April 29, 2014  By Jack Jodell.

Time for some fun. See if you can guess who made each particular statement below. Caution: these are not all made by politicians, nor are they necessarily from modern or even living figures. The answers will be at the bottom of this post. Here we go:  

A). “Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have.”
B). “I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.”
C). “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”
D). “Politics have no relation to morals.”
E). “A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs, who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.”
F. “…The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

G). “The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work, and then get elected and orove it.”
H). “The final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
I). “Democracy is when the indigent, and NOT the men of property, are the rulers.”
J). “I’m really concerned that too big to fail has become too big to jail. That jyst seems wrong to me.”
K).”If you don’t mind smelling like peanut butter for 2 or 3 days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.”
L). “I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.”

M). “It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.”
N). “In politics, an absurdity is not a handicap.”
O). “Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future,”
P). “It is money, money, money! Not ideas, not principles, but money that reigns supreme in American politics!”
Q). “Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.”
R).”Those that sacrifice a little freedom today, for a little safety tomorrow, deserve neither freedom, nor safety.”
S). “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter…”
T). “We’ll know our sisinformation program is complete when everything the US public believes is false.”

U). “The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image and the cult of money in a dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly human goal.”
V). “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
W). We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking of what is best for society.”
X). “In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is do nothing.”
Y). “There are those who look at things the way they are and ask why…I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”
Z). “Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.”
Here are the answers to who said what:
A). Winston Churchill   B). Margaret Thatcher   (). Emma Goldman
D). Nicolo Machiavelli   E). Franklin D. Roosevelt   F). Joseph Stalin
G). P.J. O’Rourke   H). Henry A. Wallace   I). Aristotle  
  J). Elizabeth Warren
K). Barry Goldwater   L). Ronald Reagan   M). Dan Quayle   N).Napoleon  
O). John F. Kennedy   P). Robert Byrd  Q). Nikita Khrushchev  R). Benjamin
Franklin   S). DICK Cheney   T). William J. Casey   U). Pope Francis
V). Milton Friedman   W). Hillary Clinton   X). Theodore Roosevelt   Y). Robert F. Kennedy   Z). Mark Twain

About jackjodell53

I am an American Dissident trapped in a country where poor and middle class people are constantly being exploited and lied to by a very rigid and conservative plutocratic elite. I believe in government OF, FOR, and BY the people, not one controlled as it now is by corporations and special interests.
This entry was posted in conservative Republicans, economics, Politics, Progressives and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Mark Davis says:

    CASE 0:08-cv-04690-DWF-FLN Document 53 Filed 09/18/09 Page 1 of 11
    Beverly Seifert.1 In his self-styled Amended Complaint, Plaintiff James B. Everts asserts
    causes of action for fraud, denial of due process, defamation, and false imprisonment.
    For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motions are granted.
    Plaintinff Everts is a sixty-six-year-old man who currently resides at Bryn Mawr
    Health Care Center (“Bryn Mawr”), a nursing home facility in Minneapolis. (Am.
    Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2.) Bryn Mawr is apparently operated by Aviv Health Care, Inc. (“Aviv”),
    although the relationship between the two entities is not entirely clear. Mr. Everts was
    admitted to Bryn Mawr on September 6, 2006, on a transfer assignment from Hennepin
    County Medical Center, where he was treated for a fractured humeral bone. (Id. at ¶ 2.)
    Mr. Everts asserts that he had no advance knowledge that he would be assigned to that
    facility and that he objected to being admitted to the facility on grounds that he could not
    afford the care. (Id.) Mr. Everts contends that officials from Bryn Mawr told him that
    his costs would be covered by insurance and that this representation turned out to be
    false. (Id.)
    In October 2006, Mr. Everts was involuntarily committed in Hennepin County
    District Court as chemically dependent pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 2. The
    Court found that Mr. Everts was “a chemically dependent person determined to be unable 1 The Amended Complaint also contains allegations against James J. Prokop and the Associated Clinic of Psychology. (Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 10-A – 10-F.) There is no indication that these Defendants were ever served with the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 49), and they have not made any appearance in this matter. The time for service has long since passed. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court dismisses these Defendants without prejudice.
    CASE 0:08-cv-04690-DWF-FLN Document 53 Filed 09/18/09 Page 2 of 11
    to manage his affairs by reason of habitual and excessive use of alcohol and prescription
    drugs.” (Burdorf Aff. Ex. 1 at 1.) As a result, the Court committed Mr. Everts to Bryn
    Mawr. (Id.)
    According to the Complaint, approximately two months after his admission to
    Bryn Mawr, Bryn Mawr’s business manager demanded that Mr. Everts pay his account
    balance of more than $1,300 “at once.” (Am. Compl. at ¶ 3.) Mr. Everts contends that
    after he told the business manager that he could not pay, the business manager told her
    superiors that Mr. Everts had “refused” to pay. (Id.) Mr. Everts asserts that just days
    later, Bryn Mawr and Aviv served him with written notice demanding payment and
    stating that Mr. Everts would be transferred to a state mental hospital if he continued to
    “refuse” to pay. (Id. at ¶ 4.)
    Mr. Everts then alleges that in November or December 2006, Defendants Aviv and
    Bryn Mawr “conspired, collaborated[,] and acted in concert with Defendant Social
    Security and obtained an attachment, garnishment, or assignment of [Mr. Everts’]
    monthly social security [p]ayments which made those benefits payable to Defendants
    Aviv and/or Bryn Mawr.” (Id. at ¶ 6.) Mr. Everts asserts that this was done without
    notice to him. (Id.) Further, Mr. Everts contends that he has attempted to resolve the
    matter, but that Bryn Mawr’s administrator threatened that if Mr. Everts left Bryn Mawr,
    the administrator would have Mr. Everts arrested “by reporting to the police that
    [Mr. Everts] was mentally defective.” (Id. at ¶ 7.)
    Mr. Everts asserts that in early 2008, his case was referred to Hennepin County
    and its social worker, Defendant Beverly Seifert. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Ms. Seifert provides
    CASE 0:08-cv-04690-DWF-FLN Document 53 Filed 09/18/09 Page 3 of 11
    long-term care consultation services for the County pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 256B.0911.
    Mr. Everts asserts that Ms. Seifert collaborated with Defendants Aviv and Bryn Mawr to
    keep Mr. Everts from leaving the facility. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Mr. Everts contends that Ms.
    Seifert set redundant or arbitrary goals for him to reach in order to be eligible to leave the
    facility. (Id.) He alleges that Ms. Seifert’s failure to secure relocation funding for him
    has caused him to be unable to leave Bryn Mawr, effectively imprisoning him there.
    I. Standard of Review
    In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
    Civil Procedure, a court assumes all facts in the complaint to be true and construes all
    reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the complainant.
    Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1986). In doing so, however, a court need
    not accept as true wholly conclusory allegations, Hanten v. Sch. Dist. of Riverview
    Gardens, 183 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir. 1999), or legal conclusions drawn by the pleader
    from the facts alleged, Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990).
    A court may consider the complaint, matters of public record, orders, materials embraced
    by the complaint, and exhibits attached to the complaint in deciding a motion to dismiss
    under Rule 12(b)(6). Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.
    To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a
    claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955,
    1974 (2007). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it
    CASE 0:08-cv-04690-DWF-FLN Document 53 Filed 09/18/09 Page 4 of 11
    must contain facts with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief above the speculative
    level.” Id. at 1964-65. This standard “calls for enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable
    expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the claim].” Id. at 1965.
    II. Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department’s and Beverly Seifert’s Motion to Dismiss
    In their Motion to Dismiss, the Hennepin County Human Services and Public
    Health Department (“HSPHD”) and Ms. Seifert (collectively, the “Hennepin County
    Defendants”) contend that HSPHD is not a legal entity capable of being sued. Mr. Everts
    does not respond to this contention, apparently conceding the argument. In any case,
    HSPHD is a mere operating department of Hennepin County and, under Minnesota law,
    it is not capable of suing or being sued. See State v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City of
    Minneapolis, 154 N.W.2d 192, 194 (Minn. 1967); Undlin v. City of Minneapolis, Civ.
    No. 08-1855, 2009 WL 703705, at *8 (D. Minn. Mar. 16, 2009) (Ericksen, J.) (“Further,
    as an operating department of Hennepin County, HCMC is not a legal entity capable of
    being sued.”). Therefore, HSPHD is not a proper party to this lawsuit and must be
    Mr. Everts’s claims against Seifert likewise fail. He contends that she wrongly
    denied him relocation funding that would have allowed him to move out of Bryn Mawr.
    This is the same claim Mr. Everts raised in his appeal to the Minnesota Department of
    Human Services (“DHS”). DHS denied Mr. Everts’s claim, and Mr. Everts elected not to
    appeal that denial to Minnesota state court. Thus, the DHS decision became the final
    decision of the agency acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and is entitled to preclusive
    CASE 0:08-cv-04690-DWF-FLN Document 53 Filed 09/18/09 Page 5 of 11
    effect in this Court. See Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. County of Hennepin, 572
    N.W.2d 51, 53 (Minn. 1997) (Collateral estoppel prevents “parties to an action from
    relitigating in subsequent actions issues that were determined in the prior action.”). In
    other words, because Mr. Everts had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims
    about the denial of relocation funding before the state agency, Mr. Everts cannot now
    bring a claim challenging that judgment in this Court.
    Finally, Mr. Everts attempts to raise a false imprisonment claim against HSPHD
    and against Ms. Seifert. As noted above, HSPHD is not a proper party to this lawsuit and
    any claim against it must be dismissed. The allegations of false imprisonment as to Ms.
    Seifert are less than clear. Mr. Everts apparently believes that because Ms. Seifert
    recommended that Mr. Everts be denied relocation funding and because he has been
    unable to leave Bryn Mawr absent such relocation funding, Ms. Seifert’s actions amount
    to false imprisonment.
    To prove a claim of false imprisonment under Minnesota law, Mr. Everts must
    show that Ms. Seifert intentionally restricted his physical liberty by words or acts; that he
    was aware of her words or acts; and that the words or acts included the use of physical
    barriers, the use of physical force, or the threat of immediate use of physical force. 4A
    Minn. Civ. JIG 60.70. In addition, “the restriction must be complete.” Id. Mr. Everts
    has not alleged that Ms. Seifert’s words or actions included physically preventing Mr.
    Everts from leaving Bryn Mawr or erecting physical barriers to prevent him from doing
    so, or that she threatened physical force against Plaintiff if he left Bryn Mawr. Merely
    determining that Mr. Everts had already used his allocation of County funding is not false
    CASE 0:08-cv-04690-DWF-FLN Document 53 Filed 09/18/09 Page 6 of 11
    imprisonment under Minnesota law. Mr. Everts has failed to state a claim on which relief
    can be granted as to HSPHD or Ms. Seifert.
    III. Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion to Dismiss
    The Court’s review of decisions of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) is
    limited by statute. This statute provides that a person may ask a federal court to review a
    decision of the SSA only if that decision is a “final decision.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The
    statute is clear that “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner of Social
    Security shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or government agency except as
    herein provided.” Id. § 405(h).
    Attached to the SSA’s Motion is a copy of a letter sent to Mr. Everts on March 19,
    2007. This letter informed Mr. Everts that Bryn Mawr would be receiving Mr. Everts’s
    social security benefits. Mr. Everts did not ask for an appeal of this decision, and did not
    contact the SSA, either after receiving this letter or after receiving a letter in April 2007
    saying that SSA would send Mr. Everts’s benefits directly to Bryn Mawr. Mr. Everts
    contends that he did not receive any letters from SSA.
    Whether or not Mr. Everts received the SSA’s letters, he discovered at some point
    that Bryn Mawr was receiving his social security benefits. He could have, but did not,
    ask SSA to review the arrangement at that time. This Court simply does not have
    jurisdiction over Mr. Everts’s claims because he has not given the SSA the opportunity to
    review those claims. All of his claims against SSA must be dismissed.
    CASE 0:08-cv-04690-DWF-FLN Document 53 Filed 09/18/09 Page 7 of 11
    IV. Aviv Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
    Mr. Everts’s claims against Aviv and Bryn Mawr (collectively, “Aviv
    Defendants”) are claims of false imprisonment, defamation, and fraud.
    A. False Imprisonment
    As discussed previously, a claim of false imprisonment requires that defendants
    physically or through threats of physical violence imprison Mr. Everts, and that his
    imprisonment be complete. Mr. Everts has not established that he is not free to leave
    Bryn Mawr. Rather, he contends that he is unable to leave because he lacks the funds to
    do so. Thus, he is attempting to assert a claim for constructive false imprisonment:
    because Bryn Mawr receives his social security check, he cannot fund his departure from
    Bryn Mawr. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 11 (Defendant’s actions “contributed to the constructive
    false imprisonment of Plaintiff.”).)
    Minnesota law does not recognize a cause of action for constructive false
    imprisonment. If Mr. Everts believes that Bryn Mawr should not receive his social
    security benefits, he should challenge that arrangement with the SSA. The facts alleged
    in the Complaint do not state a claim for false imprisonment.
    B. Defamation
    To state a claim for defamation, Mr. Everts must allege that a defendant made
    defamatory statements about him, that the statements were made to someone else (also
    known as “publication”), and that his reputation was harmed as a result. See Weinberger
    v. Maplewood Review, 668 N.W.2d 667, 673 (Minn. 2003). Mr. Everts’s defamation
    claim contends that the Aviv Defendants “caused false and derogatory information to be
    CASE 0:08-cv-04690-DWF-FLN Document 53 Filed 09/18/09 Page 8 of 11
    entered into and made a part of Mr. Everts’s medical records” and that this information
    damaged Mr. Everts’s ability to move out of Bryn Mawr. (Compl. ¶ 11.) He does not
    specify the allegedly false and derogatory information, asking the Court to assume that
    such information was indeed put in his medical records because he has been unable to
    move out of Bryn Mawr.
    Mr. Everts’s Complaint fails to state a claim for defamation. He must allege with
    more specificity the defamatory statements he contends were made and to whom they
    were made. Without more specificity, the Aviv Defendants cannot formulate an answer.
    Thus, Mr. Everts’s defamation claim must be dismissed.
    C. Fraud
    Mr. Everts alleges that he told Bryn Mawr when he was first admitted that he
    could not afford care at Bryn Mawr. At that time, “Officials of Defendant Bryn Mawr
    assured Plaintiff that the costs would be covered by Plaintiff’s insurance, which
    representation turned out to be false and constitutes fraud by Defendant because
    Defendants Bryn Mawr and Aviv knew or should have known that this claim was false.”
    (Am. Compl. ¶ 2.)
    Rule 9(b) requires that allegations of fraud be pled with particularity: “In alleging
    fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud
    or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). To satisfy this burden, the Amended Complaint must
    allege “such matters as the time, place, and contents of false representations, as well as
    the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what was obtained or given
    up thereby.” Schaller Tel. Co. v. Golden Sky Sys., Inc., 298 F.3d 736, 746 (8th Cir.
    CASE 0:08-cv-04690-DWF-FLN Document 53 Filed 09/18/09 Page 9 of 11
    2002). This specificity is required “to enable the defendant to respond specifically and
    quickly to the potentially damaging allegations.” Drobnak v. Andersen Corp., 561 F.3d
    778, 783 (8th Cir. 2009) (citations and quotations omitted). “[C]onclusory allegations
    that a defendant’s conduct was fraudulent and deceptive are not sufficient to satisfy the
    rule.” Id. (quoting Schaller, 298 F.3d at 746).
    Mr. Everts’s allegations do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b). Although he
    has alleged the time, place, and contents of the alleged fraud, he does not specify who
    made the allegedly fraudulent statements. Thus, the Aviv Defendants cannot effectively
    respond to the allegations.
    Mr. Everts’s fraud allegations will be dismissed without prejudice, to allow him to
    re-plead these allegations should he have sufficient information to do so. See Nitro
    Distrib., Inc. v. Alitcor, Inc., 565 F.3d 417, 428 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that district court
    dismissed fraud claims without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 9(b)). Because
    Mr. Everts has failed to raise any federal claim, however, he should be cautioned that a
    fraud claim, should one exist in this case, must be brought in state court. Absent a federal
    claim, this Court has no jurisdiction over a state-law cause of action such as fraud.
    The Court is sympathetic to Mr. Everts’s plight.2 He believes that he cannot leave
    Bryn Mawr without financial assistance and that he cannot secure that financial
    2 At the Court’s request, attorney Steve Rau, who is a member in good standing of the Federal Bar, has been assisting Mr. Everts in a pro bono capacity in trying to address the Social Security payee issue, as well as his housing situation. The Court wishes to thank Mr. Rau for his efforts in this matter.
    CASE 0:08-cv-04690-DWF-FLN Document 53 Filed 09/18/09 Page 10 of 11
    assistance without the Court’s intervention. However, because Mr. Everts has not
    attempted to proceed through administrative channels to, for example, change the payee
    for his social security benefits, he does not have any claim over which this Court has
    Based on the Court’s review of the record and all of the arguments and
    submissions of the parties and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises,
    the Court hereby enters the following:
    1. Defendants Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health
    Department’s and Beverly Seifert’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED.
    2. Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
    No. 20) is GRANTED.
    3. Defendants Aviv Health Care, Inc.’s and Bryn Mawr Health Care Center’s
    Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED.
    4. Defendants James J. Prokop and Associated Clinic of Psychology are
    5. The remainder of the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

    Dated: September 18, 2009 s/Donovan W. Frank DONOVAN W. FRANK United States District Court Judge

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s