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.
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.
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.”
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.