Daniel Suitor
@dansuitor.bsky.social
Former and occasional tenants rights attorney. Landlords do not @ me. New England then, Minneapolis now, housing and economic justice forever.
More complicated because Osman joined them, but I think a lot about Shaffer asking for the seating in NW Peavy Park at Chicago and Franklin to be removed. They eventually did and fenced the whole area off.
Rather than replace the benches in the current art installation, MPRB wants all seating removed and for the area to be fenced off because of "public safety issues." Similarly, Council Member Jamal Osman joined MPRB Commissioner Elizabeth Shaffer and the Park Police in requesting they all be removed.
November 11, 2025 at 6:29 PM
More complicated because Osman joined them, but I think a lot about Shaffer asking for the seating in NW Peavy Park at Chicago and Franklin to be removed. They eventually did and fenced the whole area off.
Just this weekend, Hank wanted to walk to a lake so we set off for Bde Maka Ska. About 40 mins in, he had to go. We found ourselves in this area of 36th after the Painter Rec Center was closed. Thankfully the gas station at 36th and Lyndale was very chill, but this should be a public charge!
November 11, 2025 at 6:26 PM
Just this weekend, Hank wanted to walk to a lake so we set off for Bde Maka Ska. About 40 mins in, he had to go. We found ourselves in this area of 36th after the Painter Rec Center was closed. Thankfully the gas station at 36th and Lyndale was very chill, but this should be a public charge!
deleting this because I did too simplistic data, will repost so please burn W7 again momentarily
November 10, 2025 at 7:48 PM
deleting this because I did too simplistic data, will repost so please burn W7 again momentarily
I'm convinced that the CEO of Costco threatening to kill a subordinate if he raised the price of the hot dog + soda combo is the only good thing a C-suiter has ever done
November 10, 2025 at 7:04 PM
I'm convinced that the CEO of Costco threatening to kill a subordinate if he raised the price of the hot dog + soda combo is the only good thing a C-suiter has ever done
the judicial officer below might be
November 10, 2025 at 5:43 PM
the judicial officer below might be
In any case, this is about as hard as I've seen the COA go on a lower court's findings. The referee who conducted the hearing and wrote the overturned decision is fairly notorious in certain legal circles in MN. If you're practicing in the North Country (6th Judicial District), happy to talk.
November 10, 2025 at 5:13 PM
In any case, this is about as hard as I've seen the COA go on a lower court's findings. The referee who conducted the hearing and wrote the overturned decision is fairly notorious in certain legal circles in MN. If you're practicing in the North Country (6th Judicial District), happy to talk.
CORRECTION: it's been pointed out that "concurring specifically" was at one point common practice for Minnesota appellate case. It does appear to have fallen out of favor in recent years, though. I don't have great legal research tools right now and the database I do have didn't pop when I searched.
That's always the way Minnesota state appellate court concurrences are.
November 10, 2025 at 5:11 PM
CORRECTION: it's been pointed out that "concurring specifically" was at one point common practice for Minnesota appellate case. It does appear to have fallen out of favor in recent years, though. I don't have great legal research tools right now and the database I do have didn't pop when I searched.
Thank you for pointing that out! I think that style has fallen away in recent years, because newer decisions don't seem to use it. (see, e.g., law.justia.com/cases/minnes...). I don't have WestLaw right now, so the database I used may be incomplete. But good to know it wasn't a whole-cloth creation.
November 10, 2025 at 5:07 PM
Thank you for pointing that out! I think that style has fallen away in recent years, because newer decisions don't seem to use it. (see, e.g., law.justia.com/cases/minnes...). I don't have WestLaw right now, so the database I used may be incomplete. But good to know it wasn't a whole-cloth creation.
My personal opinion is that a "concurring specifically" caption is about as close to "the fuck did you say" as an appellate judge can get. And appellate decisions rarely call lower court findings "troubling," "alarming," "concerning," "problematic," an "unsupported assumption," and a "logical leap"
November 10, 2025 at 5:02 PM
My personal opinion is that a "concurring specifically" caption is about as close to "the fuck did you say" as an appellate judge can get. And appellate decisions rarely call lower court findings "troubling," "alarming," "concerning," "problematic," an "unsupported assumption," and a "logical leap"
This 8 pg. concurrence is worth reading for everyone, but especially anyone working around sexual assault in the legal system. Also, I've never seen a concurrence captioned "concurring specially." A quick search suggests that has not happened in Minnesota before, but that is not exhaustive research
November 10, 2025 at 4:57 PM
This 8 pg. concurrence is worth reading for everyone, but especially anyone working around sexual assault in the legal system. Also, I've never seen a concurrence captioned "concurring specially." A quick search suggests that has not happened in Minnesota before, but that is not exhaustive research
First, the COA goes through each of those claims and unequivocally debunks them. Then, in an incredible, concurrence, Judge JaPaul Harris thoroughly documents how "the district court’s credibility findings appear consistent with several sexual-assault myths" which "erodes access to justice"
![First, the record conflicts with the district court’s finding that Iverson “never called the police.” Two days after the third alleged assault, Iverson drove to the police station to make a report. The Police Chief recommended that Iverson file an OFP petition, which she did. While Iverson did not contact the police by using a phone (i.e., Iverson did not actually call the police), the district court’s implicit finding that Iverson never contacted the police is clearly erroneous.1
Second, the district court’s finding that Iverson never told her friends about the assaults has no support in the record. The testimony is silent on this issue. Vanhouse’s counsel candidly conceded at oral argument before this court that the record was silent on whether Iverson reported her assaults to friends.2 Given the lack of any record support, this finding is clearly erroneous.
1 The fact that Iverson did not report the prior alleged assaults is consistent with the unfortunate statistics about the reporting of domestic abuse incidents. See State v. Tapper, 993 N.W.2d 432, 448 (Minn. 2023) (“[L]ess than half of domestic abuse incidents are even reported.”) (Chutich, J., dissenting).
2 We appreciate counsel’s candor on this point.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ccm7gttkbfs2eyyrlpshmeun/bafkreifv7bdsth4rcgfy32lpgz5rztmvfxbkcecn5xd7cjjsmilaeeagsm@jpeg)
November 10, 2025 at 4:53 PM
First, the COA goes through each of those claims and unequivocally debunks them. Then, in an incredible, concurrence, Judge JaPaul Harris thoroughly documents how "the district court’s credibility findings appear consistent with several sexual-assault myths" which "erodes access to justice"
The referee found that the petitioner's testimony lacked credibility and denied the OFP on grounds that she:
- “never called the police”
- “never called the police”
- “had orgasms during the encounters”
- "talked nicely about [her alleged abuser] on a social media site for single women"
- “never called the police”
- “never called the police”
- “had orgasms during the encounters”
- "talked nicely about [her alleged abuser] on a social media site for single women"
November 10, 2025 at 4:49 PM
The referee found that the petitioner's testimony lacked credibility and denied the OFP on grounds that she:
- “never called the police”
- “never called the police”
- “had orgasms during the encounters”
- "talked nicely about [her alleged abuser] on a social media site for single women"
- “never called the police”
- “never called the police”
- “had orgasms during the encounters”
- "talked nicely about [her alleged abuser] on a social media site for single women"
I'll admit the language of the opinion isn't going to singe your eyebrows, but it's important to understand (1) how deferential appellate standards of review are to lower courts' fact findings and (2) the extremely high level of politesse the COA typically offers to judges even when overturning them
November 10, 2025 at 4:45 PM
I'll admit the language of the opinion isn't going to singe your eyebrows, but it's important to understand (1) how deferential appellate standards of review are to lower courts' fact findings and (2) the extremely high level of politesse the COA typically offers to judges even when overturning them
In the case, a District Court referee refused to consider evidence of the petitioner's housing instability and the respondent's threats of eviction, and believed her alleged abuser that the sexual encounters were consensual.
On appeal, the COA held that all of the court's findings were flat wrong.
On appeal, the COA held that all of the court's findings were flat wrong.
![In an order and memorandum—written by the referee and countersigned by the district court judge—the district court denied the OFP. The district court declined to address Iverson’s allegations of threats to her housing situation, finding that “[t]he housing issues, and whether eviction laws were followed, is not before the [district court] in the current proceeding.” In addressing Iverson’s sexual assault allegations, the district court found Vanhouse’s testimony was more credible than Iverson’s testimony:
The [district court] finds [Vanhouse’s] testimony regarding the consensual nature of the sexual encounters to be more believable than [Iverson’s]. [Iverson] never called the police, never reported the activity to friends, admits that she had orgasms during the encounters, and talked nicely about [Vanhouse] on a social media site for single women. The [district court] believes that both parties have regret that they tried to rekindle their sexual relationship, but the [district court] does not believe the encounters were abusive.
Iverson filed a motion for amended findings, asking the district court to reevaluate the issue of her housing insecurity. The district court denied Iverson’s motion, finding that Iverson’s “testimony at trial did not give rise to a credible threat of housing insecurity.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ccm7gttkbfs2eyyrlpshmeun/bafkreihovrg22lew7cfyolat4lc337ug7cr3doir5vmobt4l474wgmgwm4@jpeg)
![In finding that Vanhouse’s testimony was more credible than Iverson’s testimony regarding the consensual nature of the sexual encounters, the district court made four factual findings:
(1) Iverson “never called the police”;
(2) Iverson “never reported the activity to friends”;
7
(3) Iverson admitted “that she had orgasms during the encounters”; and
(4) Iverson “talked nicely about [Vanhouse] on a social media site for single women.”
Our thorough review of the record reveals that none of these underlying factual findings, upon which the credibility determination was based, are “reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” Id.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ccm7gttkbfs2eyyrlpshmeun/bafkreie4puan7xbxklnbzs624frilu4u4jglsyptn3j3dy54bekgx5riia@jpeg)
November 10, 2025 at 4:42 PM
In the case, a District Court referee refused to consider evidence of the petitioner's housing instability and the respondent's threats of eviction, and believed her alleged abuser that the sexual encounters were consensual.
On appeal, the COA held that all of the court's findings were flat wrong.
On appeal, the COA held that all of the court's findings were flat wrong.
In the decision below, the petitioner (person seeking a protective order) alleged that she'd moved in with the father of her children because of her housing instability, and that he sexually assaulted her under the threat of eviction. She reported him to the police and sought an Order for Protection
November 10, 2025 at 4:36 PM
In the decision below, the petitioner (person seeking a protective order) alleged that she'd moved in with the father of her children because of her housing instability, and that he sexually assaulted her under the threat of eviction. She reported him to the police and sought an Order for Protection
that's at the trend piece, not you. can confirm that my late Gen Alpha toddler absolutely rocks with Rumours
November 10, 2025 at 3:41 PM
that's at the trend piece, not you. can confirm that my late Gen Alpha toddler absolutely rocks with Rumours
"Wow, young people these days sure love one the 8th best-selling album of all time, the perfectly-produced apogee of that decades folk- and blues-influenced rock, replete with rich textual and extratextual narrative." Damn dawg, crazy thesis
November 10, 2025 at 3:37 PM
"Wow, young people these days sure love one the 8th best-selling album of all time, the perfectly-produced apogee of that decades folk- and blues-influenced rock, replete with rich textual and extratextual narrative." Damn dawg, crazy thesis