered into mediation with Mrs. Dickenson, and her
attorney, Mr. Justin Terbeest, Esq., McCullough & Associates, P.A. (905 Parkway Dr., Saint
Paul, MN, 55117), at the for-profit mediation firm Cheney-Hatcher & McKenzie Mediation

33

(14800 Galaxie Ave. W. #301, Apple Valley, MN 55124) in July of 2014.

123. Once in mediation, Mrs. Dickenson suddenly was willing to negotiate the removal
of the HRO against Plaintiff, provided he agree to significant concessions he had been fighting
against since 2008 in his parenting schedule, and concede on some other parenting issues he had
disagreed with in the past and had remained unsettled at that point.
124. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs unequivocal feelings he was being unfairly treated and
extorted by Mr. and Mrs. Dickenson and their attorney Mr. Terbeest, Plaintiff also felt he had no
choice to remove the HRO outside of mediation. Plaintiff and his counsel feared his potential
arrest under the extreme HRO conditions, and even further degradation of his parental and
custodial rights were likely if the HRO remained in effect, therefore, despite acting in protest,
Plaintiff reluctantly signed on to the following demands by his ex-wife for the HRO to be
removed, and the agreement was signed on by both parties on 31 July 2014: [Exhibit H]
A. Plaintiff agreed to the following conditions:
1. Plaintiff would give Mrs. Dickenson approximately six days per month to Mrs.
Dickenson, roughly 45% of his parenting time per month during the school year;
2. Plaintiff would also drop his upcoming Parental Assistance hearing before the Judge
Millenacker in Ramsey County Family Court that was already scheduled;
3. Plaintiff would agree to let the children transfer schools to White Bear Lake, instead
of negotiating through mediation where they would be attending school due to the
Dickensons moving as had been planned;
4. Plaintiff agreed to roll over all the HROs conditions and restrictions on contact and
communications between he and Mrs. Dickenson into the new agreements to be sent to
both Anoka and Ramsey Counties.
B. Mrs. Dickenson in return agreed to the following conditions:
1. Mrs. Dickenson would withdraw and drop the HRO on Plaintiff, however, would the
restrictions on contact and communications with
Plaintiff and in the event he violated these restrictions could go back to court and he
would be responsible for costs;

34

2.

As Plaintiff was a candidate for U.S. Senate Republican Primary in Minnesota, Mrs.
Dickenson finally agreed to allow the children to attend their fathers swearing in
ceremony if he was elected.

125. Plaintiff before mediation and after, repeatedly requested to not have to meet Mr.
and Mrs. Dickenson for drop-offs or pick-ups in-person, however, each time Mrs. Dickenson
repeatedly rejected this, forcing Plaintiff to meet her and/or her husband each week for change
over of custody of the two children; this despite having an HRO against him and stating in her
application she feared for her life, and feared he might hurt the children too.
126. Despite just reaching agreement barely a month prior, on 5 September, 2014
Plaintiffs ex-wife called OPD in front of their children, and demanded Plaintiff be arrested for
violating a standing HRO.
127. Plaintiff spoke to an OPD Officer on the phone, and the Officer concluded there
was no active HRO on Plaintiff, and no justifications for further action.
128. On 10 September, 2014, Ramsey County Judge Millenacker signed into effect a
new joint stipulation and custodial agreement reflecting the quid pro quo agreement Plaintiff and
his ex-wife reached in mediation in July of 2014. [Exhibit Q]
129. This agreement was entered into and made in good faith by Plaintiff, with a
contingency clause and clearly expressed expectation that only if upon the removal of the HRO,
Plaintiffs former spouse would received roughly half of Plaintiffs custodial parenting time.
130. Throughout the first several weeks of September 2014, despite repeated requests for
Judge Jasper to approve the new agreement she had ordered the parties to try and reach, Judge
Jasper did not respond to those requests. Finally, in late September 2014, Judge Jasper finally
apparently rejected the July 2014 mediation agreement.

35

131. Judge Jasper, however, did not issue an Order on the new agreement and HRO
matter--she rejected it, and Plaintiff only found out of the HRO being active nearly a year later
the following July of 2015 in Ramsey County Family Court, as Mr. Terbeest informed Plaintiff
and the Court that there was a glitch that caused the issues.
132. Judge Jasper, by not issuing an Order or allowing for a reasonable opportunity for
Plaintiff to contest the decision and argue the matter before the Court, had his rights to due
process that are guaranteed in the Minnesota and United States Constitutions violated, which is
ongoing and a present issue; to date, Plaintiff now has had an HRO placed upon him for more
than two (2) years consecutively or 26 months straight.
133. Throughout September and October 2014, Plaintiff sought information from Mr.
Bradley about the status of the HRO, and on numerous occasions as he was still being
continually threatened by his ex-wife, Plaintiff was told there was no HRO active against him,
and he never received any denial of the July 2014 mediation agreement.
134. Additionally, Plaintiff checked with various other agencies about the status of the
HRO and what came up on his record, including but not limited to SPPD, WPD, Anoka County
District Court, and Ramsey County District Court, all claiming that there was no evidence of the
HRO still in effect, so Plaintiff believed the deal was enacted, and had taken place pursuant to
the agreement as he gave up his concessions accordingly.
135. On 21 January, 2015 one of Plaintiffs children invited him to watch her first
snowboard event via Gmail. Plaintiff told his daughter he would drive to Wild Mountain,
(Taylors Falls, Minnesota), where the activity was occurring; Mrs. Dickenson in front of their
daughter threatened to call the police on Plaintiff if he did not immediately leave the
snowboarding event; Plaintiff, to avoid any further incident in front of his daughter left the event.

36

136. On 9 March, 2015, Mrs. Dickenson again called OPD demanding Plaintiff be
arrested for violating a standing Order For Protection (OFP) she claimed she had on him,
despite Plaintiff never having a OFP against him; Plaintiffs children--fearful he was about to
be arrested by the squad car behind their moms vehicle, were extremely upset at having to leave
Plaintiff and walk by an OPD cruiser to get to Mrs. Dickensons vehicle.
137. Only after being reassured by Plaintiff he wasnt going to be taken to jail did the
children finally reluctantly leave Plaintiffs vehicle; once again, the police report and drop-off
were cleared without incident and no further action was taken.
138. On the morning of 10 July, 2015 while one of the children had tennis practice, one
of Plaintiffs daughters began to tell him about events that had been allegedly happening at the
Dickenson household with Mr. Andrew Dickenson, beginning with a description of the
aforementioned incident on 27 December, 2013 involving BPD.
139. Plaintiff began to become extremely concerned as the descriptions the children were
telling Plaintiff started to become consistent with child abuse and included their special-needs
stepsister, Mr. Dickensons daughter from a previous relationship.
140. Plaintiff, as a Mandatory Reporter of abuse under Minnesota State Statute 626.556
REPORTING OF MALTREATMENT OF MINORS as a licensed teacher in the State of
Minnesota, was cognizant of the timelines with court, and therefore without telling the children
started to record audio of the rest of the conversation, due to severity of the allegations from the
children, and desire of Plaintiff to capture what was being said without and doubt that it was not
coming from him. He recorded roughly a 30-minute conversation detailing multiple specific
incidents Plaintiff had not known of prior.

37

141. Initially, the children described that Mr. Dickenson had gone through Mrs.
Dickensons phone and discovered she had text a former boyfriend, became angry, and Mrs.
Dickenson had either locked herself in Plaintiffs daughters bedroom and slept locked in their
room that night to be away from Mr. Dickenson, as the children have told their father Mr.
Dickenson has a temper you dont even wana see, Dad.
142. Plaintiffs daughters described strikes to the back of the head where the girls have
longer hair, and initially the allegations were centering around Mr. Dickenson and his special
needs daughter Addie, but soon he was told one of his daughters were also allegedly struck
from Mr. Dickenson in the home, at least on the second incident without Mrs. Dickenson present
at the home.
143. Plaintiffs daughters told Plaintiff that Mr. Dickenson was allegedly striking Addie
approximately four (4) times per month or once a week; Plaintiff asked if any of his children had
also been struck by Mr. Dickenson, and one of the childrens body language immediately
concerned Plaintiff, so he began to ask some more gentle, but gradually more specific questions
that one daughter stated she doesnt remember; however, her sister stated that she did
remember, and began to describe two incidents where Mr. Dickenson struck one of Plaintiffs
daughters, both times in the back of her head.
144. Plaintiff was told of an incident when his daughters were seven when Mr.
Dickenson allegedly struck one of the daughters in the back of the head. Plaintiff asked if there
were any other incidents he needed to know about, the daughter who was struck again said she
couldnt remember, however, her twin sister said, she could remember, but she would have to
rewind; Plaintiff told her to rewind as much as she needed to, and his daughter proceeded to
describe an alleged incident in great detail, which caused Plaintiff to fear for the safety of all the

38

children under Mr. Dickensons care, as Plaintiffs children are not known to be untruthful, and
have never made up anything prior to this despite knowing both parents have been in court for
many years continuously.
145. According to Plaintiffs children, while Mrs. Dickenson was away, and one (1)
daughter was outside, the stepbrother, Ryland had said something that had broken inside the
house and was the fault of one Plaintiffs daughters, and that she intentionally did it. Mr.
Dickenson asked her about it, and Plaintiffs daughter said she didnt do it, then Mr. Dickenson
told her not to lie to him, and struck her for a second incident in the back of the head.
146. Plaintiff was told of allegedly only two times that his daughter was hit, and her
sister stated she has not been struck. She stated she is usually outside often during these
incidents, and that both Mr. Dickenson and Mrs. Dickenson--but more Mr. Dickenson, had a
difficult time being parenting and being patient with the special needs sister, who the children
described as having a difficult time speaking of these incidents to adults and in communications
in general from their description.
147. Plaintiff felt he had legitimate cause for serious concern for the safety of the
children in the Dickenson household, and under law had a responsibility to report not just for his
child but the special needs daughter as well. Plaintiff felt with all he had been told he had a
professional, ethical, moral, and legal obligation to report these serious allegations to law
enforcement and child protective services that involved one of his children, and a stepsister of
theirs who is not related to Plaintiff.
148. Plaintiff had been told also of an alleged incident where Addie had either
decapitated or cut the head off of either her gerbil, or one of his daughters gerbils; Plaintiff was
never told of any incidents from Mrs. Dickenson, however, one of Plaintiffs daughters felt their

39

sister Addie was jealous of her, and if the alleged incident was true, Plaintiff feared the
possibility of considerable harm occurring to his children while sleeping, as the incident didnt
sound addressed or resolved from the limited information he was told from his children.
149. Plaintiff immediately called his mother, Ms. Jeanne M. Carlson, explaining there
was an emergency as he was very worried about what he was hearing was occurring at the
Dickenson household; his mother quickly came over to watch the children while he went to the
Woodbury Police Headquarters and asked for guidance on what he should do, and was told he
needed to report in Lino Lakes where the Dickenson family resided, also in Anoka County.
150. Plaintiff, after extremely difficult debate reluctantly followed the standing Court
Order from June of 2012 in Ramsey County Family Court, and exchanged the children per the
schedule, then immediately proceeded to Lino Lakes Police Department (LLPD) and filed a child
abuse report with LLPD, and made an appointment in two days time to bring the children to
speak with a female LLPD police officer, and potentially a child trauma specialist; Plaintiff
turned over the recording with the children to LLPD at that time on 9 July, 2015.
151. At approximately 4:30 PM the following day on 10 July, 2015, an hour and a half
before his scheduled weekend pick-up, an email was sent from Mrs. Dickensons Gmail account
stating, the children were afraid to come with Petitioner, and the children were being kept
against Court Order that weekend per the recommendation of Mr. Terbeest.
152. Plaintiff was immediately concerned as he was just told Mr. Dickenson goes
through Mrs. Dickensons emails and messages on her phone; therefore, Plaintiff could not even
be sure of who had written him or the circumstances under which it was written.
153. Plaintiff, fearing retribution from Mr. Dickenson towards his children, immediately
called 911 Emergency from Woodbury, Minnesota, and was connected to the Washington

40

County Dispatch, who put him through to Anoka County Dispatch where Plaintiff requested an
immediate health and wellness check at the Dickenson household in Lino Lakes, Minnesota, on
10 July 2015.
154. Plaintiff was told by LLPD that two male LLPD officers responded to the call and
arrived at the Dickenson residence and interviewed the children in the presence of both Mrs.
Dickenson inside the house, and Mr. Dickenson in a neighboring room.
155. The officers stated they saw no visible signs of abuse on the children, and there was
nothing LLPD could do, and he would have to wait until Court in Ramsey County that coming
Monday, 13 July, 2015 in to bring up the matter.
156. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff until court on 13 July, 2015, Mr. Terbeest filed a
Certificate of Settlement Efforts attempting to return again to mediation on 9 July, 2015 in
Ramsey County Family Court just one (1) business day before the hearing in July 2015.
157. Plaintiff and Mrs. Dickenson had their first court date in 2015 on 13 July, 2015 in
Ramsey County Family Court before Judge Millenacker; the results of this hearing were the
appointment of a Court appointed Guardian ad Litem (GAL) by Ramsey County Family Court,
Ms. Ramona M. Olson, by Order of Judge Millenacker. [Exhibit C]
158. On 15 July, 2015, Judge Millenacker appointed GAL to:
Conduct an independent investigation and to submit to the Court, with copies to

the parties by October 19, 2015, a written report including conclusions &
recommendations and the facts upon which they are based regarding all matters
relating to the best interest of the children, specifically including the following
issue(s):

41

A. Interim Issues
1. Temporary legal custody of the children;
2. Temporary physical custody of the children;
3. Temporary parenting time;
4. Domestic Abuse.
B. Longer-Term Issues
1. Permanent legal custody of the children;
2. Permanent physical custody of the children;
3. Long-range parenting time.

159. Part of GALs investigation would take place at Plaintiffs daughters elementary
school in ISD 624. Plaintiff had an expectation of a fair and transparent process, especially
given both parents being involved at the childrens school and extra curricular activities. ISD
624 had an expectation to not play favorites, or engage in behavior that could not be verified for
all parties involved.
160. ISD 624 in September 2015 and October 2015, were negligent by permitting
various and/or unknown employees of Ramsey County to ISD 624, giving access to Plaintiffs
children without mandating that the school psychologist and/or school principal be present for
interviews between various and/or unknown county personnel and Plaintiffs minor children
while in the safety of their school.
161. The building Principal was not present for the interviews with a woman the children
did not know personally and she was not familiar to Otter Lake Elementary School either,
nevertheless, ISD 624 employees permitted Ms. Ramona M. Olson access alone in a closed door
room with no other adults present, absolutely no verification, and a lack of control over students

42

and building guests that constituted a major breach of confidence as there is no one to
corroborate anything that happened or was said during these vulnerable times.
162. ISD 624 staff were grossly negligent and lax in their care of a delicate custody case
that was involving two third graders who were still eight (8) years old, and Otter Lake
administration, as well as ISD 624 given the sensitive nature of all the topics Ms. Olson was
discussing, felt it in the best interests of Plaintiffs children to leave her alone one by one with a
strange woman they did not know. Plaintiff is shocked at the appalling lack of authority shown,
protocol observed, or plans in place to handle such situations that either were or still are nonexistent from Plaintiffs observations and conversations with ISD 624 staff and parents.
163. Plaintiff brought his children to open house for third grade at Otter Lake
Elementary School in September 2015, and that was the first and only conversation Plaintiff was
able to have with his daughters third-grade teachers, Mrs. Jill Petersen, and Mrs. Leslie
Vollhaber during the 2015-2016 academic year.
164. Nevertheless, despite not knowing Plaintiff more than one conversation and a
couple waves hello, Mrs. Petersen and Mrs. Vollhaber in their individual and conjoined
capacities showed great contempt and disdain towards Plaintiff--a fellow teacher, by their
conduct and actions through reported interviews with GAL fall 2015; and the disrespectful,
unprofessional, and inappropriate ways they discussed Plaintiff and his daughters, describing
them to a woman they had never met and did not know and could not verify is appalling.
165. Mrs. Petersen and Mrs. Vollhabers treatment of Plaintiff and the consequences of
the words they so nonchalantly and with absolute authority spoke to GAL has been more been
more than shocking, but the vile and viscous manner they discussed and spoke of a parent of
children in their third grade class was abhorrent, demeaning, and filled with undeserved and

43

unethical malice.
166. According to GAL, the following statement and analysis of the interview are
included in her October 2015 Report to Ramsey County Family Court:
Lesley Volhaber - Otter Lake Elementary School
This writer spoke by phone with Ms. Volhaber, who indicated she is As third grade
teacher this year. She indicated school is going well for A so far, and that she seems to
have good connections in the classroom. Ms. Volhaber stated she believes A feels she
belongs in the classroom.
Ms. Volhaber described A as a little on the lower end academically, but added, she
works really hard. She reported A struggles with basic skills such as reading fluency,
knowledge of math facts and demonstrating consistency. Ms. Volhaber stated A attends
school every day. She indicated she does return her homework regularly. Ms.
Volhaber described A as a sweet girl. She tries hard.
When asked by this writer if there is anything she thought A might need that is not
currently available to her, she responded there is not.
Ms. Volhaber reported that Mr. Carlson comes to school more times than most other
parents. She indicated Mr. Carlson comes to school to have lunch with A at times, then
goes out to recess with the class and comes back in the classroom with them, where he
requests hugs from A before leaving. Ms. Volhaber stated that while there are
occasionally other parents who have lunch with their children at school, Mr. Carlson
comes to have lunch more frequently than other parents, and his presence after recess is
distracting from a teaching perspective. She indicated she and Cs teacher have
discussed this concern, and intend to address this with Mr. Carlson. Ms. Volhaber
reported Mr. Carlson also agreed to volunteer for school-related activities. She indicated
he seemed eager to help out and be part of her life, but a little over the top.
Ms. Volhaber stated she has also had contact with Ms. Dickenson. She reported Ms.
Dickenson also expressed her interest in volunteering, and has volunteered for certain
things.
Jill Petersen - Otter Lake Elementary School
In a phone conversation, Ms. Peterson indicated she is Cs third grade teacher this year.
She described A as a pretty solid student and stated that things are going well so far
this year. Ms. Peterson stated C is pretty average as a student, and a little above in
math. She reported C has lots of friends and has some students she partners with
often for classroom. She stated C is well liked in the classroom. Ms. Peterson reported
C has good school attendance and has not missed school.
Ms. Peterson shared that she and Ms. Volhaber have noted that Mr. Carlson comes to
school to have lunch with C and A. She stated Mr. Carlson was invited to lunch once by
A, but has come to school other times uninvited to have lunch with the children, then
goes out to recess with the class. Ms. Peterson described Mr. Carlsons behavior as
different than that of other parents who occasionally volunteer in the classroom and stay

44

for lunch if their child asks. She indicated it appeared that Mr. Carlson seems to want
to be one of the kids when he is at the school. Ms. Peterson reported she and Ms.
Volhaber intend to speak to Mr. Carlson about possibly volunteering rather than
disrupting the classroom.
Ms. Peterson indicated Ms. Dickenson stopped by on Meet the Teacher day. She stated
the children were with Mr. Carlson on that day. Ms. Peterson reported Ms. Dickenson
volunteered to go on a class trip.
Ms. Peterson stated she is aware of the schedule of which parent C goes with every day.
When asked by this writer if there is anything she believes C needs that is not currently
available to her, she responded with I cant think of anything.

167. The statements both Mrs. Peterson and Mrs. Vollhaber gave to GAL had a
devastating impact on Plaintiff and his daughters family life together as they were suddenly
taken from Plaintiff on 22 October, 2015. Their statements were made central to the argument
GAL used against Plaintiffs custodial care, mental health, demeanor, and character that were
used to justify the proceeding actions and continued inquisition Plaintiff suffers as account of.
168. The statements both Mrs. Petersen and Mrs. Vollhaber gave to GAL, along with the
complete absence of any emotional protection Plaintiff expects his childrens school to provide
from bus stop to bus stop, including the Principal and/or School Psychologist, as well as legal
counsel for ISD 624 helping employees involved in actions that could have if properly done,
could have provided all parties equal verification and independence that ISD 624 is reasonably
expected to provide, and conduct that reflects the responsibility they have themselves as the
educating partner of both parents and independent in the parents custodial battle.
169. The combined failures of ISD 624 staff, gross misconduct, and professional
negligence exemplified by interviews allowed to take place between Plaintiffs eight (8) year old
daughters and stranger to the children, GAL, Ms. Ramona M. Olson, who chose to want to be
alone with the door shut in the Principals Office while he was not present in the building.
170. The statements the teachers made to GAL discussing opinions and concerns they
45

apparently had with Plaintiff were never discussed subsequently with Plaintiff whenever he
picked his children up from school which was a weekly basis albeit reduced during that time, and
furthermore, upon Plaintiff meeting with the Principal in January 2016, he stated to Plaintiff he
was not aware of the content of the statements, nor was ever approached from either Mrs.
Petersen and Mrs. Vollhaber about the insulting statements/concerns they made against Plaintiff.
171. Both Mrs. Peterson and Mrs. Vollhaber acted improperly with their conduct with
GAL, and Principal Schochenmaier stated to Plaintiff he provided additional guidance to both
Mrs. Petersen and Mrs. Vollhaber regarding their conduct in the future regarding their
interactions in outside matters as resulting to parents by saying, to stick to the facts.
[Exhibit J]
172. The actions and subsequent reporting by Mrs. Petersen and Mrs. Vollhaber were
damaging to Plaintiff and showed more than a bias against Plaintiff, but were personally
insulting of his role as their father, and contrary to the statement from Principal Schochenmaier
that parents are welcome here everyday if they can help out, we encourage that.
173. The resulting actions have been Plaintiff is not allowed any relationship with the
children or their activities or school life, as Ordered by Judge Robyn Millenacker in Ramsey
County Family Court, and recommended by GAL, Ms. Olson, including Plaintiff missing his
childrens annual concert his daughters invited him to at the safety center, and a proximate cause
of the teachers testimony to the court in the unverified GAL report.
174. GAL only spoke to teachers who had Plaintiffs children in class for a few weeks,
choosing to ignore the second grade teachers across the hall, and made no effort to contact
anyone from Chelsea Heights Elementary School in St. Paul, Minnesota, where the children
attended kindergarten and first grade, and were active in the school.

46

175. GAL did not speak to either the Principal of Otter Lake Elementary in White Bear
Lake, or Chelsea Heights Elementary in St. Paul, both located within Ramsey County itself;
GAL also did not speak or have any discussions with the school psychologist, and chose not to
inform them of her visit to conduct interviews with Plaintiffs minor children regarding topics
inappropriate for a strange woman to conduct, alone, in a room with the door shut.
176. ISD 624 employees were negligent with such some of its most delicate
responsibilities and duties, that especially given the seriousness of the circumstances such as the
rights of a parent to their have contact with their children, a reasonable person would expect a
school district to consider the relationships of parents with their students with such indifference.
177. Plaintiff asserts the alleged and unverified work conducted time and again
throughout this entire investigation of GAL goes beyond simple negligence, and is intentional
and consistent with someone who does not want verification of her work, but instead, GAL
herself is the only person who can attest to the work she has done, and conversations she has had
including about physical/sexual/emotional abuse, home life, their parents, school and personal
lives, between a strange woman alone with minor children is extremely dangerous, unacceptable
conduct and behavior and should never be allowed.
178. GAL, Ms. Ramona Olson, rather than have qualified and accountable building
and/or district personnel present by her request or standard procedure, instead, without
possessing qualifications herself to conduct her own independent child psychological
assessments and evaluations, opted not include any witnesses to her work and conversations of
sensitive topics with minors, offering no proof of what was said or took place in the principals
office alone with Plaintiffs minor daughters at Otter Lake Elementary School without any
supervision; Plaintiff strongly declares this is reprehensible conduct for a school and school

47

district, and serious breech of trust parents have with their childrens school.
179. By the actions, GAL Reports, and Court Orders rendered in two (2) Minnesota
District Courts, the declarations of unproven accusations and innuendos against Plaintiff declared
established and proven Facts of the Court in two Minnesota District Courts, have severely
damaged the integrity of Family Court, District Court and the Judicial system, violated rights
guaranteed to the people of Minnesota and the United States of America that are to be protected
for all Americans, and that the people of Minnesota and the United States expect to be protected
throughout the entire Judiciary, echoing the Judicial Canons and the Minnesota Code of Judicial
Conduct demand of itself:
Canon 1.

A Judge Shall Uphold and Promote the Independence, Integrity, and

Impartiality of the Judiciary, and Shall Avoid Impropriety and the
Appearance of Impropriety
Rule 1.1 Compliance with the Law:
(A) A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Rule 1.2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary:
(A) A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in
the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Rule 1.3 Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office
(A) A judge shall not abuse the prestive of judicial office to advance the
personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.
Rule 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment:
(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative
duties, without bias or prejudice.
(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct
manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, including but not limited to
bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national

48

origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic

status, or political affiliation, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or
others subject to the judges direction and control to do so.
Rule 2.5 Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation:
(A) A judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties competently and
diligently.
(B) A judge shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the
administration of court business.
Rule 2.6 Ensuring the Right to Be Heard:
(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding,
or that persons lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.

Rule 2.8 Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication with Jurors:

(B) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors,
witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others with whom the judge
deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, court
staff, court officials, and others subject to the judges direction and control.
Rule 2.11 Disqualification:
(A) A judge shall disqualify herself in any proceeding in which the judges
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Rule 2.12 Supervisory Duties:
(A) A judge shall require court staff, court officials, and others subject to the
judges direction and control to act in a manner consistent with the judges
obligations under this Code.

180. Plaintiff asserts there is a strong evidentiary basis of support to the claim that both
Judge Millenacker and Judge Jasper through their actions, Orders, statements in court, and their
personal conduct while on the bench, as exemplified in the stunningly personal nature of the

49

Orders they rendered against Plaintiff, that have shown incredible bias and prejudice, and failed
to uphold the highest standards of the Judiciary as outlined above, and embedded into the
Judicial Code of Conduct, Judicial Cannons, and the laws of the United States.
181. In April of 2014, Judge Jasper in her subsequent Order against Plaintiff,
misrepresented multiple key conditions and justifications in her ruling that appear to
intentionally go beyond what a reasonable person in the same situation would feel an unbiased
Judge would conduct themselves like, pursuant to the Minnesota Judicial Code of Conduct,
damaging the credibility of the process the Court, including extremely personal attacks against
Plaintiff in a unprofessional and unethical manner.
182. Plaintiff asserts that Judge Jaspers final judgment and Order of April 2014 are in
direct conflict with the Code of Judicial Conduct and an impartial judiciary, by going well above
and beyond issuing a typical Order against Plaintiff, but composed a incoherent and
uncharacteristically personally vindictive ten (10) page original Harassment Order from scratch,
that an Anoka County Clerk told Plaintiff as she gave it to him, This is not a typical order, Ive
never seen this. I hope you have a good lawyer to read through and interpret this.
183. Plaintiff asserts that Judge Robyn Millenacker has catastrophically failed in all
supervisory capacities with regards to the Ramsey County Guardian Ad Litem, Ms. Ramona
Olson, and ignored her judicial responsibilities and judicial oath.
184. Judge Millenacker has allowed reports to be completed and mailed late without
consequence or even acknowledgement by the Court, further evidenced by Plaintiff forced to go
over three months, from 19 October, 2015, until 25 January, 2016 with absolutely no contact in
any form with his children, and the children not explained what happened to their father.
185. Despite the Court Order for GAL to complete her conclusive report with factual

50

evidence to support the recommendations by 19 October, 2015, GAL failed to finish the report
on-time, or communicate to the parties involved her difficulty in completing the GAL Report,
which was not time stamped from inside GAL office until 3:00 PM on 22 October, 2015 three
(3) days after she was expected to have carried out her duties.
186. Despite knowing her GAL report was already more than three (3) days late, GAL
sent the Confidential documents regular first-class mail with no tracking, yet submitted to Mr.
Terbeest immediately on e-file, and not Plaintiff despite his repeated request to do so since he
met with GAL first in August of 2015.
187. GAL sent the October 2015 report with only one business day between pick-up in
the GAL office, with a 1-3 day recommendation by the U.S. Postal Service for first-class mail
from Saint Paul, Minnesota, to Woodbury, Minnesota; Plaintiff did not receive GAL in
Woodbury until October 31, 2015, nine days after it was stamped in the GAL office, and still to
date has not received the February 2016 GAL report at the time of this filing.
188. Plaintiff was asked if he had received all the documents from the GAL to which he
replied he had, but quickly asked for clarification on what had been sent by GAL to that point,
since Plaintiff had not received any report from GAL prior to the next hearing on 26 October,
2015.
189. Judge Millenacker reluctantly afforded Plaintiff 20 minutes to dissect the 46 page
GAL Report, that unknown to Plaintiff advocated for a complete removal of his custodial rights,
reducing him to only highly supervised visitation at a safety center; which essentially echoed
the requests from his ex-wife and her husband.
190. After less than a half hour to review the GAL documents, Plaintiff attempted to
question the GAL Report per his substantive due process rights, however, was denied the

51

opportunity to question GAL, and a quick decision was rendered from the bench with the next
court date not for at least 90 days.
191. Plaintiff attempted to submit a Motion to Vacate and Dismiss Joint Stipulation in
Ramsey County Family Court on 26 October 2015, and despite having already received several
In Forma Pauperis (IFP) including one from two (2) months prior with GAL in August of 2015,
signed off from Judge Millenacker, Plaintiff was not afforded the opportunity to have his
documents received by the Court; Mr. Terbeest on numerous occasions has submitted documents
under five (5) business days prior to a hearing with no consequence. [Exhibit I, L]
192. The resulting Ramsey County Order from October 2015 ordered Plaintiff to
complete the following: [Exhibit D]
1. Plaintiff was to have no contact other than highly supervised visitations at a safety
center, with FamilyWise Safety Center specifically chosen by Judge Millenacker to
facilitate one visit per week, for 120 minutes; Plaintiff had five days to set up intake at
FamilyWise, and called to schedule his intake on 30 October 2015;
2. Plaintiff was to complete a psychological assessment and parenting evaluation by a
provider of his choice; (Plaintiff chose Dr. James Tuorila of Central Minnesota
Counseling Center (CMCC), 1500 Northway Dr., Saint Cloud, Minnesota, 56303)
3. Plaintiff sent GAL a fax stating the providing physicians contact information and the
date of examination on 15 November 2015; the examination would take place on 6
January, 2016;
4. Plaintiff also informed GAL in the FACSIMILE communication that he had not been
permitted to see or speak to his children since before the 26 October, 2015 Court hearing,
and had gone over 50 days at that point with absolutely no contact since abruptly being
removed from his daughters lives; there was no response from GAL.

193. Plaintiff informed GAL of this fact twice during that time period, and contacted
FamilyWise numerous times regarding the continued violation of Court Order issued by Judge
Millenacker giving Plaintiff highly supervised visitation once a week, although that was not

52

finally put in place at FamilyWise until 8 February, 2016. [Exhibit R]

194. FamilyWise, a supervised parenting center and private business with multiple
locations, have been Ordered directly as the only safety center option Plaintiff had the option to
choose. FamilyWise, due to unreasonably excessive wait lists they allegedly have not been
asked about from Ramsey County Family Court, and allegedly not informed them of either, are
providing sub-par services in at least the Saint Paul location, including (1) having an infestation
rat/mouse problem since before Plaintiff began using their services; (2) no light in the downstairs
bathroom; (3) no working heat in the downstairs playroom; (4) no light bulb out back in their
play area despite Plaintiff being told a light bulb for the outside had requested by staff to
FamilyWise administration with no maintenance performed on any of the aforementioned items
at FamilyWise, despite its employees putting in numerous requests allegedly for at least one year
or more.
195. FamilyWise charges a fee of $120.00 per visit for Plaintiff to see his children in
their centers. Plaintiff has in writing requested information and documents from FamilyWise on
several occasions, including what if any inquiries GAL made regarding his case and extended
wait time to utilize their services or see his children for the first time.
196. Plaintiff experienced the following wait times at FamilyWise to see his children for
the first time, despite a Court Order from Judge Millenacker Ordering the conditions following
the 22 October, 2015 Ramsey County Family Court hearing, and subsequent Order issued on 6
November, 2015; Plaintiff began the FamilyWise intake process on 30 October, 2015:
1. 22 October, 2015: Judge Millenacker removes Plaintiffs custodial rights and Orders
he can only see or speak to his children at FamilyWise, forbidding his participation in
every aspect of his childrens from that point on outside the safety center;
2. 30 October, 2015: Plaintiff begins intake process at FamilyWise;

53

3. 6 November, 2015: Judge Millenacker issues Order adopting GAL report;

4. 15 November, 2015: Plaintiff informs GAL of his psychological evaluation details
and that he had not yet spoken at all to his children for 50 days, nor had his intake
appointment and wouldnt until 30 November, 2015; [Exhibit R]
5. 30 November, 2015: Plaintiff completes FamilyWise intake process, consisting of
one (1), one-hour interview at their Minneapolis, Minnesota main office;
6. 15 January, 2016: Plaintiffs ex-wife tells FamilyWise she cant take the first
available opening for Plaintiff to see his children on 19 January, 2016, because one of his
daughters is busy with guitar practice on that day. She communicates this even to GAL
who saw nothing wrong with Mrs. Dickenson forcing her children to go another week
and 100 days without any contact with their father over a one (1) hour guitar practice;
7. 19 January, 2016: GAL contacts Plaintiff for the first time since court on 22
October, 2015 regarding information he had previously sent to GAL about the
examination he took with Dr. Tuorila; Plaintiff also informed GAL once again he had not
seen his children to date;
8. 25 January, 2016: Plaintiff has first communication and parental visitation with his
children despite Court Order on 22 October, 2015, stating he was going to be given two
(2) hours once a week at a highly supervised visitation at a safety center;
9. 8 February, 2016: Despite Plaintiff supposed to have weekly visitation at
FamilyWise, they were unable to accommodate that order due to capacity issues.
Therefore, he had to go a week in between his first and second visit, with the 8th of
February only his second time speaking or seeing his children since mid-October 2015;
10. 29 February, 2016: FamilyWise is able to schedule Plaintiff for his first weekly
visit at their safety center, 130 days or four (4) months and seven (7) days from Judge
Millenackers Order; at the moment, Plaintiff has neither seen nor heard of any evidence
GAL had ever inquired to FamilyWise into this outrageous delay in any contact with his
children, despite the GAL being responsible to ensure the Order was followed, and best
interests of the children were managed by her as well as Plaintiff telling her on two
occasions prior to communicating with his children.

197. Plaintiff submitted to Ramsey County Family Court on 8 February, 2016 an IFP and
Motion to Vacate and Dismiss Joint Stipulation to Judge Millenacker, who despite Plaintiff and
his children being on state assistance qualifying for either Minnesota Care or Medical Assistance

54

(MA), Judge Millenacker for the second straight hearing denied Plaintiffs Motion, instead
stating he was no longer a family of three, as she had removed his custody; therefore, Plaintiffs
Motion would again not be accepted into the record, and no response allowed by the Court from
Plaintiff in either the October 2015, or February 2016 hearings.
198. Previously, on 20 August, 2015 in Ramsey County Family Court, Judge
Millenacker approved Plaintiffs request for an IFP with GAL; Plaintiffs Motion in October was
denied because Ramsey County Family Court stated I did not have an IFP on file.
199. The parties entered into Ramsey County Family Court on 11 February, 2016 in
before Judge Millenacker.
200. Plaintiff was asked if he had received a recent GAL report, and stated just as had
happened to him in the October 2015 hearing, Plaintiff had not received any report from GAL
prior to the hearing; to date, more than a month after it was allegedly sent, Plaintiff still had not
received the GAL report allegedly mailed from Saint Paul, Minnesota, to Woodbury, Minnesota
on 5 February, 2016, although he received the 1 March, 2016 Order in just a few days time from
the same building.
201. GAL incorrectly stated under oath Plaintiff had not cooperated with either the
request for a psychological examination, as well as parental evaluations with FamilyWise
Parenting Center; she then after the recess had offered that the highly supervised parental
visitations at FamilyWise appear to be going well.

202. Plaintiff immediately requested a recess to read the GAL report, and contact Dr.
Tuorila to confirm he had sent GAL his report, which he stated he had, and he would wait for a
call in case the Court wanted to speak to him for expert testimony regarding his professional
55

work done on behalf of this Court.

203. Upon return from a brief recess, GAL after being prompted again by Plaintiff
acknowledged a report from Dr. Tuorila was received on 9 February, 2016 in her office, and
asked if Your honor would like me to read some of the report? She then began to read
confidential data from the summary and recommendations aloud from the expert psychological
assessment performed by Dr. Tuorila for Plaintiff, on behalf of Ramsey County Family Court
and Judge Millenacker. [Exhibit A]
204. Judge Millenacker asked Plaintiff, If he had any objections to the Guardian
Report? Plaintiff replied yes your honor, and began to substantively disagree and the GAL
report in a respectful, calm, but focused deliberative manner asking how GAL can claim Plaintiff
had not signed a waiver to receive his medical report from Dr. Tuorila, when in front of her she
was reading a medical report sent from Dr. Tuorila to GAL, which was only due to Plaintiffs
corresponding signature allowing that examination to be shared of Plaintiff?
205. Shortly after beginning to try and cross examine and dispute the evidence presented
to the Court, and his objections to the denial of his constitutional rights of due process in this
court, Judge Robyn A. Millenacker of the Minnesota Second Judicial District, St. Paul,
Minnesota, had stopped Plaintiff mid-sentence and Ordered him arrested for Contempt of Court,
then proceeded to incarcerate him for eight (8) hours at the Ramsey County Family Court Jail,
Saint Paul, Minnesota.

206. Later that same day, Plaintiff was brought back into Ramsey County Family Court
before Judge Millenacker. She immediately began by belittling and insulting Plaintiff, and then
proceeded to use the Court and her position as Judge to intimidate Plaintiff, and used Ramsey
56

County Deputies to try and place incredible pressure and threat of arrest and incarceration for
90 days for no reason if I want, do you understand me Mr. Carlson; if Plaintiff did not
immediately sign over all HIPPA/PIPPA and medical privacy rights for Plaintiff to Judge
Millenacker in order to receive all of Plaintiffs VA and military medical records.
207. Despite it being Court Ordered, the comprehensive expert psychological analysis
from Dr. Tuorila sent to GAL on 9 February, 2016, recommending a full return of Plaintiffs
rights, and disagreeing in totality with the current recommendations by GAL and Judge
Millenacker advocating for a continuation of the revocation of Plaintiffs full legal and custodial
rights to his children was not submitted, requested by the judge, or received into the record by
Ramsey County Family Court.
208. Plaintiff alleges Ramsey County, and Ramsey County Family Court has shown
incredible overt discrimination regarding his combat experience in the U.S. Marine Corps, and
despite holding a teachers license from the State of Minnesota for three school years, no criminal
record, no charges of crimes, an Honorable Discharge from the Marines including a Good
Conduct Medal, and Plaintiffs full and unwavering involvement for the entirety of the childrens
lives including providing nearly all of their medical visits prior to his rights revoked in October
2015 is discriminatory, and the Court has not asked any examination of Mrs. Dickenson or her
husband, Mr. Andrew Dickenson, despite Plaintiff being told of abuse in the household and
submitting evidence and filing reports with law enforcement, and not just throwing allegations to
the GAL who has incorporated whatever she is told into her reports without even seeing or
having direct knowledge of what she is testifying under oath in regards to.
209. Other than Mrs. Dickensons accusations, the Court has not produced tangible and
verifiable justifications for Plaintiffs childrens removal, nor their continued forced removal after

57

the February 2016 hearing; Ramsey County Family Court has not produced sufficient reason to
continue investigating Plaintiff, nor seize a decades worth of protected military and veterans
records from the VA.
210. The actions of Ramsey County Family Court evidenced by the continued denial of
Plaintiffs most basic rights, has shown incredible prejudice against him throughout the
proceedings as laid out in paragraphs 23 to 209, herein.
211. Due to the extremely serious threats made by Ramsey County Judge Robyn
Millenacker, stating on the record, I think youre mentally ill, and threatening incarceration of
even for no cause if Plaintiff refused to follow her Orders to turn over his medical records,
Plaintiff has constantly lived in fear of being arrested through police force and SWAT raid for
any violation of her Order, even the attempt to force him to delete pictures of his children are
engrained in the Order, therefore, there exists a possibility for an Order to be violated with
repercussions including arrest by law enforcement which is causing further traumatic damage to
a disabled combat veteran.
212. Plaintiff is genuinely afraid and fearful to be in Judge Millenackers Court ever
again, as she has incarcerated him and threatened to jail him even if she doesnt have a reason for
a period of 90 days, sought to use the full weight of her position as a District Court Judge
including having sheriffs deputies at times stand all around Plaintiff, and attempted to bully
Plaintiff by jailing him all day and then placing incredible pressure on him alone in Court; this
despite a former attorney in the hallway who had requested to be informed when Court
adjourned and I had reentered, and was never told.
213. Plaintiff cannot continue as a litigant in Ramsey County due to the severe nature of
his mistreatment, including threats of prolonged and extended incarceration of him even if for

58

nor reason, which upon further examination of Court transcripts, Plaintiff feels is even more
clear from recorded court proceedings.
214. Judge Millenacker does not reference throwing Plaintiff in jail in her 1 March, 2016
Order, nor her threat to incarcerate him for at least 90 days; although it is on the Court record
through testimony Plaintiff gave in Court during two sessions on 11 February, 2016.
215. Despite the Court ordering weekly visitation for Plaintiff since the 26 October, 2015
ruling, Plaintiff for a shocking and debilitating amount of time, went without any communication
with his children in any form through Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year, all of
basketball season and into soccer season, including not being allowed to attend his childrens
school choir concert by GAL Ms. Olson, and Judge Millenacker through Orders in Ramsey
County.
216. For months on end with no explanation or efforts to remedy the situation for
Plaintiff and his children, as a direct result of the actions and lack thereof from Ramsey County
District Court, Plaintiff was not even given the scant 120 minutes he was allocated from Judge
Millenacker on 26 October, 2015, and was given weekly visitation with his children on 29
February, 2016, 127 days or four (4) months, and three (3) days from the date of the Order
before it was fully executed; this has not even been discussed in Ramsey County Family Court,
and when Plaintiff was stating these facts he was quickly arrested for Contempt of Court.
217. Plaintiff informed GAL of the situation with him not having any contact with his
children on two (2) occasions, yet GAL did nothing in over 13 weeks to address and rectify the
situation, that was not just harming Plaintiff--but more concerning to him; his daughters, who
had abruptly had their Dad ripped suddenly and without warning from their lives suddenly, and
not provided any explanation or answers despite the extreme closeness of their relationship and

59

fact the children are in third grade ten (10) this year and aware of their surroundings.
218. The collective behavior of Ramsey County with regards to Plaintiff and his twin
daughters is absolutely unconscionable in the United States of America.
219. It is not just the appalling treatment of children and parents, but the disdain the
Court who is expected to be fair, independent, equitable, and Just, has shown for Plaintiff and his
relationship with his daughters they are entrusted with trying to help protect, in the best interests
of the children truly and utterly shocks the consciousness causing severe and permanent damage.
220. At the 11 February, 2016 hearing before Judge Millenacker, she ordered from the
bench that Mr. Eric Wittenberg, a VA licensed psychologist and U.S. Army disabled combat
veteran himself, to immediately turn over all records medical and mental health records he had
regarding Plaintiff to GAL, and further insulted Plaintiff who she had arrested, and Mr.
Wittenberg; further insulting, in her 1 March, 2016 Order, she defamed and lowered the honor of
the Court itself from her conduct and way she writes about two both honorably discharged
veterans--Mr. Carlson and Mr. Wittenberg in that Order, even accusing each of attempting to
intimidate the court through staring. [Exhibit B, E]
221. Judge Millenacker has further shown great prejudice and the inability to conduct
herself in a professionally competent and fair manner, to conduct her judicial duties under the
laws and Constitutions of the State of Minnesota and the United States, and this is perhaps no
where more evident than the March 2016 Order she issued where she shows what Plaintiff
asserts is an incredible vile hatred of Plaintiff, that has shatters the decency from Judicial
Officers and Judges that litigants expect to shown from an impartial Judiciary, entrusted with
ensuring our system of laws is fair, and color blind to all. [Exhibit E, D, K]

60

DEFENDANT NO. 1:
CLAIM I
(Violation of civil rights: Due Process Clause)
(14th Amendment/42 U.S.C. 1983)

222. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 221;

223. Federal law provides that every person who, under color of state law, custom, or
practice, subjects any other person to deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable at law, in equity, and in any other proceeding
necessary to obtain redress for such deprivation under U.S.C. 1983;
224. All Defendants were acting pursuant to state law and were acting under color of
state law at all pertinent times;
225. The federal and state constitutional deprivations outlined herein were caused by the
exercise of rights and privileges created by the State, by a rule of conduct imposed by the State,
by a person for whom the State is responsible, and all Defendants may fairly be said to be state
actors of either the County or State;
226. As established above, the policies, practices, conduct, and judgments from
Defendants amount to a deprivation of a right guaranteed by the Constitutions and laws of the
United States and Minnesota;
227. The Defendants continued conduct threatens a protected interest of the Plaintiff in
that the conduct complained of herein has resulted and continues to result in an unlawful loss of
his liberties and custodial rights to his children, and have had a drastic impact on every area of

61

Plaintiffs life, causing unthinkable pain and suffering on a continual basis every day as his
relationship with his children is disintegrated by the Defendants actions;
228. Defendants continued actions and forced removal of Plaintiffs children are causing
severe and irreparable damage to Plaintiff, including after his incarceration by Defendant causing
him to be afraid to even be in his own home due to Defendant threatening to have him arrested
by Police if he did not sign over his VA records to Defendant within 14 days;
229. The conduct of the Defendants suddenly removing Plaintiffs children over the entire
holidays, allowing for no communication for over 100 days straight without any charges put
forth against Plaintiff, and no psychological report recommending removing the children given
to the Court, are outrageous actions that truly shock the conscience; Anderson v. Douglas
County, 4 F.3d 574, 577 (8th Cir. 1993)
230. Defendants actions have caused severe damage to Plaintiff and his children, and
their relationship, which was a stable and constant fixture in the childrens lives. Plaintiff
through submission of evidence, testimony, and upon further examination firmly asserts that the
continued conduct by Defendants constitutes truly irrational behavior, and has discriminated
against Plaintiff based on his status as a disabled combat veteran;
231. Defendants actions have offended judicial notions of fairness or human dignity in
its treatment of Plaintiff, an Honorably Discharged U.S. Marine Combat Veteran of the Iraq War,
public school teacher and volunteer in Saint Paul Public Schools, and respected member of the
community having ran for public office to continue his service to the community;
232. Plaintiff has a long and well-documented public history with his daughters that
included no allegations or charges by anyone ever brought against Plaintiff regarding his custody
or parental abilities; Riley v. St. Louis County, 153 F.3d 627, 631 (8th Cir. 1998)

62

233. Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated his Constitutional right to parentage, granted
under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment without offering any verifiable and factual
justification on 26 October, 2015 in Second Judicial District, Ramsey County Family Court;
234. At the time, Defendant had not requested, ordered, or received a psychological
examination of Plaintiff, and there existed no allegations of misconduct in Plaintiffs home with
his children or evidence to support such a claim;
235. Plaintiff had a lengthy and unbroken record of parenting with his children from
their birth in 2006 until 26 October, 2015, exclusively taking care of the childrens medical and
dental care, accounting for at least 50 visits between the children by Plaintiff from 2008 through
2015;
236. Defendant ordered a psychological examination and parental assessment be done of
Plaintiff, and he complied by arranging a corresponding psychological examination and
evaluation with Dr. James Tuorila, PhD, to be performed on 6 January 2016; Plaintiff informed
GAL of his appointment confirmation on 15 November, 2015, along with the fact he had not
spoken to his children in any form for one month since before the October hearing;
237. Plaintiff was not given the opportunity for any contact with his children from 22
October, 2015, until 25 January, 2016, equivalent to 95 days or three (3) months and three (3)
days, in violation of the 26 October 2015 Court Order, and fundamental duties and
responsibilities of GAL as defined under Minnesota State Statute 518.165, Subd., 2, and
Subd., 2a.;
Subd. 2a.Responsibilities of Guardian ad Litem (GAL): A Guardian ad Litem shall carry out
the following responsibilities:
(1) Conduct an independent investigation to determine the facts relevant to the situation of the
child and the family, which must include, unless specifically excluded by the court, reviewing
relevant documents; meeting with and observing the child in the home setting and considering the

63

child's wishes, as appropriate; and interviewing parents, caregivers, and others with knowledge
relevant to the case;
(2) Advocate for the child's best interests by participating in appropriate aspects of the case and
advocating for appropriate community services when necessary;
(3) Maintain the confidentiality of information related to a case, with the exception of sharing
information as permitted by law to promote cooperative solutions that are in the best interests of
the child;
(4) Monitor the child's best interests throughout the judicial proceeding; and
(5) Present written reports on the child's best interests that include conclusions and
recommendations and the facts upon which they are based.

238. Plaintiffs first highly supervised visitation at a safety center occurred at 5:45
Monday, 25 January 2016 for 120 minutes at (FamilyWise Safety Center, 281 Maria Avenue, St.
Paul, MN 55106), with the next scheduled visitation despite the Court Order for weekly visits,
would not be for two weeks, occurring on 8 February, 2016 for another 120 minutes; weekly
visitations would not begin at FamilyWise until 29 February 2016, 123 days--or 4 months and 1
day after Plaintiff made his initial call to FamilyWise on 30 October, 2015 to begin the intake
process at the private business this Court Ordered to conduct Plaintiffs visitations, FamilyWise;
239. Defendant and GAL had responsibility under law to advocate for the childs best
interests, and monitor the childs best interests, as well as promote cooperative solutions that
are in the best interests of the children; Plaintiff alleges GAL despite being alerted of Plaintiffs
absence of any contact with the children for over a month, Plaintiff believes upon further
examination of FamilyWise records, GAL went above negligence and was intentionally reckless
with the childrens relationship with Plaintiff, and did not provide reasonable oversight, ensuring
the childrens best interests were followed through the Christmas season which the children had
spent time with their father every year to that point;
240. Plaintiff alleges GAL had inappropriate and extensive contact with Mrs. Dickenson
64

that ensured GAL was aware of the complete absence of Plaintiffs communications and
involvement in the childrens lives, contrary to what Plaintiff believes a reasonable person would
do under the same circumstances, and/or expect one to conduct under the professional conduct of
their duties and responsibilities, especially when pertaining to relationships of nine year old
children and parents;
241. Defendant, Hon. Judge Robyn Millenacker failed to exercise proper and reasonable
judicial oversight over GAL throughout the proceedings, including GAL submitting her Court
Ordered Report three (3) days late on 22 October, 2015, instead of 19 October, 2015, and
Plaintiff would not receive the confidential, late, and time sensitive documents containing the
factual case GAL would put forth before the Court on 26 October, 2015, recommending
removing and/or revoking Plaintiffs full custodial rights, awarding all legal and physical custody
to Mrs. Dickenson, until 31 October, 2015;
242. Defendant, GAL failed to properly conduct her investigation, and put reasonable
effort a reasonable person would expect during the conducting of a professional investigation of
the facts pertaining to entire custody of children--especially given accusations of abuse, per
Minnesota State Law; GAL failed to drive 4.7 miles to speak with Plaintiffs witness, Officer
Vernon Simmons, Saint Paul Police Department (SPPD) and Johnson Senior High (JHS) School
Resource Officer (SRO) regarding Plaintiff and Mrs. Dickenson, who Mr. Simmons knew from
being SRO at JHS where both Plaintiff and Mrs. Dickenson attended high school, and where Mr.
Simmons additionally serves as head Varsity boys basketball coach while both parties also
played in the basketball program;
243. Plaintiff asserts GAL has shown a clear bias against Plaintiff by failing to speak to
Officer Simmons; as to date, on 16 March, 2016, GAL still has not sent Mr. Simmons a letter

65

from the GAL office at Ramsey County Family Court, 25 West 7th Street, St. Paul, Minnesota,
55102, nor put reasonable effort to hearing from Mr. Simmons before GAL report of both
October 2015 and February 2016 or stopped at Johnson High School, just several miles from
GAL;
244. GAL, in 11 February, 2016 report, despite having received two references from
Plaintiff, Plaintiff alleges GAL intentionally and/or recklessly omitted Plaintiffs personal
contacts, thus ensuring no positive comments and reporting would be done regarding Plaintiff in
the Court Record; GAL spoke with Ms. Selina L Kephart, 1690 Conway Street, St. Paul,
Minnesota 55106, in August of 2015, and reported so in the October 2015 GAL Report, but
omitted the same fact in the 2016 GAL Report;
245. Defendant commissioned a psychological report on Plaintiff and received one from
Dr. Tuorila, PhD., on 9 February 2016, two days before Court, and GAL had access to
FamilyWise Parenting Assessment and Notes from 25 January 2016 visit, as well as 8 February,
2016 visitations at FamilyWise in St. Paul, Minnesota; GAL stated on the record Plaintiff did not
cooperate with the Court Order, either with regards to FamilyWise, or Dr. Tuorila;
246. Defendant asked Plaintiff if he had received GAL report sent on 9 February 2016,
to which Plaintiff replied for the second time he had not received GAL report prior to the Court
Hearing with Ramsey County Family Court despite requesting on multiple occasions including
on the Court record, either the E-file option which Mrs. Dickenson and her attorney, Mr.
Terbeest have been able to utilize throughout the process, and despite Plaintiff requesting that
GAL sent certified mail due to the unexplained extreme and unusual delivery times on GAL
Report arriving at Plaintiffs home; GAL has not accommodated either request;
247. Upon Plaintiff receiving only 30 minutes for the second straight hearing to review a

66

45 page plus, extensive legal document and investigation from Defendant, Plaintiff was able to
get in contact with Dr. Tuorila who was standing by in case the Court wanted to speak with him,
and he could confirm he had conducted the assessment, received permission to share the medical
results from Plaintiff with GAL, and sent his report to GAL. After the recess, GAL
acknowledged she actually had received Dr. Tuorilas report, and offered the Court to read
some of it if the Court would like; GAL proceeded to read the recommendations from Dr.
Tuorila; [Exhibit A]
Summary:
Mr. David Carlson is a 34 year old, divorced, part-time, service connected, USMC multiple tour,
Iraq combat veteran who continues to meet the DSM 5 Criteria for a diagnosis of Unspecified
Anxiety Disorder. It is my professional opinion after reviewing all of the medical records, and
meeting with Mr. Carlson for two hours that his parental rights should resume immediately, and
he should not have to go through supervised visitation with his daughters.
It is also my professional opinion that both parents are involved with their negative criticism of
each other and this needs to cease immediately. I believe that once Mr. Carlsons ex-wife backs
way from her frequent court ordered threats regarding visitation that Mr. Carlsons relationship
with her and his daughters will significantly improve.
I have no professional doubts that Mr. Carlson is and continues to be a good father and role
model for his children. Many individuals in political positions which Mr. Carlson has as one of
his goals could also certainly be seen as having narcissistic trains yet they were able to sustain
marriages and raise children with little negative impact on them. I have no fear Mr. Carlson
would harm his daughters in any way and his relationship improves with his ex-wife there would
be less of a possibility of their children being brought into the middle of the conflict between the
two of them.
My only concern reviewing the GAL Report is her statement regarding Mr. Carlson allowing his
daughters to fight and encouraging this behavior which I think is inappropriate and should be
openly discussed with him and ways to better emphasize how to resolve conflicts between his two
daughters. Teaching them to defend themselves against bullies is certainly appropriate but can be
done in a less potentially harmful way, i.e. martial arts. It is recommended that Mr. Carlson
continue with his individual therapy sessions and continue his care through the Minneapolis VA
care network.

248. Despite the Dr. Tuorila report being Court Ordered by Defendant, GAL did not
offer the report on the record, nor did Judge Millenacker request the report, and furthermore, the
GAL beginning by stating her lack of qualifications on the matter, however, she did not believe
67

the report was good enough; Judge Millenacker agreed, and GAL suggested three therapists
she recommended Plaintiff be ordered to see instead as GAL was familiar with those
providers;
249. Defendant asked if Plaintiff had disagreements with the GAL Report, and Plaintiff
began to calmly, firmly, and succinctly question various points of the GAL Report,
shortcomings, and repeatedly requested the opportunity to question and cross-examine the GAL
under the rules of evidence, and Plaintiff was denied for the second straight hearing any
opportunity to question the GAL, her report, or findings; [Exhibit N]
250. As Plaintiff was stating his objections to the Court denying his October 2015, and
February 2016 Motions, Defendant ordered Plaintiff arrested for Contempt of Court, and stated
she believed Plaintiff was mentally ill; this despite Defendant just receiving and immediately
rejecting a report stating Plaintiff was mentally fit, competent, and safe beyond any professional
or personal doubts to be around children, Defendant Ordered Plaintiffs parental rights continue to
be violated by the Court, and refused even after Plaintiffs request to commence the next hearing
sooner than 90 days, for the third time since August 2015;
251. The challenged action is presently occurring and certain to occur in the immediate
future;
252. Defendants will suffer no harm if an injunction is issued;
253. The balance of harms weighs in favor of entry of an injunction;
254. It is in the public interest to enter an injunction that prevents Defendants from
continuing to deprive Plaintiff of his rights secured by the United States and Minnesota
Constitutions;
255. No previous injunctive relief has been awarded with respect to this matter.

68

Defendants ongoing actions in violation of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions
present an actual and existing controversy regarding the claim by Plaintiff, and the continued
intrusive and unwarranted examination of Plaintiff despite the Court receiving an expert report
itself commissioned recommending Plaintiff immediately have his full custodial rights restored;
256. Defendant forcing Plaintiff to once again repeat psychological testing and
examinations despite Plaintiff having no history of any abuse with his children, and the attempts
by Defendant to seize and dissect nearly a decade of VA protected physician-patient
confidentiality and four (4) years of his USMC records constitute a dangerous violation and
precedent not just to veterans, but any person who has engaged in protected conversations, found
themselves in a traumatic experience or could find themselves in family court, simply the
unsubstantiated claims of an ex-spouse can force open years of protected conversations
effectively destroying the confidence of protected relationships, likely to have an adverse impact
on already vulnerable populations to feel safe seeking professional help for fear of similar
retributions as Plaintiff;
257. On information and belief, Defendants actions constitute deliberate, willful,
negligent and/or intentional violations of Plaintiffs Constitutional rights, granted to him pursuant
to the Right of Due Process in the Minnesota State Constitution Article I: Bill of Rights,
Section 7; and Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment/42 U.S.C. 1983, U.S. Constitution;
258. This controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a
declaratory judgment, and is complimentary to the injunctive relief requested below;
259. This Courts intervention is necessary to declare the rights and other legal relations
of the Plaintiff, and most immediately, his parental rights, which have been severely restricted;
260. Plaintiff respectively requests that this Court order a return of the last agreed upon

69

custodial agreement and joint stipulation between Plaintiff and his former spouse, signed in
Second Judicial District, Ramsey County Family Court, Saint Paul, Minnesota, in June of 2012
before the Hon. Judge Bohr and a full and immediate return of his full legal and physical parental
rights and parenting time, with make-up time awarded to Plaintiff to begin to restore the severe
damage that has been done and is continuing to be done daily by Defendant;
261. Plaintiff has standing to obtain a declaration of his rights because Plaintiff and
Defendants are in a dispute regarding his rights;
262. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy of law;
263. Plaintiff requests that the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigates the State of
Minnesota Guardian ad Litem Program (GAL) and the many allegations of state and federal
constitutional and law violations in the administration of its duties; relatively unchecked, and
upon further examination, Plaintiff asserts a strong likelihood of other cases that warrant further
examination by the DOJ throughout the State of Minnesota;
264. Plaintiff further requests that this Court order Ms. Ramona M. Olson, Ramsey
County Guardian ad Litem be immediately placed on administrative relief while a thorough and
independent DOJ investigation of all of Ms. Olsons cases can be examined, as Plaintiff has
discovered considerable evidence through online open source research, and information
discovered at the Minnesota State Law Library suggesting the State of Minnesota has known
about problems with the Minnesota GAL Program, and attempted to revamp the program due to
the many irregularities, complaints, and the reputation the GAL Program has earned for itself
over decades with the people of the State of Minnesota;
265. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the remedies in the including compensatory and/or
punitive damages, fees, and other costs.

70

DEFENDANT NO 1:
CLAIM II
(Violation of Tort Law: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)

266. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 265 above as though fully set forth herein;
267. Defendant, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, was negligent through its
employees at Ramsey County Family Court, Second Judicial District, St. Paul, State of
Minnesota, in one or more of the following respects:
1. Judge Millenacker failed to adequately supervise, assist, and/or monitor Plaintiffs
custodial relationship to his children during the entirety of the GAL appointment, and of
GAL herself, as the Court appointed employee tasked with managing the childrens best
interests throughout the entire Court process;
2. GAL had a duty of care and duty to ensure that the Court Order was followed through
in a timely and reasonable manner, which it was not, as Plaintiff went over three months
with no contact with his children, and further egregious and damaging to Plaintiff, 127
days had passed before FamilyWise was compliant with the Court Order issued on 26
October, 2015, granting Plaintiff weekly custodial visitation rights ordered by Defendant;

3. GAL breeched her duty of making an appropriate evaluation regarding Plaintiffs

relationship with his children, and breeched her duty to intervene and/or find a solution to
Plaintiff being denied his limited Court Ordered custodial rights;
4. GAL breeched her fiduciary duty to ensure that the Courts Order for Plaintiffs weekly

71

highly supervised visitation with his children was executed upon, and space would be
readily or reasonably available to Plaintiff and his children as exemplified by GALs
absence of involvement in correcting Plaintiffs lack of custodial involvement that
Plaintiff expressed to her on at least two occasions himself, on 15 November, 2015, and
19 January, 2016. GAL failed to show a duty of care by failing to address and/or rectify
the damaging absence of parental involvement and contact that Plaintiff and his children
had been experiencing consecutively for months going back before October 2015 causing
severe damage to Plaintiff and his children;
5. GAL failed to exercise due care in coordinating, consulting, or engaging on the Courts
behalf with FamilyWise about Plaintiff and his children, and further failed to address the
inexcusable and severe wait both the children and Plaintiff endured for months straight
through the entire holiday season where they had absolutely no contact with Plaintiff,
causing irreparable harm, pain, and suffering to Plaintiff and his children that continues
to this day.

268. Plaintiff alleges Defendant breeched its duty of due care in removing Plaintiffs
custodial rights without showing any factual and/or proof of imminent harm by Plaintiff to his
minor children, resulting in the negligent infliction of emotional distress to Plaintiff and his
children from the unlawful removal of Plaintiffs children despite the absence of any supporting
psychological evidence, a criminal record and/or accusations that would warrant the immediate,
sudden, and Court Ordered removal from Plaintiffs care that the law requires in revoking ones
custodial rights to their children on 26 October, 2015;
269. Plaintiff further alleges Defendant breeched its duty of due care in failing to remedy
or amend its Order from 4 February, 2016 despite receiving the expert report submitted by Dr.
Tuorila, PhD five (5) days later on 9 February, 2016, with Court reconvening on 11 February,

72

2016, thereby GAL either negligently/and or intentionally attempted to mislead the Court, and
only after recess reluctantly offered any of the expert report to the Court, neglecting to submit
the expert findings requested by the Court--for the record, as they reaffirmed the opinion that
Plaintiff posed no threat to his children, which report strongly recommended to the Court that it
immediately reinstate Plaintiffs full custodial rights, and cease any and all restrictions on
Plaintiffs relationship with his children;
270. Plaintiff alleges Defendant dispute a factual basis to support removing his children,
including but not limited to a total failure to prove any immediate danger to his children aside
from unsupported accusations and innuendo from Mrs. Dickenson and her husband Mr.
Dickenson to GAL, GAL breeched her duty of due diligence by failing to give reasonable effort
to interview witnesses, or provide transparency and verification throughout her entire report,
showing great prejudice against Plaintiff that has caused serious, significant, and permanent
emotional distress and damage through the negligent actions of Defendant towards Plaintiff and
his children;
271. Defendant failed to offer into the record the only expert psychological examination
requested or provided to the Court, and one that reaffirmed total confidence in the safety and
mental fitness of Plaintiff to parent his children without supervision, and recommended an
immediate return of Plaintiffs custodial rights;
272. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed in its duty of remaining independent and impartial
without prejudice towards Plaintiff by continuing the previous Court-ordered separation of
Plaintiff and his children since at least 26 October, 2015, and staying the restrictions after 11
February, 2016 hearing, reaffirming Plaintiffs continued revocation of his custodial rights and
continuing the childrens exclusive and mandatory 120 minutes of highly supervised visitation at

73

FamilyWise, resulting in Defendant committing ongoing intentional/and or negligent infliction

of emotional distress to Plaintiff and his minor children;
273. Despite a Court Order stating Plaintiff was to receive severely limited custodial
rights of 120 minutes once a week at 26 October, 2015 hearing, Defendant has allowed and/or
been complicit in Plaintiff being forced to go at least 96 days and/or three (3) months and four
(4) days, including throughout the entire 2015 holiday season consecutively with no contact with
his children, nor were his children adequately explained why they would no longer be able to see
or speak to Plaintiff who had been extensively involved in every aspect of the childrens lives
since birth, including virtually all of their medical and dental care from their birth in September
of 2006 until October of 2015;
274. Plaintiff did not receive his first Court Ordered visitation until 25 January, 2016,
and FamilyWise was unable to provide weekly visitation rights to Plaintiff until 29 February,
2016, 116 days or a full four (4) months, and four (4) days from issuance of the Order from the
Court until the date the Order was acted upon fully at FamilyWise;
275. As a direct result of the Court failing to exercise due care in providing reasonable
and adequate oversight, or perform its obligatory due diligence in its mandatory advocating,
maintenance, and/or management of the childrens best interests throughout the entire judicial
proceedings, Defendant has thereby caused severe and permanent emotional damage and pain
and suffering, which has had significant and adverse impacts on Plaintiffs and his childrens
quality of life;
276. Plaintiff alleges Defendant was aware of the time-lapse Plaintiff was experiencing,
as he had sent GAL a facsimile message on 15 November, 2015 stating as such, and never
received any response, or inquiry from GAL, who is mandated by Minnesota Statute 518.165,

74

Subd., 2, and Subd., 2a., to do the following throughout the entire investigation and appointment
without prejudice:
(1) Conduct an independent investigation to determine the facts relevant to the situation
of the child and the family, which must include, unless specifically excluded by the court,
reviewing relevant documents; meeting with and observing the child in the home setting
and considering the child's wishes, as appropriate; and interviewing parents, caregivers,
and others with knowledge relevant to the case;
(2) Advocate for the child's best interests by participating in appropriate aspects of the
case and advocating for appropriate community services when necessary;
(3) Maintain the confidentiality of information related to a case, with the exception of
sharing information as permitted by law to promote cooperative solutions that are in the
best interests of the child;
(4) Monitor the child's best interests throughout the judicial proceeding; and
(5) Present written reports on the child's best interests that include conclusions and
recommendations and the facts upon which they are based.

277. Plaintiff further alleges Defendant acted with gross negligence, and against the best
interests of the children when she allowed the children to go over 13 weeks consecutively
without any opportunity to speak to, hear from, or understand adequately what was happening to
their relationship with their father that Plaintiff had maintained throughout the entirety of the
childrens lives until 26 October, 2015;
278. Plaintiff further asserts Defendants total disregard to the value and importance of
the relationship between Plaintiff and his children, as again the parenting time situation was
addressed by Plaintiff to GAL officially for a second time in a phone conversation between
Plaintiff and GAL on 19 January, 2016 and once again Defendant failed to properly
acknowledge, address, or rectify the continued violation Plaintiff and his children had been
experiencing due to Defendants negligence, and FamilyWise being unable to fulfill their
obligations to Plaintiff, and/or Defendant through Court Order to use and only use the private

75

and for-profit corporation, FamilyWise;

279. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants as described
above, and is entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against Defendant(s), along
with any fees and costs.
DEFENDANT NO. 1:
CLAIM III
(Violation of civil rights: Abuse of Process)
(4th, 5th, and 8th Amendments/42 U.S.C. 1983)

280. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 279 above as though fully set forth herein;
281. At all relevant times Defendants were subject to 42 U.S.C. 1983;
282. Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated his constitutional right to an equitable and just
process, as guaranteed to him by state and federal laws by denying Plaintiffs Court Motions and
Countermotions, as well as denying Plaintiff the right to properly or adequately address directly
statements or accusations made in the GAL report on both 26 October, 2015, and again on 11
February, 2016;

283. Despite the absence of any psychological examination recommending Plaintiff have
his custodial rights revoked, Defendant removed without a psychological examination and
without factual support for such a claim or just cause Plaintiffs children, forcing the children to
go 96 days with no contact with Plaintiff or explanation given to the children why they no longer

76

were able to see or speak to Plaintiff; the timespan between contact between Plaintiff and the
children is equivalent to 3 months and 4 days, despite Judge Millenacker ordering weekly highly
supervised visitation on 26 October, 2015, Plaintiff did not receive his first visitation until 25
January, 2016;
284. Plaintiff alleges GAL intentionally misled the Court regarding the cooperation of
Plaintiff and the verifiably known facts of the case as they were known to her and her office;
Plaintiff needed to request a recess before GAL acknowledged two (2) days prior her office had
received a psychological examination from Dr. Tuorila, however, stated she had not had time to
review the nine (9) page report in the 48 plus hours prior to Court;
285. Plaintiff alleges a further abuse of process by Defendant not offering the report into
the record and to the Court, but only reading a small portion of the report on the record, and
stating even after receiving and reviewing the recommendations to the Dr. Tuorila report, GAL
would not be altering her final recommendation to the Court which were originally composed
prior to receiving the Tuorila report which was submitted to the Court on 4 February, 2016;
286. Plaintiff alleges Defendant despite the expert PhD report from Dr. Tuorila
explicitly stating the recommendation to return Plaintiffs full custodial rights, Judge
Millenacker, by not just allowing the report to not be entered into Court evidence, but
furthermore, not calling for the expert analysis to be submitted officially to the Court was further
complicit in allowing this abuse of process against Plaintiff to continue;
287. Plaintiff alleges Defendants pattern of actions, behavior, treatment, and judgments,
represents a disturbing, incessant, continuous, and significant judicial prejudice against Plaintiff
by Defendants throughout the entire Court process;
288. Defendant repeatedly from the bench on 11 February, 2016 Ordered Plaintiff, and

77

his VA psychologist, Mr. Eric Wittenberg to turn over all Plaintiffs VA and USMC records to
the Court for further examination, despite just receiving a full psychological examination
offering a clear recommendation to return Plaintiffs full custodial rights and expressing no doubt
Plaintiff is not a threat to his children; Mr. Wittenberg has submitted a statement regarding this
matter; [Exhibit B]
289. Defendant violated Plaintiffs rights to medical privacy and patient-client privilege
by Ordering Plaintiff and his psychologist--from the bench and under the law, to waive Plaintiffs
Constitutional Right to privacy or face incarceration;
290. Plaintiff alleges Defendant upon ordering Plaintiff to return to her Court after being
incarcerated for approximately eight (8) hours, repeatedly threatened with at least 90 days more
jail time to be spent at the Ramsey County Correctional Facility, if Plaintiff did not cooperate
with the Court at that moment;
291. Plaintiff alleges Defendant further violated his civil rights by continuing to pressure
Plaintiff despite Plaintiffs objections, and subsequently requested as a Pro Se litigant after just
being jailed for approximately eight (8) hours to exercise his right to seek expert legal counsel;
292. Defendant attempted to further violate the constitutional rights and protections
Plaintiff is afforded under both the Minnesota and U.S. Constitution, continuing what Plaintiff
claims is the continued and unreasonable search, seizure, and intensive examination by Ramsey
County Family Court, Judge Millenacker;
293. Defendant Judge Millenacker and GAL Mrs. Ramona Olson, despite receiving
expert analysis and a comprehensive psychological report regarding Plaintiff that recommended
a full and total restoration of Plaintiffs full custodial rights, testified he did not feel Plaintiff had
ever been, was, or is a threat to his children, and further cast doubt upon any assertions and/or

78

innuendo from Plaintiffs ex-wife, Mrs. Dickenson, her family, or GAL in her own findings,
lacked factual and credible verification of any accusations levied by them towards Plaintiff;
294. Plaintiff alleges Defendant has engaged in intimidation, threats of extended periods
of incarceration without charge from Judge Millenacker, and subsequently was cruelly and
unusually incarcerated for Contempt of Court, along with the continued severely damaging and
unusual action of keeping Plaintiff and his children separated and removed for at least another 90
days until the Court reconvenes; [Exhibit E]
295. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants as described
above, and is entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against Defendant(s), along
with any fees and costs.

DEFENDANT NO 1:
CLAIM IV
(Violation of Tort Law: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

296. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 295 above as though fully set forth herein;
297. Plaintiff alleges Defendant GAL has gone above and beyond arguably simple bias,
and showed a clear and present prejudice that has been exemplified throughout GAL actions,
decisions, and/or findings regarding Plaintiff, including but not limited to:
1. GAL failed to speak with both of Plaintiffs witnesses, and did not put forth a standard
of effort a reasonable person under the same circumstances would perform;
2. GAL omitted the one witness she spoke from and acknowledged in her October 2015

79

report, but failed to include witness in February 2016 report to the Court as well as speak
with Plaintiffs primary witness, Officer Simmons even to present day or put forth effort
that a reasonable person under the same circumstances would perform;
3. GAL falsely stated under oath she had not received any expert report from Plaintiff,
and that Plaintiff had not cooperated at all with the Courts Order; GAL, after Plaintiffs
requested recess was granted, GAL was forced to concede that an expert report had been
received by her two (2) days prior on 9 February, 2016;
4. GAL continued to maintain Plaintiff had not cooperated by not signing a medical
release for her to receive medical documents to which Plaintiff questioned how GAL
received the expert report if he had not signed a waiver;
5. GAL has repeatedly allowed unproven accusations from Plaintiffs ex-wife and her
husband to be entered into the record as reported fact, including second, third, and fourth
party hearsay without exercising her mandated due diligence, and without conducting a
proper investigation that a reasonable person under the same circumstances would
perform;
6. GAL despite Plaintiff repeatedly requesting E-file, and filling out corresponding
documentation with the GAL during their August 2015 meeting at Ramsey County
Family Justice Center, subsequently sent both reports first class mail without
certification;
7. GALs October 2015 report was submitted to the Court three (3) days late, and
Plaintiff did not receive report until 31 October, 2015, despite Court being on 26, October
2015, furthermore, GAL not submitting her report for in-office postage until 15:00 CST
on 22, October 2015 did not offer adequate or reasonable time for the documents to arrive
or be reviewed by Plaintiff;
8. As of 18 March, 2016, Plaintiff has still not received GAL Report allegedly sent on 5
February, 2016;
9. Judge Millenacker has accused Plaintiff of lying to the Court regarding the receipt of
GAL Reports; however, despite Plaintiffs repeated requests, GAL continuously has
exhibited a pattern of conduct that has explicitly chosen means and mechanisms that
remove reasonable verification of her work, thus violating Plaintiffs right to a fair and
independent investigation by GAL;
10. GAL allegedly met with Plaintiffs children alone at Plaintiffs childrens elementary
school, which is part of Defendant No. 3s school system; furthermore, GAL met
allegedly with Plaintiffs children alone in the Principals Office, in a closed-door setting
that did not include the school psychologist or Principal, and offered no verification of
the serious topics of conversation GAL was engaging with Plaintiffs children alone;
11. GAL engaged Plaintiffs childrens teachers over the phone and again did not provide

80

any verification of the data of those conversations; and further violated Plaintiffs right to
privacy by proceeding without showing proper credentials, discussed sensitive and
private data with Defendant No. 3 school teachers; which conduct was grossly
unprofessional, inappropriate, failed to provide for the possibility for verification, all of
which caused Plaintiff terrible harm, pain and suffering;
12. GAL, despite being told on two occasions that Plaintiff had not spoken to or seen his
children in months, expressed no concern, and initiated no actions that a reasonable
person under the same circumstances would choose, and allowed Plaintiffs children to go
approximately 100 days and throughout the 2015 holiday season with no contact with
Plaintiff, causing great harm, physical, and emotional pain and suffering that continues to
present day;
13. GAL, despite being told in a conversation with Plaintiff on 19 January, 2016 he still
had not had a visitation with his children, and failed to take any action to remedy the
continued violation of the Court Order that allowed the children one visit a week with
their father; GAL failed to act or perform her duties in a reasonable manner and therefore
caused terrible pain and suffering by her continually exhibiting significant bias and a lack
of duty of care;
14. GAL, even after the 11 February, 2016 hearing, did not attempt to assist Plaintiff and
his children in the execution of the Courts Order regarding weekly visitation; weekly
visitation would not occur for Plaintiff until over three (3) weeks later on 29 February,
2016.

298. Plaintiff alleges GAL has shown bias, and exercised considerable prejudice against
Plaintiff by the frequency, depth, and level of correspondence she has engaged Plaintiffs ex-wife,
Mrs. Dickenson in, whereas only contacting Plaintiff at or about 19 January 2016 to inquire
about his psychological examination, thereby failing to show concern or a duty of care to protect
the relationship that Plaintiff and his children had enjoyed since their birth in 2007 which caused
Plaintiff and his children terrible harm, pain and suffering;
299. GAL knew and intended that Plaintiff would suffer severe emotional distress as a
result of the manner in which she conducted her investigation, monitored the relationship with
Plaintiff and his children, and in her reports which are exclusively supportive of only the
mothers relationship with the Plaintiffs children, and without just cause or factual justifications,
81

recommended a total revocation of Plaintiffs custodial rights that are still in effect at present day;
300. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants as described
above, and is entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against Defendant(s), along
with any fees and costs.

DEFENDANT NO 1:
CLAIM V
(Violation of Tort Law: Confidentiality of certain medical records)
(38 U.S.C. 7332)

301. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 300 above as though fully set fort t herein;
302. Plaintiffs former spouse has been attempting to access his medical records through
the court since their divorce and custodial process began in 2008, with the eventual
recommendation from Ramsey County Social Services of Plaintiffs after a thorough examination
culminating in equal distribution of parenting time, and joint legal and joint physical custody in a
joint divorce and custody stipulation agreement signed between the parties in June of 2012;
303. Plaintiff has maintained equal parenting time and joint legal and physical custody of
his children without any reported incidences by any entity from the childrens birth in September
2006 until Plaintiffs former spouse accused him of being emotionally abusive and a
narcissist, and requested a change to the couples parenting stipulations in May of 2015
submitted to Ramsey County Family Court by Mr. Terbeest;
304. Mr. Terbeest filed a Certificate of Settlement Efforts with the Court, however, had
82

not actually directly got into contact with Plaintiff regarding that matter prior to Court on 16
July, 2015;
305. Defendant Ordered Plaintiff to have a psychological assessment and parental
evaluations and visits through FamilyWise, the private company Defendant Ordered Plaintiff he
must use, and provider of Plaintiffs highly supervised visitation at a safety center;
306. Plaintiff met both obligations with FamilyWise by initiating their intake process on
30 October 2015, and made an appointment for a psychological assessment per Court Order with
Dr. Tuorila, PhD, subsequently informing Defendant GAL of the details regarding his
appointment, confirming it in a facsimile message Plaintiff faxed to GAL on 15 November,
2015. Dr. Tuorila had sent the confidential medical report about Plaintiff to GAL on 9 February,
2016; [Exhibit R, A]
307. Defendant GAL began the subsequent hearing on 11 February, 2016 by declaring
under oath that Plaintiff had not cooperated with the Courts Order, either with FamilyWise or by
completing a psychological assessment. Plaintiff requested and was granted 30 minutes both to
look over the February 2016 GAL report he had not received from GAL, and his VA
Psychologist also contacted Dr. Tuorila to confirm the details of the report;
308. Only after Plaintiffs requested recess, GAL acknowledged she had in fact received
a report on 9 February, 2016, but had not had a chance to review the report. GAL offered to
read the recommendations to the Court and Judge Millenacker permitted the review. GAL read
portions of the expert report, including the recommendations that included Plaintiffs full
custodial rights be immediately restored, and he was in no way a danger to his children;
309. After GAL read aloud the confidential and private expert medical report before the
Court, she specifically began by stating her clear and unambiguous lack of qualifications

83

especially compared to an independent PhD on this subject matter, nevertheless, Ms. Olson
proceeded to attack Dr. Tuorilas ethics, professionalism, and the quality of the report and did
not offer the expert report; Ms. Olson would not offer the Tuorila report into evidence;
310. Judge Millenacker also did not request the expert report she had commissioned in
her October 2015 Order into the Court record, instead, dismissing it and agreeing with GAL who
had just stated her lack of qualifications to the Court;
311. Plaintiff was then was provided the names of three (3) providers the Court, by way
of Ms. Olson who stated shes done good work with them before; Judge Millenacker would
dismiss the Dr. Tuorila report, and order a second and more invasive series of assessments
without putting forth any charges, nor a factual basis to not just continue keeping Plaintiffs
children from him for at least another 90 days with limited highly supervised contact one day per
week;
312. Prior to GAL reading the report on Plaintiff before the Court, Judge Millenacker
had the recommendations from Ms. Olson that were made prior to GAL reading the report sent
from Dr. Tuorila regarding the psychological testing, and a series of recommendations he put
forth to Second Judicial District, Ramsey County Family Court, sent to GAL on 9 February,
2016;
313. Judge Millenacker asked Gal in lieu of the report from Dr. Tuorila recommending
an immediate cessation of the restrictions placed on Plaintiff, and a full and complete return of
his parental rights, if the recommendations of Dr. Tuorila had changed GALs subsequent
recommendations to the Court regarding Plaintiff and his custodial rights to his daughters, to
which Ms. Olson replied, no;
314. Following Judge Millenacker rejecting Dr. Tuorilas examination and report,

84

Plaintiff was asked if he had objections to the GAL report to which he said yes, and he
proceeded to state his case to the Court;
315. Plaintiff questioned why he had not been afforded the opportunity to respond to the
GAL report or cross-examine GAL under oath, which constitutes a fundamental and
Constitutional right, especially as a pro se litigant;
316. Plaintiff questioned by in both the October 2015 and February 2016 hearings before
Judge Millenacker, she rejected both motions submitted by Plaintiff, however had allowed both
late reports, and filings the day prior to Court to stand for Ms. Olson and Mr. Terbeest, but
rejected Plaintiffs responses for the Court, repeating the depravation of his rights that he felt was
taking place in Judge Millenackers Court including being able to question the Guardian ad
Litem who was recommending removing Plaintiffs children, along with presenting evidence in
his defense;
317. Plaintiff also repeatedly requested that the Court to call Dr. Tuorila who was
standing by in his office in case the Court called him regarding his expert report and testimony to
the Court, however, that request was rejected each time by Judge Millenacker;
318. Shortly after being allowed to begin to question the GAL report before the Court as
the Judge had just asked Plaintiff if he wished to do, Judge Millenacker abruptly halted Plaintiff
in mid-sentence, and declared him in Contempt of Court, temporarily incarcerating him for
approximately eight (8) hours at the Ramsey County Family Justice Center Jail, Saint Paul,
Minnesota;
319. Defendant allowed Plaintiff to reenter Court from jail at approximately 5:00 PM on
11 February, 2016, and subsequently announced Plaintiff was being charged with Contempt of
Court, and was going to be sentenced to anywhere from three (3) to 90 days in jail at the Ramsey

85

County Jail, and that she do not need a reason to jail you for 90 days Mr. Carlson, do you
understand me;
320. Defendant declared from the bench to Plaintiff, I think youre mentally ill. She
then stated that if he cooperated with the Court and signed the waiver, he would not be sentenced
to 90 days jail, but if he did not, she was having him sent to jail until June of 2016. She
proceeded to have a Ramsey County Deputy Sherriff place a pen next to a prefilled medical
release form with Plaintiffs information for his full VA medical records, and again reiterated her
seriousness regarding the jailing of Plaintiff if he was not going to be in compliance with the
Court;
321. Plaintiff stated his objections to Judge Millenackers psychological analysis from
the bench considering since 2007 when Plaintiff had been Honorably Discharged from the
Marines, he had not had any legal trouble or faced charges whatsoever, and been teaching now
on his third academic year in Saint Paul Public Schools, also without incident;
322. Plaintiff stated for the record his objections to the request for his records, and there
classification under HIPPA/PIPPA, various disability acts, and alluded to 38 U.S.C. 7332 in his
testimony to the Court;
323. Plaintiff also stated to the Court the extent of the damage it has caused on him and
his family, stating, Your honor, this Court is destroying my family and I have not committed
any crime;
324. Plaintiff then stated on the record he was requesting his right to consult with
counsel regarding the matter of his records, and had been told by the VA not to sign any waivers
for his highly protected doctor-patient confidentiality and relationship; Judge Millenacker
released Plaintiff and gave him 14 days to provide that access;

86

325. On 1 March, 2016, Judge Millenacker requested by Court Order access to Plaintiffs
entire VA medical records in violation of 38 U.S.C. 7332 (b)(2)(d), which states:
(b)(2) Whether or not any patient or subject, with respect to whom any given record referred to
in subsection (a) is maintained, gives written consent, the content of such record may be disclosed
by the Secretary as follows:
(b)(c) Except as authorized by a court order granted under subsection (b)(2)(d), no record referred
to in subsection (a) may be used to initiate or substantiate any criminal charges against, or to
conduct any investigation of, a patient or subject;
(d) If authorized by an appropriate order of a court of competent jurisdiction granted after
application showing good cause therefor. In assessing good cause the court shall weigh the public
interest and the need for disclosure against the injury to the patient or subject, to the physicianpatient relationship, and to the treatment of services;
Upon the granting of such order, the court, in determining the extent to which any disclosure of
all or any part of any record is necessary, shall impose appropriate safeguards against
unauthorized disclosure.

326. Plaintiff believes it is overwhelmingly in the public interest to protect disabled

veterans records and confidentiality, and the already fragile physician-patient relationship the
VA is working to rebuild; releasing nearly a decades worth of medical records simply because a
former spouse claims since you have been to combat-- and without committing any incidents to
warrant such restrictions or investigations, must still be dangerous and/or abusive due to their
military service to the country alone is an extremely threatening and alarming position to place
veterans and their providers in, as veteran suicide is already an epidemic with one every 22

87

minutes;
327. Additionally, veterans are disproportionately prone to divorces because of a variety
of factors, thus, by virtue of the allegations alone, to allow former spouses to discriminate against
their former spouses and co-parents due to their military service further puts veterans, disabled
veterans, military, and their families at an increased risk that Plaintiff respectfully requests this
Court to rule upon, otherwise Plaintiff asserts this ongoing and continuous action(s) will persist
uninterrupted;
328. Plaintiff asserts due to the expert report being rejected by Defendant that had stated
clearly that Plaintiff was not a threat to his children, and recommended a full return of Plaintiffs
parenting time and custodial rights, and the forced continuous intrusive and damaging inquisition
into Plaintiffs medical records without just or reasonable cause, but seemingly to further conduct
an investigation of a patient, in further violation of 38 U.S.C. 7332;
329. Defendant further violated Plaintiffs rights by ordering from the bench that his VA
Psychologist Mr. Eric Wittenberg who was present at the February 2016 hearing turn over all the
records he had access to from protected conversations and data under privileges afforded in the
physician-patient relationship, as well as his colleagues at the VA over the years in countless
appointments, discussions, appeals, and ratings, Plaintiff and many VA employees engaged in
since 2007 to present day is a further violation of Plaintiffs rights, and causing even prolonged
high amounts of immense stress, pain and suffering, and has unfairly targeted Plaintiff because
of his status being a combat veteran;
330. Despite Plaintiff providing evidence regarding Mr. Dickensons alleged strikes
against Plaintiffs daughter and Mr. Dickensons own special needs daughter on multiple
occasions allegedly on a monthly basis, neither Mr. Dickenson or Mrs. Dickenson have been

88

subjected to any investigation or psychological analysis, only Plaintiff, who has had his children
removed from him since October 2015;
331. Defendant has shown a prejudice against Plaintiff despite receiving court ordered
expert reports which recommended a reversal of the Court Order, Defendant has disallowed
Plaintiffs motions, limited his opportunity to question evidence or cross-examine GAL,
incarcerated Plaintiff for Contempt of Court, and created an environment for Plaintiff where he is
afraid of being arrested by Police SWAT TEAMS due to Judge Millenackers serious threats to
Plaintiffs freedom and physical and emotional well-being, and is causing serious and continual
pain and suffering to Plaintiff on a daily basis, affecting every aspect of his quality of life;
332. Defendant has shown a prejudice against Plaintiff by not putting forth all of the
childrens medical records he signed releases for, nor properly offering and admitting evidence
the Plaintiff had received in the form of an expert report from Dr. Tuorila, PhD, nor providing
the notes of the parental visits other than GAL stating Mr. Carlson appears to be doing fine at
his supervised parenting;
333. The continued targeting of Plaintiff due to his status as a disabled combat veteran
who is service-connected under the VA, is a discriminatory action prohibited under numerous
state and federal protections for protected classes. To the extent veterans/disabled veterans who
make up less than 1% of the American population are not protected under federal disability laws
and regulations, Plaintiff requests this Court to clearly provide protections to veterans and
disabled veterans equal to any other protected class under the protections granted to citizens
under the Constitutional Rights of the United States of America ingrained in our Constitution;
334. The further investigation without criminal charge or just cause to continually
subject Plaintiff to what a reasonable person would in the same circumstance would consider an

89

unreasonable burden on Plaintiff, if Defendants request to open for the Court and Plaintiffs
former spouse and counsel any or all of Plaintiffs protected and confidential medical data
provided under the expectation of privileged conversations protected under State and Federal
laws, if continued, Defendants actions will continue to cause Plaintiff severe emotional damage,
immense pain and suffering, and short, medium, and long-term damage to Plaintiffs personal and
professional reputation into the future;
335. As established above, the policies, practices, and conduct of defendants amount to a
deprivation of a right guaranteed by the laws of the United States;
336. The conduct of the Defendants is truly irrational, arbitrary, capricious, pursued in
bad faith, and done with the intent to provide eventual justification for the process and actions
Defendant has pursued against Plaintiff to date, and further punish Plaintiff as a disabled veteran
with extensive care at the VA by destroying any confidence a fragile group of returning veterans
have in an embattled Department of Veterans Affairs;
337. Plaintiff asserts that if veterans and disabled veterans cannot trust that even in
absence of conduct or illegal actions from oneself warranting such restrictive, cruel, and unusual
actions and punishments from the court, that a disabled combat veteran can spend a decade in
and out of family court, subsequently without any verifiable or charges brought forth, lose all
rights to their children, and to see them again be forced to eventually turn over or have taken
years and decades worth of privately shared data scoured through is a critical danger for veterans
and their well-being;
338. Defendants actions, solely based from only unproven and unsubstantiated
accusations by an ex-spouse and her new husband, subsequently were adopted and put forth in
various ways by Defendant, who then took innuendo that GAL herself has not even seen, or can

90

legitimately testify to its existence, brought forth unproven accusations then transformed them
into established Court facts by her reports and testimony against Plaintiff;
339. Federal Court intervention is warranted because Defendants have engaged and
continue to engage in a pattern or practice of violating the constitutional rights of Plaintiff, a
disabled combat veteran of the Iraq War and the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Court
intervention is necessary to ensure that this unlawful conduct ceases immediately, and shall not
reoccur in similar circumstances;
340. Plaintiff asserts it is in the best interests of protecting and caring for returning
veterans--who are already more than twice as likely to have tragic accidents like suicide occur
that this Court reaffirms the need to strongly value and protect professional and/or physicianpatient privilege, with particular emphasis in this instance regarding Armed Forces veterans, and
VA service-connected veterans who are disabled, and/or parts of various protected classes and
institutions in America including the recipient of special Veterans Courts in the State of
Minnesota, further putting forth a special designation;
341. Plaintiffs protected and confidential records are afforded confidentiality rights and
protections despite Judge Millenackers attempted records seizure as a Judge in Ramsey County,
Minnesota. Plaintiff has not charged with any crime, nor under the care of the state, nor has been
at any time;
342. Plaintiff has cooperated with the Defendants established process and the subsequent
expert report sent to Defendant was quickly rejected that supported Plaintiffs stance, eschewing
further bias and prejudice by the Defendant towards Plaintiff and destroying Plaintiffs
confidence he can get a fair hearing any longer in Ramsey County Family Court, or in District
Court in the State of Minnesota, hence Plaintiffs request for federal relief by U.S. Eighth Circuit

91

District Court, Minneapolis, Minnesota;

343. Plaintiff further requests that the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigates the
Minnesota Guardian ad Litem Program and the many allegations of state and federal
constitutional, and state and federal law violations in the administration of custodial matters
throughout the state, in a program recently revamped because of complaints and media published
accusations of negligence and corruption;
344. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants as described
above, and is entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against Defendant(s), along
with any fees and costs.
DEFENDANT NO 1:
CLAIM VI
(Violation of Tort Law: Defamation of Character)

345. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 344 above as though fully set forth herein;
346. Plaintiff alleges Defendant allowed unverified and unproven accusations from
Plaintiffs ex-wife and her husband that were made both in the Anoka County HRO matter with
Hon. Judge Jeanine Jasper of Tenth Judicial District, Anoka County, Anoka Minnesota, as well
as to GAL during the course of her composition of the GAL October 2015 and February 2016
reports to enter into this Court Record as settled fact, despite having a duty to provide due
diligence to Plaintiff;
347. Defendant violated Plaintiffs right to question GAL and/or her report under oath
during both the October 2015 and February 2016 hearings in Ramsey County, as well as

92

rejecting Plaintiffs Motions to the Court on 26 October 2015, and 8 February, 2016, thereby
denying Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to refute false and defamatory language and innuendo
regarding Plaintiff which lacked factual causation or supportive evidence, thereby causing
serious harm to the reputation and professional standing of Plaintiff;
348. Defendant GAL on 11 February 2016 stated on the record Plaintiff had not
cooperated with the Court, and failed to comply with both the FamilyWise requirement and
psychological examination, which statements were false and defamatory, and caused great harm
to Plaintiff;
349. Defendant GAL did not offer the expert report for evidence to the Court, nor did
Judge Millenacker request it for the record despite Ordering the report on 6 November, 2015
hearing and subsequent Order which recommended that Plaintiffs custodial rights be full
restored, and visitation restrictions immediately lifted. Defendant further deprived Plaintiff of
having the expert reports contents put into the Record to provide tangible, fact-based data and
psychological analysis the Court had lacked prior to the Tuorila reports submission to the Court
on 9 February, 2016;
350. Defendant Judge Millenacker stated to Plaintiff, I think you are mentally ill,
during the 11 February, 2016 hearing, despite receiving that same day the only expert opinion
offered to the Court stating Plaintiff was mentally sound, did not meet the criteria for serious
mental health concern; which statement was false and defamatory, and caused terrible harm to
Plaintiffs personal and professional reputation;
351. Defendant GAL had on numerous occasions inserted in both GAL Reports, and in
her testimony before the Court introduced unsubstantiated, unverified, false, and defamatory
statements on the record, which pattern of conduct was false and defamatory and caused Plaintiff

93

significant harm, pain and suffering, that more likely than not will cause even greater damage to
Plaintiff in his personal and professional lives;
352. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants as described
above, and is entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against Defendant(s), along
with any fees and costs.

DEFENDANT NO 2:
CLAIM I
(Violation of civil rights: Due Process Clause)
(14th Amendment/42 U.S.C. 1983)

353. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 352 above as though fully set forth herein;
354. Federal law provides that every person who, under color of state law, custom, or
practice, subjects any other person to deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable at law, in equity, and in any other proceeding
necessary to obtain redress for such deprivation under U.S.C. 1983;
355. All defendants were acting pursuant to state law and were acting under color of
state law at all pertinent times;
356. The federal and state constitutional deprivations outlined herein were caused by the
exercise of rights and privileges created by the State, by a rule of conduct imposed by the State,
by a person for whom the State is responsible, and all Defendants may fairly be said to be state
actors of either the County or State;
94

357. As established above, the policies, practices, conduct, and judgments from
Defendants amount to a deprivation of a right guaranteed by the Constitutions and laws of the
United States and Minnesota;
358. The United States Constitution provides that individuals are entitled to due process
of law;
359. The Minnesota Constitution provides due process protections in its Bill of Rights,
Article I, Sec. 7;
360. The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner;
361. Plaintiff had a protected constitutional right to fight against an HRO he felt was
unjustified, and its existence alone is damaging to Plaintiff and he feared would be used in
family court which it was; Plaintiffs right of due process of law regarding the HRO and rejection
of the 31 July, 2014 mediation agreement violates Plaintiffs rights; the continuation of the HRO
continues the damages and ramifications for Plaintiff;
362. Plaintiffs have not been provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard in a
meaningful manner concerning the rejection of the mediation agreement, continuation of the
HRO, justifications for its rejection, or notice provided to vacate the portion of the agreement
sent to Ramsey County Family Court and Judge Millenacker;
363. The Defendants conduct threatens a protected interest of the Plaintiff in that the
conduct complained of herein resulted in an unlawful loss of his liberty rights, and notably was
the proximate cause used by Plaintiffs former spouse in her 2015 filing for full legal and physical
custodial rights, and were the basis for the justification by Plaintiffs former spouse to request a
total revocation of Plaintiffs formerly agreed upon custodial schedule from 2012 in Ramsey

95

County Family Court;

364. Each and every Defendant had actual knowledge of the laws, policies, practices,
and conduct at issue, as well as what the law requires of them as State Court actors, entrusted
with a solemn duty to show no bias, prejudice, or preference in their judgments;
365. The conduct of the Defendants is truly irrational, arbitrary, capricious, pursued in
bad faith, and done with the intent to punish Plaintiff by failing to in a reasonable manner, and in
a reasonable time frame provide Plaintiff an opportunity to answer and appeal decisions made by
Defendant, which constituted a clear abuse of process towards Plaintiff which has caused him
severe harm that is ongoing;
366. Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to protect his rights and
to prevent any further deprivation of rights by Defendants towards Plaintiff;
367. As established above, rulings, policies, practices, and conduct of Defendants have
deprived and will deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights, both under the United States and
Minnesota Constitutions;
368. The challenged action is presently ongoing, and likely to occur in the immediate
future with Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 is still engaged in litigation in Second Judicial District,
Ramsey County Family Court, Saint Paul, Minnesota, before Judge Millenacker, and the
continuation of Defendants HRO now past the two years mandated upon its issuance on 22
January, 2014;
369. Furthermore, said HRO which was first issued by Defendant on 22 January, 2014,
however, Judge Jasper who ruled the HRO on 14 April, 2014, set the HRO to either expire or be
renewed by Plaintiffs former spouse in April of 2016, hence the ongoing nature and conflict;
370. Plaintiff seeks the immediate dismissal of said HRO due to the factors laid herein,

96

and its subsequent violations of Plaintiffs Constitutional rights;

371. Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief; Plaintiff
was Ordered by Defendant to attend mediation which he did, agreeing to terms with his former
spouse on 31 July 2015 to drop the HRO, however, Judge Jasper has for 595 days or equal to 1
year, 7 months and 17 days from the mediation agreement to present day (17 March, 2016) and
Plaintiff still has not been afforded legal justifications for the continuance of the HRO, or given
his due process rights to have a hearing on the matter; Mr. Terbeest in Ramsey County Family
Court in July of 2015 stated, there was a glitch that caused Plaintiffs HRO to remain in effect
and not be informed;
372. Defendants will suffer no harm if an injunction is issued;
373. The balance of harms weighs in favor of entry of an injunction;
374. No previous injunctive relief has been awarded with respect to this matter;
375. Defendants ongoing actions in violation of the United States and State of
Minnesota Constitutions present an actual and existing controversy that has caused significant
damage to Plaintiff, and without federal relief from this Court will continue;
376. This controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a
declaratory judgment, and is complementary to the injunctive relief requested below;
377. This Courts intervention is necessary to declare the rights and other legal relations
of Plaintiff;
378. This Courts intervention is necessary to provide federal relief to Plaintiff who has
born an unreasonable burden in multiple counties, of equal jurisdiction, and suffered damages
and depravation of rights that Plaintiffs good faith efforts to find relief and remedy in the State
Court system have failed for the reasons stated herein;

97

379. Plaintiff has standing to obtain a declaration of his rights because Plaintiff and
Defendant are in a dispute regarding his rights;
380. Furthermore, Defendants' actions and/or absence of actions under the Color of State
Law have caused grievous, irreparable, and lasting harm to Plaintiff within their jurisdiction and
supervision, and Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief from
this Court;
381. The actions of Defendants have been wanton, evinced a deliberate indifference to
the rights of Plaintiff, and the Defendants knew of and disregarded the threats to Defendants
rights;
382. Plaintiffs alleged loss even though negligently caused, amounted to a depravation of
his Constitutional and Civil Rights;
383. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants as described
above, and is entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against Defendant(s), along
with any fees and costs.

END OF PAGE

98

DEFENDANT NO. 2:
CLAIM II
(Violation of Tort Law: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)

384. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 383 above as though fully set forth herein;
385. Defendant, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, was negligent through its
employees at Tenth Judicial District Court, Anoka, Minnesota, in providing the fundamental
requirement and Constitutionally protected opportunity to be heard, and it is an "opportunity
which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." (Armstrong v. Manzo,
380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). Defendants actions continue to
cause Plaintiff--a disabled combat veteran, immense pain and suffering, and unyielding
significant emotional damage that without relief from this Court will continue unabated, further
causing serious and permanent damage to Plaintiff;
386. Plaintiff further alleges Defendant was negligent in failing to properly investigate
allegations made by Plaintiffs former spouse throughout the HRO process from 22 January, 2014
to present day; Defendant failed to exercise a reasonable level of due care and due diligence that
a reasonable person of the same situation would exercise, which has caused Plaintiff and his
children terrible emotional damage, and caused significant pain and suffering that is likely to
impact Plaintiffs future endeavors;
387. Plaintiff alleges Defendant was negligent in failing to remove HRO against
Plaintiff, pursuant to Court Ordered stipulations reached between Plaintiff and his former spouse
on 31 July, 2014;
388. Defendant was negligent in failing to properly file HRO so that the Order was
99

discoverable by law enforcement, or Plaintiff and/or counsel;

389. Plaintiff alleges Defendant was negligent in failing to provide reasonable notice to
both the Court and Plaintiff regarding her decision to reject the mediation agreement, and stay
the HRO in place in September 2014;
390. Plaintiff alleges Defendant negligently failed to give reasonable notice to the
established custodial jurisdiction which had been set in Second Judicial District, Ramsey County
Family Court, St. Paul, Minnesota that the quid pro agreement Plaintiff entered into in good faith
would not be upheld in Anoka County; which negligence was the proximate cause of Plaintiff
giving up substantial visitation and parenting time to his former spouse;
391. Plaintiff alleges Defendants negligence in failing to give reasonable notice, directly
resulted in severe inequities to Plaintiff, in that the only terms of the stipulation agreement given
effect between the parties were exclusively beneficial to Plaintiffs former spouse;
392. Plaintiff alleges Defendant had a duty and ethical responsibility to provide
reasonable notice to Ramsey County that the mediation agreement sent to both Ramsey and
Anoka County would not be honored by Anoka County District Court, thereby rendering the
Ramsey County portion of the agreement and Plaintiffs concessions null and void; as a result of
the actions of Defendant, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional damage, pain and suffering,
including long-term damage to Plaintiffs personal and professional reputation;
393. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants as described
above, and is entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against Defendant(s), along
with any fees and costs.

100

DEFENDANT NO 2:
CLAIM III
(Violation of civil rights: Abuse of Process Clause)
(14th Amendment/42 U.S.C. 1983)

394. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 393 above as though fully set forth herein;
395. At all relevant times Defendants were subject to 42 U.S.C. 1983;
396. Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated his constitutional right to an equitable and just
process, as guaranteed to him by state and federal laws by denying Plaintiff and his former
spouses mediation agreement the parties reached on 31 July, 2014, in mediation Ordered by
Judge Jasper, and further violated Plaintiffs right to procedural due process by not informing
Plaintiff of her rejection, and failing to enter an Order on the matter;
397. Defendant by not informing Plaintiff of her decision in September 2015, in addition
to giving Plaintiff the false belief that he did not have a current HRO upon him, further deprived
Plaintiff of his right to appeal her decision and appear before the Court in a reasonable period of
time;
398. Plaintiff was only told informed a year later in July of 2015 that the HRO remained,
and Mr. Terbeest stated there was a glitch that caused this failure of process, which Plaintiff
asserts is further evidence of Defendants actions depriving Plaintiff of rights;
399. Defendants actions put Plaintiff at unnecessary high-risk, as his ex-wife on at least
two occasions after Judge Jasper rejected the agreement had called the OPD on Plaintiff
demanding his arrest however Plaintiff was assured multiple times by multiple jurisdictions that

101

there was no HRO on his record;

400. Despite HRO being placed on Plaintiff on 22 January, 2014, the official date of the
HRO set by Judge Jasper is on 18 April, 2014, with the two year expiration and renewal of the
HRO no later than 18 April, 2016; Plaintiff has had minimal contact with his former spouse, and
seeks the dismissal of HRO as it has been in place now more than 25 months continuously
without any incidents, and pursuant to the agreement Plaintiff made as he has already given up
the parental time he signed away in the agreement to drop the HRO by Judge Jasper;
401. The continued placement of this HRO despite Plaintiff not having incident to justify
its continued existence more than two (2) years after its issuance is highly damaging to Plaintiffs
reputation and standing, and causes severe and irreparable damage that will continue for Plaintiff
even after its removal occurs;
402. The challenged action is presently occurring and certain to occur in the immediate
future;
403. Defendants will suffer no harm if an injunction is issued;
404. The balance of harms weighs in favor of entry of an injunction;
405. It is in the public interest to enter an injunction that prevents Defendants from
continuing to deprive Plaintiff of his rights secured by the United States and Minnesota
Constitutions;
406. This controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a
declaratory judgment, and is complimentary to the injunctive relief requested below;
407. This Courts intervention is necessary to declare the rights and other legal relations
of the Plaintiff, and in particular, to end a burdensome HRO that Plaintiff argues should have
been removed, as he gave up concessions which cannot be returned, and the proximate cause of

102

actions regarding the HRO have been the foundation for the custodial attacks Plaintiff has faced
in Ramsey County since the HRO was issued;
408. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants as described
above, and is entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against Defendant(s), along
with any fees and costs.
DEFENDANT NO 2:
CLAIM IV
(Violation of Tort Law: Defamation of Character)

409. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 408 above as though fully set forth herein;
410. Defendant violated Plaintiffs right to reasonable opportunity to refute false and
defamatory language and innuendo regarding Plaintiff, which lacked factual causation or
supportive evidence, thereby causing serious harm to the reputation and professional standing of
Plaintiff;
411. Plaintiff alleges Defendant allowed unverified and unproven accusations from
Plaintiffs ex-wife and her new husband become established facts of the court, and these
unproven accusations and what has been described to Plaintiff as unheard of, Judge Jasper issued
a nine (9) page Order against Plaintiff in Anoka County, Anoka Minnesota, on 19 April, 2014;
412. The HRO became the root cause for Plaintiffs subsequent depravation of rights in
Ramsey County, and further damaged the reputation and standing of Plaintiff;
413. Plaintiff believes upon further gathering of evidence that it will be confirmed that
his former spouse maliciously took pending information found in Defendants Orders and

103

accusations entered into the record and went online anonymously and attacked Plaintiff.
Plaintiffs believes former spouse went on a featured story of Plaintiff on the political news site
politics.mn and defamed Plaintiff, who was a candidate for U.S. Senate at the time in Minnesota;
414. Defendants failure to provide a reasonable level of due diligence in investigating
serious accusations made by Defendants former spouse against him, but rather not addressing
them at all despite their seriousness and implications on Plaintiff; the shortcomings in his exwifes claims should have triggered red flags to investigate more thoroughly the accusations
against him by his ex-wife claimed considering despite being in court during those years, never
raised them prior;
415. Plaintiff alleges Defendants failure to provide a reasonable level of investigation
and due diligence, the continued attacks against him in Ramsey County Family Court have been
due in part to the proximate cause of the admittance of the HRO into the Ramsey County record
on this custodial matter, and declared in whole as fact. Defendant also failed to give proper
consideration to Plaintiffs request to Ramsey County Family Court for parental assistance only
days previously, or the previous three cases in Ramsey County Family Court between Plaintiff
and his former spouse;
416. Defendant failed to investigate a principal claim in opposition to her findings, as he
was told in person and on the phone record with the police that he could wait several blocks
away for a while to see if they could attempt another parental exchange with BPD; Defendant
declared that Plaintiff was guilty of stalking her from her insinuation of texts Plaintiff sent his
ex-wife regarding the children, yet Judge Jasper failed to acknowledge Plaintiffs request to
gather more information from BPD on the domestic escort call he made;
417. Defendant allowed unsubstantiated, unverified, false, and defamatory statements on

104

the record, which pattern of conduct was false and defamatory and caused Plaintiff significant
harm, pain and suffering, that more likely than not will cause even greater damage to Plaintiff in
his personal and professional lives;
418. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants as described
above, and is entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against Defendant(s), along
with any fees and costs.
DEFENDANT NO 3:
CLAIM I
(Violation of Code of Federal Regulations: 46 CFR 5.29 - Negligence)

419. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 418 above as though fully set forth herein;
420. Defendants actions evidenced a consistent pattern of failure to exercise due care, in
supervising, protecting, and ensuring the safety of Plaintiffs minor children while under
Defendants direct care as they assumed this duty under the law;
421. As a direct result of Defendants wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered harm and
loss verifiable by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Texas A&M University - Bush
School of Government and Public Service (TAMU), and Saint Paul Public Schools (SPPS);
422. Defendants actions demonstrated a reckless disregard for the safety of Plaintiffs
minor children as they assumed this duty to protect and provide reasonable care under the law;
423. Defendants actions showed reckless disregard for the emotional well being of
Plaintiff, and the relationship between Plaintiff and his children;
424. The actions of Defendants have been wanton, evinced a deliberate indifference to

105

the rights of Plaintiff, and the Defendants knew of and disregarded the threats to Defendants
rights by not providing adequate or reasonable verification to show impartiality to all side;
425. Plaintiffs alleged loss even though negligently caused, amounted to a depravation of
his Constitutional and Civil Rights;
426. Defendants actions resulted directly in the loss and revocation of Plaintiffs
custodial rights per the GAL report and subsequent court order, incorporating unverified
statements by Defendants and Plaintiffs minor children who Defendant left alone for an
unknown amount of time with GAL while under Defendants charge and duty of care/duty to
protect in the School Principals office while the Principal was out of the building, and School
Psychologist was not made aware of the conversation discussing topics such as physical, sexual
and emotional abuse, the home lives of the children with each of their parent and allegations of
abuse, that GAL did not inform Defendant were filed by Plaintiff in Anoka County;
427. Plaintiff alleges Defendant either did not have in place, or did not follow a
reasonable set of procedures and protocols with regards to the investigation by GAL, and her
subsequent chain of events at the childrens school; the Principal alluded in correspondence with
Plaintiff that he had informed the two teachers, Mrs. Jill Peterson and Mrs. Leslie Vollhaber of
Otter Lake Elementary School, White Bear Lake, Minnesota, ISD 624, on protocol in the future;
[Exhibit T]
428. Plaintiff strongly feels there was a gross negligence in allowing GAL to be alone in
a room with each of Plaintiffs children without any other adults present, and that this violation
has been one proximate cause in the depravation and removal of his parental rights;
429. Both teachers spoke regarding Plaintiff over the phone with GAL who they had
never met in person, and did not have any ability to verify who they were engaging in private

106

and protected conversations about Plaintiff. The teachers failed to exercise reasonable care
regarding their discussion of Plaintiff, as well as notify the Principal of any issues they had with
Plaintiff coming to school three (3) times during lunch during the first six (6) weeks of school;
430. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants as described
above, and is entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against Defendant(s), along
with any fees and costs.
DEFENDANT NO 3:
CLAIM II
(Violation of tort law: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)
431. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 430 above as though fully set forth herein;
432. In 2015, during a GAL investigation by Ramsey County, Defendant failed to
provide an impartiality that is required of a school district and its personnel during the
investigation, as well as any verification of events and interviews with ISD 624 employees with
minor children under its charge;
433. Despite the Plaintiffs childrens teachers only meeting him on one (1) occasion
with very limited dialogue if any at all to that point, Defendant seemingly went above and
beyond the scope of their reporting to GAL as they gave testimony that the Principal himself
stated to Plaintiff was improper and out of the school atmosphere he wants created in Otter Lake
Elementary where parents are welcomed; not a place where Dads are ridiculed, insulted, and
mocked for being involved in the lives and education of their children;
434. Defendant teachers Mrs. Peterson and Mrs. Vollhaber did not report their apparent
issues with Plaintiff through proper channels, failing to mention it to the building Principal,
107

however, only allegedly telling GAL and never mentioning anything to Plaintiff or
building/district administration;
435. Principal stated in communication with Plaintiff that he instructed them to stick to
the facts which Plaintiff believes demonstrates the teachers did not follow proper protocols, and
their actions have caused definite harm, and pain and suffering to Plaintiff; [Exhibit J]
436. Plaintiff believes upon further examination of the evidence and by subpoena, there
is a strong likelihood Plaintiffs ex-wife and teachers engaged in conversations about the GAL
investigation, and statements made from Plaintiffs ex-wife influenced teachers reporting of
Plaintiff;
437. Plaintiff believes upon further examination of the evidence and by subpoena, there
may have been inappropriate conversations or meeting out of school that took place with at least
one teacher and Plaintiffs ex-wife and/or her husband;
438. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants as described
above, and is entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against Defendant(s), along
with any fees and costs.

DEFENDANT NO 3:
CLAIM III
(Violation of civil rights: Abuse of Process Clause)
(14th Amendment/42 U.S.C. 1983)

439. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 438 above as though fully set fort herein;

108

440. At all relevant times Defendants were subject to 42 U.S.C. 1983;

441. Defendant, ISD 624 was negligent through its employees at ISD 624, Ramsey
County, White Bear Lake, Minnesota, and their actions evidenced a consistent pattern of failure
to exercise due care, in supervising, protecting, and ensuring the safety of Plaintiffs minor
children while under Defendants direct care as they assumed this duty under the law;
442. Defendant failed to show a reasonable level of care in protecting the integrity of the
relationships between both parents and the school, and providing transparency throughout the
entire process that would take place at Otter Lake Elementary School;
443. Plaintiff has a reasonable expectation that staff can account for virtually every
minute of his childrens time while in their care-- ISD 624 has not been able to thus far, and
Plaintiff asserts that it cannot due to their actions and negligence;
444. Defendant has a responsibility to protect children as well as ensure proper
transparency and verification is done throughout investigations, and by allowing GAL access to
Plaintiffs children alone without either the Principal or school Psychologist present for GAL
interviews with minors; defendants actions breached their duty of due care to protect the
integrity of the investigation and constituted an abuse of process;
445. Defendants actions failed to protect the integrity of the investigation constituting
an abuse of process that Plaintiff should have been guaranteed during a fair investigation by an
impartial entity, as Plaintiffs childrens school, they assumed this duty under the law;
446. Defendant engaged in phone conversations with someone that was not possibly
verified, and further engaged in inappropriate conversations and context that had to be corrected
by Principal, and caused significant damage to both Plaintiff and his children;

109

447. Furthermore, Defendants actions constituted an invasion of privacy in that the

teachers breached their duty to possibly be able to verify who they were speaking with to over
the phone when they freely offered sensitive and private data and opinions bordering on what
would be violations of HIPPA/PIPPA, which Plaintiff argues is applicable due to the nature of
the statements;
448. Furthermore, Defendants actions constituted an invasion of privacy in that the
teachers breached their duty to possibly be able to verify who they were speaking with to over
the phone when they freely offered sensitive and private data and opinions bordering on what
would be violations of HIPPA/PIPPA, which Plaintiff argues is applicable due to the nature of
the statements. Furthermore, Defendants actions constituted an invasion of privacy in that the
teachers breached their duty to possibly be able to verify who they were speaking with to over
the phone when they freely offered sensitive and private data and opinions bordering on what
would equate violations of HIPPA/PIPPA, which Plaintiff argues is applicable due to the nature
of the statements and damage they caused;
449. Both teachers failed to follow established guidelines by not taking their concerns to
the Principal, but instead only sharing them with an unverifiable random woman they hadnt met
over the phone and not saying anything to Plaintiff;
450. Plaintiff asserts upon examination of the school guest book that it will be proven he
was not one of the most frequent visitors to the school during the time period from the first day
of school on 8 September, 2016 until 22 October, 2015, yet is likely the only parent that was
spoken about in such a manner that his involvement as a parent was worthy of disdain and
ridicule, needing to be curtailed and sanctioned independently by Mrs. Petersen and Mrs.
Vollhaber, themselves, without informing the Principal;

110

451. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants as described
above, and is entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against Defendant(s), along
with any fees and costs.
DEFENDANT NO 3:
CLAIM IV
(Violation of Tort Law: Defamation of Character)

452. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 451 above as though fully set forth herein;
453. Plaintiff alleges Defendant through a combination of lack of supervision,
communication, training, protocols, accountability, unity of command, and negligence, ISD 624
was not even aware of the statements that Mrs. Petersen and Mrs. Vollhaber made to GAL; and
furthermore, they appear to not have communicated any of the important facts a reasonable
person would expect a teacher to share with their building principal;
454. Mrs. Petersen and Mrs. Vollhaber made disparaging and opinion based comments
from one conversation with one of the parents in their classrooms--the Plaintiff, and levied
criticisms and personally attacked Plaintiff in a way that reflects poorly upon the teachers
themselves, their building Principal, Timothy Schochenmaier, and ISD 624, and further never
even communicated their concerns with the Principal;
455. Mrs. Petersen and Mrs. Vollhaber engaged in sensitive discussions about Plaintiff
and his minor children with a woman over the phone purporting to work for a County, yet were
unable to gain any verification to protect the confidential information they were about to be
asked to give-- and comment on, nor sought out the guidance from the person held accountable

111

for all the children in the school, the staff, tasked with providing the most encouraging and safe
environment for Plaintiffs children;
456. As a result of Defendants actions, he now feels unwelcomed, exiled, and separated
from the cherished relationship he had in past academic years between a loving and active parent
volunteer--and public school teacher himself, has now further been alienated and embarrassed,
and suffered tremendous shame as a result of the lack of care, compassion for he and his
children, professionalism, and ethics displayed by staff of ISD 624 who have combined to cause
tremendous damage to Plaintiff, and his reputation and good standing in the community as he is
also active with White Bear Lake Community Sports with his children;
457. Defendant violated Plaintiffs expectation--and the schools duty to account and
protect his children from bus-stop to bus-stop, especially providing unbroken accountability,
verification, and supervision while students are within the walls of the school during the school
day itself; in that regard, ISD 624 cannot account for significant amounts of time where sensitive
and confidential conversations that are uncomfortable for eight (8) year old children to have at
all, and forcing Plaintiffs children one at a time to go in a room alone with Ms. Ramona M.
Olson is a serious dereliction of Independent School District 624 most sacred duty to protect
their students at all times;
458. By Defendant not providing any opportunities for verification of any of the
statements, actions, interviews, or conversations that were conducted between GAL and his
children alone without any supervision by the district in the Principals Office, while he was not
in the building constitutes a catastrophic breech of confidence between ISD 624 and Plaintiff,
and the lack of accountability for the statements made by staff, and no verification of the
conversations or what took place in a enclosed room with a strange woman and each of his

112

children one at a time is stunningly irresponsible and a failure of ISD 624 to provide its most
basic entrusted duty; to protect and watch out for the best interests of their students while under
their care, and provide independent, unbiased, and fair treatment of all parents in the school
which includes Plaintiff;
459. Defendant introduced derogatory, inflammatory, and reprehensible personal
conduct from their teachers to go on without any knowledge of ISD 624 itself, and the teachers
acted on their own without the knowledge of Principal Schochenmaier, offering defamatory
statements on the record were are utterly false, and Plaintiff finds the entirety of their statements
objectionable and insulting to his children who are students in these two womens classes, yet
were described and talked about in a manner that Plaintiff finds beyond offensive, and has never
heard his either of his daughters spoken of in such a calloused and disrespectful manner;
460. The collective actions of Defendant have caused and continue to cause Plaintiff
terrible damage, harm, and pain and suffering that more likely than not will cause even greater
damage to Plaintiff in his personal and professional lives for years to come, damaging his
reputation forever;
461. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants as described
above, and is entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against Defendant(s), along
with any fees and costs.
SOVEREIGNTY & CASE PRECEDENCE
462. Federal law provides that every person who, under color of state law, custom, or
practice, subjects any other person to deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable at law, in equity, and in any other proceeding
necessary to obtain redress for such deprivation under U.S.C. 1983.
113

463. All Defendants were acting pursuant to state law and were acting under color of
state law at all pertinent times.
464. The federal and state constitutional deprivations outlined herein were caused by the
exercise of rights and privileges created by the State, by a rule of conduct imposed by the State,
by a person for whom the State is responsible, and all Defendants may fairly be said to be State
actors of either the County or State.
465. Article VI (6) of the U.S. Constitution clearly states; Where there are conflicts of
law, the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land because it was created first by the
sovereign people.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

466. Therefore, Judges are bound by the Constitution, and a paragraph in a U.S. Code
does not relieve a Judge of this duty or allow for unconstitutional judgments to stand. Cooper v.
Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
467. Both County of Ramsey and County of Anoka Judges are considered State
Officers as Judges, and according to The Stripping Doctrine - Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123
(1908) which provides exception to the 11th Amendment sovereign immunity:
When a state officer takes an unconstitutional action, he acts beyond the scope of his
authority, as no State could have authorized him to act unconstitutionally. When acting
outside such authority, the officer was stripped of his official power and cannot invoke
the States immunity, although he remains subject to the consequences of his official
conduct.

114

468. When a Judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his
constitutional rights he exercises no discretion or individual judgment; he acts no longer as a
judge, but as a minister of his own prejudices. 386 U.S. 547, 568
469. No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law
may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest
to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.
United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220, 1 S. Ct. 240, 27 L.Ed. 171 (1882); Buckles v. King
County 191 F.3d 1127, *1133 (C.A.9 (Wash.),1999)
470. Purpose of statute that mandated that any person who under color of law subjected
another to deprivation of his constitutional rights would be liable to the injured party in an action
at law was not to abolish immunities available at common law, but to insure that federal courts
would have jurisdiction of constitutional claims against state officials. Act March 3, 1875, 18
Stat. 470. Butz v. Economou 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894 (U.S.N.Y.,1978)
471. The relevant cases demonstrate that the factors determining whether an act by a
judge is a judicial one relate to the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally
performed by a judge, and the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge
in his judicial capacity. 435 U.S. 349, 362
472. The Eleventh Amendment was not intended to afford them freedom from liability in
any case where, under color of their office, they have injured one of the States citizens. To
grant them such immunity would be to create a privileged class free from wrongs inflicted or
injuries threatened.

115

473. Public agents must be liable to the law, unless they are to be put above the law. See
Old Colony Trust Company v. City of Seattle et al. (06/01/26) 271 U.S. 426, 46 S.Ct 552, 70 L.
Ed at page 431.
474. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. See United States
v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 and Burton v United States, 202 U.S. 344.
475. The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F. Supp. 757 (N.D.
Ill. 1962) held that
Not every action by a judge is in the exercise of his judicial function it is not a judicial
function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the
courthouse. When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow
the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are void, of no
legal force or effect.

476. The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime
a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law. Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates
(1962)
477. Plaintiff asserts that after he was given the opportunity to briefly exercise a
Constitutional right to address the Court regarding the evidence submitted to the Court from
GAL that recommended a continuation of a depravation of a right for Plaintiff, Judge
Millenacker showed prejudice and disdain for Plaintiff by cutting him off and Ordering him
arrested for Contempt of Court, thereby criminalizing Plaintiffs exercising of rights into a
crime, creating a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law.
478. Judge Millenacker punished Plaintiff after prompting him to speak by involuntary
incarcerating him for at least eight (8) hours in Ramsey County Justice Center Jail on 11
February, 2016; criminalizing Plaintiff for exercising Constitutional rights and jailing Plaintiff
are actions in violation of Simmons v. United States (1968)

116

479. Case law has held that judges are accountable. See Com. V. Ellis, 429 Mass. 362,
371 (1999), where the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recognized that Article 5
provides that officers of the government are at all times accountable to the people.
480. Judge Millenacker by demanding by Court subpoena for the VA to against
Plaintiffs expressed will and consent, to turn over at least ten (10) years of cumulative medical
records from his military and veteran care that is protected under multiple state and federal laws,
the critical physician-patient privilege, and in violation of 38 U.S.C. 7332 (b)(c)(d) in at least
the following conditions:
1. Showing good cause for a decades worth of Plaintiffs protected medical records;
2. No record may be used to initiate any criminal charges against;
3. No record may be used to substantiate any criminal charges against;
4. No record may be used to conduct any investigation of a patient or subject.

481. Judge Millenacker has not charged Plaintiff with any crimes, nor shown or put forth
any abuse or accusations existed against Plaintiff; with the exception of the recent allegations
made only by his ex-wife and her husband.
482. Judge Millenacker without any justifiable cause emanating from fact, has removed
Plaintiffs children from him by full legal force of her position as a judge; furthermore, has
restricted that he cannot even attend his childrens concerts and sports activities, and rejected and
dismissed an expert report ordered by the judge herself, regarding Plaintiff to have been
submitted to Ramsey County Family Court.
483. In lieu of rejecting outright and not allowing the expert PhD psychological report
into the Court record, GAL suggested to Judge Millenacker to mandate that Plaintiff must go to
one (1) of the three (3) recommended providers by GAL, and despite his request for an earlier
hearing date, Judge Millenacker refused Plaintiffs request, and for the second time sine October

117

2015, set a new hearing for at least 90 days out, effectively taking Plaintiffs children to date for
six (6) months.
484. Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a
judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process. Canon v.
Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694. Gonzalez v. Commission on
Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374.

485. Constitution Supreme Clause - Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof;. shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary
notwithstanding. Absolute immunity is contrary. Pierson v Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)

486. The presence of malice and the intention to deprive a person of his civil rights is
wholly incompatible with the judicial function. 386 U.S. 547 Pierson ET AL. v. RAY ET AL.
487. Jurisdiction, although once obtained, may be lost, and in such case proceedings
cannot be validly continued beyond the point at which jurisdiction ceases. Federal Trade
Commission v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643, 75 L.Ed. 1324, 51 S.Ct. 587.
488. For the purposes of review, it has been said that clear violations of laws on
reaching the result, such as acting without evidence when evidence is required, or making a
decision contrary to all the evidence, are just as much jurisdictional error as is the failure to take
proper steps to acquire jurisdiction at the beginning of the proceeding. Borgnis v. Falk Co., 133
N.W. 209.

118

489. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687
(1974) stated that:
When a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal
Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and
he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in
his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to
impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the

United States. (By law, a judge is a state officer.)

490. There can be no objective reasonableness where officials violate clearly established
constitutional rights such as-- (a) U.S. Constitution; Fourth Amendment (Freedom from
Unreasonable searches & seizures), Fifth Amendment (Right to Due Process of Law), Eighth
Amendment (Freedom from Cruel & Unusual Punishments), Ninth Amendment (Rights to
Privacy and Liberty), and Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection). Harlow
v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818.
491. Trial by jury should be allowed here to preserve Plaintiffs right to due process.
Together with the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Seventh Amendment
guarantees civil litigants the right to an impartial jury.
McCoy v. Goldston, 652 F. 2d 654 [6th Cir. 1981], Page 40;
Snider v. Consolidation Coal Co. 973 F. 2d 555 [7th Cir. 1992], Page 42;
Rivas v. Brattesani, 94 F. 3d 802 [2nd Cir. 1996], Page 41.

492. When a lawsuit involves mixed questions of law and equity, litigants may present
the legal questions to a jury under the Seventh Amendment.
McCoy v. Goldston, 652 F. 2d 654 (1981).
Snider v. Consolidation Coal Co. 973 F. 2d 555 (1992).
Rivas v. Brattesani, 94 F. 3d 802 (1996).

119

493. The Plaintiff, a Pro se litigant, in pursuit of what is defined in the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 8(f) as substantial justice, takes steps to make the Court aware of the following:
494. The courts provide pro se parties wide latitude when construing their pleadings
and papers. When interpreting pro se papers, the Court should use common sense to determine
what relief the party desires. S.E.C. v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992). United
States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3rd Cir. 1999)
495. Court has special obligation to construe pro se litigants pleadings liberally. Poling
v. K. Hovnanian Enterprises, 99 F.Supp.2d 502, 506-07 (D.N.J. 2000)
496. Pro se litigants Court submissions are to be construed liberally and held to less
stringent standards than submissions of lawyers. If the court can reasonably read the
submissions, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal
theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigants unfamiliarity with rule
requirements. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982).
Estelle v. Gable, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251.
497. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of
Constitutional Rights. Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
498. The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be
defeated under the name of local practice. Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24;
Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449
499. Before sending a person to jail for contempt or imposing a fine, judges are
required to provide due process of law, including strict adherence to the procedural requirements
contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Ignorance of these procedures is not a mitigating but

120

an aggravating factor. Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 518,

533
500. Loss of Constitutional Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,
unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347. 6 S. Ct. 2673. 49
L/Ed/ 2d (1976)
501. Upon Judge Millenackers rejection and refusal to admit an expert PhD
psychological report regarding Plaintiff into the Court Record, she then Ordered from the bench
Plaintiffs VA Psychologist Mr. Wittenberg to turn over any and all medical records on Plaintiff;
in addition, Ordering the VA turn over more than a decades worth of USMC and VA
confidential, private, and protected medical records that are protected under the physician-patient
privilege, 38 U.S.C. 7332, HIPPA, and PIPPA, and VA policy and violated Plaintiffs rights.
502. According to 38 U.S.C 7332, (b)(c) Except as authorized by a court order granted
under subsection (b)(2)(d), no record referred to in subsection (a) may be used to initiate or
substantiate any criminal charges against, or to conduct any investigation of, a patient or
subject. Judge Millenackers all-encompassing records grab of Plaintiff amounts to conducting
an investigation, however, there have been no charges brought against Plaintiff to warrant such
access to his protected medical records.
503. When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid
statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.
Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v Rankin, 101 S.Ct 2020, 451 U.S. 939,
68 L.Ed 2d 326

121

504. Some Defendants urge that any act of a judicial nature entitles the Judge to
absolute judicial immunity. But in a jurisdictional vacuum, (that is, absence of all jurisdiction)
the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing.
Stump v Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349
505. The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is
assured that he will be compensated for his injury. Owens v. City of Independence 445 U.S. 622
(1980)
506. The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to
claim the protection of the laws when he receives an injury. 1 Cranch 137 at 163 (1803)
507. As the U.S. Supreme Court has held, the right to petition for redress of grievances
is among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded in the bill of rights. Inseparable from
the guaranteed rights entrenched in the First Amendment, the right to petition for redress of
grievances occupies a preferred place in our system of representative government and enjoys a
sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious intrusions. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516;
65 S.Ct 315, 322
508. The act of filing suit against a governmental entity represents an exercise of the
right of petition and thus invokes constitutional protection. City of Long Beach v. Bozek, 31
Cal.3d 527, at 533-534 (1982)
509. The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be
defeated under the name of local practice. Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v.
California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449

122

510. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff is requesting of this Court to provide the emergency

injunctive relief set forth in this complaint to the U.S. Eighth District Circuit Court, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, in which he prays for federal relief in the aforementioned matters, and is in need of
emergency relief from this Court.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF respectfully prays for this Courts judgment against the
Defendant(s) as follows:
DEFENDANT NO. 1

1. Enter immediate injunctive relief for Plaintiff by restoring his full parental rights,
reverting to the last previously agreed upon joint stipulation and custodial agreement from July
2012 between Plaintiff and his former spouse, signed in Minnesota Second Judicial District
Court, Ramsey County Family Court, Saint Paul, Minnesota before the Hon. Judge G. Bohr;
2. Enter immediate injunctive relief for Plaintiff by declaring Plaintiffs protected military
and veterans medical records are protected, and issue an Order Minnesota Second Judicial
District, Ramsey County Family Court to cease and assist attempting to seize Plaintiffs
confidential and protected medical records from the Department of Veterans Affairs, that as
outlined in this complaint constitute a violation of Plaintiffs rights under the laws of the United
States of America; [Exhibit E]
3. Enter immediate declaratory relief with the full force and effect of this Court, that
disabled veterans are to be considered equal in the eyes of United States Law, as comparable to

123

any group/subgroups special classification and protections as a protected minority group or

protected class in the United States of America therein;
4. Enter immediate injunctive actions removing Ms. Ramona M. Olson, Ramsey County
Guardian Ad Litem, Ramsey County Family Court, Saint Paul, Minnesota from all current and
future cases in the State of Minnesota barring an immediate investigation into Ms. Olson and
independent review of all family court cases she has been appointed to in any capacity as a GAL
in the State of Minnesota; [Exhibit, M]
5. Enter an immediate Order for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate
alleged civil rights violations and other violations under the Law against the Minnesota Guardian
Ad Litem Board, State of Minnesota, administered through their Guardian Ad Litem (GAL)
Program that has had multiple state reviews and investigations due to allegations and violations
brought against the Minnesota GAL Program;
6. An award of compensatory and punitive damages in favor of Plaintiff and against
Defendant No. 1, County of Ramsey, in the amount of $125,000,000.00 ($125 million dollars)
for all damages as outlined herein;
7. All other relief that the Court may deem as just and proper.

DEFENDANT NO. 2

1. Enter immediate injunctive relief for Plaintiff by dismissing in full, the Harassment
Restraining Order (HRO) placed upon him by Minnesota Tenth Judicial District Court, Anoka
County, Anoka, Minnesota, placed upon Plaintiff on 22 January, 2014 and served upon him 9

124

February, 2014, and dropped by Plaintiff and his ex-wife through a Court Ordered mediation
agreement sent to Judge Jasper in September of 2015; [Exhibit G, H]
2. An award of compensatory and punitive damages in favor of Plaintiff, and against
Defendant No. 2, County of Anoka, in the amount of $100,000,000.00 ($100 million dollars) for
all damages as outlined herein;
3. All other relief that the Court may deem as just and proper.

DEFENDANT NO. 3

1. Enter declaratory relief for Plaintiff against Defendant No. 3, Independent School
District #624 (ISD 624), White Bear Lake, Minnesota, requiring the district to provide
mandatory training for all ISD 624 staff regarding conduct and procedures for teachers and staff
in dealing with City/County/State workers regarding parents and children who entrust the district
with the care and safety of their children;
2. Enter declaratory relief for Plaintiff instructing the Minnesota Department of
Education (MNDOE) to ensure MNDOE has up-to-date and proper, comprehensive, and
thorough procedures/policies and training in place for all persons employed and/or licensed
under MNDOE, including any independent school district or K-12 entity within the State of
Minnesota, ensuring there is proper training and procedures in place to prevent a situation similar
to Plaintiffs from happening to other parents in the State of Minnesota;
3. An award of compensatory and punitive damages in favor of Plaintiff, and against
Defendant No. 3, ISD 624, in the amount of $50,000,000.00 ($50 million dollars) for all
damages as outlined herein;

125

4. All other relief that the Court may deem as just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Seventh Amendment to the
United States Constitution, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

Date: 24 March 2016

Signature of Plaintiff David J. Carlson

Mailing Address

Woodbury, Minnesota 55129

_________________________________________
_________________________________________

Telephone Number

651.307.5388

Note: All plaintiffs named in the caption of the complaint must date and sign the complaint and
provide his/her mailing address and telephone number. Attach additional sheets of paper as
necessary.

126