The State Post-Conviction Relief Case, Part II

Yup, yup, it's that time again...time for yet ANOTHER fun document filed in the post-conviction relief case, due to air April 27th, in none other than good ol' IOWAY...right where I wish I was 1000 miles away.  AND I WILL be...well, to start, anyway...then it's weave back over time, so I can kick some ass.  Better yet, I really hope I lose...more fuel for my fed case, that way.  So go ahead ya crooks...cream me.  Ram it up me kiester...I DARE YOU...Wouldn't I just love to amend that defendant's list...AGAIN.

Annnnnnnyways...here's legal doc #...oh, I've lost count.  THE MINUTES OF TESTIMONY...filed today by who else?  Yours truly...should be a wing-dingy!  So enjoy Linda Lane...enjoy Judgees.  Enjoy John P.  Can't weasel off the stand EVERY case...I'll catch yer little Italian behind somewhere, sometime, m'friend.  :D

WITNESS LIST

1. Judge Robert Blink, District 5C Judge, Polk County, Iowa

2. Judge William Kelly, District 5C Judge, Polk County, Iowa

3. Judge Carol S. Egly, District 5C Judge, Polk County, Iowa

4. Clerk of Court, Randy Osborn, Polk County, Iowa

5. Linda Lane, Asst. Polk Cty. Atty., Polk County Attorney’s Office, Polk County, Iowa

6. John P. Sarcone, Polk County Attorney’s Office, Polk County, Iowa

7. Grant Rogers, Reporter, The Des Moines Register, Des Moines, Iowa

8. Lucas Taylor, Mark R. Hinshaw Law Firm, West Des Moines, Iowa

If called by the plaintiff at trial, each witness listed above will testify as follows:  On or around January 26th, a warrant was issued for the plaintiff, christopher (bruce) the living man for the charge of Harassment in the 1st Degree, an aggravated misdemeanor, based on police reports taken by the Altoona Police Department on September 8th, 2015, and another on January 14th, 2014, and the charge of 1st Degree Harassment was then approved 12 days later by the Polk County Attorney, John P. Sarcone on January 26th, 2016.  On the same date, while the plaintiff was en route to the Polk County Jail, two more police reports were filed against the plaintiff at the Altoona Police Department, and immediately approved on the same date for Stalking, an aggravated misdemeanor, and for Threats, a class D felony.

On the date of January 26th, 2016, plaintiff Bruce was arrested by the Carroll City Police Department and held for transport.  By the time plaintiff Bruce arrived at the Polk County Jail, two more charges, Stalking and Threats had been added.  Plaintiff Bruce was held in the Polk County Jail from January 26th, 2016, until April 11th, when a trial by jury was held to determine his guilt or innocence.  Plaintiff Bruce was found guilty of the charges of Harassment in the 1st Degree, and Stalking by a jury of his peers.  The charge of Threats, a Class D felony, was discharged.  The Plaintiff, Bruce, was then allowed to bond out, pre-sentence, on a $4,000 bond ($2,000 for each of two aggravated misdemeanors).  Plaintiff Bruce then re-appeared on May 4th for sentencing.  He was given a 1 year suspended sentence, to serve two concurrent 30 day sentences for a total of 60 days, then was to report for probation for a period of two years.

Upon his release, plaintiff Bruce, before signing up for probation, decided on serving the remainder of his sentence instead, and immediately asked Judge Blink for a reconsideration.  Judge Blink then set a court date, a few days later, for the date of August 18th, to reconsider, revoke his probation, and allow plaintiff Bruce to serve the rest of his time.  Later, on or around July 25th, 2016, Judge Blink would then order a warrant be issued for plaintiff Bruce for probation violation, and plaintiff Bruce, as a result, wrote to Judge Blink, reminding him that he had not signed up for probation, and had asked to be reconsidered, and to not issue the warrant.  Judge Blink still issued the warrant, and the plaintiff, Bruce, was then arrested on that warrant and 3 more simple misdemeanors 2 days before the reconsideration hearing would take place, on August 16th, 2016.  Plaintiff Bruce did then serve the rest of his sentence, and was released on December 30th, 2016.

The witnesses noticed herein will testify to all matters contained in or referred to in the resulting criminal cases, FECR292141 and FECR292312.

Each witness will describe their relevant personal or professional background including their
education, training, experience and responsibilities. In general terms, each will testify about the
events of January 26th, 2016, throughout to the date of August 18th, 2016, including their
observations of the people, places and things relevant to the crime charged, and all events that occurred thereafter.  Each witness will testify about their impressions, conclusions and opinions reached as a result of their observations. They will explain the pertinent relationships among the people, places and things at issue. To the extent they encountered the plaintiff, each witness will describe the plaintiff’s actions, the plaintiff's statements and the plaintiff's filed paperwork. To the extent each witness recognizes the plaintiff, they will identify the plaintiff. Each witness will testify about their own actions and the reasons for those actions. They will testify about the relevant statements and actions of others. The witnesses will testify about any matters relevant to authentication, chain of custody and venue (that the events they observed took place in Polk County, Iowa).

The witnesses noticed herein will testify to all matters contained in or referred to in the resulting criminal cases, FECR292141 and FECR292312.

On or around January 26th, a warrant was issued for the plaintiff, christopher (bruce) the living man
for the charge of Harassment in the 1st Degree, an aggravated misdemeanor, based on police reports taken by the Altoona Police Department on September 8th, 2015, and another on January 14th, 2014, and the charge of 1st Degree Harassment was then approved 12 days later by the Polk County Attorney, John P. Sarcone on January 26th, 2016; even though the life of the alleged victim, Jeanne Munson, had been threatened by the plaintiff 12 days earlier.  Plaintiff Bruce called his bondsman that afternoon, and gathered that the price of the bond was $2,000 ($200 bail, as it should have been).  After the date of this alleged "crime", the plaintiff, Bruce, had no more contact with the alleged victim.  On the same date of his arrest, while the plaintiff was en route to the Polk County Jail, two more police reports were filed against the plaintiff at the Altoona Police Department, and immediately approved on the same date for Stalking, an aggravated misdemeanor, and for Threats, a class D felony.  After his arrival in Polk County, and after another call to his bondsman, Plaintiff Bruce then found that his bond was $70,000, when it should have been around $9000.

In the first month of Plaintiff Bruce’s incarceration, he opted to not have a court appointed attorney, and immediately challenged the jurisdiction of the court.  Judge Carol S. Egly will testify that plaintiff Bruce did so on the very first day of his incarceration, but denied plaintiff Bruce his right to do so on the day of his initial appearance by not answering the challenge, even after being prompted by the associate judge to do so.  Judge Egly will also be asked to testify that several cases for plaintiff Bruce were open at this time, and that later, at the request of Asst. Polk County Attorney Linda Lane, these cases were all closed and consolidated, and that a request for a jury trial in the case SMAC359086 was discarded, and that a new motion, typed up by the courts, was substituted, and that the cases that had been listed were then consolidated into just 2 cases, FECR292312, and FECR292141.  Judge Egly will then be asked to testify that this motion was NOT the defendant’s motion, but that this was substituted by the courts to show that he had NOT asked for a jury trial in the SMAC case, then altered the record of the court to show that Plaintiff Bruce has specifically asked for a NON-jury trial in that case.  Judge Carol Egly will also be asked to testify as to why she denied an initial challenge of jurisdiction, and did not address that challenge until nearly 3 weeks later.  Judge Egly will also be asked to testify as to why she ruled that the jurisdiction of the court was a “State” jurisdiction, when later Judge Blink would belie that ruling, stating the jurisdiction held over the defendant was a “Subject Matter” jurisdiction.

Witness Randy Osborn, Clerk of Polk County court, will be asked to testify concerning the motion that was designed by the court, and filed on behalf of the plaintiff, and the change in the record of the court, showing that plaintiff Bruce had “specifically asked for a NON-jury trial,”, even though the recorded record of the court will prove that defendant Bruce asked for a jury trial SEVERAL TIMES.

Later, on or around February 4th, 2016, Plaintiff Bruce submitted a demand for Pro Se rights in case FECR292312.  On or around February 29th, 2016, Judge William Kelly would issue an order denying Plaintiff Bruce his right to defend himself in his own person, and stated that he would need to obtain, at state expense, a “Stand-By Attorney,” if he wanted to file documents and do everything that he should have had a right to do on his own, such as depose witnesses, investigate his online/computer related crime, listen to prosecution’s DVD testimony, and properly prepare his defense.  Judge Kelly will be asked to testify as to why he chose to violate the plaintiff’s Constitutional right to defend himself in his own person while incarcerated.

On or around February 29th, 2016, Plaintiff Bruce was then assigned Lucas Taylor, to be a “Stand-by attorney.”  Mr. Taylor will be asked to testify as to why he did not file an appeal in case 292312, why he did not ask for a new trial due to an obvious tainting of the jury just prior to a conviction (reason for a mistrial),  and why he chose to not show up for a hearing involving the dismissal of 199 pieces of filed evidence of plaintiff Bruce’s in this case, and the quashing of the subpoenas of 29 elected officials, all asked to testify on the behalf of plaintiff Bruce, just 3 days before trial began.

On the date of April 11th, Monday, trial for the defendant, Bruce, commenced.  In attendance in the trial was Des Moines Register reporter Grant Rogers, who sat through one day of the trial, the first day.  Mr. Rogers will be asked to testify as to why he chose to only speak to the prosecution about the trial and plaintiff Bruce, and will be asked to testify as to why he never approached either the plaintiff, Bruce, or the plaintiff’s stand-by council for their part of the story.  Mr. Rogers will also be asked to testify as to the story fed him by John P. Sarcone, the County Attorney, and by Linda Lane, the Asst. County Attorney, and the FBI.

John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Linda Lane, Assistant County attorney, will be asked to testify as to why he fed a libelous story, with no factual basis, to Grant Rogers, two days before the jury was to deliberate, that lumped Plaintiff Bruce in with an alleged group of possibly murderous, lawless domestic terrorists, knowing that the story was likely to run the next day, before jury deliberations.

Linda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, will be asked as to testify as to why she has personally prosecuted against plaintiff Bruce in 3 subsequent criminal cases, assisted in denying the plaintiff, Bruce his right to defend himself in his own person while incarcerated, and as to why she ignored all attempts by plaintiff Bruce to settle his “Debt to Society”, prior to sentencing, and why she refused to answer several attempts at communication concerning this matter.  Witness Lane will also be asked to testify to why she motioned, in limine, that the defendant not use his rightful name, that he not testify to any matters concerning his juvenile cases (all relevant to the case), or refused to investigate whether he was a U.S. Citizen as he continuously claimed, a fact that has not been addressed by the district court, but has been avoided at all turns.

Also prior to conviction, the witnesses that remained from plaintiff Bruce's witness list (around 11 out of 40) all showed up to testify on the first day of trial, and were asked to leave by Lucas Taylor and by Linda Lane, because it would be another day before they could testify.  The next day, they re-appeared again, and once more, were asked to leave.  Wednesday, when the turn for the defense finally came, no witnesses for the defense returned.  The defendant, plaintiff Bruce, with little choice, rested his defense, since there was little evidence to prove his innocence remaining, and no witnesses to testify on his behalf.

Witness Judge Robert Blink will be asked to testify as to why he deemed 199 pieces of filed evidence by the plaintiff, Bruce, to be irrelevant to this case.  Plaintiff Bruce submitted a notice of why the evidence was relevant, and why the witnesses (29 elected officials) were being called to testify, but no discussion of that motion was addressed or considered.  Reasons given by plaintiff Bruce in the hearing on the relevance of 199 pieces of evidence was over-ruled, without discussion.  Witness Blink will also be asked to testify as to why he went out of his way to ensure that even MORE prominent elected/civil servant witnesses subpoenas were quashed, even though neither them nor their attorneys were present.  Witness Blink will also be asked to testify as to why he threatened plaintiff Bruce and his friend, Brent Swallers, with harassment of Linda Lane, the Assistant County Attorney prosecuting the case, because they attempted to politely contact and communicate to Linda Lane, the settlement of plaintiff Bruce's offer to pay off his “Debt to society" without unneeded incarceration.  Mostly, Judge Blink will be asked to testify as to why he allowed the quashing of the subpoenas of 29 elected officials, the Friday before the Monday of trial,  and why he chose not to address the matter a lot sooner, in order to give Plaintiff Bruce time to recover his position, and properly defend himself.  Witness Blink will also be asked to testify as to why he issued a warrant for the plaintiff’s arrest for probation violation, even though the plaintiff had clearly asked to be revoked, for probation he never completely signed up for, and had, later, asked him, in a timely manner following the request of him NOT to issue a warrant with sufficient cause, since he was scheduled to appear in court on that matter.  Witness Blink will also be asked to testify as to why he chose not to give a new trial to plaintiff Bruce, because of the obvious taint of the jury by the Des Moines Register’s libelous article, printed 1 day before the jury’s deliberation.  Judge Blink will also be asked to testify as to why the plaintiff’s bail was set so high, in an un-Consitutional manner, and was never reduced, prior to conviction.

The plaintiff hereby gives notice and reserves the right to call and/or present any testimony or information provided to the defense throughout the course of these proceedings.


/S/christopher (Bruce) the living man
christopher (Bruce) the living man
Sui Juris, All Rights Reserved
UCC1-308, formerly UCC1-207
Without Prejudice

The State Post-Conviction Relief Case, Part I

Hey America! Whaddya say we strike a little fear into the hearts of the evil-doers? Chalk one up for the plaintiff in the upcoming Post-Conviction Relief Case, on the state level, a civil suit meant to get compensation for the wrongful arrest and conviction of our star truth-teller. This case will come to bear in April of this year (yeah, sorry, no show for the date of April 27th, 2017).

After February 20th (the date my printer/scanner comes back into my possession again), all documents posted in this case, all of my other criminal cases, and the currently filed FEDERAL cases will be scanned and placed right here where you all can follow along. IT'S TIME FOR PAYBACKS!

Here, then, is the first declaration filed in this case:

1. In the attached documents, Plaintiff’s proposed exhibits A, B and C, it states that the bond is set
high ($10,000 for each aggravated misdemeanor, and $50,000 for a class D felony) because the

defendant, Christopher Bruce, had a “significant prior criminal history.” This “significant prior history” spans the current 14 year period of just 1 year prior to this arrest, and which contained

nothing more serious than plead to convictions of 2 simple misdemeanors, and the charges of 2 more. There was no “significant prior criminal history” prior to this time either (there was a 5th degree theft, a simple misdemeanor from 2002, a Prostitution charge, a simple misdemeanor from 1986, and a possession charge, from 1982, also a simple misdemeanor).

2. The plaintiff, Bruce, was NO threat to the alleged “victim” (he lived 84 miles away, had no car, and had no idea where the “victim” lived or worked UNTIL both were listed on the police reports he received while in jail). In the previous plead to convictions of alleged “harassment” of two social workers (AGCR283733, Iowa 2015) plaintiff Bruce has never once violated his No Contact Orders, nor has he attempted to contact the alleged “victims” in those cases, now that those NCO’s have been lifted. Plaintiff Bruce has also never contacted nor attempted to contact ANY other subject of ANY other NCO, placed on him since.

3. The plaintiff, Bruce, had no history of skipping out on bails, and has always shown up for his court dates for all criminal complaints. There has never been a history of escape or attempted escapes.

4. Once the felony was dismissed, and after Plaintiff Bruce was convicted of the 2 Aggravated Misdemeanors by a jury, Judge Blink would THEN lower the pre-sentence bond of the 2 misdemeanors to their proper reasonable and constitutionally acceptable prices, $2,000 for each count.

In conclusion, this bond was set unconstitutionally high at its onset, solely for the purpose of keeping plaintiff Bruce locked away for as long as possible, not only to keep him from fighting his juvenile and criminal cases well (he did so only because he chose to represent himself), but also to shut him up about what Polk County had been doing to his family (and continues to do) for the last 3 years. The plaintiff, Bruce, claims that arraigning judges Egly and Kelly, and later, Judge Blink, violated their oaths, and placed UNREASONABLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY high bails of $70,000 for no viable or legal purpose, and violated the Constitutional rights of Plaintiff, Bruce, per both the United States Constitution, and the Constitution of the State of Iowa (Article I, Section 8).


/S/Christopher (Bruce), The Living Man
Christopher (Bruce), The Living Man
Sui Juris, All rights reserved
UCC1-309, formerly UCC1-207
Without Prejudice
3912 S.E. 15th Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50320
cbstraighteight@gmail.com


Certificate of Service

Per EDMS e-file, all interested parties have been electronically served this declaration on 2/7/2017.

/S/Christopher (Bruce), The Living Man
Christopher (Bruce), The Living Man

The Fed Funny Farm, Part II

Judge Robert Blink

Judge William A. Price

Judge Anastasia Baker Hurn...and friend

Judge Carol S. Egly...and believe me, she looks worse in person.

Linda Lane, Asst. County Prosecutor

How nice of Judge Blink.

So here's the deal kids, on August 18th, there's to be another hearing, where they intend to put me back in jail for another 8 months.  Well, thanks to the judge for giving me all of this time, I don't intend to let it happen.

As you have already learned, or soon will, they have denied us the restoration of our parental rights (I never had any, evidently, they vacated my appeal...I wasn't a party, so they aren't able to terminate my rights, since I wasn't the bio father).  Soon enough, every document concerning that case will go up, as well as all documents concerning all of my recent criminal cases.  It's important that America knows the funny stuff they pull on us regular folk, when they don't like what we're doing; exposing their criminal behavior.

Soon enough, I will be pow-wowing with powerful legal minds to file 3 cases in federal court.  One for the Juvenile case (writs a plenty, the Habeas and Certeriori), and 2 for the criminal cases (same writs, along with one for prohibition and mandamus), to ensure that I do no more time for those.  Finally, we will be harassing the United States Attorney's office to file charges of conspiracy and criminal actions against those of Polk County.  This should be loads of fun.

Just because I love for mine enemies to know what's comin' down the pike, here are the things we will be addressing concerning our criminal cases:

1.  There were supposed to be No Contact Orders filed against me for Mark Worthington, and one for Linda Lane.  Of course, there can't legally be one for Ms. Lane, not until she's no longer affiliated with my cases.  As for Mark Worthington, well, he's been continually harassing me and my family ever since the court case, so the courts will have to answer as to why no charges have been filed.

2.  There were documents of mine pulled out of my misdemeanor case, and the court's which look nothing like my other motions filed, we're put in, and the record of the court was changed.  Uh oh.  Looks like fraud upon the court, hmm?

3.  Depositions weren't done, nor was it ever insinuated by my stand-by attorney that they should have been.

4.  200 of my 215 pieces of evidence were dismissed as irrelevant, and 29 of my 40 witnesses were allowed to get out of testifying, all on a Friday...before the Monday trial.

5.  Documents that I asked my stand-by attorney to file for me...never got filed.

6.  I asked that a new trial be asked for, because the jury was more than likely tainted in their guilty decision because of a Des Moines Register article, written just before the jury went into deliberations, that lumped me in with murderous domestic terrorists, called 'Sovereign Citizens'...a phrase I've never used to identify myself...and was never asked for by my stand-by attorney.

7.  I should have gotten a jury trial in my misdemeanor case...and never did.

8.  The judge, Anastasia Hern, was biased, per Judge Price.

9.  Challenges of jurisdiction were not properly answered, and didn't occur until nearly 3 weeks after my arrest.

10.  My pro-se, civil, natural and Constitutional rights, as well as my due process, were continually denied me.

As for the Juvenile appeal, well, you know about that.  If you don't, there's hell to pay, and I intend to tender the bill, very soon.

Again, this should be a blast.  Thank God, federal cases only cost around $5 a pop, or this could have been expensive.

I don't believe I'll be going back to jail, tankyooberrymutts.  I'll letcha know how it goes....ok?

Why I'm Going To Go To Jail For a Justified Crime

Judge Robert J. Blink, District 5C, Polk County, Iowa

Got an interesting bit of news from a friend of mine in the National Liberty Alliance...thought you might wanna read this email from him...

"Go to the following link, scroll down the page until you see the video on Darlene Novenger - audio interview (silver hair blonde - big hair).  This site was referenced on a thread that points to your court case....same M.O. They are apparently targeting CPS victims, and NLA members....by the same M.O. to the extent that the  "threat" is the same "to go to the person's house, kill the individual and then burn their house down".  Gosh, where have I heard that same line recently?..., was what went thru my mind yesterday when reading this story.  https://www.stewwebb.com  That is almost exactly what you said the boy friend was threatening to do to you and Elizabeth.....four times you said.  That is the idea planted in your head....the same line that Jeannne taped and was played in the courtroom in your voice.  duh. 

As for the other documents, containing the M.O. threat, I have to get permission first.  But I will bring up your case to the discussion because the excerpt in almost verbatim. I suspect that Jeanne Munson's boyfriend is a paid informant working for our servant government, like this gal is discussing in this video/audio. Professional liars.... check her story out.  You became visible on the CPS radar when you took on the S.C. role for Iowa.  You became a member in June of 2015, but the rally wasn't until August, according to you.  You were made a S.C. soon after you became a member and before the rally.   This is why I wanted a time line on when you met Jeanne. Nothing bizarre happened between you until after you both joined NLA (I think that was coincidence), and became a S.C. Since you had your show and were exposing their dastardly deeds, you became a target, is my guess.   Now the pieces are falling together. They set you up and the boy friend was the sting operation. He knew what to do to push your buttons.  What is his phone number and name?  Do you know if he has a job and if so, for whom does he work for? Where is he employed?  We already know Jeanne is an IT person and she works for John Deere."

- Anonymous

******************************************************************************************************

Well kids, I just spoke with my stand-by attorney...and he believes I won't spend any more than 3 more months in jail...and since I just got finished doing 3 months, I should, by all reason and logic, be able to do another.  I guess the thing that pisses me off the most, however, is that I now have even more of a harassment record (started against me for 'harassing' social workers and those of the criminals in my case), and something new I most certainly do not deserve, a record as a "Stalker".

It's important that I write this article, for no better reason than to not only show that I am no such thing, but to explain once and for all, in full detail, what actually occurred and why; and, in addition, provide my theory as to why these charges were brought against me at all by Jeanne Munson.

Let's begin by defining Iowa's law of stalking.  Now, you all know what a stalker is...at least what REASONABLE people believe a stalker is...it's someone who won't leave you be, who shows up everywhere you go, calls you constantly, etc.  Well, in Iowa, a stalker is defined as someone who engages in a course of action, repeatedly (in Iowa, 'repeatedly' is 2 or more times, meaning all you have to do is call someone 2 times without them wanting to call you...meaning just about anyone in business, bill collection, or with the police could be defined as a 'stalker'), with the intent to put someone in fear for their safety.  Now, given this definition, of course, any jury in the state of Iowa would HAVE to find you guilty of this crime...regardless of circumstance.

Harassment, on the other hand is even more ridiculous...which is why social workers and 'elected' officials choose to turn to this law to imprison more people engaged in a war with them than any other law.  If you choose to fight the system, count on this law to put you away so that you'll leave the criminals alone, more than any other.  It will be your new chosen criminal occupation, and you will be jailed for it.  This is, by far, the easiest law to be claimed to be broken against them, since they are, of course, constantly 'in fear' for their safety, and can produce, against you, a non-contact order at the drop of a hat.

Now, some of you have somewhat heard the story...but there are countless others of you that have it in your mind that what I did to poor Jeanne Munson was criminal, at the very least, and unjustified.  A reasonable person, however, knowing all the facts, would have understood, at the very least...and might have done the same, had they endured identical circumstances.  This will, of course, clear up those un-filled in facts.

Now you all know my story, and it's nothing short of absolutely ludicrous.  You also know my passion when it comes to exposing the criminals involved, as well as crimes committed against others enduring the same thing, all across the country.  My resolve in making sure this does not happen to others is legendary, and needs not be re-stated.  With that in mind, I now give you the truth, in all of its ugly glory.

Jeanne Munson and I met when this whole thing began for me, probably the first lie told in court, around August of 2014.  We were 'introduced' by a mutual friend (who, by the way, did everything he could to NOT testify at my trial.  I could have forced him, via the Polk County Sheriff's office during the trial, but opted not to...and thanks to that decision, that inaction produced a guilty verdict, delivered by the jury), who had been involved in the same fight for over 30 years.  Jeanne and I had spoken, over the phone and on Facebook for well over a year by the time we met, at an Anonymous induced protest on August 22nd, 2015.  Until this point, we had never been at odds, though she had, several times, chided me for the path I chose in fighting my battle.  She was convinced this could be won legally, through the courts...and I was, obviously, not.

Jeanne runs a group called "Protest Iowa DHS", and is, unfortunately, only one of two choices for protest groups in Iowa.  Both groups are administered by Jeanne.  I finally opted to start a third, called "The Great Big CPS Group" a month after the protest we attended together, for reasons I will relate later.

Now, keep in mind that I have a rather abrasive personality...but then, so did Jeanne.  The difference is that I am positively abrasive, and don't put up with any bullshit.  Jeanne...is destructively abrasive, and this will also be shown soon enough.

The protest we both attended was a nationally set protest, put together by Asher Gemler of #OpExposeCPS fame...and ran between the dates of August 20-22, 2015.  The times set for this protest were from 12-4 p.m...NATIONALLY.  Jeanne Munson was in charge of organizing the protest for Iowa.  Without anyone's prior knowledge (except for those of her immediate circle of friends), she had altered the show up time to be at 10 a.m.  Several people in Iowa that I knew planned to attend, did not live in Des Moines, where the protest was to take place, and did not speak to Ms. Munson on a regular basis...and one of these had planned to come and get me and my wife, who lived 100 miles away from Des Moines at this time, to take us there and take us home again.  Neither of us knew about the altered time.

We arrived at 12:15, a little after the NATIONAL time, because we didn't figure in the bus ride we'd have to take to get to the protest.  It was at the state fair, and we had to park several miles away and bus in.

When we arrived, there were around 8 people there, already protesting, including Jeanne Munson and her cohort, Mark Worthington.  She had printed up 1000 flyers to hand out, and had passed out around 200 by this time.  Introductions to those already there began immediately, and pictures with all of us were taken.  After the pictures were taken, Jeanne Munson and all that were with her left the fairgrounds, after only 2 hours.  The rest of us that had come from far away were left to protest in the hottest part of the day, and pass out the rest of the 800 remaining flyers, for the nationally agreed upon time of the protest, for four additional hours.

The following day, when I woke up, I noticed that Ms. Munson had already posted the pictures she had taken, making it look like we were all one big happy family...and it struck a note of discord in me, almost immediately.  We had passed out all of the 800 flyers, for 4 hours, sweating and burning in the hot afternoon sun, and upon seeing us all appear to be present for it upset me just a wee.  What I did next would spur a 4 and a half month war that should have prompted me to call the police on HER and Mark Worthington several times.  I never once did so.

First, I chose to, on one picture in her group, tell everyone the truth about what had happened.  This comment, made on HER posted picture, which could have, instantly, been deleted off of it simply by deleting it or the picture, caused Jeanne Munson to text me about it, then, because I wouldn't correct it to put her in the correct light, and tell her version of the story, she then blocked me and threw me out of her group.

Not long after that, her 'friend' Mark, who I had only met briefly for 15 minutes, and didn't know, began harassing me to delete the comment.  I then blocked him and continued on with my life.

At the time, a friend of mine, Wendy Greene, came to me with a possible solution to all of our problems, involving one Chief Fast Horse, of the Lakotas.  She assured me that this would solve our issues with CPS and the courts.  As you know, Wendy Greene, by this time, had been known as a true warrior in the fight against this entity, and I had worked with her in many capacities.  I took her word as gospel, and got started putting this viable solution out there as quickly as possible, assuming, as I should not have, that Wendy had done her homework concerning it, and knew it to be valid.  She had not, and it was not...at least, not in the sense I first thought it to be.  In order to get this to my friends more readily, I created a group called The Big Giant CPS group, and invited everyone I knew.

This was a grave error on my part, and I screwed up, this I admit freely.  I presented the idea, which later proved to be a con, to all of my friends.

The following week, I went to Des Moines to try something that I had heard would work, and when it failed, I got upset and disbanded my Facebook profile.  As all of you group owners know, this opens up your groups to be administered by others.  I found this out when I re-activated my profile.

The group I had started had been taken over by a person I did not know, someone named Janet Wilson Johnson (funny how that name had so many J's in it, isn't it?).  It had been renamed to be "Families Best Interest", and I immediately started getting messages from my friends, stating that this woman had been bad-mouthing me, on a constant basis, throwing out people who talked well about me, and was trashing those in  the group left and right.  I immediately assumed it was Jeanne...and I was right.  She stated things only she would know, and changed our protest pictures to read things she had said to and about me.  This person is not real (who in their right might would use a picture of themselves showing them to be cross-eyed with their tongue sticking out...especially a supposed "para-legal"...and would talk like this, if that was, in fact, what she was...about me, or to parents they were supposedly trying to help).  What really convinced me of this being Jeanne, was that this supposed person from Missouri used an altered picture from none other than the protest we had attended.  No one besides Jeanne would have thought to use these pictures, let alone know where they were located.  This 'person' did not know me, and had no reason to bash me.  She magically appeared around a week after the protest, and conveniently disappeared entirely just before I was arrested.

Keep in mind, those of you who thought as much, Wendy Greene, the woman that this person is referring to as 'Arrested' because of the idea, was the woman who GAVE me the idea...and said it was a good one...then got arrested...not because of the idea, but because she attempted to arrest the judge in her hearing.  Add to that, I have no idea who this person is that was supposedly "up shit creek".  This was, in fact, Ms. Munson, still mad about the protest comment, who didn't have all of the facts about what had happened with Wendy Greene.

Please, also, consider this "Victim Impact Statement", filed by Ms. Munson in my case (used to determine the sentence to be given by the judge), using almost identical language:

At various times, in particular, September 8th, after I had posted an article about the 'solution' I had found out about, I got several calls from Mark Worthington, using a restricted number.  They harassed me about it several times.

This bad-mouthing me and the parents in the group went on for 3 more months, until finally, this "person" disappeared off the face of the Earth, along with the group...but the badmouthing of me by Jeanne Munson continued on.  I would find this out at various times...usually after speaking to someone in one of her groups.

All was quiet for a while...but then, I attempted to find other Iowans that had experienced what I had, and was gathering information to bring a coup against those in power...I needed information from those wronged in my state, but, as I had stated earlier, the only Iowa groups concerning this were Jeanne's.  I went in, and found members, and friended them, in an attempt to gather info without her knowledge of it.

All of a sudden, those I was talking to began to, one by one, block me off...after we had talked amiably enough for some time.  My only thinking could be that Ms. Munson was being asked about me, and badmouthed me, causing them to block me off.  This in itself didn't anger me, it was that those who could have been helped were being told I was bad news.  I searched for Jeanne, on a whim...and found her.......she had unblocked me, and had been, as I suspected, watching my actions the whole time, and using that to make me look bad.  I immediately, at that time, blocked her.

After another 2 to 3 instances of this, I then unblocked her, and sent her a single message...it said this:

"You wanna know what the most sad and pathetic thing about you is, old woman?  You're a sorry bitch who will die old and ugly, and who will have accomplished nothing better in your life and lies than to destroy the chances for others in Iowa to get their children and grandchildren back"

Because of that message, I immediately began getting calls from Mark again, again from a restricted number.  Several times, he threatened the lives of both me and my wife.  He also had sent me several messages on Facebook, also threatening.  Knowing I couldn't call the police on him (because I didn't have a provable number, nor any recordings, since I had answered each phone call), I then began calling Jeanne to make him stop.  Here is the copy of the phone bill, showing Mark's number (it didn't show as restricted on the bill...I called it to verify that it did, in fact, belong to Mark.  He claimed, then, in the trial, that I had given him my number at the protest...something I would never give to a complete stranger....a lie):

Now, notice, that no calls were ever made to Jeanne Munson again...before the date of January 13th, or after.  I called so many times, because I told her that every time this man called me, until he stopped, I would call her 10 times for every time he called me and threatened me, until he stopped.  He finally stopped...so I finally stopped.  This is what was used to bring the charges against me.

While I was in jail, several nasty comments were eventually deleted off of my blog, one being from her son, who went to high school with my wife.  Here are some of those comments, posted by Mark Worthington, and Jeanne Munson's son, prior to and during my incarceration:

Here, also, in the comments under the article about who brought the charges against me, is Munson's son, who went by That1Luker, hitting on my wife, and telling her to leave me:

So all of this started for me, and continued for 4 and a half more months...because of a single comment made on one picture...something that almost no one would ever see...and now I'm going to jail for it.  Now, I don't know about you folks, but if someone were to call and threaten YOUR family, you would react in a similar fashion, wouldn't you?  I did...and now, because they called the police first, I am about to pay the price.  Sure, I could have called them...but I chose not to be a rat.  Now, I will go to jail for my alleged 'crimes'.....and Jeanne Munson and Mark Worthington, the real criminals here, get off scott free.

Another name is forever added to the imfamous 'Bruce Bitch List", and will forever remain there until the end of all things.  Linda Lane...welcome.