Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 23

19-1726

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

BROCK FREDIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

-against-

ELIZABETH A. CLYSDALE,
A REFEREE OF THE RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT,
IN HER OFFICIAL AND PERSONAL CAPACITY,

DAVID E. MCCABE,
A POLICE OFFICER OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL,
IN HIS OFFICIAL AND PERSONAL CAPACITY,

REDACTED NAME,
AN REDACTED GOVERNMENT OFFICE,
IN HER OFFICIAL AND PERSONAL CAPACITY,

REDACTED NAME,
REDACTED NAME,

Defendants-Appellees’.

On Appeal from the United States District Court


For the District of Minnesota

i
APPELLANT’S BRIEF IN APPEAL OF AN ORDER DATED
DECEMBER 20, 2018 DISMISSING ALL CLAIMS AND DENYING
LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Brock Fredin
1180 7th Ave
Baldwin, WI 54002
(612) 424-5512 (tel.)
brockfredinlegal@icloud.com
Plaintiff-Appellant,

ii
Table of Contents
FREDIN V. CLYSDALE ET AL., CASE CAPTION ____ Error! Bookmark not defined.-Error!
Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________________________ 1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ____________________________________________________ 8
ARGUMENT ________________________________________________________________ 17
A. The Court Incorrectly Dismissed Fredin’s Fraud/Negligent Misrepresentation and Abuse
of Process Claims by Asserting that Qualified Immunity Applied in Using the April 28,
2017 Violent no-knock Swat Raid to Serve REDACTED NAME’s HRO
________________ 5

B. The Court Incorrectly Dismissed Conspiracy Claim(s) Asserted Against All Defendants 22
CONCLUSION ______________________________________________________________ 23
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE _____________________________________________ 24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _________________________________________________ 25

iii
Table of Authorities
Lee v. Skrukrud, 42 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. 1950) ______________________________________ 18

Tullis v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 570 N.W.2d 309, 311 (Minn. 1997) __________________ 18

Nieszner v. St. Paul School Dist. No. 625, 643 N.W.2d 645 (Minn. App. 2002) ___________ 18

Smith v. Flotterud, 716 N.W.2d 378 (2006). ______________________________________ 18

Melillo v. Heitland, 880 N.W.2d 862 (Minn. 2015) __________________________________ 20

Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Horak, 325 N.W.2d 134 (Minn. 1982) ___________________________ 20

Haselow v. Gauthier, 569 N.W.2d 97 (Wisc. App. 1997) ______________________________ 20

iv
INTRODUCTION

When REDACTED NAME disseminates hate-filled rhetoric and proudly

orchestrates and promotes a male “slut-shaming” campaign known as

#REDACTEDHASHTAG by unlawfully posting nude and semi-nude photographs

of men on her Twitter account @ REDACTED NAME1, Lord Voldemort keeps

coming to mind. Even if you haven’t read the Harry Potter books, you probably

know that almost no one in the wizarding world will speak this archvillain’s name

aloud; he is referred to only as “he who must not be named” or “you know who.” In

the final book, Voldemort puts a curse on the name, so that merely uttering it acts

like a beacon for the wizard’s crew of Death Eaters.

Eager to communicate something crucial about the evil lord’s latest plot to his

friends, Harry at one point blurts out Voldemort’s name. What follows are many,

many scary pages. REDACTED NAME is a kind of real-world Voldemort. Speak

her name to condemn her criminal revenge pornography activities and you draw

more attention to her hateful ideas. It is like fighting fire with oxygen tanks instead

1
Defendant REDACTED NAME conduct of publicly posting nude and semi-nude photographs of
men without their consent on her @ REDACTED NAME Twitter account violates Minnesota’s newly
enacted revenge porn law. See Minn. Stat. § 617.261. Even more disturbing, many of these photo collages that
Defendant REDACTED NAME stitches together herself for the # REDACTED NAME campaign
have photographs of nude and semi-nude men in compromising positions, such as using the bathroom, engaging in
sexual acts or with their pubic hair and penis visible (REDACTED NAME has since deleted these photos to
cover up her criminal acts.). Indeed, if REDACTED NAME was a man she would be in prison for many
years.
of fire extinguishers. The tools breath more life into the flames. Defendant Referee

Clysdale supported the Voldemort doctrine by issuing facially unconstitutional

harassment restraining orders preventing Plaintiff from naming REDACTED

NAME. See Reason.com, Man Forbidden from Identifying Twitter Shaming

Activist, Court Order Seems to Say., https://reason.com/2018/05/08/minnesota-

court-apparently-orders-man-no/

This is attention-gaming and REDACTED NAME excels at it. During her

lunch breaks as a REDACTED ROLE Attorney for the District of Minnesota,

REDACTED NAME obsessively stalks men as they walk in downtown

Minneapolis, streaming the action form her phone. She heckles men as they speak

to their friends. Her stunts blew up online and got her into the New York Times,

People Magazine, and Good Morning America.2

REDACTED NAME has been spreading her rage-fueled disinformation for a

while, and Plaintiff rarely wrote about her publicly. When REDACTED NAME

began a campaign against Plaintiff in January 2017 using @ REDACTED NAME

to destroy Plaintiff-Appellant’s professional livelihood, initiate bogus vindictive

prosecutions, with the exception of three tweets and a Facebook post among tens of

thousands Plaintiff posted, Plaintiff has not referred to REDACTED NAME by

name on Twitter. She was “you know who” to Plaintiff. This was a deliberate

2
See REDACTED URL

2
decision; Plaintiff knew that she counted on her critics to amplify her message.

Plaintiff did not want to broaden the reach of her curse. So why is Plaintiff naming

her now? That fuss REDACTED NAME made by using REDACTED

GOVERNMENT Information Technology (“IT”) resources to defame Plaintiff on

Twitter, in the Minneapolis Star Tribune owned City Pages, and destroy his

professional livelihood to initiate a violent kidnapping, assault, and unlawful no-

knock swat raid on Plaintiff and his girlfriend within their previous home in Hudson,

Wisconsin on April 28, 2017 to serve a harassment restraining order on behalf of

REDACTED NAME to prevent Plaintiff-Appellant from publicly identifying her

was a last gasp. REDACTED NAME had just used her official position to cover-up

her illicit use of her personal media platform to launch an unlawful criminal

campaign against someone who merely publicly criticized her. As a result of her

conduct, she was fired and banned from the REDACTED GOVERNMENT

OFFICE. Soon after, she begged and was forced to work without pay as a

REDACTED GOVERNMENT OFFICE Attorney for the REDACTED COURT.

She had been professionally de-platformed and banned from any respectable firm

(unless she apparently begged and pleaded to work for free) to exploit the Justice

department’s budgetary constraints.

Now that her Voldemort-like powers have vanished, it’s not just possible to

discuss REDACTED NAME-it’s necessary. Her professional de-platforming is

3
easy to celebrate. Though some may wish that good speech is the best way to drive

out bad speech, the harms she perpetrated cannot be dealt with in the marketplace of

ideas. There is no reasoned debate or enlightened compromise with the idea that

REDACTED NAME can use her official prosecutorial position in order to attack her

media critics and cover-up her personal Twitter activities in a false-flag operative

later used to promote feminism and claim that anyone who criticizes her activities is

a violent “domestic abuser” or is a form of harassment. Nor is there anything to say

about her claim that Plaintiff-Appellant harassed her by identifying her anti-Semitic

Tweets where she idolizes “Hitler” while stating that this is the “best personal brand

description anyone’s ever given [her].”:

REDACTED IMAGES

Yet while REDACTED NAME is a pathological liar, sociopath, and happens to be

an anti-Semite on the side, Plaintiff-Appellant is happy that she lost her professional

megaphone. Many of REDACTED NAME’s unlawful revenge pornography related

# REDACTED NAME postings are available online:

REDACTED IMAGES

4
Plaintiff-Appellant is troubled both by the system that let her have unlimited power

and the way she used it to attack other’s ability to speak or criticize her. Simply put,

Ramsey County and the influential Minneapolis and Saint Paul City Attorney’s

Office (“MCAO “and “SPCAO”) are built to generate more Voldemort’s, while also

amassing worrisome amounts of unlimited power. REDACTED NAME and

Ramsey County are in the business of harvesting attention, and REDACTED NAME

and her kind are good at delivering it. REDACTED NAME’s supporters lapped up

her content and stoked outrage, leading to even more Ramsey County District Court

filings asserted against Plaintiff. At the MCAO, REDACTED NAME’s Twitter

account was so heavily recommended by her colleagues for attacking local citizens

to bring vindictive prosecutions that IT logs showed REDACTED NAME was not

only using tax payer infrastructure to harass, terrorize, and discriminate Plaintiff-

Appellant but her colleagues were using the same resources to view her content:

REDACTED IMAGES

But if the unaccountable manner in which Ramsey County, SPCAO, MCAO

and the @ REDACTED NAME platforms can amplify harmful content has led to a

crisis, so has the facility with which they can reject it. REDACTED NAME

5
delivered eyeballs for many years to cause faux public outcries and to vindictively

prosecute men who called women “beautiful” or stating, “Minnesota chicks are hot”:

REDACTED IMAGES

Then the MCAO succumbed to pressure and unlawfully requested that the SPCAO

charge – through extrajudicial communication between Referee Clysdale’s friend

and deputy Minneapolis City Attorney Marry Ellen Heng - Plaintiff-Appellant and

other well-meaning men with a crime in order to violently raid and assault Plaintiff-

Appellant on April 28, 2017 to eliminate the criticism of their government activities

(on Plaintiff’s Facebook account or through a critical website REDACTED

NAME.com) including @ REDACTED NAME, all within the span of a few weeks:

REDACTED IMAGES

The @ REDACTED NAME platform entangled with official government

prosecution functions have arbitrary power to decide what to amplify or who to

charge, and thus what to bury, and they have the power to banish as they wish. There

is nothing aside from federal courts and backlash to stop Ramsey County,

@REDACTED NAME, MCAO and SPCAO government offices from vindictively

6
prosecuting, say, public tech critics or politicians who call for shutting tax loopholes

for massive corporations. Without due process or accountability, a frustrated public

and Plaintiff-Appellant is left with appealing to a few powerful referees – and

crossing our fingers.

This is complicated stuff. We are dealing with three ideas that are structurally

in tension: that hate speech, harassment, false accusations, and baseless conspiracies

(like REDACTED NAME’s false rape claim against Plaintiff-Appellant) case real

harm; that free speech is a crucial value; and that it’s necessary to deal with algorithm

amplification and attention-gamers. Legislators, courts, users, and the @

REDACTED NAME media platforms themselves have to be involved. There are

some precedents we could use from older technologies. Some updated version of

the fairness doctrine, which required radio and television stations to devote time to

issues of public importance and seek out a multiplicity of views, could be revived

for the digital age. We could come up with a kind of Fair Credit Reporting Act that

gives users a right to challenge a @REDACTED NAME/Ramsey

County/MCAO/SPCAO media induced vindictive prosecution. There could be

antitrust actions against centralized platforms and government prosecutorial offices

(along with user and citizen protections), or upstarts could offer alternatives (with

better business models). As with most social problems, we have to accept that there

7
is no single, perfect solution, no avoiding trade-offs, and also that inaction is a

decision too.

At a public event in October 2018 Twitter founder Jack Dorsey said people

do not view Twitter as a service. “They see what looks like a public square,” he

said, “and they have the same expectations as they have of a public square, and that

is what we have to get right.” There is lots of work to be done. But getting it right

is too important to be left to REDACTED NAME, the Saint Paul Police Department,

Ramsey County, SPCAO, MCAO, or state governments (eager to destroy their

critics with bogus prosecutions) alone.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This matter stems from the state court family court action, REDACTED

NAME v. Brock Fredin, Case File No. 62-CV-HR-17-233, filed in Ramsey County

District Court on April 14, 2017 (hereinafter, “REDACTED NAME v. Fredin”).

The REDACTED NAME v. Fredin matter was originally assigned to Referee

Elizabeth A. Clysdale, who presided over the matter until January 4, 2018. (See

Third Am. Complaint at ¶ 1-12). After the conclusion of a proceeding in

REDACTED NAME v. Fredin on January 4, 2018, Appellant was taken into a

secluded hallway by Referee Clydsale’s court officer N. Yang and assaulted, which

resulted in Plaintiff-Appellant being charged criminally for a harassment restraining

order (“HRO”) violation for speaking to his girlfriend steps from the courtroom

8
within moments following the hearing and later hospitalized with significant

bruising on several parts on his body. (See Third Am. Complaint at ¶ 1-12).

Plaintiff-Appellant filed an action in the United States District Court District Court

of Minnesota seeking relief in connection with the assault and April 28, 2017 violent

no-knock assault on Plaintiff-Appellant’s home in Hudson, Wisconsin to serve

REDACTED NAME’s HRO. As an apparent result of Plaintiff-Appellant’s federal

action, REDACTED NAME was stripped of her case load, fired, and banned from

the REDACTED NAME and reassigned to an unpaid position (across the street) as

a REDACTED NAME in REDACTED NAME for the REDACTED NAME. (See

Id.) Out of over 1200 cases on the Ramsey Court Harassment court docket, the

REDACTED NAME v. Fredin proceeding was singled-out and assigned to Referee

Clysdale. (See Id.)

After less than two (2) months presiding over REDACTED NAME v. Fredin

matter and without Plaintiff-Appellant so much as opening his mouth in Referee

Clysdale’s courtroom, Referee Clysdale issued a final order on October 4, 2018

imposing jail time on Plaintiff-Appellant (hereinafter “REDACTED NAME

Order”). (See https://reason.com/wp

content/uploads/assets/db/15256515989916.pdf.)

The drafted REDACTED NAME Order contained outright lies and other

disparaging assertions (collectively, the “Defamatory Statements”), including that:

9
• The Court finds that the numerous electronic messages about [REDACTED NAME]
sent to people associated with [REDACTED NAME]'s professional employment or
with her anonymous online account as set forth above are harassment.

• These messages included identifying details about [REDACTED NAME], as well as


allegations of criminal and professional misconduct. These messages were sent by
[Fredin] with the intent to eliminate the privacy [REDACTED NAME] had
maintained between her anonymous twitter account and her full name and employer.

• [Fredin]'s conduct adversely affects [REDACTED NAME]'s privacy, safety, and


security, and thus constitutes harassment. The Court further finds these communications
to have been authored by [Fredin] with the intention of harassing [REDACTED
NAME]….

The drafted REDACTED NAME Order contained facially unconstitutional

and other remarks to impose jail time for criticizing public officials and expressly

ordered that:

• Writings or other communications by [Fredin] which are made available for


public hearing or viewing and which contain addresses, telephone numbers,
photographs or any other form of information by which a reader may
contact, identify or locate [REDACTED NAME] are acts of harassment and
are prohibited by this order. Any communications made by [Fredin] under
an identity or auspices other than his true name and which refer to
[REDACTED NAME] are acts of harassment and are prohibited regardless
of the truth or falsity of any statement made about [REDACTED NAME].
(See Id.)

In looking at the motion papers underlying the October 4, 2017 REDACTED

NAME’s Order, there were no allegations, facts, or issues referenced, much less

raised where a judicial determination was sought, that would have led to Referee

Clysdale’s defamatory statements above. Specifically, Plaintiff-Appellant had never

10
personally met, spoken to, or knew REDACTED NAME prior to the April 14, 2017

HRO.

Plaintiff-Appellant initiated this lawsuit seeking declaratory and prospective

injunctive relief against Referee Clysdale alleging, inter alia, that Referee Clysdale

had an extrajudicial relationship with REDACTED NAME through Mary Ellen

Heng.

The text message below not only confirms the ongoing scheme of

REDACTED NAME and Plaintiff-Appellant’s ex-girlfriend to harass him, but also

demonstrates the fact that they believe they have compromised the state family court.

REDACTED NAME

Needless to say, the above message is disturbing and conclusively evidences

REDACTED NAME’s abuse of the state court system. On December 20, 2018, the

District Court issued a length twenty (20) plus page Report and Recommendation

that substantively failed to address Plaintiff-Appellant’s contentions raised in the

motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint based on newly discovered

evidence and denied the motion. Appellant timely appealed. (See Id.)

11
ARGUMENT

A. The Court Incorrectly Dismissed Fredin’s Fraud/Negligent Misrepresentation and Abuse


of Process Claims by Asserting that Qualified Immunity Applied in Using the April 28,
2017 Violent no-knock Swat Raid to Serve REDACTED NAME’s HRO

It is black letter law that qualified immunity applies when “(1) the facts that a

plaintiff has alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether

the right at issue was clearly established at the time of [the] defendant's alleged

misconduct." Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Pearson

v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). With

respect to the violation of a constitutional right prong, Minnesota law is clear that

qualified immunity will not apply when a significant violation occurs against a

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

A determination of whether service of process was proper and the

interpretation of the rules of civil procedure are both questions of law, which are

reviewed de novo. Amdahl v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 484 N.W.2d 811, 814 (Minn. App.

1992) (reviewing service-of-process issue), review denied (Minn. July 16,

1992); Barrera v. Muir, 553 N.W.2d 104, 108 (Minn. App. 1996) (interpreting rules

of civil procedure), review denied (Minn. October 29, 1996).

In Minnesota, a civil action is commenced against an individual when a

summons is served "by delivering a copy to the individual personally or by leaving

a copy at the individual's usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and

12
discretion then residing therein." Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01 (a); Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.02;

Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03 (a). Unless otherwise ordered by a district court, the summons

may be served by "the sheriff or any other person not less than 18 years of age and

not a party to the action." Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.02. Service of a summons must be done

"knowingly and intentionally." Lee v. Skrukrud, 231 Minn. 203, 204, 42 N.W.2d

544, 545 (1950); State v. Maidi, 520 N.W.2d 414, 417 (Minn.App. 1994), aff'd, 537

N.W.2d 280 (Minn. 1995). Service of process in a manner not authorized by rule 4

of the rules of civil procedure is ineffective. Tullis v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 570

N.W.2d 309, 311 (Minn. 1997). Without sufficient service of process, a district court

has no jurisdiction over a defendant. Nieszner v. St. Paul Sch. Dist. No. 625, 643

N.W.2d 645, 648 (Minn.App. 2002).

In Smith v. Flotterud, the Minnesota Supreme Court held failure to

substantially comply with Rule 4 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure

invalidates service. Smith v. Flotterud, 716 N.W.2d 378 (2006). The “summons and

complaint [was given] to an unrelated third party who, without knowing what the

envelope contained, agreed to deliver it to Harold Flotterud's son and gave the

envelope to the son's teenage daughter, who gave it to her mother, who gave it to her

husband, Ronald Flotterud, who, it was later discovered, had power of attorney for

(his father) [the Defendant].” Here, REDACTED NAME, using her official position

gave the summons and devised a scheme with her boss Susan Segal, who contacted

13
Minneapolis Police Officers, who contacted Saint Paul Police officers, who

contacted Ramsey County District Court staff, who contacted Saint Croix County

Sheriff’s deputies, who then ultimately provided the summons.

Defendant McCabe and his police officers gained admission to Plaintiff-

Appellant’s home on April 28, 2017 in Hudson, Wisconsin fraudulently through the

false representations made by his own testimony and REDACTED NAME. This

Court must find it necessary to consider the legal effect of such fraud, in that, in the

light of the evidence as a whole, including McCabe’s personal affidavit admitting

the raid was performed to procure evidence (serving the HRO) in the civil

REDACTED NAME v. Fredin case, no finding could be sustained that officer

McCabe did not intend to serve, or knew that he had served, a civil summons in

REDACTED NAME v. Fredin through the use fraudulent representations in concert

with REDACTED NAME. Moreover, no facts allege that REDACTED NAME

attempt to serve the HRO indirectly through a chain of four different agencies was

“knowing and intentional.”

“The service of a summons as authorized … by necessary statutory

implication, requires that the act of effecting such service upon a defendant be

performed both knowingly and intentionally. If there was any service under these

circumstances, it was by plaintiff, who, as a party to the action, was disqualified

from serving the summons.” Lee v. Skrukrud, 231 Minn. 203 (Minn.

14
1950). (holding that Minn.Stat. §§ 543.03, 543.14 (1949) required service of a

summons to be done “knowingly and intentionally”). Here, there is nothing in the

record to show that the Hudson, Wisconsin authorities had any idea what was in the

envelope delivered to Fredin through Ramsey County, by way of Hennepin County

staff and the fraudulent misrepresentations within a search warrant.

“[s]ervice of process in a manner not authorized by the rule is ineffective

service.” Tullis v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 570 N.W.2d 309, 311 (Minn.1997).

“When interpreting a rule, [a reviewing court] must look first to the plain

language of the rule and its purpose.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598,

601 (Minn.2014). When the language of the a rule is plain, it must be followed. (See

Id.) In this case, a reviewing court must follow the plain language of Rule 4,

specifically Rules 4.03, 4.05, and 4.06. Melillo v. Heitland, 880 N.W.2d 862 (Minn.

2015).

I. Long-Arm Statutes

In Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Horak, 325 N.W.2d 134, 136 (Minn.1982), the Minnesota

Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota's long-arm statute allowed a plaintiff to serve a

military defendant living outside the country by certified mail under Rule 4.03.

Had the Minnesota Supreme Court intended to allow “any form of mail requiring

a signed receipt” for domestic or in-state service, they would have amended Rule

4.05 to say so. Melillo v. Heitland, 880 N.W.2d 862 (Minn. 2015).

15
Haselow v. Gauthier, 212 Wis. 2d 580, 569 N.W. 2d 97 (Ct. App. 1997) (a finding

of egregious conduct or bad faith invalidates process.) See Id at 96-3589

McCabe filed an exhibit corroborating Appellant’s claim that he was actually

using the April 28, 2017 search warrant for another improper ulterior

purpose. Specifically, McCabe wrote in a “Supplemental Offense / Incident Report”

describing the execution of the April 28, 2017 search warrant as the following:

The problem with McCabe’s statement above is the phrase

“other pending cases.” (See id.)

Plaintiff-Appellant is aware of no other “pending cases” that involved him during

the time of the application for the April 28, 2017 search warrant. Plaintiff-Appellant

believes that what McCabe was actually referring to when references “other cases”

is the HRO proceeding filed in Ramsey County District Court by REDACTED

NAME on April 14, 2017 in REDACTED NAME v. Fredin.

The Court erred by misapprehending the facts. As a result, the dismissal of

Plaintiff-Appellant’s Fraud and Abuse of Process Claims by was improper because

the process service was made through fraudulent representation in violation of

16
clearly established constitutional rights. This Courts should reconsider the Dismissal

Order and reverse the decision of the District Court.

B. The Court Incorrectly Dismissed Conspiracy Claims Asserted Against


Defendant(s)

See Livers v. Schenck, 700 F.3d 340, 360 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding that “each

[person] is jointly liable for his other co-conspirators’ acts in furtherance of the

conspiracy”). This would necessarily include Defendants’ REDACTED NAME’s,

REDACTED NAME’s and REDACTED NAME’s tortious actions

against Appellant in concert with Clysdale through their admitted extrajudicial

relationship.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Court should grant Appellant’s leave to file a Third

Amended Complaint and reverse the dismissal of Appellant’s fraud, abuse of

process, and conspiracy claims and remand this matter.

17
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

This petition/brief complies with the page limitation established by Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 35(b)(2) in that it does not exceed fifteen (15) pages in length, excluding the
parts of the petition/brief exempted by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). This
petition/brief also complies with the type face requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 32(a)(5) and (a)(6), as it has been prepared in Microsoft Word using a proportioned
spaced typeface of 14-point Times New Roman font.

Dated: June 30, 2019 s/ Brock Fredin_____________


Brock Fredin
1180 7th Ave
Baldwin, WI 54002
(612) 424-5512 (tel.)
brockfredinlegal@icloud.com
Plaintiff-Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 30, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing Plaintiff-
Appellant’s brief with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. The following participants in the case
who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system:

K. Jon Breyer
Adam C. Ballinger
Jeffrey K. Bowman
Lawrence J. Hayes

s/ Brock Fredin_____________
Brock Fredin
1180 7th Ave
Baldwin, WI 54002
(612) 424-5512 (tel.)
brockfredinlegal@icloud.com
Plaintiff-Appellant