Notice Regarding Altered Court Documents and Retaliatory Conduct

United States District Court, District of Minnesota
Case No. 0:25-cv-02056-DWF-DJF

TO: The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Kellye Strickland respectfully submits this notice to inform the Court of ongoing irregularities, document tampering, and retaliatory conduct occurring within the underlying state court proceedings, Lee v. Strickland, Case No. 62-HR-CV-24-963, which form a central basis for the federal claims asserted herein.

I. Initial July 14 Hearing Notice (Authentic)

• Issued August 19 hearing notice using correct “Second Judicial District Court” return address
• Appeared procedurally normal and predated motions for recusal or reassignment

II. Altered Version (Dated July 24, Received July 29)

• Mailed from “Domestic Abuse/Harassment Office” after prior correction (May 23)
• Backdated with “Filed July 24, 2025” stamp despite being mailed post-motions
• Metadata block obscured or blacked out
• Included Plaintiff’s own July 14 and July 18 filings, mailed back to her
• Occurred after Plaintiff served litigation hold (email July 9; certified mail July 17)

Plaintiff alleges this was not clerical but a deliberate, retaliatory reissuance. The metadata concealment, improper labeling, and post-motion timing suggest coordinated misconduct.

III. Reputational Abuse via Return Address

The reintroduction of the "Domestic Abuse/Harassment Office" return address appears retaliatory and stigmatizing. Plaintiff resides in shared housing and asserts this was an intentional reputational attack, particularly harmful in the context of false HRO allegations already raised by Petitioner Lee.

IV. Retroactive Assignment of Judge Nicole Starr

Received August 1. Although Starr was assigned after Referee Larmouth’s July 31 recusal, court records (TylerTech) were retroactively edited to list her on prior referee-led hearings.

Plaintiff alleges this was done to:

• Falsely validate unsigned or defective orders
• Shield referees from scrutiny
• Confuse procedural history and timelines

V. Referee Larmouth’s Withdrawal (July 31)

Recusal occurred three days after Plaintiff’s amended federal complaint, objections, and spoliation notices. Larmouth’s Findings falsely claimed:

• No notice of federal filing (despite Plaintiff’s July 11 letter)
• Objection was untimely (it was not)
• Bias was required for removal under Rule 107 (false)

Summary of Federal Implications

1. Post-hoc alteration of court documents violating due process
2. Violation of active litigation hold
3. Use of stigmatic return labels as punishment
4. Judicial reassignment manipulation
5. Denial of ADA access and court participation
6. Monell liability for Ramsey County due to systemic procedural abuse

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of these developments and permit their inclusion in the evidentiary record.

Dated: August 7, 2025

/s/ Kellye Strickland
Kellye Strickland
6445 S Maple Ave, Apt 2006
Tempe, AZ 85283
kellye.sundar@gmail.com
(603) 892-8666
Plaintiff, Pro Se