Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

STATE OF MINNESOTA

COUNTY OF RAMSEY

DISTRICT COURT
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FAMILY COURT DIVISION
Case Type: Dissolution with Children
Court File Number: 62-FA-11-2332

In Re the Marriage of:


David James Carlson
Petitioner,

SUPPLEMENTAL AFFADAVIT
OF PETITIONER DAVID J.
CARLSON DIRECTED TO THE
CHIEF JUDGE

Krista Ann Carlson


n/k/a/ Dickenson
Respondent,
--------------------------------------------------COMES NOW David J. Carlson, and after being duly sworn on oath, deposes and states:
1.

That he makes this supplemental affidavit in further support of his Notice to

Replace Judicial Officer, filed with this court on 25 August, 2016.


2.

That since the filing of Affiants Notice and supporting Affidavit, Affiant received

by U.S. Mail, delivered on 29 August, 2016, an additional Order of this Court, dated 2 August,
2016, adopting the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) report.
3.

Affiant notes that the GAL report was submitted to the Court on 4 May, 2016, and

the court held a hearing on the matter on 23 May, 2016; yet, Judge Robyn A. Millenacker did not
issue an Order adopting the report until 2 August, 2016, 71 days, or, two (2) months and 10 days
later.
4.

The Courts most recent order deals with three (3) veterans in various roles: Dr.

James Tuorila, PhD, an honorably discharged U.S. Army Officer veteran; Mr. Eric Wittenberg,
MSW, LICSW, an honorably discharged U.S. Army veteran; and Mr. David J. Carlson, MS, an
honorably discharged U.S. Marine Corps veteran.

5.

In Affiants Affidavit of 25 August, 2016, he addressed disparaging treatment from

Judge Millenacker towards each of the veterans listed above. Affiant now notes that Judge
Millenacker, in her Order of 2 August, 2016, goes on to disparage all three (3) veterans again.
6.

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.
7.

In her 6 November, 2015 Order, Judge Millenacker ordered Affiant 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.
8.

Dr. Tuorila is considered to be an expert with over 30 years clinical experience, with

particular emphasis on veterans and PTSD.


9.

Judge Millenacker is not an expert in any clinical psychological field, nor an expert on

the subject of veterans or PTSD.


10.

Judge Millenacker incorrectly states in her most recent Order that Affiant provided the

psychological examination to the Court; however, Dr. Tuorila directly provided to the GAL the
psychological report as requested by Affiant. The expert report was sent to GAL on 9 February, 2016.
11.

Affiant notes that Judge Millenacker repeatedly misspells Mr. Wittenbergs name as

Mr. Whitenberg throughout her 2 August, 2016 Order.


12.

Affiant notes that Judge Millenacker appears to be angry with Mr. Wittenberg for

relaying information from Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) counsel to GAL that VA would not
release Petitioners medical or mental health records. Affiant believes such anger is gratuitous and
provides further and additional evidence of Judge Robyn A. Millenackers bias.

13.

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
14.

Affiant would note that Judge Millenackers language is pejorative in the extreme,

and Affiant believes such unusual language is further evidence of Judge Millenackers bias.
15.

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. Affiant previously submitted his correspondence to GAL accompanying his Affidavit
of 25 August, 2016.
16.

Affiant notes that Judge Millenacker, in the very next paragraph, after complaining

Affiant 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.
17.

Affiant felt that by providing notice to the GAL he was providing notice to the Court.

18.

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

degrade Affiant through conclusions, implications, innuendo, and seemingly every possible means
available to her, to hold Petitioner in the most negative light possible.
19.

So bent does Judge Millenacker seem in her negative attitude toward Affiant that she

goes so far in her 2 August, 2016 Order to repeat alleged conduct of the Petitioner previously covered
in prior court documents. Affiant notes that the particular allegations Judge Millenacker seemed intent
on including regarded conduct alleged solely by his ex-wife, Mrs. Krista A. Dickenson, conduct
completely unsubstantiated by a police report of any kind.

20.

Affiant 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 Jill Gebke expressed shock directly to Affiant that she had not been informed of
any so-called incident involving Affiant and his children on school grounds.
21.

Affiant believes that Judge Millenacker recognized she did not have sufficient legal

grounds to transfer custody in October 2015, and therefore found it 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 ex-wife Mrs. Krista A. Dickenson.
22.

Judge Millenackers Order cites the fact that visits between Affiant and his minor

children had been going well at FamilyWise, and further cites that Affiant and his children were
mutually affectionate towards one another.
23.

Affiant would note to the Chief Judge that he and the children were mutually

affectionate due to Affiants having 50/50 parenting time, and joint legal and physical custody of the
children, for the first nine (9) years of their lives. Affiant had these rights pursuant to recommendations
by Ramsey County Social Services.
24.

It appears to the Affiant 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 therein.
25.

Affiant 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 Affiants conduct,
Judge Millenacker finally gets around to admitting that the children themselves viewed their
interactions with their father at FamilyWise as playful and affectionate.

26.

Judge Millenacker appears to be offended that Affiant has raised serious objections in

the treatment of him and his children by FamilyWise, and also raised serious and verifiable objections
to the substandard conditions present at the FamilyWise Saint Paul Safety Center, as detailed in
Affiants previous Affidavit.
27.

Judge Millenacker also appears to be offended that Affiant exercised his constitutional

rights by stating to FamilyWise that he had filed a federal lawsuit. Judge Millenacker misquotes
Affiant, who affirmatively states that he did not tell FamilyWise he had filed a federal lawsuit against
FamilyWise. Further, Affiant 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.
28.

Judge Millenacker is extremely selective in her interpretation of multiple conditions

applicable to Affiant 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;
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.

29.

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

The content records such as Affiants 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 Affiant, but also 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.
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
Affiants records pre-date the birth of his children, and include his U.S. Marine Corps
records where Affiant held a Top-Secret Security Clearance.

30.

In response to this apparent judicial overreach and abuse of power, Affiant 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 Affiant.
31.

Affiants 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 several years.
32.

Judge Millenacker, in her most recent Order, in the Appendix A, cites numerous

Minnesota laws setting forth parental rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes; however, she continues to
fail to enforce these laws against Mrs. Krista A. Dickenson.
33.

Judge Millenacker reaffirmed Affiants 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
Affiant, to date, has gone approximately six (6) weeks with no contact with his children.

34.

Parties refusing to comply with the above mentioned Minnesota Statues are punishable

under State felony charges.


35.

Affiant asserts that he has made a strong showing of bias on the part of Judge Robyn A.

Millenacker.
36.

Affiant believes that a reasonable examiner would question the Courts impartiality in

this matter.
37.

Affiant asserts that the interests of justice demand that a new judge be appointed to

replace Judge Robyn A. Millenacker in this matter.


FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT

END OF PAGE

VERIFICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


a) I have read this document. To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the information
contained in this document is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law.
b) I have not been determined by any Court in Minnesota or in any other state to be a frivolous litigant
and I am not the subject of an Order precluding me from serving or filing this document.
c) I am not serving or filing this document for any improper purpose, such as to harass the other party,
to cause delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation, or to commit a fraud on the Court.
d) I understand that if I am not telling the truth or if I am misleading the Court or if I am serving or
filing this document for an improper purpose, the Court can order me to pay money to the other
party, including the reasonable expenses incurred by the other party because of the serving or filing
of this document, court costs, and reasonable attorney's fees.

Dated: 30 August, 2016


Signature

Name:

David J. Carlson

City/State/Zip: Saint Paul/MN/55129