View Full Amended Complaint (PDF)
This case concerns systemic due process failures and judicial misconduct by the Second Judicial District Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota. It documents how the court advanced and enforced a civil harassment restraining order despite an undisputed absence of personal service, falsified procedural records, and a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
In December 2024, the court issued a $300 civil harassment restraining order based on filings that were never lawfully served. Affidavits of non-service were submitted by multiple sheriff’s offices, mail was returned undelivered, and all attempted service relied on outdated or inaccurate information. Nonetheless, the court proceeded with multiple hearings and ultimately denied a rescission motion by citing an unsupported and fictitious service date.
A subsequent Motion to Vacate was granted a hearing, implicitly acknowledging the procedural defects. The hearing was intentionally delayed, allowing the order to remain active and inflict reputational, emotional, and legal harm. During that time, the order was amplified online through coordinated efforts by the original petitioner and her associates.
Once the restraining order was made public, it was disseminated across social media platforms and used as a tool for reputational targeting and coordinated harassment. Digital evidence indicates that content was monetized, algorithmically boosted, and improperly used to support immigration interference, professional defamation, and false reporting. Despite platform policies, there was no meaningful moderation or institutional response.
These events reflect more than isolated procedural errors—they expose institutional dysfunction at multiple levels: judicial actors proceeding without jurisdiction, clerks processing unsigned and altered orders, public agencies enabling known misinformation, and tech platforms failing to moderate court-abetted defamation. Together, these failures enabled the weaponization of civil legal processes against a vulnerable target population.
This case archive provides a structured record of those failures. It demonstrates how unchecked judicial discretion, flawed administrative practices, and digital platform negligence can converge to violate constitutional rights, particularly for disabled, self-represented litigants. The systemic patterns documented here warrant serious scrutiny, not only for the harm caused in this instance, but for what they reveal about the fragility of procedural safeguards in local courts.