Connect with us

States

Trial Begins for Grieving Father Jailed for Making Social Media Posts about Judge Who Took Away His Now-Deceased Son

The son died in his mother’s care shortly after the court made the decision to grant her custody.

Published

on

Jonathan Vanderhagen, 35, faces charges of malicious use of a telecommunications device after exposing a judge on social media who took away his son, placed the child in his mother’s care, which ultimately resulted in the child’s untimely death. The trial officially began on Friday.

“Today’s trial is the limitless money, power, and privilege of the crown vs. Jonathan Vanderhagen and the 1st amendment. Your thoughts and prayers please,” Vanderhagen’s lawyer Nicholas Somberg wrote in a Facebook post before the trial started.

The prosecutors are arguing that Vanderhagen’s First Amendment rights are effectively null and void because family-court Judge Rachel Rancilio felt intimidated by his posts exposing her record. Assistant Prosecutor Elizabeth Rittinger is using the “fire in a crowded theater” trope to justify this constitutional infringement in court.

Trending: IT BEGINS: Psychologists Push to Classify Individuals Resisting Coronavirus Edicts as Mentally Ill

“I think all of this behavior, especially in its totality, and some of the specifics — like the shovel posting – on their own create this violation of the law,” Rittinger said. “You can speak freely, say all you want against the system … but when it comes to this level, you’ve crossed over into yelling ‘fire’ in a theater, and that’s not appropriate. It’s a violation of the law.”

take our poll - story continues below

RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Despite the fact that it was clear that Vanderhagen’s posts were referring to him digging up dirt about Rancilio’s record, Rittinger argued the context didn’t matter. A robed lawyer felt threatened, so Vanderhagen must pay for his illegal free speech.

“That’s possible, quite possible,” she said, referring to a meme Vanderhagen shared that featured a shovel with Rancilio’s name on it. “But there’s a threat in there as well, as perceived by the victim.”

Vanderhagen opted to refuse a plea deal from prosecutors that would have allowed him to walk out of court a free man if he accepted guilt for a charge of disturbing the peace. He is fighting back, as he and his legal counsel believe that his stand for constitutional rights is too important to abdicate.

“This case is about power and privilege,” Somberg said. “If someone was making these Facebook posts about you, they would laugh in your face. The only reason we’re here is because a judge with all the power and privilege in the world who can go send people to go arrest people.”

Vanderhagen’s attorney points to the overwhelming support that has coalesced behind his client in recent weeks, as the public rallies to the defense of a grieving father who has been wronged repeatedly by a corrupt justice system.

“The courtroom is packed full of supporters! Standing room only!” Somberg posted regarding the first day of the trial. “Thank you everyone for all your input on the case. There are some great points made that I am going to use! We are crowdsourcing this fight against tyranny!” he added in a subsequent Facebook post.

As Big League Politics reported last week, Vanderhagen was jailed and then held on half a million dollars bond for exposing what he feels were acts of government malfeasance that led to the death of his beloved 21-month-old son.

Jonathan Vanderhagen lost a custody battle for his son over two years ago, and his son died shortly after while in his mother’s custody. He had warned the court about the mother’s history of unstable behavior, but his pleas were ultimately ignored by the female judge and court referee…

A police report filed following the untimely death of two-year-old Killian cleared his mother from liability in his death, but the Vanderhagen family disagrees strongly with that assessment. They feel that if Killian was taken care of properly, he may be alive today…

Jonathan Vanderhagen was vocal about his anguish on social media, assigning blame toward Judge Rachel Rancilio for granting sole custody of Killian to his mother. As a result, Rancilio complained about her safety, and the Macomb County Sheriff’s office charged Jonathan with malicious use of telecommunications services as a result.

“Dada back to digging and you best believe I’m gonna dig up all the skeletons in this court’s closet,” Jonathan wrote in one social media post that is being used against him by prosecutors.

He refused to be muzzled despite the court infringing upon his 1st Amendment rights. He went back on social media and continued to raise public awareness about corruption the court following his arrest.

For refusing to be silenced, a judge determined that Jonathan Vanderhagen violated his bond conditions. He was placed in jail on an astronomical half a million dollars bond, more than what is recommended in for rapists and murderers in many cases.

The trial reconvenes on Tuesday, when Rancilio is expected to take the stand and continue testifying.

States

NULLIFICATION: Texas Sheriffs Vow Not to Enforce Governor Greg Abbott’s Mask Edicts

These patriots refuse to go along with the governor’s tyranny.

Published

on

There is a rising number of Texas sheriffs who are refusing to enforce Governor Greg Abbott’s mask edicts that he announced last week after reports of rising cases of COVID-19 in the state.

The sheriffs in the counties of Houston, Gregg, Montgomery, Panola, Upshur, Gillespie, Kerr, Nacogdoches and Denton have vowed not to impose Abbott’s new rules. Abbott, a Republican who fashions himself as a limited government conservative, has caved under the pressure of the fear propaganda.

“The order is not a law, there is no requirement that any police officer enforce it, and it’s unenforceable,” Denton County Sheriff Tracy Murphree wrote on Friday in a Facebook post. “We can’t spend our time running from place to place for calls about mask we can really do nothing about.”

“Don’t get me wrong. I believe this virus is real and I believe face masks can help stop the spread,” Kerr County Sheriff Rusty Hierholzer said on Thursday.

take our poll - story continues below

RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“My officers will be wearing face masks. We will try to educate the public on the importance of wearing them, but if Governor Abbott wants citations issued, he needs to use state officers to do so. He has more officers at his disposal than I will ever have,” Hierholzer added.

“This language strips law enforcement of the necessary tools to enforce compliance with the law,” the Montgomery County Sheriff’s office wrote in a Facebook post on Saturday.

Houston Police Officers’ Union President Joe Gamaldi bashed Abbott’s orders as well.

Big League Politics has reported on how Abbott’s order is non-binding and based on deceiving the public with idle threats in order to get more masks on people’s faces:

Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) has cowered under the pressure and announced an executive order on Thursday that he claims will force everyone in his state to wear a mask to supposedly stop COVID-19 from spreading.

“COVID-19 is not going away, in fact it’s getting worse. Now more than ever, action by everyone is needed until treatments are available for COVID-19,” Abbott said in a video released over social media. “We must do more to slow the spread without locking Texas back down.”

However, public policy analyst Daniel McAdams has found that Abbott is not being forthright about his executive order. Upon closely analyzing the text, McAdams discovered that there is nothing in the order that actually mandates Texans to wear masks in public.

The order reads in part: “Every person in Texas shall wear a face covering over the nose and mouth when inside a commercial entity or other building or space open to the public, or when in an outdoor public space, wherever it is not feasible to maintain six feet of social distancing from another person not in the same household; provided, however, that this face-covering requirement does not apply to the following…”

McAdams notes that the order is written to be deliberately confusing and mislead Texans into believing they have to wear masks, but it actually does not create a mask mandate in most locations.

“That comma after the word “space” is essential. It establishes “outdoor public space” as a clause within the sentence, meaning both indoor AND outdoor are covered by the exception “wherever it is not feasible to maintain six feet of social distancing.” This is critically important, as it means even in stores or other indoor spaces masks are not required as long as it is possible to “social distance.” That would include every grocery store and reasonably-sized commercial establishment,” McAdams wrote in a blog for the Ron Paul Institute.

McAdams blasts Abbott for cravenly wording his order “in such a purposely weasel-like manner that it will be universally accepted and reported as such.”

True patriots of Texas are not going along with Abbott’s sleight-of-hand tricks, standing strong for core freedoms at a time when it matters the most.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending