A Rebuttal to Sheriff Freitag's Email Concerning Lisa Hanson's Case

Freeborn County Sheriff Kurt Freitag recently developed an email response for his constituents, concerned about his handling of the Lisa Hanson case. Below are his assertions with in-line response from Lisa Hanson. What’s your take? Is Sheriff Freitag being honest? Is he beholden to the citizens of Freeborn County as a defender of the Constitution?

Sheriff Freitag’s Assertions: 

Thanks for the email.  I prepared a general response for you and a few others who have sent me similar emails.  I apologize if your questions or comments arent addressed specifically, but my statement should come close. 

I have done many things to publicly support Hanson and other businesses since the executive orders went into effect, such as telling the state AGs office that I would not assist them in any way in gathering evidence so the state could prosecute our small business owners for not complying with the restrictions in the executive order.  Im pretty sure that Hanson didnt tell you that.  She also probably didnt tell you of the interviews Ive done (MPLS Star Tribune newspaper) in support of Hanson where I stated I didnt agree with many of the governors restrictions.  The AG took swipes at me for criticizing his boss, which Im fine with.   Hanson probably mention anything about the emails Ive written to all of the Albert Lea city council members, mayor and the city manager where I criticized their city attorney for malicious prosecution of Hanson.   Just as Im sure she hasnt told any of her supporters about the email I sent to the judge on 18 March where I criticized the Albert Lea city attorney for having a personal axe to grind” against Hanson.  Hanson hasnt told any of her supporters these things because shes very selective in what she wants her supporters to know.  But, nothing compelled me to be as outspoken in her defense as I have been; I did these many things because I dont like the direction this country is going and it was the right thing to do.

Hanson Rebuttal:

Conversations between me and Sheriff Freitag began on Dec. 11th via text.  Over the course of the next few months, the sheriff visited several times with my husband  and I.  From those visits, we learned that he shared some of the same concerns as we had with regards to the loss of freedoms and liberties due to COVID restrictions, government control, and more. I was aware of all that he mentions above with the exception of the emails to city council, mayor and city manager. (Maybe he mentioned this and I’m not recalling). His support was very appreciated. Honestly, I was never confronted directly with the government usurpation of power and it was comforting to know the sheriff was in our ‘corner’. The sheriff admitted on more than one occasion that he didn’t know the Constitution as well as he should. We were right there with him. We all had a lot to learn. We made connections for the sheriff so he could learn what his role and duties really look like as a  law enforcement official. This is important for so many reasons, not to mention the oath he swore to uphold the constitution of the state of Minnesota and the Constitution of the United States of America.

At this point we strongly supported the sheriff as he seemed to want to learn and do the right thing. There were others too, that supported him with offering information, all expenses paid training, etc. Unfortunately, things did not ‘pan’ out as we had hoped.

Sheriff’s Assertions:

On 11 March, while on vacation, Hanson sent me a text and asked me if I knew about two warrants for her arrest. I called her and she told me one of my deputies was at her house to arrest her on two warrants Hanson had for missing a court date. 

Hanson Rebuttal:

The sheriff’s memory doesn’t serve him quite right. (Maybe I should chalk that up to the fact that he was on vacation). He is correct that I sent a text on March 11.  Sheriff called me back per my text request. We spoke about the warrants that had been issued for my arrest. He asked what the warrants were for.  I told him it was for non-appearance to a bail hearing the day before, March 10.  I told him I had received a ‘Zoom Hearing Notice’ with the date and time of the hearing, but NO SUMMONS. Therefore, according to Mn. Criminal Rules I was not legally compelled for an appearance before the court.

He told me of the process to compel an individual into court.  First a proper summons and complaint must be served.  He specifically said the charges must be attached.  He was correct.  According to Minnesota Criminal Rules 3.01 and 3.02 [Hyperlink B], to compel an individual into court a signed court ordered summons must be properly served with attached charges.  Mn. Criminal Procedure Rule 3.01: If a defendant fails to appear in response to a summons, a warrant must issue.  There was no summons issued — ever.  It wasn’t on the court docket then and it’s not on the court docket now [Hyperlink – Show PDF of Court Docket to date].  I made the sheriff aware of this.

At approximately 9:25 a.m. Deputy Ron Walcholz came to my door to execute the warrant for my arrest. I have this recorded on video. I explained the situation to Deputy Ron, stating the sheriff gave me his prior word neither he nor anyone from his office would arrest me. Deputy Ron asked me to call the sheriff which I did. At that time the sheriff asked Deputy Ron to call him back on his cell. I was not arrested per the sheriff’s orders to his deputy.

Sheriff’s Assertions:

She told me she wasnt aware of the court date

Hanson Rebuttal:

He apparently forgot I had told him of the hearing which took place the day before where the judge had ordered a warrant for arrest due to non-appearance.

Sheriff’s Assertions:

…and that shes always shown up for court, which she has. 

Hanson Rebuttal:

He’s correct, I have always shown up for court.

Sheriff’s Assertions:

I told her she would not be arrested if she did one of two things:

1)      Call the court administrators office, explain what happened, and ask for a new court date. I told her in the highly unlikely people felt that the court administrators office did not get for a new date, I told her she would need to.

Hanson Rebuttal:

He is correct.  He told me to call the court administrator as well as the judge.  I thought his advice to call the judge’s chambers was a bit odd.  Nevertheless, this is what he advised.  I did in fact call the court administrator, Becky Mittag, and spoke with her about the situation.  She suggested I email her with a letter to the judge explaining what happened and she would make sure he got it.  I took issue with this approach as I was under no obligation to “help” the court follow the law in order to create the legal obligation upon me to appear without my consent.  This entire legal battle has its very roots in our public servants operating outside of the law to cause the People harm and denying to us due process in the deprivation of our rights at every step of the way.

Sheriff’s Assertions:

2)      Show up at our jail with $2000 cash to post bail. We would give her a receipt and a new court date and she would be out the door in ½ hour.

Hanson reluctantly agreed.

Hanson Rebuttal:

WRONG!  I was very clear with the sheriff.  My words were: “I’m not saying I will do what you are asking.  I will need to get counsel before making a decision”.  If I do what you ask what would this look like?”  He explained he was not sure and would call me back with the answer. (Honestly, going down to the Law Enforcement Center to pay the bail, and set a new court date sounded tempting.  I wanted the pressure to be relieved!  I’ve never been in “trouble” with the law and I was very concerned).  He called me back in short order and described what would happen.  I would be finger-printed and my mug shot would be taken.  I was surprised to hear this and I’m sure he could hear it in my voice.  I questioned, “how is that any different than being booked and put in jail, other than cell time”?  I asked him if he would like for me to text or call him back when I had made my decision.  He answered, “No”.  After having discussed all of the options with friends in my trusted circle, I came to the conclusion that I would stand against this tyranny as I was standing against the tyranny that brought on the legal battles from the beginning.  By capitulating to the sheriff, I would in a sense voluntarily waive my right to due process of law in the seizure of my person.  I was not about to waive any right protected from government encroachment. 

Sheriff’s Assertions:

I didnt find out until the 17th when I came back from vacation that she lied to me and that did neither. 

Hanson Rebuttal:

WRONG!I have always been honest with the sheriff.I am neither responsible for his lack of memory nor any fabrication that would fill in a memory lapse with fiction for a public showing of how well he performed to resolve this issue between his sense of duty in law enforcement and his poor comprehension of the law and the rights of the People that he has sworn to protect. He was correct in stating that I had not turned myself in. However, as stated earlier I did call the court administrator and explained that I filed a document with the court. I never stated that I would do what he suggested and further, he did not want to know what I had decided to do.Instead of taking the Sheriff’s advice, on March 11, 2021, I filed an Objection and Exception to Void Warrant of Arrest and Motion for Recusal of Judge Beultel.I stated the facts under penalty of perjury. [VIEW DOCUMENT]

Sheriff’s Assertions:

She has been hiding ever since.

Hanson Rebuttal:

The sheriff has all of my contact information. He has never once asked me for my location.

Sheriff’s Assertions:

She later admitted in a court document she filed with the court on 22 March that she did in fact know of the hearing on 10 March, even though she told me on the 11th she wasnt aware of the hearing. 

Hanson Rebuttal:

The document filed into the record of the court on March 22, 2021 [VIEW DOCUMENT] was responsive to the Sheriff’s attempt to privately communicate with the judge (ex parte) [Hyperlink F].The judge sent copies of the letter to the parties to the case. My Paragraph #2 states, “Shortly after the text, he returned my call. I explained that a warrant for my arrest had been issued March 10, 2021.I shared with him that I had received a Zoom Notice of the Bail Hearing which was to take place on March 10, 2021, but had NOT received a summons and complaint in regards to the hearing.I told him I had diligently checked for the summons on the court docket, email, and USPS mail. There was/is clearly no summons issued nor was I personally served. Freitag stated that to appear in court one must receive a signed summons and complaint.” 

Sheriff’s Assertions:

Hanson said she wasnt properly served a complaint/summons. 

Hanson Rebuttal:

True.  I received NO summons, properly or improperly.  I told him this while he was on vacation.  I stated the same and filed it into the court record as noted above.

Sheriff’s Assertions:

Shes used this excuse three times now. 

Hanson Rebuttal:

The sheriff confuses the word “excuse” with the requirements of due process of law.  He refuses to learn the law to know the difference between an excuse and a right to due process — even when it is copied, highlighted, and explained to him ad nauseam.

Sheriff’s Assertions:

The first was for a hearing on 29 Jan…

Hanson Rebuttal:

Hearing took place on Jan. 28.

Sheriff’s Assertions:

In that case, the court served her the summons when she took her seat in the court room.

Hanson Rebuttal:

Not only was this another case where the right to due process was violated i.e. being handed a summons and complaint AT the hearing but this was not the summons and complaint purportedly claimed by the Sheriff upon which the appearance was compelled and upon which the warrant of arrest issued.  The sheriff is confused once again but is is all on the record.

Sheriff’s Assertions:

Now, she claims she wasnt served the complaint/summons for the hearing on the 10th that she skipped out on. 

Hanson Rebuttal:

He’s right.  I claimed it then.  I claimed it on the record.  I claim it now that I did NOT receive a summons and complaint for the March 10 Bail Hearing.  The sheriff doesn’t have to take my word for it.  He can look at the court docket himself.  And so can you, reader. But there is no summons on the public docket for the hearing upon which I did not appear!  There was no summons. The sheriff either knows this or willfully ignorant of it to avoid having to place himself between one of the People and the unlawful and illegal exercise of government authority.  He is no longer fit to serve in the Office of Sheriff.

Sheriff’s Assertions:

Hanson chose to skip out on a court date that she was aware of, and then she lied about it. 

Hanson Rebuttal:

Yes.  I made a conscious decision to not appear for the hearing upon which I was not served with a summons to compel my appearance.  The only liar is the Sheriff and it is all on the record.  His cowardice is also a matter of record.

Sheriff’s Assertions:

Theres not much that can be done for someone who does something so arrogant, irresponsible and lacking of any integrity.

On a side note, the MN sheriffs authority is granted by MN state statute.  MN statute guides the sheriffs duties and responsibilities and the US Constitution has nothing to do with a MN sheriff. 

Hanson Rebuttal:

Here the Sheriff has projected the image that he sees in the mirror onto me.  Wow!  But his side note speaks volumes about his failure to fully comprehend the Office of the Sheriff, his ignorance of constitutional law and statutory law and the role that the Office of the Sheriff serves within the common law, the statutory law, and the constitutional protections against the usurpation of power.

Sheriff’s Assertions:

Youll note that that the word sheriff” isnt even mentioned in the US Constitution.

Hanson Rebuttal:

Again, Kurt Freitag is unfit to serve in the Office of the Sheriff.  The duty to the oath that he subscribed to is worthless because he does not comprehend the very instruments that he swore to uphold.

Remember, Sheriff Freitag, that all sheriffs swear an Oath to the constitution of their perspective states and to the Constitution for the United States of America! Read U.S. Code 18 Sec. 241 and Sec. 242. All sheriffs have a duty and a responsibility to uphold the constitution and protect The People’s unalienable rights.

Sheriff’s Assertions:

Also, my oath of office says nothing about having the authority to willfully disobey a lawful order from the court.

Hanson Rebuttal:

Your oath of office gives you the power to ascertain what is legal and illegal.  You were noticed of the elements that made the warrant of arrest illegal.  It was then your duty to make a determination as to its legality.  But not only did you fail to investigate it on your own; you ignored the law when it was put squarely before you and highlighted. 

ONLY void warrants for the arrest of Lisa Hanson exist as the court has not established its jurisdiction against the written challenges made thereto and  no summons to compel my appearance.

Sheriff’s Assertions:

Hansons arrest warrants are lawful. 

Hanson Rebuttal:

WRONG. 

Sheriff’s Assertions:

A sheriff can be charged criminally with contempt of court for willfully disobeying a court order.  MSS 588.01 subd 3

para 1.   

Hanson Rebuttal:

The Sheriff could only be convicted of willfully disobeying a court order if the order was legal.  The record speaks for itself that the court order is illegal. 

A sheriff can be charged with a federal felony under 18 U.S.C. § 241 for conspiring with other state agents to deny me the the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of having so exercised the same.

It is time for all sheriffs to know the law in order that they may stand up and protect the people upon sworn duty of oath to the state and federal constitutions.  Sheriff Freitag needs to uphold the law and stop rogue judges from abusing The People.  We either stand on our rights under the common law as guaranteed and protected by  the constitutions or become subjects once again to tyrants that we see and don’t see. Time to choose.

 

Thanks,

 

Sheriff Kurt Freitag, 2401

Freeborn County Sheriffs Office

411 Broadway Av S

Albert Lea, MN  56007

507.377.5200  Dispatch

507.377.5105  Desk

507.391.0993  Cell

507.377.5257  Fax

kurt.freitag@co.freeborn.mn.us

   

Drop Sheriff Freitag an email or give him a call to let him know what you think.

Share this: