Saint Paul Parks Exclusion: Key Record Discrepancies

What the transcript establishes

• The Director said he did not know the residents’ names.
• He described the sibling allegation using “I think,” “or something like that,” “maybe,” and “I don’t know.”
• When Josh asked whether the alleged incident involved him, the Director answered, “I believe so.”
• Josh immediately denied ever having the described conversation with a sibling.
• The Director described portions of the information as “he-said-she-said” and “maybe even some hearsay.”
• The Director said he did not have the referenced documentation with him at the hearing.

Josh’s concern about the process

Josh’s position is that he could not meaningfully answer an unidentified allegation when the official describing it was uncertain whether it involved him and did not have the referenced documentation available at the hearing. His concern is not based on one isolated phrase; it is based on the combined lack of names, uncertain description of the alleged encounter, acknowledged secondhand information, and absence of the supporting document when he was asked to respond.

“We provide due process by notice and an opportunity to be heard. This is your opportunity to be heard.”

Read the City attorney’s statement at 21:05.

Because the City itself characterized this meeting as Josh’s opportunity to be heard, Josh contends that the factual basis needed to be presented with enough specificity and reliability for him to understand and answer it.

What happened next

Following the appeal and a subsequent review, the Parks Director wrote on April 22, 2026 that he was “rescinding your ban from our parks, effective immediately.”

The rescission letter does not expressly admit wrongdoing, decide that every allegation was false, or announce a legal ruling.

Analysis / inference

The Unresolved Evidence Question Has Three Possible Paths

The City ultimately rescinded the restriction. The current public record does not identify which facts controlled that result or establish that undisclosed post-hearing evidence was used to affirm the ban. ^R-11

Analysis / inference

Mathews Balancing Analysis

The documented facts support a serious procedural-due-process question. This table is analysis, not a court holding. ^SC-04

City-position analysis

The City’s Strongest Legal and Factual Defenses

1. The notice and hearing transcript document that Saint Paul provided an informal appeal before the Parks Director; the historical April 2026 code text defining that procedure remains a source-verification gate. ^{R-01 R-05}
2. Administrative proceedings need not mirror a criminal trial. ^{SC-03 SC-05}
3. Vulnerable residents’ identities may warrant protection. ^{SC-03 SC-05}
4. The City has a strong safety and order interest. ^{L-01 L-02 R-04}
5. Hearsay is not automatically barred in an informal administrative process. ^{SC-03 L-01}
6. Josh had counsel, could speak and ask questions, and received a prompt appeal. ^{R-04 R-05}
7. Supporting material was sent through counsel. ^R-10
8. The restriction was rescinded, showing the appeal changed the result. ^R-11
9. The same official’s investigative and review roles are not automatically unconstitutional under Withrow. ^SC-06
10. No final court has found a constitutional violation.

Authority index

Open Every Primary Record and Legal Authority

The source index distinguishes primary City records, third-party allegations, later summaries, binding authority, Minnesota precedent, persuasive park-ban cases, independent reporting and analysis. It labels Norris as a preliminary-injunction decision with no final merits judgment and Nelson as unpublished and nonprecedential.

Open sources and legal authorities

What happened after the hearing

The appeal hearing occurred before the later-disclosed complaint-material transmission. On April 22, Josh asked how he would receive the materials discussed at the hearing. Parks Director Andy Rodriguez replied: “Thanks, Josh. I did send those to Mark.”

Sending records to authorized counsel can constitute delivery through counsel. The issue documented here is timing: the records were not presented while Josh was in the hearing expected to answer the factual basis.

What this record establishes

• Josh’s attorney expressly requested the incidents, dates, people, reporters, and conduct supporting the exclusion.
• The Parks Director did not identify a named person as the source of the accusations during the hearing.
• The Director said that he did not know the residents’ names.
• The Director acknowledged “he-said-she-said” and possible hearsay.
• The referenced supporting documentation was not available for examination during the hearing.
• The Director promised to follow up and send information afterward.
• Near the end of the hearing, the Director still did not identify the person by name.
• The City described the meeting as Josh’s opportunity to be heard and the final internal appeal step.
• The promised materials were later routed through Josh’s attorney.
• The disclosed CAD does not name Josh or contain several material details used to describe the incident at the hearing.
• The City rescinded the exclusion on April 22 after evaluating facts relayed during the appeal meeting.

Outcome

On April 22, 2026, the Parks Director wrote that, following the appeal and meeting, he had completed his review and was “rescinding your ban from our parks, effective immediately.”

The letter states that the decision followed an evaluation of facts relayed during the appeal meeting. It does not identify which facts changed the result, admit wrongdoing, or declare that every underlying allegation was false.

Related Transparency records

Non-legal-conclusion notice: This page documents the available public record and identifies unresolved procedural questions. It does not state that a court found a due-process violation, unlawful bias, fabrication, retaliation, discrimination, or other misconduct.

Direct answer

Saint Paul’s later evidence packet repeatedly centered James Cowan Jr., material posted through James’s social-media account, and complaints connecting Josh Liljenquist to an April 11 gathering through relationship, association, or alleged physical presence. The reviewed packet does not disclose an instruction, payment, planning message, authorization, permit application, agency agreement, or directive from Josh showing that he planned, financed, promoted, attended, directed, or controlled the gathering.

Separate public posts from March through May 2026 document organized food distribution, crowds, microphones, substantial PA speakers, testimony and preaching, public creator filming within the encampment, performances, a stage-like platform, sound equipment, and promoted outreach activity at or around Pig’s Eye Park. Josh states that he personally knows the participants and understands that none obtained permits for the depicted activities. The public posts independently establish the visible activity; the reviewed records do not yet independently establish which activities legally required permits or what City enforcement occurred in each instance.

The comparison therefore raises testable questions about identity verification, agency, permit standards, warning and escalation practices, geographic scope, duration, and enforcement consistency. It does not by itself prove unlawful selective enforcement or wrongdoing by any comparator.

Four separate questions: Visible activity, whether a permit was obtained, whether a permit was legally required, and what enforcement occurred are different factual questions. Each requires its own support.

What the evidence shows

The submitted materials span March 25 through May 10, 2026—before the April 6 exclusion, during the exclusion period, and after the April 22 rescission. They show public social-media recording interfaces, people filming or appearing in posted camp footage, public-facing creators or performers, visible loudspeakers or microphone/stage setups, food distribution tables, organized outreach activity, vehicles, and groups or crowds in the Pig’s Eye Park camp context.

This section states only directly observable conduct from the submitted materials. It does not accuse any depicted person of misconduct and does not call any gathering unpermitted without permit records.

Which categories of activity are being compared?

The purpose of this comparison is not to accuse other individuals, outreach groups, organizations, performers, or creators. It is to test whether similar categories of public activity at the same location and timeframe were evaluated and enforced consistently.

Comparison timeline

Representative evidence

April 12 complaint — association is the stated theory

The April 12 complaint did not identify a direct organizing act by Josh. Its express theory was that Josh remained involved through “close association,” his relationship with James, and the alleged presence of his cameraman.

The complaint identifies the purported organizer as “James Collins Jr.” Other disclosed materials identify James Cowan Jr., “James Cowen Jr.,” or “James Coan.” The reviewed records use several materially different versions of the apparent comparator’s name and do not explain whether every reference identifies the same person.

Sender status: pseudonymous sender who expressly requested anonymity. A displayed return email address is not the same as verified identity.

April 15 complaint — conflicting physical-presence theory

The April 15 complaint advanced a materially different account from the April 12 complaint. Rather than connecting Josh indirectly through James and a cameraman, it alleged that Josh was physically present. The reviewed photographs do not independently label Josh as present, and the travel record places him in Florida during the April 11 timeframe.

Sender status: unverified or pseudonymous sender who requested anonymity. The unresolved problem is verified identity and reliability, not the literal absence of a reply channel.

The two later complaints should be read side by side

The later complaints do not provide one consistent account of Josh’s involvement. One advances an association theory; the other alleges direct presence. Neither existed when the original exclusion was purportedly made effective.

Event-promotion source problem

The available event materials do not present one clear, stable identification of the alleged event. The underlying flyer identifies Redeeming Love Church in Maplewood as the venue. The Pig’s Eye reference appears in a separate added caption or strip whose author, creation date, and transmission path are not established. The composite should not be described as an authenticated original Pig’s Eye event flyer without additional provenance.

A public April 11 Nicky Gracious post thanks James Cowan Jr. and Exit Fame in connection with outreach in “The Trenches,” then separately says, “Come see us this evening at Redeeming Love Church” for music and performers. That supports a relationship between James and visible activity, but does not establish Josh’s direction, merge the church concert and Pig’s Eye outreach into one legally defined event, or identify who supplied the City’s event theory. ^{R-13 E-01 E-02 E-03}

Routine volunteer outreach, testimony, food distribution, and amplified sound

The hearing transcript separates several observable categories: outreach groups serving food, people using a microphone and speaker, testimony or religious expression, a trailer or speakers, and the videographer’s attributed belief that one organizer did similar outreach weekly. Those categories matter because food distribution, testimony, religious expression, amplified sound, organized events, and permit status are separate questions. ^{R-05 L-02 SC-13 P-05}

The legal authorities cited here are conditional context. They show that public-forum speech, religious expression, and food sharing can raise First Amendment questions in some circumstances. They do not establish that Saint Paul violated the First Amendment, that every activity was permit-exempt, or that any comparator was legally similarly situated. Additional City records remain necessary.

City-produced comparator evidence audit

The submitted City Evidence Supporting Comparator folder contained 51 submitted files, 31 unique byte streams, 30 unique images, one unique PDF, and 20 exact duplicate submissions. File count is not corroboration count. Duplicate files, several captures from one social-media account, a composite graphic, and a screenshot of the City’s own notice remain derivative or connected source families.

The attachment repeating the City’s allegation through a social-media screenshot of the City’s own notice is classified as circular derivative material. It does not independently corroborate that allegation.

Josh’s concern

“The submitted materials document other public-facing filming, amplified sound, organized outreach, stages and crowds at Pig’s Eye Park. Josh’s concern is whether materially comparable activity was handled under the same standards that the City applied to him.”

The Director linked Josh’s following to the attention the case received

At approximately 14:50 in the appeal hearing, the Parks Director said Josh was “obviously very different” because of “the following and what you do every day,” and added that this was why the matter had “garnered the attention.” The statement is relevant because it expressly connects Josh’s public profile to the attention the case received. It does not, standing alone, prove that Josh’s following caused the exclusion or a harsher penalty. The unresolved records question is whether Josh’s audience size, media profile, or anticipated publicity influenced the decision to issue, broaden, publicize, defend, or maintain the exclusion.

Association with James did not establish that Josh directed the event

The later City packet repeatedly linked Josh Liljenquist to the April 11 gathering through his relationship with James Cowan Jr. and through the alleged presence of a person described as Josh’s cameraman. The April 12 complaint names “James Collins Jr.” as the organizer and refers to the nonprofit Where Purpose Is Found; the surrounding packet appears to be referring to James Cowan Jr., but the City materials do not explain the surname discrepancy. The complaint then attempts to connect Josh through his relationship with James and the alleged presence of Josh’s cameraman.

The packet documents association. It does not disclose an instruction, payment, planning message, permit application, performer arrangement, equipment directive, authorization, agency agreement, or other record from Josh showing that James or Ben acted on Josh’s behalf in organizing or controlling the gathering.

Josh states that he gave James no instructions concerning the event, supplied no money, brand, account, equipment, performers, or authorization, and did not know the event details because he was scheduled to be in Florida. Josh also states that Ben’s role was taking photographs, not organizing the gathering. Those are firsthand statements and remain attributed unless separately confirmed by James and Ben.

The City’s later event evidence did not establish Josh’s control

The City-provided packet documents that a substantial gathering occurred at Pig’s Eye Park on April 11. The images show food distribution, tables and canopies, attendees, performers or speakers, microphones, loudspeakers, and a trailer or platform. They do not independently establish permit status, the legal organizer, who financed the gathering, or what role any specific person had in planning it.

Of the 30 unique images in the City packet, 20 were mobile or Facebook screenshots associated with James Cowan Jr.’s account. The packet therefore does not contain 20 independent witnesses to Josh’s involvement; it contains multiple captures from one principal social-media source family.

The April 12 and April 15 complaints conflict. The April 12 writer advances an indirect theory based on Josh’s relationship with James and the alleged presence of Josh’s cameraman. The April 15 writer directly alleges that Josh was physically present. The supplied images do not label Josh as present and do not resolve the conflict.

The packet contains no planning instruction, payment record, authorization, agency message, or directive from Josh. The responsible conclusion is not that the images identify the legal organizer. It is that the later event evidence did not establish Josh’s planning, financing, direction, attendance, or control.

Source-family note: Multiple screenshots of one account, repeated views of one gathering, and duplicate copies do not become independent corroboration merely because they appear as separate files.

Comparator source families

The reviewed materials are grouped by source family rather than counted as one source per uploaded file, screenshot, URL, or screen recording. Probable event clusters remain provisional until original URLs, captions, dates, or first-person records confirm the relationship.

Permit-status boundaries

Josh states that he personally knows the participants depicted in the comparator materials and understands that none obtained permits for the activities shown. That statement is attributed to Josh. It should not be converted into an independently verified no-permit finding unless supported by participant declarations, a City permit-system search, DSI/Parks records, an authoritative no-records response, or another direct source.

This page does not infer that every microphone, camera, food distribution activity, prayer gathering, sermon, casual outreach activity, or public post required a permit.

Documented enforcement outcome

Visible activity may be supported by posts, screen recordings, photographs, captions, location tags, and observable equipment or conduct. Enforcement outcome requires City records, warning or citation records, police or security records, participant declarations, communications, or an authoritative no-records response.

No comparable maximum citywide exclusion or similar enforcement is disclosed or presently identified in the reviewed materials. This is not the same as saying the City never enforced against anyone else.

Corrected source-family timeline

What the comparator record establishes

• The City’s later packet repeatedly centers James, James-related social-media material, and allegations connecting Josh through association or alleged physical presence.
• The April 12 complaint expressly uses “close association” as the connective theory.
• The April 15 complaint alleges direct physical presence, creating a materially different account.
• Both complaints were received after the original exclusion date.
• The City packet contains duplicate and derivative material that must not be counted as independent corroboration.
• The underlying April 11 flyer identifies Redeeming Love Church in Maplewood; the Pig’s Eye caption is a separate, unverified addition.
• No comparable maximum citywide exclusion is disclosed or presently identified in the reviewed comparator materials.

What the comparator record does not establish

• It does not conclusively identify the legal organizer of every event.
• It does not establish that James acted as Josh’s agent.
• It does not establish that Josh directed, financed, promoted, attended, or controlled the April 11 activity.
• It does not establish that every comparator activity required a permit or that no comparator obtained a permit.
• It does not independently establish that no comparator received City contact or enforcement.
• It does not prove unlawful selective enforcement, discrimination, retaliation, or bad faith.
• It does not convert several posts or captures from one event into independent corroboration.

Complete evidence inventory

All submitted videos in the Best Examples and Supporting Examples folders were reviewed. The screenshots folder contained 10 screenshot files, although the implementation prompt referenced seven; all 10 were inspected. No raw third-party media is surfaced publicly in this staged section.

Provenance: source packet recorded as Desktop/Park Ban/2. Comparator Comparison/4. Comparable Conduct Evidence at Same Park-20260623T221146Z-3-001.zip. SHA-256 hashes for reviewed submitted media are staged in the internal provenance record at content/transparency/comparable-activity-provenance.json.

Exact hearing language

During the hearing, the Parks Director referred to anonymous emails about conduct and said they had “come after the fact, after this letter came.” Later in the meeting, he reiterated that “these came after the fact.” The timing distinction is important: the later complaints may have been reviewed during the appeal, but they were not information available for the original April 6 decision.

The supplied transcript does not contain a separate [15:12] timestamp line; the words appear within the existing [14:50] Parks Director exchange, so the website preserves the stable #t-15-12-materials alias at that exchange.

Anonymous-source limitations

The April 12 complaint alleges concerns anonymously or pseudonymously, and the April 15 complaint is also a complaint rather than a finding. An anonymous complaint should not be described as a factual adjudication. The record can show when the City received and produced the complaint; it does not, standing alone, establish the truth of each allegation.

Decision date versus receipt date

The April 12 and April 15 complaints cannot be represented as information available for the original April 6 decision. That does not mean they were automatically inadmissible in an informal appeal, and this page does not claim the City intentionally backfilled evidence.

Possible appeal-stage relevance

The City selected, retained, and produced the later complaints and event materials in the evidence packet concerning the exclusion and appeal. That supports the inference that the City treated those materials as relevant to explaining, defending, reviewing, or resolving the exclusion, while leaving unresolved the precise weight assigned to them.

The event-rumor source remains unidentified

The transcript contains the phrase “bike race or concert or others,” but the reviewed record does not identify where that theory originated or who supplied the specific event framing before the exclusion decision.

Required chronology

The packet did not contain 52 independent pieces of evidence

The City-provided packet contained 52 submitted files, but the file count overstated the number of distinct sources. Twenty-one JPEG submissions were exact duplicates. The packet contained 31 unique byte streams in total: 30 unique images and one unique PDF. Repeated copies and multiple screenshots of the same underlying gathering do not become independent corroboration merely because they appear as separate files.

The packet largely collapses into one James Cowan Jr.–centered source chain

The disclosed packet did not contain dozens of independent sources corroborating Josh Liljenquist’s involvement. Of the 30 unique images, 20 were mobile or Facebook screenshots documenting the April 11 gathering as posted on James Cowan Jr.’s account. The April 12 complaint described James as connected to organizing the gathering and attempted to connect Josh through association. The April 15 complaint also named James. The CAD identified James Cowan as the 911 caller while not naming Josh in its caller, suspect, or comments fields.

These materials should therefore be evaluated as connected or derivative source families. Repeated screenshots from one Facebook account, duplicate copies of the same images, and later complaints discussing the same gathering do not independently establish that Josh organized, financed, directed, attended, or controlled the event.

What the record establishes

• The April 12 and April 15 complaints were received after the April 6 exclusion.
• Those complaints could not have informed the original April 6 decision.
• The Parks Director acknowledged during the appeal that anonymous conduct-related emails came after the letter.
• The City later included or produced the complaints and event materials in the evidence packet concerning the exclusion and appeal.
• The packet contained 21 exact duplicate JPEG submissions.
• Twenty of the 30 unique images belonged to one James Cowan Jr.–account source family.
• The supplied event material documents a real gathering but does not independently establish that Josh planned, financed, directed, attended, or controlled it.
• The CAD names James Cowan as caller and does not name Josh.
• The complaints advance different theories of Josh’s involvement and do not reconcile those theories.

1. The City’s exact statement

“including denying an express request for information from the Deputy Director of Safety and Inspections about involvement in said event taking place.”

Exclusion notice, page 1 (PDF · opens in new tab) ↗

2. The documented April 3 exchange

The City said Josh denied an information request. The disclosed texts show him answering and offering to help.

The screenshot exhibit identifies the sender as “David” in the device thread, and the first message self-identifies the sender as “Dep Dir David Hoban from the city of St Paul.” The material content is rendered below as crawlable HTML so readers and search engines do not need to rely on the image alone.

The supplied April 3 text exchange records Josh answering the question about his involvement or information and twice offering additional help. No later request, instruction, deadline, or refusal appears in the supplied written exchange. Josh states that this was his complete written exchange with Hoban concerning the proposed concert. The public record reviewed does not rule out separate internal City communications.

3. What was acknowledged at the hearing

The hearing transcript contains the relevant exchange about the text thread: Josh said “I asked how I could help,” counsel asked whether the Parks Director had “do you have a copy of the email or the text,” the Director answered “Yeah, I do,” counsel described Josh as “trying to offer some help” while denying involvement, the Director explained that “DSI manages encampments throughout the city,” and later said Josh was “not affiliated with this event.”

The response “Yeah, I do” establishes that the Director possessed the exchange at the hearing. It does not establish when he first received or reviewed it. This page does not characterize a change of subject, silence, or failure to identify another request as an admission.

4. What the documentary record establishes

• Josh answered the question concerning his existing knowledge and involvement.
• He denied having knowledge or involvement.
• He made two offers to provide additional help, including “what can I do to help? ↗” and “try to help you to see if it’s a rumor or a real thing ↗.”
• Hoban replied, “Ok. Thank you.”
• Hoban characterized the information as a rumor.
• No later instruction, deadline, demand for particular information, or express refusal appears in the supplied written exchange.

Core conclusion: The record establishes that Josh answered the question, denied having involvement or knowledge, and volunteered additional help. It does not establish that he completed a separate investigation; nor do the materials reviewed identify a later request he refused.

Legal framing: Minnesota arbitrary-and-capricious authority can make a conflict between a stated rationale and the record important, and Minnesota municipal-imputation cases can make attribution without a factual connection important. Those authorities do not decide Josh’s case; their relevance depends on whether the City relied on this exchange, whether another request existed, who received or reviewed the full thread, and whether the information-request allegation was material to the exclusion. ^{MN-06 MN-07 MN-01 MN-04}

5. Josh’s account and additional chronology

• Josh says these screenshots contain the complete written exchange he had with Hoban about the proposed concert.
• Josh says no separate request was made by text, telephone, email, or another City employee before delivery of the notice.
• Josh did not ultimately ask other people about the rumor because Hoban described it as a rumor and made no further request, assignment, deadline, or follow-up.
• The messages therefore document an offer to ask around—not a completed canvass.
• After receiving the notice on April 8, Josh reports placing two calls seeking clarification that were not answered.
• The supplied thread independently shows Josh writing, “Could you give me a call when you’re free?”
• The two call attempts are not independently documented in the present public exhibit set. They are included only as Josh’s first-person chronology unless a redacted call record is later added.

9. Related Transparency records

1. Finding

The notice alleged a recurring pattern, stating that Josh “routinely” harassed, recorded, and profited from vulnerable adults without permission. At the hearing, however, the City identified one uncertain sibling-related interaction and did not have the referenced report, participants’ names, or incident details available. The materials supplied afterward—the CAD record and April 20 staff email—concern that same single disputed event.

One disclosed incident does not substantiate the frequency implied by “routinely.” If the City relied on additional incidents, the record reviewed does not show that their factual substance was identified before or during the appeal so Josh could meaningfully respond. That presents a serious procedural question, although the present sources alone do not establish a constitutional violation.

The later CAD production documents one March 23 disturbance call ↗, names James Coan—not Josh—as the caller, and does not mention Josh, a sibling, filming, permission, profit, or a vulnerable adult. The City’s April 20 email adds a witness-summary narrative about Josh but dates the event March 24 and still describes only that single disputed encounter. These records may support that one disturbance was reported; they do not substantiate the notice’s allegation that Josh “routinely” engaged in the stated conduct.

Caveat: These records do not prove that no other complaints or incidents existed. They show that the CAD and accompanying email disclosed for this incident do not document a recurring pattern.

2. What the notice alleged

“routinely breach[ed] the peace within the Park by going to the site to harass, record and profit from vulnerable adults residing there without said individuals’ permission.”

The notice describes recurring conduct, plural adults, and the combined allegations of harassment, recording, profit, and lack of permission. It does not identify dates, people, videos, payments, or separate incidents supporting the word routinely breach the peace ↗.

3. What the City identified at the hearing

The defensible record statement is that the sibling-related account was the only concrete harassment incident articulated at the hearing. This page does not say the City expressly admitted it was the only possible basis.

The Assistant City Attorney’s statement tied the harassment language to disturbance of the peace, “not necessarily the videoing.”

The Written Accusation and the Hearing Explanation Did Not Match

Direct answer: Saint Paul’s exclusion notice accused Josh of a recurring pattern of harassing, recording, and profiting from vulnerable adults residing at Pig’s Eye Park. At the appeal, however, the concrete harassment explanation centered on one uncertain sibling-related parking-lot interaction. When Josh asked who the person was, no name was supplied in the hearing, the referenced record was offered for later review, and the later police CAD did not contain the sibling/video/vulnerable-adult narrative.

These records are different source layers. Details found only in the later summary must not be described as findings contained in the CAD. The Ban Letter is the operative allegation; the hearing is the City’s explanation and Josh’s opportunity to respond; the CAD is a dispatch record; the April 20 email is a later City summary. They should not be collapsed into one source or treated as independent corroboration of one another unless provenance supports that treatment.

This was not a minor wording dispute. Saint Paul’s written exclusion paired a highly stigmatizing official accusation with the maximum 180-day exclusion from every Saint Paul Parks and Recreation property and threatened misdemeanor consequences for re-entry. But when Josh used the appeal hearing the City itself called his “opportunity to be heard,” the factual theory became materially narrower and materially less certain.

Near the end of the hearing, counsel was still asking what Josh had actually done that constituted disturbing the peace. The Assistant City Attorney then tied the disturbance theory to alleged harassment, “not necessarily the videoing.” When Josh directly asked, “who was the person? Do you guys know the name?”, no person or sibling was identified by name in the hearing. The Director instead referred to a police record, offered to send it afterward, and said he did not know the names “off the top of my head.”

The issue is therefore not simply that an official could not recall a name from memory. The issue is whether Saint Paul had a sufficiently reliable, person-specific factual basis for the broad recurring-harassment allegation it placed in an official notice—and whether Josh received enough of that factual basis during the hearing the City itself designated as his opportunity to answer it.

What this establishes: The public record currently connects the notice’s broad language to one disclosed dispute record and one later staff summary. It does not substantiate the frequency implied by “routinely” or identify the complete source chain for the broader vulnerable-adults/profit/permission wording. It also makes the recording distinction visible: the hearing explanation tied disturbance to alleged harassment, not necessarily the videoing.

What this does not establish: It does not prove that no other reports existed, that every allegation was false, that the City fabricated a record, or that a court found a due-process violation.

Opportunity to be heard without an identified incident

The hearing was described as Josh’s opportunity to be heard. The record issue is practical: a person can answer an allegation more meaningfully when the source, incident, date, person, and supporting record are identified while the answer is requested.

This section does not claim formal discovery was required or that the City had to produce its entire file. It asks whether the factual basis supplied in the notice and hearing was specific enough to permit a meaningful response.

Notice, hearing, CAD, and source-layer comparison

The notice, hearing, CAD, and later staff summary are different evidence layers. They should not be collapsed into one source or treated as independent corroboration of one another unless provenance supports that treatment.

The CAD is a dispatch record. The April 20 staff account is a later City summary. The reviewed public set does not contain Ethan’s original statement or a record showing when the decision-maker first reviewed the Josh-specific narrative.

4. What the CAD actually records

CAD CN 26-045531 is a dispatch/CAD record, not an officer’s investigative report or factual adjudication. The public-redacted exhibit documents one March 23, 2026 disturbance call at Warner Road/Fish Hatchery. It names James Coan–Volunteer as caller/complainant, describes an unidentified male as verbally aggressive and threatening, records yelling heard by the call taker, and ends as Cancel by Caller, with the unidentified suspect reportedly no longer present. It contains no officer-arrival time and does not name Josh or Ethan. It does not mention a sibling, filming, permission, a video, profit, or a vulnerable adult.

Police CAD record CN 26-045531 — privacy-redacted PDF, opens in new tab ↗

5. What the April 20 email adds

The April 20 staff email ↗ attaches the CAD, calls the incident March 24 while the CAD records March 23, presents a summarized “Staff Account” attributed to Ethan, places Josh and James at the scene, alleges a confrontation concerning a video of someone’s sister, says Josh joined in yelling, says another occupant threatened Josh, and says Josh called police.

The supplied exhibit does not include Ethan’s original statement, surname, signature, exact words, interview date, or method of collection. The email’s detailed sibling/video narrative does not appear in the attached CAD. No original Ethan email, signed statement, exact quotation, interview date, or method of collection was included in the produced material.

April 20 staff account email — privacy-redacted PDF, opens in new tab ↗

6. Where the CAD and email differ

The following table compares what is visible in the notice, hearing, CAD, and April 20 email without treating any difference as proof of fabrication.

Caveat: The differences do not by themselves prove fabrication. They establish that the detailed later narrative is not contained in the original CAD and depends on an unproduced underlying source.

7. Why “routinely” remains unsupported by the disclosed record

March 23 in the CAD differs from March 24 in the email. The CAD lists James as caller, while the email says Josh called police. Josh is absent from the CAD but described in the later staff summary. The sibling, filming, consent, profit, and vulnerable-adult claims are absent from the CAD. These tensions matter because the notice used recurring-pattern language, but the disclosed materials currently point to one disputed event.

Why this matters beyond one case

The stakes are broader than whether one exclusion was later rescinded. A municipal process sets a dangerous precedent if it permits officials to publish a broad and stigmatizing accusation, impose the maximum citywide restriction, and then defend the action at the only internal hearing through a narrower factual theory involving an unnamed person and a supporting record not presented in the room.

That structure magnifies the risk of error at every stage: the affected person cannot identify the incident, locate witnesses, test credibility, distinguish one source from another, or rebut a story whose operative details emerge only during the hearing. The risk becomes more severe when the original official wording is immediately available to journalists, search engines, and social platforms while the narrower and more qualified hearing explanation remains buried in a recording or later-produced documents.

Due process exists in part to prevent government from imposing severe consequences first and requiring a person to disprove a moving or inadequately disclosed factual theory afterward. Saint Paul’s own ordinance required reasonable cause, a specified written basis, and individualized decisionmaking. The website should therefore insist on a simple institutional principle: before government imposes a maximum citywide exclusion and publishes a severe factual accusation, it should be able to identify the operative incident, the evidentiary source, the legal standard, and the factual bridge connecting the person to the alleged violation.

No municipality should be permitted to transform a generalized report, an unnamed source, or a later summary into a public finding by repetition alone. Allegations must remain allegations; source layers must remain distinct; and the person affected must receive a real opportunity to understand and answer the case against him. This is analysis and policy implication, not a court holding.

13. Related transcript and discrepancy links

Josh’s account

• Josh states the CAD was the “police report” supplied after the hearing.
• Josh states police never contacted him concerning this event.
• Josh says he cannot identify the alleged sibling or interaction because no name or identifying incident information was provided.
• Josh says the materials supplied after the hearing consisted of the CAD and April 20 summarized email.
• Josh says he has the original hearing audio; no audio file was available in the accessible workspace during this staging pass.

1. The allegation in the exclusion notice

The exclusion notice alleged that Josh “routinely” went to the park to “harass, record and profit from vulnerable adults ↗” without permission. Neither the notice nor the appeal hearing identified a specific recording, participant, date, complaint, published post, or source of alleged profit.

“routinely breach[ed] the peace within the Park by going to the site to harass, record and profit from vulnerable adults residing there without said individuals’ permission.”

3. Three participant statements about willingness and permission

In later-recorded statements, three people described their own experiences with videos involving Josh Liljenquist. The linked Shorts provide context for each participant’s original story; the statements quoted below come from a later three-part confirmation montage.

4. What the statements establish—and what they do not

Three participants later described willingness or permission in their own interactions with Josh. Their statements provide participant-specific context. They do not identify the unspecified recording referenced by the City and do not prove consent for every person Josh has filmed.

• Participant 1’s statement concerns willingness and absence of pressure as described by that participant.
• Participant 2’s statement concerns permission to share that participant’s story; the clip uses “he” without naming Josh, and the surrounding relationship is based on the user-confirmed original-story mapping.
• Participant 3’s statement concerns that participant’s repeated experience filming with Josh.
• The record keeps willingness to participate, permission to film, permission to share a story, permission to publish, and permission to monetize as separate concepts.

5. Recording in a public park: legal and policy context

The Eighth Circuit has recognized that recording may be part of the protected speech process ↗ when undertaken to gather and disseminate information about a public controversy. The court also recognized public parks as traditional public forums. That does not establish an unlimited right to record every person in every circumstance or eliminate otherwise applicable consent, privacy, safety, or commercial-filming rules.

This page does not decide constitutional protection for any recording or resolve Saint Paul permit requirements. It identifies the record question: what specific recording, permission issue, or commercial activity did the City rely upon?

6. What “profit” referred to remains unidentified

The cited record does not identify what the City meant by “profit,” any recording or post associated with that allegation, any revenue or payment, or whether the unidentified activity was classified as commercial filming under Saint Paul’s permit rules.

This section does not conclude that no revenue existed. It states only that the supplied record does not identify the recording, post, revenue source, payment, sponsorship, or commercial-filming classification supporting that part of the allegation.

Josh’s account

Josh states that he routinely requested permission before filming, honored removal requests, and has not received a removal request in more than a year. Because the City did not identify the video or participant it referenced, this account cannot presently be compared against a specific City allegation.

9. Related appeal-record comparisons

Point-specific chronology

The only documented pre-decision inquiry concerned a rumored event

On April 3, Deputy Director David Hoban asked whether Josh had “any involvement or information” concerning a proposed concert at the Fish Hatchery encampment. Josh responded that he did not know about it, said he was confused, asked what he could do to help, and later offered to ask around to determine whether it was “a rumor or a real thing.” Hoban characterized the matter as a rumor and did not make another visible request in the supplied exchange.

The displayed conversation contains no follow-up question concerning planning, performers, payment, promotion, supplies, sound equipment, permits, agency, or Josh’s expected location on April 11. It also contains no deadline, demand for documents, instruction to investigate, or refusal by Josh.

The reviewed pre-decision record does not show basic verification of the central allegations

Specifics were requested at the hearing

At the hearing, Josh’s attorney expressly asked for the specific incidents, dates, times, people involved, reporters, and conduct underlying the exclusion. He also stated that no City employee had previously approached Josh, told him to stop an activity, identified a rule violation, or said he was disturbing the peace. The Parks Director responded with unnamed residents, an uncertain sibling-related incident, and qualified language including “I think,” “I believe,” and “I don’t know.”

This passage is not independent proof that no internal records existed. It is the City’s official appeal record showing that the accused conduct and source identities remained unresolved when counsel asked for them.

Filming and consent were still being explained at the appeal

The reviewed pre-decision record does not show that Saint Paul identified the specific video, participant, consent exchange, takedown refusal, or source of alleged profit before imposing the exclusion. The appeal record instead shows the Director asking Josh’s team to explain how filming, permission, and publication worked.

Review the recording, consent, and profit page

The Director was still learning how the alleged conduct worked

Immediately after saying that documentation concerning the remaining sibling allegation could be obtained later, the Parks Director said, “from a social-media standpoint, I don’t know enough about this process.” He then asked whether Josh’s work qualified as commercial filming. Later, he asked Josh’s team to explain how a person was approached, whether anything was signed, whether participation was predetermined, and how the filming process worked.

Those were foundational classification and fact questions, not minor corrections to an already-present exhibit. The strongest reasonable inference is that the Director was still developing his understanding of a central part of the City’s theory after the exclusion had already been imposed. The City could respond that the questions were intended to test Josh’s explanation or gather information for reconsideration. Even under that interpretation, the hearing shows that the final decision-maker did not begin the appeal with a settled, articulated understanding of the filming and consent process.

Commercial-filming classification

Saint Paul’s adopted Parks rules prohibit commercial filming or photography without a permit or written permission. The City’s separate film-permit page likewise says a permit is required for commercial filming and identifies certain non-commercial filming that does not require a permit. During the appeal, however, the Parks Director asked Josh whether his activity was classified as commercial filming.

The question does not prove that the City formally relied on a commercial-filming violation. It does show that the Director was still asking whether that classification applied after the exclusion had been imposed. If the exclusion instead rested on harassment or intentional disruption, the City still needed a reliable factual basis identifying the person, conduct, source, and incident.

Event origin and attribution remained unresolved

Imprecise event identity: At 23:42, the Parks Director referred to “an unpermitted concert, whatever it was.” That wording matters because the record still needs to identify the exact event, governing rule, organizer, and source of attribution.

During the appeal, the Director asked Josh where the narrative came from that he was organizing a “bike race or concert or others.” The reviewed notice and evidence materials do not identify the original source of the “bike race” theory. They also do not contain a planning message, payment record, directive, permit application, equipment arrangement, performer communication, or other direct record showing that Josh organized or controlled the April 11 gathering.

Asking Josh to explain where the City’s own narrative came from is significant because the City had already imposed the exclusion. It does not establish who originated the rumor or why Josh’s name was attached. Those remain records questions.

The event attribution was made despite Josh’s pre-decision denial and offer to help, a trip booked months earlier, and April 11 photo metadata corroborating his physical presence in Florida. ^{R-03 R-12} Review the cumulative event-attribution evidence and its limitations

Public profile and enforcement attention

At approximately 14:50, the Parks Director expressly connected Josh’s unusual public profile with the attention the case received, saying Josh was “obviously very different” because of “the following and what you do every day” and that this was why the matter had “garnered the attention.” That statement is a documented hearing statement about attention; it is not, by itself, proof that follower count caused the original exclusion, the 180-day duration, the citywide scope, retaliation, selective enforcement, or viewpoint discrimination. ^R-05

The legal authorities here are limited analogies. Minneapolis Star & Tribune concerns special burdens directed at the press or a small publishing group, not a park exclusion or follower-count rule. Public-forum and viewpoint-neutrality sources help frame what records should be reviewed if public profile or expressive activity affected enforcement, but they do not decide Josh’s facts. ^{SC-12 US-06 E8-03 SC-09}

Fact development during the appeal

The hearing record repeatedly describes information being developed after the exclusion: the Director said he would use what came out of the meeting to attempt to make an informed decision; he asked foundational questions about filming and consent; supporting documentation was promised later; and the Assistant City Attorney said it was helpful to gain additional facts.

The record therefore reads, in substantial part, like post-decision fact development rather than the presentation of a completed factual case. That is an inference from the sequence, not an admission by the City or a court finding.

Saint Paul’s rules required a person-specific factual basis and supplied duration considerations

Saint Paul’s adopted Parks rules describe an ordinary enforcement sequence in which an officer or park employee may ask a person to stop disruptive, damaging, or unsafe conduct and, upon refusal, order the person to leave for the remainder of the day. The rules then state that “serious or repeat violations” may result in a longer exclusion. That language does not establish that a warning was mandatory before every serious extended exclusion; the City could contend that alleged conduct was serious enough to justify immediate action. It does make the classification and verified factual basis important.

The same rules state that an exclusion of 24 hours or longer requires reasonable cause to believe that the identified person intentionally disrupted the orderly operation of a park, program, or event, and that an extended exclusion may not exceed six months. Saint Paul Legislative Code §170.10 further directs the Director to consider the seriousness of the offense, the nature and extent of the disruption, and prior occasions when selecting the duration.

The reviewed record does not identify a written seriousness classification, describe the extent of a verified disruption, document prior warnings or exclusions, or apply those factors to the 180-day term.

Level 1–3 accuracy boundary: The public rules contain Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 categories under a subsection titled “Conduct at recreation center facilities.” Pig’s Eye is open park property, not a recreation-center facility. This page does not assume that those categories controlled Josh’s case. It asks whether the City used one of those categories or another internal framework and, if so, what authority and record supported that application.

No prior warning or escalation is documented in the reviewed packet

Josh states that before this exclusion no City employee asked him to stop a particular activity, told him that he was violating a park rule, ordered him to leave, warned him not to return, cited him, or issued a shorter exclusion. His attorney made substantially the same assertion during the official appeal hearing in the City’s presence. The disclosed packet reviewed for this page contains no prior warning, removal order, citation, shorter exclusion, or written escalation record.

These sources strongly support the absence of a documented prior enforcement step. They do not, without a complete authoritative City records response, conclusively establish that no internal note exists elsewhere.

The hearing did not explain why the maximum six-month term was selected

Josh’s attorney asked whether it was common for the Department to impose its “most stringent” and “heavy-handed” punishment on a first instance as a reset. The Assistant City Attorney said she could not provide statistics, placed the decision within the Parks Director’s discretion, and referred to Department policies and guidance. The City did not identify those materials or explain how they were applied to Josh.

Discretion identifies who may choose among authorized outcomes. It does not, by itself, explain the factual basis for choosing the maximum one. No reviewed record contains a duration worksheet, risk assessment, penalty matrix, written factor analysis, supervisor recommendation, legal review, comparator statistics, or memorandum explaining why the exclusion was 180 days rather than shorter, why it applied to all Parks and Recreation property rather than Pig’s Eye alone, or why it took effect before further fact development and appeal review.

The City imposed the maximum duration across all Parks property without a documented proportionality analysis

The exclusion imposed the maximum six-month duration and applied to all Saint Paul Parks and Recreation property, not only Pig’s Eye Park. The reviewed record contains no written seriousness classification, proportionality analysis, duration worksheet, geographic-scope analysis, risk assessment, or explanation for why a shorter or location-specific restriction was considered inadequate.

When Josh’s attorney asked whether the Department commonly imposed its “most stringent” and “heavy-handed” punishment on a first instance, the City said it could not provide statistics, referred to the Director’s discretion, and mentioned policies and guidance without identifying or producing them.

The Director’s discretion identifies who could make the choice. The reviewed record does not explain how the published duration factors, the referenced policies, or any case comparison supported selecting both the maximum duration and the broadest geographic scope.

Proportionality of the maximum exclusion

The breadth and severity of a 180-day citywide exclusion magnify the need for verified facts, consistent standards, and a documented explanation of why less restrictive alternatives were considered inadequate. The reviewed record does not contain that proportionality explanation.

No comparator statistics were provided at the hearing

When counsel asked whether the Department commonly imposed the most stringent punishment on a first instance, the Assistant City Attorney answered that she could not provide statistics. The reviewed record does not include comparator statistics, prior-exclusion examples, or an analysis showing how other extended exclusions were handled under §170.10.

Policies and guidance were referenced but not produced

The Assistant City Attorney’s statement that the Department had “policies” and “guidance” creates a specific, testable records question. Saint Paul’s public Parks policy index links to general rules and policies, but the reviewed public index does not display an exclusion-duration matrix, a §170.10 decision checklist, a citywide-scope standard, or a six-month penalty guide.

That public absence does not prove that no internal guidance exists. The referenced policies, guidance, training materials, examples, and any record showing how they were applied should be produced before the maximum-duration decision is treated as fully explained.

Discretion without documented analysis

The hearing identifies Director discretion as the source of authority to choose among outcomes. The reviewed record does not show the written analysis connecting that discretion to the selected maximum duration, citywide scope, alleged seriousness, extent of disruption, or prior-conduct factors.

Police-record source integrity

The only original police-created record in the City-provided packet is CAD CN 26-045531. It identifies James Cowan as the caller and does not name Josh in the caller, suspect, or comments fields. It does not mention filming, a sister, consent, a request to remove a video, or Josh refusing such a request.

A later City-forwarded staff summary adds Josh-specific details, uses a different incident date, says Josh called police when the CAD identifies James, and attributes information to Ethan. The original Ethan email, statement, interview notes, exact words, and method of collection were not included in the reviewed packet.

This does not prove that the later summary was fabricated. It establishes that the original CAD and later prose narrative are different source layers and that the underlying firsthand source for the added details was not produced.

Other systems show how long exclusions can be structured and reviewed

This comparison is context, not governing law and not proof that Saint Paul had to use another city’s system. It appears after the Saint Paul-specific analysis because the primary question is how Saint Paul investigated Josh’s case, applied its own duration factors, and selected a 180-day citywide exclusion.

What the record establishes

• The April 3 Hoban exchange is the only documented direct pre-decision City inquiry to Josh in the reviewed materials.
• Josh denied knowledge or involvement and twice offered to help.
• No later request, deadline, demand for specific information, or refusal appears in the supplied exchange.
• The reviewed materials do not show a pre-decision inquiry into a named participant, specific recording, consent exchange, takedown refusal, revenue source, or event-planning act by Josh.
• During the appeal, the Director said he did not know enough about the social-media process and asked whether the activity qualified as commercial filming.
• The Director asked Josh’s team to explain the mechanics of filming and permission.
• The Director said he would use what came out of the meeting to attempt to make an informed decision.
• The Assistant City Attorney said it was helpful to gain additional facts.
• Counsel asked why the Department imposed its most stringent punishment on a first instance.
• The City did not provide statistics or a case-specific duration explanation during that exchange.
• The Assistant City Attorney referred to policies and guidance that were not identified or produced in the reviewed record.
• The reviewed packet contains no duration worksheet, penalty matrix, written factor analysis, or memorandum explaining 180 days and citywide scope.
• The only original police-created record produced does not name Josh.
• The later Josh-specific staff summary was supplied without the original underlying Ethan statement.