* SHER me 920.259.3720 WF 8430 CIVIL PROCESS [320.251.4240 ATER OU. Hs. eee vec steamWE HAVE INFORMATIVE PAPERS FOR CIVIL DEPT, 320.250.3720 M-F 8-4:30 320.251.4240 AFTER BUSINESS HOURS. se. — cape11/19/2018 12:56:14 PM 47AL @ 02/07 Sia oftannescta! sym0v8 10:37 AN: State of Minnesota District Court i ‘County Judicial District: FIRST ; DAKOTA. ‘Court File Number: T9AV-CV-18-2157 Case Type: ‘Harassment Sarah Brodkorb, Michael Brodkorb, and o/b/o Minor Children (EB,AB.BB), 5 i Petitioner(s) Order Granting Harassment ’ | Restraining Order After Hearing. Z * 2 t (Minn, Stat. §609.748) _ i Deidre Evavold 2 t Respondent(s) . i. = i rssmsteroepegsty J Michie BOYS natemerese or Diet Cas? : eeeaie” es ‘i Appearances were made by: 2 Ii.Pettioner(s) pk Pattioner’s Attorney $ bX Respondent(s) Respondent's Attorney otters) De 7 “Det Now, therefore, based upon te evidence adduced and upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, i the court finds: 1 0 The Respondent denios the allegations of the Petition but has no objection to the issuance of a Restraining Order, The court makes no findings of harassment, 2. JX there are reasonable grounds to believe that Respondent(s) has engaged in harassment of Petitioner(s) ‘rhe minor child (ren) or ward) of Petitioner by committing the following acts: Oi physically or sexually assaulted the Petitioner(s) as follows: followed, pursued or stalked the Petitioner(s) as follows: § 1D made uninvited visits to the Petitioner(s) as follows: 1D made harassing phone calls to the Petitioner(s) as follows: __ i 1D made threats to the Petitioner(s) as follows: Frightened Petitioner(s) wil threatening behavior as Follows: O called the Petitioner(s) abusive names as follows: 1D damaged Patitioners propery as follows 1D broke into and entered the Petitioner's residence as follows’ HARBOS State «ENG Rev 7/17 wawemncourts goviforms Page 1 of 3 550211/19/2018 12:57:14 PM A7AL @ 03/07 ee Sale of inn syse0%8 10:37 AM 1 stole property from the Petitioner(s) as follows: ‘7 pook pictures of the Petitioner(s) without permission of the Petitionei(s) as follows: 1D did acts repeatedly that meet the legal definition of “argeted residential picketing” as follows: Ci attended public events after being notified that Respondent’s presence at the events is harassing to Petitioner(s) as follows: poten enor wae us eas 3 Pe trastoont hs ori ined To bars « senha adver fie on Peibone”s safety, ia ivacy. f Oo Ramat : 4. Ti The relief granted by this order may be for a period of up to 50 years based on the nding that: 1D The petitioner has had two or more previous restraining orders in effect against the same 1 respondent; or 1D The respondent has violated a prior or existing restraining order on two or more occasions. t It is Ordered: i 1. PL, Respondents) shall at taras BC Petitioner Petitionens) minor cil (ren) or ward). i List minor child(ren), wards included inthis Petition: __ 2, PrP, AE i 2, IX. Respondent shall have no director indirect contact with]. Petitioner [B{ retitoner’s minor child/ren or wards), including any visits to or phone calls to the protected person(s), contact via electronic means such as email or social networking sites, threats or assaullive behavior to the protected person(s), damaging or stealing property belonging to the protected person(s), breaking, ; into and entering the protected person(s) residence, and/or taking pictures of a protected person i without permission of the Petitioner. 3.) Respondent(s) ig prohibited ftom being within V2 til. (distance) of Petitioner's home at; 3 XC i Zz 1 (address). 4.5L. Respondent(s) is prohibited from being within YZ paile (distance) of Petitioner's Job site at : (address). : 5. This Order shall remain in effect until ~£G- 2020 ! ‘Bite (ato exesd evo Jone les findings wade To SppaTonge oe) ‘(\S__. County Sheriff's Department and S Police Deparinent Hvery police department and ahertfs oes nts nila Sais atid a affiliated with tribal and territorial lands is responsible for enforcing this Order under 18 U.S.C. t § 2265 Full Faith and Credit of Protective Orders. i 6. The Court Administrator shall send «copy ofthis Order othe following law atic eset sper: od ‘ HARSO3 Stale = ENG Rev7/47 aw mncourts.goviforms Page 20f3 550211/19/2018 12:58:25 PM aya @ 04/07 tingroie 1037 AM) 7. If Respondent is an organization, this order 0 shall /Z shall not apply to all members of the organization. 8 ober eoned Venom is mneorpoetted) wnt Yais preter 9. ‘The sheriff of any county in the State of Minnesota, or any peace officer, shall perform the duties relating to serving this Order without eliarge to Petitioner NOTICE ‘Any conduct by the Respondent in violation of the specific provisions provided in the “It Is Ordered” section above constitutes a violation of this Harassment Restraining Order. A police officer shall arrest the Respondent without warrant and take the Respondent to jail if the police officer believes the Respondent has violated this Order, and shall hold the Respondent in jail for at least 36 hours, excluding the day of arrest, Sundays, and legal holidays, unless the Respondent is released by a judge or judicial officer. Violation of this Harassment Restraining Order may be treated as a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony, A misdemeanor violation may result in a sentence of up to 90 days in jail and/or a fine of $1000.00, Some repeat violations are gross misdemeanors that may result in a sentenice of up to one year in jail and/or a $3,000.00 fine. Other violations are felonies that may result ina sentence of imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine of $10,000.00. A person who engages in a pattern of harassing conduct is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for up to ten years and/or a fine of $20,000.00. If the court grants this Harassment Restraining Order for a period of up to 50 years under Minn, Stat. §609.748 subd. 5, the Respondent must wait 5 years to seek modification of the Harassment Restraining Order. Dated: _ Referee of District at ortot_Lt-L 9-8. Mh Mackall [Ee Tudge of District Court Distribution : Certified copy or original -Return to Court Administrator with Affidavit of Service attached Copy for Potitioner(s) ‘Copy for Respondent(s) Copy for file until original returned Copy for local police department Copy for Sheriff thet: gaia ARGOS State ENG Rov 7/K7. wowemncours goufforms Page Sof 3 550211/19/2018 12:59:26 PM 47a @ 05/07 Sale a tinnesoi sieve 10°37 A i STATE OF MINNESOTA District Court COUNTY OF DAKOTA. Firs? JUDICIAL DistRICT Sarah Beth Bradkorb, Michael Brodkorb and o/b/o Minor Children (AB, EB, BB), PETITIONERS, MEMORANDUM. v, Deidre Elise Evavold, RESPONDENT. Fite No. 19AV-CV-18-2157 : MEMORANDUM ‘Under Minn, Stat. 609,748, subd. 5, this case requires a finding by the court that there is a reasonable basis to believe harassment has occurred. Harassment is, in part, defined to include “repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have @ substantial : adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the relationship between the actor and the intended target.” Minn, Stat, 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1). While the evidence here is a close eall, there is a reasonable basis to find that Respondent, Ms. Deidre Evavold (“Ms. Bvavold”) was involved in the chain of i events that led to the repeated harassment of Ms, Sarah Brodkorb (“Ms. Brodkorb") and her i ‘minor children. ‘Ms. Brodkorb was shopping at the Eagan outlet mall on August 8, 2018 with her children, On August 13, 2018, two photographs of Ms. Brodkorb and her minor child were 5 posted on Twitter with the following caption “Sarah #mbrodkorb @missinginminnesota caught spending money received from Dave Rucki via stolen from #grazzinirucki trust and Minnesota. 550211/19/2018 1:00:12 PM 474al @ 06/07 Slate of Minnescta sangrote 1037 AM Hevavold.” The picture was taken while Ms. Brodkorb was shopping at Famous Footwear on August 8, 2018, i Detective Dan Spiess ftom the Eagan Police Department testified at the hearing on October 29, 2018. He testified that he was unable to identify the owner of the twitter account ‘who posted these photographs, which appears on ‘Twitter as “Jane Johnson @johnsonmedia2.” ‘Through his investigation he discovered the photographs were taken by Ms. Diane Ristau (“Ms. Ristau”), Ms, Ristau then forwarded the pictures to her co-worker and fiiend Ms. Cartie Beaudette (“Ms. Beaudette”). Ms. Beaudette forwarded the pictures to her longtime friend Ms. Hvavold and Ms, Angie Young. It is unclear exactly what Ms, Evavold did with the photographs after she received them from Ms, Beaudette but they did end up publicized on Twitter. 4 ‘Ms. Beaudette was called to testify but invoked her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Counsel for the Brodkobs submitted « transcript of Ms. Beaudette’s testimony taken on September 26, 2018, in another proceeding (I9AV-CV-18-2159) for the Court’s consideration. ‘The Court finds this testimony admissible under Minnesota Rule 804 Hearsay Exceptions Declarant Unavailable, During her testimony, Ms, Beaudette admits to receiving the photogtaphs of Ms. Brodkorb from Ms. Ristau and forwarding them onto Ms, Evavold and Ms. : ‘Young. Ms, Beaudette didn’t know who posted the photographs on Twitter but she believed Ms. Evavold had some affiliation with the Twitter posting. { ‘The Court finds that the Twitter post constitutes harassment, The post contains a photograph of Ms. Brocikorb and her minor child with an inappropriate caption made to have an adverse effect on Ms. Brodkorb and her family. While the actions of Ms, Evavold afier receiving the photographs may be uncertain, she was involved in receiving the photographs and she is the last one in the chain of events, There is also a high-conflict history between Ms. Evavold and Mr. 550211/19/2018 1:01:09 PM A741 @ 07/07 ‘Sate of Minnesota’ tints 10.37 AM Brodkorb that the Court cannot ignore. The Court finds there are reasonable grounds to believe that Ms. Evavold harassed Petitioner and the harassment restraining order is granted. je it 5502