The Place Where Ludington Talks
Re: April Reynolds
On December 27, 2011 a Personal Protection Order (PPO) was issued by Circuit Court Judge Richard Cooper on April Reynolds regarding some alleged behavior by her to Ariel Courtland, Baby Kate's mother. In Courtland's claim for the PPO, Ariel stated that Reynolds called her at least 30 times on Christmas Eve and left voice mail messages threatening to kill her.
A PPO sounds reasonable if such harassing activity has taken place, which should be easily proved by phone records and the voice mail messages.
April Reynolds challenged the PPO decision in court on February 1st in front of Judge Cooper with Ariel Courtland present. According to WMOM reports, Ariel stated Mrs. Reynolds has posted disparaging information about her on three different Facebook pages. She reiterated that she is not and never has been a suspect in the disappearance of her daughter, Baby Kate. And, stated that she never has requested help from April Reynolds.
When Reynolds took the stand the story was completely different. She claimed that Ariel's application for the PPO was 99.9% false. She insisted that Ariel had contacted her in August. But later admitted that she had posted numerous hostile messages on various Facebook pages. After carefully considering all of the testimony, Judge Cooper ruled that the original PPO would stand.
April joined the Ludington Torch as a member back on August 16, 2011. A review of her postings shows she does have an opinion of some complicity at the least by Ariel Courtland in the disappearance of Baby Kate. Her outspoken views could upset Ariel, but her posts here, at least, have been measured and well within her rights given her by the First Amendment. I cannot comment on her posts elsewhere, but it seems as if her main beef has been with the rigor of the investigation by the investigating unit, the Ludington Police Department (LPD).
This was confirmed by the protest march she organized at the end of October. She organized the event to protest the LPD's flawed investigation of Baby Kate; later on in November she was visited in Grand Rapids by two LPD detectives under questionable rationale and methods. I think there was a correlation between her activism and the visit, where the lead detective made an explicit threat to her about obstructing an investigation.
Come December 27, 2011 Ariel Courtland petitions for a PPO saying April had phoned her on Christmas Eve over 30 times and threatened to kill her on voice messages. Yet, according to what has been reported on at the hearing, she fell back not on these alleged calls and threat, a definite PPO starter, but on Facebook postings by April that disputed her innocence in the investigation of the disappearance of her baby.
Perhaps this is why April claimed her PPO application was 99.9% false. And that's the point here. If those 30+ phone calls were never made, if no voice mails exist of April Reynolds making a threat to Ariel is forthcoming, and the information that Ariel included on her PPO was falsified and/or exaggerated, then she may not be guilty of anything involving her baby, but is guilty of
MCL 600.2950(24): "An individual who knowingly and intentionally makes a false statement to the court in support of his or her petition for a personal protection order is subject to the contempt powers of the court."
April's statements right here at the Torch on 12-30 and 1-6 also seem to indicate that the City applied for the PPO on Ariel's behalf:
Views: 2241
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by april on
-
Well if they dont know the laws on a ppo how are they going to find a missing child?
-
-
-
And as far as the 22nd No, as I have sai I think this was all done because they didnt want me digging in the case. she did tell Cooper if he took the ppo off she might not be able to testify at the trail because she felt like she wanted to curl up in a ball and die, but yet goes on a page right before the hearing talking about me and calling me vulgar names and right after the hearing went on it saying she beat my a** at the hearing.
-
Permalink Reply by XLFD on
-
My advice to you is to remain calm, observe the PPO's dictums explicitly, and get a complaint into the court charging Ariel with contempt for lying on her petition, focussing on what you can actually prove is false. Realize, the other side may claim you have lied as well, and they will be out in force. You will have to decide whether it is worth fighting the fight.
-
Permalink Reply by Willy on
-
april
You need to get some legal advice before you get to involved with this situation. You need to make sure that the ppo and court proceedings were done above board and that the information is correct and you need someone to explain what your legal obligations are and what you can or cannot do. The ppo may be falsely issued on the basis of lies so understanding what is or is not correct on it is very important. They may be setting you up for further legal action if you violate even the smallest provision of the ppo. See an attorney to make sure your protected from the potential problems the City may put you through.
-
-
-
Willy speaks sensibly; you have already fought the PPO in a court hearing and lost. In retrospect, you should have probably sought some legal advice beforehand, and perhaps have had an attorney represent you, since they would have likely keyed in on the veracity of the claims Ariel had presented in her affidavit.
Can you imagine the repercussions this might have had for the Baby Kate case if you had proven that Ariel had lied on her PPO affidavit, sworn under oath as to its truth, just before the trial of Sean was to begin? Can you imagine the amount of reasonable doubt that revelation would have added to the official presumption that Sean Phillips was the lone gunman?
That's a likely reason the court quashed the amount of phone calls presented in that affidavit in showing the need for a PPO. They didn't need it; but if it was shown to be false, the case against Sean would be sorely weakened as Ariel would have been showed to have questionable character in her non-suspect capacity
You are in Grand Rapids without a lot of extra cash; spend a day looking into getting some free consultations with lawyers as to your rights in this situation, and see whether they are willing to take up your case for a fee that won't break you, and do it quick. You are likely stuck with a PPO for a year, but you might be able to get another hearing and a contempt charge (with possible fines and jail terms) for Ariel, with perhaps a review or dismissal of the PPO ensuing.
-
Permalink Reply by AQUAMAN on
-
Good luck with changing/appealing Judge Cooper's orders, he has big connections down-state that don't follow all the rules of Law!
-
-
I rather not fight all this stupid crap, I just wanted everyone to see that if all these lies were said about me, God only knows what lies will be said at the trial.
-
-
Directly disputing the PPO would be a money pit, and a fool's errand. But consider taking her to task for lying on her affidavit, unless you are OK with that?
Seems rather weird that all those people that think Ariel is guilty as sin without any proof, a group of which I was not a member of, are now quite content to distance themselves from you based on this PPO and believe her without any proof. Your predicament, April, has given me a strong bit of doubt in Ariel's innocence.
If you do not pursue it, I, and all others who have a viewpoint like myself, may have to presume that Ariel was indeed telling the truth about you. And you may get to see Ariel walk, even when you believe she is a liar and involved with the disappearance of Baby Kate. But it would be very inconvenient and costly for you to actually fight to protect your good name...
-
-
The problem is that a PPO is a court issued document and will be part of a legal record. And who's to say that the PPO is based on lies? According to the legal document [PPO] the judge thinks Ariel was telling the truth and April was lying. The only way to rectify that is to have the PPO thrown out. If april is innocent of the charges it would be in her best interest to have the PPO removed because down the road she may run into a situation where her integrity, honesty, attitude and temperament will come into question because of that PPO. And don't forget, there will exist a court record that shows she is a threat to at least one individual and may be a potential threat to others. This could affect her future employment, child custody or any number of future situations she may encounter.
-
-
No because anything on the "legal document" was not even talked about.
Nothing in the PPO document talked about our "mutual messages" and that's what the whole hearing was about.
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
