STATE OF MINNESOTA

COURT OF APPEALS

BROCK FREDIN,

Appellant,

--against--

CATHERINE MARIE SCHAEFER Appellate Case No. A18-1090

Trial Court Case No.

Respondent.
Schaefer v. Fredin, 62-hr-cv-16-411
Schaefer v. Fredin, 62-hr-cv-18-527

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Brock Fredin (“Appellant”) respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in

Support of Appellate Court jurisdiction based on the June 25, 2018 Order originally brought by

Respondent Catherine Marie Schaefer (“Schaefer’) against Appellant.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal from a final decision of the District Court

pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(g) and Maher v. Maher, 393 N.w.2d 190, 195 (Minn.

App. 1986.). Appellant Brock Fredin asserts appellate court jurisdiction over the appeals of the

following decisions and orders of the District Court: (1) June 25, 2018 Order from Continued

Order to Show Cause Hearing imposing an immediate sanction of a fifty (50) year HRO against

Appellant.

1
 As set forth in the Memorandum of law, Schaefer has waged unending legal war against

Appellant over allegations of innocent comments critical of her posted on the Internet. Prior to

this dispute in Ramsey County, Schaefer had never met, seen, spoken to, or knew

Appellant. Schaefer tried to catfish Appellant and stalked him by reaching out to his ex-girlfriend

redacted military in October 2015 with her absurd false claims to ruin his life and relationship

with redacted military. In order to create this #metoo campaign, Schaefer published sexual

advertisements in coordination with non-party redacted TwitterFeminist impersonating his

identity and reiterated her countless false allegations to the saint Paul Police alleging

unwanted text messages and phone contact. As explained in greater detail below, Schaefer’s

allegations were properly investigated by the Saint Paul Police and lacked merit. After

forensic examination, eight (8) search warrants, all of her allegations originated from

telemarketers making routine calls to her telephone. On December 4, 2017, Schaefer filed yet

another false police report – after Appellant was cleared by forensic analysis conducted on all

his phones/computers and upwards of eight (8) search warrants – making another deliberately

bogus allegation of unwanted text message contact. In this report, Schaefer made a party

admission to an improper scheme and previous relationship with Referee Elizabeth Clysdale that

enabled her ability to obtain an improper HRO without ever having met, spoken to, or knowing

Appellant. Even worse, her pro bono attorney, Peter R. Mayer, has consistently refused to

disclose that he was appointed by redacted TwitterFeminist and withheld knowledge of the

rigged swat raid to serve Schaefer’s show cause Order and redacted Middlecamp’s HRO.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On April 4, 2017 Schaefer filed a show cause Order against Appellant. The Order

was served during an unlawful no-knock swat raid by exploiting long-arm statutes on Appellants

2
residence in Hudson, Wisconsin. On May 2, 2017 Schaefer’s show cause was dismissed after a

hearing.

2. In February 2018, Schaefer brought yet another show cause Order. Judge Jeffrey

Bryan was originally appointed to preside over the hearing. Instead, Judge Bryan sent the hearing

to Judge G. Tony Atwal. Judge Tony Atwal presided over the hearing.

3. In March 2018, Appellant filed an injunction in federal court to enjoin contempt

proceedings over state-sponsored harassment, retaliation, and bad-faith litigation.

4. In March 2018, Chief Judge John Guthmann acted in bad-faith by recusing all

judicial officers to hurry a contempt Order to moot the injunction and thereby invoke Rooker-

Feldman and Younger Abstention.

5. In April 2018, Judge Patrick Diamond presided over several contempt hearings

brought by Schaefer.

6. On May 22, 2018, Judge Diamond issued a conditional contempt order with

extensive findings.

7. On June 6, 2018, Judge Diamond issued an amended version of the May 22, 2018

findings.

8. On June 18, 2018, indicative of Schaefer’s petty nature, Schaefer brought another

contempt proceeding over Appellants Twitter account @Brock_Fredin alleging that Appellant

criticized her with a public Tweet.

9. On June 19, 2018 Schaefer petitioned for a new overlapping fifty (50) year HRO

based on the May 22, 2018 contempt findings.

10. On June 25, 2018 Judge Diamond issued a final contempt order with an immediate

sanction: a fifty (50) year HRO.

3
 ARGUMENT

The June 25, 2018 contempt order issuance purported to “sanction” Appellant with a fifty

(50) year HRO for taking proper action by generating a single true police report to document the

sexual advertisements Schaefer published impersonating his identity1 and participating in alleged

First Amendment protected activity. The June 25, 2018 Orders’ finality stems from Ramsey

County conditional contempt actions on May 2, 2017, February 12, 2018, May 22, 2018, and June

6, 2018 as well as various other contempt hearing requests by Schaefer. As a result, the June 25,

2018 Order appears final, does not dictate purge conditions, appears to consolidate the numerous

conditional contempt proceedings brought by Schaefer over a year period, and imposes multiple

immediate sanctions and/or violations offering imprisonment including: A fifty (50) year HRO.

I. THE CONTEMPT ORDER IS FINAL

Generally, a civil-contempt proceeding has two stages. Mahady v. Mahady, 448

N.W.2d 888, 891 (Minn. App. 1989) (describing two-stage contempt proceeding); but

cf. Mower County Human Servs. v. Swancutt, 551 N.W.2d 219, 223-24 (Minn. 1996)

(noting, in some circumstances, single-hearing process may be appropriate). In the first

1
Schaefer and her girlfriend special assistant United States Attorney and former Assistant
Minneapolis City Attorney redacted TwitterFeminist had stolen private photographs of Appellant
published them on the revenge porn Twitter account
and
https://twitter.com/cardsagsthrsmt/status/823941229079470080?lang=en and
https://twitter.com/CardsAgstHrsmt/status/1026276614928248832 (recent #shirtlessshamers
posting August 5, 2018) illustrating that she was behind sexual advertisements on seedy adult
websites impersonating Appellants identity, published his name, address, and email which sent
many strange messages from Internet users soliciting non-consensual sexual activity to Appellants
personal email and phone. After publishing the advertisements, Appellant hired a private
investigator and they were traced back to Schaefer. Schaefer claimed that a single request to
remove the advertisements was “harassment” illustrating her completely absurd and frivolous
claims. Of course, the District Court incompetently fails to do anything to protect Appellant
against this scheme to issue improper HRO’s to create a #metoo campaign from women Appellant
has never met, known, or spoken to.

4
stage of a two-stage proceeding, the district court must (1) find that the obligor had the

ability to comply with the court’s order and satisfy the obligations when they came due;

(2) set “purge conditions” and determine whether the contemnor will be able to satisfy

those conditions; and (3) determine that conditional confinement is “reasonably likely to

produce compliance.” Minn. Stat. § 588.12 (2002); Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 175,

156 N.W.2d 212, 217 (1968). If a court makes such findings, it may then issue a

conditional-contempt order. The second stage of a two-stage civil-contempt proceeding

occurs after the contemnor has allegedly violated the terms of the conditional-contempt

order. Before sanctions can be ordered, the contemnor is entitled to a hearing on the issue

of the contemnor’s performance or non-performance of the purging conditions contained

in the conditional-contempt order. Mahady, 448 N.W.2d at 891.

As such, the June 25, 2018 Order appears to be final. (See June 25, 2018 Contempt Order.)

The Order appears to consolidate numerous previous conditional contempt hearings and orders.

For example, in paragraph 4, the contempt order states “The contempt orders dated May 22, 2018

and June 6, 2018 remain in full force and effect.” (See Id. ¶ at 4.)

The June 25, 2018 Order, however, is final in so far that it is not conditional and does not

outline future purge conditions. Mahady v. Mahady, 448 N.W.2d 888, 891 (Minn. App. 1989.)

(describing a two-stage contempt proceeding detailing initial purge conditions).

II. PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. § 609.748 SUBD. 6 (i) (2018) AND MINN.
STAT. § 588.02 A HARASSMENT RESTRAINING ORDER VIOLATION IS
STATURORY CONSTRUCTED AMBIGIOULSLY TO PROVIDE FOR
CONTEMPT OF COURT AND CONTEMPT POWERS OF IMPRISONMENT

5
 Constructive civil contempt involves "the power to punish contempt by fine and/or

imprisonment" under Minn. Stat. § 588.02 (2014). Most importantly, Minn. Stat. § 609.748 Subd.

6 (i) requires that a show cause order is used for “contempt of court”.

Here, the District Court is purporting to sanction Appellant immediately with

imprisonment pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.748 Subd. 6 (i). The plain language of the statute

requires “the court … shall refer the violation … to the appropriate prosecuting authority” for

“prosecution”. Furthermore, this traces Minn. Stat. § 609.748 Subd. 6 (b), (c), (d) that black-letter

statutory law requires violations of the Order to include: “sentenced to imprisonment”,

“misdemeanor” and “felony” punishments. In other words, the alleged violations presented within

the consolidated final June 25, 2018 Order satisfy the “imprisonment” and “contempt” element of

civil constructive contempt.

III. THE FINAL JUNE 25, 2018 COTEMPT ORDER IMPOSES AN IMMEDIATE
SANCTION - A FIFTY YEAR HRO – AND IS THEREFORE APPELABLE

A conditional contempt order, which provides a method by which the contemnor may

purge the contempt, is not a final appealable order. Johnson v. Johnson, 439 N.W.2d 430, 431

(Minn. App. 1989). However, an order finding a party in contempt and immediately imposing a

sanction is appealable. Maher v. Maher, 393 N.W.2d 190, 195 (Minn. App. 1986.)

Here, the District Court continues its’ three (3) year campaign of state-sponsored

harassment, retaliation, and bad faith litigation levied against him by issuing the fifty (50) year

Order in response to unsubstantiated allegations of petty public criticism on

shesahomewrecker.com and karmenmcquitty.net. (See May 22, 2018 Order at ¶¶ at paragraph

22-24.)

In fact, no other known litigant in Minnesota Courts has been subject to a fifty (50) year

HRO over allegedly publishing petty First Amendment protected comments of this nature. Judge

6
Patrick Diamond is unable to show any case law to support the fifty (50) year issuance. Instead,

actively refusing and delivering a scathing rebuttal in the form of a recent Order. Despite this

retaliatory behavior and frankly incompetence, Appellant has done extensive research to pull all

available public case law for fifty (50) year issuance:

1. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom, 845 N.W.2d 764 (2014) (“convicted Bergstrom of three OFP

violations … the Court again placed Bergstrom on probation”)

2. State v. Pierce, Minnesota Court of Appeals Case No. A14-1783 (issuing two 50-

year orders to a defendant with a related felony criminal conviction which sentenced him

to over twenty years in prison)

3. Dwyer v. Molde, Minnesota Court of Appeals Case No. A15-0534 (modifying the

issuance of a fifty (50) year HRO to three (3) years based on lack of particularized findings

but an extensive history of conflict)

More importantly, the Court’s findings cannot be squared with the law or the facts of this case.

These “violations” found in Judge Diamond’s orders (petty innocent comments posted on the

internet) do not even compare to any previous fifty (50) year issuance. In fact, Schaefer’s

irrefutably false allegations are extremely abusive to Appellant and should require a fifty (50)

year issuance against Schaefer. In fact, an equivalent HRO was issued against Schaefer in

Appellants home jurisdiction of Saint Croix County, Wisconsin which speaks to how broken the

Ramsey County Court is in that it failed to acknowledge or even protect Appellant for three years

against the violence brought by Schaefer including a no-knock military style raid of his home

through her repeated irrefutably false claims due to her previous relationship with the presiding

judicial officer extending through redacted TwitterFeminist.

7
 IV. THIS COURT MAINTAINS JURISDICTION OVER THE DISTRICT
COURT’S JUNE 25, 2018 ORDER

When a district court invokes its civil-contempt powers, this Court reviews the

district court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Swancutt, 551 N.W.2d at 222. Here,

the District Court asserted civil-contempt powers as explained in greater detail above.

Thus, providing this Court with jurisdiction. Further, this court may also infer the history of the

parties' conflict, even though it was not part of the record at the hearing. Minn. R. Evid. 201

(addressing judicial notice); Matter of Zemple, 489 N.W.2d 818, 820 (Minn. App. 1992) (holding

that the court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of findings made in previously

adjudicated proceedings).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Appellant respectfully requests that the Court assert

jurisdiction over the June 25, 2018 Order as discussed above.

Dated: August 7, 2018

Hudson, WI

/s/ Brock Fredin

______________________________
Brock Fredin
1905 Iris Bay
Hudson, WI 54016
(612) 424-5512 (tel.)
brockf12@gmail.com
Appellant, Pro Se