Dr. Adam Milz signed the 2nd Rule 20.01 competency evaluation against Matt Guertin on January 11, 2024. Dr. Katheryn Cranbrook signed the 3rd eleven months later, on December 20, 2024. The underlying PDF files carry the same document author — ANNE HINES — and the same unique XMP Toolkit fingerprint, identical down to the second: Adobe XMP Core 5.6-c142 87.162696, 2018/09/16-15:11:55. Two independent forensic psychiatrists producing two independent reports eleven months apart on two different computers do not generate files that share these strings. The probability is not low. It is zero. Neither doctor wrote the report that bears their name.
FINDING. The PDF metadata on the 2nd and 3rd Rule 20.01 evaluation reports establishes single-source authorship by a party named in the document properties of both files as Anne Hines. Dr. Milz signed a report he did not author. Dr. Cranbrook signed a report she did not author, never personally evaluated Guertin, and then stood silently in open court on March 5, 2025 while that report was used in support of forcible psychiatric medication — never called to testify, never put under oath to defend a single word of it.
On paper, these are two unrelated forensic psychiatric evaluations produced by two separate licensed clinicians responding to two separate court orders.
The 2nd Rule 20.01 Competency Evaluation was signed by Dr. Adam Milz, PhD, LP, ABPP — Supervising Forensic Psychologist, Fourth Judicial District Psychological Services — on January 11, 2024. Dr. Milz's report followed a two-hour videoconference interview with Matt Guertin conducted on January 3, 2024. That interview was secretly recorded by Guertin and is preserved in the transcripts section of this site. Dr. Milz concluded that Guertin suffered from "unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder" and lacked the capacity to consult with counsel, understand proceedings, or participate in his defense.
The 3rd Rule 20.01 Competency Evaluation was signed by Dr. Katheryn Cranbrook, PsyD, LP, ABPP (Forensic) — Chief of Psychological Services — on December 20, 2024. Dr. Cranbrook's report was produced with ZERO PARTICIPATION from Guertin. She never personally evaluated him. She never interviewed him. Guertin refused to attend the evaluation because, by that point, he had learned what the first two had produced and had filed a federal civil rights lawsuit naming the prior examiners and his own defense attorney as defendants. Cranbrook's report nonetheless maintained the schizophrenia diagnosis, recommended antipsychotic medication, and was the exclusive clinical foundation judicially noticed by the Court at the March 5, 2025 contested competency hearing — where Cranbrook appeared and was then permitted to leave without ever being called to testify, despite established case law suggesting she should have been.
These reports are presented as independent forensic products. Different doctors. Different dates. Different evaluation circumstances. Different letterhead. Different signatures on the last page.
The PDF metadata tells a different story.
PDF metadata is generated at the moment a document is produced in its authoring software, by its actual author, on a specific machine. It is not a stylistic choice. It is not a template. It is not a field a downstream user fills in. The XMP Toolkit string, in particular, records the exact build of Adobe's metadata library on the machine where the file was created — down to the second of the library's compile timestamp.
Two forensic psychiatrists writing independent reports eleven months apart, on two different computers, in two different office environments, using two different authoring workflows, do not produce files that share these values. The strings diverge as soon as anything about the production environment diverges — operating system, Adobe version, user account, print driver, file-origin template. That is the mechanical reality of how this metadata is generated.
The 2nd and 3rd Rule 20.01 reports do not diverge. They match.
Four fields match across both files. The name in the Author field is ANNE HINES on both. The name in the Creator field is ANNE HINES on both. The Producer is Microsoft: Print To PDF on both. The XMP Toolkit — a highly specific, versioned string containing an Adobe library build timestamp from September 16, 2018 at 15:11:55 — is character-for-character identical on both.
Neither Adam Milz nor Katheryn Cranbrook is named in either file's author field. Neither doctor's machine, neither doctor's Adobe installation, neither doctor's workflow produced these documents. A third party named Anne Hines did. The reports were not independently authored. They came from the same source.
Bruce Rivers — Guertin's first defense attorney — withheld the Milz report from Guertin for seven months. Guertin asked for it repeatedly by email, by text message, and by pro se motion. Rivers did not produce it. What finally produced it was a federal civil rights complaint, filed by Guertin on July 8, 2024, naming Rivers as a defendant. Nine days after being named, Rivers handed Guertin a USB flash drive containing the report.
Guertin extracted the metadata.
On August 7, 2024, Guertin filed that metadata into the federal court record of 0:24-cv-02646-JRT-DLM (District of Minnesota) as Document 47, Exhibit W, page 43. The filing captured every value shown in the comparison above for the Milz report — the Author string Anne Hines, the Creator string Anne Hines, the Microsoft: Print To PDF producer, and the XMP Toolkit fingerprint Adobe XMP Core 5.6-c142 87.162696, 2018/09/16-15:11:55 — and locked them into a timestamped, docketed, publicly searchable federal court exhibit.
That is the provenance lock.
FIVE MONTHS LATER, on December 20, 2024, Dr. Cranbrook's report was produced and filed with the state court carrying the identical Anne Hines author string, the identical Anne Hines creator string, the identical Microsoft: Print To PDF producer, and the identical XMP Toolkit fingerprint that Guertin had already exposed and docketed in federal court.
The implication is mechanical. Whoever produced the Cranbrook report either used the same source machine, template, or author as the Milz report — or was unaware that the Milz metadata had already been publicly filed into the federal record by the very defendant the Cranbrook report was being weaponized against. Either reading proves single-source origin. Neither permits a benign explanation. There is no version of this record in which two independently-practicing forensic psychiatrists happen to own computers that generate identical author strings, identical producer strings, and identical 2018-vintage XMP Toolkit build fingerprints. That configuration does not exist in nature.
What the metadata shows is that the same external party was producing both reports — and had been doing so long enough that, even after Guertin publicly exposed the pattern in federal court, the next report came out carrying the same signature.
Chain of custody is not a rhetorical flourish. It is the document-by-document record of how a file
moved from its producer to its recipient, with each handoff carrying a cryptographically anchored
timestamp and an authentication signature that cannot be forged after the fact. The .eml
file below is that receipt.
On December 30, 2024 at 12:49:22 UTC (6:49 AM Central), Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender Raissa Carpenter emailed the 3rd Rule 20.01 evaluation report to Matt Guertin. The email was forwarded from a state judicial-branch source. The attached PDF was the 4.9 MB Cranbrook report — carrying every metadata field shown in Section 2.
The reader does not need to understand every header line. What matters is that the cryptographic
chain closes on both ends. The federal record locks the Milz metadata in on
August 7, 2024. The authenticated .eml file locks the Cranbrook report
to its delivery vector on December 30, 2024. No post-hoc claim that the files were tampered with
after the fact survives either lock. The evidence bag is sealed.
Dr. Cranbrook's report recommends neuroleptic medication as the treatment pathway for Matt Guertin's "Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder." The diagnostic basis the report cites for that disorder is not a clinical examination — she conducted none — but rather a list of Guertin's beliefs. Specifically, the beliefs Cranbrook's report classifies as symptoms of psychosis are these:
Each of those "symptoms" is a documented, verifiable, on-the-record fact.
The federal civil rights lawsuit exists. It has a docket number. Anyone can open it. The manipulated discovery was admitted on the record at the March 5, 2025 contested competency hearing and then "voluntarily withdrawn" by Emmett Donnelly as "housekeeping." The constitutional violations are itemized in publicly accessible court filings. The forensic work is this website — each finding reproducible, each document cryptographically authenticated, each email DKIM-verified.
A forensic psychiatrist recommending forcible antipsychotic medication on the basis of a patient's accurate description of what is being done to him is not performing a clinical evaluation. Cranbrook's report pathologized the accurate perception of fraud as evidence of psychotic disorder — while she herself was signing, and bringing into open court, a report she did not author, produced by a party named Anne Hines, carrying the same fingerprint already publicly exposed in federal court five months earlier.
Cranbrook produced this report with ZERO PARTICIPATION from Guertin. She never met him. She never interviewed him. She never personally evaluated him. She wrote — or rather, she signed — a forensic psychiatric report recommending forced medication of a man she had never assessed, using metadata generated by somebody else, on a document Anne Hines authored. Then she brought that document into court under oath.
There is a single publicly-posted Minnesota Department of Human Services document that closes the remaining escape hatch in one move: the roster of the Community Competency Restoration Task Force.
The Task Force was convened to advise the State of Minnesota on the policy framework governing competency restoration — the exact statutory pipeline under which Guertin is being held. The roster names each member and states each member's role on the task force in the member's own credentialed voice. Clinicians are listed with their clinical credentials. Agency representatives are listed with their agency titles. There is no ambiguity. Every member's role is stated plainly.
Katheryn Cranbrook is on the roster.
Her listed role is not "Forensic Psychiatrist." Not "Licensed Psychiatric Examiner." Not "Dr. Cranbrook, PsyD, ABPP." Not any clinical credential.
Her listed role is:
No "Doctor." No clinical title. No forensic expertise referenced.
A clinician who has built her career on forensic-psychiatric credentials does not appear on a state task force roster with those credentials stripped away. A member of a Community Competency Restoration Task Force whose role is to advise the state on the very policy framework under which a defendant is being prosecuted does not also appear in that defendant's criminal case as the independent, neutral, court-appointed clinical examiner whose report recommends forced medication under that same framework.
She is playing two roles. On one side of the paper she is Dr. Cranbrook, independent forensic psychiatric examiner, offering clinical expert testimony. On the other side of the paper — on official Minnesota DHS documentation — she is a representative of the State Court Administrator, sitting on the task force that shapes the framework inside which her own evaluations operate.
The credentials shift based on which role the moment requires. That is not independence. That is not expert-witness neutrality. It is a participant in the statutory machinery dressed up as a neutral clinical evaluator of the defendant the machinery is being used against. The Task Force roster is the paper trail that exposes the costume change.
On April 17, 2026, the live DHS page was captured three independent ways — printed to PDF, screenshotted
as a PNG, and saved as a full HTML bundle (zipped) — and each capture was cryptographically anchored
to the Bitcoin blockchain via OpenTimestamps. The SHA-256 hashes below, together with the .ots
proofs, establish that each file existed in its exact present form no later than April 17, 2026.
If you are reading this in Minnesota, the statutory machinery that produced these two reports is the same machinery that applies to you.
The framework does not check whether the doctor wrote the report. It checks whether a doctor signed it. The signature on the last page of a forensic psychiatric evaluation is, as a matter of courtroom practice, treated as conclusive evidence that the report reflects that doctor's professional judgment, her clinical evaluation, and her expert opinion. The court accepts the signature. The court takes judicial notice of the report. The court orders medication on the basis of the report. No procedural checkpoint — not the court, not opposing counsel, not the filing system, not the judicial branch's own internal audits — asks the one question the metadata answers: did this doctor actually author the document she signed?
In this case, no.
What the record establishes is that a Minnesota court-appointed forensic psychiatrist can sign, file, and deliver into open court a forensic evaluation she did not author, covering a defendant she never personally evaluated, recommending forcible neuroleptic injection — and that the same false report can be recycled from a previous evaluator's template to backfill the outcome the system wanted. Nothing in the system caught it. The Rule 20.01 statute does not catch it. The court's case-management workflow does not catch it. Opposing counsel did not catch it. The Minnesota Department of Human Services, whose Task Force Cranbrook sits on, did not catch it.
Matt Guertin caught it.
He caught it by preserving every file, extracting every piece of metadata, cross-referencing every document against every other document, and filing Exhibit W into the federal court record five months before the second forged report landed in his inbox. He is not a doctor. He is not a lawyer. He is a live-entertainment-technology engineer who was arrested on four firearms charges twenty-four days before his patent was granted and who spent the following three years teaching himself the exact forensic toolchain required to prove, from the courts' own digital artifacts, that the record had been fabricated.
That is the only reason this page exists. If Guertin had been a less technically capable defendant —
if he had not known what PDF metadata was, or had not thought to run exiftool on the discovery
material, or had not filed the extraction into federal court before the third report came around —
he would be sitting inside the Saint Peter State Security Hospital right now, being
forcibly administered antipsychotic medication under the guise of "helping" him become
"competent" — all on the authority of a fabricated report that
Katheryn Cranbrook signed.
The same framework applies to you.
.eml file closes the chain of custody on the receiving end.
SHA-256: 909025a8cf656a5644e518cfe592c7f7ff2650ef5f8e6cf9d1058cb6df7c0f79.
Every document referenced on this page is served from its canonical location on MnCourtFraud.com. Open any of the cards below to view the source file directly.
.eml with embedded 4.9 MB PDF attachment.