Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

Michael Brodkorb Sued for Fake News

Attorney Michelle MacDonald

Michelle MacDonald from MacDonald Law Firm, LLC served Michael Brodkorb individually and doing business as Missing In Minnesota, LLC along with John and Mary Does for Defamation.

Mr. Brodkorb was personally served with the lawsuit on June 14th, 2018 at his home. He yelled at the server to get off his property and screamed that the server was trespassing. Apparently, Brodkorb was unhinged and extremely rageful.

Michael Brodkorb

Once again, Michael Brodkorb thinks the laws don’t apply to him and that he is in his own protected class. He doesn’t seem to understand that a person coming on your property to serve legal papers is not trespassing. Trespassing refers to being in a place one has no legal right to be. Persons may come on to private property to perform legally recognized functions, including post carriers, meter readers, and process servers. Posting a “no trespassing” sign has no legal effect whatsoever.They’re present for a lawful purpose. Jay Bodzin – Avvo

Never mind the fact that Brodkorb was present and taking photographs when I was arrested at my home for blogging in March and that he was the one that incessantly contacted the police to make sure I was arrested for a noncriminal action. First Amendment Arrest

EXCERPTS FROM THE LAWSUIT

September, 2016, Brodkorb began a social media campaign against Ms. MacDonald. He began posting false and derogatory data, with intent to harm Ms. MacDonald’s personal and professional reputation.

After Brodkorb received cease and desist notices from Ms. MacDonald and her attorneys, Brodkorb ramped up by repeating his false statements, and in January of 2017, he began posting images taken of Ms. MacDonald 3 years earlier, with various posts. The false image of Ms. MacDonald is posted as if it is a mugshot, when in fact it is not.

Brodkorb and the website began using the image with the false claim she is a “person of interest” in a criminal investigation, and has not cooperated with police, and with any random posts, to defame her, when in fact this is not true.

Brodkorb violated numerous provisions of the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalism

Allison Mann, paralegal for Attorney Lisa Elliott (opposing counsel in the false harassment restraining order filed against me in July 2017) joined him on the website publicly in May 2017.

Brodkorb’s website evolved into and is a tool designed solely to defame, libel, slander and humiliate Ms. MacDonald.

Defendants have lied, and continue to make false statements and false implications, on the website and social media, and in front of the public and claim and imply that Ms. MacDonald being investigated for criminal activity as a “person of interest,” and the sole purpose of which is to defame Ms. MacDonald is a criminal and mentally ill.

Brodkorb has blocked Ms. MacDonald and others who supports her or her client, from his social media, and from emails,

In numerous posts, Brodkorb has consistently attempted with malice and by use of the website to turn anyone Ms. MacDonald associates with, including friends, colleagues, clients, supporters and the general public, against Ms. MacDonald and to defame her.

MacDonald is an attorney with solid professional credentials and a dedicated legal and judicial career representing families and individual family members. By this action, Ms. MacDonald and MacDonald Law Firm, LLC seek to recover damages from Brodkorb and the website. The posts on the website and those disseminated on social media contain false and defamatory statements and innuendos concerning Ms. MacDonald’s experience as a duly licensed and practicing attorney, one of the qualifications to run for Judge.

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

CLAIM FOR RELIEF COUNT 1 DEFAMATION AND DEFAMATION PER SE

The tort of defamation refers to a false statement, either spoken (“slander”) or written (“libel”) that injures someone’s reputation. However, some types of false statements are considered so damaging that they are deemed defamatory on their face (“defamation per se”). FindLaw.com

COUNT 2  DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION

Implied defamation occurs where one person/publication/etc. expresses a truth that harms another person’s reputation, by implying an untruth. As the Judge states in RICHARD W. YOUNG v. ALISA A. YOUNG, 2015, “Defamation by implication is premised not on direct statements but on false suggestions, impressions and implications arising from otherwise truthful statements…the language of the communication as a whole [must] be reasonably read both to impart a defamatory inference and to affirmatively suggest that the author intended or endorsed that inference.Quora.com

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Ms. MacDonald and MacDonald Law Firm, LLC request entry of judgment in their favor and against Defendants, in the following manner:

  1. Awarding Ms. MacDonald judgment against the Defendants for damages, including but not limited to compensatory damages, future damages, emotional harm damages, an amount in excess of $50,000.
  2. Awarding MacDonald Law Firm, LLC an amount in excess of $50,000.
  3. Directing Defendants to take down the false image, including a suggested per diem award for the posting of the false image, of $1,000.00 per day, and as the court deems just, retroactive to January 5, 2017, when Defendants first published the false image.
  4. Directing Defendants to take whatever action is necessary to have the current statements and objectionable images removed from the website, social media, and replacing it with a statement that deletes the defamatory language and images.
  5. An Order directing Defendants to cease their wrongful conduct, to publicly admit their wrongful conduct and publicly apologize to Ms. MacDonald.
  6. Directing Defendants to place reasonable and appropriate advertising, in newspapers, radio and including on social media, correcting the defamatory statements that it reported based on Defendant’s statements in the website and social media;
  7. Awarding her costs and disbursements and attorneys’ fees herein; and
  8. Awarding such other and further relief as this Court deems to be just and equitable.

Plaintiffs intend to bring a motion to amend his Complaint, adding a claim for punitive damages pursuant to Minn. Stat. §549.191.

JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.

Will Michael Brodkorb have to pay for pushing fake news about real people? Only time will tell.

Advertisements

You Can’t Handle the Truth!

June 2014 GOP News Conference

Disciplinary difficulties prompt suspension of Michelle MacDonald’s law license

The former state Supreme Court candidate will also be on probation for two years, when many restrictions will be in place.

By  Star Tribune  JANUARY 17, 2018 — 9:28PM


Justice Anne McKeig wrote: “MacDonald’s obstructionist behavior has undoubtedly delayed resolution for families in crisis…We fail to adequately protect the public by imposing discipline that does not fully account for the significant harms caused by MacDonald’s misconduct.”

The continued blatant demonization and discrediting of Attorney Michelle MacDonald is necessary as she is considered a threat to The Establishment’s status quo. The current court system translates into fraud and state sponsored corruption which is financially devastating individuals and families, harming children, and fleecing taxpayers.

Unless you are willing to act with impunity, indifference, and without shame and violate procedural rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, you will be marginalized or eliminated.

“If you would know who controls you see who you may not criticise.”
― Tacitus

RELATED

Cataclysmic Cover-Up

AMAZING! THE MN CLIENT SECURITY BOARD HAS PAID 603 VICTIMS OVER 30 YEARS!

Image result for lawyer dishonesty

The article below “Helping victims of lawyer dishonesty” was written by SUSAN HUMISTON, director of the MN Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and Client Securities Board.

Humiston took over the throne after Martin Cole retired in 2015, after nearly 10 years as director of the OLPR. ‘That’s a terrible job’: How this lawyer ended up director of the OLPR 

Helping victims of lawyer dishonesty 

(Can she really write that with a straight face? This is essentially an empty promise unless they have a political reason to go after the lawyer.)

Susan Humiston

Posted JUN 5 2017 by in PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Thirty years ago the Minnesota Supreme Court established the Client Security Fund to provide a funding source to pay victims of intentional lawyer dishonesty. It appears the genesis of the fund was the significant losses caused by two attorneys, Mark Sampson and John Flanagan, both of whom were disbarred in the late 1980s for misappropriation of client funds. The fund was initially created by a one-time $100 assessment of all lawyers (and a $145,000 gift from the Minnesota State Bar Association’s then-client security fund), and proved somewhat controversial to the extent that some lawyers did not like being required to pay money to cover the misconduct of other lawyers. (The legal profession stands alone in creating a voluntary system of restitution. Lawyers-unlike other professionals with access to client funds, such as stockbrokers and bankers-are not required to be insured or bonded  The board doesn’t cover losses from lawyer malpractice or negligence, only misappropriated money and property.)
~Elizabeth Amon~American Lawyer Media, The National Law Journal

Attorney Michelle MacDonald has been politically targeted for suing a judge and running for MN Supreme Court  in the 2014 and 2016 election. MacDonald attempted to expose the theft of her client’s money from previous attorneys. The outcome? The district court imposed monetary sanctions against her for issuing subpoenas to these attorneys to acquire billing information. She was also disciplined for other “transgressions” that were magnified and/or completely inaccurate. Michelle MacDonald receives ‘minimal’ discipline

The message to other attorneys is loud and clear….We can retaliate by disciplining you and destroy your career!

As of  April 16, 2017, the Client Security Board has paid the amazing sum (emphasis mine) of $7,700,642.97 to 603 victims of lawyer dishonesty. (That’s $25,668.81 per year – yet we know that the majority of attorneys charge a $10,000 retainer fee just to start a case.) 

While it is certainly disheartening to know that more than 170 lawyers over the past 30 years have stolen so much money from so many clients, I am very glad that the fund exists to repair a portion of that harm. As the director of both the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR) and the Client Security Board (CSB), I see firsthand the tremendous harm to the public and the profession caused by lawyers who steal money from clients.

WHO ADMINISTERS THE FUND?  

The fund currently receives $12 from each attorney through the annual registration fee.1Thank you! While I can understand the concerns raised by the attorneys originally troubled by having to contribute to cover other’s misconduct, I believe the value to the profession and the public at large from a dedicated fund to make reparations for the harm caused by a few very bad apples (Again, emphasis mine) among us outweighs the nominal cost per year. (Come on, attorneys are going to bitch about 12 bucks a year? Clients pay that in parking in Mpls. just to consult with an attorney.)

The Client Security Board administers the fund, and is composed of five lawyers and two public members, all of whom serve without compensation. The Supreme Court appoints board members, and three of the five attorney members are nominated by the MSBA.2 The current board members are Robert Bauer (chair and MSBA nominee), Apple Valley; Greg Bistram, Minneapolis; Daniel Tollefson (MSBA nominee), Becker; Stuart Williams (MSBA nominee), Minneapolis; Kathleen Clarke Anderson (public member), Minneapolis; and Nancy Helmich (public member), Minneapolis. There is currently an opening for an attorney member on the board.

These individuals meet quarterly to review and consider claims, and in between meetings review substantial information regarding the claims. Staff from the OLPR provide administrative assistance to the board—including the investigation and analysis of claims—and the Attorney General’s Office (in particular Assistant Attorney General Scott Grosskreutz) provides litigation support to assist the board in pursuing its subrogation rights against the dishonest lawyers. Associate Justice David Stras is the Supreme Court liaison to the board.

Continue Reading: http://mnbenchbar.com/2017/06/helping-victims-of-lawyer-dishonesty/


Minnesota set a new record last year for punishing lawyers

Sixty-five lawyers were publicly disciplined last year, breaking the previous record of 55 set in 1990, the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board said in its annual report Friday.

Among other disciplinary actions, the Minnesota Supreme Court suspended 47 lawyers in 2015, smashing the previous record of 27, set in 1990 and matched in 1995 and 1996.

“I wish that we knew why there was a record year, but we don’t,” said Susan M. Humiston, who took over as director of the lawyers board office in March. “It really does appear to be the fact that more people were engaged in more serious conduct.”

The office has a backlog of complaints to investigate, although it has made progress in reducing that number.

Six attorneys were disbarred in 2015:

• Jeremy Thomas Kramer of Owatonna lost his license for misappropriating client money, neglecting their cases, failing to communicate with them, failing to deposit all of their money into trust accounts, keeping money they gave him for filing fees, and failing to return their property.

• Robert David Boedigheimer was found guilty of conspiring with his brother-in-law, a marijuana dealer based in southern Minnesota, to launder proceeds from drug sales through his St. Paul law firm.

• John Tedman Heim of Rochester was found guilty of forging a client’s signature on a check and depositing the proceeds into his own business account for his own personal benefit.

• David A. Overboe was found by clear and convincing evidence “to have had unwelcome sexual contact with multiple clients, including groping and exposing himself to them, and had offered to reduce his legal fees in exchange for sexual favors.” The alleged misconduct took place over 14 years. He also was found to have practiced law in North Dakota while his license was suspended.

• Douglas A. Ruhland of Eden Valley lost his license as a result of his seventh disciplinary action since 1989. He represented a client with whom he had a conflict of interest without providing written disclosures and obtaining written consent; he misappropriated client funds, he failed to keep trust account records and books and he failed to cooperate with the lawyers board investigators.

• Robert Andrew Huff lost his license in Minnesota after he was disbarred in Illinois, an action resulting from a 2009 conviction for conspiring to distribute a large cache of marijuana.

So far, 2016 is shaping up as another busy year for lawyers in trouble.

On Friday, Minneapolis attorney Paul Hansmeier dropped his opposition to pending disciplinary proceedings arising out of hundreds of so-called porn trolling lawsuits he and some colleagues filed nationwide. Hansmeier was accused of committing a fraud on the courts, and of making substantial misrepresentations in his pending bankruptcy petition. He and the board stipulated to a recommended four-year suspension of his law license.

As of June 14, the board reported 25 public disciplinary actions in 2016, including two disbarments, a dozen suspensions, nine reprimands that resulted in probation and two other reprimands.

The lawyers board investigates allegations of wrongdoing and takes positions on the cases, but the Minnesota Supreme Court makes all disciplinary decisions, said Humiston, who previously was with the Minneapolis law firm of Stinson Leonard Street.

“Misappropriation of client funds always leads to disbarment,” Humiston said. Sanctions for other kinds of serious misconduct are less predictable.

For instance, Todd Allen Duckson, who admitted to playing a key role in a scheme that defrauded hundreds of investors in a real estate investment fund, was suspended from the practice of law in 2015 for five years — after which he can apply for reinstatement.

Five other lawyers were suspended in 2015 for three years after they were convicted of felonies involving lying to federal officials, criminal sexual misconduct, online solicitation of a minor, and participation in a trust account scam.

Humiston declined to comment on why some felonies lead to disbarment while others result in suspensions.

“Those are decisions by the court,” she said.

Suspended lawyers seeking reinstatement must go through a rigorous process to prove they underwent a moral change and are fit to practice law, Humiston said, “and it can be difficult to show moral change.”

Humiston said the Supreme Court has indicated that it wants to clear the backlog of complaints, and the board has made progress in doing so, reducing the annual backlog from 650 at the start of 2015 to 528 by the end of the year. Between 70 and 80 percent of complaints are dismissed each year, with just under half dismissed without any investigation.

It can take a couple of years for a complaint to lead to a final order of discipline.

“It’s a concern,” Humiston said.

It can take about a year for the board to investigate serious complaints, and if the lawyer fights any resulting discipline, it can take about another year to get to a final decision by the Supreme Court.

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-set-a-new-record-last-year-for-punishing-lawyers/385278981/


I don’t know anything about the background of these attorneys, but I would assume they aren’t members of the “club”. These boards have a massive amount of power as they are structured with the regulatory powers of a government agency, yet are not subject to open meeting laws and public record requests because they’re actually private. They can make minor infractions sound egregious and minimize true criminal activities of attorneys and judges (Board on Judicial Standards).

They’re essentially granted a monopoly over the legal profession, and don’t need to perform very well since they have no competition and everything is secret.

 

%d bloggers like this: