Did They Call It The GOP Felony Forum?
25
So did you catch these tweets from our good friends Marty Seifert and Paul Kohls this past weekend?

Well that seems pretty innocent, another gubernatorial forum hosted by some candidate running for the state legislature.

Yes, but it was hosted by JEREMY LINDMAN!

So?




Oh, perhaps you didn't hear that this particular Republican candidate for the state legislature is also a CONVICTED FELON.

WHAT, A CONVICTED FELON YOU SAY?

Yes, a convicted felon. Didn't you read about it in the Star Tribune and on the blog of Dusty Trice?

Jeremy Lindman is running for the Legislature, hosting a Republican gubernatorial forum and trying to get a felony removed from his record.

Let me get this straight, the Star Tribune broke this story on Friday and a full two days later Paul Kohls and Marty Seifert were tweeting about being in attendance with a CONVICTED FELON?

Yep.

So does their attendance at said forum mean that they have also ENDORSED a convicted felon?


That's a good question. Perhaps Ms. Stassen-Berger will do a follow up and find out whether the Republican Party of Minnesota is in the business of allowing convicted felons to run for office as official Republican candidates. While she is at it, perhaps she can do more than simply repeat Mr. Lindman's version of events...


Do you also wonder if they called it the Felony Forum?
Category: , , ,
��

Comments (25)

Loading... Logging you in...
Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout
  • Logged in as
Login or signup now to comment.
0 Vote up Vote down
Guest's avatar

Guest · 807 weeks ago

Nice catch, Muse!
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Gary Gross's avatar

Gary Gross · 807 weeks ago

You've got a short memory, don't you? You attended a bipartisan party in St. Cloud in which we celebrated the defeat of Mark Olson, who was defeated in large part because the Republican Party of Minnesota turned against him.

Does that sound like a political party that coddles lawbreakers?

Isn't it possible that Reps. Kohls & Seifert were saying that the event was a good event without saying that this convicted felon was a good guy?

It's not like Republicans are fighting for this convicted felon like Nancy Pelosi is fighting for Charlie Rangel, who HAS ADMITTED that he's underreported his taxes & underreported his holdings on his annual disclosure forms.
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Don's avatar

Don · 807 weeks ago

Pot calling the kettle black?
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
TwoPuttTommy's avatar - Go to profile

TwoPuttTommy · 807 weeks ago

Gary, doesn't look like the GOP is turning against Jeremy Lindmann - some of the Gov candidates knew he was a GOP candidate AND a felon, and went to his house for a forum anyway. Nice try on the spin to Pelosi, though.
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Sloan Skjellerup's avatar - Go to profile

Sloan Skjellerup · 806 weeks ago

If it were not for my personal experience with our bassackward judicial system I would not be reading this Blog. I know how easy it is to be deemed a Felon firsthand. It all started with an apology letter … Ha, I’m sorry alright, sorry I didn’t pay closer attention and that it took ME being brought up on bogus charges and forced to represent myself Pro Se for me to get involved. http://agalsgottavent.blogspot.com/2008/07/thank-...
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Greg's avatar

Greg · 806 weeks ago

I heard from my dad (who knows Lindman) that he actually got the felony charge wrongfully - that he was charged for someone else's lawbreaking and duped into a plea agreement and still got the felony anyhow (I seem to remember hearing that Lindman was a very young adult when this happened). Could the person posting the blog please provide details as to how the felony came about? How deeply/thoroughly have you looked into the situation? Thanks.
Reply
2 replies · active 806 weeks ago
Loading...
+1 Vote up Vote down
Political_Muse's avatar - Go to profile

Political_Muse 35p · 806 weeks ago

So the person who just wrote, "I heard from my dad" is asking ME to verify details. Don't worry, skippy, there are plenty more details to come...
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Greg's avatar

Greg · 806 weeks ago

I'd just like to know how deeply you've dug into the situation. And by the way, I did some more digging myself and found what my dad said to be supported by these articles:

http://www.dustytrice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads...
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/63881797.html

Why are you so focused on the situation? Are you genuinely concerned about the public welfare, or just taking an opportunity to smear him (maybe you don't like what he stands for politically)? What specific harm against society did he cause?

If you could find more info to share with us, that'd be super.
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Greg's avatar

Greg · 805 weeks ago

Muse, where are you, buddy?

I didn't scare you off you're own blog, did I?
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Greg's avatar

Greg · 805 weeks ago

*your own blog, that is.
Reply
3 replies · active 803 weeks ago
0 Vote up Vote down
Woody's avatar

Woody · 803 weeks ago

If anyone is really interested in the truth, instead of wild (and potentially libelous) speculation, go to
http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/Search.aspx?ID=100&a...

You'll have to key-in the case number, which is 13-KX-95-000869

It reads "misdemeanor", so it was clearly a miscarriage of justice. I think everyone who called Mr. Lindman a felon owes him an apology at the very least.

You'd think people would be more sympathetic of somebody who got screwed by the system.....
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Jeremy's avatar

Jeremy · 803 weeks ago

Woody, Thank you for the kind words. Tonight was the first time I seen this site and I appreciate you posting the link for MNCIS. One correction though- The court system did correct their clerical error and it would have had no harm done if individuals would have checked prior to posting false information. What I worry about is all the individuals out there that may be going through this very same thing without the resources to correct it or perhaps even unaware of it as I was initially. That needs to be addressed and corrected. But thanks again
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Jeremy's avatar

Jeremy · 803 weeks ago

Can we now have this acurately named the misdemeanor forum
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Travis's avatar

Travis · 803 weeks ago

It appears as if the statement “there are plenty more details to come” will only be forth coming if the details to come support the obvious erroneous claims that have been made here thus far. Since that is now impossible as the clerical error has now been corrected and the file clearly reads misdemeanor I guess there will be no more posts on this story. However; I would like to see a post that says something to the effect of.
Well it turns out Jeremy Lindman did not lie when he stated he did not have a felony. We have since checked the record and the level of the conviction is indeed a misdemeanor as Mr. Lindman asserted all along. So our apologies to you Mr. Lindman and for any inconvenience this may have caused you. Good luck sir.
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Guest's avatar

Guest · 803 weeks ago

Part 1:

***
Well it turns out Jeremy Lindman did not lie when he stated he did not have a felony.
***

Well, it turns out Jeremy Lindman DID lie when he stated he did not have a felony. No surprise there; Lindman is running as a GOPer.

The facts are: there was a party; Lindman was drinking; Lindman pulled out a sawed-off shotgun; he was charged with a felony; Lindman confessed to the felony, and Lindman will ALWAYS be a convicted FELON.

And Lindman also lied about the sawed-off shotgun being a "prop" - in Lindman's Confession, he admitted it was a sawed-off shotgun. Additionally, the Judge ordered that either the sawed-off shotgun be destroyed, or the Sheriff alter it in such a way that it would no longer be a fuctioning weapon so that the Sheriff could use it for demonstration purposes.
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Guest's avatar

Guest · 803 weeks ago

Part 2:

On October 12th of this year, Jeremy Lindman appeared in court, trying to restore his civil rights to own a firearm. At that hearing, the Judge told Lindman and his attorney that the BCA considers the conviction to be a felony, and as a Judge he had no legal authority to order the BCA to reclassify Lindman's FELONY conviction. Legal briefs from the County and Lindman were due back to the Judge on November 4th, with regards to Lindman being able to legally transport, posess, and/or own firearms.

The odds of Lindman prevailing are anyone's guess; Lindman is trying to argue that a law the Republicans passed shouldn't apply to him.

Which, of course, makes sense; Republicans ALWAYS seem to believe laws that affect everyone else shouldn't apply to THEM.

Lindman lied to the StarTribune reporter; Lindman is and will always be a convicted FELON.
Reply
1 reply · active 799 weeks ago
0 Vote up Vote down
Woody's avatar

Woody · 802 weeks ago

Take a breath, "Guest".

Clearly, Lindman's argument is NOT about the law applying to him; it is about the courts failure to properly record his case. The current Register of Actions clearly states "Misdemeanor", which is what Lindman stated to the reporter in the Strib article. Your latter statements are clearly false; you have not provided support for your earlier assertions. You need to put-up or shut-up.

Which begs more questions...why the vendetta against Lindman? Is it because he's a Republican? Do your ends justify your means? As an independent thinker, I want to know at what point does your "free speech" become "hate speech"??
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Greg's avatar

Greg · 803 weeks ago

I wish "Guest" would show us some sources to go with these bold claims being made. Especially considering their "liberal" use of all caps and words like always.
Reply
4 replies · active 802 weeks ago
+1 Vote up Vote down
Guest's avatar

Guest · 803 weeks ago

Greg, it's all there, in that link provided, above. Did you read the comment "SHOTGUN DESTROYED" on the Register of Actions? Now, you seem to be a real simple, gullible type, so let me ask you, and you should try to think real hard: would they "destroy" a prop?

The court records are public records; on 05/29/1996, Lindman confessed to his crimes. Go read it.

Then go read the transcript of the hearing on 10/12/2009.

And then you'll realize that not only is Lindman a liar, he is - and will always will be - a convicted FELON.
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Woody's avatar

Woody · 802 weeks ago

Dear "Guest" ,

Just because you say something doesn't make it so; let's see some proof. Requesting verification of assertions such as yours isn't gullible, it's prudent. Your response to Greg was inappropriate. And expecting people to be intimidated because you talk down to them is the mark of a bully. You've lowered the level of discourse in here substantially.

And which "link provided" are you referring to? The outdated PDF file that Dusty Trice had posted on his now-defunct blog? I tried to trace this further, but Trice has shut down his blog all of a sudden. Interesting. Maybe he realized that having publicly called Lindman a felon was completely unsupportable, now that court records state it was just a misdemeanor. Sounds like a slam-dunk libel case waiting for an attorney to file it. No wonder Trice took a powder.
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Greg's avatar

Greg · 802 weeks ago

Well Guest, I think the gullible type would be one who accepts your claims (the fact that you used "always" so loosely was a red flag to me) without asking for sources. I don't think it's so unreasonable to ask for supporting info.
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Greg's avatar

Greg · 802 weeks ago

And maybe there was a reason for destroying the artifact regardless of whether it was a prop. You really think that folks in the legal system never screw up? That they can do no wrong, either accidental or deliberate?
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
MACKIE's avatar

MACKIE · 803 weeks ago

THIS SITE IS A JOKE! JEREMY KALIN YOU ARE SCARED YOU???? LOL!!!!
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Guest2's avatar

Guest2 · 802 weeks ago

The facts from Minnesota and not a blog site
MNCIS (Minnesota Court Information System) the afore mentioned "public records"
http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx
case #13-KX-95-000869
Levil= Misdemeanor Check it
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
Guest2's avatar

Guest2 · 802 weeks ago

The BCA has no record on Lindman criminal or otherwise. So the BCA argument does not stand up. Check for yourself.
https://cch.state.mn.us/
Reply

Comments by