Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

Star Tribune Twisted Tabloid Coverage

Justice Margaret Chutich                         Attorney Michelle MacDonald

 

The Star Tribune Tabloid recently came out with more biased coverage of the MN Supreme Court race between Michelle MacDonald and Margaret Chutich. “In bid to stay on Supreme Court, Margaret Chutich faces repeat candidate Michelle MacDonald” Dayton appointee Margaret Chutich faces attorney with a history of legal problems.  By Stephen Montemayor Star Tribune.

The article states that, “Chutich achieved a distinction when she joined the court more than two years ago as its first openly gay justice.”

In Lambda Legal, Chutich says, “If there are gay attorneys, gay people thinking about going to law school, I think it’s important that they know there aren’t barriers to their dreams,” Chutich told members of the press.

I don’t think gay people have ever thought they can’t be an attorney, a judge, a doctor etc. because of their sexual preference and Chutich seems to be promoting the victim mentality. It also seems to me that Chutich is using sexual orientation for political and economic advancement. A persons gender, race or sexual preference should not matter when appointing a judge or any other position and merit and ability should be the only factors considered in any job.

Montemayor wrote, “MacDonald said she views Chutich’s marital status as her right but cast it as a “liberal view” counter to MacDonald’s conservative philosophy.”

The Star Tribune article goes on to state that MacDonald is running her third campaign for Minnesota Supreme Court. Margaret Chutich also applied three times for an appointment to the state’s high court before Gov. Mark Dayton finally chose her in 2016. Again, the headline was Dayton selects first openly gay judge for state Supreme Court.

Judge David Knutson     First Judicial District

The Strib reports that MacDonald had her law license suspended due to professional misconduct, but conveniently left out what the professional misconduct entailed. Michelle MacDonald sued Judge David Knutson on behalf of a client and reported him to the Board of Judicial Standards for unconstitutional actions and violations of constitutional rights that, among other concerns, separated the client from her children and stripped her of all assets and property. Judge David Knutson just happens to be the Vice Chair of the Board of Judicial Standards and retaliated against MacDonald for attempting to hold him accountable.

In a December 26, 2013 letter MacDonald 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 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: “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.”

From Montemayor’s Strib article, In 2014, the Minnesota Republican Party initially endorsed MacDonald’s high court bid. But the party distanced itself after it learned of a pending drunken driving case. She was eventually acquitted but convicted of refusing to submit to a breath test and obstructing the legal process during her traffic stop.

Michelle’s case was a traffic stop, and more accurately an unlawful pullover.  Michelle did not have any alcohol on the night she was stopped without probable cause.

  1. After dialogue with the officer about the reason for the stop, she was not asked to take a Breathalyzer or perform a field sobriety test.
  2. She asked to see a judge pursuant to Minnesota Statute 169.91 as it was obvious this officer was using questionable measures to fill his quota and was clearly abusing his power and authority. Any citizen can invoke this statute however, as can be seen from this incident, the system does not take kindly to exposing those who are not playing by the rules.
  3. Michelle was held and released from the Rosemount Police Station with NO CHARGES filed against her.
  4. On her own initiative, she went directly to a hospital for a drug and alcohol blood test to put to rest any questions about this incident. The tests came back zero alcohol and zero drugs. 
  5. Michelle filed an employee complaint against the Police Officer who unlawfully pulled her over.
  6. In response, she received a Citation in the mail with five criminal charges against her including charges for driving under the influence.
The Result: Jury convicts Michelle MacDonald of test refusal and resisting arrest.

MacDonald also filed a complaint against the GOP and several party leaders. She alleges the party threatened her and spread false information about her campaign in an effort to get her to exit the race. She said the party was in violation of the Fair Campaign Practices Act. Shocker, the complaint was dismissed by a judge with the Office of Administrative Hearings.

In her 2016 run for MN Supreme Court, MacDonald was endorsed by the Republican Selection Committee but inadvertantly stated it was the Election Committee. For this she was also punished.

The Star Tribune stated that, “MacDonald’s bid is again seen as a long-shot by court watchers.” 

Clearly this race is not a long-shot or the Establishment wouldn’t be so intent on demonizing and discrediting MacDonald.

Michelle MacDonald for Minnesota Supreme Court

RELATED: 

Board chief: Michelle MacDonald CLE expense looks legit

There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny~Edward Snowden


MN GOP State Convention 2018

Andy Gildea, husband of Lorie Gildea, Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, makes inflammatory comments about Republicans supporting judicial reform at the Republican State Convention in June.

Andy & Lorie Gildea-Image from chiefjusticeloriegildea.com

I get that we have different views of those closest to us, but I would think that publicly stated views of a judge’s politically active spouse has to have some connection to the fundamental thinking of that judge. To say that he is in “vociferous opposition” to the motion to reform the judiciary didn’t just come out of thin air!

Gildea quotes Judge Roy Bean, “Never reward crooks, liars, and drunks” and adds, “these changes are being advocated by the worst republicans you can imagine.”

Phantly Roy Bean, Jr. .jpg

Judge Roy Bean~Wikipedia

Andy may want to reconsider who he quotes.

Internet research indicates that Judge Roy Bean was really a big phony in Texas history and was only a legend in his own mind. He wasn’t even a judge, but a justice of the peace for Pecos County who presided over small legal offenses, acted as coroner and conducted marriages. Most offenders were simply fined and sent on their way. Judge Bean usually pocketed the fine instead of turning it over to the county.

Bean gained his scant legal experience on the other side of the law and by the time he was 50 years old was known as a murderer, duelist, rustler, gambler, thief, wife beater, smuggler and all around no-good drunk. Some people say it takes a crook to catch one, but Bean hardly caught anyone. Bean was mainly known for giving goofy legal opinions on subjects that he knew nothing about.

The moral of the story: When the Judiciary is resistant to transparency and accountability you have to wonder. . . “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. . .or do you????

FIRST AMENDMENT UPHELD IN MN

MN Supreme Court throws out law against disorderly conduct at meetings 

Bob Collins 

The Minnesota Supreme Court has tossed out a disorderly conduct law aimed at people who disrupt public meetings.

The Court ruled in the case of Robin Hensel, of Little Falls, who was cited for disorderly conduct after she moved her chairs closer to city councilors at a meeting, days after the Council rescheduled a meeting when Hensel displayed signs that depicted dead and deformed children, blocking the view of others in the audience.

She was convicted after a judge refused to allow her to enter a defense under the First Amendment.

“The Court has made clear that “the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one’s views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired,” Court of Appeals Judge Michelle Ann Larkin ruled last year upholding the conviction.

Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals, ruling the statute about disturbing public meetings is overly broad (See full opinion).

Here’s how the law reads:

Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
. . .
(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character . .

“An individual could violate the statute by, for example, wearing an offensive t-shirt, using harsh words in addressing another person, or even raising one’s voice in a speech,” Justice David Stras wrote for the majority in today’s opinion.

This statute presents us with a “criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.” Stevens, 559 U.S. at 474. It criminalizes a public speech that “criticize[s] various political and racial groups . . . as inimical to the nation’s welfare.” It prohibits an individual from wearing a jacket containing an offensive inscription to a meeting. And certainly, it would forbid someone from burning the American flag on a public street.

In addition to being disruptive of gatherings of all kinds, all of these actions share a common quality: they are protected under the First Amendment. Due to the countless ways in which [the law] can prohibit and chill protected expression, we conclude that the statute facially violates the First Amendment’s overbreadth doctrine.

Continue Reading: https://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2017/09/mn-supreme-court-throws-out-law-against-disorderly-conduct-at-meetings/

%d bloggers like this: