Sunday, December 22, 2019

MichelleMacDonald4Justice2020

Bar Buzz: MacDonald says she will appeal two rulings – Minnesota Lawyer

Bar Buzz: MacDonald says she will appeal two rulings

By: Kevin Featherly April 22, 2019

Lawyer and former state Supreme Court candidate Michelle MacDonald is not prepared to take “case dismissed” for an answer.
Michelle MacDonald
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.
Dakota County community services director resigns following internal investigation – Twin Cities

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.…

Michael Brodkorb, Author at Missing in Minnesota



Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.com
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

Sunday, December 1, 2019

ProvocateurMichaelVolpeJUDGEkarenAsphaugRecusalMandated2019

   
THEEPROVOCATEUR.BLOGSPOT.COM
(Judge Karen Asphaug) Judge Karen Asphaug of Minnesota's 1st Judicial Dist...
Wow
Comment
Comments








                                 THANKSGIVING DAY THURS28NOV2019
              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

EYES ARE TIRED CAN;T FIND RECENT LILLHAUG ORDER TO SUSPEND LAWYERS.
Upcoming Supreme Court Livestreams
12/02/2019 9 a.m.- AIM Development v. City of Sartell, 10 a.m.- State v. Thompson

Sharons Homesteads.
Sharons trusttrilogy 
Sharon4Judge
    AFFIANT Mrs. Sharon Peterson aka1sthusband Scarrella,2nd Anderson
                 herein after Sharon is not a Liar except for Age similar to Tina Turner, and not a Lawyer, Thank God President Donald Trump- is not a Lawyer.
                      SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING
                       PEREZ AND LILLHAUG MANULIPATING USSC10-1032 TITLED
                       MAGNER VS GALLAGHER
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
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
Official portrait of United States Secretary of Labor Tom Perez.jpg
Assumed office
February 25, 2017
DeputyKeith Ellison (2017–2018)
None (2018–present)

In a message dated 11/27/2019 2:07:27 PM Central Standard Time, sharon4anderson@aol.com writes:


Sharons-GrandJury2007            COUNT VIII

Choi's refusal to submit to Grand Jury or State AG Keith Ellison
                  suspect. THEREFORE;
                 Affiant Candidate Whistleblower Sharon Scarrella Anderson
                  Hometown,Homegrown, Love of St. PAUL, Loyal Trump supporter
                  in her Humble Way, mandates Grand Jury investigations into the
                  Conduct,Fundraising,DFL Endorsements,in a NonPartisan Race.
xx


Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.com
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