Minnesota Courts Issue Harassment Restraining Orders Against Jeffrey Robert Brinkman

Photo: Superior Cannabis Company (Jeffrey Robert Brinkman – Center)

MINNESOTA — In 2018, Minnesota courts issued harassment restraining orders (HROs) against Jeffrey Robert Brinkman, a resident of Austin, MN, and owner of Superior Cannabis Company, which formerly had locations in Canal Park in Duluth and downtown Austin. The proceedings examined repeated communications and online postings targeting multiple individuals.

The cases, filed as 50-CV-18-1795 and 50-CV-18-1788, revealed patterns of obsessive and intrusive behavior by Brinkman. Key findings include:

50-CV-18-1795: After a full hearing, the judge found that Brinkman attempted to extort the petitioner and the petitioner’s employer for money, highlighting the serious and financially coercive nature of his conduct.
50-CV-18-1788: The court found that Brinkman had become obsessed with the petitioner’s perceived sexual orientation, repeatedly targeting the individual based on the belief that they were homosexual.

Court documents detail that in both cases, Brinkman:

Repeatedly contacted petitioners via email and online postings despite being asked to stop.
Engaged in obsessive campaigns to disparage and harass, including copying third parties and posting statements online.
Showed fixation on personal characteristics such as sexual orientation rather than legitimate concerns.

Judges concluded that Brinkman’s behavior constituted harassment under Minnesota law. These HROs were issued to prevent further contact and communications from Brinkman, who continued to demonstrate patterns of targeting individuals he perceived as different.

In the spring of 2019 (around March 20), Brinkman and his daughter, Abbigail Brinkman, filed a harassment restraining order petition against one of the former petitioners from the 2018 cases. This petition was withdrawn, and the matter was dismissed with prejudice by the courts, signaling that the filing lacked legal merit.

Taken together, the 2018 and 2019 cases paint a picture of Brinkman as someone who engaged in repeated harassment, attempted coercion, and targeted individuals based on personal biases, while the courts consistently acted to protect the petitioners and dismiss meritless retaliatory filings.

Court records are public and underscore the judicial recognition that repeated, unwelcome communications and coercive attempts—especially when tied to personal biases—meet the statutory definition of harassment.