Eric Wallen, Lyon Co. Sheriff 06-17-22
611 West Main Street
Marshall, MN 56258
(507) 537-7666
ericwallen@co.lyon.mn.us
Hand-delivered on 06-17-22
This is my formal criminal complaint against Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety Mike Munford (Hereinafter Munford) for making multiple perjured 1 statements during the 05-04- 22 Court Trial of Case No. 42-CR-21-98 State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar. Munford also admitted on the witness stand to being in the possession of digital images of myself and the individuals who accompanied me to SMSU on 02-04-21. Those digital images were subject to Brady disclosure requirements. The digital images were exculpatory because they indicated that I was in possession of the medical exemptions for my daughters who attended SMSU. Munford gave multiple conflicting 2,3,4 answers during his sworn testimony about whether he was made aware of the medical exemptions. Munford also made conflicting sworn statements in regard to who took the digital images. Furthermore, I had not received those exculpatory digital images 5 from either City of Marshall City Attorney Dennis Simpson, Assistant City of Marshall City Attorney Matthew Gross or City of Marshall Director of Public Safety Jim Marshall prior to nor during the 02-04-21 trial.
On 02-04-21 both Munford and Marshall Police Officer Alicia Popowski #219 were made aware of the “doctor’s note” aka medical exemption that Larvita McFarquhar (hereinafter McFarquhar) had obtained for her daughters. At the 1:52 mark (1:50-1:53/21:25) of the body camera video entitled “Determan 1.mp4” McFarquhar can be seen clearly displaying the medical exemption to both Munford and Popowski.
She has every right to be in class. She has a doctor’s note. [Note: Larvita McFarquhar shows doctor’s note aka medical exemption to Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety Mike Munford and Marshall Police Officer Popowski] 1:50-1:53/21:25 Determan 1.mp4 LLarvita Published September 13, 2021 https://rumble.com/vmglhz-determan-1.mp4.html
Page 1 of 14
Both the body camera video and the transcript of the body camera video indicate the presence of both Munford and Popowski when McFarquhar is displaying the “doctor’s note” aka medical exemption.
Prior to this encounter, I personally showed Munford the doctor’s note aka medical exemption for my daughter. Below is the transcript of the interaction with Munford: Mike Mumford: Obey the rules of the university.
Larvita McFarquhar: We already obeyed the rules.
Mike Mumford: Obey the rules of the university.
Larvita McFarquhar: See what happens is you weren’t even in the class he still came. Mike Mumford: Yes. Yes, she has no mask. And everybody has to mask up on our campus
Larvita McFarquhar: You see this right here?
Mike Mumford: Ma’am I’m not.
Larvita McFarquhar: I have a doctor’s note.
Mike Mumford: That’s that’s she could wear a shield, also.
Larvita McFarquhar: No. Her doctor said she can’t wear a shield or a face covering. And I’ve shown you this. And I’ve shown it to you to the ADA Mike Mumford: At this point, my conversation with you is over. And I’m looking to have you removed and [unintelligible]. 1:22-2:01 / 4:52 https://rumble.com/v11d4a8-exhibit-one-mike-mumford.html Page 2 of 14
Exhibit one Mike Mumford LLarvita Published April 17, 2022 10 Views 1 rumble Mufford telling us that those students have a right to their education and basically my daughter doesn’t because she is not wearing a face covering. Prior to me giving notice to Munford of my daughter’s “doctor’s note” aka medical exemption digital image and/or video was taken of myself and the individuals who accompanied me to SMSU on 02-04- 21.
Page 3 of 14
At the :56 minute mark; the :59 minute mark, and the 1:01 minute mark of the video entitled “Exhibit one Mike Mumford” you can see Munford taking pictures or running video of myself and theindividuals who accompanied me to SMSU on 02-04-21. It should also be noted that the video entitled “Exhibit one Mike Mumford” was published on my Rumble account over two (2) weeks prior (April 17, 2022) to the the 05-04-22 court trial. Which means that City of Marshall City Attorney Dennis
Page 4 of 14
Simpson, Assistant City of Marshall City Attorney Matthew Gross or City of Marshall Director of Public Safety Jim Marshall had ample time to verify whether or not Munford was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the incident on 02-04-21 prior to his testimony while under oath on 05-04-22. I bring this up this point since I have incident reports that indicate that Lyon County law enforcement has monitored my social media sites in the past. So, neither City of Marshall City Attorney Dennis Simpson nor Assistant City of Marshall City Attorney Matthew Gross nor even City of Marshall Director of Public Safety Jim Marshall can say that they were unaware of what actually happened on 02-04-21 at SMSU.
During the 05-04-22 Court Trial of Case No. 42-CR-21-98 State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar Munford testified to the following:
1. Munford testified that he did not see the medical exemption documents for McFarquhar’s daughters. Munford insists that MacFarquhar only mentioned the exemptions 7,8,9,10 .
2. Munford testified that he vaguely remembers McFarquhar discussing the medical exemption documents for McFarquhar’s daughters. However, Munford doesn’t recall seeing medical exemption documents for McFarquhar’s daughters 11,12,13 .
3. Munford testified that he even has memory problems when it comes to discussing his interactions with the Marshall Police 14 .
4. Munford testified that pictures of McFarquhar were taken on 02-04-21. However, Munford denies taking the pictures himself 15. .
5. Munford testified that pictures of McFarquhar were taken on 02-04-21. However, Munford doesn’t recall who took the pictures 16 .
6. Munford testified that he was following MSMU’s COVID-19 policy 17,18,19,20 .
Munford’s sworn testimony about not seeing the medical exemption for my daughter is incompatible with the video evidence that I posted on my Rumble channel on September 13, 2021 and April 17, 2022. The videos entitled “Determan 1.mp4” and “Exhibit one Mike Mumford” provide clear, precise and unquestionable evidence that Munford did know about the medical exemptions for my daughters on 02-04-21. Which means that Munford repeatedly engaged in perjured testimony when he testified that he did not see the medical exemptions or when he testified that he did not recall seeing the medical exemptions during the 05-04-22 court trial.
The video entitled “Exhibit one Mike Mumford” also provides clear, precise and unquestionable evidence that it was Munford who was taking pictures/video of myself and the individuals who accompanied me to SMSU on 02-04-21. Which means that Munford repeatedly provided perjured testimonty during the 05-04-22 court trial when he testified that he either did not take the pictures/video or didn’t not recall who took pictures/video of myself and the individuals who accompanied me on 02-04-21.
In order for Munford to testify that he was following MSMU’s COVID-19 policies it required Munford to lie under oath about not seeing the medical exemptions and also to lie under oath about not taking the pictures/video of myself and individuals who accompanied me to SMSU on 02-04-21. Southwest Minnesota State University’s 600-12 Civil Disturbance or Demonstrations policy 21 make it clear that photographic evidence is to be provide to local law enforcement. Yet, the digital images/video of myself and the people who accompanied me on 02-04-21 was not provided to me through my Chapter 13 Subject Data Request that I submitted to the City of Marshall.
Means-Motive-Opportunity
Clearly Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety Mike Munford is of the mindset
Page 5 of 14
that he and SMSU President Kumara Jayasuriya are entitled to think and act like they are above the law. This is clearly evidenced by SMSU President Jayasuriya not wearing a mask during the COVID- 19 pandemic when it benefited him personally 22 . Obviously this situation that I created with my daughter’s medical exemption could have been easily handle months prior to the incident of 02-04-21. All SMSU President Jayasuriya had to do was get an adverse medical examiner to give a medical opinion that my daughter’s medical exemption was not valid. But, Jayasuriya chose not to do that. Or Jayasuriya could have taken myself and my daughters to court to have my daughter’s medical exemptions invalidated. Yet, again Jayasuriya chose not to do that. Instead Jayasuriya and Munford decided to bully and intimidate their way through the situation.
Apparently, the plan that SMSU President Jayasuriya and SMSU Director of Public Safety Mike Munford hatched was to defame/discredit me and silence me by having me trespassed from SMSU. This plan would only work if Munford lied to the Marshall police about not seeing the medical exemptions for my daughters. And since Munford was willing to lie to the police about not seeing the medical exemption fo rmy daughters, then it only follows that Munford was willing to illegally withhold the exculpatory digital images/video from me that he took of myself and the individuals who accompanied me to SMSU on 02-04-21.
It would appear that I threw a monkey wrench into both SMSU President Jayasuriya’s and SMSU Director of Public Safety Munford’s plans by demanding 23,24 that I receive all my evidence in my criminal case. My demand for my evidence and my demand for sanctions placed a huge spotlight on City of Marshall City Attorney Dennis Simpson, Assistant City of Marshall City Attorney Matthew Gross or City of Marshall Director of Public Safety Jim Marshall. And that spotlight called Simpson’s, Gross’s and Marshall integrity and willingness to abide by the laws of the land into question. Of course, it is a matter of the public record that Judicial Officer Patrick Rohland’s willful refusal to rule on my demands for sanctions. And it was highly suspicious that Judicial Officer Patrick Rohland didn’t want to have a evidentiary hearing. This made me begin to think that this was all coordinated to ensure that I would be found guilty at trial – at a trial by ambush.
I became even more suspicious of Judicial Officer Patrick Rohland when he just ignored my criminal complaint 25,26 that I filed into the court record. It was becoming even more clear that everyone in positions of power were looking for that Lisa Hanson moment 27, 28, 29 where they could say that I am the bad person for not following the rules. Even if it meant those people in positions of power needed to use a sledge hammer to pound that square peg into that round hole.
My little Facebook Live chat 30 with Lyon County Sheriff Eric Wallen helped me to realize that Wallen really had no problem with City of Marshall City Attorney Dennis Simpson, Assistant City of Marshall City Attorney Matthew Gross or City of Marshall Director of Public Safety Jim Marshall thinking and acting like they were above the law. However, my complaint that filed with Lyon County Sheriff Eric Wallen apparently had a major negative impact on the credibility of Wallen. Simpson, Gross and Marshall. Apparently, the hit on Wallen’s, Simpson’s, Gross’ and Marshall’s reputation was so bad that the 911 call 31 that I reported to Wallen as being illegally withhold from me by Simpson, Gross and Marshall was magically and mysteriously provided to me on April 22, 2022.
It would seem that Simpson, Gross and Marshall began to have serious doubts that a jury would believe Munford’s ridiculous testimony. I came to that logical conclusion after getting the offer from the prosecutor to drop the disorderly conduct charge in exchange for a bench trial. After hearing Munford’s ridiculous testimony it made sense to me why Simpson, Gross and Marshall only want Judicial Officer Patrick Rohland to hear the case. Only someone who wanted me to be found guilty would blindly believe Munford. And since Judicial Officer Patrick Rohland apparently had no problem with trial by ambush then the verdict was easy to predict.
Page 6 of 14
Of course, the roadblocks that Judicial Officer Patrick Rohland’s court reporter 32,33 placed in my way to prevent me from obtaining the transcript for Munford’s testimony were also easy to predict.
With all that being said, I am filing this legitimate complaint not because I believe that you will actually do a thorough investigation of Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety Mike Munford’s perjured testimony during the 05-04-22 bench trial. I would have to have confidence in you and your Sheriff’s office to do that. In fact, I have absolutely no confidence in you or your sheriff’s office. I am simply I am filing this legitimate complaint to prove to the world that you have no intention of doing a serious and thorough investigation of SMSU Public Safety Director Mike Munford’s perjured testimony during the 05-04-22 bench trial.
____________________________________________
Larvita McFarquhar 106 E. Railroad St. Lynd, Minnesota 56157
Footnotes:
1. 609.48 Perjury. § Subdivision 1. Acts constituting. Whoever makes a false material statement not believing it to be true in any of the following cases is guilty of perjury and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 4: (1) in or for an action, hearing or proceeding of any kind in which the statement is required or authorized by law to be made under oath or affirmation; https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.48
2. The “liar liar” technique, when stripped to its barest essentials involves the following progression: (1) Get the defendant to say that a prior inconsistent statement is true. (2) Get the defendant to say that she knew it was untrue when she made it. (3) Get the defendant to admit that she lied. George R. Dekle, Sr, Prosecution Principles: A Clinical Handbook (Thompson/West:2007), Page 283.
3. The witness will appear dishonest in one of three ways – either the testimony will be illogical, internally inconsistent or incompatible with other evidence. George R. Dekle, Sr, Prosecution Principles: A Clinical Handbook (Thompson/West:2007), Page 166.
4. Truthful Subject Offer Confident and Definitive Responses. Deceptive Subject May Offer Qualified Responses. A truthful denial will stand on its own, and it will be clear that the subject is accepting full responsibility within his response. ... A second category of qualifying phrases is a memory qualifiers, which blame memory. Because memory does not exist in a measurable sense and, of course, cannot be seen, a deceptive subject may reduce anxiety by blaming a poor memory. He realizes that it is impossible to prove what a person did or did not remember at a particular point in time. Some common phrases within this category include the following: ... “I can't recall whether” Page 87. Inbau, Fred E., Reid, John E., Buckley Joseph P., Jayne, Brian C. Essentials of the Reid Technique: Criminal Interrogation and Confessions.
5. The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal; Minnesota Court Rules Professional Rules Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/pr/subtype/cond/id/3.8/
6. Transcript – Determan Radio “inaudible”
Munford: This is the Mother. The Mother is disrupting.
Defendant: How dare you tell her to disobey me.
Page 7 of 14
Munford: The Mother is disrupting our classes. She was given a notice of trespass yesterday. She has failed to abide by it.
Defendant: No don’t get to talk to me daughter who is underage without permission and how dare you tell her to disobey me!
Munford: I would like for you guys to remove her. Defendant: How dare you tell her to disobey me!
Popowski: So I will have you just back up for me please sir. So would it be okay if I just talk to you if we just go talk on the other side by the doors please?
Defendant: Please please have her go back to her class she has every right to be in class. Munford: She can’t.
Defendant: She has every right to be in class. She has a doctor’s note. [Note: Larvita McFarquhar shows doctor’s note aka medical exemption to Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety Mike Munford and Marshall Police Officer Popowski] She has the executive orders.
Popowski: Okay.
Defendant: I will talk to you, but she has to be in that class.
Popowski: Okay and I will be happy to see what I can do to help you with that, but at this point in time I’m going to say that all four of us can go to the doors and we can have a civilized conversation about this and I can try to help figure out what’s going on. Okay. So let’s start with that Okay? 42-CR-21-98 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 9/15/2021 8:58 AM 09/15/2021 Case Details Case Number:42-CR-21-98 Case Title:State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar Discovery Disclosure 1 page https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
7. Q: So, when a child tells you that she has a disability, which we clearing show in the evidence, that she has a disability and a doctor’s note stating that she has an exemption why, would you call that part of the ADA? A: Ma’am, I, uh, you’re referring to documents I’m unaware of. Cross Examination of Mike Munford Q: Larvita Elena McFarquhar A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Page 12. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
8. Q: No, just I want you to just tell me what, on that day, when she walked into the door, after you knew that she had an exemption, what did you say to her?
A: Well, let me ask you this quick, I haven’t seen any exemption, I was not aware of any exemption and my uh, course of action was then at the time to ask her to don the protective gear. Cross Examination of Mike Munford Q: Larvita Elena McFarquhar A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Page 15. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
9. Q: On May, May, I keep saying May, I’m so sorry. On February 3 rd you stated that her daughter hasn’t met, uh, that you stated that Larvita McFarquhar stated that she was on campus to support her daughter and that her daughter has a medical condition that prevents her from wearing a mask. Did you make that statement?
A: If that’s written, I, yes, ma’am I did.
Q: Did you or did you not just say that you were not aware that Saphi had a medical condition, that she could not wear a face mask?
A: I, I alluded to the fact that I, I never saw documentation to that fact. I’ve only heard from you. Cross Examination of Mike Munford Q: Larvita Elena McFarquhar A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Page 33-34. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages
Page 8 of 14
https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
10. Q: If you do not have, if you do not have the authority to deny or accept an exemption, how can you stop someone from enting-entering a building when they have an exemption?
GROSS: Objection, vague and--
THE COURT: On what authority did you stop them from entering the building?
A: Well, again, I go back to, and at the best I can answer your question is my initial conversation with you when you said you had an exemption, I, I encourage you to reach out to our disability services to, to, to make that known so they could have went through the proper paperwork and made that known to my office and my staff. I was going to give you an example, we have people-- Re-Cross Examination of Mike Munford. Q: Larvita Elena McFarquhar A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Page 40. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
11. Q: Good morning, Mr. Munford.
A: Good morning.
Q: Um, would you please state for the record what does your trespassing order state on there, please?
A: Can I look at it?
GROSS: Objection, Your Honor that’s not into evidence and he was not the author of that (inaudible) trespass.
MCFARQUHAR: Yes, he was. THE COURT: Well, l-let’s, did you write that trespass order?
MUNFORD: I, yes, I, I did, I did sign, I did sign it and I put the reason why.
THE COURT: Okay, and is it the trespass order that he issued, I want to make sure I understand the question, so I can evaluate the uh, objection, is it the trespass order that he issued to you telling you not to return to the property, is that what you’re referring to? (inaudible response)
THE COURT: Okay. Um, I’m going to allow the question.
A: Could you repeat your question, ma’am? Q: Would you please um, would you please, sorry, would you please tell me what is on the trespass order that you put down?
A: Yes, ma’am, I will. It says here, “Failure to wear protective mask as stipulated by SMSU.”
Q: Thank you. On uh, Febr-February 3rd when you came up to the, the school and then we went downstairs to talk for like 15 minutes, did we, did I or did I not tell you that I had an exemption and Saphi had an exemption, I had a binder that showed the constitution that mandate exemption, my doctor’s exemption, we talked about her continuing (inaudible).
A: I vaguely do remember your discussing that I, but I, I don’t recall ever seeing any paperwork.
Q: I gave the paperwork to SMSU personally (inaudible) it started and Saphi also um, carried around a binder that that she’ll clearly state that she had mask exemption, that she had followed the ADA, that the, and the constitution and the mandate that she carried around with her and she did, and I did take it and I showed it to you that day. Cross Examination of Mike Munford Q: Larvita Elena McFarquhar A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Pages 10-11. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
12. Q: So, when Saphi McFarquhar informed you that she has a disability that she has an exemption from her doctor, from her god, from the mandate itself, from the constitution herself, what did you tell her? GROSS: Objection, Your Honor, the disability status of someone other than Ms. McFarquhar would be irrelevant.
Page 9 of 14
THE COURT: I mean, well I’m going to overrule the irrelevant one, um, was it presented to you that way?
MUNFORD: I don’t recall that, and if someone would have presented that to me, my first response would have been we have a disability service officer that I would, would have asked them to, to visit, to schedule an appointment um, because that’s something I don’t deal with uh, from my position. So, if someone has a uh, a disability, uh, uh, that would be what I would have instructed them to do connect with our disabilities office and, and, if they needed some type of uh, of, of uh, assistance or aid then they would have got it from that office. Cross Examination of Mike Munford Q: Larvita Elena McFarquhar A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Page 13. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
13. Q: Did you do all the things that you just said when she came to you and I came to you and said we had a disability?
A: I’m, I, I don’t recall. I don’t recall that. Cross Examination of Mike Munford Q: Larvita Elena McFarquhar A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Page 13-14. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
14. Q: Even after I had said to you that we have a disability over and over again, what we-was your comment
A: I don’t recall.
Q: Mask up.
A: Mask up. Cross Examination of Mike Munford Q: Larvita Elena McFarquhar A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Page 13-14. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
15. Q: Do you recall me mentioning uh, um, that my daughter has a disability?
A: I, yes, I do.
Q: Do you recall mention-me mentioning that my daughter has an exemption?
A: To, vaguely I do, but again, I go back to say my directions to you and your daughter at the time, and it would still be today, is that we have a um, disability service people that know those rules, those laws, that I asked you to uh, see, to go see, to make a scheudle with so we could take care of that.
Q: You just, before told me that you did not mention that, for me to go to the ADA rights counselor?
A: I, I don’t think that’s the case. I think I’ve always said my, my action would have been and, and would have been to ask you to see our disability services.
MCFARQUHAR: I object. Can I object?
THE COURT: Yeah, you disagree, I think is what you mean to say. Uh,--
MCFARQUHAR: Yeah, because he just contradicted himself.
THE COURT: And the testimony what the testimony is. I’m taking notes.
MCFARQUHAR: Okay. Cross Examination of Mike Munford Q: Larvita Elena McFarquhar A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Page 31-32. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
14. Q: What do you recall after the sec-the second incident being upstairs, when the police were called? A: Oh, you’re talking about the second incident. I recall meeting you in the hallway with your daughter and, if I’m not mistaken, that was uh, someone from the media there, and--
Page 10 of 14
Q: Abigail-- A: --are we talking about the same timeframe, I think?
Q: Yep, mm-hmm.
A: Um, in my converation was again to don the mask uh, for your daughter and for you it was that uh, to uh, that I called the police department to have you removed from campus, if I recall collectly, that was my course of action. Cross Examination of Mike Munford Q: Larvita Elena McFarquhar A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Page 17. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
15. Q: Were there any recordings made?
A: None that I’m aware of. Q: On your phone, when you took out your phone to record us, was it recording?
A: I think what you mea-what you’re talking about is pictures. We took pictures.
Q: You took pictures? Now you said I’m going to record you because you’re recording me?
A: We wasn’t recording and I don’t re-recall saying that. Cross Examination of Mike Munford Q: Larvita Elena McFarquhar A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Page 28. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
16. Q: Mr. Munford, did you provide L-the Court’s, Larvita McFarquhar with your pictures that you took on the date of 2/4?
GROSS: Objection, asked and answered, he’s, he indicated he did not take any.
THE COURT: Well,--
MCFARQUHAR: He said he took pictures.
GROSS: Or, that, that’s not relevant for him providing it to the Court.
THE COURT: Um, that’s true, it wouldn’t normally get provided to the Court, but I’ll allow the question, uh, did you provide those to the, Mr. Gross?
A: Um, I, I don’t recall, I don’t if he requested pictures from me or, or any of that, but I do have the pictures attached to the report that uh, that we made uh, that we provided at our, at our campus. So,--
Q: Who did you--
A: --the pictures we took that day, the pictures I’m re-referring to, the pictures we took to notify our staff that you had been trespassed. So, we’d have reference to that uh, that (inaudible).
Q: When were those pictures taken? A: It would have been on the, the, uh, the 3 rd or the 4 th --
Q: Who took--
A: --of February.
Q: --those pictures?
A: I think you said I did. I’m not, I don’t recall, but I know it was somebody from my department, whether I took ‘em or, or one of my staff members took ‘em, but it would have been by my authority that they were taken.
Q: Who else was there, from your staff on 2/4/21? A: I, I’m so sorry, I don’t recall that.
Q: Because I clearly in my data request, I asked for all evidence from SMSU to be given to me.
GROSS: Outside the scope of these proceedings, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Alright. Did you, did you see, when you came up to look at that, did you see the photographs?
MCFARQUHAR: No, I did not.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to see them?
MCFARQUHAR: Yes, I do.
Page 11 of 14
THE COURT: Uh, can you show the photographs to Ms. McFarquhar that are.
A: Now, this is, well--
THE COURT: Maybe my, maybe I misunderstood. You said you that you had the photos perhaps somewhere--
MUNFORD: We have photographs that I used in, in the office of the public safety department where it has her picture and the pictures of the other people that were trespassed, I’m sorry, I don’t have that on me, but that was an internal document for our office to refer back to trespass notice.
Q: Did you or did not clearly just state we did not take pictures? A: No ma’am, if I did I misspoke. I said we took pictures, but I didn’t take--
Q: I said you. GROSS: Asked and answered, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yeah, he did answer the question--
MCFARQUHAR: He just contradicted himself.
THE COURT: --that it, uh, he, he a-as I recall the testimony and you can correct me if I’m wrong that either it was you, you don’t recall if it was you or it was somebody in your department--
MUNFORD: Yes. THE COURT: --but it was taken at your direction? MUNFORD: Yes. Cross Examination of Mike Munford Q: Larvita Elena McFarquhar A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Page 30-32. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
17. Q: So, who gave you the authority on the campus of SMSU?
A: The s-my employment is that I enforce the policies and procedures of the university that I run a comprehensive security department that, that uh, that uh, uh, is, is dedicated to the safety and the uh, further ation of life on our campus. Cross Examination of Mike Munford
Q: Larvita Elena McFarquhar A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Page 20. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
18. Q: Mr. Munford, you don’t make the policies for M-SMSU University, do you?
A: No, I do not.
Q: You just enforce them in your uh, role as the director of public safety? A: Yes, sir.
Q: You’re not the one that grants exclusions or exemptions from the mask policy?
A: That is correct, sir.
Q: And you’re not an expert on ADA matters or any other disability-- MCFARQUHAR: Objection--
Q: --or discrimination matters, is that correct?
A: That is correct.
THE COURT: W-We’ve established that already, go ahead.
Q: Um, and on February 3 rd or 4 th was Ms. McFarquhar exempted from the SMSU mask policy?
A: She, she was not exempt. Q: Okay. GROSS: No further questions, Your Honor. Re-Direct Examination of Mike Munford. Q: Matthew Gross, Marshall City Attorney. A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Page 39. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
19. Q: Do you have the authority to give Larvita McFarquhar an exemption?
Page 12 of 14
GROSS: Asked and answered, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Um, I’m going to allowed the question. Do you yourself have the authority to grant exemptions?
A: No, ma’am.
Q: Do you have the right to deny an exemption?
A: No, ma’am. Re-Cross Examination of Mike Munford. Q: Larvita Elena McFarquhar A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Page 39. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
20. THE COURT: We’re limited to those three (3) issues, uh, doesn’t make the policies, doesn’t grant or deny exceptions, and not a medical or disability expert on the ADA. So, on those issues uh, that you’re kind of limited on re-direct on those issues.
MCFARQUHAR: I’m sorry, can you repeat the three (3) issues?
THE COURT: That he doesn’t make the policies, uh, that he does not grant exemptions and or deny exemptions, I’ve let you ask that question, um, and that he’s not a medical or an ADA expert. Re- Cross Examination of Mike Munford. Q: Larvita Elena McFarquhar A: Mike Munford, Southwest Minnesota State University Director of Public Safety. Page 41. Partial Transcript Of Proceedings File No. 42-CR-21-98 Larvita Elena McFarquhar Court Trial May 4, 2022. Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 6/09/2022 Transcript 44 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
21. Non-violent disruptive demonstrations A. In the event that a demonstration blocks access to University facilities or interferes with the operation of the University: i. Demonstrators will be asked to terminate the disruptive activity by the Public Safety Director or his designee ii. The Director will consider having a photographer or video camera available for verification/documentation purposes and notify Marshall PD of the situation iii. Key University and student leaders will be asked to go to the area and persuade the demonstrators to desist iv. The President or his designee will go to the area and ask the demonstrators to leave or to discontinue the disruptive activities v. If the demonstrators persist in the disruptive activity, they will be appraised that failure to discontinue the specified action within a determined length of time may result in disciplinary action including suspension or expulsion and/or possible intervention by civil authorities vi. Efforts should be made to secure positive identification of demonstrators in violation to facilitate later testimony, including photos or video tape if advisable vii. After consultation with President’s cabinet and University legal counsel, the need for intervention of civil authorities will be determined viii. If intervention by civil authorities is deemed appropriate, the demonstrators should be informed. Upon arrival of the Marshall Police, the remaining demonstrators will be warned of the intention to arrest. Southwest Minnesota State University 600-12 Civil Disturbance or Demonstrations policy
22. Exhibits for Demand for Sanctions & Dismissal & Removal. 11/30/2021 Motion to Dismiss 79 pages 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch Larvita McFarquhar: I don’t understand. When do people like you get involved when people are doing the wrong thing?
23. Demand for Sanctions & Dismissal. 09/15/2021 Correspondence 4 pages 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
24. Demand for Sanctions & Dismissal & Removal 11/30/2021 Motion to Dismiss 3 pages 42-CR-21- 98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
25. Formal criminal complaint. 12/06/2021 Other Document 6 pages Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch 26. ICR# 21-17510. 12/06/2021 Other Document 1 page Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title:
Page 13 of 14
State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
27. THE COURT: But, Ms. Hanson, you don't get to decide that you're the governor and you don't have to follow the rules that the rest of society has to follow. That's not your role. And if you think you have that role -- which you pretty well made it clear -- you got to understand the law applies to you; it applies to everybody equally. Page 13-14. State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, vs. Melissa Lynn Hanson, Defendant. Transcript Of Proceedings December 9, 2021 Sentencing Hearing Court File No. 24-CR- 21-137 Case Number: 24-CR-21-137 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Melissa Lynn Hanson. 01/25/2022 Transcript 21 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
28. THE COURT: And you were making money so you could -- you could roll in the dough because the suckers down the street had closed their bar. You played them for the fool, didn't you? THE DEFENDANT: No, I did not. THE COURT: No. No. I'm not -- I'm not asking a response. Page 14. State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, vs. Melissa Lynn Hanson, Defendant. Transcript Of Proceedings December 9, 2021 Sentencing Hearing Court File No. 24-CR- 21-137 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Melissa Lynn Hanson. 01/25/2022 Transcript 21 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
29. THE COURT: So, I mean, you kind of cut the line here, Ms. Hanson, in the sense that you wanted to decide how you were going to live your life. Agreed-upon rules of law are ignored in your world; you decide what you want to do, and then you're going to fight tooth and nail to explain yourself and justify your behaviors. You're going to criticize me; you have before, and you will in the future. Page 17. State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, vs. Melissa Lynn Hanson, Defendant. Transcript Of Proceedings December 9, 2021 Sentencing Hearing Court File No. 24-CR-21-137 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Melissa Lynn Hanson. 01/25/2022 Transcript 21 pages https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
30. Lyon County Sheriff Eric Wallen: You see in Minnesota the whole. We are not constitutional sheriffs. We’re. Our position is established by state statute and and state laws in Minnesota. It’s not established by the constitution. The state of Minnesota could abolish the sheriff’s offices if they want. And just take the laws off the books. They’re not going to but they could. So were are not as you say constitutional sheriffs. Were not. We don’t get involved in those situations What other police departments do is they handle their own matters. And, if you do have issues with how they handle those matters that is why they have city councils and the mayor and city administrator and things like that. 11:10-11:57/39:59 https://rumble.com/v143w05-marshall-sheriff-states-i-do-not-follow-the-constitution..html Marshall Sheriff states "I do not follow the Constitution". LLarvita Published May 9, 2022 113 Views It shows Larvita McFarquhar trying to get the necessary evidence that she requested nearly a year ago and at the pre-trial hearing a week prior. Filmed on Tuesday, May 3, 2022
31. State Of Minnesota District Court Fifth Judicial District Criminal Division File Numberz42—CR-21- 98 County Of Lyon State of Minnesota, Affidavit of Service by Mail Plaintiff, vs. Larvita Maria Elena McFarquhar, Defendants, Erika L. Meulebroeck, being first sworn, says that on April 22, 2022, she served the attached following document(s): o DVD — 911 call on the following person by US mail: Larvita Maria Elena McFarquhar 106 E Railroad Street Lynd, MN 56157 Sworn/affirmed before me on: April 22, 2022. l... Meulebroeck, Affiant Ngtary Public Jessica Lynn Hennen Notary Public - Minnesota My Gmnmifiiw Expires Jan. 31. 2025 Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar 04/22/2022 Affidavit of Mailing 1 page Case Number: 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
32. Transcript for Appeal – Perjured Testimony. 05/27/2022 Other Document 14 pages. 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
33. Transcript for Appeal – Perjured Testimony. 05/23/2022 Other Document 7 pages. 42-CR-21-98 Case Title: State of Minnesota vs Larvita Marie Elena McFarquhar https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch
Page 14 of 14
More to come ...
Related links:
