Note: Has everyone been waiting for Candi Lemarr's response to whether or not she will authorize Brown County to release the body camera video for State of Minnesota vs Candi Jolene Lemarr Case Number 08-CR-21-272 to me? Did you know that I just sent a second email today? Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned in the email that Candi Lemarr was determined to be not a credible witness? That wouldn't be any fun if I left that damning part out, would it? So guess who responded? Did you guess Lemarr's apparently very angry and very embarrassed attorney?
_____________________________________________________________________________
from: Lion News lionnews00@gmail.com
to: katie@grosheklaw.com,
James Kuettner jim@jklawmn.com,
fbusch@nujournal.com,
gorear@nujournal.com,
Jeremy.reed@co.brown.mn.us,
cpeterson@nujournal.com,
Jason Seidl Jason.Seidl@co.brown.mn.us
date: Apr 15, 2022, 10:31 AM
subject: Will Or Won't Subject Of Data Candi Lemarr Authorize Release Of Body Camera Video For State of Minnesota vs Candi Jolene Lemarr Case Number 08-CR-21-272?
mailed-by: gmail.com
Katherine Claffey, lead attorney for Candi Lemarr 612-827-3833:
Is your falsely accused client, Candi Lemarr, subject of the data, going to have a problem with authorizing Brown County to release the body camera video for State of Minnesota vs Candi Jolene Lemarr Case Number 08-CR-21-272 to me? Plus, doesn't your client's reputation need some rehabilitation? Your client was found by the court to be a "not credible" witness, right? Wouldn't releasing the videos help to repair Lemarr's damaged reputation? And, isn't it also true that Lemarr's credibility was damaged, in part, because your co-counsel failed to either ask for sanctions against Brown County Attorney Chuck Hanson (The convicted thief, right?) and/or failed to ask for the Evidentiary hearing for Case No. CV-20-978 Candi Lemarr vs. Brown County to be continued? Aren't asking for sanctions and asking for a continuance the things that a competent attorney would do when the prosecutor illegally withholds and/or delays the defendant's evidence for an evidentiary hearing? Hmm? Inquiring minds want to know, don't they?
Terry Dean, Nemmers 320-283-5713
P.S. Did you see the video that Mahnomen County Sheriff Josh Guenther released to the public to dispell the attemted murder rumors? Funny, Brown County Sheriff Jason Seidl didn't think to volunteer to release the Lemarr videos to dispel all those Lemarr rumors, isn't it?
"I think now that the facts have been released, it might change some people's minds, and they might have a different feeling about this whole situation," Guenther told MPR News on Thursday. Mahnomen County authorities release dashcam video of shooting after pursuit MPR News Staff April 14, 2022 1:35 PM https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/04/14/authorities-release-dashcam-video-of-shooting-after-pursuit-in-mahnomen-county
https://www.facebook.com/MahnomenCountySheriffsOffice/videos/3102661763382534 Mahnomen County Sheriff's Office April 13 at 2:59 PM · WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT Sheriff’s Statement April 13, 2022 The provided video shows a portion of the officer involved shooting that occurred in Mahnomen County on March 13th, 2022 involving Deputy Dakota Czerny and Shequoya Deanne Basswood, age 20, of Mahnomen. The purpose of releasing this segment of video is transparency. There is a narrative being pushed through social media from a coalition out of the Twin Cities area stating that Deputy Czerny attempted to murder Basswood. This coalition has created a “Wanted” poster regarding Deputy Czerny, which raises serious questions about Deputy Czerny’s safety. The intent of releasing this video is to make the public aware of the facts. On March 13th at approximately 1:37 a.m. Deputy Czerny
Consider the typical jury trial. For an innocent defendant, even a not guilty verdict is a loss. Although the innocent defendant has “won,” she has undergone arrest and (at least minimal) incarceration, spent money on premiums paid to bail bondsman, spent more money hiring a lawyer, withstood the inevitable public censure and suspicion, undergone the roller coaster ride of emotion during the protracted litigation, and will ever after suffer a stain on her reputation. For the innocent defendant, “not guilty” is a smaller loss than “guilty as charged,” but it is a loss nonetheless. For a guilty defendant, even a guilty verdict and a prison sentence can be a win. More than one guilty defendant facing a draconian sentence has celebrated when she was convicted of a lesser crime and sentenced to the maximum for a minor felony. George R. Dekle, Sr, Prosecution Principles: A Clinical Handbook (Thompson/West:2007), Page 65.
Q Investigator Reed, if someone is posting online regarding what happened on November 23rd, 2020, were there eight deputies out at Sapphire Farms on November 23rd, 2020?
MR. KUETTNER: Objection to the -- sorry, Your Honor. Objection to the relevance. The first half of this question, whether or not somebody posting online, whatever they're posting has nothing to do with what happened on November 23.
THE COURT: I agree. I don't know what has been posted online. Obviously, we were focused here on what did happen and not on rumors or speculation or guesses online, so I will sustain the objection to the first part of the question. Page 146-147. Evidentiary Hearing - Volume III Day 3 of 3 Pages 111-172 Evidentiary Hearing File No. CV-20-978 Candi Lemarr vs. Brown County. Q: Andrea Liester, Assistant Brown County Attorney, Q: James Kuettner, Attorney for Defendant
My client did not see the video, itself, until this morning. We did not have time to review the video in total together because the video was disclosed to me yesterday morning, after I had told the State that I would be making a site visit out to my client's farm place. My client's farm place is an hour from my office, so one hour out, one hour back. We spent some time there. It turns out that the State decided not to pursue what they were initially pursuing, so the event might have been viewed or might be viewed as a waste of my time. I didn't arrive back to my office until 1:15. At that point, I had lunch and started to review the videos. I again shared them, parts of them, with my client this morning. She has not seen all of the videos yet, but I did share with her parts of those videos. She has told me that she has, essentially, gone social media blackout and/or silent. I have no control, nor do I have any duty to control third parties, so whatever they do on social media, I have nothing to do with it. I have advised them generally not to say or do anything, anybody that I have met, not to say or do anything or talk about this case outside of the case, itself, but I hope that Ms. Lieser's stated concerns from earlier in this hearing are assuaged by my statements here. Page 77-78. Evidentiary Hearing - Volume I Day 1 of 3 Pages 1-81. Evidentiary Hearing File No. CV-20-978 Candi Lemarr vs. Brown County. Q: James Kuettner, Attorney for Defendant
ORDER 1. The motion for a new trial or amended findings is DENIED. 2. The attached Memorandum is incorporated herein. DATED: February 12, 2021 Digitally signed by Docherty Robert (Judge) Date: 2021.02.12 Robert A. Docherty Judge of District Court ... Finally, Plaintiff argues her credibility; the Court sees no reason to change its conclusion that she was not a credible witness. For these reasons, the Plaintiff’s post-trial motion is denied. RAD Order & Memorandum Case Number: 08-CV-20-978 Case Title: Candi Lemarr vs Brown County
23. Plaintiff’s therapist, Sandra Walsh, testified about her contacts with Plaintiff. When Plaintiff is under great stress, she dissociates, which Ms. Walsh described as avoiding eye contact; staring into space; and, in therapy sessions, perseveration of thoughts. In dissociation, Plaintiff may appear calm or may break down; she may have shifty eye movements and may appear dishonest.
24. Ms. Walsh was not at Plaintiff’ s farm on November 23, 2020, and she did not testify to any observations of Plaintiff on that date.
25. During her contact with Investigator Reed, Plaintiff did not say that she did not understand what he was saying or that she was confused. She did not stare into space or break down, and she maintained attention throughout her contact.
26. Neither the Plaintiff nor her son expressed any concerns about her mental health on November 23, 2020. … The actions of Investigator Reed in this case do not amount to duress. Plaintiff had the option of allowing the animals to be removed involuntarily and demanding a court hearing. There is no indication that Plaintiff was suffering from dissociation during her contact with Investigator Reed; she spoke clearly and lucidly and asked relevant questions. Plaintiff was allowed to consult with her son and was free to leave the property and did so. Contrary to her testimony that Investigator Reed isolated her in his vehicle, her son spoke to her through an open window. Plaintiff volunteered to allow Mini-Bit and the three donkeys to be taken. She discussed with the veterinarian which animals could go and which she would keep; her decisions were rationally focused on keeping the animals that would allow her to continue to offer riding lessons and releasing the animals that were not income producers. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court makes the following:
ORDER 1. Plaintiff s request for an evidentiary hearing on the seizure of the animals is DENIED. DATED: January 19, 2021 Digitally signed by Docherty Robert (Judge) Date: 2021.01.19. Findings Of Fact, Conclusions Of Law & Order. Case Number: 08-CV-20-978 Case Title: Candi Lemarr vs Brown County
_____________________________________________________________________________
from: Claffey, Katie katie@grosheklaw.com
to: Lion News lionnews00@gmail.com,
"jim@jklawmn.com" jim@jklawmn.com
date: Apr 15, 2022, 12:39 PM
subject: Re: Will Or Won't Subject Of Data Candi Lemarr Authorize Release Of Body Camera Video For State of Minnesota vs Candi Jolene Lemarr Case Number 08-CR-21-272?
mailed-by: grosheklaw.com
signed-by: christagrosheklaw.onmicrosoft.com
security: Standard encryption (TLS) Learn more
: Important mainly because it was sent directly to you.
Mr. Dean-Nemmers,
Ms. Lemarr is not releasing her file to anyone. Thank you for your interest in this case. I hope this resolves all your questions. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Katie Claffey, Esq.
signature_55505470
302 North 10th Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 827-3833 Fax: (612) 294-2565
www.grosheklaw.com
CONFIDENTIAL
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer; it is meant for the exclusive use of the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone (612) 827-3833 and delete all copies of the message.
More to come ...
Related Links:
Armed Minnesota Animal Humane Society Humane Agent Keith Streff Wearing A Firearm In Case No. 83-CR-18-513 State Of Minnesota Vs Michael Charles Johnson? Will AHS Agent Streff Show Up Armed At June 28‐June 30th, 2021 & July 1– July 2, 2021 Jury Trial for Court File 46-CV-19-1224 Goldmount Veterinary Center, P.A. Vs Watonwan County, Animal Humane Society? Has Streff Ever Been Accused Of Impersonating An Officer? Let's Ask AHS Attorney Freitag, Okay? Should We Tell The St. James Plaindealer & The Martin County Star Editors About Watonwan Co. Attorney Lindee's Illegal Withholding Of Public Data? Lindee Knows That The Chapter 13 Data Will Toss A Monkey Wrench Into 46-CV-19-1224, Doesn't He
