Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (LPRB)

• Type: Oversight complaint to LPRB (under Minn. Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility); appeal of summary dismissal.
• Core Issues: LPRB’s written decisions misstate the record (claiming only one submission), attribute to me a complaint I never made (“ex parte communications with a civil case judge”), refuse to produce the supposed document(s) on which that claim is based, and ignore multiple follow-ups requesting correction and production. Substantive conflict concerns involve attorney Kyle Manderfeld’s prior RCAO employment, awareness of altered court records, and his status as a named defendant in my federal case.
• Defendants/Actors: LPRB/Director’s Office (Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility); Attorney Kyle Manderfeld (former Ramsey County Attorney’s Office); contextual actors include Ramsey County judiciary personnel tied to altered records.
• Timeframe:
  • Apr 17, 2025: Initial complaint filed.
  • Apr 23, 2025: Summary dismissal.
  • Jul 18, 2025: Appeal filed.
  • Jul 22, 2025: Appeal opened by LPRB.
  • Aug 13, 2025: Appeal denied (includes false “ex parte” attribution).
  • Aug 15, 2025: Follow-up emailed requesting the record relied upon.
  • Aug 22, 2025: Second follow-up emailed.
  • Sept 11, 2025: Third follow-up emailed.
  • Sept 15, 2025: Follow-up letter mailed.
  • Sept 16, 2025: LPRB letter asserts only one complaint was received; matter “closed.”
• Status: LPRB dismissal and appeal denial recorded; multiple unacknowledged follow-ups preserved. Issue escalated for supervisory awareness (MN Supreme Court administrative channels) and incorporated as pattern evidence of institutional obstruction in Strickland v. Ramsey County, et al.
• Initial Complaint (PDF)
• Summary Dismissal (PDF)
• Appeal Filing (PDF)
• Appeal Denial (PDF)
• Email Follow-Ups (Aug 15, Aug 22, Sept 11)
• Mailed Follow-Up (Sept 15)
• LPRB Letter (Sept 16)—“Matter Closed”
• Annotated Timeline & Notes