JNS Blog Chats With The Chat Line Rapist About His New Lawsuit Against Minnesota Sex Offender Program...

Photo of Tom Evanstad forwarded by Evanstad, blog post by John Hoff

Tom Evenstad, convicted of being the "chat line rapist" years ago, his conviction upheld by court appeals (yet never faltering in his protestations of innocence) has filed a lawsuit against the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, as this blog previously reported.

Evenstad is in email contact with this blogger though the tone of our conversation is not always friendly. All the same, no other media entity seems interested in Evenstad's lawsuit and Evensted seems determined to disseminate information about his lawsuit. And that's what I do, after all, I obtain interesting facts and publish those facts.

So there you have it. The basis of our sick, abusive relationship...

 Evenstad makes suggestions that I find eye-popping outrageous, but I think he's dead serious.

Ok, for example:

"I would like you to ask the alleged victim(s) in my case to take the poly as well, and then let's compare notes, right?"

By "poly" he means "polygraph." My response to that?

"I don't really see myself asking any of your victims to, well, do much of anything. I think you should leave those poor women alone and stop writing things referring to your case before one of them sues you. You're not judgment proof, you know."

To this Tom responds:

"If you are uneasy about politely asking the complainant in my case to also take the poly, then post it as something that I suggesting as a means to let the General Public decide who is telling the truth about the events of a night the complainant had no idea when she met me two and a half months later. 

"As to any 'victim' suing me, John, you can rest assured that will NEVER happen as that would reopen the false allegation to judicial scrutiny all over again, and the State would never expose these complainant's to cross exam again knowing its all lies!"

Spelling and punctuation mistakes as found in the original. Shudder.

To this I reply:

"Who was telling the truth has already been decided by the court system. There is no real controversy about your innocence except in your mind and maybe in the minds of a few people close to you. You can scream all day into the internet about being innocent, but it doesn't reverse your conviction. 

"Even your lawsuit doesn't actually tackle the allegation of you being INNOCENT, now does it? Instead it seems to primarily complain about how you were TREATED. 

"Polygraphs, as I'm sure you know, aren't admissible evidence. CIA mole Aldrich Ames passed a polygraph with no drugs, no trickery, no nothing and he was guilty as hell. He is only one example of people who were guilty who passed polygraphs. 

"But I will say this. You have a good lawyer for this new lawsuit. Is that daddy's money paying the tab?"

 To this Tom Evenstad responds:

"A few points John: I'm not stating my poly proves anything. You don't know the results. I thought it may have interest to you. 

"I am actively working with professionals to bring my crim case back in court for Reversal. Brain FP on deck also in 2013. Reversing this conviction is one goal, but PROVING MY INNOCENCE is what my legal team and I are focused on. 10 years of illegal detention will make for a nice lawsuit. 

My current lawsuit was never intended to argue my innocence. It is about my "Care and Treatment" at the MSOP, and it is a Class Action litigation with potentially massive implications, John. I allege all MSOP commitments are invalid based on my knowledge and that the MSOP will be ordered to shut down by the Courts if the Legislature doesn't do it first. 

Finally, thanks for the compliment about my atty. I could not be more pleased with him. He is very bright and a very strong litigator. I'm grateful to have him as my attorney and I am very grateful to see that he is apparently seeking 5.5M in compensation/damages.

I was able to get some help from family and I sold my boat motor trailer on CL in order to try to hold these people accountable for what they did to me. 

I have 3 Clients now in MSOP/DOC, and I have customers in 6 or 7 states now with my Sports/SupportBoxers. I'm funding this litigation as best as I can! :)

At this point in the conversation, I remind Evenstad none of these conversations are confidential and he tells me that a snitch like me wouldn't have lasted one night in prison. There is some talk about Tom forwarding a photo of himself, since he's not fond of the mug shot photo. 

Asking a question about what I see as the Achilles heel of his lawsuit, I ask Tom the following:

Riddle me this. Since you're asserting that you never committed the acts you were incarcerated for, how can you simultaneously sue over flaws in the SVP treatment program? I mean, isn't it your assertion that you didn't belong there in the first place? So how can you sue over flaws in the program? 

To this Evenstad replies:

"2 seperate animals, meaning Yes, I am asserting that as an Innocent False State Label that I did not belong in the MSOP. 

"However, that fact does not preclude me from suing the MSOP/DHS and there is the potential that under the doctrine if continued harms (or similar) that I might be able to reach back in time--beyond the 6 year SOL and that means the DOC is fair game. 

"Did I ever send you my CounterClaim/Cross Petition? In my opinion Jill's finest hour. 43 pages of Clark at her peak--a brilliant mind with genius legal writing ability when she is on whether you believe that or not! Jill is extremely bright & likely has an IQ   of over 150. We can agree to disagree!

"The DOC assessed me with a Global Assessment Function (GAF) of 90.

"Who knew? Lol."

 

Tom Evenstad means "Jill Clark" when he mentions "Jill." In a reply email, I continue to press upon what I see as the "Achilles heel" of the lawsuit. How can you claim the sex offender treatment you received wasn't proper when you say you weren't a sex offender in the first place? And yet the courts have upheld your conviction?

To further elaborate, isn't this like saying, "The rabies vaccine I received wasn't helpful for treating rabies. Oh, and also, I never had rabies in the first place. Though medical experts all say that I did." 

And so I press the point, as follows:

"OK, in your long ass lawsuit are you asserting you didn't get the proper treatment? Because if you are, I still don't see how you can assert you didn't get the proper treatment and ALSO assert that you didn't need treatment in the first place."

To this, Evenstad says: 

"I was there on a Hold Order, which meant they were supposed to essentially leave me alone while the process played itself out. 

"I was never subject to MSOP 'treatment' because I was never a civilly committed sex offender. 

"MSOP used Treatment Plans against me to punish me when punishment is not allowed in the so-called "civil" commitment. It's very complicated but I will answer any questions you pose."

To this I replied:

"They used treatment plans to 'punish' you?

"Or they attempted to treat you despite your continued protestations of innocence in the face of a contrary decision of the courts, and your failed appeals?"

At some point in the conversation Evenstad forwarded the "old counterclaim" written by Jill Clark and said it might still have some life left in it.

For those who want to enjoy 43 pages of Clark "at her peak," here is the document, below.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=1wDfnfmuqrnqS8y79hd2NIV_-XZfFESUZ6z1VNrBn9lweNj54GXA688sinl2F

I should add that I told Evenstad he'd be a lot better off fishing than engaging in an epic battle to prove his innocence. Evenstad says he will have it both ways. 

He will fish and he will also prove his innocence.