Starr's Time-Warp
Signed: November 13, 2025 - Entered/Mailed: November 18, 2025
On November 13, 2025, Judge Nicole Starr signed a hearing notice for the contempt proceeding initiated by attorney Kyle T. Manderfeld. At the time she signed it, Plaintiff's Motion to Intervene had not yet been addressed-and the motion itself was denied later that same day.
What makes the notice significant is not just its timing, but the delay that followed.
The Five-Day Gap
Although the notice was signed on November 13, it was not:
- entered into the court record until November 18, and
- not mailed to Plaintiff until November 18 (per the postmark).
This unexplained gap occurred during a critical stage of the appellate process-just one day before the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued its November 19 directive.
Procedural Irregularities
The timeline raises multiple concerns:
- The hearing notice predates the district court's review of Plaintiff's Motion to Intervene.
- There is no explanation for the five-day delay in entering the notice into the docket.
- Mailing occurred only after the appellate court began reviewing the matter.
- The notice relies on the same disputed HRO terms currently under appeal.
The sequence suggests that the hearing was prepared in advance, held back, and released only after external oversight became inevitable.
Connection to the Appellate Directive
On November 19, the Court of Appeals ordered the district court to clarify the basis of its earlier fee-waiver decision. This directive directly overlapped with the concealed hearing notice, raising additional questions about the district court's timing, coordination, and internal communication.