Complaint-Civil Index #2 March 13, 2024 (2024)

 
Preview
 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota MAR 13 2024State of Minnesota District CourtCounty Judicial District:WASHINGTON Court File Number: 7 Q4- Case Type: Personal InjuryCARSTEN QUINLAN and his children:ANNALEIGH GRACE QUINLAN,ESBEN DANIEL QUINLAN, andLILLIA EVE QUINLAN.PlaintiffsVS Civil ComplaintSTATE OF MINNESOTA,KIM RICHARDSON, andHAILEY DORNFELD.Defendants COMPLAINT 1) Under authority of Minnesota Tort Claims Act (Min. Stat. § 3.736), plaintiffs Carsten James Quinlan (CJQ) and his three children Annaleigh Grace Quinlan (AGQ), Esben Daniel Quinlan (EDQ), and Lillia Eve Quinlan (LEQ) are suing the State of Minnesota (MN) due to Gross Negligence by Kim Richardson (KR), Police Detective at Woodbury Police Department, and Hailey Dornfeld (HD), Child Protection Investigator with CPS in Minneapolis. 2) KR and HD caused egregious violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights through their conduct in the investigation of criminal and child abuse allegations against CJQ. These violations have inflicted significant harm upon CJQ and his minor children, AGQ, EDQ, Page 1 of 47and LEQ, meriting redress under Section 1983 of the United States Code and the Minnesota Tort Claims Act.3) Plaintiffs seek justice for the Defendants’ grossly negligent investigation, characterized by a disregard for due process, professional standards, fraud, and disrespect toward the fundamental rights of the Plaintiffs as enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. The Defendants’ actions, under the color of state law, have caused cruel and unusual suffering, disruption to critical relationships, devastating damage to reputation, and crippling financial harm to the Plaintiffs. Worst of all, Defendants’ actions have enabled the Medical Abuse of the children by their mother.4 Furthermore, this complaint addresses the State of Minnesota's liability under the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, attributing the Defendants’ conduct to the State's failure to adequately train, supervise, discipline, and control its employees, thereby directly contributing to the harm suffered by the Plaintiffs. Entrusting negligent and dishonest employees with the authority to rip families apart is an unacceptable failure of the Minnesota State government.5) Through this complaint, the Plaintiffs articulate the factual basis for their claims, outline the damages suffered, and delineate the legal grounds upon which they seek redress. The Plaintiffs implore this Court to recognize the gravity of the Defendants’ reckless actions and grant relief that both compensates the Plaintiffs for their losses and prevents the recurrence of such injurious conduct elsewhere. Page 2 of 47TABLE OF CONTENTSCOMPLAINTTABLE OF CONTENTS...FACTUAL CLAIMS... lL RELATIONSHIP & DIVORCE HISTORY IL ABSURD TIMEFRAME. Il. COMPARISON TO A REAL INVESTIGATION 11 IV. POTTY TRAINING & SWIMMING 12 Vv. KR & HD MANIPULATED BY ALP... 16 VI KR & HD TAMPERING WITH WITNESS 20 VIL EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS 26 VIIt. FRAUDULENT REPORT WB23003368 27DAMAGE CLAIMS... 31 PSYCHOLOGICAL & RELATIONSHIP DAMAGES 32 Il. MEDICAL DAMAGES 34 Il FINNANCIAL DAMAGES 38LEGAL CLAIMS 41 NEGLIGENCE. 41 I. FRAUD & FRAUDULENT NONDISCLOSURE 43 IIL GROSS NEGLIGENCE 44 IV. VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 44RELIEF DEMANDED 46ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AT Page 3 of 47FACTUAL CLAIMS L RELATIONSHIP & DIVORCE HISTORY6) 03/14/2016: CJQ and Alissa Louise Puls (ALP) were married in Madison WI.7) CJQ and ALP have three children: AGQ, a girl born on 12/14/2016, EDQ, a boy born on 10/22/2018, and LEQ, a girl born on 11/14/2020.8) April 2021: ALP’s parents, Cheryl Puls (CP) and Daniel Puls (DP), framed CJQ for domestic violence by conspiring to lie to police, falsely accusing CJQ of harming CP, and using mandatory arrest statutes to force CJQ to be arrested and prosecuted. They did this to help ALP have leverage in the impending divorce that was likely to start between CIQ and ALP, (Exhibit K, and E Index 150 - 159)») 05/18/2021: ALP attempted to fake an injury on LEQ by falsely claiming that she had suffered a bruise on her forehead due to the negligence of CJQ’s mother. Later the same day, ALP also attempted to fake an injury on herself by falsely claiming that CIQ headbutted her and caused a nosebleed. CJQ collected the tissues that ALP used for her nosebleed, and there was no blood on them. CJQ also carefully evaluated LEQ, and there was no injury. (Exhibit L, and E Index 162 - 166)10) 05/26/2021: CJQ confronted ALP about lying about injuries on LEQ and lying about injuries on herself from 05/18/21. ALP responded to the confrontation with hostility, called the police, and attempted to have CJQ arrested by accusing CJQ of harming her. Page 4 of 47CJQ separated from ALP after she made these false accusations against CJQ. (Exhibit L, and E Index 167 - 174)11) Parental Alicnation is when one parent attempts to turn their children against the other parent without justification, leading to the children becoming estranged from the alienated parent. This can be done through various means, such as bad-mouthing the other parent in front of the child, limiting contact, or manipulating the child's perceptions. The aim is often to undermine and interfere with the child's relationship with the other parent. Parental Alienation can have significant negative psychological effects on the child, including issues with trust, guilt, and self-esteem. Parental Alienation is child abuse.12) June 2021: ALP started a brutal campaign of Parental Alienation against CJQ to punish him for leaving her. ALP wanted to use the children as an incentive to get CJQ to return to her.13) 06/28/2021: CJQ Filed for divorce as petitioner against ALP, the respondent.14) March 2022: Plaintiffs and ALP moved to Woodbury MN from Madison WI.15) 10/22/2022: The custody investigator (Shelly Anday) published a 63 page Custody Evaluation Report in divorce case between CJQ and ALP after doing a careful and thorough job investigating all allegations from ALP and CJQ. This report is hereafter referred to as the Custody Evaluation Report and attached as Exhibit F.16) The Custody Evaluation Report documented a long history of ALP and her parents, CP and DP, engaging in parental alienation behavior against CJQ. This behavior included Page 5 of 47things such as telling the children that CJQ is not safe and rewarding the children for participating in their culture of disparagement toward CJQ.17) ALP, CP, and DP have relied upon a strategy of falsely reporting child abuse against CJQ in an attempt to gain leverage during the divorce proceedings. This is clearly evident from the long list of unsubstantiated CPS reports that they generated between November 2019 up to October 2022. (Exhibit F pg. 46-50)18) ALP, CP, and DP have engaged in inappropriately recording the children while asking them leading and suggestive questions. (Exhibit F pg. 62)19) 12/08/22: Final divorce judgment between CJQ and ALP was settled through mediation following recommendations established in the Custody Evaluation Report. (Exhibit M)20) 12/08/22: ALP had the option to force a trial and argue her allegations against CJQ in court instead of doing mediation. However she agreed to settle through mediation because she knew that she could not prove any of her allegations since the investigation showed that they were unsubstantiated. (Exhibit F)21) December 2022 - January 2023: Instead of trying to prove her allegations in a fair trial, ALP opted for a strategy of appealing to the prejudices of a different group of people in Minnesota instead of in Wisconsin. After the divorce ALP kept making sexual abuse allegations against CJQ to anyone who would listen. For example, ALP reported sexual abuse allegations to the children’s doctors at UW Health on 01/10/23.22) December 2022 - January 2023: CJQ agreed to mediation because he did not want to prolong the divorce process further and was satisfied with having joint custody of the children. CJQ was hopeful that the battle against false allegations from ALP was over Page 6 of 47since the investigation showed that ALP was lying. CJQ was ready to bury the hatchet and move on, but ALP was not.23) 12/20/22 - 01/05/23: Member(s) of CJQ’s extended family, Kirsten Quinlan, Daniel Quinlan, and Patricia Quinlan spent the holidays with CJQ. During this period, CJQ was never with the children without at least one other member of his family also present. I. ABSURD TIMEFRAME24) The range of time for the criminal allegations against CJQ is from 12/08/2022 to 01/23/2022. Hereafter, this range of time is referred to as the Timeframe. The Timeframe is tiny, only 49 days long.25) During the Timeframe, CJQ only had a total of approximately 28 hours in which he was alone with AGQ and EDQ in his own house. CJQ only saw his children a total of 20 times, and in 9 of those instances his extended family were also present. CJQ can account for all the time and activities that he and the kids did each day. The Timeframe is simply far too short to accommodate the possibility of the criminal allegations against CJQ.26) 01/17/23: CJQ Fulfilled requirements in divorce settlement agreement (Exhibit M pg. 3), such as to have a Red Cross certification, to have time alone with LEQ without ALP nearby. cig informed ALP that she can no longer be around during his time with LEQ, and ALP refused to obey the divorce agreement.27) 01/17/23: ALP’s father DP got physically aggressive by getting right into CJQ’s face, just a few inches away, and by making a verbal threat to CJQ at the Central Park Library. DP told CJQ that he is a “problem” and insinuated that he will get rid of CJQ. DP was angry Page 7 of 47that CJQ had fulfilled requirements to be alone with LEQ and that CJQ was demanding that ALP and DP leave him and LEQ alone.28) 01/20/23: ALP instigated a CPS report against CQ by manipulating mandated reporter Amanda Mann, a social worker at the school of AGQ, by suggesting that some inappropriate behavior by AGQ was due to sexual abuse from CJQ.29) 01/20/2023: Based only upon information provided by ALP, Amanda Mann carried out her duty as a mandated reporter and contacted CPS with the information that ALP provided. This case got assigned to HD for investigation.30) 01/23/2023: KR and HD started their investigation of CJQ. HD notified CJQ of the investigation over the phone and told him that he could not see his children while under investigation. HD also stated the investigation could last up to 45 days. (Exhibit B)31) The timing of the investigation by KR and HD interfered with the phased expansion of parental time that the kids were meant to enjoy with CJQ (Exhibit M pg. 3-4). As part of the divorce settlement agreement, CJQ would have become entitled to much more parenting time as long as his time with the kids on the weekend of 01/28/2023 went well. Instead ALP arranged for CJQ to spend that weekend in jail by manipulating the KR and HD like puppets.32) 01/23/2023: CJQ responded with justified anger and frustration to HD when she told him that he was under investigation by CPS and that he could not see his children. CJQ told HD that the allegations were absurd and that they had just settled all of these allegations during the divorce proceedings (Exhibit F). CJQ told HD that she was being manipulated Page 8 of 47into participating in the Parental Alienation conspiracy from ALP and her parents. (Exhibit B)33) 01/23/2023: CJQ sent an email to HD outlining reasons why the allegations were absurd and alerting her to the real child abuse that was occurring: Parental Alienation by ALP and her parents. (Exhibit B)34) 01/26/2023: CIQ asked HD asked about how much time they would have for his interview. CJQ was worried that KR and HD would not allocate sufficient time to their investigation. HD stated that the interviews are “Typically scheduled for an hour but can go longer if needed” and CJQ responded “We will need much more than an hour. I have a mountain of evidence for you to consider.” CJQ also asked HD if she was investigating his allegations of parental alienation, and HD refused to answer. (Exhibit B)35) 01/26/2023: KR and HD interviewed AGQ, then they interviewed ALP, and then they interviewed CJQ. These interviews were all recorded as videos and were provided through discovery to CJQ. Interview with AGQ transcript is attached as Exhibit C. Interview with ALP transcript is attached as Exhibit D, Interview with CJQ transcript is attached as Exhibit E.36) 01/26/2023: At the end of CJQ’s interview, he was arrested. CJQ was sent to Washington County Jail for processing. CIQ was charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct-2nd Degree.37) KR and HD wrote a 10 page report summarizing their investigation. This report included information from the email from CJQ to HD on 01/23/2023, a summary of two CPS reports from 10/25/22 and 10/31/22, and a summary of the interviews of AGQ, ALP, and CIQ from 01/26/2023. This report was filed as a police report with case number Page 9 of 47WB23003368. This report is hereafter referred to as Report WB23003368 and attached as Exhibit A.38) KR and HD were both present in all interviews with AGQ, ALP, and CIQ. KR and HD had access to all the same information and were aware of all statements in CJQ’s emails and text messages to HD and Report WB23003368.39) CJQ has consistently denied all allegations.40) CJQ is 100% innocent of all allegations of any sort of abuse toward the children and toward ALP.41) ALP never provided any substantial evidence for any of her allegations.42) CJQ was arrested and prosecuted without legitimate probable cause,43) 01/26/2023 - 01/30/2023: CJQ was incarcerated in Washington County Jail for 5 days. CJQ was not provided a bail hearing within the 36-hour period after his arrest. Bail for CJQ was eventually set at $50,000 and he was released from custody.44) 02/06/2023: ALP filed a request for a restraining order against CJQ to prevent him from any and all contact with his children AGQ, EDQ, and LEQ.45) 02/10/2023: Under advice of legal counsel, CJQ declined to attend the hearing granting ALP her request for a restraining order. However CJQ did submit a letter to the court refuting ALP’s claims and accusing her of committing perjury. ALP’s request for a restraining order and CJQ’s response is attached as Exhibit G.46) 02/13/2023: ALP’s request for a restraining order was granted, preventing CJQ from any and all contact with his children and restricting CJQ’s parental rights severely. Page 10 of 47III. COMPARISON TO A REAL INVESTIGATION47) The Custody Evaluation Report was published on October 22nd 2022.48) Report WB23003368 was published only 3 months later on January 26th 2023.49) The only significant change that happened in between these reports was that the divorce was finalized.50) ALP and CJQ both made the same allegations against each other in these investigations. The circ*mstances of ALP and CJQ were not substantially different in these investigations. (Exhibit B)51) The following comparison between these reports highlights the great difference in quality and effort, demonstrating the deficiency of Report WB23003368 and negligence of KR and HD. (Exhibits A and F pg. 1-3) Report Comparison Metric Custody Evaluation WB23003368 Word Count 26763 4875 Pages 63 10 Interviews with ALP 11 1 Interviews with CJQ Interviews with AGQ Interviews with EDQ Observations of ALP with kids Observations of CJQ with kids Medical Professionals Consulted 16 Other People Consulted 21 Hours of Work Invested Approx. 150-250 Approx. 5-10 Page 11 of 4752) These eyewitnesses were with CJQ and his children during some portion of the Timeframe: EDQ, Kirsten Quinlan, Daniel Quinlan, Patricia Quinlan, Kyle Nelson, Zach Yzermans, Lindsey Yzermans. Seven people in total.53) KR and HD made no effort to interview any of these seven eyewitnesses to the alleged crime,54) KR and HD refused to make specific allegations about the time and place of the alleged crime even though CJQ challenged them for specifics (Exhibit B). This shows that their investigation was so poorly executed that they could only make extremely vague accusations against CJQ.55) CJQ wanted the accusations to be something specific so that he could show that he had an alibi.56) CJQ made clear and unambiguous counterclaim allegations against ALP and her parents, accusing them of Parental Alienation and conspiracy to deprive him of his parental rights. (Exhibit B)57) KR and HD refused to even consider the counterclaims of CJQ and did not investigate them at all. They only documented that CJQ made the allegations. (Exhibit A)58) KR and HD were incredulous and dismissive toward all evidence that CJQ presented, but eagerly receptive toward all evidence that ALP presented.59) KR and HD failed to do a real investigation; they were only confirming their bias. Iv. POTTY TRAINING & SWIMMING60) AGQ’s statements were easily explained as describing potty-training behavior in which CJQ would help AGQ and EDQ with using the bathroom. (Exhibit A pg. 5) Page 12 of 4761) AGQ frequently claimed that these events occurred in a bathroom. This is far better explained by potty training activities rather than abusive sexual behavior. (Exhibit C Index 430)62) AGQ drew a picture of CJQ urinating into a toilet. This is far better explained by potty training activities rather than abusive sexual behavior. (Exhibit C Index 437)63) Throughout 2022: CIQ was engaged in ongoing potty training activities with AGQ and with EDQ.64) Potty training activities for AGQ included the following. AGQ frequently needed encouragement to go into the women’s restroom by herself. AGQ also frequently expressed fear of using the toilet by herself because the flushing noise intimidated her (Exhibit A pg. 10). CJQ provided assistance to AGQ encouraging independence.65) Potty training activities for EDQ included the following. EDQ frequently needed encouragement to use the toilet before swimming. EDQ was also still in the process of learning how to stand up in front of the toilet to urinate instead of sitting down each time. CJQ provided assistance to EDQ when needed, including modeling how to stand and urinate (Exhibit C Index 437).66) During the Timeframe, CJQ never once was in the bathroom with AGQ at the same time. Instead, CJQ told AGQ that now that she had turned 6, she was too old to get any help from CJQ and needed to use the bathroom all by herself all the time now. AGQ grew in independence during the Timeframe, using the women’s bathroom by herself in public, and using the normal bathroom by herself at home.67) CJQ’s decision to never be with AGQ alone in the bathroom during the Timeframe was a result of having just dealt with the false allegations of sexual abuse that ALP and CP and Page 13 of 47DP made during the divorce proceedings. CJQ was intentionally being hyper-vigilant to avoid any situation that could be maliciously misconstrued by ALP and her parents.68) CIQ was already prepared to refute sexual abuse allegations since he had just done so during the divorce proceedings. (Exhibit B)69) October 2022: At the final meeting CJQ had with the custody investigator, CIQ was explicitly advised by the investigator to be hyper-vigilant about anything that could be misconstrued in a sexual manner because ALP and her parents were likely to continue trying to make sexual abuse allegations after the divorce was finalized.70) During the Timeframe, CJQ only took AGQ and EDQ swimming once on 01/01/2023, however they did not use the family changing room because CJQ’s parents were visiting, AGQ used the women’s locker room with CJQ’s mother while EDQ and CJQ used the men’s locker room.71) The only adult male that was ever with AGQ in a bathroom during the Timeframe was ALP’s father, DP. DP was observed taking AGQ and EDQ into the men’s bathroom after a gymnastics class that the kids had at East Ridge High School.72) AGQ frequently claimed that she and EDQ were both with CJQ in the bathroom. When swimming at Lifetime Fitness, there are family restrooms in the family changing area that are designed for parents with small children. These statements from AGQ are far better explained by potty training activities in public family restrooms rather than abusive sexual behavior.73) AGQ’s statements were also easily explained as describing the events associated with changing in the Family locker room to go swimming. KR and HD made no effort to rule out this possibility. Page 14 of 4774) KR and HD did not do any follow up investigation aimed at distinguishing AGQ’s statements between being caused by sexual abuse, potty training, or swimming. KR and HD simply assumed that sexual abuse was the only possible explanation.75) Assuming that sexual abuse is the only possible explanation for a child’s statements about private parts is illogical, unreasonable, negligent, and dangerous.76) Since potty training and swimming are far more probable explanations, it is unreasonable to infer sexual abuse from AGQ’s statements without some sort of other evidence that clearly rules out these possibilities.77) Summer 2022: CJQ took AGQ and EDQ swimming approximately twice per week at Lifetime Fitness. CIQ took AGQ and EDQ swimming so much that both children advanced their swimming skills greatly. CJQ was able to teach AGQ and EDQ to swim independently without needing any flotation device.78) CIQ, AGQ and EDQ also made a video together that powerfully demonstrated their improved swimming skills. The video shows AGQ and EDQ diving into the deep end of the pool, swimming independently, diving to collect sunken rings, and having a lot of fun. CJQ was prepared to show this video during his interview on 01/26/2023.79) Summer 2022: ALP was jealous of the success that CJQ had in teaching AGQ and EDQ to swim and jealous of how much fun the kids had with CJQ. ALP attempted to sabotage the ability of CJQ to take the kids swimming by changing their swimming lessons to a different gym.80) Summer 2022: ALP would also interrogate the children and ask them leading questions such as “Does Daddy take his pants off?” to which they would say “Yeah” because we Page 15 of 47would get changed together in the family changing area at the gym before and after swimming.81) ALP recorded this and submitted this recording to the investigator that wrote the Custody Evaluation Report and tried to use it as evidence of sexual abuse. ALP knew the real context was swimming, and she knew she was stripping away that context to sexualize it artificially. ALP knew the kids were talking about swimming and getting changed in the Family locker room.82) Unlike KR and HD, the investigator from Wisconsin was not negligent and was not so easily tricked by ALP’s malicious charade. Instead the Custody Evaluation Report sharply criticized ALP for manipulating the children in this way. (Exhibit F pg. 62)83) KR and HD’s investigation made no effort whatsoever to distinguish AGQ’s statements from being caused by normal, healthy activities like swimming rather than sexual abuse, therefore their conclusions were not reasonable, not logical, and not probable. Their conclusion was reckless and dangerous and has resulted in great harm to Plaintiffs. VY. KR& HD MANIPULATED BY ALP84) The Negligence and bias that KR and HD exhibited in their duties made it very easy for ALP to manipulate them toward the malicious end of Parental Alienation through the unjust arrest and prosecution of CJQ without legitimate probable cause.85) If KR and HD had not been negligent in their duties, then instead of being easily manipulated by ALP, they would have been able to identify ALP as the real criminal. Instead of preventing crime, their negligence aided ALP in committing the following crimes: a. 609.25 KIDNAPPING Page 16 of 47609.26 DEPRIVING ANOTHER OF CUSTODIAL OR PARENTAL RIGHTS 609.378 NEGLECT OR ENDANGERMENT OF CHILD d. 609.498 TAMPERING WITH WITNESS €. 609.507 FALSELY REPORTING CHILD ABUSE86) It would have been easy for KR and HD to identify that ALP was the real criminal because CJQ was fully prepared to demonstrate it with an abundance of meticulously organized evidence. KR and HD could have fulfilled their professional duties with minimal effort simply by listening to CJQ in an unbiased manner.87) KR and HD ought to have recognized that AGQ’s immediate and unprompted story about CJQ exposing himself was a clear sign of coaching from AGQ’s mother ALP. KR stated “Without any other questions ANI immediately stated” that CIQ exposes himself. (Exhibit C Index 79)88) Children blurting out sexually suggestive stories like AGQ did (Exhibit C Index 79) at the very beginning of their conversation have likely been coached to repeat that statement. This is especially true in the context of a high conflict divorce in which the children were being recorded inappropriately. For example, the Custody Evaluation Report states “This writer has been provided recordings by Alissa of her and her parent (s) that involve leading questions about the situation and/or Carsten. This is not a healthy habit for the children and needs to cease.” (Exhibit F pg. 62)89) At the end of ALP’s interview, AGQ tells ALP that “J told them.” and AGQ responds “Okay, I’m glad. I’m very proud of you” (Exhibit D Index 383 - 385). The interview video also shows ALP giving AGQ a hug, rewarding her behavior. This exchange happened right in front of KR and HD. Notice that ALP did not ask AGQ what she told Page 17 of 47to KR and HD. ALP already knew exactly what AGQ was going to tell them because she had been coaching AGQ.90) When KR and HD confronted CJQ for an explanation, CIQ suggested that AGQ had been coached by ALP and/or CP to tell stories about him that would come across as inappropriately sexual. ALP and her parents had done this exact thing during the divorce proceedings. (Exhibit E Index 224 - 237)91) CJQ explicitly stated that AGQ is “very likely being coached by either her mother or her grandparents” to which KR responded by citing her own experience and stating “.../'ve done this for over 16 years, Haley's done this quite some time with child protection. I don't think she was coached at all. I didn't get that vibe one bit from her. So that's the questions of what could she be looking at or feeling happened, and either misinterpreting it or truly that is what happened. Because again, I don't get any coaching vibe from this at all.” CJQ retorted that he had audio recordings to prove his allegations. (Exhibit E Index 375 - 379)92) In this exchange (Exhibit E Index 375 - 379), KR explicitly cites her own work experience and feelings about “vibes” as grounds for completely over-ruling CJQ’s logical explanation and evidence. Basing an investigation on “vibes” is unprofessional, negligent, and reckless.93) KR thinks far too highly of her own detective ability, mistaking her mediocrity for genius, and only confirming her own bias instead of doing a real investigation. For example, KR later states “Like I said, I've been doing this long enough time where I can tell when people are coached and when they're not coached.” (Exhibit E Index 437) Page 18 of 4794) KR has absolutely no scientific data to backup her absurd claim that she can accurately “tell when people are coached and when they're not coached.” Such a statement is contradictory to scientific consensus that shows that forensic interviews are highly prone to inaccuracies and biased interviewers.95) Further, KR and HD missed another important sign that AGQ was lying to them. AGQ was frequently giggling when telling stories about CJQ. AGQ was likely giggling because of either a) the Duping Delight reflex (where a person enjoys the thrill of successful deception) and/or b) AGQ enjoyed the extra attention and positive reinforcement that she was getting from her stories. The picture from Exhibit C Index 461 shows AGQ with a big smile, animatedly telling an absurd story to her audience. KR and HD missed this important clue, which is obvious when watching AGQ’s interview video.96) Further KR expresses blind faith in her own evaluation of AGQ stating “J have no doubt to believe her” (Exhibit E Index 437) as if there was absolutely no other evidence contradicting ALP’s position. KR’s faith in her ability to substitute real investigative work for her own intuition is a dangerous, and arrogant assumption befitting of a fortune teller or charlatan, but not a real detective.97) In this case with AGQ, KR and HD have completely missed one of the most obvious examples of a child being maliciously coached toward the end of extreme Parental Alienation.98) KR acts arrogantly, believing that her feelings about “vibes” are an acceptable substitute for real investigative work, taking shortcuts in the investigation, cherry picking evidence Page 19 of 47to confirm her own bias, and using fraud to generate any missing evidence that she wants. KR is a corrupt officer.99) Although HD is far more reserved, not claiming to be infallible and clairvoyant like KR, HD followed KR’s lead throughout all interviews, never questioning her complete lack of investigative rigor nor her unacceptable faith in her intuition. VI. KR & HD TAMPERING WITH WITNESS100) Tampering with a Witness in the 3rd Degree (Min. Stat. § 609.498.2a(4)) is defined as: “...whoever does any of the following is guilty of tampering with a witness in the third degree ... by means of intimidation, intentionally influences or attempts to influence a person to provide false information concerning a crime to law enforcement authorities.”101) KR and HD engaged in Tampering with a Witness in the 3rd Degree by using intimidation to intentionally influence AGQ into providing themselves with false information that they could use as evidence of sexual abuse to arrest and prosecute CIQ without legitimate probable cause.102) AGQ qualifies as a person that is a witness or is likely to become a witness to an alleged crime. AGQ is listed as the primary witness for the prosecution against CJQ. Further, KR explicitly states that her estimation of probable cause relied only upon AGQ’s testimony: “...Oh dang it. Basically off [AGQ’s] statement alone, I am placing you under arrest. Okay? ” (Exhibit E Index 505)103) KR, and perhaps also HD, qualify as law enforcement authorities. Page 20 of 47104) According to Min. Stat. § 609.498.2a(b), “proof of intimidation may be based on a specific act or on the totality of the circ*mstances.” Proof that KR and HD intimidated AGQ is clearly evident from the totality of the circ*mstances, which are easily seen by watching the video recording of the interview of AGQ and reviewing the numerous inappropriate questioning techniques they used.105) Proof that KR and HD fulfil the definition of Tampering with a Witness in the 3" Degree regarding AGQ is also clearly evident from the following specific acts: a. “Any touches you don’t like?” Repetitive Questioning: 6 times KR or HD asked questions about AGQ getting any touches that she doesn’t like. (Exhibit C Index 264, 270, 278, 348, 383,407) “Who else are you going to draw?” Repetitive Questioning: 7 times HD asked AGQ who she was going to draw next. AGQ never said she was going to draw another person. HD was pushing AGQ to finish drawing her siblings and draw a picture of CJQ. HD’s questions expressed impatience and suggested that AGQ needed to draw a different person. (Exhibit C Index 306, 326, 328, 330, 338, 340, 342) “And who gives you those owies?” Repetitive Questioning: 5 times KR or HD asked questions about AGQ getting some sort of minor injury. They were clearly hoping that AGQ would accuse CJQ of hurting her, but she did not. (Exhibit C Index 357, 361, 363, 374, 381) “Does he make anybody else stretch it out?” Repetitive Questioning: 3 times HD asked questions about CJQ stretching his penis, AGQ gave a very clear answer stating, “No. Because he knows it's a private part so he doesn't want Page 21 of 47anyone touching it”. Despite receiving this extremely clear answer, HD triedasking AGQ this same question one more time, asking “Okay. Does he evermake anybody else stretch it out?” and this time AGQ changed her answerfrom a clear “No” to a “Yes.” This is a crystal-clear example of HD changingAGQ’s testimony through repetitive questioning. (Exhibit C Index 423, 427,428, 473, 474)“Tell me about a he says to you when you go in the bathroom?” RepetitiveQuestioning: 3 times HD asked questions about what CJQ would say to AGQand EDQ in the bathroom, (Exhibit C Index 460, 467, 469)“Six times” Leading Questioning: In this line of questioning, KR and HDattempted to lead AGQ to specify how many times sexual abuse occurred. KRsuggested “You are six, right? Do you know, has it happened six times, ormore, or less?” and AGQ claimed it happened exactly six times because that isexactly the number that KR mentioned. HD attempted to change her clearanswer by asking “Do you think it's happened more than six times?” howeverAGQ stuck to her first answer of six. This is a clear example of HD attemptingto change AGQ’s answer from six, to a number greater than six, and thereforeshowsan instance of witness tampering. This example of manipulating AGQwas so bad that KR and HD omitted it from Report WB23003368. (Exhibit CIndex 657 — 660, Exhibit A)“Does dad touch anybody else's bottom?” Repetitive Questioning: 10 timesKR or HD asked questions about CJQ touching AGQ and/or EDQ’s bottom.AGQ shows several signs of boredom and/or exhaustion during this extremely Page 22 of 47repetitive set of questioning. (Exhibit C Index 500, 502, 514, 520, 522, 529,531, 533, 536, 548)Urination Fetish Questions: KR unleashed a series of extremely leading andsuggestive questions that led AGQ toward some sort of urination fetishanswer. This line of questioning was extremely inappropriate. (Exhibit CIndex 616 — 633) Notice that KR’s statement on 618 incredulously said “No?”in a manner that clearly told AGQ that her answer was wrong. Then KRmarches AGQ toward some sort of weird urination fetish answer instead! Thisis a crystal-clear example of KR changing AGQ’s testimony throughsuggestive and leading questions that introduced new information that AGQnever mentioned. 616 KR Does anything ever come out of his penis when you're stretching it? 617 AGQ. No. 618 KR No? Okay. Okay. Well, because, do you know what a penis does? 619 AGQ. Yeah. 620 KR What does a penis do? 621 AGQ. It makes you tinkle. Tinkle, right. Yeah. So, | want to make sure he didn't tinkle. Is that silly? Yeah. 622 KR Okay. | was actually naked... I'm naked when | stretch him in case he does that. But i 623 AGQ. that's never happened. Does he tell you to take off your clothes, or do you just take them off, or 624 KR something else? 625 AGQ [take them off, because { don't want them to get tinkle on them. 626 KR Oh, okay. Has tinkle ever gotten on them before? 627 AGQ No, because | leave them in my bedroom. 628 KR Oh, okay. 629 HD Has tinkle ever gotten on your body when you weren't wearing clothes? 630 AGQ No. 631 HD Okay. 632 KR What about your brother? 633 AGQ. No. Page 23 of 471. Multiple Questions Without Waiting for Response: HD and KR, but primarily KR, frequently asked AGQ multiple questions at once without waiting for a response from AGQ. This shows that HD and KR were being impatient and expressing frustration toward AGQ. HD and KR did not want to take the appropriate amount of time to carefully extract information the right way. For example, KR asked “Oh, okay. So when your daddy chases you and you say he throws you on the couch, can you tell me more about that? When does that happen?A lot? Sometimes?” (Exhibit C Index 398, 435, 438, 494, 536, 544, 591, 593, 594, 604, 651)106) Since AGQ was only 6 years old during the interview, the threshold for acts that can induce intimidation are far less than that for an adolescent or adult. For a small child, repetitive questioning, leading questioning, and suggestive questioning are all acts that can influence and intimidate a child. (Exhibits H and I)107) Since KR and HD both were present during the interview, they outnumbered AGQ, which contributes to an intimidating situation for AGQ.108) Since KR and HD both are much larger and much older than AGQ, this also contributes to creating an intimidating situation for AGQ. How can a child stand up to two adults alone? Exhibit C Index 5 shows KR and HD towering over AGQ while she looks away.109) Since the interview was conducted at a Police Station, this also contributes to an intimidating situation for AGQ, especially because AGQ has seen CJQ in trouble Page 24 of 47with the police before due to false allegations against CIQ from ALP and her parents (Exhibits K and L)110) During their interview with AGQ, KR and HD engaged in multiple counts of repetitive questioning. This undermines the reliability of AGQ’s testimony.11) When a small child is asked the same question over and over by an adult, that communicates to the child that their original answer was wrong and they need to try again.112) During their interview with AGQ, KR and HD engaged in multiple counts of leading questioning. This undermines the reliability of AGQ’s testimony.113) Leading questions easily influences a child’s answer to a question by restricting the set of acceptable answers and by providing the child with hints about what the adult wants to hear.114) During their interview with AGQ, KR and HD engaged in multiple counts of suggestive questioning.115) Suggestive questions easily influence a child by introducing new information to the narrative that was not provided by the child, this corrupts any testimony from a small child.116) KR and HD exhausted the patience of AGQ, making her bored and eager to end the interview. This undermines the reliability of AGQ’s testimony. Exhibit C Index 523 to 526 shows AGQ lying on the couch and answering “Mm-hmm... Mm- hmm’ to their questions.117) Any interview of a child that exhausts their attention span will elicit unreliable testimony from the child. Page 25 of 47118) KR and HD expressed frustration and impatience with AGQ when she was trying to answer their questions but she was not providing the answers that they wanted to hear. This undermines the reliability of AGQ’s testimony.119) Expressing frustration and impatience toward a child when they are answering your questions communicates to the child that their answers are wrong and need to be changed. vo. EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS120) As part of the defense for CJQ, two expert witnesses were consulted: Dr. Jane McNaught and Dr. Kim MacLin. Both experts agreed that the interview with AGQ done by KR and HD were poorly executed and that AGQ’s testimony is unreliable.121) Dr. Jane McNaught’s qualifications as an expert witness with authority in the realm of child forensic interviews and child psychology are extraordinarily impressive. (Exhibits H and I)122) 06/26/2024: Dr. Jane McNaught published her report after evaluating the relevant evidence surrounding the allegations against CJQ. This report is overall very favorable toward CJQ’s position and consistent with all other evidence. This report alleged that KR and HD engaged in mappropriate questioning toward AGQ and manipulated her testimony. (Exhibit H)123) Dr, Jane McNaught’s report is far more sophisticated, scientific, logical, unbiased and trustworthy than Report WB23003368. (Compare Exhibits A and H) Page 26 of 47124) Dr. Kim MacLin’s qualifications as an expert witness with authority in the realm of memory science and how memories can become corrupted are extraordinarily impressive.125) 02/26/2024: Dr. Kim MacLin published her report after evaluating the relevant evidence surrounding the allegations against CJQ. This report was overall very favorable toward CJQ’s position. This report alleged that KR and HD engaged in inappropriate questioning toward AGQ and likely manipulated her testimony. This report is attached as Exhibit O.126) Dr. Kim MacLin’s report is far more sophisticated, scientific, logical, unbiased and trustworthy than Report WB23003368. (Compare Exhibits A and I)127) These reports from expert witnesses are consistent with each other and with the Custody Evaluation Report. They are also consistent with everything that CJQ said and hypothesized during his interview. The only report inconsistent with all the other evidence is Report WB23003368. (Compare Exhibits A, B, E, F, H, and I) vil. FRAUDULENT REPORT WB23003368128) When summarizing AGQ’s testimony on Report WB23003368, KR and HD always omitted the repetitive, suggestive, and/or leading questions from KR and HD that preceded AGQ’s statements. To a reader of their report, this makes it seem like all of AGQ’s statements were original to herself. However, all of AGQ’s incriminating statements were forcibly extracted through Witness Tampering by KR and HD. In omitting this critical information, KR and HD have attempted to conceal Page 27 of 47their abusive questioning of AGQ. Censoring exculpatory information like this is a fraudulent misrepresentation.129) Further, Report WB23003368 shows that almost anything that AGQ said that tended to portray CJQ in a positive light was suppressed. For example, when AGQ was asked about what she does with her dad, AGQ was excited to share lots of fun things that she enjoyed with CJQ (Exhibit C Index 232 — 243). All of that information was omitted from Report WB23003368. Censoring exculpatory information like this is a fraudulent misrepresentation.130) KR and HD also knew that some of AGQ’s testimony was clearly false and unreliable. This can be deduced from the fact that they omitted an absurd story that AGQ shared toward the end of the interview. AGQ claimed that CJQ ran outside naked in his neighborhood, dug a hole, urinated in it, and then buried it. AGQ claimed CJQ did this “like a barbarian.” (Exhibit C Index 643 - 650) This story is so absurd that it shows that AGQ was clearly spinning tall tales to entertain KR and HD. Since including such an absurd story would tend to show that AGQ was not telling the truth, KR and HD omitted this story from Report WB23003368 entirely. Censoring exculpatory information like this is a fraudulent misrepresentation.131) KR made several explicit lies in her interviews with AGQ and CJQ. The following lies show that KR is a fundamentally dishonest person. HD may not have uttered these lies, but she certainly never objected to KR lying, and therefore participated in these deceptions. There was no good reason for KR to utter any of these lies. Page 28 of 47In AGQ’s interview, AGQ asked what an eraser was for, and KR said that the eraser “doesn’t work right now” and “We have to fix it.” The eraser was not broken, KR lied to AGQ to shut down her questions. (Exhibit C Index 364 — 370) In CJQ’s interview, CJQ explicitly said that either ALP or her mother CP were behind the CPS report. KR lied to CJQ and assured CJQ that was not true. KR stated “So, obviously we got reports and it didn't come from your ex-wife or anything.” (Exhibit E Index 53) Obviously KR lied to CJQ here. KR doubled down on this lie when CJQ retorted that ALP and/or CP could employ the strategy of manipulating a mandated reporter into making the CPS report. KR stated “J can tell you that wasn't the case here. There was no family member, definitely mandated reporter, and it didn't stem from anything that your ex-wife or her mother said.” (Exhibit E Index 496) Again KR denied that ALP was behind the allegations and lied to CIQ. However that is exactly what happened. CIQ also criticized KR and HD for asking AGQ leading or inappropriate questions, but KR lied again, stating that they asked AGQ open-ended questions. (Exhibit E Index 400 - 402) Analysis of the interview with AGQ shows that is clearly a giant lie. See Claims #120 — #139.132) The most explicit lie in Report WB23003368 is at the end of CJQ’s interview. KR stated, “QUINLAN did not have any further information to share with me nor DORNFELD” (Exhibit A pg. 10). However this was ex 

Related Contentin Washington County