Lawyer and former state Supreme Court candidate Michelle MacDonald is not prepared to take “case dismissed” for an answer.
Michelle MacDonald
In early March, MacDonald lost two court cases. On Wednesday, she said she will appeal both.
In the first case, MacDonald’s Ramsey County District Court defamation lawsuit against blogger and one-time political operative Michael Brodkorb was dismissed on summary judgment. That was on March 1.
On March 4, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a federal district court’s summary judgment against MacDonald in a separate case.
That one stemmed from MacDonald’s 2013 arrest for contempt of court after she took photos of a deputy in a Dakota County courtroom while representing a client in a child custody hearing.
MacDonald asserted a variety of constitutional and state-law violations in the federal case, but none was upheld. She said Wednesday that she will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“It got dismissed based on immunities,” MacDonald said of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling. “Which, the immunities are pretty much a lie. But that’s what got it dismissed.”
MacDonald appears to be referring to the District Court’s ruling against her Fourth Amendment claim of qualified immunity, which the 8th Circuit upheld. But that was only one of a bevy of claims by MacDonald—false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and battery were a few others—in the federal case. All were dismissed.
In the defamation suit, Ramsey County District Court Judge Richard H. Kyle, Jr., granted Brodkorb a summary judgment dismissing MacDonald’s claims of “defamation per se” and “defamation by implication.”
Those accusations stemmed from Brodkorb’s blog posts about MacDonald, as well as his publication of a photo taken after her 2013 arrest—an image MacDonald continues to insist is not a booking photo.
“He kept publishing that picture and I am very opposed to that picture,” MacDonald said Wednesday. “I know that it’s defamatory, because he puts it out as if it is a mugshot.”
In his ruling, Kyle disagreed. While the photo was unflattering, he wrote, Brodkorb’s website never actually described it as a “booking photo” or “mugshot”—though the blogger later identified it as such in a court affidavit. Minnesota Lawyer later obtained the same image from the Dakota County Sheriff’s Department, where it was on file as a booking photo.
Neither appeal has yet been filed. MacDonald has a 60-day window to appeal the March 1 Ramsey County district court ruling. She has 90 days to petition for a writ of certiorari following the U.S. District Court of Appeals’ March 4 decision.
MacDonald said she will appeal Kyle’s decision partly on grounds that she was not allowed to properly build her case.
“I don’t know if there has ever been a case that was dismissed on summary judgment where a litigant has not been allowed to answer the complaint or do discovery,” MacDonald said. “So that’s the legal grounds.”
“She’s lost once before in court,” Brodkorb responded when reached for comment Wednesday. “She is going to lose again.”
Said Brodkorb, “Her continual use of the court system in the manner in which she has—while she is under investigation by the lawyer’s board—is going to further put her license in jeopardy.”
Brodkorb was referring to a complaint he filed against MacDonald with the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board in August. It is based, in part, on what he called a false report of “criminal defamation,” which MacDonald once filed against him with Eagan police.
On April 10, Brodkorb received a letter from the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board informing him that its investigation into his complaint is still underway.
Whether a political candidate’s public-figure status switches on and off—and when that happens—was a central focus last week during oral arguments in Michelle MacDonald’s defamation-suit appeal.
Whether a political candidate’s public-figure status switches on and off—and when that happens—was a central focus last week during oral arguments in Michelle MacDonald’s defamation-suit appeal.…
Whether a political candidate’s public-figure status switches on and off—and when that happens—was a central focus last week during oral arguments in Michelle MacDonald’s defamation-suit appeal.…
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, www.taxthemax.blogspot.com The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Ch.119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this "Message," including attachments, may contain the originator's proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies recipients Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based actions. Authorized carriers of this message shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients. See: Quon v. Arch
TALK ABOUT A QUID PRO QUO re City St. Paul,MN DIRTY DEALS
USSC 10-1032 TITLED MAGNER VS. GALLAGHER.
STRANGE; MNAG at this time Lori Swanson or MIKE Hatch
never involved???
Lillhaug should have resolved Sharons Realestate at 1058 Summit Ave. St. Paul,MN AT that time. Tenants in Common Sharons Parents were never served, altho Dad ie Wm O Peterson friends with Judge Otis Godfrey could have saved Minnesota Judicial Branch - SupremeCourt
In early February 2012, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez made a secret deal behind closed doors with St. Paul, Minnesota, Mayor Christopher Coleman and St. Paul’s outside counsel, David Lillehaug. Perez agreed to commit the Department of Justice to declining intervention in a False Claims Act qui tam complaint filed by whistleblower Fredrick Newell against the City of St. Paul, as well as a second qui tam complaint pending against the City, in exchange for the City’s commitment to withdraw its appeal in Magner v. Gallagher from the Supreme Court, an appeal involving the validity of disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act. Perez sought, facilitated, and consummated this deal because he feared that the Court would find disparate impact unsupported by the text of the Fair Housing Act. Calling disparate impact theory the “lynchpin” of civil rights enforcement, Perez simply could not allow the Court to rule. Perez sought leverage to stop the City from pressing its appeal. His search led him to David Lillehaug and then to Newell’s lawsuit against the City.
There is much more to the story of how Assistant Attorney General Perez manipulated the rule of law and pushed the limits of justice to make this deal happen. In his fervor to protect disparate impact, Perez attempted to cover up the true reasons behind the Justice Department’s decision to decline Fredrick Newell’s case by asking career attorneys to obfuscate the presence of Magner as a factor in the declination decision and by refraining from a written agreement. In his zeal to get the City to agree, Perez offered to provide HUD’s assistance to the City in moving to dismiss Newell’s whistleblower complaint. The facts surrounding this quid pro quo show that Perez may have exceeded the scope of the ethics and professional responsibility opinions he received from the Department and thereby violated his duties of loyalty and confidentiality to the United States. Perez also misled senior Justice Department officials about the quid pro quo when he misinformed then-Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli about the reasons for Magner’s withdrawal. The quid pro quo between the Department of Justice and the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, is largely the result of the machinations of one man: Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez. Yet the consequences of his actions will negatively affect not only Fredrick Newell and the lowincome residents of St. Paul who he championed. The effects of this quid pro quo will be felt by future whistleblowers who act courageously, and often at great personal risk, to fight fraud and identify waste on behalf of federal taxpayers. The effects of withdrawing Magner will be felt by the minority tenants in St. Paul who, due to the case’s challenge to the City’s housing code, continue to live with rampant rodent infestations and inadequate plumbing. The effects of sacrificing Newell’s case will cost American taxpayers the opportunity to recover up to $200 million and allow St. Paul’s misdeeds to go unpunished. Far more troubling, however, is the fundamental damage that this quid pro quo has done to the rule of law in the United States and tthe reputation of the Department of Justice as a fair and impartial arbiter of justice HUD Sued for Records of Obama Administration Involvement in Controversial St. Paul, MN, Housing Discrimination Case | Judicial Watcho
We have reason to believe that the Obama administration improperly and successfully pressured St. Paul city officials to take the extremely rare action of withdrawing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration and its liberal activist allies are desperate to protect their ability to use the discredited ‘disparate impact’ legal standard in lawsuits in order to shakedown businesses and reward allies.”
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (No. 1:12-cv-01785)) on November 2, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to force compliance with an April 4, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents relating to possible collusion between the Obama administration and the city of St. Paul, MN, in withdrawing a “disparate impact” appeal pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. HUD has refused all JW FOIA requests for public records, even after JW paid in advance for the information.
HOWEVER; The Heinous, Downfall of Our Country are the Lying Obama Lawyers DFL TOM PEREZ , Tom Perez - Wikipedia
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, www.taxthemax.blogspot.com The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Ch.119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this "Message," including attachments, may contain the originator's proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies recipients Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based actions. Authorized carriers of this message shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients. See: Quon v. Arch
Corruption Proof? Another Post About Grazzini-Rucki Case Taken Down
WHY are so many articles, posts, links to documents and first hand accounts of the Grazzini-Rucki case being removed from the internet, and from the public eye?
The media has a vital role in uncovering the truth, and bringing issues of concern to the public. With advancements in technology and communication, the media has evolved to include everyday citizens, bloggers/vloggers, social commentators (etc) who report, research and share news; often delving into areas mainstream media won’t cover. This is a critical time in history when the true voice of the people is finally being heard. The news is no longer defined by major outlets alone but there are many outlets, and many sources to gather information. Every time a blog or article is removed due to harassment, threats, force/legal action or fear of personal harm, it strikes a blow to the liberty of every American.
...this post remains online but several links connecting to it have been removed...
PLEASE DON'T THINK FOR ONE SECOND THAT THIS IS ONLY ONE CASE - ITS HAPPENING ALL OVER THE COUNTRY TO MEN AND WOMEN ALIKE. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF THIS HAPPENED TO YOU?
RADIO INTERVIEW WITH SANDRA "SAM" GRAZZINI-RUCKI (MISSING)
THE FEDERAL LAW SUIT BEGINS – (MISSING, POSTED 9/17/2013)
"Speechless Minnesota" also did an episode on the lawsuit:"2014/01/16 A U.S. Federal Court Hearing took place on Friday, January 10, 2013, at 2:00 PM on whether Judges sued individually are immune, even if they violate the civil rights of family members, by "temporarily" depriving them of their rights to their own children. Tim Kinley held a press conference in front of the court building before and after the court proceedings. Tim discussed the case and the interviews on this show."
<<< CLICK AND LISTEN (Missing. This refers to the Fox 9 Story.) >>>>
This article is attached to the post, it comes from the Carver County Corruption blog which reported on several family court cases including Grazzini-Rucki. The CCC blog was removed from the internet after threats of lawsuit from David Rucki and his attorney.
"GIFTS" ARE LEGAL .... ANYONE WONDER WHY THE WORLD SEEMS JACKED UP!
$150 `gifts` (bribes) For Judges Under a rule judges made for their benefit only, they can take $150 secret `gifts` (bribes) from lawyers, special interests and anyone else. They can keep these `gifts` (bribes) secret – they do not have to report them to anyone. They can take unlimited number of these `gifts` (bribes) – as many as they want. The rule is on the internet, you can see it yourself. The rule is part of the Canons of Judicial Conduct. The paragraph that states the rule is very convoluted. In simplified language it states that a judge can accept: `Any other gift, loan, bequest, or other thing of value not exceeding $150, if the source of person is not a party or other person who, directly or indirectly, has come or is likely to come before the judge, or whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge.` The rule allows a lawyer or person to appear before a judge even if a partner or associate gives the judge $150 gifts (bribes). Thus, law firms commonly designate a `DE` (designated entertainer) to give judge gifts up to $150 in value. DEs do not appear in court. To see the rule, go to a search engine like Google and enter Scroll to 3 (D) (5) (h) to see the language quoted above. A judge must report the gift only if it is more than $150 in amount or value. `That is scandalous` former Governor Quie said when he learned that judges can take up to $150 gifts from lawyers, special interests, and others. It is more than that – it is outrageous. Judges know they can take $150 `gifts` – as many as they want – and keep it a secret. They are well aware of their rules of judicial conduct. Many judges accept these secret gifts. If they do not, the rule would obviously be unnecessary and could be eliminated. Legislators, legislative employees and employees of the executive (governor`s) branch of state government cannot accept `gifts` (bribes) in any amount over $5. This is because a code of ethics exists for the legislative and executive branches of state of government. There should be such a code for the judicial branch of government but there is not. The legislator should outlaw `gifts` by anyone to judges except from members of their immediate family as other states have done. Judges should be required to publicly disclose all gifts received from anyone other than their immediate family. `Gifts` to judges promote judicial corruption and undermine justice. How many judges do you think take more than $150? More than $100,000?
LETS START HERE!
Dakota County Judge David Knutson issued an order on September 7, 2012 that denies the mother of five children any contact with her children. He ordered mother to vacate her home of 15 years on the same day as the court order. Mother was able to take only a suitcase of her clothes. She was forced to leave her home and all of her possessions which she has never been able to recover. She was denied any due process. She was told she would be arrested and jailed if she refused to follow Judge Knutson’s orders.
She now is homeless, has no vehicle, no bank accounts, no credit cards, and no assets other than her clothing. She has only her job as an airline flight attendant which she has held for approx 27 years while taking leaves to care for her children. As a professional flight attendant, she is routinely tested for alcohol and substance abuse. All her independent psychological evaluations are completely normal. Her wages are garnished 25% for payment of past marital taxes even though mother has been left destitute with prior use of MN Care Insurance and food stamps after the divorce. Her ex-husband’s income is in excess of $200,000 per month and he retains all of the marital property. There was no hearing or any finding that she ever hurt or abused any of her five children in any way. The five children, ages 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16, were ordered to live in the custody of two aunts. The four youngest children have lived with their maternal aunt for almost six months without support from anyone. The children have not had or been allowed any contact with their mother except for one three-hour heavily supervised visit in late December, 2012. They have not had any contact with their father who has physically and sexually abused them and who hate him. In court on February 26, 2013, this aunt said she no longer is willing to provide for the children. The oldest child, a boy 16 years old, now lives in the former home of his mother with his father, who we believe a car and other expensive gifts in an attempt to buy the boy’s loyalty. The four youngest children no longer have a relationship with their oldest brother.
Why did all of this happen? In late August, 2012, Judge Knutson appointed an “expert” to make a recommendation on the parenting of the children. This expert, Dr. Paul Reitman, met with four of the children for about thirty minutes. He conducted no other evaluations, tests, or analysis. Yet, on the basis of this meeting, he issued his report that the problem was caused by the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a condition of the mother. Parental Alienation has been rejected by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association. They believe it to be unsubstantiated. In fact, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCI) has published guidelines stating that “The theory positing the existence of ‘PAS’ has been discredited by the scientific community.”
Nevertheless, Judge Knutson appointed another expert, Dr. James Gilbertson, to attempt to re-unify the children with their abusive father. He said he would “reprogram” the children to like their father—he saw them 3 times in 6 months. This failed leading to the February 26, 2013 hearing. At this hearing, Dr. Gilbertson arranged for the children to appear before Judge Knutson in a conference room. Judge Knutson listened to the children’s short statements and told them he was going to issue orders that they had to follow. The transcript of this meeting has been ordered. The mother has requested information from Gilbertson and Reitman such as appointment dates, payment history, and other documents, but these have been denied by the practitioners saying they are protected by the judge and do not need to follow the guidelines of their respective professional organizations. Judge Knutson has not allowed the opinions of any other professionals to be heard.
The four youngest children will now be homeless. They begged to be with their mother. Their lives have been seriously disrupted. The Guardian ad Litem (GAL), Julie Friedrich, initially agreed that they belonged with their mother. Her story has now changed. She told the children that everything had been given to their father, and that their mother was homeless and without a vehicle. (The children reported this information to their mother at the late December 2012 meeting.) Ms. Friedrich also informed the children that their mother was in a mental institution, in jail, had moved to Philadelphia, PA, had been fired from her job, and that mother’s whereabouts were unknown. Julie also told the children that their mother didn’t want them and that she was gone. She informed Dr. Gilbertson that no further contact between mother and children should take place. Mother has not been allowed to schedule any further visits with her children despite numerous attempts.
The youngest child, 10 years old, has a significant medical condition that since his birth has been attended to solely by his mother. His complex medical issues include dealing with numerous doctors, surgeries, and providing day to day care and attention. Over the last 10 years mother has been the sole provider of his care along with his pediatrician, Dr. Tim Anderson, who in a letter and in a conversation with Guardian ad Litem Julie Friedrich, stated that his mother has been the sole provider of his medical care and in the best interest of the child he should be with his mother due to her history of care and knowledge of all factors relating to him. He is placed at risk without her care.
Mother was the beneficiary of a life insurance purchased by her father, now deceased, that provided $1.3 million for mother’s use. This total amount was exhausted in the spring of 2012 when mother was ordered by Judge Knutson to pay substantial amounts for attorney’s fees and debts that became hers as a result of the original judgment and decree. She is now Pro Se, unable to afford her own attorney. When David Rucki failed to pay the court ordered child support, the state pulled his driver’s license. Judge Knutson wrote an order to child support and the state noting that David’s license was not to be revoked now or in the future. This ruling breaks state and federal law. His passport also was removed according to state and federal law due to child support arrears, yet Judge Knutson is attempting to over-rule federal law by reinstating his passport in defiance of the Dakota County District Attorney’s affidavit telling the judge that he cannot do this as he has no authority to over-rule the US Department of State. This is clearly our of Judge Knutson’s jurisdiction, yet he has scheduled a hearing on the matter.
Judge Knutson refused to order the normal parental arrangement where one parent has primary custody and the other parent visitation. He refused to follow Minnesota laws on parenting. He refused to give mother any due process or to follow court rules of procedure. There is no penalty or consequence to him because of his violation of law and other abuses. He is not accountable to anyone. Judge Knutson is actually a member of the Board of Judicial Standards where complaints against judges are sent! He has refused to remove himself from the case, denied a change of venue, and no action has been taken against him for the clear violations he has enforced. A letter of complaint about Judge Knutson’s actions to the Board of Judicial Standards from concerned citizens in the Burnsville, Lakeville, and Eagan area had no effect whatsoever. Clearly, this needs to be changed. There needs to be legislative oversight of the judiciary.
David Lee Lillehaug (born May 22, 1954)
