Referee Elizabeth Clysdale: Ultra Vires Justice

Second Judicial District

Ramsey County’s harassment-restraining-order (HRO) process is a high-volume docket. Petitioners pay a court-set filing fee (currently listed by the Minnesota Judicial Branch as $325 in Ramsey County, with limited statutory waivers), and a referee’s signature makes an HRO effective when a referee presides.

Within that context, Referee Clysdale has presided over numerous HRO matters and has been repeatedly named in civil lawsuits alleging due-process violations arising from HRO practices—most prominently in federal cases brought by Brock Fredin, and more recently in Nelson v. Clysdale. Courts ultimately rejected Fredin’s claims on the merits, but the pleadings illustrate the recurring pattern of litigants challenging HRO process and outcomes tied to Clysdale’s calendar.

HRO/OFP Calender

HRO filing fees, while sometimes waivable under statute, create a recurring cost center for low-income parties. Public materials indicate Ramsey County lists a $325 “first paper” fee for HRO filings (base + law library), and statewide guidance confirms that waivers may apply only in specific circumstances. In a high-volume system, those costs accumulate and can function as a procedural barrier for disabled or low-income respondents and petitioners alike.

“In high-volume dockets, procedure can become the outcome.”

Plaintiff reports possession of HRO orders issued in matters involving at least three different individuals that lack a judicial officer’s signature. If accurate, such orders would conflict with Minnesota’s HRO statute, which provides that when a referee presides the restraining order becomes effective upon the referee’s signature.

Due Process Challenges

Litigants have alleged a pattern in which social-media narratives are imported into court filings and rapidly converted into long-lasting HRO relief, sometimes through ex parte steps that respondents later challenge as lacking notice or adequate process. Lawsuits naming Clysdale (e.g., Fredin matters; Nelson) reflect these due-process challenges even where the courts ultimately deny relief. The through-line is the same: volume, speed, and reliance on procedural posture over adversarial testing on the merits.

Why It Matters

HROs can profoundly affect speech, movement, employment, and family life. In a high-volume docket, small defects—service errors, unsigned orders, or ambiguous findings—scale into systemic harm. Minnesota law is explicit about signature requirements and service; when these safeguards are diluted, due-process risks multiply across hundreds of cases.

The litigation history naming Clysdale signals persistent concerns from pro se parties about process integrity in Ramsey County’s HRO calendar. Whether those challenges succeed or fail on the merits, the record underscores the public interest in transparent, signed orders and scrupulous adherence to statutory procedure in a high-throughput environment.