More violations of the gag order by Michael terpening? see what Katie says...or is it even katie?
June 8, 2012
The Terpening Followers have a habit of revealing what their patron, accused child molester Michael Terpening, does in violation of the requirements of his bail bond and now Katie Rucinski, or someone posting on her blog, shares Mike Terpening has violated the gag order in two of his three pending criminal cases.
Oddly, the Terpening Followers use questionable logic as they seek to harm people related to the case, or even to engage in petty gossip as they defend their publishing the misdeeds of their leader.
The gase is gagged. The order of the court dated February 10, 2012, an order the defendant's lawyer lawyer agreed (stipulated) to states clearly, "A gag order is placed on all parties and agents of the parties..." Click here to read the gag order.
The Terpening Followers interpret the gag order (see the pop up window) as referring only to limited issues such as naming victims. This is a faulty interpretation of the court's order. The Court ordered the parties gagged in item number 1 of the order and then goes on to limit information releasable to the public, such as victim names, a CD and other information in the possession of the Barry County Clerk's office and other governmental units subject to the Michigan Freedom Of Information Act.
In order to protect the case and the victims the court needed to issue an order ensuring the public did not have access to some information, normally public records available for inspection or dissemination by anyone asking for it. The Terpening Followers seem to read point 1 as explaining and limiting the remaining points in the court order not realizing those points are there to prevent public disclosure by governmental entities possessing certain information in the case. All other information remains available to the public.
So what's the violation? We wrote about Hannah Coy knowing about your humble writer being served with a subpoena to appear at the recent court hearing. Mike is gagged, so how did Hannah know about 24 hours after service was made and before the hearing, iteslf?
On her new blog, Terpening Follower Katie Rucinski publishes information suggesting a second subpoena has been issued for the hearing June 22, 2012 hearing. The subpoena has not yet been served. It is not in the clerk's file. In Michigan, subpoena's can be issued by lawyers without consulting the court.; or opposing counsel at the time they are issued.
Can there be any doubt Katie is getting inside information? Could the inside information come from anyone other than Michael Terpening? Would Terpening's counsel be consulting with Katie on legal matters relative to Mike's defense as an alternative option?
For those of us interested in Katie's musings, we are accustomed to legions of misspelled words and sentence structure often defying interpretation. Was this really Katie who wrote today's blog post, or is this Susan Ward Gillihan and/or Jamie Moore Bell doing it for her?
Could it be Michael Terpening, himself?
And let's keep in mind Katie is not only telling us how Mike is currently violating the gag order by giving her information, but apparently confirms the barely clever oblique comment Hannah Coy made in the earlier story by suggesting their having case information from Michael Terpening is appropriate. Sorry Katie, Mike has no business talking to you, at all, about this case and your sharing what you have been told is not smart.
The point Katie is you have case specific information no one should have because of the gag order. It's not you who is gagged, it is Michael and he is obviously providing you with information even before the court has it.