EVIDENCE TIMING
The City’s Evidence Packet Included Materials Received After the Exclusion Decision
Saint Paul’s 180-day parks exclusion was dated April 6, 2026. Two complaint emails later included in the City-provided evidence packet were received on April 12 and April 15, after the exclusion and after the April 11 gathering referenced in the notice. During the appeal hearing, the Parks Director expressly described anonymous conduct-related emails as arriving “after the fact, after this letter came.” Those later materials could not have informed the original April 6 decision. Their inclusion in the City’s evidence packet strongly indicates that they were treated as relevant to explaining, defending, reviewing, or resolving the exclusion, although the available record does not disclose the precise weight assigned to them or clearly separate the original decision record from the later appeal record.
Established chronology
The April 12 and April 15 complaints postdate the April 6 exclusion. They therefore were not information available when the original exclusion decision was made.
Packet composition
The City-provided packet contained 52 submitted files, but only 31 unique byte streams. Twenty-one JPEG submissions were exact duplicates. The packet must not be described as 52 independent pieces of evidence.
Why inclusion matters
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 them as relevant to explaining, defending, reviewing, or resolving the exclusion.
What remains unknown
The available records do not assign a numerical weight to each allegation, identify every record considered, or explain precisely how the Director used the April 12 and April 15 complaints.
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.
14:50 / 20:14 / 20:17Parks Director
“And, like, there are other things that I can, you know, share that is considered public information, like anonymous emails that I'm getting about conduct and things like that. It's, um—that come after the fact, after this letter came. So, like, I just—it's interesting to me, um, and I don't know who to respond to because they're anonymous.”
“Well, I'm saying these came after the fact.”
“I'm going to take what I—what comes out of this meeting and attempt to make an informed decision.”
Read this passage in the full transcript
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
| Date | Record event | Classification |
|---|
| April 3, 2026 | Deputy Director David Hoban contacted Josh about a proposed concert, described the matter as a rumor, received Josh’s denial, and received Josh’s offers to help. | PRE-DECISION |
|---|
| April 6, 2026 | The exclusion letter states that the 180-day exclusion became effective. | CLAIMED ORIGINAL DECISION DATE |
|---|
| April 8, 2026 | The visible electronic signature was completed at 2:26:22 p.m. CDT. Review the April 6 / April 8 notice timeline | TRANSMISSION / RECEIPT UNVERIFIED |
|---|
| April 11, 2026 | The gathering depicted in later event material occurred. | POST-DECISION EVENT |
|---|
| April 12, 2026 | The City received the first supplied complaint. | POST-DECISION / PRE-HEARING |
|---|
| April 15, 2026 | The City received the second supplied complaint. | POST-DECISION / PRE-HEARING |
|---|
| April 17, 2026 | The appeal hearing occurred. | APPEAL STAGE |
|---|
| April 20, 2026 | Complaint material and the staff-account/CAD material were sent to counsel. | POST-HEARING DISCLOSURE |
|---|
| April 22, 2026 | The exclusion was rescinded; the supplied records show the materials being viewed by Josh that morning. | LATER REVIEW / OUTCOME |
|---|
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.
| Packet measure | Count |
|---|
| Submitted files | 52 |
|---|
| Unique byte streams | 31 |
|---|
| Unique images | 30 |
|---|
| Unique PDFs | 1 |
|---|
| Exact duplicate JPEG submissions | 21 |
|---|
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.
| Source family | Relationship to James Cowan Jr. | What it does not establish |
|---|
| Twenty Facebook/mobile screenshots | Displayed from James Cowan Jr.’s account and document the same April 11 gathering | That Josh organized, directed, financed, attended, or controlled the gathering |
|---|
| April 12 complaint | Describes James as connected to organizing the event and links Josh through association | Firsthand proof that Josh directed James or controlled the event |
|---|
| April 15 complaint | Names James and alleges Josh was present | How the writer knew Josh was present; the complaint conflicts with the indirect-involvement theory |
|---|
| CAD CN 26-045531 | Names James Cowan as caller | Josh’s involvement; Josh is not named in the CAD |
|---|
| April 20 staff narrative | Describes an incident involving James and Josh | The original Ethan statement was not supplied, and many narrative details do not appear in the CAD |
|---|
| Exclusion-letter screenshot | Repeats the City’s own accusation | Independent evidence proving the accusation |
|---|
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.
What the record does not establish
- It does not establish the exact weight the Director gave any complaint or image.
- It does not identify every record considered before the exclusion, during the appeal, or during the rescission review.
- It does not establish that post-decision material was categorically barred from consideration during the informal appeal.
- It does not establish that the City deliberately fabricated, concealed, or backfilled evidence.
- It does not establish who originated the April 3 rumor.
- It does not establish the source or factual basis for the “bike race” phrase introduced during the hearing.
- It does not establish that Josh organized, financed, directed, attended, or controlled the April 11 gathering.
- It does not, standing alone, prove the City’s subjective motive.
Unanswered records questions
- What complete decision file existed before April 6?
- Who first connected Josh to the proposed event, and what firsthand information did that person provide?
- Where did the “bike race” theory come from?
- When did each decision-maker receive and review the April 12 and April 15 complaints?
- Why were those later complaints included in the evidence packet?
- Were the original decision record and the later appeal record ever formally separated?
- What permit, investigation, monitoring, warning, citation, removal, or enforcement records exist for the actual April 11 gathering?
- Who did the City believe organized the gathering?
- What evidence showed that Josh directed anyone remotely?
- What records show how post-exclusion complaints were weighed during the appeal or rescission review?
Underlying public exhibits