Stock photo, debri from "Uncle Lennie's" demolition site, by John Hoff
Fifth Ward Candidate Lennie Chism is many things: a not terribly successful building developer. A notorious disruptive heckler. A man who lost his business property to foreclosure. And now, according to the Fourth District Judicial Court, Lennie is a woman-abuser and a potentially dangerous man.
According to Judge Jay M. Quam, Lennie shoved a woman from a moving car and can't have guns for a year.
Lennie Chism is known to be married. Despite this, the woman (Monika Caren Shannon) appears to be...
...a former mistress or ex-girlfriend, based on rather blatant and obvious information and inference from the court's detailed Amended Order For Protection, dated September 17, 2009, at 3:39 PM. (Court file no. 27 FA 09-6177) Information developed while this post was in progress shows Lennie and Monika were involved in a business venture together, click here for the website. The business is known as "American Computer Support" but doesn't appear to have any recent activity on its bare-bones website.
Chism himself--speaking in his own defense--tried to describe Shannon as "a woman scorned." Why Lennie was with this woman in the first place--borrowing her car, en route to a wedding--is not fully explained in the document, though access to a full transcript of the court proceedings would hopefully answer some of those questions. For now, I have the court's order.
Due to the fact putting this document in PDF form would take me another day--since I don't have access to the equipment right this moment--I'm going to type out the order verbatim. Let the reader judge the truth of the matter.
* * * *
The above-entitled matter came for hearing before the Honorable Jay M. Quam on September 17, 2009. Petitioner appeared pro se and was accompanied by an advocate. Petitioner's address for service is (address withheld at the discretion of JNS blog, but it is not in Minneapolis). Respondent appeared pro se. Respondent's address for service is 1901 Glenwood Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55405.
(Note by JNS: this is not the address Lennie uses at 2519 Emerson Ave. N. while running for public office)
Based upon all the evidence, and all of the files, recordings, and proceedings,
THE COURT FINDS:
1.) This matter is before the Court for an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner's Petition and Affidavit for an Ex Parte Permanent Order for Protection, filed on September 1, 2009.
2.) During the September 17, 2009, hearing, Petitioner and Respondent testified under oath. Petitioner and Respondent also both submitted exhibits in support and opposition to the Order for Protection.
3.) Petitioner alleges that on August 30, 2009, Respondent physically assaulted Petitioner. Petitioner's affidavit describes the assault as occurring in the following way:
Last week I wanted to end my relationship with the Respondent. I had been letting him use my car, but I wanted to get it back. When I told him I wanted him to return my car, he refused to cooperate in giving it back to me. We were supposed to go to a weeding (sic, presumably "wedding") together on August 30, 2009 so when he came to pick me up, I planned to take my car back then...
(Paragraph break not in original document)
When he got there I asked him to give me the keys to the car and I told him I would drop him off wherever he wanted to. He refused to do that. He became angry and was swearing at me, saying, "Screw you! Fuck you! You do it my way!" He wanted me to get in the car with him, but I did not want to. I was standing in front of the car so he would not leave. He got out of the car, yelling at me and swinging his arms, saying, "You're really pissing me off! Get out of the way!"
(Paragraph break not in original document)
When I tried to reach in twice to get my keys, I he (sic) grabbed my head and pushed me out of the car. Then he started driving, dragging me until I fell and rolled. That caused a scratch on my ankle and my shoulder, knee, and butt hurt as a result of the fall. Once I fell, he stopped the car and got out to help me.
...
Petitioner's testimony in Court was consistent with her affidavit, and it was creditable. The Court accepts Petitioner's testimony as accurately describing the events of August 30, 2009.
4. Respondent denies Petitioner's allegations. Respondent states that Petioner was overreacting and that he had agreed on multiple times to return Petitioner's car to her. As to the events of August 30, 2009, Respondent states that although both parties yelled at one another, Petitioner's injuries were purely accidental and not the result of Respondent's intent to harm Petitioner.
5. Respondent further states that Petitioner is a "scorned woman" and that Petitioner obtained her Ex Parte Order for protection simply to react and tarnish the Respondent's good name.
(JNS says: LMFAO)
The Court rejects this assertion.
6. The Court finds Petitioner carried her burden of proving that Respondent inflicted fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault under Minnesota Statutes 518B (2009). Accordingly, the Court should issue an Order for Protection against Respondent and on behalf of Petitioner at this time.
7.) Petitioner was born on 08/28/1976.
8.) Respondent was born on 07/9/1965.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.) Respondent SHALL NOT COMMIT ANY ACTS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE against Petitioner.
This specifically includes:
A. Causing imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault.
B. Causing fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault.
C. Making terroristic threats.
D. Engaging in criminal sexual conduct.
E. Interfering with an emergency phone call.
2. Respondent SHALL NOT GO TO OR ENTER the residence of Petitioner at (address withheld by JNS blog) or any future residences.
RESPONDENT SHALL NOT ENTER OR STAY AT PETITIONER'S HOME, EVEN IF INVITED BY PETITIONER OR ANY OTHER PERSON.
3. Respondent SHALL NOT CONTACT Petitioner in person, by telephone, by letter, by third party, or by any electronic means, such as pager, cell phone, e-mail, etc. EXCEPTIONS TO NO CONTACT: NONE.
Respondent shall have no contact with Petitioner at Petitioner's current job site, or any future job site.
4. This Order for Protection expires on September 17, 2011.
5. NOTICE ABOUT ARREST AND JAIL:
A violation of this Order may be a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony. A misdemeanor violation may result in up to 90 days in jail, or a $1,000 fine, or both. A repeat violation may be a gross misdemeanor, and may result in up to one year in jail, or a $3,000 fine, or both. A police officer must arrest and take into custody a person whom the officer believes has violated this Order.
6. NOTICE ABOUT DEPORTATION AND ENFORCEMENT.
A violation of this Order for Protection is a deportable offense. If you are not a United States citizen, a violation of this Order could result in your deportation.
This Order for Protection is enforceable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, tribal lands, and the United States territories. Violation of this Order for Protection may subject the Respondent to federal charges and punishment.
7. NOTICE ABOUT FIREARMS:
Respondent must not possess, ship, transport, or receive any firearm or ammunition while this Order is in effect.
8. Petitioner shall give notice of any new address to the Domestic Abuse Service Center and to the local law enforcement office.
A. A copy of this order must be forwarded to the new law enforcement agency within 24 hours of notification of a change in residence, whether notification is given to the Domestic Abuse Service Center or to the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the applicant's new residence.
B. An Order for Protection is enforceable even if the applicant does not notify the Domestic Abuse Service Center or the appropriate law enforcement agency of a change in residence.
BY THE COURT:
Dated: September 17, 2009
Jay M. Quam
Judge of District Court
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar