Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

Cataclysmic Cover-Up


Read in its entirety 

Attorney Michelle MacDonald

 

EXCERPT: On the day that S.G.’s trial was set to begin, MacDonald filed a civil-rights lawsuit in federal court on S.G.’s behalf against the district judge personally, not in his official capacity. MacDonald then moved for the judge’s recusal from the case based on the pending federal lawsuit against him. The judge denied the motion, at which point MacDonald stated, “[a]nd you are telling me that you can be impartial in this trial, which you haven’t done since day one.” The referee found that this statement violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.2(a)6 and 8.4(d), because it was made with reckless disregard for the truth.   

“Even a thousand loud lies become powerless in front of one calm truth.” 

 

Apparently, this does not apply to county prosecutors:

Portions from Michelle MacDonald’s Brief:

The disciplinary proceedings against me were triggered by one letter by Judge David Knutson filed with the Lawyers Board in January 2014 (A.49).  His letter came after I filed a Federal Lawsuit against him on behalf of my  client, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki on September 11, 2013; after I was wrongfully arrested in his courtroom by deputies, on September 12, 2013 for taking a picture of the deputy; and after I  complained in four letters and attachments about Judge Knutson to the Board of Judicial Standards (A 35,39,42,46).

The Director claims in her Brief that my silence upon my arrest is actionable by the court (Director’s Brief at 17-20).  At the same time, the Director claims in her Brief that  I had no First Amendment right to make statements criticizing a Judge (See Director’s Brief at 20-26).

No matter the findings of the Referee, lawyers can criticize a judge and his decisions, whether in letters or court filings, without retribution by the Director or jeopardizing their license, because such statements are protected by the First Amendment and the doctrine of absolute privilege.

Upon close scrutiny of the testimony, Exhibits and rules, the Referee’s proposed findings of fact, even if true, and if applied correctly to the law, cannot support that my conduct violated the MRPC, warranting discipline (See generally Transcripts of Proceedings Volumes I and II; Director’s Exhibits 1-64, and Ms. MacDonald’s Exhibits 1-23).

Contrary to the Directors statement, the Referee found mitigating factors, and is required, to recognize them.  The Referee found that “Respondent offered testimony regarding her pro bono work, her work as a Referee in Hennepin County and her minimal prior disciplinary history as a mitigation of her misconduct (R. Test; R. Ex 120; A. 31).

Here, mitigating factors far outweigh the nature of the alleged misconduct.  For 30 years, I have been an attorney in good standing, serving as a conciliation/small claims court Judge, Hennepin County for 22 of those years (1999 to 2014); and Adjunct Referee/Arbitrator in family and civil court (1992-2011).  She received a Years of Service Recognition Award, Conciliation Court, Hennepin County.  Ms. MacDonald received the Northstar Lawyers, Pro Bono award 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016.

I have represented thousands of clients, before hundreds of Judges, including lead counsel on Sixty (60) appellate decisions, which include amicus briefs, appearances before the Appellate and Minnesota Supreme Court, and Petitions to the United States Supreme Court.

I am Founder, Volunteer President and Board Member of Family Innocence, a nonprofit dedicated to keeping families out of court: resolving conflicts and injustices peacefully (2011- present).

I am a founding member of Cooperative Private Divorce Project (Divorce without courts), with regular meetings since 2013 for family court reform to develop proposed legislation, Cooperative Private Divorce Bill HF 1348, which creates an administrative pathway to divorce that skips the court adversarial system.

I am founding member of Child Custody/Parenting Time Dialogue Group, with regular meetings since inception, 2013.

The Referee’s findings cannot serve as the basis for discipline or for depriving me of my occupational license for any period of time.  The evidence was protected by virtue of being contained in court pleadings and by the First Amendment and doctrine of absolute immunity.  Therefore, the Referee’s findings merit reversal.

So, if the Supreme Court states that MacDonald did not adequately represent her client, why aren’t Sandra’s family court orders Void Ab Initio? Just sayin. . .

I'm waiting to have a conversation with you Judy.....I'd love nothing more than to be able to put all of this behind us! You have to actually 'talk' to me to resolve this.

The majority of attorneys are willing to play the court game and don’t have the hutzpah to stand up for their clients or their profession.

This is another strong message from “the powers that be” that you better fall in line or you too will face suspension or disbarment. Clearly, attorneys are willing to practice fake law, in fake courtrooms, with fake judges, and fake media covering the fake outcomes.

Where are the attorneys willing to stand up for their colleagues and rank and file citizens to shut down this tyrannical court system? WAKE UP AND STAND UP FOR YOUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS BEING DESTROYED BY THE ABUSE OF POWER AND AUTHORITY, BECAUSE INEVITABLY YOUR TIME IS COMING!

Bundy Attorney Who Argued For Client’s Release Faces Disbarment Hearing-Law Violating Prosecutor In Bundy Randh Case Keeps Job

 TIM BROWN  

If this doesn’t show you how crooked the federal judicial system is, nothing will.

Ammon Bundy’s attorney in the Oregon Malheur Wildlife Refuge case, Marcus Mumford, had criminal charges filed against him after he was tased and tackled by federal marshalls for simply arguing for his client’s release in court.

Listen to his account of what happened.

Continue Reading:https://freedomoutpost.com/bundy-attorney-argued-clients-release-faces-disbarment-hearing-law-violating-prosecutor-bundy-ranch-case-keeps-job/

Advertisements

Michael Cindy Bradykorb Can’t Read Court Documents

Missing in Minnesota

Missing in Minnesota

UPDATE: Dede Evavold loses appeal of her criminal conviction

The Clerk of Appellate Courts has rejected Dede Evavold’s petition for review to the Minnesota Supreme Court because Evavold’s petition was not properly filed.

 

MN Supreme Court Petition for Review

Appeal 2017

Reply Brief Evavold

MN Supreme Court Petition for Review

Minnesota Supreme Court

Group photo of the seven members of the Minnesota Supreme Court

mncourts.gov/SupremeCourt

The Minnesota Supreme Court is, in effect, the final arbiter of the constitutional rights of the people of the state of Minnesota. Supreme Court decisions often serve as precedent for future cases.

Currently, the Supreme Court reviews petitions in approximately 800 cases a year and accepts review in about 1 in 8 cases. These cases can come from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals, Tax Court, Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, and Board of Judicial Standards. Election contests and appeals for first-degree murder cases are automatically appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is responsible for the regulation of the practice of law and for judicial and lawyer discipline. Additionally, as the highest court in Minnesota, it promulgates rules of practice and procedure for the legal system in the state.  http://www.mncourts.gov/About-The-Courts/SupremeCourt.aspx

Let’s see how much the Supreme Court cares about the constitutional rights of MN citizens. I’m going to take a wild guess and say that my case and companion case won’t be accepted for review. And if it is accepted, the decision of the lower courts will be affirmed.

 (Double click to zoom)

  

 

 

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: