Attorney Michelle MacDonald
EXCERPT: On the day that S.G.’s (Sandra Grazzini-Rucki) 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. . .
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 JANUARY 6, 2018
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.