Proofs of delivery upon Human Resources Department - City of Fargo 12 SEP 17 9 original Affidavits - Disciplinary Board - ND
Re proofs that City of Fargo and Counsel thereof had actual original affidavits in possession from Mark E. Nelson, citizen, the topic in part being lack of attorney candor to City of Fargo Civil Service Commission.
FLASH UPDATE ---- FARGO ATTEMPTS EVEN MORE APPALLING FRAUD.....
It appears further that in spite of the fact that the City of Fargo Attorneys had actual knowledge of the Affidavits - they went further in their conscious apparent deceptions and lack of ethics and did not allow the Civil Service Commission nor Mr. Boelke's attorney, Mr. Mark Friese to timely have a copy of said affidavit, an apparent unethical action to dispose of Mr. Boelke's civil rights at the administrative level. The American and World legal communities are now let in on the joke:
http://lawschooljoke.blogspot.com/
Tens of thousands of visitors each month learn of Corruption in Policing and Judiciary and Attorneys from our sites. Above pinging in regard this very new blog necessitated from latest City of Fargo unethical activity stemming from SWAT killing Officer Jason Moszer and the never ending aftermath of the cover-ups began 10-11 FEB 16.
Further the Attorney General is, it appears a criminal degenerate - who leads all his underlings and fellow graduates in an unethical state bar of sullen dishonesty - what the late Great Civil Libertarian and Pornographer Al Goldstein described as a legal system that is a sham, a ruse and a hoodwink in his seminal commentary and column FUCK YOU!
The apparently morally clueless Governor Doug Burgum has not yet called for Stenehjem's resignation for cause. see OPEN LETTER to Governor Burgum at https://www.policecorruption.com/
Newly and disturbingly, Chancellor of the North Dakota University system Dr. Mark Hagerott, 26 SEP 17 disclosed threats against the University of North Dakota and it's students in regard demands made upon him to support Attorney General Stenehjem in his primary bid for Governor running then in June 2016 against Doug Burgum, if he did not do what the Stenehjem stooges, thugs and goons demanded (my characterization).
The demand included that Dr. Hagerott discipline former United States Secretary of Agriculture and former North Dakota Governor Edward T. Schafer, then serving as the interim President of the University of North Dakota. Dr. Hagerott, a Military Intelligence Professional, did not bow to the threats. Perhaps a matter of Military Ethics ethos (opinion).
Governor Schafer is renowned for his forward thinking in brainstorming for future diverse economic development for North Dakota - he brought in Tom Peters - well known business author and advisory guru to give seminars to thousands in the state in I believe it was 1998.
Compare and contrast this to the criminal activity of Mr. Stenehjem and the Bureau of Criminal Investigation that does not like to investigate such things as the possible police killing (BCI?) of Mr. Andrew Sadek, or the mutilation killing of NDSU student Mr. Thomas Bearson - both students bodies dumped in Minnesota to confuse the so called investigations (open the files - Mr. Attorney General Stenehjem).
Close the hideous lowest ranked law school in the country and force law applicants to get at least three years of their lives out of the "state". ]
The defense counsel Mr Mark Friese and the City Attorneys - Mr. Erik Johnson and Ms Nancy Morris failing abysmally to effectively utilize the adversarial system to uncover facts - based on truth rather than misleading the Commission with bad faith arguments regarding Polygraphs and GPS - that did not on either side present the heart of the facts of the matter effecting Mr. Boelke.
The time period picked by the city to evaluate his reporting to scenes was very much in the period of the year in which Officer Boelke stated in the interview with SGT Crane that to paraphrase - he stated when Jason got killed - it fucked him up for a year.
It is not my job as someone who is not an attorney to defend a fellow citizen, or to set forth for any citizen a cogent argument that would succeed in assisting a long time dedicated City of Fargo employee to be, for instance, vested in his retirement and to go forth in society viewed as an honorable man.
As a citizen it is my duty to speak truth to power.
I do not believe that command set out to get Officer Boelke in the sense that the conclusions made in the inquiry were literally incorrect; and the analysis that Mr. Boelke could not longer be employed as a police officer being a matter that was untrue, as analysed.
However the BIG LIE the state and city make him live under and the now triple - unreasonable lie - truth - BIG LIE standard that Mr. Boelke (and all Police and all public employees?) is/are expected to live with and tolerate is ethically unsustainable, and can not stand in a Constitutional Republic under law.
That is to say that police may lie as an investigative technique to get the "guilty" to confess. Then the Officers must tell the "truth" to command and in reports and on the witness stand - society can never tolerate any other standard.
But then in the matter of the death of Mr. Boelke's best friend - the government - as it is manifested by for instance the ND Attorney General - has an exemption - the BIG LIE - in which a man that did not kill Officer Moszer is sset up for death by the Officer Jerrod Wagner - who did kill Officer Moszer. This has been since March 8, 2017, when reported to the Governor and each and every member of the ND House and Senate Judiciary Committees - undisputed.
This has been as well the topic of my OPEN LETTER to Governor Burgum - delivered upon him by email and various other members of his cabinet and CJ VandeWalle and State Court Administrator Sally Howella - and a very wide distribution - as well as on my web site that receives may visitors.
The time for the Disciplinary Board to have begun investigating the continued fitness of Mr. Wayne Stenehjem to continue to be ethically eligible to hold a license to practice law was upon the release of the fraudulent report of his Office and the BCI at the end of March 2016.
MS KARA ERICKSON COUNSEL TO THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD WAS SENT BY FIRST CLASS MAIL HER ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT ON 12 SEP 17. AS SUCH EACH AND EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD AND CHIEF JUSTICE VANDEWALLE ARE OBLIGATED THROUGH MS ERICKSON TO HAVE ACTUAL AND FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMUNICATION/AFFIDAVIT. IT IS PRESUMED THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE THE CORRUPTING FACTOR OF THE BIG LIE THROUGHOUT SOCIETY.
All inaction that has not gone to investigating Mr. Stenehjem from that very time is analogous to General George McClellan sitting in encampment for months and months on end with the Army of the Potomac doing - NOTHING.
It is my opinion and complaint that Mr. Erik Johnson, Ms Nancy Morris have acted unethically in this matter and others preceding - such as multiple AG Opinions regarding the violations of the City of Fargo in Open Meetings matters and further other matters that I can and am willing to share with disciplinary counsel and the Disciplinary Board.
Proofs of delivery of the 9 (nine) original affidavits upon Human Resources Office of the City of Fargo - Tuesday September 12, 2017 are the written receipt and audio from Sony camera in my shirt pocket - presented in whole unedited which after visit to HR - continues with my multiple slurping at water fountain and conversation with a gentleman employed it appears by the City of Fargo regarding his office decor and Amazon delivery on Sunday - etc etc..... , there is nothing pertinent after my leaving HR about in the noon hour to about 1300 hours on that date - to the best of my recollection. I had gone to the the Wells Fargo Bank downtown and Main Avenue and a notary executed the affidavits in the 12 (twelve) originals.
Video - camera in shirt pocket - You Tube - unlisted at this moment:
Visit to HR Office and delivery of Affidavits is complete at about the 3:01 minute point - the rest of audio/shirt pocket video is superfluous to the point of delivery - it is all included as to have the complete unedited version of the City Hall delivery visit from camera on to outside the City Hall by library - ending the taping.
Further the receipt:
ALL AFFIDAVITS DELIVERED TO CITY OF FARGO HR DEPARTMENT - APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN FULLY SUPPRESSED AND NOT PRESENTED ETHICALLY TO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS OR MR. MARK FRIESE, ATTORNEY FOR MR. DAVID BOELKE - AT ALL, AS OF HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2017.
PRECISELY THE REASON AN ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT - (ALL 12 EXECUTED AS ORIGINALS) WAS SENT TO MS KARA JEAN ERICKSON, COUNSEL TO THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE NORTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT BY FIRST CLASS MAIL ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2017. THIS WRITER GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE CITY OF FARGO AND THEIR ATTORNEYS - ESPECIALLY IN THIS MATTER MS NANCY MORRIS FOR RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF POLICE DEPARTMENT DISCIPLINARY MATTERS RELATING TO OFFICER MR. DAVID BOELKE. A REQUEST FOR AN OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH DAKOTA HONORABLE MR. WAYNE STENEHJEM WAS SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2017, A SATURDAY - TO GET SUCH REQUEST IN BEFORE 30 DAYS HAD PASSED FROM MY INITIAL REQUEST FOR RECORDS FOR THE CITY.
HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF FARGO EMPLOYEES WERE INVOLVED IN THE DECISION TO SUPPRESS GIVING THE AFFIDAVITS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MEMBERS AND MR. FRIESE IS NOT DEFINITELY KNOWN TO THIS WRITER NOR WHAT THE INVOLVEMENT OF CITY COMMISSIONERS - IF ANY, IN THE DETERMINATION TO SUPPRESS, AT IT APPEARS THE PERIL OF MR. BOELKE'S CIVIL RIGHTS IN ANY AND ALL FUTURE APPEALS AND ANY HOPED FOR CIVIL RIGHTS ABUSE FILINGS IN FEDERAL COURT, THE MATTERS NOT PRESENTED AS A MATTER OF TRUTH AT THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
IT APPEARS THAT THE LAW OFFICE OF MR. ERIK JOHNSON INCLUDING MS NANCY MORRIS MUST HAVE BEEN PRIME DETERMINERS OF THE SUPPRESSION DECISION.
AFTER THE DETERMINATION OF THE CITY OF FARGO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 5-0 TO INDEED FOLLOW THE DECISION OF FARGO POLICE CHIEF DAVID TODD TO TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF OFFICER BOELKE, THIS WRITER ASKED MR. BOELKE'S ATTORNEY MR. MARK FRIESE WHO WAS BUSY COMMENTING TO OTHER REPORTERS STATED TO ME THAT HE HAD NOT SEEN ANY SUCH AFFIDAVI.T -
DESPITE THE FACT THE CITY HAD 9 ORIGINALS - EACH AND EVERY ONE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED FOR THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. HE ASKED ME AS TO WHETHER HE COULD HAVE A COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT.
I REPLIED THAT HIS ORIGINAL HAD BEEN DELIVERED UPON TO CITY OF FARGO HR OFFICE THE DAY PRIOR AND THAT HE (MR. FRIESE) HAD AN ORIGINAL THAT WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CITY. MR. FRIESE STATED HE WOULD GET HIS ORIGINAL FROM MS JILL MINETTE, CITY OF FARGO ND HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.
IT WAS MY OPINION AS TO THE DEMEANOR OF BOTH MS NANCY MORRIS AND EVEN MORE SO MR. ERIK JOHNSON, ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF FARGO, THAT SOMEONE - DISCIPLINARY BOARD - COUNSEL? HAD SPOKEN TO THE CITY ATTORNEYS. WHY WOULD CITY OF FARGO COMMISSIONERS - MAYOR TIMOTHY MAHONEY, COMMISSIONER DAVID PIEPKORN, COMMISSIONER TONY GEHRIG, COMMISSIONER TONY GRINDBERG, COMMISSIONER JOHN STRAND,
SUDDENLY SHOW ANY INTEREST IN THE WRONGFULNESS IN THE SUPPRESSION OF FACTS AND TRUTH IN THE MATTER OF THE KILLING OF OFFICER JASON MOSZER BY SWAT SNIPER JERROD WAGNER AND THEN THE SHOOTING OF MARCUS C. SCHUMACHER SR - AGAIN SWAT OFFICER JERROD WAGNER THE SHOOTER OF MR. SCHUMACHER , PRIOR TO MR. SCHUMACHER'S ALLEGED SUICIDE WEDNESDAY 10 FEB 16.
MR. ERIK JOHNSON APPEARING TO ME TO BE QUITE CAMERA SHY AT THE HEARING OF 13 SEP 17 BEGINNING AT 1730 HOURS (5:30 P.M.)
(BLOGGER SCREWS UP THE PLACEMENT OF THE AFFIDAVIT HEADER NO MATTER HOW CUT AND PASTED)
NOTE - LA SEVAREID NEWS ALONE AMONG THE MEDIA UTILIZED ND OPEN RECORDS ACT TO OBTAIN THE FARGO POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REPORT 0005-2017 RE OFFICER BOELKE -- IT'S CONTENTS SURPRISING - INCLUDED ABOUT FOUR HOURS OF AUDIO INTERVIEWS/INTERROGATION OF OFFICER BOELKE, AND OTHER OFFICERS.
I DID NOT EXPECT TO FIND INFORMATION THAT WOULD CAUSE ME TO SUPPORT DIRECTLY THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF MR. BOELKE - BUT THAT IS WHAT I FOUND AND THEREFORE I DO.
WHY WOULD THE FORUM OR FOR INSTANCE KVLY ASK FOR THE RECORDS RE 00005- 2017? IT ONLY LEADS BACK TO THEIR ACTIVE
CONSCIOUS DETERMINATION TO DECEIVE GOING BACK TO 10-11 FEBRUARY 2016. NOW THE BIG LIE NOW THREATENS TO DEVOUR MULTIPLE GENERATIONS OF THOSE TO BE "PUNISHED" BY THE BIG LIE - JUST AS NORTH KOREAN DICTATOR KIM JONG UN DEMANDS THREE GENERATIONS OF A FAMILY PAY FOR THE ALLEGED AND FALSE TRANSGRESSION OF ONE POLITICAL PRISONER.
THIS IS MY OPINION.... THIS HAS NOT BEEN ASKED FOR BY MR. BOELKE.
I DISSENT FROM A PUNISHMENT STEMMING FROM THE BIG LIE THAT DAMAGES THE BOELKE'S CHILDREN AND PERHAPS THEIR CHILDREN.
I DISSENT.
IN THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FARGO NORTH DAKOTA
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA )
) AFFIDAVIT RE: CIVIL RIGHTS OF MR. ) DAVID BOELKE AND OTHERS. A
COUNTY OF CASS ) CITIZEN’S VIEWPOINT
MARK E. NELSON RESIDING AT 1717 40TH ST S, APT 303, FARGO, ND 58103 AFTER BEING SWORN DEPOSES AND SAYS:
Dear City of Fargo Civil Service Commissioners: Ms Jane Pettinger, Mr. Michael Wenaas, Ms Jane Jordheim, Mr. Paul Grindeland, Mr. Kurt Losee. Also Mr. Mark Friese, Ms Nancy Morris, Mr. Erik Johnson, Ms Jill Minette, Ms Kara Erickson Counsel to the Disciplinary Board, Bismarck ND. Affidavit executed in twelve originals.
This communication contains in my view a position and statements that if not considered in the interests of what I consider the Civil RIghts of Mr. David Boelke may well be dispositive of those rights before this Commission and any further proceedings. This is one citizen’s personal opinion.
Officer David Boelke in interview with SGT Jerod Crane in the presence and counsel of Mr. Mark Friese of Vogel Law Firm. April 20, 2017 at about 4:11 p.m. at the Fargo Police Department. At the timing point of the interview about 28:48 to 29:38 of an interview of about 2 hours, 21 minutes and 18 seconds, as close to a quote as I can interpret, underlined emphasis my own:
I explain through all my evals I give a copious amount of notes. If I don’t think I’m up to par I can usually self identify that. I’m not a loser. So I explain, I explain whenever everytime I get a monthly or whatever to explain the good and the bad nnn you know, none of it is included in my evals, I go through the disaster file you know, of sent e-mails and find those explaining my whole life last year and why I was not going to go looking for trouble. Jason gets killed ya know. I’m going to go to my calls and do the best I can, but I’m going to go and poke the bear and try to get killed. Right or wrong or indifferent, I wanted to explain my side of my eval.
Welcome Commissioners to your collective and individual entry into the historical record of the truths and lies in the deaths of Officer Jason Moszer and Marcus C. Schumacher Sr. and the implications of a Police chain of command that not only use falsehoods to try to get suspects to implicate themselves (please see Mr. Friese’s comments on these matters in his response to the City of Fargo), but then the “truth” from Officers - and I submit as a fact the insistence of individuals from the Attorney General of North Dakota on down to ground command of Red River Valley SWAT, February 10-11 2016, most especially LT William Ahlfeldt, that all must fall into line on the BIG LIE, like it or not and truth be damned.
Regardless of the hurt, fallout and lies forever and the damage to, in my view Officer David Boelke from the loss of his best friend Jason Moszer, - he too now having to live a lie under the BIG LIE to avoid “poking the bear” and trying to get killed. This adding to an unreasonable and indeed unbearable stress placed upon him by representatives and employees and supervisors of the City of Fargo Police Department operating under the color of law - this and all of this against the Peace and Dignity of the State of North Dakota and the Civil RIghts of Mr. David Boelke and other citizens.
Sergeant Jared Crane in his report of interview of Officer David Boelke characterizes Officer Boelke’s reaction to Officer Jason Moszer’s death as:
”Officer Boelke also explained one reason for poor work performance was due to the death of Officer Jason Moszer. Officer Boelke explained how he was hesitant to be proactive with his patrol efforts due to his fears resulting from the death of Officer Moszer.”
Definitions of “poking the bear” that I believe come nearest to explaining the meaning in the present matter:
Deliberately provoke or antagonize someone, especially someone more powerful than oneself.
‘take a lesson from predecessors who have tried to challenge the company's gigantic corporate clients—don't poke the bear’
Also:
verb
- to antagonize a person who can become angry, violent, or who is in a position of authority.
There are other variants of the definition as well.
Commissioners, from the twisted psychological operations voice altered messages I have received and other events experienced recently in my life, I report to you that the bear has been poked. One of my websites - through one of its forwarding addresses:
policecorruption.info
Mr. Boelke’s Counsel and Counsel for the City of Fargo - your counsel, appear to, (I did not attend the meeting of the Civil Service Commission the morning of September 8, 2017) go back and forth contesting matters already raised in the written records - GPS, polygraph examinations and the like. This does not come to a point that can, in my view:
Prevail against the city’s sustained termination determination of Chief Todd on the facts.
Both counsels appear to be deficient in their duty of revealing facts and information to the Commission required to be communicated, if counsel’s failure to communicate the matter of false reporting of the deaths of February 10 and 11 2017 do not give literal rise to discipline through ND state Disciplinary counsel and the ND Supreme Court - the failure to disclose facts places Mr. Boelke at a definite disadvantage in possible future litigation, and if abandoned by counsel for any such possible actions (get matters on the record - every possible record for a client) - places him and his family in peril for psychological and economic deprivations and falls far short of the spirit, if not the letter of the Candor Rule and society's need for truth in the public sphere:
This duty is set forth in: North Dakota Supreme Court N.D.R. Prof. Conduct
RULE 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
(2) Fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer's client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal unless the evidence was contained in testimony of the lawyer's client. If the evidence was contained in testimony of the lawyer's client, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to convince the client to consent to disclosure. If the client refuses to consent to disclosure, the lawyer shall seek to withdraw from the representation without disclosure. If withdrawal is not permitted, the lawyer may continue the representation and such continuation alone is not a violation of these rules. The lawyer may not use or argue the client's false testimony.
(b) Subject to paragraph (a)(3), a lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging, or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding.
(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
Comment
[1] This Rule governs the conduct of a lawyer who is representing a client in the proceedings of a tribunal. See Rule 1.0(p) for the definition of "tribunal". It also applies when the lawyer is representing a client in an ancillary proceeding conducted pursuant to the tribunal's adjudicative authority, such as a deposition. Thus, for example, paragraph (a)(3) requires a lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures if the lawyer comes to know that a client who is testifying in a deposition has offered evidence that is false.
[2] This Rule sets forth the special duties of lawyers as officers of the court to avoid conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process. A lawyer acting as an advocate in an adjudicative proceeding has an obligation to present the client's case with persuasive force. Performance of that duty while maintaining confidences of the client, however, is qualified by the advocate's duty of candor to the tribunal. Consequently, although a lawyer in an adversary proceeding is not required to present an impartial exposition of the law or to vouch for the evidence submitted in a cause, the lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statements of law or fact or evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.
Representations by a Lawyer
[3] An advocate is responsible for pleadings and other documents prepared for litigation, but is usually not required to have personal knowledge of matters asserted therein, for litigation documents ordinarily present assertions by the client, or by someone on the client's behalf, and not assertions by the lawyer. Compare Rule 3.1. However, an assertion purporting to be on the lawyer's own knowledge, as in an affidavit by the lawyer or in a statement to the tribunal, may properly be made only when the lawyer knows the assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry. There are circumstances in which failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation. The obligation prescribed in Rule 1.2(d) not to counsel a client to commit or assist the client in committing a fraud applies in litigation. Regarding compliance with Rule 1.2(d), see the Comment to that Rule. See also the Comment to Rule 8.4(b).
Legal Argument
[4] Legal argument based on knowingly false representation of law constitutes dishonesty toward the tribunal. A lawyer is not required to make a disinterested exposition of the law, but must recognize the existence of pertinent legal authorities. Furthermore, as stated in paragraph (a)(2), an advocate has a duty to disclose directly adverse authority in the controlling jurisdiction which has not been disclosed by the opposing party. The underlying concept is that legal argument is a discussion seeking to determine the legal premises properly applicable to the case.
Offering Evidence
[5] Paragraph (a)(3) requires that the lawyer refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, regardless of the client's wishes. This duty is premised on the lawyer's obligation as an officer of the court to prevent the trier of fact from being misled by false evidence. A lawyer does not violate this Rule if the lawyer offers the evidence for the purpose of establishing its falsity. When false evidence has been offered by a person other than a client and the lawyer thereafter comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer must disclose its false character to the tribunal regardless of the client's wishes.
[6 ] If a lawyer knows that a client intends to testify falsely or wants the lawyer to introduce false evidence, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered. If persuasion is ineffective and the lawyer continues to represent the client, the lawyer must refuse to offer the false evidence. If only a portion of a witness's testimony will be false, the lawyer may call the witness to testify but may not elicit or otherwise permit the witness to present the testimony that the lawyer knows to be false.
[7 ] The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) apply to all lawyers, including defense counsel in criminal cases. See also Comment [9].
[8 ] The prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyer's reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. A lawyer's knowledge that evidence is false, however, can be inferred from the circumstances. See Rule 1.0(g). Thus, although a lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony or other evidence in favor of the client, the lawyer cannot ignore an obvious falsehood.
[9] Although paragraph (a)(3) only prohibits a lawyer from offering evidence the lawyer knows to be false, it permits the lawyer to refuse to offer testimony or other proof that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. Offering such proof may reflect adversely on the lawyer's ability to discriminate in the quality of evidence and thus impair the lawyer's effectiveness as an advocate. Because of the special protections historically provided criminal defendants, however, this Rule does not permit a lawyer to refuse to offer the testimony of such a client where the lawyer reasonably believes but does not know that the testimony will be false. Unless the lawyer knows the testimony will be false, the lawyer must honor the client's decision to testify. See also Comment [7].
Remedial Measures
[10 ] Having offered material evidence in the belief that it was true, a lawyer may subsequently come to know that the evidence is false. Or, a lawyer may be surprised when the lawyer's client, or another witness called by the lawyer, offers testimony the lawyer knows to be false, either during the lawyer's direct examination or in response to cross-examination by the opposing lawyer. In such situations or if the lawyer knows of the falsity of testimony elicited from the client during a deposition, the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures. In such situations, the advocate's proper course is to remonstrate with the client confidentially, advise the client of the lawyer's duty of candor to the tribunal, and seek the client's cooperation with respect to the withdrawal or correction of the false statements or evidence. If that fails, the advocate must take further remedial action. If the evidence is offered by a person other than the client and withdrawal from the representation is not permitted or will not undo the effect of the false evidence, the advocate must make such disclosure to the tribunal as is reasonably necessary to remedy the situation. If the false evidence has been offered by the client, a conflict may arise between the lawyer's duty to keep the client's revelations confidential and the duty of candor to the tribunal. If persuasion of the client is ineffective, the lawyer must seek to withdraw from the representation without disclosure. It is for the tribunal then to determine what should be done—making a statement about the matter to the trier of fact, ordering a mistrial, or perhaps nothing. If withdrawal is not permitted, the lawyer may continue the representation and such continuation alone is not a violation of these Rules. See Comment [15].
[11] The disclosure of false testimony can result in grave consequences to the client, including not only a sense of betrayal but also loss of the case and perhaps a prosecution for perjury. But the alternative is that the lawyer cooperate in deceiving the court, thereby subverting the truth-finding process which the adversarial system is designed to implement. See Rule 1.2(d). Furthermore, unless it is clearly understood that the lawyer will act upon the duty to disclose the existence of false evidence, the client can simply reject the lawyer's advice to reveal the false evidence and insist that the lawyer keep silent. Thus the client could in effect coerce the lawyer into being a party to fraud on the court.
Preserving Integrity of Adjudicative Process
[12] Lawyers have a special obligation to protect a tribunal against criminal or fraudulent conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process, such as bribing, intimidating, or otherwise unlawfully communicating with a witness, juror, court official, or other participant in the proceeding, unlawfully destroying or concealing documents or other evidence, or failing to disclose information to the tribunal when required by law to do so. Thus, paragraph (b) requires a lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure if necessary, whenever the lawyer knows that a person, including the lawyer's client, intends to engage, is engaging, or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding.
Duration of Obligation
[13] A practical time limit on the obligation to rectify false evidence or false statements of law and fact has to be established. The conclusion of the proceeding is a reasonably definite point for the termination of the obligation. A proceeding has concluded within the meaning of this Rule when a final judgment in the proceeding has been affirmed on appeal or the time for review has passed.
Ex Parte Proceedings
[14] Ordinarily, an advocate has the limited responsibility of presenting one side of the matter that a tribunal should consider in reaching a decision. The conflicting position is expected to be presented by the opposing party. However, in an ex parte proceeding, such as an application for a temporary restraining order, there is no balance of presentation by opposing advocates. The object of an ex parte proceeding is nevertheless to yield a substantially just result. The judge has an affirmative responsibility to accord the absent party just consideration. The lawyer for the represented party has the correlative duty to make disclosures of material facts known to the lawyer and that the lawyer reasonably believes are necessary to an informed decision.
Withdrawal
[15] Normally, a lawyer's compliance with the duty of candor imposed by this Rule does not require that the lawyer withdraw from the representation of a client whose interests will be or have been adversely affected by the lawyer's disclosure. The lawyer may, however, be required under Rule 1.16(a) to seek permission of the tribunal to withdraw if the lawyer's compliance with this Rule's duty of candor results in such an extreme deterioration of the lawyer-client relationship that the lawyer can no longer competently represent the client. Also see Rule 1.16(b) for the circumstances in which a lawyer will be permitted to seek a tribunal's permission to withdraw. In connection with a request for permission to withdraw that is premised on a client's misconduct, a lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation only to the extent reasonably necessary to comply with this Rule or as otherwise permitted by Rule 1.6. See also Comment [10].
Reference: Minutes of the Professional Conduct Subcommittee of the Attorney Standards Committee on 03/16/84, 05/23/84, 06/27/84, 08/17/84, 09/13/84, 10/19/84, 12/14/84, 02/08/85, 03/11/85 and 04/26/85; Minutes of the Joint Committee on Attorney Standards on 04/16/04, 06/08/04, 03/18/05, 06/14/05, 09/09/05.
It appears to this citizen that Defense Counsel has the obligation to not represent some sense of general policing, the fraternal order of police, some loyalty to local and ND State Policing that has insisted that the BIG LIE be enforced upon the psyche of Officer Boelke, forcing him to mourn in a false manner unable to discuss the facts in an open manner and David Boelke perhaps needing his friend almost as much as Officer Moszer’s family. It is the duty of the Defense Counsel to zealously represent the civil and employment rights of Mr. Boelke.
If the matters of GPS and polygraph must be argued, so be it. These arguments do not appear to go to a solution on a larger and needed sense of what is Mr. Boelke’s due as a citizen and employee. His civil rights appear to have been abused and he being denied the comfort and association of his friend - under tragic circumstance; that I will only refer to in it’s depth here by reference to the website of mine above.
The now triple standard of 1. lies to suspects, 2. “truth” to superiors 3. Except when the superiors deem the BIG LIE will be imposed upon all - is too much for a person, an employee, the Best Friend of the one taken from him to bear - especially under conditions of already known stress and burnout from years of patrol.
I ask what about the alleged assurances of help from his superiors - in his, Mr. Boelke’s own home? Was the offering of a non sworn position considered. What about consideration that his stress, was just that - a possible literal physiological blow out of adrenal glands. 15 years at war is a long long time. An Endrochronolical defense - yes.
This good man and dedicated Officer described by his Academy Class mate SGT Crane as being the rock star of the class, the person he looked up to, the one from the class with the natural instincts of policing upon hitting the streets. This man has paid his dues and perhaps he can not return to his position with the police department. Yet he sits patiently awaiting justice that perhaps is not within the purview of the Civil Service Commission to deliver.
Mr. Boelke deserves, in my view at least three quarters (15 years) of a full career pension to be fully vested and paid to him at the time when it is due and if he qualifies for a position within the City of Fargo outside the police department, that his application for such position be duly considered. I have never met Mr. Boelke; my views of police malfeasance and deception in the fraudulent reporting and representations and the redactions and suppression of evidence and secreting away and hiding of physical evidence, the calling upon of witnesses to not speak and not speak what they know truthfully in the matters of the false reporting of the deaths of Officer Moszer and Mr. Schumacher are known and on record. The fraudulent reporting in the matter is unacceptable to a free people.
The performance of the press in the matter of the deaths of Officer Moszer and Mr. Schumacher is negligent - co-opted - false. I submit that in the matter of Mr. Boelke while outside the scope of the Civil Service Commission of Fargo to deliver by itself and directly, that Mr. Boelke be offered a settlement amount for the violations of his Civil RIghts of, for instance, $ 1,700,000.00 (one million seven hundred thousand dollars), legal fees, and an apology from the city to have his good name restored and his family appropriately considered.
Outside the purview of the City of Fargo Civil Service Commission is in my opinion the fact that Mrs. Michelle Schumacher in view of severe determined intent to deprive her of her civil rights deserves a substantial settlement from the City of Fargo far in excess of the approximate $12,000.00 (twelve thousand dollars) allegedly paid to her for her home; the home the city needed to demolish fully to assuage the guilt of the Officer Moszer killing police. Police knew Michelle’s husband Marcus was dead by 10:40 p.m.. Yet Lt Ahlfeldt and others set about a course to wrongly, corruptly, and in bad faith destroy newly widowed Michelle Schumacher’s home with more CS gas, battering from Bear Cats and robots for an additional six hours as they scrambled to hide evidence, get a plausible story line partially together to be corruptly reported by the ND Office of Attorney General/BCI 50 days later. Her Civil RIghts appear to have violently abused, this even if her husband be rightfully identified as the perpetrator of the evening and nights tragic events. Mr. Schumacher did not fire the shot that killed Officer Moszer.
What is so attractive, so cherished, so admired, about the BIG LIE that it is to this very hour more important than the lives and rights and future prospects of Mr. Boelke and his family? It seems to me that matters not raised in this forum, will be opposed in every future matter by the City of Fargo. Issues need to be raised now. Will the Fraternal Order of Police after a defeat before the Civil Service Commission and City Commission, then instruct Mr. Friese and Vogel Law to proceed upon a civil rights action in the Federal Courts, then raising issues not raised in administrative hearings? Upon withdrawal of financing for defense will Vogel Law defend Mr. Boelke’s Civil Rights in the Federal Courts pro bono?
Supporters of Mr. Boelke frankly need to do a thorough examination of conscious and ask themselves - do I truly support David Boelke and family? Or is my support for Mr. David Boelke as sincere as an “I’ll think about it” to the Exectrolux Vacuum cleaner salesman on the doorstep? Is your actual support for Mr. Boelke so shallow that in reality you cherish the BIG LIE to such a degree that Mr. Boelke may be pitched under the bus?
The greatest historical event of the last five hundred years is the rise of the United States. As the nation appears to be headed to a cataclysmic war should we be opposed to the simple recognition of the fact that we reap what we sow - Karma, to natural law, to the laws of God? No. To be so opposed to God’s laws and truth, it appears to beg for God’s Wrathful Judgement, to allude to Ambassador Nikki Halley’s recent comments at the United Nations Security Counsel, does it appear to God that this city, this state is begging for judgment?
We must do better for ourselves, our fellow citizens - to include Mr. Andrew Sadek, Mr. Dustin Irwin, Mr. Tom Sander, Mr. Tom Bearson, Dr. Jon Norburg, Mr. Aaron Knodel; most of these people respected pillars of the community - yet picked out by the almighty state for abuse and retribution. And what of those people Michelle Alexander has referred to as “the poorest and darkest amoung us” ?
Civil Service Commissioners tell the City Commission that the Civil Service Commission requires independent counsel to proceed under its own motion to investigate matters at hand. Your duties to include investigative powers under your own motion and leave should be vigorously proceeded upon the matter at hand. I would suggest that you consider Mr. Robert Hoy and/or Mr. Christopher McShane of Ohnstad Twitchell Law Firm of West Fargo ND. The preceeding reflects this one citizen’s perception, opinion. Thank You.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Nelson
LA Sevareid Newsgroup as a public necessity for the historical record and as a civic duty
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOUGHT
SUBSCRIBED TO AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME A NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE COUNTY OF CASS ON THIS 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017 AT FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA
_________________________________________________________________________
THE RECORD OF NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS ON EACH AND EVERY AFFIDAVIT DELIVERED UPON THE CITY AND THE OFFICIAL NOTARIAL RECORD LOCATED AT WELLS FARGO BANK - MAIN AVENUE - FARGO ND - ALL EXECUTED IN THE ORIGINAL 12 ORIGINALS - NOTARIZED 12 SEP 17 AND DELIVERED UPON THE CITY AND CORRUPTLY SUPPRESSED - (AGAIN)
please visit:
policecorruption.info
so much turmoil in the world - here is some humor, if you have the stomach:
https://northdakotacorruptionjoke.blogspot.com/
please visit:
policecorruption.info
so much turmoil in the world - here is some humor, if you have the stomach:
https://northdakotacorruptionjoke.blogspot.com/
