Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

Death of the Corporate Media

The Mainstream Media is Experiencing Record Layoffs

The mainstream media is dying. It is bleeding money. It was just revealed that subscription TV has lost 5 million viewers, at a cost of $5.5 billion. What’s going on? Will this death march for the MSM continue? Here are the answers.

 

 

 

The Common Sense Show works hard to keep the public informed about a variety of topics.  Please consider helping us to offset our investigative, research and broadcasting costs. We have provided two convenient ways to contribute to our efforts.

ELECTRONIC DONATION 


To send a contribution by mail, please send your donation to the following:

Dave Hodges ~PO Box 32 ~Wittmann, AZ  85361

ATTORNEY ROBERT BARNES STANDS UP FOR TEENS ASSAULTED BY CORPORATE MEDIA LIES

Atty volunteers to free representation for Covington teens, gives 48 hr notice to retract

LAS VEGAS, Nev. — An attorney based out of Las Vegas offered to represent the teens from Covington Catholic High School who were targeted by social media attacks this past weekend over video and images of them were posted accusing them of, “surrounding and taunting” a Native American man on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

Full video from a fringe group that calls itself the “Hebrew Israelites” discovered and shared by late Saturday shows a different scene than what was initially spread throughout social media and was actually reported by many mainstream national news outlets.

However, by the end of the weekend, the boys had become the face of a massive national debate against their will. Media personalities and celebrities took aim at the boys, accusing them of beliefs and actions that were never displayed on the video.

While most news organizations and pundits who at first criticized the boys retracted and/or apologized once they saw the long video, many continued to demonize the teens. Many pundits and activists on social media claimed to their followers that the video represented “conservative media” attempting to “distort” what their followers already “knew to be true.”

More claimed that because the boys were wearing clothing supporting President Trump and the red “Make America Great Again” hats made popular by Trump’s successful 2016 presidential campaign, that they “represent hate and bigotry.” Hollywood Actress and Liberal Activist credited with bringing the #MeToo women’s movement to the national stage, tweeted that the red MAGA hats are the “new white hood”, referring to the hoods worn by the racist Ku Klux Klan organization.

Wednesday morning, Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota tweeted that the Covington boys yelled, “it’s not rape if you enjoy it” and claimed that the boys were “taunting 5 Black men before they surrounded Phillips and led racist chants.” The full video shows none of those assertions to be true.

Rep. Omar has since deleted that tweet.

However, while many public figures from the president all the way down to local media personalities are not usually able to file lawsuits for slander and/or defamation of character, the boys from Covington Catholic High School were private citizens when they were being attacked and villainized. This means they could likely be successful suing for libel/slander and defamation of character, but they will have to choose the venue in which they file their claims wisely.

Many states, including Missouri, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. have so-called “Anti-SLAPP” laws, which prevents individuals from being targeted with lawsuits for using their 1st Amendment free speech rights. Kentucky, where the boys live, has no such laws.

Wednesday morning, Las Vegas-based Attorney Robert Barnes officially offered his services to the Covington boys for free, telling FOX News that slander lawsuits are usually very expensive, and most people do not successfully see them through.

Barnes also gave the media and celebrities notice: if he does represent the teens, they had 48 hours from Wednesday morning to delete and retract incorrect and defamatory statements made against the group.

There is no official word from the Covington teens if they are seeking legal action, or if they have legal representation at this time.

https://abcstlouis.com/news/nation-world/attorney-volunteers-to-represent-covington-teens-for-free-gives-media-48-hrs-to-retract


RELATED

World watches battle between Covington boys and mainstream media 

 

Dirt-Digging Journalism

Attorney Michelle MacDonald

Kevin Featherly is a journalist who covers the Minnesota State Capitol and the judiciary for Minnesota Lawyer. In reality, he’s just another hack writer that excels at molehill mountaineering.

Most readers are aware that Attorney Michelle MacDonald is running for MN Supreme Court. In a recent Minnesota Lawyer article, Featherly proclaims “Board to query Michelle MacDonald’s listing of CLE’s as campaign debt” (Excerpts Below)

There is a $525 bill for “Minnesota Continuing Education,” located at 2550 University Ave. W., St. Paul. Lawyers’ continuing legal education classes are taught at that address, though the institution’s proper name is “Minnesota Continuing Legal Education.”

Reached Wednesday, MacDonald said none of the unpaid obligations listed are actual debts. She has paid the expenses out of pocket, she said, so the listings are all money that she owes to herself.

“I am not in a big hurry to pay myself back and that is why the debts are still showing up,” she said. That includes the CLE credits, she said.

Jeff Sigurdson, the Campaign Finance Board’s executive director, said Wednesday that the CLE expense looks unusual.

It’s not a clear violation, he said, and it might be permissible if the course or courses taken relate directly to elections—a course on election law, for example.

“If it isn’t related to her campaign, then it’s not appropriate,” Sigurdson said. “I don’t know what that particular expense is for, but it is a question.

On Thursday morning, MacDonald sent an email to Minnesota Lawyer asserting that the CLE credits earned were legitimately election-related.    

“It was a class for the election law, a special class where all the judges running and their campaign committees were invited to attend,” she wrote. “I paid for it and have not been reimbursed.”  

In a follow-up email, MacDonald said the credits were earned “at a conference held on June 27, 2014, on Judicial Campaign Law” at Minnesota Continuing Legal Education. However, a source at Minnesota CLE said no such conference has been held there in the 11 years he has been an employee.

Sigurdson said Wednesday that the Campaign Finance Board will reach out to MacDonald’s campaign committee for an explanation.

 

Email exchange between Featherly and MacDonald after article was published.

 

 

On Oct 12, 2018, at 9:28 PM, Michelle Macdonald <michelle@macdonaldlawfirm.com> wrote:

Kevin,

Dug this up. Please correct your story.

Thank you.

michelle@macdonaldforjustice.com

On Oct 12, 2018 11:08 PM, Kevin Featherly <kfeatherly@minnlawyer.com> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for sending me this.

Unfortunately, you called it a “conference” in an email to me and that’s what I asked the institution about–whether they’d held that conference on the date you gave me. The guy there said that the institution’s electronic record system changed over in 2015, so he couldn’t trace their CLE class history back as far as 2014. But he said definitively that they don’t do conferences there. From memory, his approximate quote to me was, “We wouldn’t do that and we haven’t in the 11 years I’ve worked here.”)

What you’re saying now–accurately, it certainly appears to me–is that you attended a “special seminar,” not a conference. That suggests the meeting you attended was all about small-group instruction. By calling it a conference you left the impression that you attended a large gathering where part of the proceedings involved at least one big common-audience presentation and lots of structured breakout groups. That at least describes the conferences I’ve attended. That would be an event that Minnesota Lawyer likely would have covered–and of course, we didn’t. That impression of a “conference” is what the guy at Minnesota CLE was reacting to.

I can see how you could casually conflate those terms (“seminar” and “conference”), but I had no reason to guess that you might not mean exactly what you said. It’s too bad their computer record cut off one year too late or I probably would have learned of the special seminar on my own, because I did ask them about the event you described on the date you gave me. They just didn’t have that information accessible in that way.

I don’t think a “correction” is in order exactly, since I correctly reported what I knew based on the information you gave me in writing and what the institution told me based on that information.

However, I do agree that the record needs to be clarified based on these images you’ve sent. That seems pretty definitive evidence to me and I can’t imagine you’d have that stuff if you hadn’t actually been there. So I agree with you that we need to report that we have new information and that it appears to better bear you out.

It’s the weekend now and I don’t have access and am not authorized to publish directly to the website. And anyway, we might want to report this out as a short follow up story so I can ask Jeff Sigurdson if what we now know might not actually fill the bill as an acceptable campaign expense–as he suggested already in an interview that it might. In any case, this has to wait until Monday. But it will be job one when I get back to work after the weekend.

Thanks again for flagging down those images and sending them to me.

Kevin


Hack Michael Brodkorb had to get in on the action too…

 

Image result for quotes about politics and media

 

Defamation by Implication

     

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.”   Image result for attorney client privilege

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

 

Representative Nick Zerwas (R) District: 30A weighs in on this case below.

 

 

 

The above tweet has been scrubbed from Twitter.

Shot in the Dark

It’s A Start

Posted on September 21, 2016 by Mitch Berg

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.

Defending Darlie 

Vanessa Potkin, director of post-conviction litigation at the Innocence Project: “Once you delve into the facts of the crime, the investigation, the trial evidence, it becomes clear that there is a completely different narrative — one of innocence and a story that needs to be told.”

Excerpts Below:

Darlie Routier booking (mugshot).png

Darlie Routier

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)

Read article in its entirety


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.

Image result for justice quotes

McCain-Media Created Maverick

BREAKING! ALEX JONES RESPONDS TO JOHN MCCAIN’S DEATH & LAYS OUT HIS TRUE HISTORY

While the establishment lauds him as a hero, history and facts tell a different tale

BREAKING! Alex Jones Responds To John McCain's Death & Lays Out His True HistoryAlex Jones explains the true character of the late John McCain, a notorious Deep State neocon who sold out the U.S. to ISIS, the ChiComs, and the big banks.


Obama, Bush Asked To Speak At McCain’s Funeral

By Mary Papenfuss
HuffPost
August 27, 2018

Former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush have reportedly been asked to deliver eulogies to the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

McCain, who died Saturday at the age of 81, had asked that the former presidents speak at his funeral at Washington’s National Cathedral on Saturday, according to CBS News. Vice President Mike Pence is expected to attend.

Continue Reading…..

Support Our Cause and Join Our Fight!

Go to https://www.freedomwatchusa.org/donate

Or call 844 FW ETHIC to contribute to Freedom Watch now

Your help is urgently needed!

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

Order Freedom Watch products through Zazzle.com. Proceeds go directly to Freedom Watch and support our fight for liberty and constitutional rights. Go to www.zazzle.com/freedomwatch/products

Contact Freedom Watch at daj142182@gmail.com or (424) 274 2579.

If this message was forwarded to you and you would like to receive future emails, sign up at https://www.freedomwatchusa.org/emails

Freedom Watch Inc.
2020 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Suite 345
Washington, DC 20006


McCain: The Myth of a Maverick Hardcover – October 16, 2007

John McCain is one of the most familiar, sympathetic, and overexposed figures in American politics, yet his concrete governing philosophy and actual track record have been left curiously unexamined, mostly because of the massive distractions in his official biography, but also because of his ingenious strategy of talking ad infinitum to each and every access-craving media person who happens by. The more he has spouted, the less journalists have bothered trying to see through the fog.

Someone Needs to Get Michael Brodkorb a Ticket to Shutty Town

Presstitute Michael Brodkorb strikes again! This time he is attacking AJ Kern, a 2018 Republican candidate seeking election to the U.S. House to represent the 6th Congressional District of Minnesota. (More on this after a review of Brodkorb).

Michael Brodkorb has an extensive history of attacking reputations under the guise of journalism and has consistently tailored his “news” to suit whoever is willing to pay him.

Brodkorb has a troubled past with a long history of out of control behavior – a domestic violence incident involving his wife, a sexual fling with Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch that ended his political career, and driving while intoxicated, crashed his car and nearly killed himself. In another embarrassment, in 2011, Brodkorb made secret recordings of conversations with his GOP bosses regarding his firing (after his tryst with Amy Koch was exposed) . The recordings revealed, among other things, that Brodkorb was struggling with his mental health – which could explain his erratic behavior.

Brodkorb also has a reputation for inciting fights within ranks of the Republican party, among his own team , where he was known for screaming fits and personal attacks against others, it said his eruptions could leave fear in his wake..” (The Fall of Michael Brodkorb) Another Republican, retired Army Lt. Col. Joe Repya, described Brodkorb as “a ‘thug’ with ‘an intimidating personality’ who ran roughshod over party members, elected officials and even volunteers…’You have to understand how frightened people within the party became of Michael Brodkorb..’” (Michael Brodkorb: Admired, feared and, above all, Republican

Brodkorb has also been described as “always pushing the limits..” Brodkorb, once one of the most powerful people in the Senate, used his political knowledge and connections as ammo in carefully crafted blogs designed to attack political targets.Democrats denounced Brodkorb as a “Republican operative” paid to write hit pieces on their candidates. For his work, Brodkorb was paid very well. Initially Brodkorb began blogging anonymously on Minnesota Democrats Exposed (created in 2004) but in a fit of rage, he accidentally exposed his identity while posting online, and reluctantly, was forced to admit to his clandestine activities. Brodkorb says about MDE,”When you’re writing Minnesota Democrats Exposed you’re waking up every day and looking for a target. Even though that kind of thing drives traffic, it’s not a very fulfilling way to write...” (I’m done with partisan politics’: a Q&A with Michael Brodkorb) Due to the insulting content of MDE, Brodkorb was sued for libel – dismissed by a court in 2007. Complaints continued to be raised aganstBrodkorb to this day. (Michael Brodkorb Exposed: “Search and Destroy” Blogger)

Recently, Brodkorb was sued for defamation by Attorney Michelle MacDonald who is running for MN Supreme Court. Read more here: Michael Brodkorb Sued for Fake News

Below is the most recent attack on me via AJ Kern.

Michael Brodkorb fails to mention that I am a falsely convicted felon and that I was charged with “Parental Deprivation” for protecting children under §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;

This is not a crime when a person charged under subdivision 1 proves that: (1) the person reasonably believed the action taken was necessary to protect the child from physical or sexual assault or substantial emotional harm. That’s impossible to prove however, when evidence is illegally withheld and suppressed in the criminal trial.

Oh and by the way, I was also falsely imprisoned for 4 mos. due to my political beliefs and actions I have taken to expose the extensive corruption in the courts.

At my sentencing hearing, (and speaking on behalf of the state) Assistant County Attorney Keena states,“As to the sentence that the State believes the defendant should receive in this case, it’s the State’s position that Ms. Evavold should be treated the same and receive the same sentence that xxxxxx  received in her case. And why she remained silent and her rationale for doing so I think is more reprehensible than actions taken by xxxxxx. This defendant did it purposely for her ideological beliefs about the family court system and her complete disregard for the family court system.” 

I am not at liberty to discuss the background on the case as I have been gagged by the judges involved and risk further incarceration for revealing details of this high profile case. What this amounts to is a weaponization of the legal system to bully and suppress my first amendment rights.

Here’s what I can say, the Assistant Dakota County Attorney engaged in malicious and retaliatory prosecution by unrealistically overcharging defendants and allowing wrongful convictions when she knew the affirmative defense negated any criminal liability. The judge erroneously allowed evidence to be illegally withheld from defendants 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).

Read blog posts below to understand more about the witch hunt being carried out by Dakota County against myself and others involved in the court system.

SEEKING JUSTICE

BECAUSE I SAID SO

DANGEROUS DAKOTA COUNTY

Tom Emmer Congress.gov

Below are emails between myself and Rhonda Sivarajah who was a 2014 candidate for Minnesota’s Sixth District Congressional seat. Emmer knew about the corruption in the courts and many mothers that had their children wrongfully taken from them by the courts talked to him at a fundraiser at Ernie Leidiger’s. Emmer told them that if he got elected, he would address these issues. (Or not!)

—–Original Message—–
From: Dede Evavold <dedeevavold@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 1:07 PM
To: Rhonda Sivarajah <rhondasivarajah@gmail.com>
Subject: Meeting

Hi Rhonda,

Tom Emmer has obviously heard that we are wanting candidates to use legal reform as their platform. He and others are now contacting Bonnie Roy to seek support for his campaign as he is realizing that this could be beneficial for him.

Bonnie and I would like to meet with you and Marty Seifert to discuss strategies to move this forward. As much as we need exposure of the issues, we do not want to have someone use this for their personal gain only.

Also, who do you think would want to join from the republicans running against Al Franken

Thanks Rhonda,

Dede

­­­­­­_____________________________________________________________________________________

From: Rhonda Sivarajah <rhondasivarajah@gmail.com>
Date: February 9, 2014 at 2:13:54 PM CST
To: Dede Evavold <dedeevavold@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Meeting

He is such a snake. Doesn’t care about anyone but himself. Spoke with Marty and told him to meet with you. Have also been talking to legislators. Chris Dahlberg is a county commissioner so may actually understand the issue.


Tom Emmer has clearly demonstrated that protecting children and families is not a high priority and that he would rather be a part of Pay to Play Politics with the big boys in Washington.

Tom Emmer has shown his true colors and there should be no doubt that AJ Kern is the right choice to represent Minnesota’s Sixth Congressional District.

WEAPONIZED INFORMATION

 

Michael Brodkorb Sued for Fake News

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.

Michael Brodkorb received this response from the Board. ↓

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.

CIT

What the Boards won’t tolerate is being pro-liberty, pro-constitution, pro-human and civil rights, and pro-law and order. For that, you will be punished severely!

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. 

Clearly when something cannot be argued on merit, logic, facts or reason, demonizing, discrediting, deceiving, discounting and dividing tactics are used instead. The establishment and Brodkorb use these tactics continually.

Weaponized Information    

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. WhatIs.com

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.

%d bloggers like this: