MNPublicRecords
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2024
Interesting new matter of public record attached. Not all that new as it's from the first hearing in May, but now that the court reporter got around to completing the requested transcript that Frank now says he wants to use as an "exhibit" at trial, it's an interesting read for whatever he thought would be useful while we wait around for the trial. Your speculation from the IcyHotSonichu leaks was correct that at least Bob likely saw the house shortly before the arrest, but as is often the case throughout this saga, it gets worse: now we see the new revelation of the state's "concerns that both sets of grandparents were in the home the week before the removal" such that they would have seen firsthand at least the disgusting state of the home (if not also various telltale signs of ongoing drug use), causing the state to "want someone that is more versed in identifying those symptoms to be supervising" parental visitation instead of just trusting the grandparents to handle it. Just how willfully ignorant would "both sets" have to be to see firsthand the state of that house in mid-May and do nothing about it? Or could it be that at least one set (if not both sets) did do something about it, by cracking open Matthew 18:15-17 and bringing about the exact chain of events that led to Melin's mandatory reporting that very same week?
Other neat highlights include Nick's characteristically reveling in the chance to hear the sound of his own voice for a multi-page soliloquy even though his court-appointed attorney sitting right there was supposed to do the talking, or his second soliloquy rambling about how to best put a stop to some sort of state-connected big bad leaker bogeyman or whatever, or a laugh at Nick's herculean work ethic that used all the time from the May 24th release to the May 28th hearing to only get the home "much cleaner than what was initially found" (as opposed to objectively "clean"), or his echoing the Mayr copestream with the audacity to say to a judge with a straight face that there's "no indication other than a statute" about any child endangerment or parental drug use in parenting's vicinity ever having taken place despite all the evidence to the contrary, or his very oddly specific fixation on the children's seemingly-coached statements that "any testing of the children that would result in drug use according to the children would be because of secondary exposure from some other source" even though there was no mention of any such test results having come back yet at that time, almost as though he already had reason to expect what the upcoming test results would reveal and felt the need to get ahead of the story. Why on earth would that have been the foremost thing on his mind at such an early stage? This manchild says the darnedist things...
