More Documents Released, Confirms TikTok'r Story
Recently, Never Stop Media has been following a TikTok story that has gone viral across social media platforms. Last week, Savannah was called to court for an emergency hearing. According to online records, the Winnebago County Court Commissioner Lisa M. Kruegar entered a court order that neither party is allowed to post on social media regarding the case or disparaging comments towards one another. The commissioner also commented that the Clerk of Courts has received hundreds of calls from people all over the country rallying around Savannah and that the calls needed to stop. NSM received a copy of that court order written by the Guardian Ad Litem which states:
“That neither party post on any public social media platform information regarding this family custody litigation or about the Guardian Ad Litem Investigation.”
“That neither party make any disparaging comments about the other party to or in the presence of the minor children.”
This court order forced Savannah to pull down her TikTok story which has now resulted in backlash towards her. Hundreds of viewers have been claiming that Savannah’s story is “fake” and that she is a “liar”. Other TikTok accounts have posted her story claiming that the entire story is fake and that no law enforcement or court records exist, despite NSM publishing several documents. I find it interesting that hundreds of people claim that they inquired about evidence relating to this situation and were told there are no documents causing them to post videos across social media platforms, yet, NSM filed a simple open records request and received 75 pages outlining numerous claims that Savannah made in her TikTok story and Live Interview with Milwaukee Activist Vaun Mayes and we were able to cooborate a majority of what Savannah alleged. The courts order which NMS wrote about in a previous article could be a violation of the Savannah’s 1st Amendment rights protected under Free Speech. It would be safe to assume that the court is trying to use a constitutional law doctrine known as “strict scrutiny,” a law that would otherwise be unconstitutional can be constitutional if the law is tailored narrowly to achieve a compelling government interest as a loop hole to skirt this 1st Amendment violation. While most attorney’s would recommend not posting about your case on social media, it is also not against the law.
Read that article here: https://neverstopvoices.com/blogs/news/judge-enters-order-for-tiktokr-to-remove-viral-videos
Never Stop Media filed an open records request on the Ripon Police Department asking for reports and various types of video records. Chief William Wallner of the Ripon Police Department responded and released those records to us very quickly. In the response that Chief Wallner sent back, he indicated that due to the amount of time that has elapsed (9 years) that the department no longer has any of the bodycam footage from Campbell’s arrest, recorded phone calls from interviews or the 911 calls from the Domestic related incidents. But we did receive a 75 page PDF file containing various reports written by multiple officers within the Ripon PD pertaining to multiple incidents with Savannah and Daniel. Reviewing these documents it appears that Ripon PD did a thorough investigation surrounding the Misdemeanor charge of “sexual intercourse with a child 16 years or older” that Campbell was eventually charged with. Multiple officers, conducted in person interviews, phone interviews, social media searches and even obtained a confession by Campbell himself for having sex with an underage girl while he was 25 years old. It also appears that Ripon PD conducted several investigations between the two parties, even enhancing charges trying to have Campbell convicted in order to protect Savannah as a minor child. The ball was dropped and blame appears to be on the Fon Du Lac County District Attorney who doesn't seem to have been honest in her claims of a happy and caring family to Judge Nuss.
School Resource Officer, Lindsey Michels who is still employed with the RPD received a fax on July 1st 2015 from Amy Medina of the Fon Du Lac County Social Services Department. According to Medina in her non-caregiver report sent to Officer Michels, she alleged that the doctor Savannah first saw for her unborn child at the time did “not want to make a report due to the risk of Savannah not attending any further appointments.” The report detailed that 25 year old Campbell accompanied Savannah at this appointment , but Medina was unsure of Campbell’s identity at the time.
Wisconsin law (48.981(2)) requires that any mandated reporter who has reasonable cause to suspect that a child seen by the person in the course of professional duties has been abused or neglected, or who has reason to believe that a child seen by the person in the course of professional duties has been threatened with abuse or neglect and that abuse or neglect of the child will occur, make a report to county CPS or law enforcement. The doctor falls under this Wisconsin Statute and failed to act. This first step of reporting this incident may have prevented multiple future incidents that would occur.
Officer Michels detailed in her report that she knew Savannah and had reached out to her regarding the pregnancy. On July 14th 2015, Michels asked Savannah if she was willing to come in and speak to her. Savannah asked if she was in trouble and Michels explained she was not, she was a “victim.” Michels explained that a crime had been committed because Campbell cannot have sex with her as it’s against state statute. The report goes on to detail that Savannah alleged the relationship was consensual. Michels inquired about the identity of Campbell and Savannah refused to disclose it. Keep in mind, that regardless of whether Savannah consented, under Wisconsin Law she was not old enough to consent. Michels, then asked if she could contact Savannah’s mother, and Savannah stated that she could. Michels attempted to contact Savannah’s mother multiple times that day and could not get ahold of her.
According to the motion filed with the courts to dismiss the Misdemeanor charge of “sexual intercourse with a minor child 16 years or older” The District Attorney’s Office stated: The State claimed according to the motion that although they could prove the case, further criminal action was not necessary. The two had a 9 year difference in age, again Savannah was 16 at the time she got pregnant and Campbell was 25. Campbell was still with his girlfriend and supported the child that the two had together. The motion also alleges that prior to the relationship beginning; Campbell did “seek permission”’. For those reasons the District Attorney, Kristin R. Menzl who still works for the Fon Du Lac County DA’s Office wrote: “I don’t believe that a criminal conviction for this case would further any interest of justice nor do I believe that society would be harmed in any way by the dismissal of this case. For those reasons I respectfully request this court for an order dismissing the case “without prejudice”.
In Michels report she explained to Savannah’s mother that the sexual relationship was something that Ripon PD needed to look into. The alleged response according to the report was that Savannah “is not being abused or misused and that the mother is consenting and well with it.” She stated Campbell’s parents “care, he works two jobs, Savannah works two jobs, so it is all handled.” The mother then told Michels if there were any other questions she could contact her attorney. When Michels inquired about contact information for the attorney, Savannah’s mother hung up.
Important to again note, that Wisconsin does not have a Parental Consent Law and Savannah was too young to consent herself. The only documented evidence that we could find where Savannah’s mother contacted the Ripon Police Department pertaining to the relationship was from a documented CAD call where Savannah’s mother reported her as Missing after an argument the two had over house rules. The CAD documentation went out at 2:39pm on 11/24/14. Officers made contact with Campbell who claimed to pick Savannah up around 4pm and dropped her back off at the house around 5:30pm, and had not seen her since. Savannah returned home after 8pm. NSM is assuming this was the amber alert that Savannah was speaking about.
The next report NSM reviewed from Ripon PD was drafted by Officer Jesse Tipton. On May 12th 2016, Tipton, “responded to a possible domestic dispute involving Campbell and Savannah.” Savannah stated that Campbell had taken their now born child to his mother’s house after an argument. Savannah told Tipton that Campbell “was the father of the child several times” which was recorded on Tipton’s body worn camera. During a recorded interview at the Ripon Police Department, Savannah also “affirmed Campbell was the father.” Savannah informed Tipton that Campbell took their child and refused to give the child back. Savannah stated that Campbell told her “you’re not taking the child anywhere. You need to leave before I kick your ass.” According to the report, Campbell kicked Savannah in the stomach area with his foot as the two were in the hallway and then took off with the child. Savannah also alleged that Campbell had broken her phone. The argument was apparently caused by issues between Savannah and Campbell’s mother, that Campbell took offense to.
Officer Tipton and Investigator Borkenhagen went to Campbell’s mothers house to check on the child in question. Campbell was taken into custody and transported to the RPD for an interview. At the department, Campbell “admitted to us that he was the father. The admission was also recorded on the department recording system. Based on the dates of birth, Savannah would have been 16 years old at the time of conception and Campbell would have been 25 years old. Based upon this information and their statements, I am referring the charge of sexual intercourse with a child 16 years or older to the Fon Du Lac County District Attorney’s Office.”
Based on the report given by Investigator Borkenhagen, Campbell admitted to a verbal argument that started in the vehicle. When Savannah wanted Campbell to stop the truck and bring her back home, Campbell refused. Campbell instead told Savannah sh could find a ride home when they got to his residence. Campbell admitted to “grabbing Savannah by the wrist trying to force her to leave and taking her belongings and placing them outside the house.” “Campbell denied hitting Savannah because he was on Felony Probation at the time and did not want to jeopardize that. Campbell was given a 72hr No Contact Prohibition. Probation and Parole was contacted and advised they would be placing a Hold on Campbell. An Order to Detain was received via teletype. A request for charges was filled out by myself for Battery, Domestic Abuse and referred to the Fon Du Lac County District Attorney’s Office.”
“After further review of the incident on 5/13/2016, it was determined that the charges that I would refer to the DA’s office would be 948.03(2)(b); intentionally causing bodily harm to a child. A new request was completed and sent to the DA’s Office.”
NSM is assuming the original charge for the Battery was amended because the new charge carried a higher penalty being a Class F Felony. Keep in mind that the charge for sexual intercourse of a child 16 years or older was sent to the Fon Du Lac County DA’s Office at the same time. So the most important question at this point is if the DA at the time, Kristin R. Menzl had both complaints, why did she paint the picture to Judge Richard Nuss that despite the age difference the family had a loving home, everyone consented, and Campbell was supporting both Savannah and the child? According to police records, the two were broken up, living in different places, and law enforcement learned there was also domestic violence happening toward Savannah. Even the police report by Campbell’s own admission said the two lived together until January of 2016, not currently as the DA would portray to the judge when she recommended the case be dismissed.
August 26th 2016, according to a Ripon PD CAD document we received, another domestic incident between Savannah and Campbell occurred. A caller stated they saw a male subject shove a female and then went in to hug her. The female pushed him away and walked around the vehicle. Campbell through her phone out of the window. The CAD report indicates the incident happened outside of a local Family Video. Both subjects indicated no physical assault took place, despite a witness seeing Campbell shove Savannah, there was no arrest made.
December 23rd 2017, the charge of Disorderly Conduct with a Domestic Enhancer was referred over to the Fon Du Lac County District Attorney’s Office. Captain Troy Damsteegt of the Ripon Police Department, responded to the Silver Creek Apartments. Damsteegt reported that at 5am, Savannah “was in her bed sleeping when suddenly she was awoken to the sound of Campbell in her apartment yelling at her.” Savannah told Damsteegt she was “positive the apartment door was locked when she went to bed and she had no idea how Campbell entered her residence.” Savannah also stated that Campbell was intoxicated, calling her profane names, referring to her as a whore and bitch. She also alleged at one point Campbell had put his cigarette out by rubbing it into the carpet.
Savannah stated Campbell did not physically assault her or damage anything else. Damsteegt noted the yelling was “at such a volume that a neighbor overheard and made the initial call.” Damsteegt entered into the CAD program which was sent to the Oshkosk Police Department since Campbell resides there, advising them to hold him if located because he was involved in a domestic DC and Trespass to a Dwelling incident in Ripon.
Campbell was eventually picked up and charged with Disorderly Conduct with a Domestic Enhancer. He was given another 72hr No Contact Prohibition. He posted $150 bond. The result was a $443 fine.
NSM also received complaints that were sent to the Ripon Police Department. One email we received, Chief Wallner reached out to Senator Taylor who posted a comment on the Ripon PD Facebook Page. This was Senator Taylor’s comment: Chief, Thank you for looking into this. It’s not my district, but I would love to hear what you can share after your follow up.
Looking further into the Contempt Hearing coming up on March 8th 2023, a motion was filed with the courts alleging that Savannah lives outside of the 100 mile radius between parents. Savannah stated she had a court order that said 150 miles and that the court commissioner said 150 miles isn’t the law. Savannah faces possible jail time due to this. NSM looked into the mileage issue and this is what we found:
- The old law. Before 4/5/18, if a person wanted to move away with the children, the law required that if moving out of state, or more than 150 miles within the state from the other parent, the parent requesting the move must send a certified letter to the other parent and the court, giving them 60 days advance written notice of their intention to move away. Within that letter, the details of the move need to be provided, along with giving the other parent their legal notice of the right to object within 15 days. Generally speaking, if the other person filed an objection within the 15 day time frame, you could not move away, until a hearing was conducted and the court determined whether the move should be allowed or not.
- The new law. Effective 4/5/18, for any new cases filed after that date or for any cases that pre-date 4/5/18, where custody or placement are modified after the effective date of the law, the new law requires a parent desirous of wanting to move away more than 100 miles from the other parent (whether within the state or not), to file a motion with the court and request permission of the court to move away. Unlike the old law, the burden is now on the person requesting to move away to file the motion with the court.
So, which law applies? For cases that pre-date 4/5/18, whether from a divorce or paternity case, the old law applies. For any new cases filed AFTER 4/5/18, the new law clearly applies. For any old cases that pre-date 4/5/18, if there is an amendment to custody or placement after 4/5/18, once that occurs, the new law clearly applies after that to any request to move away more than 100 miles from the other parent.
This is a classic example of the justice system re-victimizing a victim and protecting the offender. When will the system stop doing this?
This is an ongoing story and NSM will continue to cover the details.
{Donate} Never Stop Media is a viewer donation ran company
https://www.patreon.com/NeverStopMediaLLC
https://www.paypal.me/neverstopmediallc