La’Mont Knazze III

7240 60th Ave. N #7

New Hope, MN 55428
Phone: (952) 217-8004
Email: montiknazze@gmail.com
February 18, 2022

Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board

Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility
445 Minnesota Street
Suite 2400
St. Paul, MN 55101

Re: Daniel Biersdorf Attorney with Biersdorf & Associates, P.A –

(Attorney Registration Number: 0008187)

Cal Loken Attorney with Biersdorf & Associates, P.A

(Attorney Registration Number: Unknown)

Edward Kelly Keady Attorney with Biersdorf & Associates, P.A (Attorney Registration
Number: 0233729)

Ryan R. Simatic of Biersdorf & Associates, P.A – (Attorney Registration Number: 0392462)

Mr. Cal Loken, Daniel Biersdorf and Edward Kelly Keady represented me in a matter in

2009 to address a simple encroachment issue on a lake property that I was purchasing on a

contract for deed. I had discovered a culvert, which was owned by the City of Hermantown, that

was encroaching on my parcel minus an easement or any other authorization. My lot was platted,

and there were no easements of record so it was very straight forward, the city either possessed

an easement or a final certificate of condemnation or some other legal means for encroaching on

my lake parcel, or they did not. I had made a personal effort to follow up with the City on my

own to resolve the matter, but they were uncooperative, so I sought legal help to resolve the issue

from Messrs. Loken, Biersdorf and Keady of Biersdorf & Associates, P.A.

I had a consultation with Mr. Loken and explained the matter to him, and sometime later

1
to Mr. Biersdorf, as well, each in great detail, and I thought the matter could be resolved fairly

easily with the City. Once they investigated the matter, I believed they’d understand that they

had no easement on my property, that they were in trespass and that the parcel had been platted

and approved by the City many years ago, minus a utility easement corridor. I asked Messrs.

Loken & Biersdorf to negotiate terms with the City by which they could either relocate the

culvert or, at a minimum, compensate me for granting them an easement, and make certain that

there were no obstacles to my future building plans on the property.

Messrs. Loken & Biersdorf said the matter was pretty “cut and dry” and agreed that it

was clear that the City is trespassing on my parcel. However, instead of beginning discussions

and negotiations with the City, to correct the encroachment/trespass matter, Mr. Loken

recommended and advised me to enlist his support in commencing a lawsuit against the City of

Hermantown on my behalf to resolve the matter. Mr. Loken also stated and Messrs. Biersdorf

and Keady agreed that the City would be required to pay my legal fees, so that I would end up

with a settlement that included no out-of-pocket expenses.

Messrs. Loken, Biersdorf and Keady said that they would represent me on a contingency

agreement, so that I would have nothing to lose, consequently there was no need to even submit

a monetary retainer to their law firm, and I only needed to sign their contingency agreement to

get started. They also haven’t honored my request to get a complete copy of my file so that I can

ascertain, just what happened over the course of their representation, and what exactly they

billed, in terms of the services they performed along with their respective billing rates. I’ve not

yet received that to the present date, almost 13 years after their representation commenced.

Over the duration that Messrs. Loken, Biersdorf and Keady represented me, I was

uncertain as to what role each of them played in my representation, but they seemed to work

2
together in concert, somehow, as I would get one person or another upon contacting them.

In any event, between the three of them, they demonstrated a sheer lack of competency,

whereas it didn’t appear that they were actively engaged with in representing my interests. They

failed to give me regular updates or otherwise regularly communicate with me, keeping me in the

loop on the status of my case. What was even more odd and troubling, is that on each

consecutive occasion that I contacted the firm to check on the status of my case, they repeatedly

asked me to reiterate what the case was all about. Messrs. Loken, Biersdorf and Keady didn’t

make any progress on the lawsuit, and it became abundantly clear that they didn’t understand

how the City was encroaching on my property or the pertinent details of the matter, thusly they

represented my interests very poorly, if at all.

In the interim, sometime later in the year, I had been diagnosed with stage 3 cancer and

began chemotherapy soon thereafter, following my diagnosis. I had some seriously adverse

reactions to the chemotherapy, that nearly ended my life on more than one occasion. On the day

of one of my most severe reactions, I had passed out at a clinic I visited, and was resuscitated,

then rushed to Methodist Hospital in St. Louis Park, by ambulance. The paramedics had placed

my mobile phone on my chest, and after they rolled me out of the ambulance, I was placed in a

temporary holding room before I was admitted to the hospital.

My phone rung while sitting on my chest in hospital, and I answered to Messrs. Loken,

Biersdorf and Keady in conference on the other end. Mr. Biersdorf said he needed some more

details, and asked me whether or not I had followed up with the DNR, and told me I needed to

get some information from the DNR, further, Messrs. Loken, Biersdorf and Keady again asked

me for more details about the case, requesting that I reiterate the basic details to them, even

though they had been purportedly representing me for some time, by then, and we had discussed

3
the matter quite a few times already. I couldn’t understand why Messrs. Loken, Biersdorf and

Keady recommended that I sue the City of Hermantown, in the first instance, since they didn’t

appear to understand what the encroachment issue was all about.

Messrs. Loken, Biersdorf and Keady knew that I had been treating for cancer, and I

explained to them that I’d just, quite literally, been rolled of an ambulance moments before their

call, and was again hospitalized, after having become very sick. I also told them that at that

present time, I was loopy due to the morphine treatments I was receiving, and I was queasy and

incapacitated at that moment. Mr. Loken recommended that my case should be dismissed against

the City of Hermantown, and Mr. Biersdorf and Keady agreed. However, I thought that even if I

passed away, they could perhaps gain a better understanding of the case and finish what they

started, even if it was on behalf of my wife and children, rather than me, personally. However,

given their adamant recommendations, combined with my pressing situation at that moment in

time, not knowing whether I would live or die, I accepted Messrs. Loken, Biersdorf and Keady’s

recommendations.

At that time, I resided in Hinckley, Minnesota in a home that my family and I had built. I

lost the Hermantown Lake property, which was rendered valueless with the encroachment that

remained and minus a resolution with the City, and eventually lost my home in Hinckley, as

well. I was hospitalized, periodically, as I grappled with the cancer and chemotherapy, and

treating regularly for the cancer at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, so I was infrequently at the

Hinckley home.

Unbeknownst to me, Messrs. Loken, Biersdorf and Keady tabulated a substantial bill, and

then sued me and obtained a default judgement against me, alleging that I was avoiding service

of their lawsuit, since Messrs. Loken, Biersdorf and Keady, evidently directed personal service

4
to me at my Hinckley home, where I wasn’t living at the time. Since then, Messrs. Loken,

Biersdorf and Keady assigned Mr. Simatic as their Collection Agent, and together they seek to

collect funds from me in an amount currently hovering in the neighborhood of $25,000. So

Biersdorf allegedly attempted to serve their lawsuit(s) upon me at a location that they knew I

wouldn’t be at to receive it, and then proceeded to secure a default judgment against me, a pretty

underhanded trick.

Allegedly seeking my contact information, which information Biersdorf & Associates

already had in their possession and control, Mr. Simatic, began communicating with my

attorneys who represented me on unrelated matters. I’ve had the same primary phone number

and email address for over twenty years, which the Biersdorf firm had used to communicate with

me on numerous occasions over the course of the last decade. They didn’t contact me by phone

or email immediately prior to initiating contact with my legal representatives Christopher D.

Jozwiak, Esq., of Bailon, Thome, Jozwiak & Wanta, LLP and more recently, Mr. Charles Alden

of Gilbert, Alden, Barbosa PLLC.

In both instances Mr. Simatic contacted my former Attorneys under the guise of verifying

my contact information, whilst improperly communicating about the matter which they are

prosecuting me for, seeking information about my assets, in a concerted effort to intervene in the

proceedings in which Mr. Jozwiak and Mr. Alden represented me, at the time.

Mr. Simatic admitted in communications directed to Mr. Alden: “…I have not done any

research on any legal or ethical obligations to disclose this information”, Mr. Simatic, didn’t

safeguard his firm’s fiduciary relationship or legal and ethical obligations towards me, or make

any effort to protect my confidentiality, although I had not waived attorney-client privilege with

their firm or authorized their interchange with any of my other attorneys. See Exhibit “E”

5
 Mr. Simatic continued to badger my former Attorney on behalf of the Biersdorf firm,

even after both myself and Mr. Jozwiak informed Mr. Simatic that Mr. Jozwiak did not represent

me in the matters about which Biersdorf contacted Mr. Jozwiak.

On numerous occasions during 2015 and 2016, I responded to Mr. Simatic and informed

him that Mr. Jozwiak did not represent me in any matters, concerning Biersdorf & Associates,

P.A. and that Mr. Simatic’s requests violated legal and ethical obligations incumbent upon

attorneys.

I have not waived and continue to maintain attorney-client privilege for my part with

Biersdorf & Associates and all other counsel that had represented me. Mr. Simatic continued to

communicate with Mr. Jozwiak even after I communicated my contact information to Beiersdorf.

On February 25th, 2015 Mr. Simatic emailed Mr. Jozwiak. See Exhibit “A” Mr. Simatic stated to

Mr. Jozwiak:

“I have left you several voice messages and also delivered a letter to your firm. You
have not yet provided me with the courtesy of a response. As I indicated in my letter
of February 10, I represent a judgment creditor in the above matter, and Mr.
Knazze is the judgment debtor. I am seeking to learn his current whereabouts, his
current contact confirmation, and his current assets. I can provide you whatever
documents you require to ensure the legitimacy of this claim…Rule 69 allows a
judgment creditor to conduct discovery on any person in aid of the judgment or
execution. While I would prefer to speak informally, I could also issue discovery.
Please contact me.”

Mr. Jozwiak ignored Mr. Simatic’s repeated requests because he did not represent me

about the matters Mr. Simatic was pursuing me on behalf of Biersdorf. Mr. Simatic continued to

demand financial information about me, however I explained to Mr. Simatic that Mr. Jozwiak

represented me on an entirely unrelated and separate matter, as Mr. Simatic had himself gleaned

from Court filings on behalf of the Biersdorf firm.

On March 10th, 2015, I emailed Mr. Simatic to reiterate that he had my contact

6
information already, and indeed, I was writing him from the same email address that I had used

with Biersdorf since at least the year 2009. Although Mr. Simatic had begun phoning and

emailing Mr. Jozwiak, he had not recently emailed or phoned me directly. I also told Biersdorf

that Mr. Jozwiak doesn’t represent me on the matters concerning their firm.” On March 2 nd,

2015, Mr. Simatic emailed me as follows: “Since you have responded, I do not currently need

to contact Mr. Jozwiak” … See Exhibit “B”

In March of 2015 I communicated with Mr. Simatic, using the same email address that

I’d always used to communicate with his Biersdorf firm. I explained that I had remained

unemployed, I gave him my mailing address, reiterated my phone number and again explained

that Mr. Jozwiak would be unable to provide anything further, especially since the Biersdorf

firm, had already had the information that Mr. Simatic was allegedly seeking from Mr. Jozwiak,

within his and Biersdorf’s possession and control. Mr. Simatic continued to badger and harass

my attorneys in an effort for Biersdorf & Associates to intervene in the case in which I was

represented by Mr. Jozwiak’s firm.

On March 25th, 2015 Biersdorf hand delivered a demand letter and subpoena to

“Christopher D. Jozwiak, Esq., Bailon, Thome, Jozwiak & Wanta, LLP” even after Mr. Simatic

told me: “Since you have responded, I do not currently need to contact Mr. Jozwiak”, he

demanded multiple categories of financial disclosures from Mr. Jozwiak via subpoena.” See

Exhibit “C”

Once again, Mr. Jozwiak ignored Mr. Simatic’s repeated requests because honoring such

disclosures would have violated his and his firm’s attorney-client privilege and due to certain

other ethical considerations.

After I had received additional demands from Mr. Simatic, although I had responded to a

7
written demand for financial disclosures, and submitted the same to the Court, I likewise

reproduced the same documentation from the Hennepin County Department of Economic

Assistance confirming that I was a recipient of governmental assistance. The notice also included

my current address, which is also my same address at the time of this writing to your agency. I

again documented that I remained exempt from collections, per Minn. Stat. § 550.37, subd. 14.

See Exhibit “D”

Mr. Simatic continued to communicate with Mr. Jozwiak in a pressure campaign to enlist

his cooperation with Beiersdorf & Associate’s efforts to intervene in the instant case in which

Mr. Jozwiak represented me at the time.

Moreover, although the Biersdorf firm was aware of my exempt status pursuant to our

last direct communications, Mr. Simatic failed to contact me directly to inquire of my current

status, prior to contacting Mr. Charles Alden, who represented me in another matter more

recently. In his own words Mr. Simatic clearly stated: “I have not done any research on any

legal or ethical obligations to disclose this information”. Mr. Simatic also knew or should

have known that the address on the documentation of governmental assistance that I had

submitted to Biersdorf & Associates, also matches the address on the complaint in which Mr.

Alden had represented me.

Even if the Biersdorf firm and Mr. Simatic didn’t realize that my contact details had

remained the same, the complaint, itself, was conclusive evidence of my current whereabouts,

and reviewing the complaint that Mr. Alden represented, to confirm my contact information

proved to be the method the Biersdorf firm employed to verify my whereabouts, to begin with.

Indeed, Mr. Simatic had clearly stated that they have successfully served me with a complaint at

my current address, the same address I’m writing you from, that Biersdorf found upon their

8
review of my Ramsey County complaint, which has not changed as of this writing. Thusly the

ruse of their firm, seeking information from my former Attorneys Mr. Jozwiak and later Mr.

Alden to confirm my whereabouts, has exposed Mr. Simatic’s/Biersdorf’s egregious misconduct

by Mr. Simatic’s own statements and course of action, a pattern and practices of malfeasance.

Mr. Simatic’s behavior of unpermitted communications with my former Attorney, Mr.

Jozwiak, as well as more recently Mr. Simatic’s communications with Mr. Charles Alden, are

demonstrably a pattern and practice of impropriety, and a willingness to betray attorney-client

privilege between their firm and myself, as well as to enlist my other Attorneys who represented

me, in a betrayal of their legal and ethical obligations towards me. Upon communicating with

Mr. Alden, Mr. Simatic admitted …” I have not done any research on any legal or ethical

obligations to disclose this information.” Giving intentional thought to “legal” and “ethical

obligations” towards me, should have been chief among the first considerations for Mr. Simatic,

not among the last, as he has admitted to, throwing caution to the wind, behaving as a bull in a

china shop. See Exhibit “E”

On Thursday, August 26th, 2021 at 4:46 pm, Mr. Simatic followed up his phone

communications with additional emailed statements to Mr. Alden. See Exhibit “F”

“Charlie, Thanks for the phone call. My firm has a judgement against La’Mont
Knazze, III, who I understand you represent in Ramsey Cty. Matter. 62-CV-21-494.
In an effort to renew this judgement, I sent Mr. Knazze a summons and complaint
along with waiver of service forms. I have not yet received the forms back. I would
be happy to forward the judgment, summons, complaint, and the forms I sent,
should you so require…” I have not done any research on any legal or ethical
obligations to disclose this information.”

The same day Mr. Alden responded to Mr. Simatic some minutes later at 5:19 pm.

See Exhibit “F”

“All I am authorized to tell you is that I don’t represent Mr. Knazze in this matter,

9
 Sorry I can’t be of more help.”

On Friday, August 27th, 2021 at 11:01 AM, Mr. Simatic continued communicating with

Mr. Alden, even after having been told by my then Attorney of record in an entirely separate and

distinct matter, that he did not represent me in the matter Mr. Simatic was communicating with

him about, and that he was not “authorized” to communicate further on the matter, Mr. Simatic

again communicated with Mr. Alden making disparaging and prejudicial allegations and

assertions against me, and alluding to the Biersdorf firm having certain information in their

possession that would be detrimental to the matter Mr. Alden was handling on my behalf, at the

time. Mr. Simatic bargained with Mr. Alden, in Biersdorf’s interests, with the end goal of

interfering in the matter that Mr. Alden represented me in, begging to be inserted as a third-party

in my matter that was being heard in Ramsey County stating:

“Charlie, In a further review of my collection file, I may have came across

something that undercuts some of the sworn allegations your client makes in his
complaint. I would send it to you now, but that may make it discoverable in your
action. Rather than do that, I would agree to simply write a letter to you and all other
counsel asking for your consent to intervene in the action as a judgment creditor. If
Mr. Knazze consented to that and consented to accepting service of my complaint to
renew judgment through your office, I would refrain from sending any information
(beyond the judgment itself) to all counsel. That said, if me or my law firm received a
subpoena or discovery request to produce documents and I had something relevant,
I would have to produce it anyway. I’m not trying to play “hardball,” here…I’m
available to chat more about this via phone, should you desire. Cordially, Ryan
Simatic Associate Attorney Biersdorf & Associates, PA”

Mr. Alden expressed to me that he was fearful that Mr. Simatic had “dirt” on me that he

would introduce into my case and that Mr. Simatic would was going to successfully intervene in

the case that Mr. Alden represented me in and in response to that pressure from Mr. Simatic, Mr.

Alden sent me the following email message On Friday, August 27th, 2021 at 11:35am:

“That’s not the only issue now. He’s going to intervene in this action as a judgment

10
creditor, like it or not, regardless of the contact issue.” See Exhibit “F”

On or about August 30th, 2021, Mr. Alden contacted me demanding details about my “fee

disputes” with Biersdorf & Associates as well as other former Attorneys of mine as referenced

by Mr. Simatic. On that same date, Mr. Alden also demanded an explanation from me about

alleged “dirt” that Biersdorf & Associates has on me. I explained to him the details of my

experiences with Biersdorf, and that I have no idea what Mr. Simatic was referring to.

Mr. Alden informed me that he was withdrawing from representing me, due to the

Biersdorf matter, whereas he was fearful that Biersdorf has “dirt” on me that would adversely

impact the case that he was handling in my behalf, and also that Biersdorf would successfully

file a document of some sort permitting their firm to intervene in the case, reducing any

prospective award by the Ramsey County Court and impacting compensation to Mr. Alden,

personally as a consequence.

Mr. Alden also refused to draft and serve an amended complaint that was due to be

submitted to opposing counsel in the Ramsey County matter he was handling on my behalf, as a

direct and proximate result of his communications and interactions with Mr. Simatic of Biersdorf

& Associates. Mr. Alden sent a form to me confirming his formal withdrawal some days later, on

or about September 8th, 2021, See Exhibit “G” and I recently received a copy of the same

document from the Court confirming that Mr. Alden formally withdrew from representing me on

September 23rd, 2021. See Exhibit “H”

In both documents, Mr. Alden erroneously listed my Eden Prairie mailing address rather

than my current physical address in New Hope, so even if Mr. Alden has communicated my

address to Mr. Simatic of Biersdorf, it would have been incorrect, rather than the address that

Biersdorf & Associates already had in their possession. However, it was not Mr. Simatic’s or

11
Biersdorf & Associates intention to get my address, it was only a ruse. They sought to harass me

through my former attorneys and intervene in my other matters by playing “hardball”,

implementing unpermitted communications, stepping all over my rights, with reckless disregard

for my person and exercising a gross negligence for protecting attorney client privilge.

Mr. Simatic has successfully interfered with my current matter. When I needed Mr.

Alden’s assistance the most, he bowed out of representing me and at such a critical time.

Please investigate this matter at your first opportunity. Thank you, in advance for your

time and assistance.

Respectfully submitted,

La’Mont Knazze III

La’Mont Knazze III
7240 60th Ave N #7
New Hope, MN 55428
Tel. (952) 217-8004
Email: montiknazze@gmail.com

12