IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

CARLSON v. DICKENSON
DISTRICT COURT NO: 62-FA-11-2332
APPELLATE COURT CASE NO:
DAVID JAMES CARLSON,
Petitioner,

v.

Hon. JUDGE ROBYN A. MILLENACKER

JUDGE OF THE RAMSEY COUNTY FAMILY COURT,
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT,
COUNTY OF RAMSEY, SAINT PAUL, MN,
Respondent,

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AND
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

CARLSON v. DICKENSON
DISTRICT COURT NO: 62-FA-11-2332
APPELLATE COURT CASE NO:
DAVID JAMES CARLSON,
Petitioner,

v.

Hon. JUDGE ROBYN A. MILLENACKER

JUDGE OF THE RAMSEY COUNTY FAMILY COURT,
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT,
COUNTY OF RAMSEY, SAINT PAUL, MN,
Respondent,

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

TO: The Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota:

COMES NOW Petitioner David James Carlson, who petitions this Honorable
Court to award a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondent, Judge Robyn A. Millenacker of
Second Judicial District, Ramsey County Family Court, County of Ramsey, Minnesota.

Petitioner also petitions this Honorable Court to award a Writ of Prohibition to the
Respondent, Judge Robyn A. Millenacker, in her official capacity as Judge of Ramsey
County Family Court, Second Judicial District, County of Ramsey, Minnesota.
Petitioner also respectfully requests the opportunity to appear before this
Honorable Court and offer oral argument regarding continued systemic problems in the
Minnesota Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) Program, problems previously identified by the
Minnesota Supreme Court in its 1995 Guardian Ad Litem report, in response to the 1995
Minnesota Legislatures audit of the GAL program.
With respect, the interests of fairness and equal justice under the law demand that
this Honorable Court grant oral argument, just as someone with greater financial capacity
who could afford legal representation would be given under the same circumstances.

END OF PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 2,3
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION...3
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED.5
STATEMENT OF FACTS.5-50
ARGUMENT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS WHY EXTRORDINARY WRITS
SHOULD BE ISSUED.51-59
PRAYER FOR RELIEF60

END OF PAGE

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I.

Is the sitting judge biased to the point where Petitioner cannot be assured of fair

treatment in the Ramsey County Family Court?

II.

Does Ramsey County Family Courts failure to enforce its orders regarding

Petitioners parenting time with - and electronic access to - his children, require
intervention by this Honorable Court and is such failure further evidence of judicial bias?

III.

Does the pending Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) action in Anoka County

District Court require Supreme Court intervention, given the conflict of interest presented
by Petitioners on-going federal cause of action against Anoka County?

IV.

Has the destruction of the parent-child relationship between Petitioner and his two

daughters risen to the level where intervention from the Supreme Court is the only
possible remedy?

END OF PAGE

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.

Petitioner is a Pro Se litigant who has appeared before Judge Robyn A.

Millenacker in Ramsey County Family Court over a period of time from January 2014 to
and including the present in the above-captioned matter.
2.

Petitioner has been continuously and frivolously brought into Ramsey

County Family Court since he and his former spouse, Mrs. Krista A. Dickenson, first
separated in 2008 to present day.
3.

Petitioners former-spouse has demanded at least 91% to 100%

consistently throughout her pleadings, whereas Petitioner has never sought more than
equal parenting time and joint physical and joint legal custody of the minor children.
4.

Ramsey County Social Services completed a full and thorough parental

assessment of both Petitioner and his former spouse, which formed the basis of the
courts order in June 2012 awarding Petitioner equal parenting time by Ramsey County
Family Court. [EXHIBIT 1]
5.

Ramsey County Social Services recommended equal parenting time and

both joint legal and joint physical custody to Petitioner; Ramsey County Family Court
Judge Hon. Gail C. Bohr eventually awarded Petitioner those custodial rights in June of
2012 in recognition of the expert report.
6.

From the July 2012 order to October 2015, no evidence was presented to

Ramsey County Family Court necessitating a change in parenting time, nor was any
evidence presented warranting a change in legal custody.

7.

Petitioner held joint custody and equal parenting time of his minor

children from their birth on 25 September, 2006 until his custody was suddenly removed
by Judge Millenacker on 26 October, 2015.
8.

Petitioners former spouse filed a motion to transfer custody to herself on

or about May 2015.

9.

Ramsey County Family Court appointed a Guardian Ad Litem for the

parties minor children in its 13 July, 2015 order. The GAL appointed in the matter was
Ms. Ramona M. Olson. [EXHIBIT 2]
10.

As a result of that filing, a hearing was set on the matter for 26 October,

2015 before Judge Millenacker in Ramsey County Family Court.

11.

At the 26 October, 2015 hearing Judge Millenacker asked if there were

objections to the GAL report.

12.

Petitioner informed the court that he had not received the GAL report.

Petitioner was then given approximately 20 minutes to review the 46-page GAL report
that recommended a full transfer of custody to Petitioners former spouse. [EXHIBIT 3]
13.

Judge Millenacker appeared to be angry and hostile towards Petitioner

when he informed the court he had not received the GAL report that was sent three (3)
days after it was ordered to be completed.
14.

Judge Millenacker rejected Petitioners statement, and implied that she felt

Petitioner was lying to the Court. Petitioner had no reason to lie to the Court; indeed,
informing the Court that he had not received the GAL report seemed to anger Judge
Millenacker, who then gave Petitioner only twenty minutes to read reports that

substantially altered his legal rights with regard to his parenting relationship with his
children.
15.

Judge Millenacker accepted the GAL October 2015 report in its entirety,

without questioning either the report or the GAL herself in any way. Specifically, Judge
Millenacker overlooked the fact that the GAL report was based primarily on statements
from Mrs. Dickenson, her current husband, and her mother.
16.

Judge Millenacker failed to note or comment on the apparent fact that the

GAL report was significantly based on ex parte communications between Mrs. Krista A.
Dickenson and GAL, Ms. Ramona M. Olson.
17.

Judge Millenacker refused to accept motions from Petitioner at the

October 2015 hearing on the ground that Petitioner did not have a current IFP on file
with the court, but Judge Millenacker had determined that Petitioner merited IFP status
on 20 August, 2015 when she waived his payment of GAL fee. [EXHIBITS 4, 47]
18.

Judge Millenacker refused to allow Petitioner the right to cross-examine

witnesses and to question evidence.

19.

Petitioner had provided GAL with two personal references for her to

contact in the course of her investigation. One reference was Officer Vernon Simmons,
School Resource Officer at Johnson High School in Saint Paul, and an officer of the Saint
Paul Police Department who was well acquainted with both Petitioner and his former
spouse. The GAL failed to contact Officer Simmons, who could have provided highly
favorable information to her about Petitioner.
20.

Although GAL mentioned another witness of Petitioners, Ms. Selina

Kephart, in the October 2015 report, GAL failed to speak with Ms. Kephart in

preparation for her subsequent reports; though GAL did not fail to omit from her
subsequent reports any of her conversations with any of Mrs. Dickensons witnesses.
When Petitioner brought this to the attention of the Court at the February 2016 hearing,
Judge Millenacker completely ignored Petitioners concerns.
21.

Following the October hearing, Judge Millenacker issued an order which

contained, among other provisions, the requirement that Petitioner complete a

psychological examination, a parental evaluation, and ordered his visits were to be
highly supervised at a safety center; Judge Millenacker specified the for-profit
corporation FamilyWise to be the supervising agency, without first ascertaining whether
FamilyWise could even provide visitation at that time, or in the foreseeable future.
[EXHIBIT 5]
22.

In fact, FamilyWise was not able to provide an opening for visitation.

23.

Petitioner had notified the GAL on 16 November, 2015 that he had not

seen or spoken to his children at the time for over 30 days consecutively; however, no
actions were taken to remedy the delay. [EXHIBIT 6]
24.

Judge Millenacker gave Petitioner no options for supervised visitation,

other than FamilyWise, a company Petitioner raised serious complaints about on multiple
occasions. His concerns included the following:
1. An infestation rat/mouse problem at the Family Wise building, which
existed from before Petitioner 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 been requested by staff to FamilyWise
administration;
5. Inexperienced and untrained college interns conducting highly
supervised visitations;
6. No light over multiple machines in their playroom.

25.

Despite Petitioner raising these issues, Judge Millenacker failed to

exercise her supervisory duties with regards to the substandard conditions at FamilyWise.
26.

Petitioner believes that either Judge Millenacker was not aware of the

problems at FamilyWise prior to ordering Petitioner and his children to use their services;
or, she was aware and did not care enough to do anything about the problems.
27.

The next review hearing set for Petitioner was held before Judge

Millenacker on 11 February, 2016 in Ramsey County Family Court.

28.

Petitioner stated at the 11 February, 2016 hearing that he had not received

the GAL report. [EXHIBIT 7]

29.

Just as she had done at the October hearing, Judge Millenacker again

evidenced anger and disgust at Petitioners statement. In fact, she openly questioned his
veracity and only begrudgingly gave Petitioner a very short period of time to read the
GAL report before Court was re-convened.
30.

Petitioner had no reason to lie about not receiving the report. In fact, he

risked again raising the ire of Judge Millenacker in stating that he had not received the
report; but, in fact, he had not received the report and to this day still has not received the
report.
31.

During the very brief recess afforded him at the February hearing,

Petitioner did his best to digest another lengthy GAL report, one that made
recommendations to the Court that were highly adverse to Petitioner.
32.

When Court re-convened, Judge Millenacker asked Petitioner if he had

any objections to the GAL report. When Petitioner began to state his objections, Judge
Millenacker immediately became angry and interrupted him.

10

33.

Judge Millenacker repeatedly refused to allow Petitioner the opportunity

to submit information and/or evidence and stated, This is not an evidentiary hearing.
34.

At the 11 February, 2016, Petitioner informed Judge Millenacker he had

gone over 100 consecutive days with no contact with his children, from mid October
2015 until the end of January 2016. It would take a total of 130 days, or four (4) months
and seven (7) days, before Judge Millenackers visitation Order went into full effect at
FamilyWise.
35.

Petitioner also alerted Judge Millenacker on 11 February, 2016 of the fact

that as of that hearing, Petitioner had only seen and talked with his children on one
occasion prior to the hearing--the first visit occurring on 25 January, 2016.
36.

Judge Millenacker failed to comment on, or conduct any investigation

about, Petitioners statements to the Court about his treatment from FamilyWise, or the
lack of parenting services made available to him over 100 days after Judge Millenackers
Order was issued. Another month passed before the Order was first put into effect, 128
days after its first issuance. [EXHIBIT 8]
37.

Petitioner followed the courts order, scheduling, completing, and

authorizing the expert report conducted by Dr. James Tuorila, PhD to be sent to the GAL,
and Ramsey County Family Court. [EXHIBIT 9]
38.

Petitioner states he signed an authorization for release of medical

information from Dr. Tuorila to GAL, and Ramsey County Family Court on 7 January,
2016, authorizing Dr. Tuorila to communicate directly in regards to Petitioner with GAL,
Ms. Olson, or anyone else in Ramsey County Family Court including the presiding judge
who had ordered the psychological examination be conducted. [EXHIBIT 10]

11

39.

To date, Petitioner has been told that Ramsey County Family Court has

refused to pay Dr. Tuorilas office for the expert report it ordered Petitioner to obtain.
40.

Petitioner had also tried to follow the courts order regarding a parenting

assessment. It was his belief that FamilyWise would be providing the parenting
assessment, and he explained to FamilyWise at his intake appointment what was
requested by the court; Petitioner also provided relevant court documents stating the
requests from Judge Millenacker to FamilyWise.
41.

At the 11 February, 2016 hearing, the GAL incorrectly informed the court

that Petitioner had not obtained a psychological evaluation. GAL also incorrectly
repeatedly stated Petitioner never signed any authorization for Dr. Tuorila to speak to the
GAL or Ramsey County Family Court. [EXHIBIT 11]
42.

Petitioners Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Psychologist Mr. Eric

Wittenberg was present in court at the 11 February, 2016 hearing. He asked the court to
allow Dr. James Tuorila, PhD to testify in order to confirm Petitioners participation in
the court-ordered psychological examination with Dr. Tuorila, and to present the
examination findings to the court. [EXHIBIT 12]
43.

At the 11 February, 2016 hearing, Judge Millenacker refused to let Mr.

Wittenberg address the Court, and refused the same opportunity to Dr. Tuorila, as well.
44.

In the expert report requested by Judge Millenacker in her November 2015

order, Dr. Tuorila reached several professional findings.

45.

Dr. Tuorila found Petitioner was not a threat to his children, and

recommended a full return of his custodial rights.

12

46.

Dr. Tuorila stated there was no need for Petitioner to continue any

visitations at any safety center and stated, I have no professional doubts that Mr. Carlson
is and can continue to be a good father and role-model for his children.
47.

Dr. Tuorila also stated, I have no fears that Mr. Carlson would harm his

daughters in any way.

48.

Dr. Tuorila stated that Petitioner cooperated fully in his assessment.

49.

Dr. Tuorila stated that Petitioner was not defensive, and found Petitioner

to be an effective communicator.
50.

Dr. Tuorila found Petitioner did not have Narcissistic Personality

Disorder.
51.

Dr. Tuorila reported he had administered GAD-7 ANXIETY TEST,

among others, to Petitioner, and found that Petitioner suffered only mild anxiety.
52.

The summary of Dr. Tuorilas report that the GAL was forced to concede

Petitioner did in fact complete and send to the court, was read by GAL to the court on 11
February, 2016 and is as follows:

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 traits yet they
were able to sustain marriages and raise children with little negative impact on them. I

13

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.

53.

Dr. Tuorila is considered to be an expert on veterans mental health issues,

as well as an expert on PTSD, with an emphasis on veterans.

54.

Mr. Wittenberg informed Judge Millenacker that Dr. Tuorila was

immediately available by telephone during the hearing from his office, roughly 75 miles
from the Ramsey Family Court.
55.

Judge Millenacker rejected the offer by Mr. Wittenberg to contact Dr.

Tuorila, despite the repeated requests of Petitioner, who wished to confirm his
cooperation with the Court order.
56.

At the February hearing in Ramsey County Family Court, no evidence was

submitted to show that Petitioner was a physical or emotional threat to his children.
57.

No witnesses were presented to the Court to substantiate any claims made

by Petitioners ex-wife and family against Petitioner.

58.

The only testimony presented to the court on the issue of Petitioners

mental health, and on the issue of Petitioners capacity to parent came through Dr.
Tuorilas expert report, which was highly favorable to Petitioner.
59.

The only testimony that was accepted by the court, and also considered to

be expert was that of GAL Ramona M. Olson, who is not an expert in any psychiatric

14

or psychological field, is not an expert on veterans or children, and holds no credentials

outside of her role as a Guardian Ad Litem.
60.

In fact, Ms. Ramona M. Olson before belittling Dr. Tuorilas report prior

to reading the summary to the court, stated to the court I am not an expert in the field of
psychology, but I dont think this report is good enough, then proceeded to offer her
own psychological assessment and clinical requirements as if she were the expert.
61.

Petitioner attempted to raise objections to the GAL report, but was ,

adequate opportunity to do so.

62.

When Petitioner stated appropriate concerns to the Court on 11 February,

2016 about the GAL report, and raised due process concerns about the Court
proceedings, Judge Millenacker found Petitioner in Contempt of Court and jailed him for
the rest of the day.
63.

At the February 2016 hearing, Petitioner maintained a serious demeanor,

in accord with the gravity of the hearing, but did not stare in an intimidating fashion at
Judge Millenacker, nor at anyone else in the court, as Judge Millenacker incorrectly
characterized in her subsequent order. [EXHIBIT 13]
64.

Mr. Wittenberg submitted a letter stating what he had experienced at the

11 February, 2016 hearing before Judge Millenacker. Petitioner is attaching an Affidavit

from Mr. Wittenberg describing the hearing on 11 February, 2016. (Exhibit jj)
Mr. Wittenberg states:
During the court proceedings on this day, it was clear from the
very beginning that Judge Millenacker used her power and authority from
the bench to intimidate, insult, belittle, and threaten Mr. Carlson
throughout the length of the court proceedings. Her actions in court
offended judicial notions of fairness or human dignity. Mr. Carlson was
talked down to by Judge Millenacker and not given a chance to complete

15

his train of thought or respond fully to the questions he was asked. She
constantly interrupted Mr. Carlson and threatened him with contempt
before he was allowed to finish answering most questions.
It shocks the conscious to witness such unfair and egregious
actions by a judge who clearly had no interest in hearing what Mr. Carlson
had to say. Also, it was very clear from the start of this hearing that Judge
Millenacker planned to side ONLY with what the Guardian Ad Litem was
reporting. She gave her ample time to speak and respond, and she did not
even question that the findings of her report could be invalid or
inaccurate.

65.

Petitioner was brought back to court later on 11 February, 2016 for a

PM hearing before Judge Millenacker.

66.

Mr. Michael J. Huberty, a retired attorney, attended the first (AM) hearing

on 11 February, 2016. He attempted to attend the PM hearing on that same day with
Petitioner by informing Judge Millenacker that he wished to be present. Judge
Millenacker directed Mr. Huberty to wait outside the courtroom and said he would be
informed when the hearing was commenced. He was not informed, and the hearing was
conducted outside of his presence. An affidavit for Mr. Huberty setting forth the details
of this event is attached hereto. [EXHIBIT 14]
67.

At the PM hearing, Petitioner again reiterated his experiences and

objections to FamilyWise, who to that point had only been able to provide Petitioner two
(2) hours of parenting time since Judge Millenacker had ordered him to utilize their
facilities on 26, October 2015.
68.

At the PM hearing, despite Petitioner explaining how the situation had

already deteriorated severely with his children to that point, Judge Millenacker showed
little concern for Petitioner and his childrens plight at FamilyWise, and did nothing to
correct these actions.

16

69.

In fact, FamilyWise did not put into effect Petitioners weekly visitation

for another two (2) weeks, finally providing what the court ordered regarding visitation a
total of 128 days from Judge Millenackers 26 October, 2015 order, and another 14 days
after the 11 February, 2016 review hearing.
70.

In fact, FamilyWise was unable to offer Petitioner the ability to see his

children for nearly 100 consecutive days from Petitioners last scheduled visit with his
children prior to the 26 October, 2015 hearing. Petitioner submitted multiple
communications to FamilyWise stating legitimate grievances with their professional
conduct and the services they render to parents like Petitioner. [EXHIBITS 8, 15]
71.

Following is a time line of wait periods Petitioner experienced in

attempting to exercise his visitation rights with respect to FamilyWise:

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 lives from that point on outside the
safety center;
2. 30 October, 2015: Plaintiff begins intake process at FamilyWise;
3. 6 November, 2015: Judge Millenacker issues Order adopting GAL report;
4. 16 November, 2015: Plaintiff informs GAL of his psychological evaluation
details and informs her that he had not been permitted to speak to his children for
approximately 30 days, and further informed her that he had not yet had his
intake appointment with Family Wise 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. 16 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

17

forcing her children to go another week after 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 26
October, 2015 regarding information he had previously sent to GAL about the
psychological examination he undertook 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 the fact that Plaintiff was 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; to date, Plaintiff has neither seen nor heard
of any evidence showing that GAL had ever contacted FamilyWise about this
egregious lapse, despite the GAL being charged with responsibility to ensure the
Order was followed and the best interests of the children were addressed.
11. 18 July, 2016: Last visit Petitioner had with his children at FamilyWise
12. 25 July, 2016: After five (5) attempts on Petitioners part to coordinate his
upcoming weekly visit, FamilyWise informs Mrs. Dickenson the visit will be
cancelled before calling Petitioner back. After a disagreement between Petitioner
and Family Wise regarding services and policies, FamilyWise recommended
Petitioner try Relationships, LLC to arrange visitation.
13. 29 July, 2016: Petitioner completes his intake at Relationships, LLC.
14. 10 August, 2016: Mrs. Dickenson and counsel inform Relationships that
they will not be participating in services at this time.
15. 11 August, 2016: Relationships informs Petitioner his ex-wife refuses to
participate in services at their center.

18

72.

Nonetheless, during the second PM portion of his 11 February, 2016

hearing, Petitioner informed Judge Millenacker of the deplorable conditions present at

FamilyWise, yet she continued to display a lack of care or concern for the children she
had ordered to go to FamilyWise.
73.

As Petitioner has communicated to Ramsey County Family Court,

Minnesota Judicial Board of Standards, U.S. District Court of Minnesota, and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Petitioner is genuinely afraid for his personal
safety if he is ever forced to be in the same room as Judge Millenacker, let alone a court
of law where litigants have an expectation of a fair and unbiased judiciary.
74.

Petitioner is especially afraid for his life from Judge Millenacker when in

a courtroom setting, where Judge Millenacker has supreme power, as she herself
proclaimed at the 11 February, 2016 PM hearing by saying to Petitioner, I can jail you
for up to 90 days for no reason if I want to. Do you understand me, Mr. Carlson?
75.

Judge Millenacker said the above-cited quotation after having a Ramsey

County Deputy Sherriff set an authorization form that was already filled out on the table
before Petitioner, demanding any and all records from the VA, and insisted that
Petitioner sign the form. Petitioner was told by the Court that failure to comply would
result in extended incarceration.
76.

At the same hearing, Judge Millenacker stated to Petitioner I think youre

mentally ill. This statement was said to Petitioner despite the fact that the only expert
testimony given to the court on the issue of Petitioners mental health stated quite simply
and plainly that Petitioner was not mentally ill.

19

77.

In fact, nothing in the experts psychological report indicated a mental

health concern present in Petitioner. Dr. Tuorila is considered an expert with over 30
years of clinical experience and expertise on veterans and PTSD.
78.

Judge Millenackers statement was made in a closed courtroom at the end

of a very difficult day, during which Petitioner had been incarcerated for at least eight (8)
hours in Ramsey County jail.
79.

Judge Millenacker made the statement to Petitioner when he was alone in

the courtroom, without counsel and without any friends, family, or support from anyone.
80.

Ever since Judge Millenacker threatened Petitioner and pronounced him

mentally ill, he has lived in a state of fear of being arrested again for contempt of court on
the authority of Ramsey County Judge Millenacker.
81.

The next hearing scheduled in Ramsey County Family Court was on 23

May, 2016.
82.

Petitioner provided notice to the GAL around 11:00 AM on 23 May, 2016

that he had a genuine fear for his safety from Judge Millenacker, and would not be
attending the days hearing. [EXHIBIT 16]
83.

On that same day, Petitioner also filed a formal complaint with the

Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards (Board) detailing his treatment and genuine fear
of Judge Millenacker to the Board, and asked them to investigate. [EXHIBIT 17]
84.

Mr. Abdul M. Kamara was present at the May 2016 hearing at Ramsey

County Family Court, and witnessed Mrs. Olson, the GAL, give Petitioners former
spouse, Mrs. Dickenson, a warm and personal hug outside the courtroom following the
hearing. [EXHIBIT 18]

20

85.

This hug will be recorded on camera, and aside from being grossly

inappropriate conduct by a GAL, is further evidence of the bias shown against Petitioner
by the Millenacker court in its treatment of Petitioner. Mr. Kamaras Affidavit, setting
forth what he witnessed, is attached to this petition.
86.

Judge Millenacker prematurely relieved the GAL of her duties on 23 May,

2016, and further has not appointed another GAL to oversee the highly contested dispute
that is ongoing, thereby eliminating the mechanism the Court had in place for Petitioner
to communicate regarding issues he is experiencing. [EXHIBIT 19]
87.

On 25 July, 2016 FamilyWise referred Petitioner to another safety center,

Relationships, LLC in Minneapolis. [EXHIBIT 20]

88.

Petitioner immediately contacted Relationships to schedule an intake, so

as to continue to see his children per court order. Petitioner completed his intake
promptly at Relationships on 29 July, 2016.
89.

Relationships attempted to contact Mrs. Dickenson to complete her

portion for an intake for parental visitation for Petitioner on 3 August, 2016.
Relationships was finally contacted back by Mrs. Dickenson on 10 August, 2016 and
referred to her lawyer, Mr. Justin Terbeest. [EXHIBIT 21]
90.

Mr. Terbeest informed Relationships that his client would not be

participating in services at this time. Mrs. Dickensons refusal to participate at

Relationships prolonged the complete lack of contact Petitioner and his children have
experienced since mid-July, 2016 to the present day. This totals over 12 weeks to date.
91.

Petitioner submitted to the court a letter from Relationships LLC in which

both Mrs. Dickenson and Mr. Terbeest stated that she was not going to participate; or,

21

in another words, she was wantonly disregarding the will of the court, seemingly
emboldened by Judge Millenackers one-sided and heavy-handed rulings in favor of Mrs.
Dickenson and to the detriment of Petitioner at each hearing.
92.

On 25 August, 2016 Petitioner made a motion for removal of judicial

officer to Judge Robyn A. Millenacker, herself, which motion she denied.

[EXHIBITS 22, 23, 24]
93.

Petitioner then requested Judge Millenackers removal be heard by the

Chief Judge of the Second Judicial District, Ramsey County, Saint Paul, Minnesota.
[EXHIBIT 25]
94.

In Petitioners affidavits to the Chief Judge of Second Judicial District,

Ramsey County, Petitioner detailed a pattern of conduct from Judge Millenacker towards
male veterans that have come before her court. [EXHIBITS 24, 25]
95.

In his removal motion and supplemental affidavit to the Chief Judge of

Second Judicial District, Petitioner raised a number of concerns regarding bias on the part
of Judge Millenacker, as follows in the succeeding paragraphs.
96.

Judge Millenacker termed Dr. Tuorilas report cursory and lacking for

failing to include the MMPI and MCMI-III tests, yet fails to note that he did administer
the GAD-7 anxiety test, amongst others, and conducted a psychological examination of
more than three (3) hours duration. [EXHIBIT 26]
97.

In her 6 November, 2015 Order, Judge Millenacker ordered Petitioner to

schedule a psychological evaluation. In that order, Judge Millenacker did not specify
any particular tests that needed to be administered in order for the Court to consider the
evaluation acceptable. [EXHIBIT 5]

22

98.

Judge Millenacker incorrectly states that Petitioner failed to Notice the

Court at the 23 May, 2016 hearing. In fact, Petitioner had informed the GAL prior to
the hearing that he would not be in attendance. Petitioner previously submitted his
correspondence to GAL accompanying his Affidavit of 25 August, 2016. [EXHIBIT 26]
99.

Petitioner notes that Judge Millenacker, in the very next paragraph, after

complaining Petitioner failed to Notice the Court, goes on to note that he did in fact
notify the GAL he would not be in attendance at that hearing due to his fear for his
personal safety by Judge Millenacker. [EXHIBIT 26]
100.

Petitioner felt that by providing notice to the GAL he was providing notice

to the Court.
101.

Judge Millenacker continually goes out of her way to gratuitously insult,

belittle, and degrade Petitioner through conclusions, implications, innuendo, and

seemingly every possible means available to her, to hold Petitioner in the most negative
light possible. [EXHIBIT 26]
102.

So bent does Judge Millenacker seem in her negative attitude toward

Petitioner that she goes so far in her 2 August, 2016 Order to repeat alleged conduct of
the Petitioner previously covered in prior court documents. Petitioner notes that the
particular allegations Judge Millenacker seemed intent on including regarded conduct
alleged solely by his ex-wife, Mrs. Krista A. Dickenson. Said conduct was completely
unsubstantiated by a police report of any kind, allegations that were not substantiated by
anyone, in fact. [EXHIBIT 26]
103.

Petitioner believes that Judge Millenacker recognized she did not have

sufficient legal grounds to transfer custody in October 2015, and therefore found it

23

necessary, ten (10) months later in a Court Order, to list an allegation of conduct never
substantiated by any evidence other than statements provided by Petitioners former
spouse, Mrs. Dickenson. [EXHIBIT 26]
104.

To justify the transfer of custody of Petitioners children after the 26

October, 2015, Judge Millenacker fails to state what specifically has disturbed the court
to support the actions of transferring sole physical and legal custody to Petitioners
former spouse. To date the only evidence submitted to the court supporting transfer of
custody is the GAL report(s) from Ms. Olson. [EXHIBITS 27, 5]
105.

Judge Millenackers Order cites the fact that visits between Petitioner and

his minor children had been going well at FamilyWise, and further cites that Petitioner
and his children were mutually affectionate towards one another. [EXHIBIT 26]
106.

Petitioner would note to this Honorable Court that he and the children

were mutually affectionate due to Petitioners having 50/50 parenting time, and joint
legal and physical custody of the children, for the first nine (9) years of their lives.
Petitioner had these rights pursuant to recommendations by Ramsey County Social
Services. [EXHIBIT 1]
107.

It appears to the Petitioner that Judge Millenacker has a difficult time

stating even one positive remark about the Petitioner and his relationship with his
children, without continuing on to raise a dubious concern thereafter. [EXHIBIT 26]
108.

Petitioner notes that Judge Millenacker seems to go out of her way to

mischaracterize interactions he had with his children at FamilyWise. In fact, after

mischaracterizing Petitioners conduct, Judge Millenacker finally gets around to

24

admitting that the children themselves viewed their interactions with their father at
FamilyWise as playful and affectionate. [EXHIBIT 26]
109.

Judge Millenacker appears to be offended that Petitioner has raised serious

objections regarding the treatment of him and his children by FamilyWise, and also
raised serious and verifiable objections about the substandard conditions present at the
FamilyWise Saint Paul Safety Center, as detailed in a prior affidavit of Petitioner.
110.

Judge Millenacker also appears to be offended that Petitioner exercised his

constitutional rights by stating to FamilyWise that he had filed a federal lawsuit. Judge
Millenacker misquotes Petitioner, who affirmatively states that he did not tell
FamilyWise he had filed a federal lawsuit against FamilyWise. Further, Petitioner asserts
that stating he has filed a federal lawsuit ought not to raise a concern of any kind with
Judge Millenacker, unless she has something to fear from such a lawsuit. [EXHIBIT 26]
111.

Judge Millenacker is extremely selective in her interpretation of multiple

conditions applicable to Petitioner under 38 U.S.C. 7332(b)(2)(D), leaving out key

components of the law. The full applicable provisions of the statute are as follows:
(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 physician-patient relationship, and to the treatment of services;

25

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.

112.

Judge Millenacker fails to note the following key provisions in the law:
1.

The content records such as Petitioners may only be disclosed

by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, a Presidential

Cabinet Level Appointee;
2.

No records may be used to initiate or substantiate any criminal

charges against, or, conduct any investigation of a patient or subject;

3.

In assessing whether good cause is shown, its not just the rights

impacted towards Petitioner, but also 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.
4.

There must be limited scope in the courts order, so that a

seeming fishing expedition for any and all records, which Judge
Millenacker demanded, would certainly appear to be a violation of
protections granted under these provisions. Many of Petitioners records
pre-date the birth of his children, and include his U.S. Marine Corps
records where Petitioner held a Top-Secret Security Clearance.

113.

In response to this apparent judicial overreach and abuse of power,

Petitioner has filed a federal lawsuit, Carlson v. County of Ramsey et al, where an entire
count against Ramsey County addresses the federal questions presented in the attempted
seizure of any and all records of Petitioner. [EXHIBIT 28]
114.

Petitioners VA records include his entire U.S. Marine Corps Service

Record, VA educational records, VA vocational rehabilitation records, and his VA

medical records therein. Some of these records predate the birth of his daughters by

26

several years.
115.

Judge Millenacker attached Appendices to a number of her orders

throughout the precedings. The Appendices cite Minnesota statutory laws setting forth
parental rights regarding telephone and electronic access to the children. Further cited in
the Appendices are statutory rights regarding parental access to health and school
information, however, Judge Millenacker has continued to fail to enforce these laws
against Mrs. Dickenson. [EXHIBITS 5, 13, 26, 27]
116.

Judge Millenacker reaffirmed Petitioners rights under Minnesota Statutes

Section 609.26, and Minnesota Statues Section 518.17, subd. 3a, yet has failed to take
action addressing the fact that Petitioner, to date, has gone at least 13 weeks to date with
no contact with his children. [EXHIBITS 5, 13, 26, 27]
117.

Despite Petitioner having raised all of the foregoing concerns regarding

Judge Millenackers bias, on 3 October, 2016, Chief Judge Hon. John H. Guthmann
issued an order denying Petitioners request for a new judge to oversee the custodial
matter ongoing in Ramsey County Family Court. [EXHIBIT 29]
118.

There were several errors of fact in Judge Guthmanns Order that

Petitioner seeks to clarify.

119.

Judge Guthmann correctly notes that the GAL report was filed on 22

October, 2015, however, he fails to note that the report was ordered to be done and issued
to all parties no later than 19 October, 2015. The tardiness, which was brought to Judge
Millenackers attention, was not addressed. [EXHIBIT 29]
120.

Regarding the 26 October, 2015 hearing, Judge Guthmann states in his ,

that it is undisputed that the report was mailed to Petitioner. However, whether the

27

report was mailed to Petitioner at all is in fact highly disputed. Petitioner stated to the
court under oath that he had not received the report. [EXHIBIT 29]
121.

Petitioner had no reason to lie to the court about not receiving the report.

On the contrary, his statement worked against him in that Judge Millenacker became
visibly angry; whereupon, she begrudgingly granted a very brief recess to allow
Petitioner to read a 46-page report that had enormous consequences on his relationship
with his children.
122.

Judge Guthmann misconstrues Judge Millenackers action and states her

conduct indicates a lack of bias. The judges display of anger from the bench towards the
Petitioner indicates quite the opposite, and set the tone for the rest of the hearing on 26
October, 2015. [EXHIBIT 29]
123.

Further, Judge Guthmann found no evidence of bias in the fact that Judge

Millenacker accepted the GAL report as credible, without asking a single question of the
Guardian. Judge Millenacker failed entirely to establish what procedures and processes
were followed by the GAL in the conduct of her role. [EXHIBIT 29]
124.

Judge Millenacker failed to question at all the conclusions and

recommendations made by GAL, Ms. Olson, in her October 2015 report. Such blind,
unquestioning acceptance is a dereliction of judicial duty, and serves as further indication
of the courts bias against Petitioner.
125.

Judge Guthmann noted that Petitioner was granted highly supervised

visitation at FamilyWise Services. But Judge Guthmann failed to note that Judge
Millenacker performed no oversight whatsoever to ensure that Petitioner would be given
access to his children by Family Wise. [EXHIBIT 29]

28

126.

In fact, Petitioner did not see or speak to his children for 100 consecutive

days, with the Courts visitation order not put into full effect for 128 days from its
issuance. Petitioner asserts that this complete lack of oversight, which has caused serious
damage to his relationship with his children, is further indication of the Ramsey County
Family Courts negligence. [EXHIBITS 29, 8, 15]
127.

The next hearing was held on 11 February, 2016 before Judge Millenacker

in Ramsey County Family Court. Petitioner was again asked if he had received the most
recent February GAL report, to which Petitioner responded that he once again had not.
In fact, Petitioner to this day has not received the GAL report allegedly mailed on 2
February, 2016. [EXHIBITS 29, 7]
128.

At the 12 September, 2016 hearing before Judge Guthmann, Petitioner

presented extensive evidence that Judge Millenacker failed to establish legal foundation
for the recommendations made by the GAL regarding Petitioner; yet, Judge Guthmann
did not address this failure of Judge Millenacker of his order from 3 October, 2016.
129.

Judge Guthmann states that Petitioner did not sign and provide

authorization permitting Dr. Tuorila to communicate with the Court; however, Petitioner
had signed a release, which was the only legal way the court was able to receive the
confidential report from Dr. Tuorilas office on 9 February, 2016, and at least two (2)
days before Petitioners hearing before Judge Millenacker on 11 February, 2016.
[EXHIBITS 10, 29, 9]
130.

Judge Guthmann states that Obviously, Petitioner bears no responsibility

for Dr. Tuorilas decision not to conduct a complete evaluation However, there were
no specific requirements set forth in either the October or November 2015 orders that

29

stated any particular tests that must be given to Petitioner; therefore, it was subject to the
expert opinion of Dr. Tuorila what tests he would need to give Petitioner to determine his
mental health and parenting abilities.
131.

While deposed under oath, Petitioner again reaffirms the quotations Judge

Millenacker stated to Petitioner during two hearings held in Ramsey County Family
Court on 11 February 2016, and stands by those statements fully and wholeheartedly.
[EXHIBITS 17, 16, 23, 25]
132.

Judge Guthmann also states he reviewed the hearing transcript.

Petitioner is uncertain of what, exactly, Judge Guthmann reviewed, but as Petitioner

repeatedly stated, there were two (2) hearings regarding the matter on 11 February, 2016.
Accordingly, Petitioner has no way of knowing the scope of the transcript(s) reviewed,
or, if they covered completely the two (2) separate hearings Petitioner had before Judge
Millenacker that day. [EXHIBIT 29]
133.

Petitioner again reaffirms that every statement he quotes Judge

Millenacker having stated to him by Judge Millenacker was factually reported by him,
and should be reflected in the testimony, assuming the hearings were recorded accurately
and in full. [EXHIBITS 17, 16, 23, 25]
134.

Judge Guthmann repeatedly mischaracterizes Petitioners conduct at the

11 February, 2016 hearing. When Judge Millenacker told Petitioner that he was speaking
in a loud voice, he informed the court that he suffers from a 1/3 bi-lateral hearing loss and
tinnitus as a result of combat, which can impact his hearing and speaking.
[EXHIBIT 29]
135.

Petitioner complied with the court and lowered the volume of his speech,

30

thereby showing respect for the court, not contempt. Judge Guthmann seriously
mischaracterizes Petitioners speech at the 11 February, 2016 hearing. Petitioner asserts
that he did not interrupt the Court ever, let alone on multiple occasions, as Judge
Guthmann misstates.
136.

Petitioner was speaking at length, voicing his concerns and objections to

the GAL report as the Court asked him to do, but at no time did he interrupt Judge
Millenacker while she was speaking. Judge Millenacker appeared angry that Petitioner
was stating his objections at all, let alone so extensively. It is Petitioners belief that
Judge Millenacker completely misstated Petitioners conduct at the 11 February, 2016
hearing, and inaccurately ascribed to his conduct an attitude of contempt for the court.
137.

Petitioner affirmatively states that he did not have contempt for the court,

nor did he express such an attitude through any of his conduct or speech. Likewise,
Judge Guthmann also mischaracterizes Petitioners conduct at the 11 February 2016
hearing. [EXHIBITS 17, 16, 23, 25, 29]
138.

Petitioner did not disrupt the hearing, nor did he argue the judges rulings.

Petitioner was told by Judge Millenacker that he had an opportunity to speak and to state
any objections he had regarding the GAL report(s), and the courts proceedings.
139.

The statements he made at the 11 February, 2016 hearing were

appropriate, and were respectfully made. It was an error on the part of Judge Millenacker
to find Petitioner in contempt of court, and an error on the part of Judge Guthmann to
sustain that finding. [EXHIBITS 17, 16, 23, 25, 29]
140.

Petitioner again reaffirms under oath and the threat of perjury that the

statements Judge Millenacker made to him during the second 11 February, 2016 hearing

31

are accurate and true. Petitioner affirms Judge Millenacker stated to him, I think youre
mentally ill. [EXHIBITS 17, 16, 23, 25, 29]
141.

Petitioner notes that Judge Guthmann states he read a transcript from the

second hearing; however, he does not state that he heard a complete audio version of the
hearing. Petitioner is unable to verify that the entire second hearing was in fact recorded
and put on the record, and therefore concerns regarding accurate interpretations of that
hearing certainly exist. [EXHIBITS 17, 16, 23, 25, 29]
142.

Judge Guthmann appears to find fault with Petitioner not bringing a

motion to change supervision vendors. But Judge Guthmann acknowledges that the
Petitioner informed the court of numerous problems with FamilyWise and did so on
several occasions. Specifically, Petitioner informed the court that FamilyWise, the
supervision vendor, failed, for a period of 128 days, to schedule visitation on a weekly
basis in accord with the courts order. [EXHIBITS 15, 16, 17, 20, 23, 25, 29]
143.

Petitioner respectfully asks how filing a motion would have informed the

court in a better way than telling the court directly in person. Petitioner asserts that, upon
being informed that a major problem existed, it was the courts responsibility to see to it
that its orders were enforced.
144.

Judge Guthmann cites Judge Millenackers statement at the 11 February,

2016 PM hearing, that the GAL would be ordered to contact FamilyWise to see why it
had not been able to accommodate the court ordered visitation schedule.
145.

But Petitioner had first informed the GAL of his problems with getting

services at FamilyWise in a fax message to GAL on 16 November, 2015, and informed

her of the same at numerous times in January 2016, prior to his first Family Wise visit on

32

25 January, 2016. [EXHIBITS 6, 29]

146.

The GAL failed to inform the court of this problem prior to the 11

February, 2016 hearing, and Petitioner further was kept from weekly visits for several
more weeks before FamilyWise first provided Petitioner and his children an opportunity
to see each other weekly, pursuant to the 26 October, 2015 order.
147.

Petitioner again reaffirms he was ordered to sign a waiver authorizing the

release of any and all records from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that
Judge Millenacker, during the second hearing on 11 February, 2016, even filled out and
had a Ramsey County Deputy give Petitioner a pre-filled form for him to sign, or face 90
days incarceration at Ramsey County Workhouse. [EXHIBIT 28]
148.

Therefore, Judge Guthmanns characterization that Judge Millenackers

order made it unnecessary for Petitioner to sign a VA authorization was incorrect.

Further, Judge Guthmanns conclusion that Petitioners statement that he was not ordered
to sign such an authorization is also incorrect. This is yet another example, of many,
where Judge Guthmann has either misunderstood Judge Millenackers statements and
actions, or, has misconstrued them in his order. [EXHIBIT 29]
149.

This goes to the heart of Petitioners appeal to the Supreme Court for

intervention, because Judge Guthmanns misunderstandings or misconstructions result in

his erroneous finding that Judge Millenacker lacked bias. [EXHIBIT 29]
150.

Judge Guthmann notes that Petitioner never advised the court he would

not be appearing to the 23 May, 2016 review hearing, but then notes Petitioner had
notified the GAL only moments before, when Petitioner had notified the GAL, whom
Petitioner understood to be an officer of the court, at least three (3) hours prior to the

33

hearing commencing. [EXHIBITS 16, 29]

151.

Judge Guthmann cannot have it both ways. He cannot state that Petitioner

failed to notify the court of his non-attendance at the May 2016 hearing, then go on to
immediately state that Petitioner did in fact notify the GAL, an officer of the court, that
he would not be attending the 23 May, 2016 hearing due to a genuine fear of his safety.
152.

In fact, Ramsey County Family Court has continued hearings on the

matter repeatedly for months. The continuances and dates for Petitioners first hearing(s)
are as follows:
I. 7 July 2016
II. 3 August 2016
III. 3, 4, August 2016
IV. 27, 28 September 2016
V. 27 September 2016
VI. 28, 29 November 2016

153.

All continuances were ordered by the Court sua sponte. No party moved

the Court for a continuance at any time.

154.

Petitioner asserts that Judge Guthmann erred in his treatment of the

actions taken by the Minnesota Board of Judicial Conduct regarding Judge Millenacker.
[EXHIBITS 17, 29]
155.

On 23 May, 2016 Petitioner filed a complaint with the board setting forth

numerous rule violations of the code by Judge Millenacker. The board found on 9
August, 2016 that Judge Millenacker did not commit misconduct. [EXHIBIT 30]
156.

When Petitioner initially requested that Judge Millenacker be removed,

Judge Millenacker herself denied the motion. As part of her reasoning, she cited the
boards decision. Petitioner then filed a removal motion with the Chief Judge of the

34

Second Judicial District. Judge Guthmann, in his decision of 3 October, 2016, also cited
the boards decision. [EXHIBITS 24, 29]
157.

Petitioner asserts that decisions of the board, which meets in secret, which

does not reveal any of its processes, and which does not tell the public how it reaches its
conclusions, lack foundation, credibility and integrity. How is the public to know what
the board has done when it wont tell the public, and its proceedings lack transparency?
And how is the public to know whether the boards decisions are proper, when
everything it does is in secret? [EXHIBIT 24]
158.

Petitioner asserts that Judge Millenacker has violated the very terms of the

Code of Judicial Conduct.

[EXHIBITS 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
31, 32]
159.

Specifically, Petitioner believes that Judge Millenacker has violated Rule

1.2, by failing to promote public confidence in the independence, integrity, and

impartiality of the judiciary. [EXHIBITS 12, 14, 17, 18, 23, 25]
160.

Further, Petitioner believes that Judge Millenacker has violated Rule 2.5

of the Judicial Code and has shown no interest in supervising the GAL, nor shown an
interest in conducting any due Diligence over the GALs investigation.
[EXHIBITS 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26, 33]
161.

Petitioner believes that Judge Millenacker has violated Rule 2.6 (A), by

failing to accord Petitioner the Right to Be Heard.

[EXHIBITS 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26, 33, 47]

35

162.

Also, Judge Millenacker failed to comport herself in a patient, dignified,

or courteous manner, in violation of Rule 2.8. Mr. Wittenberg stated in his letter, In
addition, I felt threatened and intimidated by Judge Millenacker. Additionally,
Wittenberg stated, As a mental health professional, a United States Citizen and an
honorably discharged combat veteran, I have lost faith in the judicial system and due
process of the law after seeing the prejudice, bias, and complete disregard for Mr.
Carlsons rights on this day.
[EXHIBITS 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26, 33]
163.

In addition, Judge Millenacker failed to perform her Constitutionally

mandated Supervisory Duties, in accord with Rule 2.12. Specifically, Judge Millenacker
allowed the GAL to submit her report three (3) days late, without comment or
consequence.
[EXHIBITS 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26, 33]
164.

As further evidence of Judge Millenackers bias and failure of oversight,

Petitioner brought to the attention of Judge Guthmann his statements to Judge

Millenacker detailing many deficiencies in the conduct and investigation of GAL,
including the fact his children went over 100 consecutive days throughout the 2015
holiday season unable to communicate with their father, or even be informed regarding
his well-being, Judge Millenacker failed to do anything about these facts.
[EXHIBITS 23, 25]

36

165.

At this point in time, Petitioner now has not seen or spoken with his

children since 11 July, 2016, because his former spouse Mrs. Dickenson refuses to abide
by court-ordered visitation and electronic access rights for the children to their father.
[EXHIBIT 21]
166.

Petitioner further brought to the attention of Judge Guthmann the fact that

though Judge Millenacker reaffirmed Petitioners rights under Minnesota Statutes Section
609.26, and Minnesota Statues Section 518.17, subd. 3a, she failed to take any action
addressing the fact that Petitioner, to date, has gone approximately 13 weeks with no
contact with his children. [EXHIBITS 5, 13, 26, 27, 34]
167.

To this very day, Petitioner continues to be denied telephone and

electronic access to his children, because his former spouse, Mrs. Dickenson, refuses to
follow Minnesota Statutory Law and orders of Ramsey County Family Court and allow
such access to Petitioner. [EXHIBITS 5, 13, 26, 27, 34]
168.

Further, also to this very day, despite the case having gone on for more

than a year and a half, Petitioner still has not been afforded an evidentiary hearing, and
continues to be kept from seeing or communicating with his minor children in any
manner.
169.

Throughout the proceedings in this matter, Judge Millenacker has issued

several orders, none addressing the fact that Petitioner continues to be deprived of any
contact with his children. The deprivations have occurred numerous times throughout
2015 and 2016, and were communicated to GAL and Judge Millenacker in a variety of
ways, yet she has refused to act to enforce the order stating Petitioner was to have daily
and/or weekly electronic contact with his children. [EXHIBITS 5, 13, 26, 27, 34]

37

170.

Judge Guthmanns order contains constructions and language that further

illustrates how Ramsey County Judges go out of their way to ascribe negative conduct to
Petitioner, when no factual basis for such a characterization exists in the record.
Petitioner asserts that this is further evidence of bias against him in this matter.
[EXHIBIT 29]
171.

At the 23 May, 2016 hearing, GAL was witnessed giving Petitioners

former wife a warm hug. [EXHIBIT 18]

172.

Petitioner finds such conduct by an officer of the court shocking, and

submits the incident is further evidence of the bias against him from both the GAL, and
Judge Millenacker. [EXHIBIT 18]
173.

Petitioner points out to this Honorable Court that this embrace would have

been captured on the Ramsey County Family Court security system, as there were
multiple cameras in the lobby area outside the courtroom that should have captured the
encounter. [EXHIBIT 18]
174.

The GAL is an Officer of the Court; as such, she is sworn to conduct

herself in a fair and impartial manner. For Ms. Ramona M. Olson to have engaged in
such intimate, personal contact with a party to the custody matter is egregious, wrong,
and violates commonly held beliefs in the integrity of Minnesotas Judicial System and
Family Court. [EXHIBIT 18]
175.

Judge Guthmanns Conclusion of Law No. 8 seriously misconstrues Judge

Millenackers actions regarding Dr. Tuorilas report. Judge Guthmann states that Dr.
Tuorilas opinion was simply another piece of information to be fairly evaluated in the
case. [EXHIBITS 9, 12, 29]

38

176.

In fact, Dr. Tuorilas was the only expert whose opinion has been

submitted regarding either party during this entire matter. Judge Millenacker did not
order that specific, particular testing be conducted in either her 27 October, 2015
Emergency Order, nor her 5 November, 2015 Order adopting the GAL report.
[EXHIBITS 5, 9, 27]
177.

Both Judge Millenacker and Judge Guthmann appear to believe that Dr.

Tuorila administered no testing to Petitioner during his evaluation. The record clearly
indicates that Dr. Tuorila did administer a number of tests to Petitioner, which testing
results Dr. Tuorila considered in making his findings and recommendations.
[EXHIBITS 9, 29]
178.

Judge Millenackers dismissive attitude towards Dr. Tuorila and his

professional report is further evidence of her bias against Petitioner and against veterans.
[EXHIBITS 9, 12, 13, 23, 25, 26]
179.

Judge Guthmann makes the same error in his order of 3 October, 2016,

when he fails to note the testing conducted by Dr. Tuorila, PhD of Petitioner. Judge
Guthmann fails to give due weight to Judge Millenackers refusal to accept Dr. Tuorilas
offer to speak by telephone to the court. [EXHIBITS 9, 12, 13, 29]
180.

Rather than give Petitioners expert an opportunity to present his

credentials to the court and provide information regarding the process he followed in
conducting Petitioners evaluation, Judge Millenacker chose rather speedily to dismiss
the expert report.

39

181.

Only after the 11 February, 2016 hearing, after Petitioner attempted

unsuccessfully to have the expert report submitted into the court, did Judge Millenacker
first mention either the MMPI or MMCI-III testing. [EXHIBITS 5, 27, 29]
182.

As soon as the GAL informed Judge Millenacker of Dr. Tuorilas finding

that Petitioner was found not to be of any threat to his children, Judge Millenacker
immediately began to disparage, belittle, and demean Dr. Tuorilas report.
[EXHIBITS 9, 12, 13, 26]
183.

Judge Millenacker did so while refusing the opportunity to speak with Dr.

Tuorila, an expert with over 30 years expertise on veterans and PTSD.

184.

Her negative attitude towards Dr. Tuorila, and the immediacy with which

she dismissed his report, are strong evidence of her bias. Judge Guthmann erred in
failing to give sufficient weight to Judge Millenackers dismissal of the Tuorila report.
185.

Judge Guthmanns statement that she simply concluded his opinions

could not be considered one way or another until a complete evaluation with testing is
conducted is a serious misconstruction of Judge Millenackers attitude and actions.
Further, Judge Guthmanns statement that Petitioner has chosen to disobey Judge
Millenackers order to complete a MCMI-III and MMPI is false, and not supported by
the record. [EXHIBITS 5, 9, 12, 27, 29]
186.

Judge Guthmanns Conclusion of Law No. 8C misstates the facts. Judge

Guthmann appears to have missed some key facts in the record. Petitioner contacted the
GAL on 16 November, 2015 and informed her at that point that he had not seen the
children for approximately 30 days and informed her that Judge Millenackers visitation
order was not being followed. [EXHIBITS 6, 29]

40

187.

Either the GAL did not contact the court regarding this matter, or she did

and the court took no action, but the record will reflect that the Petitioner was not allowed
to see his children for a period of nearly 100 consecutive days.
188.

The 100-day period did not begin on or about 11 February, 2016, as Judge

Guthmann appears to believe. The mistake regarding this fact is key, because it goes to
the heart of Judge Millenackers and GALs negligence in enforcing the courts visitation
order and Petitioners rights to see his children. [EXHIBITS 6, 8, 29]
189.

Therefore, because of his misunderstanding, Judge Guthmanns order of 3

October, 2016 fails to address key evidence of negligence on behalf of the Ramsey
County Family Court system. [EXHIBIT 29]
190.

Judge Guthmanns Conclusion of Law No. 8D is an illustration of

misconstruction by the court, one of many misconstructions that work to the detriment of
Petitioner and the favor of Judge Millenacker. The language Judge Guthmann uses is
conclusory, and has a distinctively negative orientation towards the Petitioner.
[EXHIBIT 29]
191.

The record could not possibly indicate that the Petitioner engaged in

continued interruptions and outburst because the Petitioner did not interrupt Judge
Millenacker, nor did he exhibit an outburst of any kind. [EXHIBIT 29]
192.

There is nothing in Judge Guthmanns order indicating he listened to an

audio recording of the 11 February, 2016 in reaching his decision and in preparing his
order of 3 October, 2016. Had he listened to such a recording, he would have discovered
the factual truth of Petitioners statements and affirmations regarding his conduct in
Judge Millenackers court at the 11 February, 2016 hearing. [EXHIBIT 29]

41

193.

It is also worth noting to this Honorable Court, that there is nothing in the

record to indicate that the Minnesota Board of Judicial Conduct in their inquiry listened
to an audio recording from the 11 February, 2016 hearing, either, in making their
decision. [EXHIBIT 30]
194.

Petitioner asserts that it is impossible for a decision maker to reach a fair

and accurate conclusion about what transpired in the 11 February, 2016 hearing(s)
without listening to the audio recording(s). [EXHIBITS 29, 30]
195.

Nevertheless, without listening to an audio recording of the hearing, Judge

Guthmann chose to select strong words to ascribe highly negative connotations and
interpretations to Petitioners conduct at that hearing. [EXHIBIT 29]
196.

Judge Guthmanns misconstructions and word choice are wrong, and do a

great disservice to Petitioners right to due process. [EXHIBIT 29]

197.

Judge Guthmanns conclusion that Judge Millenackers affording

Petitioner an opportunity to review the GAL reports was proof of her impartiality is a
gross misconstruction of what actually transpired in the courtroom. [EXHIBIT 29]
198.

Judge Millenacker was visibly angry, annoyed, and irritated, when

Petitioner truthfully stated he had not received the GAL report at the 26 October, 2015
hearing, and again at the 11 February, 2016 hearing. [EXHIBITS 3, 5, 7, 13, 23, 25]
199.

Judge Millenacker spoke to Petitioner in an openly hostile manner from

that point on; her manner continued to be openly hostile for the rest of that hearing.
[EXHIBIT 12]

42

200.

The record will show that Petitioner was allotted less than one half hour to

read and comprehend a 46 page Guardian Ad Litem Report that would turn his life and
the lives of his children upside down. [EXHIBITS 3, 5]
201.

Petitioner, a Pro Se litigant, did the best he could to read and comprehend

the report in the brief amount of time he was given, but the fact remains that the time
granted to him was insufficient, and Judge Millenackers grant of time was given in an
angry, begrudging manner, which manner is further evidence of the courts bias.
[EXHIBIT 3]
202.

Judge Guthmanns Conclusion of Law No. 8F fails to acknowledge the

practical position Petitioner was placed in at both the 26 October, 2015 hearing and the
11 February, 2016 hearing. Guardian reports that were highly damaging to Petitioner
were presented to the court at both hearings. [EXHIBITS 3, 5, 7, 13, 29]
203.

After the admission of the GAL reports, the court asked Petitioner if he

had any objections. Indeed, Petitioner had many objections to the GAL reports and
attempted to express those to the court in a number of ways. It appeared to Petitioner
that in fact evidence had been presented to the court in the form of statements and
conclusions made by his former spouse to the GAL, which statements and conclusions
seemed to be wholly adopted by the GAL. [EXHIBITS 3, 5, 12]
204.

It seemed only fair to Petitioner that he be allowed an opportunity to

present evidence of his own contradicting the evidence presented against him. Among
the several ways Petitioner tried to present information to the court was his offer to make
Dr. Tuorila available to substantiate his psychological evaluation of petitioner.
[EXHIBITS 9, 11, 12, 23, 25]

43

205.

The court denied Petitioners offer, and also denied Petitioners offer to

have his VA psychologist Mr. Wittenberg, MSW, LICSW, present information to the
court. [EXHIBIT 12]
206.

On or about 27 July, 2016, the Court was informed by FamilyWise and

counsel for Mrs. Dickenson that FamilyWise would no longer be providing services to
Petitioner or his children. [EXHIBIT 20]
207.

Petitioner emailed a letter to FamilyWise on 25 July, 2016 regarding their

forced cancellation the previous week of Petitioners scheduled visitation with his
children, due to a supposed lack of payment. FamilyWise cancelled the visit despite
Petitioner making at least five (5) attempts at contacting at least three (3) different
FamilyWise phone numbers seeking information and to make payment. Petitioner was
particularly keen on arranging visitation that week because his children had informed him
the week prior that they were leaving the state for two (2) weeks.
[EXHIBITS 15, 20]
208.

At least a day prior to his cancellation by FamilyWise, Petitioner

submitted a letter to FamilyWise detailing what he believed were retaliatory actions

against him for speaking out against what he had witnessed dealing with FamilyWise.
[EXHIBIT 15]
209.

Petitioner further notes that the conduct alleged by his ex-wife was never

reported to the childrens school where the alleged incident occurred. Chelsea Heights
Elementary School, St. Paul, Minnesota, Principal Dr. Jill Gebke expressed shock
directly to Petitioner that she had not been informed of any so-called incident involving
Petitioner and his children on school grounds. [EXHIBITS 35, 36]

44

210.

Mrs. Dickensons failure to allow telephone contact between Petitioner

and his children is chargeable as a felony under Minnesota Statutes, Section 609.26; yet,
Judge Millenacker has taken no action to address Mrs. Dickensons conduct and enforce
the law. [EXHIBITS 5, 13, 23, 25, 26, 27, 32, 37, 38]
211.

On numerous occasions throughout these proceedings, Mrs. Dickenson

has refused Petitioner the opportunity to have visitations with his children. Her pattern of
conduct is further evidenced by her refusal to cooperate with Relationships, LLC. These
actions are also chargeable as felonies under Minnesota Statutes, Section 609.26; yet,
Judge Millenacker has taken no action to address Mrs. Dickensons conduct and enforce
the law. [EXHIBITS 5, 13, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 32, 37, 38]
212.

Mrs. Dickensons pattern of conduct in depriving the children of a

relationship with their father is not just emotionally damaging, but is arguably a serious
form of child abuse. Though Petitioner has detailed Ms. Dickensons conduct to the
Court, yet Judge Millenacker has failed in her Constitutionally mandated duties to act in
the best interests of the children and enforce the law.
213.

In an effort to regain some visitation with his children, Petitioner sought

assistance from the Ramsey County Attorney Mr. John Choi on 30 August, 2016; the
Ramsey County Attorneys Office advised Petitioner by letter that he should contact law
enforcement. [EXHIBITS 37, 38, 39]
214.

On 27 September, 2016 Petitioner contacted the Lino Lakes Police

Department for a health and wellness check for his children. Petitioner at that time stated
he had not heard from his children since mid July 2016, and they did not contact
Petitioner either on his birthday, or on the childrens birthday several weeks later in

45

September 2016. Petitioner stated he was concerned for their health and welfare and
requested a wellness check to confirm the children were alright. [EXHIBITS 37]
215.

LLPD contacted Petitioners ex-wife by phone and she said to the officer

that the children were safe. The responding officer then called Petitioner to inform him
of her discovery, which Petitioner questioned since at that time there had been no
physical confirmation by the officer of the childrens wellbeing. [EXHIBITS 37]
216.

While speaking with the two LLPD officers on the phone, the senior

officer began to repeatedly berate and threaten Petitioner with felony charges for making
false reports, before finally agreeing to go back to Mrs. Dickensons house to do the
wellness check with the children actually present. Petitioner had reiterated to the police
that he had not spoken or heard from his children in nearly 12 weeks and had no idea
whether the children were alright. [EXHIBIT 37]
217.

Petitioner also informed LLPD that the court order allowed him to have

telephone contact with the children, but that he had not had telephone contact with the
children since the court order of October 2015, which specifically set forth the statutory
right to electronic access between parent and child. [EXHIBITS 5, 13, 26, 27, 37]
218.

In response to Petitioners letter to Ramsey County Attorney John Choi,

the Ramsey County Attorneys office in a letter informed Petitioner that his recourse for
having his parental rights enforced was through local law enforcement.
[EXHIBITS 37, 38, 39]
219.

As a result of Petitioners wellness request to the LLPD, Mrs. Dickenson

filed a petition for a 50-year Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) against Petitioner in

46

Anoka County District Court, a defendant in Petitioners federal action Carlson v. County
of Ramsey et al.. [EXHIBIT 36]
220.

Petitioner believes there is a substantial time constraint with a custody trial

in Ramsey County Family Court set within five (5) weeks of the filing of these writs, and
now there is a new pending HRO matter in Anoka County. [EXHIBIT 36]
221.

Petitioner submits that the legal system is being used as a sword against

Petitioner and that the situation has become so untenable in various proceedings that
justice requires this Honorable Court to step in and intervene to protect Petitioner rights,
and the rights of his children.
222.

Mrs. Dickensons most recent court filing in Anoka County, a defendant

in Petitioners federal cause of action, seeks a Harassment Restraining Order against

Petitioner as to herself and the parties minor children for a period of 50 years, or until
2066. The children in 2066 will be 60 years old, and Petitioner 85 years of age.
223.

The court process has been used in a vicious, egregious, and grossly

improper manner by Mrs. Krista Dickenson in an effort to eviscerate Petitioners

relationship with his children. [EXHIBITS 35, 36]
224.

Petitioner comes to this Honorable Court with no other means or

mechanisms to continue to defend himself from this onslaught that has been perpetrated
against him by Mrs. Dickensons actions in both Ramsey County Family Court, and
Anoka County District Court.
225.

The previous 2014 Anoka County HRO, an HRO has caused severe

damage to Petitioners reputation and livelihood. [EXHIBIT 35]

47

226.

Petitioner and Mrs. Dickenson reached an agreement to dismiss the HRO

and Petitioner gave up a significant portion of his parenting time to Mrs. Dickenson as his
part of the agreement. [EXHIBIT 40]
227.

Although Ramsey County affirmed the agreement reached by Petitioner

and his former spouse, Anoka County District Judge Jeannine Walker Jasper refused to
dismiss the HRO action; Judge Jasper however neglected to order that the HBO be
dismissed and she issued no order regarding her refusal to accept the parties agreement.
Petitioner was only informed of the HROs continued existence in July 2015 before
Judge Millenacker in Ramsey County Family Court. [EXHIBITS 35, 40, 41, 49]
228.

Despite Petitioner never having contacted Mrs. Dickenson at any time

since the entry of the HRO, she was able to obtain a temporary HRO on 3 October, 2016
against Petitioner for the period of 50 years, or until 2066. [EXHIBIT 36]
229.

The carrying out of such an outrageous legal maneuver, which maneuver

Petitioner notes has been successful for Mrs. Dickenson, stands to further decimate
Petitioners quality of life, ability to find work, and destroy his personal and professional
relationships, most especially his relationship with his children.
230.

As evidenced in Petitioners communications with his attorney in 2014,

Mr. Virgil Bradley, Petitioner strongly felt at that point in time already that Mrs. Krista
Dickenson and her husband Mr. Andrew Dickenson were attempting to remove
Petitioners custodial rights through deceit and abuse of the judicial system.
[EXHIBITS 43, 44, 45, 48, 49]

48

231.

As part of her legal maneuvering throughout the pendency of these

proceedings, Mrs. Dickenson attempted to have Petitioner arrested on a number of

occasions. At each and every effort she was denied by law enforcement; who found
nothing objectionable in Petitioners conduct. This file is replete with law enforcement
reports from different agencies evidencing Mrs. Dickensons maneuvers.
[EXHIBITS 37, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50]
232.

As part of her legal maneuverings to get Petitioner arrested, Mrs.

Dickenson enlisted the assistance of her current husband, Andrew Dickenson, who
himself called the police on 27 December, 2013, in an attempt to have Petitioner arrested.
Law enforcement arrived at the scene, and found nothing objectionable in Petitioners
conduct, refused to arrest Petitioner, and left the scene. [EXHIBITS 43, 44, 45, 48, 50]
233.

Petitioner notes to the court that prior to Mr. Dickenson calling the police

on 27 December, 2013, there had been zero police reports between Petitioner and Mrs.
Dickenson in the history of their relationship. [EXHIBITS 43, 44, 45, 48, 50]
234.

This fear has been borne out by Mrs. Dickenson filing not one (1), but

now two (2) HROs against Petitioner, the latest of which seeks to entirely obliterate his
relationship with his children. Petitioner felt in 2014, and continues to feel that Mrs.
Dickensons maneuverings will not stop unless this Honorable Court intervenes at this
time. [EXHIBITS 35, 40, 41, 42, 48, 50]
235.

Petitioner reiterates to this Honorable Court the desperation of his

situation, further evidenced by the massive volume of documents existing in this matter.
236.

This ongoing custodial matter, which emanates from as early as 2008 in

Ramsey County Family Court, has slowly and surely come to cause immense damage not

49

just to the loving relationship Petitioner had with his children for the first nine (9) years
of their lives, but has caused severe trauma in virtually every aspect of Petitioners life.
Processes intended to provide a legal shield have been turned into destructive swords.
Therefore, Petitioner comes to this Honorable Court with his prayer for help and relief.
[EXHIBITS 45, 46]

END OF PAGE

50

LEGAL ARGUMENT AND REASONS FOR WRIT

How can it be fair for one party to be allowed to present evidence and information
to the court while denying another party the same opportunity? It is all well and good to
term the 26 October, 2015 hearing and the 11 February, 2016 hearing review hearings,
as Judge Millenacker and Judge Guthmann both did, but the fact is the court accepted
evidence at both hearings, evidence that cast a profoundly negative light on Petitioner.
It was a denial of due process for Judge Millenacker to refuse to allow Petitioner
to present his own evidence in rebuttal, and it is a denial of due process for Judge
Guthmann to fail to see the harm resulting to Petitioner from that denial.
How can it be fair to transfer custody of Petitioners children, with whom he had a
close and loving relationship for more than nine (9) years, without compelling evidence
justifying a transfer of custody, and without giving Petitioner a chance to be heard?
On the one hand, both Judge Millenacker and Judge Guthmann seem to have
decided that sufficient evidence justifying such a transfer of custody was presented to the
court; on the other hand, both Judge Millenacker and Judge Guthmann hoist Petitioner on
the petard that only review hearings were held on the matter, so it was okay that he
couldnt present evidence. The court cannot have it both ways.
Judge Guthmanns Conclusion of Law No. 8H contains a too-cursory dismissal of
Petitioners objections to Judge Millenackers conduct in accepting the GAL reports.
Petitioner does not dispute that one of the judges functions is to assess the credibility of
information presented to it.

51

But Petitioner asks how can a proper assessment be made of credibility when the
judge entirely fails to ask the GAL a single question regarding the guardians processes
or conclusions?
It should have been obvious to Judge Millenacker from reading the 22 October,
2015 GAL report that it contained third and fourth party hearsay which was being
presented to the court as credible evidence against the Petitioner.
The GAL report is replete with statements and innuendos made by Petitioners
former spouse against him, statements that were false and damaging to him. At no time
did Judge Millenacker question the propriety of including such statements in the GAL
report, nor did she inquire at any time what information the GAL relied upon in making
her recommendations that custody should be transferred.
Such a failure to inquire goes to the very heart of judicial function. Petitioner
raised this properly, only to have his concerns summarily dismissed by both Judge
Millenacker and Judge Guthmann. Judge Millenackers lack of fairness toward Petitioner
is evidence of bias, and Judge Guthmanns failure to find bias on the part of Judge
Millenacker must be reversed.
Judge Guthmanns Conclusion of Law No. 8I is a complete misstatement of the
factual record. The record clearly shows that Petitioner notified the GAL in midNovember 2015 that his statutory right to visitation and telephone contact with his
children was being denied him.
It was the Guardian Ad Litems duty to inform the court of this key fact, and it
was the courts duty to act upon the information presented. The record clearly indicates

52

that, from the issuance of Judge Millenackers October order on custody and visitation,
Petitioner did not see his children for 91 days.
This is a key issue because it illustrates an egregious deprivation of rights to the
Petitioner. Judge Guthmanns failure to properly comprehend the facts in this matter
necessitates a reversal of his order of 3 October, 2016. So critical is this error that the
ruling cannot be allowed to stand.
Judge Guthmanns Conclusion of Law No. 8J discusses the premature discharge
of the GAL, Ms. Ramona M. Olson. Petitioner questioned why the GAL would be
dismissed when the proceedings remained ongoing. In fact, the GAL was discharged in
May 2016, yet this case is expected to go at least through the end of November 2016;
during that approximately six-month period of family court involvement, there is no
appointed GAL to assist in the matter.
Petitioner has raised reasonable concerns throughout the matter about the GAL,
Ms. Olson, but would also note to the Honorable Court that there are at least six (6) other
GALs in Ramsey County Family Court who could have been appointed to replace
Ramona M. Olson, a GAL whose work had been shown to be negligent, incompetent, and
biased.
Judge Guthmanns Conclusion of Law No. 8K is another example of his
misconstruing the record. Judge Millenacker used strong, pejorative language when she
interpreted the manner in which Petitioners VA psychologist, Mr. Eric Wittenberg,
exited the courtroom on 11 February, 2016. At the very least, Judge Millenacker appears
to be going out of her way to say negative things about Mr. Wittenberg, an honorable
United States veteran.

53

Petitioner asserts that Judge Millenackers pejorative language is inappropriate,

improper, and serves to illustrate her bias against not just petitioner, but against United
States veterans as well. It is difficult to understand how Judge Guthmann can conclude
that Judge Millenackers language was not disparaging.
The fact is there was no reason for Judge Millenacker to note in her order that a
person had exited the courtroom at all, let alone go out of her way as she did to ascribe
such a negative interpretation to the simple act of passing through a door.
Nevertheless, Judge Millenacker chose the language she chose, which language
speaks for itself, and serves to illustrate the attitude of the court towards the Petitioner
and seemingly any person connected to him.
Evidence of bias against veterans extends beyond the actions of Judge
Millenacker; it was also present in the actions of the GAL, Ms. Olson, towards the three
(3) veterans described herein.
Specifically, Judge Millenacker in her August 2016 Order dealt with three (3)
veterans in various roles: Dr. James Tuorila, PhD, an honorably discharged U.S. Army
Officer veteran, who conducted a psychological evaluation of Petitioner; Mr. Eric
Wittenberg, MSW, LICSW, an honorably discharged U.S. Army veteran, who serves as
Petitioners counselor; and Mr. David J. Carlson, MS, the Petitioner, who is an honorably
discharged U.S. Marine Corps veteran.
In Petitioners Affidavit of 25 August, 2016 in support of his Motion to Remove
Judge Millenacker, he addressed disparaging treatment from Judge Millenacker towards
each of the veterans listed above. Petitioner now notes that Judge Millenacker, in her
Order of 2 August, 2016, goes on to disparage all three (3) veterans again.

54

Judge Millenacker termed Dr. Tuorilas report cursory and lacking for failing to
include the MMPI and MCMI-III tests, yet she failed to note that he did administer the
GAD-7 anxiety test, amongst others, and conducted a psychological examination of more
than three (3) hours duration.
In her 6 November, 2015 Order, Judge Millenacker ordered Petitioner to
schedule a psychological evaluation. In that Order, Judge Millenacker did not specify
any specific or particular tests that needed to be administered in order for the Court to
consider the evaluation acceptable.
Dr. Tuorila is considered to be an expert with over 30 years clinical experience,
with particular emphasis on veterans and PTSD.
Judge Millenacker is not an expert in any clinical psychological field, nor an
expert on the subject of veterans or PTSD.
Judge Millenacker incorrectly states in her most recent Order that Petitioner
provided the psychological examination to the Court; however, Dr. Tuorila directly
provided to the GAL the psychological report as requested by Petitioner. The expert
report was sent to GAL on 9 February, 2016.
Petitioner notes that Judge Millenacker repeatedly misspells Mr. Wittenbergs
name as Mr. Whitenberg throughout her 2 August, 2016 Order.
Petitioner notes that Judge Millenacker appears to sound angry in that Order
toward Mr. Wittenberg for relaying information from Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) counsel to GAL, to wit: that the VA would not release Petitioners medical or
mental health records. Petitioner believes such anger is gratuitous and improper and
provides further and additional evidence of Judge Robyn A. Millenackers bias.

55

Judge Millenacker goes on to further belittle Mr. Wittenberg by mischaracterizing

his conduct on 11 February, 2016 when he exited the courtroom. Judge Millenacker
states:
Mr. Wittenberg is the same party who stormed out of the courtroom,
audibly huffing, and slamming the courtroom door open, when the
courtroom door open, when the Court took Petitioner into custody for
obstructing the orderly proceedings
Petitioner would note that Judge Millenackers language is pejorative in the
extreme, and Petitioner believes such improper language is further evidence of Judge
Millenackers bias.
Petitioner asserts that Judge Guthmann failed to apply the proper legal standard in
determining whether or not bias existed on the part of Judge Millenacker. Petitioner
believes the standard is as follows: that a reasonable examiner outside of Ramsey County
District Court would question the Courts impartiality in this matter.
Petitioner cites Minn. Code Jud. Conduct Cannon III C (1) (1992), which
encourages a judge to disqualify herself where the judges impartiality might reasonably
be questioned.
Petitioner asserts that he has made a strong showing of bias on the part of Judge
Robyn A. Millenacker.
Petitioner reaffirms that he has a genuine fear for his life, something he expressed
both in letters to Ramsey County Family Court, and in an official complaint to the
Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards about Judge Millenacker. He also expressed that
fear in his motion to the Chief Judge of Second Judicial District, U.S. District Court.
Additionally, he expressed that fear in his federal cause of action.

56

There is now an evidentiary hearing currently scheduled before Judge Millenacker

on 28 and 29 November, 2016, with deadlines looming over the matter of witnesses and
exhibits. Her continuation on this matter bodes severe consequences for Petitioner and
the future of his relationship with his children, which has already been severely damaged
in Judge Millenackers court.
Petitioner asserts that the interests of justice demand that a new judge be
appointed to replace Judge Robyn A. Millenacker in this matter.
The continual deprivation of contact with their father is emotionally damaging to
the children, and is damaging to the Petitioner. The deprivation of contact is also
damaging to Petitioners own family, who have had extremely limited and sparse contact
with the children since October 2015.
Throughout the course of this lengthy process, Judge Millenacker has shown a
predisposition against taking action to address any of the harm Petitioner and his children
have endured. Further, by her premature dismissal of a GAL who is sworn to oversee the
best interests of the children, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 518.165, Subd. 2, and Subd.
2a, Judge Millenacker has failed to honor her responsibility to provide supervision and
oversight.
As a result of Judge Millenackers failure to act, Petitioner and his children
currently have been unable to speak with or see one another for over 12 weeks straight,
the fifth such lapse of parenting time the family has endured this year.
As a result of the court actions in Ramsey County, Petitioner, who prior to
October 2015 was involved in every aspect of the minor childrens lives, has now missed
out on more than 10% of their lives to date, with no end in sight for reunification, and

57

with no legal evidence having been presented that would substantiate transfer of custody
and a denial of access to his children.
Petitioner asserts that extreme harm has resulted to his relationship with his
children as a direct result of Judge Millenackers bias. Petitioners children continue to be
deprived of any contact with their father and his family.
The issues described herein in Ramsey County Family Court, and particularly the
Minnesota Guardian Ad Litem Program, are not new for this Honorable Court. From at
least 1987 onward, this Honorable Court has been made aware of serious flaws in the
states GAL Program, flaws so egregious the Court was moved to issue numerous reports
and orders to address these problems in the Minnesota Judicial System.
Petitioner feels that court processes are being used as a sword against him. First,
his former spouse used the court to reduce his parenting time and his custodial and
parental rights. Then she used the problems in the Minnesota GAL Program to her
advantage in order to obtain a transfer of custody of the parties minor children to herself
solely. And then she used the court system to try to obtain a fifty-year Harassment
Restraining Order against Petitioner that would completely eliminate his access to his
children until he is aged 85 and his children are aged 60.
For the first eight years of Petitioners involvement in Ramsey County Court, his
parenting rights were consistently upheld and he had parenting time of at least 50% with
his children. Within the past year, though, Petitioners parenting rights have been
eviscerated to the point where he has not seen or spoken to his children for the past one
hundred consecutive days - the second time in less than a year that access to his children
was cut off from him for one hundred consecutive days. Petitioners former spouse has

58

sought to inflict maximum damage on Petitioner by tying him up in two Minnesota

county court systems, including a quasi-criminal action in Anoka County.
Such an action has the potential to destroy the personal and professional life of
Petitioner, who did three combat tours in Iraq, who was a decorated Marine, and who has
never been in trouble with the law in his entire life.
Petitioners nightmare experience sheds light on continued systemic problems
inherent in the Minnesota GAL Program. Given the seriousness of these issues, Petitioner
requests the opportunity to present oral argument to this Honorable Court, detailing
continued GAL Program issues that demand corrective action from this Honorable Court.

END OF PAGE

59

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE THIS PETITIONER prays this Honorable Court to grant the

following relief:
1.

A Writ of Prohibition removing Judge Robyn A. Millenacker as

presiding judge in Petitioners family law matter in Second Judicial District, Ramsey
County Family Court;
2.

A Writ of Mandamus to Ramsey County Family Court requiring it

to dismiss the pending family law matter involving the Petitioner, his former spouse, and
his children, and restore the terms of the custodial order in effect prior to 31 July, 2014;
3.

A Writ of Mandamus to Ramsey County Family Court requiring it

to restore Petitioners custodial, parenting, and visitation rights immediately;

4.

A Writ of Mandamus to the Director of the Minnesota Guardian

Ad Litem (GAL) Program requiring her to dismiss Ms. Ramona M. Olson from her duties
as a Guardian Ad Litem in the State of Minnesota and investigate any custodial matters
she contributed to or might have been involved in;
5.

A Writ of Mandamus to commence an investigation of the

Minnesota Guardian Ad Litem Program in order to repair the considerable number of

problems previously identified in the Minnesota Legislative Audit (1995), and
corresponding Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Task Force on the Guardian Ad Litem
System (1996), and any subsequent reports;

60

DATED THIS 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016

_________________________________________
David J. Carlson, Petitioner

61