Keloland report that the 24/7 program is pretty much a joke. Lyngstad's record shows she knows how to beat the system or more correctly the system is CORRUPT.    Link 

 Paper censors blogs if they reveal the truth about a corrupt  government. Here

 Free speech link  The biological father did notify the Court and child protection of pending incarceration and he should have been given custody. That is the law.

If South Dakota actually had a court that enforced the law she would have been incarcerated in 2000 for probation violation for passing no account checks and using fake social security numbers. Arrests/convictions see below also. In the last 3 years Lyngstad has a federal conviction for identity theft, a 2nd DUI conviction, is abusing the children, did not feel she had to obey court order by passing bad checks on a Vermillion account. Daughter is failing in school all in the last 3 years and her wages are being garnished. Lyngstad told the court the oldest daughter pushed the younger down some stairs breaking a bone in the youngest ankle. Considering Lyngstad's past she pushed the daughter down the stairs would be more believable. Read Tabor Deputy Sheriff's report at bottom of page which is different than the girl's 'report' to Cranktown police. There was blood. A good envoirment for young girls with a mother than can not maintain a relationship with a male. Can you say pregnant teen ?

Defendant was never jailed for not paying child support but Kogel has a license to lie to the court. Defendant does not have the information Kogel says the Defenent has. She must have a crystal ball or is clairvoyant.

Benefit the children by becoming a child abusing alcoholic felon who the court protects????? Why should Lyngstad serve any time in jail, just because the she admits she did not obey a Court order. She has not in the past.

Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, 315 U.S. at pages 571-572, 62 S.Ct. at page 769, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to roduce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 262 , 193, 159 A.L.R. 1346; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373 , 1253. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas [337 U.S. 1 , 5] either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups. TERMINIELLO V. CITY OF CHICAGO , 337 U.S. 1 (1949)

LYNGSTAD INCARCERATED BUT KEEPS CUSTODY!! HUH??

Probation will be a joke as it always is as she was seen driving to getting pizza. Goes out weekend nights driving her vehicle, even though does not have a driver's license. She got away with it before, as she just has to drive to different towns.

COURT ALLOWS NO CONTACT WITH  FATHER, Child gets failing grades as predicted by studies.  When the daughters get pregnant, well the State needs more welfare mothers at a young age so continues the travesty. Studies show they will be teen mothers.

While in jail continued to receive child support. She needs the money for a fine, court costs, evaluation, attorney. Just what child support is for. Father has parental rights but visitation taken away by judicial fiat. Corrupt does not describe South Dakota Judges or Social Services.  (see false charges in links)

Admitted to a federal crime why she was on State probation. Lyngstad got away with a lot of crimes and violations of orders.

Was placed on probation for passing no account checks on February 24th, 2000. Notice that the States Attorney was also her attorney of record on one of the 2 assault convictions committed 2 weeks apart while on probation.

Was passing no account checks using fake social security numbers while on probation and Yankton law enforcement investigated?

 
Convicted of identity theft for just a few of these checks.

The First Amendment is renowned for protecting speech we deplore as thoroughly as the speech we admire. See, e.g., Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 298 (1961). Plaintiff's verbal pyrotechnics have surely been offensive, but they have had a theme -- his belief (whether false or overblown does not matter) that he and others are victims of credit reporting agencies. Offensive speech -- even if it "stirs people to anger" -- is ordinarily protected. Terminiello, 337 U.S. at 4.

Closely in point is Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971), which involved a preliminary injunction against the distribution of leaflets by an organization that criticized the business methods of a real estate broker. The leaflets were meant to let "his neighbors know what he was doing to us," gave the broker's home telephone number, and asked readers to call him at home. The Supreme Court dissolved the preliminary injunction as an unconstitutional prior restraint, rejecting the claim that the broker's interest in privacy outweighed the public interest in peaceful distribution of leaflets. Id. at 417-19.

The Internet is a modern version of the leaflets distributed in Keefe. In the absence of incitement to imminent unlawful action, the motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied.