Exhibit A - Coordinated Retaliatory Communications
This exhibit is a March 4, 2022 email chain between Pine County Attorney Reese Frederickson and Kanabec County staff. The timestamps show the deliberate progression from a routine inquiry to a coordinated retaliatory operation carried out under color of law.
8:33 AM – Frederickson, using his official Pine County Attorney account, demands “any incident reports or dispatch/call logs” involving Travis Larson. This is not neutral fact-finding; it is a targeted sweep of government records.
9:11 AM – Kanabec staff note there are “quite a few contacts” and question whether all should be sent.
9:20 AM – Frederickson clarifies his intent: he is “mostly interested in any calls [Larson] has made complaining about law enforcement or referencing any Pine County deputies.” This line is damning—it shows constitutionally protected complaints are being reframed as “harassment” evidence.
9:33–9:35 AM – Etter delivers access; Frederickson thanks her.
9:39–9:41 AM – The mask drops. Frederickson confirms Larson requested a hearing and declares: “I told Deputy Hawkinson I would represent him.” He does so in his official capacity as County Attorney, not as private counsel, leveraging his public office and intergovernmental channels to advance Hawkinson’s personal HRO.
This single chain obliterates any claim of neutrality. It proves Frederickson acted as the Pine County Attorney while gathering and weaponizing unrelated records, conspiring with Kanabec officials, and pledging to personally represent Hawkinson in a civil matter.
Legal Impact: Exhibit A exposes a coordinated plot by county officials to twist citizen complaints into ammunition. It proves calculated retaliation under color of law, erasing any illusion of neutrality and shredding the shield of qualified immunity.
click image to view full exhibit
Exhibit B- Petition for Harassment Restraining Order
This exhibit is the official Petition for Harassment Restraining Order filed by Pine County Deputy Carl Hawkinson on February 22, 2022, against Travis Larson. It is not a neutral plea for safety—it is a calculated attempt by a government officer to silence a citizen journalist for exercising First Amendment rights.
The petition cites a series of videos Larson lawfully recorded and published, framing them as “harassment.” Hawkinson alleges Larson filmed squad cars, exposed a squad laptop left in plain view, and posted online commentary critical of his actions. Rather than identifying threats or unlawful conduct, the petition catalogues Larson’s protected activities: making public records requests, speaking with other law enforcement agencies, holding protest signs, uploading videos, and criticizing public officials. These are the very rights the Constitution guarantees.
Critical detail: the petition itself lists the Pine County Sheriff’s Office as Hawkinson’s “workplace” requiring protection. This proves Hawkinson was not acting as a private citizen but as a sworn officer wielding his badge to transform personal embarrassment into government power. By invoking his role and workplace, Hawkinson pulled the weight of Pine County government into what should have been a purely personal civil matter. This alone establishes he operated under color of law.
The petition further reveals retaliatory motive: it directly references Larson’s grievance demanding redress and compensation. Instead of addressing misconduct, Hawkinson sought to suppress exposure by turning constitutionally protected audits, protests, and complaints into “harassment.”
Legal Impact: Exhibit B shows how Hawkinson hijacked the HRO process to muzzle criticism. It weaponizes state power against protected speech, turning the courts into his personal bludgeon — a textbook act of official retaliation.
Click image to view full exhibit
Exhibit C – Letter to Travis Larson re: Grievance Correspondence
This exhibit is an official letter on Pine County Attorney letterhead, signed by Reese Frederickson in his capacity as County Attorney. Dated January 24, 2022, it was issued directly in response to Larson’s grievance and video evidence documenting Deputy Hawkinson’s misconduct.
In the letter, Frederickson doesn’t simply dismiss the grievance — he doubles down on a false legal justification. He claims that Larson’s protected recording activity constituted an “attempted criminal violation” of Minn. Stat. § 13.09(a), and that Hawkinson’s physical detention was therefore lawful. This was factually and legally untrue: later reports, and even Hawkinson’s own conduct at the scene, confirm that no violation of § 13.09 occurred by Larson.
By putting this claim in writing, Frederickson converted an officer’s unlawful detention into official County policy. He wasn’t clarifying the law — he was manufacturing a retroactive justification for conduct already known to be baseless. In doing so, he cemented a false narrative that Pine County would continue to rely on to excuse the unconstitutional detention.
The letter escalates further: Frederickson threatens Larson with possible prosecution for false reporting (Minn. Stat. § 609.505) and defamation, and orders him not to contact any other Pine County officials — consolidating control in his office and cutting off accountability. These threats make clear the purpose: to intimidate Larson into silence while shielding Hawkinson.
The document also proves Frederickson was acting under color of law. The official letterhead, signature block, statutory citations, and prosecutorial threats leave no room to argue this was private counsel. It was the Pine County Attorney wielding his public office to suppress grievances and ratify unlawful conduct.
Legal Impact: Exhibit C is the County Attorney’s written endorsement of a lie. By doubling down on a baseless statute, Frederickson converted unlawful detention into county policy, binding Pine County itself to the misconduct and stripping away every defense.
Click image to view full exhibit
Exhibit D - HRO Settlement Agreement (Court File No. 58-CV-22-80)
This exhibit is the official settlement agreement filed May 11, 2022, in Hawkinson v. Larson (Pine County District Court, Case No. 58-CV-22-80). It memorializes the resolution of Deputy Carl Hawkinson’s harassment petition against Travis Larson. The document dismantles any pretense that this was a private dispute: it is signed on behalf of Hawkinson by Pine County Attorney Reese Frederickson, acting under his prosecutorial authority and not as private counsel.
The terms expose the retaliatory purpose. The agreement dismissed the HRO — but only if Larson accepted conditions that directly curtailed his speech. Larson was forced to remove multiple YouTube videos documenting his encounter with Hawkinson’s superiors, prohibited from creating new content about those prior interactions, and changing the names of videos. These terms imposed prior restraint on a citizen journalist, weaponizing the courts to censor constitutionally protected activity.
The settlement also made the gag order enforceable: if Larson violated the speech restrictions, Hawkinson could petition to reinstate the HRO. This turned routine public commentary into a potential trigger for renewed legal action, chilling Larson’s First Amendment rights through threat of court action.
The signatures confirm the abuse. Frederickson signed as Attorney for Petitioner, Pine County Attorney, while Jordan Kushner signed for Larson. Frederickson’s role proves that Pine County itself — not just Hawkinson personally — wielded the machinery of the state to suppress criticism and punish dissent.
Legal Impact: Exhibit D is state-sanctioned censorship. It gagged a citizen journalist under threat of renewed prosecution, proving Pine County weaponized the justice system itself to bury criticism and punish dissent.
Click image to view full exhibit
Exhibit E – Amended Ex Parte Harassment Restraining Order
This exhibit is the Amended Ex Parte Harassment Restraining Order issued April 13, 2022 in Hawkinson v. Larson. It shows that the baseless petition filed by Deputy Hawkinson (Exhibit B) was not dismissed, but instead carried forward into an enforceable court order restricting Larson’s rights.
The amended order modified the original distance restrictions, reducing the exclusion zone but maintaining prohibitions that barred Larson from Hawkinson’s workplace — including the Pine County Sheriff’s Office itself. These terms criminalized Larson’s access to public buildings and government facilities, turning constitutionally protected activity into grounds for arrest.
Legal Impact: Exhibit E proves that Pine County’s retaliatory petition succeeded in producing an active court order that restricted Larson’s constitutional rights. It is evidence that fabricated claims and misuse of prosecutorial power directly resulted in judicial restraint of protected activity.
Click image to view full exhibit
Exhibit F – Draft Criminal Complaint: State of Minnesota v. Deputy Carl Hawkinson, Badge #544
This exhibit is the criminal complaint drafted against Deputy Carl Hawkinson for his unlawful detention of Travis Larson and subsequent retaliatory conduct. It spells out eight separate offenses, including conspiracy, retaliation against protected activity, false imprisonment, filing a false petition, and misconduct under color of law. The statement of probable cause tracks the video evidence: Hawkinson seized Larson, attempted to snatch his phone, and invoked a knowingly false statute to justify the detention.
But the deeper importance of Exhibit F is not just what it says about Hawkinson — it is what it says about County Attorney Reese Frederickson and Sheriff Jeff Nelson. This complaint shows the exact charges that should have been filed through their offices. The evidence was clear, the statutes fit, and the grievances were presented directly to them. Instead of pursuing accountability, Frederickson retaliated against the complainant and Nelson ignored his duty to investigate appropriately.
The contrast is damning. A plumber with no legal training was able to assemble the statutes, the evidence, and the charging instruments. Meanwhile, the officials elected and paid to uphold the law campaigned on “justice and accountability” but chose silence, inaction, and cover-up.
Legal Impact: Exhibit F is proof that Hawkinson’s misconduct was prosecutable — and that Pine County’s top law enforcement officials refused to act. It demonstrates dereliction of duty by Frederickson and Nelson, exposing Pine County and its officials to liability not only for retaliation but for systemic failure to uphold the law.
Click image to view full exhibit
Exhibit G -Draft Criminal Complaint: State of Minnesota v. County Attorney Reese Frederickson
This exhibit is not a court-issued indictment. It is the draft criminal complaint prepared against Pine County Attorney Reese Frederickson, laying out six counts: conspiracy, retaliation, coercion, misconduct of a public officer, oppression under color of law, and obstruction.
The complaint was submitted to Frederickson’s own office and to state authorities. It catalogues specific misconduct: the January 24, 2022 intimidation letter; misuse of the HRO process to advance Hawkinson’s vendetta; use of county resources for private representation; refusal to investigate credible evidence of unlawful detention; and collusion with the Sheriff’s Office to shield Hawkinson.
The significance of Exhibit G is not that these charges have yet been adjudicated, but that they were never moved on at all once they reached the very office that had the duty to evaluate them. Frederickson sat on a charging instrument that documented his own misconduct, and predictably, no action followed.
That silence is not neutrality — it is self-protection. It proves that Frederickson used his position not only to retaliate against a complainant, but also to choke off any accountability for himself.
Legal Impact: Exhibit G is evidence of deliberate withholding. It shows that Frederickson’s office, when confronted with a valid complaint naming him as a defendant, did nothing — confirming misuse of prosecutorial discretion to cover personal misconduct.
Click image to view full exhibit
Exhibit H – Draft Criminal Complaint: State of Minnesota v. Sheriff Jeff Nelson
This exhibit is the draft criminal complaint prepared against Pine County Sheriff Jeff Nelson. It charges him with conspiracy, misconduct of a public officer, liability for crimes of another, and obstruction. The probable cause statement documents his role in refusing to investigate, tolerating falsification of reports, and enabling retaliation by his subordinates.
The significance of Exhibit H is not weather these charges were proven in court, but that these violations were obvious to anyone who looked — and still Nelson turned away. The video evidence of unlawful detention was undeniable. Public records requests exposed tampering and sanitized incident reports. Complaints were formally filed, handed directly to his office. Yet Nelson, the chief law enforcement officer of Pine County, did nothing. Again and again
Worse, Nelson allowed multiple post-event modifications of official reports after grievances were filed, a direct violation of his duty to preserve records. He permitted Hawkinson and others to re-shape the story inside Pine County’s RMS system, ensuring the official version covered for misconduct rather than corrected it.
Exhibit H is therefore not just about what Nelson did, but about what he refused to do. A plumber with no formal legal training could see the violations. A YouTube lawyer could line up the statutes. But the Sheriff — who campaigned on duty and accountability — chose willful blindness.
Legal Impact: Exhibit H demonstrates gross dereliction of duty by Sheriff Jeff Nelson. It proves that, when confronted with obvious misconduct, Nelson enabled the cover-up, ratified document tampering, and turned his office into a shield for retaliation. His inaction is itself misconduct under color of law, binding Pine County to liability for systemic failure.
Taken together, Exhibits F, G, and H form a package — not isolated accusations against individuals, but a complete map of how Pine County officials operated in concert. Hawkinson’s unlawful acts (Exhibit F) were protected and enabled by Frederickson’s retaliatory misuse of the County Attorney’s Office (Exhibit G) and Nelson’s deliberate refusal to enforce accountability (Exhibit H). Each complaint highlights one actor’s role, but their meaning is collective: the deputy who violated rights, the prosecutor who ratified and weaponized that misconduct, and the sheriff who looked away. Together, they prove a coordinated system of retaliation and dereliction under color of law
Click image to view full exhibit
Exhibit - enter text here to move forward
Click image to view full exhibit