Custom Search

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Tim Kinley - MN refuses to release wrongfully jailed Christian

Sharon requested this story...LINK TO STORY HERE


Anonymous Link here said...

More on this story

5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What the hell is with this State, City and County that people can't get a fair shake from the people appointed to give them a fair shake? Is there anything left that's not full of corruption?

8:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You do realize this has nothing to do with him being a Christian and everyting to do with him not paying his child support payments.

The guy is scum.

The reporter says that he chose to use the money to pay for lawyers to fight his case rather than to pay to support his kids.

I hope he rots in jail forever. What a pile of crap.

There are thousands if not millions of us guys who got screwed by the courts in custody cases and it gives you no justification for not paying child support.

I could cry you a river about how unfair I was treated, but so what. I made damn sure I was never late on a payment.

And to hide behind his religion makes him worse than scum... I hope his God has a special place in Hell for him.


Chuck Repke

11:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Judge should have to pay for the support.

3:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These dirty judges have one thing in common---> the DFL party!

5:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

from the story-
The State of Minnesota has failed Tim Kinley. He was the aggrieved party, His wife committed adultery and left him for another man. She took his children. She made untruthful allegations. There is a statute on the books that provides for the criminal prosecution of adulterers. How does the state go from not charging her with that to granting her custody of the children and requiring financial support from the
truly wrongly injured party, Tim Kinley?

8:22 AM  
Anonymous Responding to Chuck said...

Tim doesn't get along with your friends Chuckie.

from the story-
Tim knew this was a violation of his 1st Amendment rights. He appealed the decision. However, as the noncustodial parent, he had to pay child support. (Again, imagine yourself forced to choose between paying an attorney to enforce your constitutional rights and regain custody of and unfettered access to your children; or paying child support to the woman who humiliated you by committing criminal adultery and then ran off with your children. If he had foregone the appeal he would have forever surrendered his religious freedom and personal vindication

8:23 AM  
Anonymous Google Joanne Smith said...

What is repugnant about this case is the Judge Joanne Smith admitted Lesbian, ruling on Religious Teachings, Further Joanne Smith is the Chair of the SCAP Panel, A secret Committment Court, No wonder Kinley removed the case to Federal Court, Check out Judicial Systemic Failure
Hey Repke what do you think of our New US Marshall Sharon Lubinski another Lesbian ?
Sharon was kicked off E-Dem for telling the Truth of these Lesbians, on the Committment Panel

8:46 AM  
Anonymous Don Mashak's Blogs said...

Another Supporter Don Mashak's Blog Check it out Communications must bring the Courts to their Knees

8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see Bill Dahn is back with his same ol' rant on lesbians. I can't believe the crap Chuck and I take get on here and Bill's half-brained bigoted crap goes on without accountability because he's 'special'. Unreal.

Now for your latest hero, this guy. First, it appears that only Chuck has read the story. This guy lost his drivers license and insurance license because he didn't pay child support. That was the law before his divorce not a new 'DFL judge' thing. The courts are upholding the law. You miss a certain amount of payments, you may loose your license.

So, he said he choose to use the money that would have gone toward child support for a lawyer. Child support is not optional. He decided to withhold money that was due to the children because he was mad at the mother and wanted to punish her. Simple as that. He is a douchebag.

His religion has nothing to do with it as she is of the same faith and he confirms it by saying that she continued to attend the same church with the kids and new man.

It does not matter. Law trumps his hurt feelings of being cheated on and he made a stupid decision to not pay child support and he should be punished for it. Him not paying child support would have hurt him in any custody hearing anyway.

I don't see how this is a democratic or republican or even a Christian issue. The law is clear. He broke it and a judge ruled on it. If he was to get away with this, there would be more fake conversions to Christianity in family than in prison.

I assumed most of you were against 'activist' judges. For the judge to rule any other way would have been deviating from the law and an 'activist' move.

Tell the scumbag to write the checks, save his money for a family law attorney and then make his move. Of course now, he'll have the red flag of not supporting his kids so he should probably stay away from custody hearings for a while.


10:10 AM  
Anonymous Judges HF1632 said...

Thanks to Eric and Chuck, dragging you away from the DFL Controlled E-Dem PS Bill is out of town, do not blame him for exposing Lesbian Judges Go to HF 1632

PS Hopefully Bobby will post the entire Unallotment File

10:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting that Chuck and Eric only want to talk about the law when it cuts their way. People wouldn't have a bitch about the courts and judges if they really ebforced the law, but the only law they enforce is what fits their political agenda. So if they are not going to enforce all the laws and they want to pick and choose then why should anyone follow the law at all? What's the benifet? You try to play by the rules and you get shafted somewhere in life only to go to vourt and try to have someone uphold your rights and you egt subjected to some BS political agenda. Fuck the law!

2:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for all of that. Now, bestow your wisdom upon us and tell what is the liberal political agenda of enforcing the law of paying child support like thousands others have to do?

What? Republicans are against child support?


3:35 PM  
Blogger Swiftee said...

I'm a real staunch "pay for your kids" kind of guy. But there is more to this story than Chuck or Eric are willing to consider...

"As a often-used legal ploy, his soon to be ex-wife complained that 1) he forced the children to take bible lessons from him and, 2) that he had shaken his 8 year old child on one occasion."

Any lawyer will tell you that in order to get physical and legal custody of kids, you must prove that the other parent poses an immediate danger to the health and well being of the kids. If this story is accurate, the cheating wife brought up religion, that makes it an issue.

"There was no evidentiary hearing, no proof was ever presented that the alleged shaking had ever taken place. The 8 year old child recanted the story."

"Nevertheless, an order for protection was entered against Tim. He was allowed only supervised visits and ordered not to give the children bible lessons. He was specifically ordered not to use the bible or the 10 commandment to instruct his children."

It gets worse...

"His ex-wife refused to allow Tim to see his children. Tim went to court to get the judge to uphold the order saying when he would see his children. The judge refused to enforce her own order. 8 years later, he won his appeal. But by now his children were grown and had not had regular contact with him."

If this is true, I don't blame the guy for using every penny he had to fight back.

It's more than simply cuckholding, it's a matter of denying this fellow's right to have equal time with his own, natural born children. It appears, again if the story is true, that the court erred.

I also believe that if the judge is homosexual, her mental debilitation was likely a factor in reaching her overruled opinion.

2:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have thoroughly read the article, this is one side of the story in part, Tim's. The judge looks to the best interest of the child, Judge Smith is not a family court judge she is in the adults court and I am lead to believe handled only the legal issue of "not paying court ordered child support".

The child custody and child support issues would have been handled in the family courts. Regardless, a court order to pay child support means "you pay child support" this would of been in Tim's best interest to do because the child support is for "his" children! I understand his reasoning for wanting to dispute the order too. Tim could have picked up a second job to assure all of his financial obligations were taken care of. This would of showed him to be a more responsible parent. I feel there is much more to this story then what we have access to reading.

3:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swiftee - you are seeing only one side of the story and I find a good part of it pretty tainted. I have been through a divorce in the 80's and it is better today than it was then. There is no doubt in my mind that the system favors women and it was worse then than it is now. My point is, so what?

The selfish self righteous ass hole should have been making his child support payments.

We are not hearing what the original judges ruled in the case. Back then it was easier to get sole custody than it is now. This case starts years ago. Now, you have to prove something for sole legal then there were a lot of us guys that had their wives get sole legal just because the two parties couldn't agree on legal issues like religion.

So, if she gets sole legal and legal means control of schooling and religion, then he has no right to take his kid to a religion class. He lost that right. And he has no right to be so big of a selfish prick than to withhold food money for the kid to fight about it in court. She gets to pick if the kid is a catholic or protistant or jew and he can't be making the kid confused by taking a small kid to a diferent church if she isn't OK with it.

Sorry, its the law and the guy is a selfish punk.


Chuck Repke

12:39 AM  
Anonymous Court "taking" Children said...

Hey Repke: 42 year ago the Family Court Social Worker Joan Fabian current Commissioner BCA, Fabian who did not take care of her 2 boys but for political pay off took my Daughter Vonessa from her Grandmother and Me, her Skatng lessons and GAVE my Daughter to her Father and his Mistress Joan Cloyd Gooselaw, involved in the Murder of the 10 month Baby Boy Henry Gooselaw Jr.
Why do you think Tim Kinley, muself and others fight to the Death for the Protection of R-Kids.
My Daughter is a Meth Head, involved heavily as a Guinia Pig for the System SAD

7:54 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

I have spoken with Tim Kinley on several occasions. Tim is a lurker here at the town hall.

Tim is a good honest man and surely would have provided food for his children if they were in dire need.

On the issue of fathers rights in divorce proceedings. Chuck is right, years ago the laws were written in such a way they favored women. Not anymore!

A close friend of mine John Gilbertson changed that. John is a human rights compliance officer with the state of Minnesota. John made a big issue of fathers parental rights being violated in the name of laws that favor women. It almost cost John his job, that's how much the bureaucracy stinks in Minnesota.

Another Judge that is DISHONORABLE and part of the corruption machine in Minnesota is JUDGE FETCH.

Fetch in a conspiracy with dim witted county, state and public school officials, convicted my son of truancy from public school when he knew damn well my son was legally registered in home school.

After a legal maneuver to get Fetch recused from sentencing my son the conviction was over turned by Judge VanDeNorth. I read a statement of facts to the court at my son's sentencing and Judge VanDeNorth didn't want to step into the dung left behind by Fetch. We have a number of folks in positions of power who have no business being there. I'm still considering getting Fetch canned from the bench, in spite of the fact I already know the Judicial Standards board is a crock of shit too.

9:14 AM  
Anonymous Prurient Content re: Howard Sterns_Childen said...

Bobby Thanks for Post,
REMEMBER TIM KINLEY ALSO A LAWYER EVEn LAWYERS TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN ARE DISBARRED RE: Florida, 2 January 2010. Okay, here I give you a little update on the Jack Thompson saga. Jack, a south Florida Attorney, got disbarred in October 2008 because he had the gall to push for (and get) FCC fines against Howard Stern for airing prurient content that children could hear. Stern and Two Live Crew hired big law firms Blank Rome and Tew Cardenas to file bar complaints against Jack. After Kangaroo Court proceedings by imposter judge Dava Tunis, the Florida Supremes issued the disbarment order, and ordered Thompson to pay tens of thousands of dollars in bogus fees for the privilege. In the process, the court refused to let Thompson enter evidence, the Supremes ignored Thompson’s pleadings, and their Clerk entered a dismissal order for Thompson’s complaint, signing for a justice that had not even heard the matter.

10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim is a good honest man and surely would have provided food for his children if they were in dire need.

"Would have" and "if"? He didn't. This honest man chose to ignore his basic responsibility as a non-custodial parent. He seems a little too obsessed with the ex and why they are in the situation they're in.

The fans of A-democracy are letting their bias/anger/rage that is now aimed at the courts blind them to the simple and obvious: He didn't pay child support.

Child support is not just food. It's clothes. Kids also need heat in the house. Gas in the car to take them from place to place. How about electricity if they watch tv, play video games or read?

Unless he signs his parental rights away, he is responsible for those kids. Even if through all of this turmoil his only involvement is writing a check. That's his obligation until he can change the court order.

Family courts leaning in favor of the mother is nothing new or fair but, thousands of fathers before have gone through it and found a way to make it right without skipping out on child support.


11:35 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric said;
Child support is not just food. It's clothes. Kids also need heat in the house. Gas in the car to take them from place to place. How about electricity if they watch tv, play video games or read?

My response;
OK Eric, I could have chosen a better word besides food.

I will correct myself
----> Tim is a good honest man and surely would have provided """SUPPORT""" for his children if they were in dire need.

Tim's ex-wife wasn't living in a shelter homeless and hungry with these kids.

Knowing what I know of Tim I believe the facts are as the story is written.

1:03 PM  
Anonymous Tim Kinley Cable Show said...

Tim Kinley was a Candidate for MN State House 55A has Cable Show , if the Issues Of Parental Rights are not paramount then what is?
Thanks to Bob for Posting Perhaps when the entire Court Process, the Public must be aware of the Cost to Put Tim In Jail, Cruel and Unusual Punishment contrary to 8th Amend, Civil Rights Violations 2 Wrongs do not make it Right.
Apparantly Chuck and Eric have gone thro this. Would You Pay Support and be Denied Visitation?

2:11 PM  
Anonymous Speechless Cable Show said...

For you Political Hacks Was Tim Kinley also thrown in Jail for supporting Mayoral Candidate Eva Ng
on his Cable Show called Speechless

Where is the Rest of the Story?

Coleman will be sworn in Mon. As can be Said Politics make Strange Bedfellows?

Retired DFL Judge Doris Huspeni gave the Oath last Election.
Chris Coleman was her Clerk 1988
Appellate File C6-88-859

2:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should a child have to be in dire need for a father to support HIS children? Child support is an obligation that a parent has to pay regardless or face the consequences as Tim has. Sure those children may not have been in dire need but maybe they went without some extra things in life because their father felt his fight was worth more then his obligation to those children!

2:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your logic would lead to the following scenario:
Two professional people divorce (say a political consultant and his lawyer wife), since both make good money and the children won't be in a homeless shelter, then the non-custodial parent shouldn't have to pay. BS.

Child Support is not welfare or emergency funds. Its everyday operating funds.

Sometimes its needed for immediate basic needs, sometimes its not and put away for later. Most two parent households, like mine, have funds set aside in savings or investments for their childrens security and future needs. Its also not a choice, its an obligation.

Tim, fathers have been getting the shaft from the family court system for decades. Most who have fought this system, have done so, while maintaining their obligation.

If your choice was between paying child support and paying a lawyer then, you should have sold your car to pay the attorney and kept up on your obligation to YOUR children whom you claim to love so much and be the better parent to raise.

Your actions have not been demonstrative of a parent who wants the best for their children. If your wife is as bad as you say, you just handed her the upper hand on custody may have even further damaged your fight for visitation.
But, you're fine with that as long as you make a point- right?


3:55 PM  
Anonymous Tim Kinley 62f196163 said...

Tim has a hearing 25Jan09 Court File 62f106163 His Case Manager at Workhouse Dale Skov 266-1409 Fax 266-1412
What concerns is that if in Fact Judge Joanne Smith Chair of Committment Panel has illegally pulled a Rule 20 in a Secret File, with DFL Susan Gaertner using Tim as Fodder for her Gub. Campaign

12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMAZING radio interview with Tim Kinley, guest on Fighting Back with Sandra Grazzini-Rucki:

Sandra and guest, Tim Kinley discuss the family court system 360 degrees – from all angles! Topics include family court from a personal perspective, and from a political perspective. Discussion will include Tim’s experience in the family court system, as well as general topics concerning family law. He will also share his knowledge on the Grazzini-Rucki case.

12:57 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home