JLJosh Liljenquist

HL-010 · SOURCE CHAIN

Who Made the Reports, and What Did the Original Sources Actually Say?

The source chain must be reconstructed allegation by allegation and department by department.

SOURCE HIERARCHY

Governing Rules

Read the City rule first, then applicable Minnesota authority, the national constitutional standard, judicial interpretation, and the original record. The final layer states the supported application and its limits.

01

Governing Saint Paul rule

The Council-adopted Parks Rules, Chapter 1, Section 2 (“Authority”), state that “serious or repeat violations” may result in a longer expulsion under §170.10(e). Chapter 3, Section 1 (“General Conduct”), states that an exclusion of 24 hours or longer requires reasonable cause to believe the identified person violated the listed general-conduct rules by intentionally disrupting the orderly operation of a park, program, or event. The current online code and adopted rules are linked separately because the exact April 6, 2026 codified text remains a historical-source gate. L-01 L-05 L-06

02

Minnesota statewide authority

Minnesota Constitution article I, section 7 provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Whether a protected interest was deprived and what process was required remain issue-specific questions. L-03 MN-05

03

National constitutional standard

The Fourteenth Amendment supplies the federal procedural-due-process framework. The governing question is whether any protected interest was affected and whether the notice and hearing were meaningful in light of the timing, stakes, available evidence, and risk of error. US-01 US-02 US-03

04

Judicial interpretation

Goss, Brock, and Mathews explain why source substance, reliability, and response opportunity may matter. Sabes and Staeheli address substantial evidence and municipal review in Minnesota. These authorities do not make every secondhand government report inadmissible. SC-01 SC-03 SC-04 MN-01 MN-02

05

Record evidence

The source chain includes the notice, the April 3 Hoban exchange, the transcript, CAD, and a later City staff summary. The page tracks alleged source, firsthand basis, underlying document, creation/receipt dates, corroboration, contrary evidence, and disclosure status for each material allegation. R-01 R-03 R-05 R-08 R-09

06

Application and limitation

The record establishes that the Director described reliance on information from others and that several original sources remain unidentified. It does not establish anonymity, double hearsay, falsity, unreliability, or unlawful conduct.

Direct answer / issue summary

The letter says material allegations were reported to the Director by Parks Operations, DSI, and Police. That establishes reliance on information supplied by others. It does not establish falsity, anonymity, hearsay layers, or unreliability. The evidentiary significance depends on whether each report was firsthand, documented, corroborated, timely, and disclosed. R-01 R-05

Exact City allegation and hearing request

“It has been reported to me”

“what actually the reports were, who made them”

Return to the Ban Letter source phrase Return to the transcript at 7:00

Department-by-department allegation provenance

AllegationDirector’s stated sourceOriginal sourceFirsthand observation?Underlying documentDate createdDate Parks received itCorroborationContrary evidenceDisclosed before hearing?
Generalized disruptionParks Operations, DSI, PoliceNot identified on notice faceUnknownNo person-specific original identifiedUnknownUnknownNot establishedCounsel disputed specificityNo
Breach of peaceDSINot identifiedUnknownNo original DSI record identifiedUnknownUnknownNot establishedHearing sought incidents and conductNo
HarassmentDSINot identifiedUnknownNo participant or incident record identifiedUnknownUnknownNot establishedCounsel denied harassment; later participant context is limitedNo
Recording without permissionDSINot identifiedUnknownNo recording or no-consent statement identifiedUnknownUnknownNot establishedCounsel offered consent evidenceNo
Profit from vulnerable adultsDSINot identifiedUnknownNo revenue or affected-person record identifiedUnknownUnknownNot establishedNo source-specific rebuttal possibleNo
April 11 event involvementDSI / Deputy DirectorApril 3 Hoban exchange; later complaint sourcesMixedNative exchange; later event packetApril 3; later dates varyApril 3 exchange predecision; complaints after April 6Later event materialsDenial, offers to help, travel and metadataApril 3 exchange known; later packet no
Denied information requestDeputy DirectorApril 3 Hoban exchangeYes, as to the communicationNative message recordApril 3, 2026PredecisionDirect recordResponses and two offers to helpSubstance discussed at hearing
Police-related disturbancePolice / later City summaryCAD caller and unproduced later sourceMixedCAD; later staff summaryMarch 23 / later summary dateCAD timing documented; later source unresolvedCAD corroborates a call, not Josh attributionCAD does not name JoshUnderlying source no
Later hearing allegationHearing participantsTranscript speakerYes, as to statement; basis variesAppeal transcriptApril 17, 2026At hearingDepends on referenced sourceContemporaneous defense responsesAt hearing

An unknown field remains unknown rather than being converted into “none.”

Parks Operations

The notice does not name the employee, identify whether the information was firsthand, or attach a Parks Operations report. The underlying employee and report remain to be identified.

DSI

The April 3 Hoban exchange is a direct contemporaneous communication: the City asked about a proposed concert; Josh denied involvement, asked what he could do to help, and offered to ask around; Hoban described the matter as a rumor. That exchange does not establish the contents of any other DSI record. R-03

Saint Paul Police

The produced CAD records a service call but does not identify Josh. A later City summary contains Josh-specific narrative from an underlying source not included in the reviewed materials. R-08 R-09

DSI encampment coordination does not substitute for Parks-specific proof

At 18:46 and 19:16, the Parks Director explained that DSI manages encampments throughout the city, that the Pig’s Eye encampment was on parkland, that “some co-working” was required, and that the referenced official was in charge of encampment management across the city. Official Saint Paul pages provide current public context for HART and coordinated encampment response, but they do not establish the exact April 2026 source chain, any legal review, or the person-specific Parks-rule basis for Josh’s exclusion. R-05 C-01 C-02

What this may explain

Why information about a proposed event, encampment operations, or DSI concerns could have reached Parks during a cross-department response.

What this does not establish

That DSI verified every allegation, supplied reasonable cause under §170.10, completed legal review, or converted encampment-management concerns into a Parks-specific exclusion basis.

The central record question remains whether the information flowing through DSI, Parks, Police, and any other department identified person-specific conduct meeting the Saint Paul Parks exclusion standard and was disclosed with enough substance for Josh to answer it.

Read the DSI explanation at 18:46 Read the encampment-management statement at 19:16 Saint Paul HART page ↗ City response to encampments ↗

Counterargument and limitation

Government officials may rely on reports supplied through ordinary departmental channels, and a source need not be named in the notice to be reliable. The current record question is narrower: identify the original source, firsthand basis, document, timing, corroboration, and disclosure status for each material allegation.

Evidence sources

Original public-redacted notice ↗April 3 Hoban exchangeCAD and later-summary comparisonHL-012 — records access