Lawyers say threats were made

Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Same questions as before:

I wonder if they will move for a change of venue? I think the details would be massively offensive anywhere...

The longer it drags on... the more time for the seeking of expertise on both sides...

Did others see this story?

Nurses Fired Over Cell Phone Photos Of Patient. Case Referred To FBI For Possible HIPAA Violations. WISN ABC news 12, 2/25/09 (updated 2/26/09), Lake Geneva, Wisconsin: http://www.wisn.com/cnn-news/18796315/de...

Why isn't the Albert Lea case being referred to the FBI for HIPAA violations of patient rights? Perhaps at least their expertise in Rochester has been sought for prosecution?

I think it's possible that the next election results will reflect prosecution efforts and results...

Posted by taxpayer (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

STALLING!!!!! Let's get this done and over with and quit wasting the taxpayers money. Continuance??? What, did she have a hair or tanning appoitment that was more important and just couldn't wait. When are the victims in this case going to get some closure???

Posted by theChipper1 (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WELL, I SEE THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS STILL ALWAYS QUICK TO JUDGE AND CONDEM BEFORE THE OTHER PERSONS SIDE IS EVEN HEARD...YOU ALL REALIZE , OF COURSE, THAT HER REP. IS FOREVER DESTROYED AND WE DON'T EVEN KNOW HER SIDE YET...???

IT SEEMS THAT THE SLIGHTEST TO THE MOST GROSS ALEGATION AND WE JUMP ALL OVER THE ACCUSED PERSON...WE SEEM TO HAVE NOT CHANGED MUCH SINCE "SALEM" ...NOW HAVE WE??? I AM AWARE HOW SERIOUS THIS CASE IS,DON'T GET ME WRONG, I'M JUST TIRED OF JUMPING ON THE ACCUSED TO Appease our own guilt or make us seem more righteous than we really are...AS FAR AS I AM AWARE, SHE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILY...CORRECT?? WHY ARE WE NOT AS VOCAL WHEN IT COMES TO OUR STATES SOVERENTY BEING TAKEN OVER RIGHT UNDER OUR VERY NOSEY NOSES...?? TAKE SOME FREE TIME,WHICH YOU SEEM TO HAVE IN ABUNDANCE, AND CHECK THAT ONE OUT...THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING WORTHWHILE TO SAY...

Posted by taxpayer (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My question to you chipper is when someone verbally admits to committing a crime, why do they still need to be proven innocent. Just for the record, I am not trying to prove my own righteousness. I have been far from perfect in my life but when it comes to someone harming vulnerable, potentially helpless individuals, I have a tendency to get irritated. That is MY right!!!!!!!!

Posted by wingo (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 3:53 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Opinionated (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now that this is in “the courts” it will be a long drawn out process. They may have admitted their guilt verbally but without proof the courts cannot prove anything. Someone can say that they murdered someone but without a body or proof how could they sentence that person for a crime. Also, why does the Tribune always describe Brianna Broitzman as “Albert Lea High School graduate”? They have done that in every story that has her name in it. One more thing, why do people feel compelled to put multiple question marks at the end of a sentence? It doesn’t make it any more of a question because it has more than one question mark. It works the same with exclamation points. Stop with the multiple punctuations!

Posted by gone (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

'Due process' protects us all. Prosecution and defense requires diligence.

Posted by theChipper1 (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, as I read the story I thought I remembered reading that
the Broitzman "confession" was under unconstitutional interrogation...does that mean threats, torture, intimidation or what???????????? In the right circumstances
a person might confess to anything. Can you imagine being in a serious situation that has you scared out of your wits
so that you don't know what the reality is anymore...I have...in NAM. you obviously have not! You also have not thoroughly read the so called confession...have a look. It will keep you occupied with your mouth shut for a while.
PS. Sorry for the 12 question marks but I could not resist! If you look for mistakes it's sometimes hard to have any room left in our small brains for the truth we say we are looking for.:)>

Posted by theChipper1 (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BY THE WAY,,,there are no degrees of sin sir! how does that sit with your "RIGHTEOUSNESS"?

Posted by Opinionated (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I presume the reason that the confessions are coming into question is based on the way the confessions were obtained. The purpose of this is to protect people from giving a “confession” under duress. This is a double-sided coin. It may protect the innocent but it may also be used as a loophole for the guilty. If we didn’t have rules like this we would be just another third world country where people are thrown into jail for forced confessions without proof. I am not saying that these two people were under duress, I am just saying that is why this rule was put into place.

Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm assuming that the Tennessen Statement given prior to the MDH investigation may have involved the signing of a written statement (and is probably standard in these type of investigations).

Could the AL Tribune obtain a copy of the standard MDH Tennessen Statement for investigations of practitioners regulated by MDH and either publish or link to it?

Here is a sample of a Tennessen statement used at Bemidji State (but I couldn't find a copy of the one used at MDH): http://www.bemidjistate.edu/offices/huma...

Also, here's an opinion on Tennessen statements by Risk Management at the League of Minnesota Cities: http://www.lmnc.org/media/document/1/gar...

»»...Giving an employee the choice of making no statement and having potential discipline based on other evidence or making a voluntary statement which could be used against the employee in a subsequent criminal prosecution does not violate the employee’s constitutional rights. Remember, however, that even in the case of a voluntary statement, a Tennessen Warning should be given if you will be asking the employee to release private or confidential information about herself.

If the offer of a voluntary statement is rejected by the employee, the city should carefully balance whether or not to compel a statement...««

Why is this so interesting and where's the rub?

As a private individual, a person is not required to cooperate with the MDH, but not cooperating could hamper their ability to investigate the matter. Practitioners regulated by MDH are required by statute to cooperate with an investigation by the MDH. A practitioner refusing to cooperate may result in the MDH taking disciplinary action against the practitioner. (Of course, if you are under the gun for potential criminal behavior, a disciplinary action, such as a suspension or pulling of your license is the least of your worries...)

I can sure see why the attorneys for the defense want to argue the point of constitutionality. But, if we are arguing constitutionality, is the statue requiring you to cooperate constitutional in regards to reporting on your own behavior or lack thereof?

Posted by snowbird (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This will go on as long as they can get big expensive lawyers that can keep it from going to trial. If all the victims could afford expensive laywers it would never be over. I do think if and when it comes to trial they had better move it to another state. I am certain in MN they will always be considered guilty no matter how the trial ends.

Posted by chrish (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Chipper - you make the comment about others having plenty of free time in a somewhat sarcastic way (at least that is how I read it) yet you are also taking the time to post yourself. You talk about others being judgmental, yet you are doing the same to the others on this board. I do agree that a person should be given due process in the courts as user "gone" is saying. However, why do you feel the need to judge the other posters or type in all CAPS (read shout)?

"He who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

Posted by 3trees (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I beleive part of the issue is that they may not have been read there rights. And, were questioned without an attorney or legal representation present. If this is the case there is a good chance all charges will be dismissed. I do not like that possibility, but we must prepare ourselves for this possibility.

Posted by chrish (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Which is why to "gone's" point, we need due process. As much as most would like this wrapped up quickly, all the i's need to be dotted and the "t's" need to be crossed so this is done right.

Posted by gardenmama (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would think if the police, sheriff or whoever is doing the questioning would know enough to give the person being questioned their rights. So, it looks to me that we can now get by with murder.

Posted by Jake (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A person can be questioned without an attorney present if they so choose. The fact is, they girls admitted to the crimes, so presuming that they are guilty isn't exactly putting the cart before the horse. The other girls corroborated the story as well, so it's not like anyone is jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

Posted by jed (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a couple of thoughts, I do not think any one is read their rights until they are under arrest. I do not think they need an attorney present if they are just being questioned. So is this when they got a confession? And do we need the confessions? Were not the other girls found guilty of not reporting such crime. I am not sure but this is what I recall.

This trial or process is no different than any other, when they are guilty it will drag on forever. When they are innocent it will be a quick and speedy trial.

Posted by speakup (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 12:36 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by wingo (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

could somebody tell me what I said that my statement got deleted? I guess I'm not allowed my opinion or fact now. Well, maybe I won't comment on this board anymore.

Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In ¶ 4: "Ashton and Broitzman’s lawyers..."
In ¶ 13: "Broitzman and Ashton each face charges..."
In ¶ 16: "Ashton and Broitzman were formally charged..."

Editor? Usage? Consistency?

How about using both last names or even both first names and instead making that "Broitzman and Larson" or even "Brianna and Ashton"?

Posted by snowbird (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

my comment was deleted after one of the early stories about this. I couldn't figure out why either. It seems some can say anything they want but other opinions are not appropriate or unprintable. I also wonder who decides what is ok and what isn't

Posted by saintpaulmommy (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm so sick of this. The girls think its ok for what they have done and laugh about it. I have read almost all the stories and last week when one of the family's talked i seen the last name was "Sorensen" so if I understand this Brianna was doing this to one of her own family members. I that is just unthinkable and gross.

Posted by tengstrom (Tim Engstrom) on March 31, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are two Larsons in the story, Ashton and Evan. Journalists use first names in those situations to keep them straight. It's common practice.

Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, perhaps this went unnoticed by others too. I have been wondering what happened in the Montevideo case. I'm happy to report that someone was charged in that case too. But read this whole article at the Star Tribune for another interesting case of potential NH abuse (excerpt on the Montevideo case follows link):

South St. Paul nursing home scrambles after signs surface of sex assaults. By Warren Wolfe, Star Tribune, March 23, 2009: http://www.startribune.com/local/east/41...

»»...On Dec. 1, Ashton Larson and Brianna Broitzman, both 19, were accused of abusing seven residents at Good Samaritan Albert Lea. On Feb. 25, Maria J. Bjerke, 25, was charged with abusing six residents at Luther Haven in Montevideo...««

Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the explanation Tim. I didn't know that and probably wouldn't have noticed if only one defendant was being talked about, but in this case, I guess you use the first name in one instance and the last name in the other. I guess I learned something new today.

Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and how do you determine who gets the first name usage, the attorney or the defendant? Is there a link on this usage thing which I could peruse?

Posted by controlledhyperness (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As far as questioning and the legalities on that...which I will admit up front I am no lawyer, but have observed alot....when the girls gave their confessions, it was during the investigative process. If my facts are straight (and they may not be) there are no rights or anything read to them, as it is for investigative purposes only. If I remember the story accurately, once they WERE arrested, their story changed from what was originally given during said investigative stage. My question is this: Why and where does constitutionality enter into this? The confessions were volunteerialy given, and now the lawyers are trying to yank them due to threats? How and when does that make sense?

Posted by Opinionated (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Were the statements given voluntarily? That is what is in question. This sort of thing is a slippery slope. We as Americans want the criminals to be punished but we also want to make sure that innocent people are not put in jail because they are forced, tricked or coerced into giving a false confession. So, someone who is not innocent could just as easily use this defense. But, if we change that, then we open up the opportunity for abuses of people in power and we would be another third world country. I understand people are upset about the allegations of abuse to elderly in this case. However, if we want justice done then we have to deal with the process of the justice system.

Posted by tengstrom (Tim Engstrom) on March 31, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Name usage is something taught at journalism schools. You can find it in the AP Stylebook, too. If you go to your local library, it should have an AP Stylebook for you to peruse in the reference section.

Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@ controlled hyperness

According to the State of Minnesota Complaint, available at the Smoking Gun: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/yea...

Page 2:
"On May 6, 2008... Brianna Broitzman was advised that her coming to the Law Enforcement Center was voluntary and that she was free to leave at any time..."

Page 6:
"On May 6, 2008... Ms. Larson voluntarily came to the Law Enforcement Center and was advised before the interview that her interview was voluntary and that she was free to leave at any time..."

MDH report # H5441019: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/fpc/d...

Page 1
"...All employees and persons were interviewed in private as desired and given the Tennessen Statement..."

Please go back and read my remarks about Tennessen Statements for practitioners regulated by MDH (March 30, 2009 at 9:19 p.m.). Unfortunately, we don't have a copy of how the MDH Tennessen statement was worded or any sheet which may have been given and signed.

A Tennessen statement can be different depending on the circumstances. It's the Tennessen statement where the rub lies, I think.

Posted by anasgrammy (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 4:51 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by controlledhyperness (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For those of us who only know of the Miranda rights...what exactly is a Tennessen statement? Miranda rights are for arrests, are Tennessen similar but for voluntary information given? I know that you have posted links showing varying examples, but what is the definition?

Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, here's something else which is interesting:

The MDH investigation visit began at Good Sam on 5/7/08. The police interviews were on 5/6/08 (an earlier date). Here's what makes me think this:

If you go to the MDH report...

(page 5 of 14)
"AP [alleged perp] #1 was interviewed and video taped at the Albert Lea Police Department on 5/6/08 at 4:35 p.m. ..."

(page 4 of 14)
"AP #1 was interviewed on 5/15/2008 at 3:35 p.m. ..." [I think this means the MDH interview and shows that it took place AFTER the police interview which the AP was told was voluntary.]
------------------------------------------------------

(page 5 of 14)
"AP # 4 was interviewed and video taped by the Albert Lea Police Department on 5/6/08 (time not documented)..."

Also,

"AP #4 was interviewed on 5/28/2008 at 3:10 p.m."
------------------------------------------------------

AP # 3 had a police department interview on 5/6/08, and another interview (I presume by MDH) on 5/28/08. AP # 2 had a police department interview on 5/6/08 and another interview on 5/29/08...

Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is a Tennessen warning notice and when is it required? http://www.ipad.state.mn.us/docs/tw.pdf

»»When a government entity collects private/confidential data from an individual about that individual, the entity must give him/her a Tennessen warning notice (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 2). The purpose of the notice is to enable an individual to make an informed decision about whether to give data about her/himself to the government entity. A government entity may not collect data on individuals unless the collection is necessary to carry out its duties under a program that is authorized by law (see Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 3)...«« (Please continue reading at link because there's more information and details.)

Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's another aside on the Montevideo case for those interested in following that case as well. It's at Q102.5 FM Willmar: http://yourq102.com/News.aspx?typeid=New...

Former aide, charged with abuse, in court, 03/18/2009

»»A Montevideo woman accused of abusing patients in a nursing home made her initial appearance in Chippewa County District Court this week. Former Nursing Home Aide Maria Bjerke, 25, faces 11 counts for allegedly abusing 6 different residents. In Court bail was waived and Bjerke was released on her own recognizance, and her next court date was set for April 13th. Bjerke is accused of abusing residents at Luther Haven Nursing Home over the course of 6 months until she was reported by another worker in July, and was suspended. Bjerke is charged with a total of 11 counts including mistreatment of a patient, disorderly conduct, assault and criminal neglect. All are gross misdemeanors.««

This was also covered by ABC affiliate KSAX-TV (Alexandria)/KRWF-TV (Redwood Falls) on 2/27/09: http://ksax.com/article/stories/S808854....

Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on March 31, 2009 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just further wondering with regard to AP style...

Of course, not being a professional journalist, I don't have a subscription to the 2008 AP Stylebook Online, or free access to ask the question, so the best I can do is go by general rules. Here's what I found:

5.1 Generally, identify people in the news by their first name, middle initial and last name.

5.2 Use full identification in first reference, but in second reference, use last name only.

Also, somewhere else:

Names of People: On first mention of a person, use first and last name. After that, use just last name, unless it’s a case where many people with the same last name are quoted.

OK, I'll admit that I likely don't know what I am talking about, but since only the attorneys are quoted, what is the current AP rule which requires (or suggests) using only Ashton Larson's first name in any of the references? She isn't now nor was she ever a minor at the time of the alleged offenses.

Maybe there isn't any hard fast rule and it's just a preference, but being a "no nothing", I would use Ashton Larson's last name in ¶ 4 (attorney Evan Larson is not even mentioned until ¶ 10). Then I would use the word "Defendants" in ¶ 13 and ¶ 16 followed by using both defendants last names (using the descriptive word in front of the last names so there wouldn't be any confusion between Evan and Ashton).

In the alternative, anytime either Larson is mentioned, I would use both their first and last names.

Posted by gonetomorrow (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 6:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bla Bla bla, so quick is the public to lynch little girls, but if an cop brakes the law, well, we we'll just look the other way. What a bunch of BS.

Should they be charged and delt with, absolutely, but it show that this community has different blades for different people. If your going to execute one, execute all.

end rant

Posted by dede (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If the Sheriffs dept or ALPD did something illegal to get confession and these "little girls" get off then it will be a sad day for this community. We all know they are guilty as they admitted it, I believe in Karma and in the end they will get whats coming to them one way or another. My sympathy to all the abused and their families who have to endure the pain these "little girls" have caused.

Posted by gardenmama (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought you were an adult at the age of 18. What is this "little girl" stuff?

Posted by ellen67 (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If I was charged with something and knew I was 110% innocent I would do everything in my power to show proof and clear my name. But when people are guilty they do everything they can to find some loophole to get out of it. That's whats happening here in my opinion. They know they are guilty but don't want to face the consequences and figure they can escape out the backdoor somehow.

Posted by taxpayer (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

feedman...How can you possibly feel for the perpertrators in this case? They knew exactly what they were paid to do which was to protect and care for these vulnerable adults in their final years and instead they chose to abuse them. You sound like one of those tree hugging activits. My advise to you would be to go find that tree to hug. Better yet, find the one that these two brats will hopefully be handcuffed to soon then and you all can live happily ever after. Just be careful to cover up your private parts, these girls may come after you too.

Posted by speakup (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For the record, when I post on this site I do not use foul or abusive language, I do not make threats and I definately do not post anything obsene. Why is it acceptable for Tribune staff to delete my comments based on their own personal opinions. As liberal as the Tribune is, I am shocked and a bit annoyed by how quick you are to censor these posts.

Posted by brunswick (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Unless this case is a violation of a citizens civil rights, or a violation of another United States Code, it would not be a referrable case to the United States Attorneys Office. Good Samaritan is not Federal property and we do not know the facts surrounding the circumstances of this case.

Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The privacy of health care information of the affected victims was violated if/when videotape/phone recordings of patients were made and if/when the patients were talked about outside of the health care setting and inside of the health care setting when not related to specific duties.

Violations of the privacy of protected health information are considered a civil rights violation since individuals with disabilities are a protected class. Just about every health care institution I know of receives federal funds and thus are covered entities under Section 504 and the ADA.

HIPAA violations are generally referred to OCR (Office of Civil Rights) who then makes referrals to the FBI if criminal charges are warranted (I think that's how it works).

Just about anyone who is a licensed, registered, or certified professional in the health care field knows or should know that HIPAA violations of protected patient information and/or privacy rights is a Civil Rights violation.

An affected individual or their fiduciary can file the complaint without waiting for a specific authority to do this.

Good people to ask questions about violations of Civil Rights of the Disabled is the Minnesota Disability Law Center (the Protection and Advocacy System for Minnesota) which provides free CIVIL legal advice to individuals with disabilities. They won't be able to help with CRIMINAL stuff, but they can give you the outline of how things work, time limits, and help you file the civil OCR complaint, if appropriate. The complaint, if won, can bring about rulings and require changes, but there is generally no financial benefit. Still, the publicity and the potential rulings which can require changes, including changes in policies, procedures, and practices is a good way to help bring about changes system wide. As the case in Montevideo demonstrates, the Albert Lea incidents are not isolated: http://www.mndlc.org/

Posted by Culture_Warrior (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

God, save your people!

Posted by sandman (anonymous) on April 1, 2009 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gonetomorrow-

Really? Do you also feel bad for Charles Manson being in prision without the possobility of parole?

Posted by speakup (anonymous) on April 2, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

nisperos hit a nerve with engstrom!