Grieving dad jailed for repeatedly criticizing court system
Apparently, the judge in this divorce case awarded custody to the mother, but the father and his attorney warned that there were "red flags" and suggested that she wasn't fit.
Then the child died, although investigators said there wasn't evidence to show that the mother was responsible for the death.
The father started posting messages on his Facebook page criticizing the judge. The judge saw the posts and felt uncomfortable, although an investigation revealed that he never threatened any harm or violence. Yet, he was still locked up for "malicious use of telecommunications services."
I do find it interesting in a society where political speech and open criticism of public figures is often done against politicians in the Executive and Legislative Branches of government, yet a different standard is held regarding criticism of the Judicial Branch. For some reason, there's an expectation that judges should be treated with kit gloves, which is inconsistent with how members of Congress, the president, or others in positions of power are generally treated.
And what the heck is "malicious use of telecommunications services" supposed to mean? Sounds like the kind of charge one could use to lock up most of the media overnight, if one wished to interpret it that way. A clever politician could simply declare that he/she is "uncomfortable" and let the chips fall where they may. And it would be perfectly legal, thanks to the precedent set by Judge Rachel Rancilio.
(WXYZ) — He lost a custody battle, then his son lost his life. He blames the court system. He voiced his strong opinions on social media and the next thing he knew he was locked in jail.
“He was so full of life,” said Deborah Vanderhagen of her grandson. “I am trying not to cry.”
On September 22 it will be the two-year anniversary of the day Deborah Vanderhagen’s grandson Killian lost his life. She believes her son Jonathan Vanderhagen is justified in feeling the court cost her grandson his life. He died in the custody of his mom after her son asked for sole custody.
“His lawyer said something is going to happen to this child. You need to get him away from the mother. There are too many red flags. And the judge said, oh that is in the past,” said Deborah Vanderhagen.
Apparently, the judge in this divorce case awarded custody to the mother, but the father and his attorney warned that there were "red flags" and suggested that she wasn't fit.
Then the child died, although investigators said there wasn't evidence to show that the mother was responsible for the death.
The police report filed after two-year-old Killian died shows he had a previous medical condition and investigators did not believe there was evidence Killian’s mother was responsible. His dad felt otherwise and repeatedly posted criticism of the judge who presided over his case and friend of the court on his Facebook Page.
The father started posting messages on his Facebook page criticizing the judge. The judge saw the posts and felt uncomfortable, although an investigation revealed that he never threatened any harm or violence. Yet, he was still locked up for "malicious use of telecommunications services."
Judge Rachel Rancilio saw the posts, many of which are publicly targeted at her. She apparently felt uncomfortable and possibly threatened. She did not hear the custody hearing, which was handled by a court referee.
The Macomb County Sheriff’s office responded and found he criticized what Judge Rachel Rancilio pinned on Pinterest as in his opinion inappropriate, posted videos saying he feels she and others responsible for Killian’s death, and blamed the court system for his loss.
The investigative report also says at no time did he threaten harm or violence.
Still he was charged with malicious use of telecommunications services and released on bond. Then he made more posts, such as one that reads, “Dada back to digging and you best believe I’m gonna dig up all the skeletons in this court’s closet.”
A judge ruled he violated his bond conditions. He now is in jail on half a million dollars bond.
His mom says she feels he simply was exercising his right to free speech.
“He just wants justice. He don’t want to kill anybody. He don’t want anybody physically hurt. He wants them to acknowledge what they’ve done and get justice,” said Deborah Vanderhagen.
A jury trial is scheduled for September 13.
I do find it interesting in a society where political speech and open criticism of public figures is often done against politicians in the Executive and Legislative Branches of government, yet a different standard is held regarding criticism of the Judicial Branch. For some reason, there's an expectation that judges should be treated with kit gloves, which is inconsistent with how members of Congress, the president, or others in positions of power are generally treated.
And what the heck is "malicious use of telecommunications services" supposed to mean? Sounds like the kind of charge one could use to lock up most of the media overnight, if one wished to interpret it that way. A clever politician could simply declare that he/she is "uncomfortable" and let the chips fall where they may. And it would be perfectly legal, thanks to the precedent set by Judge Rachel Rancilio.