Excerpts from Michael Brodkorb’s Motion to Dismiss the Harassment Restraining Order Case No. 18-009299-FD Section 22
Mr. Brodkorb’s non-threatening statements relating to the Petitioner and the Minnesota case that he posted on twitter.com and his website, missinginminnesota.com, are protected by his First
Amendment right to free speech, not only as a professional author and journalist, but also as an individual.
Mr. Brodkorb never threatened or directed his statements directly at the Petitioner and merely posted updates regarding her case citing and sharing from other media outlets that disclosed similar information, sourced from public record.
“a temporary injunction directed to speech is a classic example of prior restraint on speech triggering First Amendment concerns.” Vrasic v. Leibel, 106 So.3d, 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); See Moore v. City Dry Cleaners & Laundry, 41 So.2d 865, 873 (Fla.1949) (recognizing First Amendment concerns triggered by temporary injunction); Murphy, 176 So.2d
Upholding a temporary injunction against Mr. Brodkorb would constitute an unlawful prior restraint on protected speech. “[P]rior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976). And, protection against prior restraints on speech extends to both false statements and to those from which a commercial gain is derived. See Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 761, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976).
Granting the Petitioner the relief she is seeking to prohibit the statements she attaches to her Petition and prohibit Mr. Brodkorb from ever speaking about her or the Minnesota Case would be a violation of Mr. Brodkorb’s First Amendment right to free speech and an impermissible prior restraint on speech and publication which has been held to be the “least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Id. As the Supreme Court of the United States so eloquently stated in 1975, “[A] free society prefers to punish the few who abuse rights of speech after they break the law than to throttle them and all others beforehand.” Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 559, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975).
Finally, to uphold an injunction that is supported solely by allegedly defamatory statements
would be a shameful and unconstitutional violation of his right to free speech. The law and the
law and the Constitution requires that this Court dissolve the Temporary Ex Parte Injuction and
fully restore Mr. Brodkorb’s right to free speech.
This looks likes the same arguments I have made in the courts for my false SLAPP Suits/Harassment Restraining Orders.
The following written objections were provided to the District Court by my attorney for my May 16, 2018 motion hearing to vacate the temporary restraining order filed against me on July 31st, 2017 by the “victims” in my false criminal case. This is the case that Michael Brodkorb has falsely written about since 2016. “With a doggedness that verges on obsession, the site covers just one story — the case of Sandra Grazzini whose children went missing for 944 days until they were found on a northern Minnesota ranch.” Michelle MacDonald’s defamation suit may lack factual basis By: Kevin Featherly August 24, 2018 https://minnlawyer.com/2018/08/24/michelle-macdonald-defamation-suit-may-lack-factual-basis/
PETITIONERS OFFER NO EVIDENCE OF HARASSMENT – There is no allegation or evidence of direct contact by Respondent. Instead, the focus of this action is a number of blog posts written by Respondent that are either about Petitioners or at least mention Petitioner in some way.
The blog posts by themselves cannot meet this definition, and to the extent the Court believes this definition can be expanded to included blog posts, then the statute must necessarily run afoul of the First Amendment
THE BLOG POSTS ARE NOT HARASSMENT AS DEFINED UNDER LAW
THE ORDER IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR RESTRAINT – Because there are no findings of unprotected speech making up the conduct of Respondent and because the Order prohibits a large category of protected speech, the Order is an unconstitutional prior restraint.
On July 27, 2018, I received a Memorandum and Order from Judge Kanning stating “Respondent, through her attorney raises constitutional issues relating to the First Amendment and Prior restraint. The Court has considered these and finds no merit to these.”
Clearly Judge Kanning was unable to keep his disdain for me to himself and wrote in the order, “In the 34+ years the undersigned has served as a District or Senior Judge, never have I seen a case that represents harassment most evil.” More on this case: Because I Said So
Judge Michael Baxter (Dakota County), granted the SLAPP Suit/Harassment Restraining Order filed by Michael and Sarah Brodkorb against me after the hearing held on October 29th, 2018. Read transcripts of the hearing. Evavold 2018-10-29
In the memorandum, Baxter writes, While the evidence here is a close call, there is a reasonable basis to find that Respondent was involved in the chain of events that led to the repeated harassment of Ms. Sarah Brodkorb and her minor children.
Who needs facts and evidence? We no longer need to analyze information without prejudice, we just go with beliefs. Never mind the fact that HRO’s are also now being misused by declaring that speech itself is harassing.
Knowingly presenting false evidence to the court with the intent of doing harm to someone else is acceptable. Read LIES BY OMISSION to understand this case further.
Not only did Michael Brodkorb falsely report a crime and perjure himself, he is now attempting to fee shift for process serving to witnesses he subpoenaed for our hearings to contest the false orders. In some cases, the ‘losing’ side may be required to pay fees if they initiated a meritless lawsuit. The same doesn’t appear to hold true if a meritless lawsuit was filed against the defendant. Oh well, I still have my integrity and Brodkorb is still a knuckle dragging thug!
See request for costs below:↓
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:16 AM Williams, Briana <Briana.Williams@courts.state.mn.us> wrote:
The Court received your notice and application for costs and disbursements in the above referenced matter. Judge Baxter would like you to submit documentation supporting the claimed cost of service in this case in the amount of $747.16. Could you please provide the Court with the appropriate documentation?
Judicial Law Clerk to the Honorable M. Michael Baxter
Dakota County District Court, Hastings, Minn
From: Nathan Hansen [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:21 AM
To: Williams, Briana <Briana.Williams@courts.state.mn.us>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 19AV-CV-18-2157
Here are the invoices. The cost was high because Carrie Beaudette worked hard to avoid service of process, according to my process servers.
Also, it is my understanding a judgment has to be entered before costs are taxed. I have submitted such a proposed document.
CLICK ON DOCUMENTS TO ZOOM↓
Update: Just received this in the mail today
§549.02 COSTS. SERIOUSLY???
Subdivision 1.District court.
In actions commenced in the district court, costs shall be allowed as follows:To plaintiff: (1) Upon a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor of $100 or more in an action for the recovery of money only, $200. (2) In all other actions, including an action by a public employee for wrongfully denied or withheld employment benefits or rights, except as otherwise specially provided, $200.
To defendant: Upon discontinuance or dismissal or when judgment is rendered in the defendant’s favor on the merits, $200.
To the prevailing party: $5.50 for the cost of filing a satisfaction of the judgment.