Read Notice of Motion for Default Judgment in its entirety: Brodkorb Motion
Kevin Featherly from Minnesota Lawyer, recently wrote an article entitled “Michelle MacDonald defamation suit may lack factual basis.” As I mentioned in a previous post, readers must subscribe to read full articles at Minnesota Lawyer. Curiously, MacDonald’s article is available in its entirety. Although the title is misleading, what is accurate is Featherly’s description of Michael Brodkorb’s muckraking website and the statement “With a doggedness that verges on obsession, the site covers just one story.” (Why is Brodkorb going to such great lengths to keep this false narrative alive??? Does he have a dog in this fight or is he getting paid to write propaganda? Remember, he started his site just a couple of months before our criminal trials.)
MacDonald’s complaint alleges that Brodkorb’s site has repeatedly made “false and defamatory” references to her as a “person of interest” in our criminal cases and that Brodkorb’s site keeps publishing a photo that he implies is a booking photo. Michael Brodkorb Sued For Fake News
Traditionally, the law of defamation has recognized truth as a complete defense. Indirect defamation cases, however, blur the line between truth and falsehood. A factually correct article may omit or falsely imply a material fact that make the article just as harmful as a blatantly false report. University of Chicago Legal ForumVolume 1993 | Issue 1
In an article Brodkorb wrote as recently as JANUARY 17, 2018 he states, “MacDonald has been labeled as a “person of interest” by the Lakeville Police Department.” Brodkorb knows that she is no longer a person of interest and MacDonald has said she suspected the only evidence they have is that she was the defendant’s attorney throughout this ordeal. In a post written by Brodkorb JUNE 11, 2018, He writes that because of MacDonald’s connection to me and my co-defendant, we must ask, what did Michelle MacDonald know and when did she know it?
Lakeville Police refused to provide MacDonald with any evidence regarding reasons she was a suspect when she contacted them. Lieutenant Jason Polinsky stated, “We believed that she was in the know.” Investigators based that suspicion on MacDonald’s “statements and actions” at the time, believing she wasn’t “upfront” about what she knew. Besides continually referring to Michelle as a “person of interest,” Brodkorb indicates that MacDonald refused to cooperate with the Lakeville Police Department’s investigation into her possible involvement. Do you think she would be contacting them if she wasn’t willing to cooperate?
On a phone call MacDonald recorded with Lieutenant Polinski he states, “we’re not responsible for what Brodkorb writes.”
Let’s also not forget that there is a little thing called Attorney-Client Privilege. Attorney-client privilege is an evidentiary rule that protects communications between a client and his or her attorney and keeps those communications confidential. The attorney-client privilege may be raised during any type of legal proceeding, civil, criminal, or administrative, and at any time during those proceedings, pre-trial, during trial, or post-trial. There can be penalties for violating the attorney-client privilege. Alan Dershowitz: Michael Cohen could be in trouble over leaked Trump tape
This should outrage those in the legal community as this privilege is being ignored by Dakota County and any attorney representing a defendant can now be labeled as a “person of interest.”
Person of interest- “It’s a way for police and prosecutors to disguise that they really have some grounds to suspect that a person played some role in a crime,” said Paul Rothstein, a professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. “But they don’t feel they have enough evidence that they want to essentially perhaps defame the person by suggesting to the public that this person has committed a crime or is a full suspect in a crime.” (Instead, we’ll just have Michael Brodkorb get it out there.) In a trap: What it means to be a ‘person of interest’
The so-called “booking photo” that Brodkorb has disseminated all over the internet was placed next to other mugshots on his website to imply that MacDonald was also criminally charged. MacDonald was never booked for a crime and Brodkorb knows that the case was dismissed, yet he continues to publish the image four years later and state that she is a “person of interest” in the case she was litigating. The case was dismissed due to civil rights violations of an illegal search and seizure of her camera and the case is still under appeal pending a federal lawsuit. This article describes how the photo came about: Lawyer Allegedly Tortured for Doing Her Job
“Lakeville Police Officer Mike Reuss said in that report that he found the image on a law enforcement database and judged it to be public-record booking photo. In that report, however, he mislabeled it as a DUI booking photo.” Kevin Featherly
THIS WAS A CHARGE IN WHICH SHE WAS ACQUITTED BY A JURY OF HER PEERS. Shockingly, Dakota County has had numerous “glitches” in our cases that just can’t be explained.
Once a case is dismissed, it is obliterated. So how come Brodkorb’s “mugshot” from his actual arrest and conviction is nowhere to be found? MacDonald’s photo was never released until years later, when Brodkorb starting using it for unrelated muckraking stories.
Below is the Release Order that states, “Defendant does not have to go through booking, unless the state files a motion to do so.” The state never filed a motion.
Other reporters and citizens have also written defaming tweets and articles based on the vicious and false information generated by Michael Brodkorb and Allison Mann.
Representative Nick Zerwas (R) District: 30A weighs in on this case below.
The above tweet has been scrubbed from Twitter.
Berg writes that my co-defendant was sentenced for kidnapping and sequestering them on a ranch for over two years.
“Just my opinion, here; there is no circle of hell cold enough for people who deprive other parents of access to their children without damn good reason.”
More on this case – and its prime mover, Michael Brodkorb – tomorrow.
Below is a Facebook post I received when Brodkorb was posting my false arrest warrant all over the internet,
The charges are “Parental Deprivation” NOT “Kidnapping.” Clearly, these people have a reckless disregard for truth and just pump out false information without doing any research. Again, it’s not a crime based on the affirmative defense, but when your evidence is illegally withheld and suppressed, you cannot defend yourself. The Assistant Dakota County Attorney engaged in malicious and retaliatory prosecution by unrealistically overcharging us (6 felonies for one alleged act, with 4 more felonies added after witness tampering occurred and statements were recanted by a witness.) Dakota County also allowed wrongful convictions when the state knew the affirmative defense negated any criminal liability. The judge erroneously allowed evidence to be illegally withheld from us and excluded evidence critical to the affirmative defense, thereby making the affirmative defense ineffective. Evidentiary rules cannot prevent a defendant from presenting his defense. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S.284 (1972).
§609.26 DEPRIVING ANOTHER OF CUSTODIAL OR PARENTAL RIGHTS.
Subdivision 1.Prohibited acts.
Whoever intentionally does any of the following acts may be charged with a felony and, upon conviction, may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 6:(1) conceals a minor child from the child’s parent where the action manifests an intent substantially to deprive that parent of parental rights or conceals a minor child from another person having the right to parenting time or custody where the action manifests an intent to substantially deprive that person of rights to parenting time or custody;
Brodkorb accuses MacDonald of trying to squelch his First Amendment rights as a journalist. (I find that extremely hypocritical considering Brodkorb contacted the St. Cloud PD to ensure that I was arrested for free speech. First Amendment Arrest.) Also read Successive Prosecution.
Free speech only guarantees the government won’t interfere with your speech. However, it doesn’t guarantee you that there won’t be consequences to what you say and defamation can be one of those consequences. The government here only acts as a middleman to the dispute. Quora-Steven Haddock
On Monday night I happened to watch ABC’s docu-series “THE LAST DEFENSE – The Woman & The Fight”.
The episode featured the trial and conviction of Darlie Routier who allegedly murdered her two sons and was sentenced to death. I couldn’t help but compare the similarities in our cases. (Brodwhore will write that I am comparing myself and my co-defendant to a convicted killer. He’s soooo predictable in his propaganda.) The main point is that due to the biases of the media coverage, there was no way for society to view Darlie but as an “evil” mother. Now due to factual media coverage, she may get the justice she deserves.
Over time, public awareness and anger grew over the sexist character judgments that had been brought into the courtroom and the state’s counterintuitive theory of what happened and why. More questions arose about the ethics of some involved in Darlie’s conviction, including now-deceased state District Judge Mark Tolle.
When court reporter Sandra Halsey’s transcript of the trial was found to contain a jaw-dropping 33,000 errors, 40 to 50 percent of which were deemed substantial, why did then-state District Judge Robert Francis order that it be cobbled together by other court reporters who had not been present at the trial? And why did the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals accept it, much to the astonishment of many in the justice system who had thought that the transcript fiasco would surely result in a new trial for Darlie?
“I was just dumbstruck that she was not how she was portrayed in the media at all,” he said. “She was logical. Clear-headed. She had linear, progressive thoughts. She was on point.”
With the Texas organization, there is more to the story as it pertains to Darlie. Executive Director Mike Ware told me that he believes Darlie is guilty. So, too, does board member and treasurer Russell Wilson. Both men, at different times, headed up Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins’ groundbreaking Conviction Integrity Unit, which many Darlie supporters had hoped would undo what a previous regime had done to her. Watkins lost his bid for re-election to a third term in 2014. With all three men – Ware, Wilson, and Watkins – I never felt that I received a clear answer as to why they are so convinced that Darlie is guilty.
Potkin said that spending 18 years working to exonerate wrongfully convicted people has taught her that those in law enforcement “get it wrong at alarmingly high rates.”
In Darlie’s case, she said, “we are at real risk of executing an innocent woman. Once you examine the case, there’s just nothing here. There’s nothing to link her, nothing to suggest that she had any involvement with this crime other than character assassination and junk science. How could it be in 2018 that this woman is facing execution, knowing what we now know?”
Defending Darlie was an interesting journey filled with several odd occurrences, but those involved with The Last Defense are probably the answer to her prayers much more than I have been. My book, I suppose, amounted to Darlie’s next-to-last defense. Cooper said the crew used it as a road map. The team was able to do so much more than I did or ever could have done. ABC wouldn’t comment to me about its financial commitment to re-investigate the case, but Cooper thinks the network spent millions. ( ABC’s 20/20 completely screwed us over in their portrayal of our cases. Maybe they’re turning things around now that Elizabeth Vargas is over at A+E Networks.)
“Elizabeth is a brave storyteller and one of the most trusted journalists who is an expert at bringing audiences closer to the heart of stories that have never been told in order to reveal genuine moments of truth,” A&E Network head of programming Elaine Frontain Bryant (No comment)
We will continue to fight for justice for ourselves and for the many people that have been wrongly convicted. This will only come from outside the courts as we have definitely learned that you cannot solve a court problem with the same court that created it.
Shout out to all peacemakers!
Unique Opportunity to Learn Circles! August 9-11, 2018 International Conference on Restorative Practices coming to St. Paul, Minnesota
Our family culture seems to go from conflict to attorneys and court. Either that, or they dwell in conflict. But there is a better way used around the country and the world. I call it an authentic, holistic and organic justice —–that can happen before lawyers and courts are ever involved.
There is a unique opportunity to be educated and receive training in a powerful form of dispute resolution: Restorative Circles, a restorative practice within the field of Restorative Justice! (See Flyer at Bottom of the Page) Here is the link to learn more: www.irpcminnesota.com
Not only is this the first time this conference is coming to America — it is being held in to our own backyard! Thursday- Saturday, August 9-11, 2018, Metropolitan State University, St. Paul, MN, and we are applying for CLE and ADR credits!
I have had to travel great distances to get the trainings, after Judge Bruce Peterson introduced me to circles in May 2012. Restorative practices are explained like this on my law firm www.macdonaldlawfirm.com website:
Restorative Justice Circles – Here, anyone can begin to resolve a conflict or injustice by starting a “circle.” The process begins by talking to trained facilitator who can meet with you to listen to your problem, and customize what is needed for resolution of conflicts in your home, work or community, based on your personal information and situation. Restorative Justice emphasizes repairing the harm caused by the conflict. When participants meet to decide how to do that, the results can be transformational.
For any of you interested in resolving individual and family, including in your own relationships, this education is invaluable. I have implemented it in my home, with my husband, children, friends, family, law practice, and of course, have been a facilitator for Family Innocence: a nonprofit dedicated to keeping families out of court. Family Innocence will have an exhibit table where we hope to sign up providers to help us, so that the people have access to these remarkable facilitators who do most of their work volunteer, or on a shoe string budget.
You can register right up to the date, and will not be turned away. Hope to see you there!
Family Innocence, Inc
Michelle L. MacDonald
Founder & Volunteer President
Michelle L. MacDonald, Founder and Volunteer President of Family Innocence, a non-profit project dedicated to keeping families out of the adversary process: resolving conflicts and injustices peacefully through Mediation and Restorative Justice & Family Circles.
Michelle can be reached at: Michelle@FamilyInnocence.com or by cell phone at 612-554-0932
Families are Innocent Beyond A Reasonable Doubt It took attorney Michelle MacDonald 25 years to recognize the way attorneys and courts break up families is beyond-a reasonable-doubt objectionable.Michelle and her clients started “Family Innocence”, a non-profit dedicated to eliminating court as an option for families. Michelle believes family cases are private, files should be sealed, and that families should invite court jurisdiction only when absolutely necessary. Michelle practices law for MacDonald Law Firm, LLC, and mediates for Golden Rule Mediation. She is divorced and remarried to Tom Shimota, and has 2 children, 2 step children. Michelle@MacDonaldLawFirm.com.
On JUNE 29, 2018, Michael Brodkorb wrote a piece titled “Michelle MacDonald being investigated by lawyers board.” He reported that the investigation was opened after he filed a formal complaint with the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. This was filed last week due to what Brodkorb and his attorney Nathan Hansen have determined is a “frivolous and vexatious” lawsuit filed against him by Michelle MacDonald. (Apparently, just saying it makes it true so there’s nothing to see here.)
Brodkorb also states that MacDonald is prohibited from engaging in “the solo practice of law,” and she must “work in a setting where she is in daily contact with, and under the direct supervision of another Minnesota licensed attorney.” (She has an established law firm and is under the supervision of an attorney. I’ll review why later in this post.)
Brodkorb’s attorney also filed a Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions in Dakota County and Ramsey County for filing the same lawsuit in two counties. The lawsuit was accidentally e-filed in Dakota County and never should have been accepted as it was captioned Ramsey County. This was immediately correctly e-filed in Ramsey County and Ramsey County states, “Venue is thus proper in this district pursuant to MN Statutes 542.09 because the cause of action, or some part of it, arose in Ramsey County, MN.” (Clearly, Brodkorb wants the defamation lawsuit dismissed, but if it goes forward, he wants it in Dakota County as this will ensure a win for him.)
Attorney Nathan Hansen also wrote, “The safeguards set forth in the Order of the Minnesota Supreme Court relating to her practice of law have been ignored by Ms. MacDonald and her cohorts.” (Exactly who are the cohorts?)
I filed a complaint prior to my criminal trial with the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility in March 2016, against Dakota Co. Attorneys: James Backstrom, Philip Prokopowicz and Kathryn Keena for illegally withholding my evidence and readily available, free, electronic, data in violation of the Minnesota Government data practice act (Chapter 13.09). I also filed a criminal complaint with Bryan Schafer, Hastings Chief of Police due to misconduct of a public official (Chapter 609.43(1)). The criminal complaint was ignored and I received the response below from the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility immediately after filing the complaint.
This was a complaint that was filed against Judge David Knutson with the Board on Judicial Standards. “Your complaint required no further action.”
Over the years, numerous clients from different counties have filed with the Board on Judicial Standards and the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility on Attorneys and Judges with no action taken. Apparently the Boards tolerate attorneys’ and judges’ abuse of authority and ethics, prejudicial misconduct, acting with malice, coercion and threats, obstruction of justice, failure to follow the law, illegal withholding of evidence, witness tampering, abuse of discretion, unjustifiable delays and securing exorbitant fees.
In MacDonald’s disciplinary case, she asserted that the first amendment prohibits disciplining her on the basis of her communications about a judge, because the communications did not make or imply false statements of fact, and because the Director’s claim of wrongdoing was not proved at a hearing due to the high burdenof “clear and convincing evidence” which must be established in every case.
Letters to Board of Judicial Standards about Judge Knutson
On December 26, 2013, MacDonald wrote a letter to the Board on Judicial Standards to complain about Judge David Knutson, a state agency that responds to complaints about state court Judges who violate the Judicial Code of Conduct, of which Judge Knutson was a member.
In her December 26, 2013 letter she complained about “ongoing retaliation” against herself and her client, warranting investigation.” She alleged “evidence of improper case assignments “, “usurping of court files”, and failing to report or involve the juvenile court and child protection improper assignments, and usurping of files by Judge Knutson.
On March 11, 2014, she reported that “the retaliation against myself and my client has been continuous, and is overwhelming.”
On November 15, 2016, an evidentiary hearing took place before a Referee appointed by the Minnesota Supreme Court, where Judge Knutson and Ms. MacDonald testified.
On January 3, 2017, the Referee issued findings and recommendation, and adopted almost all of the Director’s proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations nearly verbatim.
The Referee found that Ms. MacDonald violated Rule 8 (a) by making made false statements in reckless disregard for the truth concerning the integrity of the judge as follows:
- Respondent’s statement regarding Judge Knutson’s lack of impartiality “since day one” was false and made in reckless disregard of the truth.”
- The “factual allegations” within the federal lawsuit were, in part, false and made with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.
- The Referee found also that “The letters to the BJS include the same complaints made within the federal lawsuit.
- As with the federal lawsuit, Respondent’s statements were false and made with a reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.”
- And finally, the referee writes: “Respondent’s on-going statements and “factual allegations” within the federal lawsuit’s Amended Complaint were false and in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.”
- Consequently, in a conclusion of law, the Referee claims in conclusion: “The Director has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s false statements made with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of those statements about Judge Knutson’s impartiality and integrity in multiple forums violated Rule 8.2(a) (MRPC) and Rule 8.4(d) (MRPC) “(82a)
The federal district court dismissed all of the claims in the complaint, describing them as “futile” and noting that “nothing in the record supports the[m].”
When asked at the disciplinary hearing about the basis for her allegations, MacDonald responded, “[t]he
record speaks for itself.”
The referee concluded that MacDonald violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1, 8.2(a), and 8.4(d) by making recklessly false allegations against the judge that no reasonable attorney would have made based on the evidence available. (7a).
The Court cited the letters to the Board on Judicial Standards, finding that she violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.2(a):
“In addition to filing a federal lawsuit against the district judge in her client’s case, MacDonald wrote a letter to the Board on Judicial Standards complaining about the judge’s behavior and asserting that he had acted unethically during
her client’s trial. In total, she wrote four letters to the Board, each impugning the judge’s integrity and repeating the allegations from the federal lawsuit. She sent copies of these letters to numerous elected officials and made similar
remarks in letters to other attorneys. The referee concluded that MacDonald’s statements were false, made with reckless disregard for the truth, and violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.2(a) and 8.4(d). (7a)”
Attorney Michelle MacDonald has been politically targeted for suing a judge and running for MN Supreme Court in the 2014, 2016, and upcoming 2018 election.
Weaponized information is a message or content piece that is designed to affect the recipient’s perception about something or someone in a way that is not warranted. The term implies a target and the intention to cause harm.
The goal of weaponized information is bringing about a change in beliefs and attitudes and, as a result, promote behavior that serves the attacker’s purpose.
Weaponized information often consists of intentional falsehoods, known as disinformation. It can also be true but taken out of context, like a comment carefully selected from a longer statement so that it does not reflect what the speaker said. It may be a mixture of truth and lies, so that the known facts lend credence to the untruths. In other cases, the information may be true but its significance overblown or the timing of release calculated to cause the most harm possible.
Brodkorb has the establishment on his side and is definitely using the asymmetrical warfare and weaponized information to his advantage.
Stay Tuned for the Board’s decision on Brodkorb’s complaint.
BORDER PATROL AGENT IN ‘FAMILY SEPARATION’ PHOTO DISPUTES MEDIA NARRATIVE
‘They’re using it to symbolize a policy, and that was not the case on this picture’
The image of a crying child at the border is being grossly misrepresented by the mainstream media, the Border Patrol agent who appears in the famous photo says.
On Friday, CBP agent Carlos Ruiz, whose legs appear in the photo as he’s searching the girl’s mother, cleared up the severely distorted events behind the viral image.
“We were patrolling the border, it was after 10 o’clock at night,” agent Ruiz explained in an interview with CBS.
“We asked her to set the kid down in front of her, not away from her… and so we can properly search the mother. So, the kid immediately started crying as she set her down,” Ruiz noted. “I personally went up to the mother and asked her, ‘are you doing OK, is the kid OK?’ and she said, ‘Yes, she’s tired and thirsty and it’s 11 o’clock at night.”
“They’re using it to symbolize a policy and that was not the case on this picture,” he added. “It took less than two minutes, as soon as the search was finished she immediately picked the girl up and the girl immediately stopped crying.”
The crying girl has been the poster child for the media’s contrived outrage over illegal immigrant family separations being blamed on Donald Trump. The child was even featured on a Time Magazine cover with President Trump looking down on her.
Later, after the actual facts behind the photo emerged, Time added a correction to the bottom of their article, noting the girl had never actually been separated from her mom.
On Thursday the child’s father, Denis Javier Varela Hernandez, revealed the truth behind his family’s plight, telling The Daily Mail his wife left their home in Honduras with $6,000 against his wishes. She reached the United States about a month later with the help of human smugglers.
“I know now that they are not in danger. They are safer now than when they were making that journey to the border,” Hernandez told the Daily Mail.
“I don’t have any resentment for my wife, but I do think it was irresponsible of her to take the baby with her in her arms because we don’t know what could happen.”
The Daily Caller reports the mother had been previously deported for attempting to illegally enter the US in 2013.
Let’s focus on the separation of U.S. children from parents through Family Court and Child Predatory Services that occurs daily!
We must defund, decentralize, and dismantle the government run child kidnapping ring.
Eagan City Attorney Knetsch’s & Chief of Police McDonald’s expedited special treatment for Michael Brodkorb
From: Lion News <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 8:21 AM
To: Mike Maguire <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Elliott Knetsch <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com
Subject: Eagan City Attorney Knetsch’s & Chief of Police McDonald’s expedited special treatment for Michael Brodkorb
Mike Maguire, Mayor (651) 231-1793:
EXCERPTS FROM THE EMAIL ARE BELOW
Why is this hack Michael Brodkorb getting all sort of expedited special treatment from Eagan City Attorney Elliot Knetsch and Eagan Chief of Police Jim McDonald? When hack Brodkorb asks for readily available, free, electronic, public data he gets same day service, doesn’t he? When I ask for audio data about hack Brodkorb domestic violence report I get told to go hell, don’t I? Those wild and outrageous claims of no preliminary audio statements are telling me to “Go to hell!,” aren’t they? When I ask for hack Brodkorb’s data on his filing a false police report on Kimberley Bukstein, I get another “go to Hell!” response, don’t I? I get a scanned pdf document when hack Brokorb gets his in searchable pdf format, right? When I ask for all the data on the closed case for hack Brokorb’s filing a false police report against Kimberley Bukstein, I get a password protected link that will take me to some malicious message, right? When I recorded Kimberly Bukstein handing in her request for all her data, including the false police by hack Brodkorb, she didn’t get same day service, did she? Oh, and neither Eagan Chief of Police Jim MacDonald nor (soon to be Chief of Police) Deputy Chief of Police Roger New were brave enough to call Kimberley, were they? I want my data today! I don’t want to be harassed by a password protected harassing message either. I will gladly send my audios with your city of Eagan personnel to First Judicial District Chief Judicial Officer Kathryn Davis Messerich, won’t I? We’ll see if she thinks if Knetsch and McDonald are trying to assist Brodkorb in his current lawsuit with Michelle MacDonald while trying to prevent a lawsuit from Kimberly Bukstein, won’t we?
Terry Dean, Nemmers (320) 283-5713
Case No. 19HA-CV-18-2643 Michelle L. MacDonad vs Michael Bradkorb
06/15/2018 Summons Index # 1
06/15/2018 Assigned to Expedited Litigation Track
06/15/2018 Refer to Judge for CMC Ruling
06/18/2018 Certificate of Representation Index # 10
06/18/2018 e-Service MacDonad, Michelle L. Served
06/18/2018 06/18/2018 e-Service MacDonald Law Firm, LLC Served
06/18/2018 06/18/2018 e-Service Bradkorb, Michael Served
06/18/2018 06/18/2018 e-Service Bradkorb, Michael Served
06/18/2018 06/18/2018 Proposed Order or Document Index # 11
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.505 §609.505 FALSELY REPORTING CRIME. Subdivision 1.False reporting. Whoever informs a law enforcement officer that a crime has been committed or otherwise provides information to an on-duty peace officer, knowing that the person is a peace officer, regarding the conduct of others, knowing that it is false and intending that the officer shall act in reliance upon it, is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who is convicted a second or subsequent time under this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
In response to a public data request, the Eagan Police Department provided a police report from May 24, 2018, but they could not find a report filed by MacDonald on June 11, 2018. According to the police report from May 24, 2018, provided by the Eagan Police Department, MacDonald told police that Brodkorb took a picture of MacDonald in public, doctored it to look like a mugshot and uploaded it to a mugshot website. The Eagan Police Department investigated MacDonald’s claims and found them unfounded. The report states: “the photo turned out to be a valid public booking photo.” Attorney MacDonald’s lawsuit is ‘frivolous and vexatious’ June 18, 2018 http://missinginminnesota.com/attorney-macdonalds-lawsuit-is-frivolous-and-vexatious/
(Red Herring Alert Author’s Comments) The photo was a screenshot from video of MacDonald when she was illegally detained for taking a photo in the courtroom while court was not in session. The photo was placed next to other mugshots on Brodkorb’s website to imply that she was also criminally charged. MacDonald was never booked for a crime and Brodkorb knows that the case was dismissed, yet he continues to publish the image four years later and state that she is a “person of interest” in the case she was litigating. The case was dismissed due to civil rights violations of an illegal search and seizure of her camera and the case is still under appeal pending a federal lawsuit. This article describes how the photo came about: Lawyer Allegedly Tortured For Doing Her Job
htts://twitter.com/mbrodkorb/statuses/1008124919748624389 Michael Brodkorb @mbrodkorb
I have not been able to confirm yet that a police report was filed. But, even if a police report wasn’t filed, Shimota unnecessarily serving his wife’s lawsuit on me at my home is another example of how MacDonald and #GrazziniRucki look for opportunities to create conflicts. 4:11 pm – 16 Jun 2018 1 Retweet 3 Likes slarry21 Allison Mann S Zizzou 0 replies . 1retweet 3 likes
https://twitter.com/mbrodkorb/statuses/1007785191803322368 Michael Brodkorb @mbrodkorb
Replying to @jammarx1 It may be. I’m working to confirm a report was filed. Using process servers to antagonize people they are serving is a slick tactic used by this crowd in the past. I didn’t fall for it yesterday. MacDonald could have paid $100 for a neutral server, but that would be too simple. 5:41 pm – 15 Jun 2018 1 Retweet 1 Like Jamie Baskerville Nathan M. Hansen 0 replies . 1 retweet 1 like
https://twitter.com/mbrodkorb/statuses/1007776120186593280 Michael Brodkorb @mbrodkorb Process servers for MacDonald have been known to file police reports and even antagonize the person they are serving. I can’t possibly imagine why a police report would be filed about my interaction with Shimota yesterday. I’m working to confirm a report was filed. More info soon. 5:05 pm – 15 Jun 2018 2 Retweets 1 Like Kevin Gallatin slarry21 Nathan M. Hansen 2 replies . 2 retweets 1 like
Elliott B. Knetsch, Eagan City Attorney 651-234-6233 & Jim McDonald, Chief of Police (651) 675-5700:
You don’t mind if file a complaint with First Judicial District Court Administrator Brian Jones, do you? (firstname.lastname@example.org District Administrator: Brian E. Jones Office: 1620 South Frontage Rd #200, Hastings 55033 Phone: (651) 438-4352 Website: www.courts.state.mn.us/district/1) You don’t mind if I explain to Jones how you’re trying to withhold evidence in a case of Michael Brodkorb filing a false police report which has to do with the Grazzini case, do you? You are aware that Dede Evavold filed a witness tampering complaint against Michael Brodkorb, aren’t you? And since I have evidence that the City of Lakeville illegally withheld evidence in Evavold’s case, it would be motive for you to illegally withhold all sorts of damning information about hack Brodkorb, wouldn’t it? The longer you delay the data the better the chance you get to continue to maliciously prosecute Dede Evavold, right? You don’t mind if I tell Jones and First Judicial District Chief Judicial Officer Kathryn Davis Messerich that, do you?
To obtain an evidentiary hearing on a timely postconviction claim of newly discovered evidence, a petitioner must “allege facts that, if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would satisfy the four-prong test set forth in Rainer v. State, 566 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 1997).” Bobo, 820 N.W.2d at 517. Under Rainer, a petitioner is entitled to a new trial if the petitioner establishes: (1) the evidence was not known to the petitioner or counsel at the time of trial; (2) the failure to learn of the evidence before trial was not due to a lack of diligence; (3) the evidence is material, not merely impeaching, cumulative, or doubtful; and (4) the evidence would probably produce either an acquittal or a more favorable result. Roby v. State, 808 N.W.2d 20, 26 n.5 (Minn. 2011) (citing Rainer, 566 N.W.2d at 695). A petitioner bears the burden of establishing each of the four Rainer prongs in order to be entitled to relief. Miles v. State, 840 N.W.2d 195, 201 (Minn. 2013). This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A17-1170 Jermaine Sylvester Watkins, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. Filed April 2, 2018 Affirmed Smith, Tracy M., Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-13-16209 https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2018/OPa171170-040218.pdf
Terry Dean, Nemmers (320) 283-5713