Monday, June 22, 2020
To Whom It May Concern:
It is to my great chagrin that I am forced to comply with the court order demanding that I pay for Ellen Schreder’s wasted time and effort for the unnecessary work that was spent prying into my and my acquaintances’ privacy and digging into my previous employment history when the motion I submitted never inquired about it. The magistrate’s decision was based on inaccurate assumptions that I was less than straightforward in reporting my employment. I answered truthfully and to the best of my knowledge, completed the questions on the pro se motion that I submitted.
The reason for my delay in paying this is due to my original intent to appeal this decision, but I was only recently informed by my counsel that it will be too late by the time my next motion is filed. Nonetheless, I feel the need to set the record straight.
First, I was misled by the Hennepin County Attorney who initially notified me in early 2019 that this matter was being brought before the court. At that time, I was unemployed and had mounting medical bills. The consequential hearing occurred before I was made aware of the hearing date. As such, I motioned the court myself. I informed the County Attorney of my desperate situation and indicated that I could not afford to pay any child support because I had no income at the time with no assurances of any upcoming employment changes. She assured me that I would not need an attorney and that I had nothing to worry about since, “you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip.” I was STILL unemployed when I submitted the motion. Needless to say, I was surprised to find out that Sara obviously did have the financial resources to hire an attorney, unlike myself.
Secondly, I have no income that can be imputed upon me since I have been largely unemployable. Any employment I have been lucky enough to find has been occasional, temporary and tenuous for over a decade now since I usually fail pre-employment background checks. This is a direct outcome of Sara’s unfortunate decision to press criminal charges against me over a disputed $200 utility bill during our divorce which resulted in my obtaining a misdemeanor theft on my record. As such, I have only been able to find short-term contracts with no guarantee of extension or permanent hire. I have actually been offered at least a dozen positions over the past 10 years with companies such as UnitedHealth Group and Wells Fargo only to have these job offers withdrawn because of my background. In one instance, a hiring manager at UHG was so eager to have me come on-board that she had set me up with an entire cubicle, computer, login accounts, etc. before having to pull the plug on me at the last minute.
I believe Ellen Schreder, in her infinite wisdom, counseled her client to press charges against me over this trivial matter which has since been preventing me from being able to pay my child support since I have not been employable on a long term basis. Had I been able to easily pass these background checks like I used to, I would have had a full-time, permanent job with a six-figure salary 10 years ago and would have been much further along in my career, and would have been able to pay Schreder’s client much more in regular child support and would not be so deeply in arrears now, if even at all. Not only does Schreder lack any concern for the best interest of our son, she apparently does not even have her own client’s best interest in mind either. Perhaps, instead, she was too blinded in her zeal to destroy me to even realize that she had shot her own client in the foot. If it weren’t for Ellen Schreder, neither Sara or I would have suffered so much financially.
In any event, this was the situation early last year. Right after the submission of my motion last summer and before the August 29 hearing, I was luckily and finally able to find a good, permanent job despite my criminal background, working for a smaller company that was willing to take a chance on me. However, since it was a new position, and since, historically, it can take several weeks for background checks to clear, I was not sure when it would be appropriate to inform the court of my status change. Since I did not have a lawyer and was even advised not to secure one, in good faith, I informed the court at the hearing itself, not intending to cause any inconvenience. The purpose of my motion was to supply the court with accurate employment information in order for my obligation to be correctly determined. Schreder’s presence and the extensive background investigation she had conducted was unnecessary and frivolous. What I was told would be a simple, straightforward matter, Ellen Schreder has managed to muck up (again) and then charge Sara and I for it. While it is unfortunate that I was not able to bring this information before the court, I’m glad, at least that Sara now realizes this herself.
Since I cannot afford to pay this entire bill at once, I am supplying your firm with these 4 checks of $250 to be deposited no sooner than they are dated. And, in case I need to repeat myself, the reason for the long delay in sending this money is because I was under the impression that I would be able to appeal this decision, but have since discovered that the time to appeal it has expired.