🚨 Tomorrow I Stand Trial — For an Emoji.
- Ryan Alvar
- 4 days ago
- 7 min read
Criminal trial. That’s not satire. That’s my life.
Tomorrow, I will walk into a courtroom in Duluth, Minnesota, to defend myself against a criminal charge that I allegedly sent a “100” emoji to the mother of my children — something I did not do, and something that, under the restrictions of an Order for Protection (OFP), would be considered a criminal violation.
Let that sink in. Not a threat. Not a message. Not an action. An emoji — allegedly.
I’m facing jail time because she claims I sent her an emoji on Instagram. That’s what the State of Minnesota, through the City of Duluth Prosecutor’s Office, has decided is worth public resources, courtroom time, and the destruction of my name and rights.
But this case is far deeper, darker, and more disturbing than an emoji.
🧠 The Truth Behind the Emoji: Hacked, Framed, and Ignored
I didn’t send it. That’s not just my word — the facts support it.
Amy Schmidt, the complainant, set up the very social media account in question.
I have over 40 documented screenshots showing she illegally accessed my computer — not once, but repeatedly.
She and her attorney admitted in court to using private files obtained from my system.
At least three court motions and attached affidavits admitting she accessed my computer system.
A temporary report from the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) stating she has accessed my computer system.
She read court files, recordings, legal strategies, witness notes — everything I used to defend myself — without my knowledge or consent.
In a newly disclosed police report — hidden from me until this week, just days before the hearing — the Duluth Police Department itself admits that Amy accessed my files, that I likely didn’t know she was doing it, and that she viewed legal documents that were clearly not meant for her. The investigator even said in regards to an OFP violation on me, “I do not feel that this would be a violation as it appears that he is collecting items from research... I also do not feel that it would be a violation as Schmidt explained she believes that Alvar does not know that she still has access to the Dropbox...”
That’s not just a smoking gun. That’s a flaming cannon of misconduct.
And yet, I’m the one on trial.
🧩 Let’s Put the Pieces Together
This is not the first time Amy has tried to use the court system against me with false accusations.
Not including the original emergency order for protection or final order for protection,
Three separate OFP violations have been alleged against me.
The last two were proven false.
In one, she literally held our son in her arms in front of my truck, called the police, and tried to claim I was violating the order. All after I walked out of a restaurant with my adult daughter and parents.
In the emergency order for protection I was successful in getting the children removed do to her false allegations of child abuse.
What kind of system allows this? What kind of parent weaponizes their child and the courts with such malicious intent?
Now, she wants this court to believe I sent her an emoji. A digital thumbs-up of sorts.
Despite:
Her having access to the account;
Her history of cyber-intrusion and document theft;
The fact that even the prosecution’s own plea offer admits the account is likely compromised — by requiring that I change all my passwords!
Think about that — they’re charging me, but admitting she might have been using my account.
🔒 When the Government Looks the Other Way — and Uses What It Shouldn’t
This case isn’t just about a false charge. This is about what happens when law enforcement knows your rights were violated — and says nothing.
In the police report buried until days before my hearing, the Duluth Police Department acknowledges:
🗣️ “Schmidt explained she believes that Alvar does not know that she still has access to the Dropbox, making me believe that this information was not intended for Schmidt to view.”
Let that sink in.
Law enforcement knew:
That Amy Schmidt accessed my personal and legal files without my consent;
That those files included court strategies, subpoena requests, and witness prep;
That I likely had no idea she was doing this;
…and they said nothing. They didn’t notify me. They didn’t issue a warrant. They didn’t protect my due process rights. Instead, they used the stolen content in their official report — even admitting in writing that it was likely accessed illegally.
This is a gross violation of privacy, a betrayal of public trust, and a constitutional violation. The government cannot use evidence illegally obtained, especially by an opposing party in a court case — and yet, they did. And still, I’m the one standing trial.
This isn’t justice. This is legal gaslighting — and it should terrify anyone who believes in civil liberties.
⚖️ What I’m Asking For — and What’s at Stake
I’ve filed a Motion to Dismiss this ridiculous case. Not just because it’s based on a hunch and an emoji, but because the entire case is rotten with misconduct, privacy violations, and prosecutorial indifference to the truth.
I am a father. I am a survivor of a weaponized family court process. I am a target because I fight back with facts, evidence, and public truth.
And tomorrow, I will ask the judge to dismiss this charge — not because it’s convenient, but because it is just.
Because if we allow the system to jail a man for an emoji he didn’t send, while ignoring a mountain of illegal access and surveillance by the other party — we no longer have justice.
📄 Don’t Take My Word For It — Read It For Yourself
Still skeptical? Think I’m exaggerating?
You don’t have to believe my words. Believe the documents. Every claim I’ve made is backed by evidence — court filings, police reports, screenshots, and legal logic that speaks louder than any emoji ever could.
🧾 Original Motion to Dismiss
This is where I lay out the core of the injustice. A criminal charge based on a belief — not evidence. A prosecution built on a digital assumption, despite my clean record, contradictory history, and a tidal wave of exculpatory evidence.
👉 Read the Motion to Dismiss:
🧾 Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (Prosecutor’s Offer)
This is where it gets surreal. The City Prosecutor’s own plea deal requires me to change all my passwords — which would only make sense if they believe someone else has been accessing my accounts. Their offer itself supports my innocence.
Here’s the actual plea offer I received from Prosecutor Katelyn Leyva:
"Continuance for Dismissal – 3 months, No same / similar offenses, Agree to change all email and social media passwords within 10 days, Provide written confirmation to the court and prosecutor’s office within 48 hours"
Think about that. They're not asking for jail time or community service. They're asking me to change my passwords — a request that tacitly acknowledges the complainant had improper access to my accounts. If that’s their concern, I shouldn’t be facing charges. Amy should.
It would be easy for me to take this deal. Logically, it would make sense — no jail, a quiet resolution, and I move on. But I can’t. Because it wouldn’t be right. It wouldn’t be just. And I didn’t do what they’re accusing me of.
To accept their offer would be to accept blame for something I didn’t do. It would validate a false accusation, reward unethical behavior, and allow a system that failed me — and my children — to walk away unchallenged. I won’t do that. I will fight. Because the truth matters. Because justice matters.
👉 Read the Supplement to Motion to Dismiss:
🧾 Second Supplement (New Police Report Discovery)
This is the bombshell. A police report from December 2024 — buried until three days before trial — that confirms Amy was accessing my private legal files, that she admitted I probably didn’t know, and that law enforcement recognized it wasn’t a violation but never told me.
👉 Read the Second Supplement to Motion to Dismiss:
🧑⚖️ A Word on Judicial Oversight — and the Need for Neutrality
Before tomorrow’s hearing, I submitted a formal Notice Regarding Judicial Oversight and Request for Neutrality. Why? Because the very judge who is overseeing my hearing tomorrow is the same judge who previously ruled — without legal basis — that the Guardian ad Litem's report be kept confidential, simply because the GAL herself asked for it.
There was no statute, no motion, no hearing. Just an arbitrary decision that protected the system — not the truth. That same judge now holds the power to determine whether my case proceeds or is dismissed. I submitted my notice as a plea for judicial fairness — for transparency, neutrality, and equal treatment under the law.
But based on every interaction I’ve had with this court so far, I don’t expect much. My hope is dim. But it’s not gone. Because while they may control the bench, I still control the truth.
👉 Read the Notice Regarding Judicial Oversight and Request for Neutrality:
💬 Spread the Word. This Case Matters.
This is bigger than me. It’s about every father, every parent, and every innocent person being chewed up by a court system that prefers silence over truth, and compliance over courage.
Please share this. Watch the story unfold. And never stop asking this question:
What kind of justice system protects the accuser who illegally hacks your legal files… but prosecutes you for an emoji? This is our court system...
Tomorrow, I stand trial for that answer.
331 days since my children were kidnapped. This isn't over.
🔁 Join the Fight for Reform
✅ Visit: www.ryanalvar.com
✅ Support: GoFundMe – Help Cover Legal Costs & Reform Efforts
✅ Follow & Share: Real Dad Initiative
✅ Write Your Legislators: Demand oversight for GALs and transparency in family court
Believe it or not, your influence on your state representative and state senator can open the door to change. A quick email or call from you can make a big impact.
If you're not sure who represents you, this website makes it easy to find out: 🔗 https://www.gis.lcc.mn.gov/iMaps/districts/
I’ve already heard from parents who’ve lost everything. Some haven’t seen their children in years.
This is real. This is dangerous. And this is why we fight.
Ryan -
