Coercion or Free Speech?

Coercion or Free Speech?

Successful Prosecution Sets Dangerous Precedent

Opinion and Political Commentary by Jonathan P. Glassel

A legal precedent is set when a Judge makes a decision about a certain legal matter.

Even if this Judge’s decision is to jump from a cliff, the inbred judges that follow in his footsteps will be duty bound to leap from that same cliff.

Sooner or later, someone with enough money and sharp lawyer may be able to get this precedent overturned in Appellate Court, but until then, our inbred judges will continue to jump from the same proverbial cliff.

With unemployment in Chisago County hovering around 10%, one would think Chisago County Attorney Janet Reiter would have little trouble finding enough PWT’s (Poor White Trash) to fill the jails.

But Janet is a real trooper for the Prison Industrial Complex and is always seeking new ways to increase jail populations.

As reported by Denise Martin and the Chisago County Press, Chisago County Attorney Janet Reiter coerced a coercion related Alford Plea from a Lent man for the grand total of $100 in fines. No reports are available as to the amount of taxpayer dollars spent by Reiter in this “No Contest” conviction.

Minnesota statutes regarding coercion are extremely broad and not usually enforced in this manner, especially when politicians are involved.

Coercion sounds nasty as it is usually related to Coercion of Prostitution, i.e., a person of authority coercing sexual favors from an underling wanting to keep their job.

In this case a young politician got pissed at an old politician and wrote a letter he wishes he could take back.

Janet Reiter used this letter to end the young man’s political career with another of her nonsensical, probably politically motivated prosecutions.

The extreme broadness of this conviction puts freedom of speech at risk in Chisago County.

As an example, suppose you were mad at your commissioner, George McMahon for introducing a 2-3% tax increase. Say you went to public forum and told George, “If you pass this tax, I will not vote for you next time and I will tell the world you are a “Tax and Spend Liberal.”

Technically, you have met Reiter’s requirement of coercion, defined simply as anyone stating “either you do something I want or there will be consequences.”

The amount of time you spend in jail for such a statement depends upon the financial loss incurred. Say your single vote cost George the election. George would lose his $30,000 job as commissioner.

Since the amount of damage exceeds $2,500, you could face fines of $20,000 and ten years in prison. If you had the money to hire a good lawyer, you could “beat the rap,” however, the stigma of being charged with coercion could never be overcome in a small community like Lindstrom and Chisago.

As was the case with the young man from Lent, whose standing in the community was lessened, your right of dissent would be compromised, your free speech neutered.

The great philosopher Plato once stated "The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

It can be argued that World War II started when the first German citizens were coerced to give up their free speech.

As such, Reiter’s “Coercion” cannot stand.

The young man from Lent’s standing in the community cannot be restored with the return of $100, but the ability to pick and choose who runs for public office cannot be determined by Janet Reiter, her cronies or the County Attorney’s office.

We need to reserve that right for “We the People,” not “Us the Government.”

Denise Martin Chisago County Press, Mary Helen Swanson North Branch ECM Post Review, Johanna Puelston Isanti Chisago County Star fiefdompolitics written in cowardly anonymity Tim Okeefe or his wife FishLakeKarpa