Download pdf - Comes now, Leland Thomas - North Dakota Supreme Court

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

In the Supreme Court ofNorth DakotaEx Parte: Leland Thomas: Schneider

Case Nos.

RE: STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

47-2016-CR-00544

JA-2016-CR-00656

JA-2016-CR-00657

Plaintiff

v.

Leland Thomas; Schneider

Defendant

Comes now, Leland Thomas; Schneider, In want of council, petitions the above-named Courtfor a Writ ofProhibition.

PLAINTIFF'S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

1. That the undersigned, in want ofcounsel and laymen without law school training, hereby

invoke the rights, and the indulgence of this Court, as enunciated by the Supreme Court of

the United States Allegations such as those asserted by the Plaintiffs, however in artfully

pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 and Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,45 -46 (1957). See Dioguardi v.

Darning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944) and;

2. The Right of the people to a COURT OF RECORD has been guaranteed by The North

Dakota Constitution, Section 110 and this action shall be brought by the convening a Court

of Record; and

3. The Plaintiffs declare that all utterances and written words in this above styled action shall

be defined in the "BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY", Fifth Edition (1979) and all words not

found in fifth edition of Blacks shall be defined in "WEBSTER'S THIRD

INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY." This requirement shall hold true for both the

defendant and the plaintiff; and

4. Plaintiffs reserve the right to oral hearings before being dismissed;

5. The aforementioned Petitioners reserve the right to have any and all Federal Questions and

or Claims heard by a Federal Court ofthe proper venue,which will include questions of

exclusive jurisdictionenactedby Congress in the Bankruptcy Act of 1949 and of 1978 and

codified in the US code and US Code Annotated title 11-185,11-362, and 11-554 and all

Petition for Writ ofProhibition Page 1 of 18

20160395

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT NOVEMBER 30, 2016

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

other unknown orknown federal questions. England v. Louisiana Medical Examiners 375

US 411 (1964) Federal Practice and Procedure, byCharles Alan Wright and Mary Kay

Kane, Vol. 20, Chapter 8, § 54, page 444; and

6. Plaintiffs reserve their rights toreceive a"findings of facts and conclusions of law" pursuant

to NDRCP 52 and FRCP 52; and

7. All Rights reserved by the people in theNorth Dakota Constitution Article 1,Declaration ofrights and the unitedstates of America Bill of rights; and

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

Jurisdiction comes from North DakotaCentury Code 32-35-01 etc. al.; and Power toissueWrits comes from North Dakota Constitution Sections§§ 87,103; and

The United States Supreme Court (359 U.S. 275 at 285)

Interstate Compacts

Article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution grants states the authority to enter into an "agreement or

compact with another state" with the consent of Congress. The constitution contains no restrictions on the

subject matter of a compact and is silent about due process by which states may enter into compacts, with the

exception of the required consent of Congress. The United States Supreme Court (359 U.S. 275 at 285)

opinion in 1959 that an interstate compact is a "contract" protected by the Constitution's contract

clause forbidding a state legislature to enact a "law impairing the obligation of contracts."

Description of Ex Parte:

1. Leland Thomas; Schneider, (hereinafter"Leland") is one ofGod's people domiciledwithin the State ofNorth Dakota, without the UNITED STATES a Secure Third PartyCreditor And Beneficiary of the Public Trust; and

2. Leland is the Defendant in Cases NO. 47-2016-CR-00544, JA-2016-CR-00656, and JA-2016-CR-00657; and

Description ofViolators:

1. City of Jamestown, for all intents and purposes in and for this action is a Corporation,acting in its capacity; and City of Jamestown in the official capacity is acting as theinjured party and Plaintiff in the aforementioned cases; and

2. McKenzie Schultz, Acting Peace Officer, Officer for the City of Jamestown, Arrestingofficer, filed invalid Ex Post Facto complaint in Cases NO. 47-2016-CR-00544, JA-2016-CR-00656, and JA-2016-CR-00657; and

3. Andrew Noreen, Acting PeaceOfficer for the City ofJamestown, Backup Officer, TazingOfficer, only witness to take the Stand for Felony Charges in District Court; and

Petition for Writ of ProhibitionPage 2 of 18

4. Andrew Stoen, Acting Peace Officer for the City ofJamestown, Backup Officer; and

5. James Hunt, Acting Lieutenant and Shift Supervisor, Officer of the City ofJamestown,BackupOfficeron scene the Night of the Incident; and

6. John Greenwood, Acting Judicial Officerfor the State ofNorth Dakota SouthEastDistrict in Case NO. 47-2016-CR-00544 held the bond hearing knowing full well that theNDCC was invalid and unconstitutional; and

7. Katherine Marilyn Naumann, Acting Assistant District States Attorney for the State ofNorth Dakota for Stutsman County; and

8. Jeff P. Davis, Current Acting Assistant District States Attorney for the State ofNorthDakota for Stutsman County; and

9. Scott Edinger, Acting Peace Officer, Jamestown Police Department ChiefofPolice forthe City of Jamestown; and

10. James D Hovey, Acting as Judicial Officer for the State ofNorth Dakota SE District, wasPresiding Judge over the Preliminary Hearing in Case NO. 47-2016-CR-00544 held thePreliminary Hearingknowingfull well that the NDCCwas invalid and unconstitutional;and

11. Timothy J Ottmar, JudicialOfficerfor the Cityof Jamestown, Municipal Court wasPresiding Judgeover the Preliminary Hearing in Casesno. JA-2016-CR-00656, JA-2016-CR-00657 held the Preliminary Hearing knowing full well that the NDCC was invalid andunconstitutional; and

12. Barbara Hill, ActingClerkof Courtfor the SE DistrictCourt,was presiding over thePreliminary Hearing in Case NO. 47-2016-CR-00544, was order to Dismiss theActions ;and

13. Brenda Knapp, Acting Clerk of Court fortheJamestown Municipal Court; and

14. ThomasE. Merrick, Current ActingJudicial Officerfor the State of North DakotaSouthEast District; and

15. Thomas E Goven, CurrentActingJudicial Officer for the City of Jamestown, MunicipalCourt; and

16. KaraE. Brinster, Acting Attorney for the Jamestown Municipal Courtand the CityofJamestown; and

17. Sally Holewa, Acting Administrator of thecourts for the state of NorthDakota, fullyinformed of the violations, actions, and inactions of the State Agents, and

Petition for Writ ofProhibitionPage 3 of 18

18. Katie Anderson, Acting Mayor of the Cityof Jamestown, Fully informed of theviolations of theMunicipal Courts and agents for thestate ofNorth Dakota and theCityof Jamestown; and

FACTS OF THE CASE

19. On orabout August 12*2016, Leland, was outside ofhis Automobile atthe time ofanUnwarranted Traffic Stop in his Driveway, Leland had a verbal exchange with McKenzieSchultz informing the Officer that he was in the Act ofTrespass, Lacked Jurisdiction, andNeeded a Warrant; and

20. Mckenzie Schultz extricated Leland from the Top Step ofhis Home with excessive force,backup had Arrived and assisted in the Kidnapping of Leland; and

21. On orabout August 12th 2016, Andrew Noreen assisted by tazing Leland inthe Back,causing a Physical injury to Leland and a Loss of Blood on the Scene. Andrew Stoen andJames Hunt Arrived and assisted in the Kidnapping and Imprisonment of Leland, causinga Deprivation ofRights; and

22. On orabout August 12th 2016, McKenzie Schultz filed aninvalid Ex Post FactoComplaint, Docket#2 (Exhibit A); and

23. Leland was charged Failure to Halt Statute22-14, Criminal Mischief Statute 22-3.17(B),Preventing Arrest or Discharge ofotherDutiesNDCC 12.1-08-02, SimpleAssault on aPeace Officer NDCC 12.1-17-01(2)(A) Docket#2(Exhibit B); and

24. The North Dakota CenturyCode does not containthe constitutionally required enactingclauses requirement to invoke Subject Matter Jurisdiction; and

25. No Warrant was issued for an Arrest; and

26. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "the right of the people to besecure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable

cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describingthe place to besearched, and the persons or things to be seized."

27. A GrandJury was not called for an indictment in a felonyper requirements of Article 1,§8 of the Constitution ofthe State ofNorth Dakota; and

28. During the process of the case Defendant Leland caused to file Answer Docket#8(Exhibit C), Counter Complaint Docket #9(Exhibit D), and Briefand MemorandumofLaw for in Support of the Counterclaim, see Docket # 13 (Exhibit E) on Case Nos.47-2016-CR-00544, JA-2016-CR-00656, and JA-2016-CR-00657; and

Petition for Writ of ProhibitionPage 4 of18

29. On orabout August 12th 2016, John Greenwood held the bond hearing knowing full wellthat the NDCC was invalid and unconstitutional, stated, and questioned how thisescalated; then stopped Leland from his Explanation due to it being Facts of the Case;and

30. On orabout September 21st 2016, Timothy Ottmar held theArraignment Hearing for theCity of Jamestown Municipal Court, in Cases no. JA-2016-CR-00656, JA-2016-CR-00657,where Leland did not Suffer From Constitutional Psychopathic Inferiority, thenTimothy Ottmar entered the Plea for Leland ofNot Guilty for him; and

31. Timothy Ottmar held the hearing knowing full well that the NDCC was invalid andunconstitutional; and

32. Onor about September 29st 2016, James Hovey held theArraignment Hearing for theState ofNorth Dakota SE District, in Cases no. 47-2016-CR-00544 where Leland did not

Suffer From Constitutional Psychopathic Inferiority; and

33. James D Hovey, held the Arraignment Hearing knowing full well that the NDCC wasinvalid and unconstitutional, Leland made every attempt to have the case Dismiss forLack ofJurisdiction, and Lack ofDue Process, and then James D Hovey entered the Pleafor Leland ofNot Guilty for him; and

34. Barbara Hill was presiding over the ArraignmentHearing in Case NO. 47-2016-CR-00544, was Ordered to Dismiss the Action; and

35. District case Initial Apperance was John Greenwood presiding, Preliminary Hearingwas James D Hovey presiding, then James D Hovey Recused himself Docket #19, caseswere then Assigned to John Greenwood Docket #23(Exhibit F), whom Recused himselfDocket # 25,; and

36. On orabout October 25th 2016, Thomas Merrick was appointed to the Case inThe SouthEast District Court Docket #26 (Exhibit G); and

37. Onor about November 8th 2016, Thomas Merrick struck from the record TheAnswer,Counter Complaint, and Brief and Memorandum of Law without hearing the Facts of theCase or Asserting the Law of the Case provided within the Brief and Memorandum oflaw. Thomas Merrick instead suppressed the Record and Struck AforementionedDocuments which had passed the 30 day required Response time, furthering the Lack ofDue Process and Deprivation ofRights Docket # 27(Exhibit H),; and

38. On orabout October 27th 2016, Timothy Ottmar had been Disqualified from theMunicipal Case for Fraud upon the Court and Thomas Goven has been appointed.,(Exhibit I); and

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

Page 5 of 18

39. Onorabout November 10th 2016, Thomas Goven struck from the record The Answer,Counter Complaint, and Briefand Memorandum of Law without hearing the Facts of theCase or Asserting the Law ofthe Case provided within the Brief and Memorandum oflaw, he instead suppressed the Record and Struck Aforementioned Documents furtheringthe Lack ofDue Process and Deprivation ofRights, (Exhibit J); and

40. Since the initiation of all actions Brenda Knapp, Fails to keep a Record of FiledDocuments, Refiises to Take Documents, and Fails to Keep NDCourts.gov as a Record ofFiled Document, (Municipal Dockets Exhibit A ); and

41. Sally Holewa was fully informed of the violations, actions, and inactions of the StateAgents, Deprivation ofRights, Lack ofDue Process, and Unwarranted Arrest; and

42. On orabout November 22nd 2016, Scott Edinger, Informed Leland that theJudge(unknown) order the Municipalities to No Longer receive any Documents fromLeland, which is a blatant disregard to Leland and his ability to Defend himself,eliminating Due Process; and

43. Trial to beheld in Municipal Court Friday December 16th 2016; and

44. Trial to beheld in District Court Thursday December 29th 2016; and

ISSUES OF THE CASE

45. The Initial arrest was perpetrated from a Traffic stop in Leland's yard outside theJurisdiction of the City Officer, NDCC40-05-01.3. City traffic ordinances to apply tostreets within mobile home parks, and not the Private Individuals yard or home unlesswarranted uponprobablecause, supported by Oathor affirmation, and particularlydescribing the place to be searched, and the personsor things to be seized as per the4thAmendment to the Constitution for the United States; and

46. Thus Lack ofJurisdiction is bringingfraud upon the court. Denying Due Process of Lawand in violation of other Federal and State Laws and statutes, which in turn violates thepublic or private confidence, withthe effect of impairing or injuring public interest, andis therefore prohibited by law; and

47. The Agents in the Aforementioned actionshave Knowledge of statutes and areconstitutionally required as well known and in fact the aforementionedgovernmentofficialshad a duty to act with a duty to correctthe situationhave been notified to thateffect.

48. Aforementioned Police Officers, Used an invalid charging instrument. North DakotaCentury Code, Failure to Halt Statute 22-14, Criminal Mischief Statute 22-3.17(B),Preventing Arrest or Discharge ofother Duties NDCC 12.1-08-02, Simple Assault on aPeace Officer NDCC 12.1-17-01(2)(A), see (Exhibit B); and the Constitution of theState of North Dakota Article 2 §59, Circa 1889 "The enacting clause ofevery law

Petition for Writ of ProhibitionPage 6 of 18

shall be asfollows: "Be it enactedbytheLegislative Assembly oftheState ofNorthDakota. The North Dakota Century code contains no enacting Clause, Thus not a validlaw, Thus no Subject Matter Jurisdiction; and

49. McKenzie Schultz employed by the Jamestown Police Department filed a Ex Post Factcomplaint, see (Exhibit B); and McKenzie Schultz was the aggressor; and

50. Andrew Noreen was nota competent 1st party witness, was not injured nordidhe have acompetent injured third party to create a valid charging instrument, thus no personaljurisdiction; and

51. The Ex Post Facto Complaint was approved by Katherine Marilyn Naumann; and

52. The Lack of issuing a warrant for the arrest and all the resulting actions while the judgesinvolved having full knowledge of the lack ofjurisdiction for they are learned in the lawand have no excuse not to know the law; and

53. The Aforementioned actors having acted in concert to deprive Leland Thomas; Schneiderof his Constitutionally protectedGod givenun-a-lienable rights: of Life, Liberty andProperty; and

VIOLATIONS OF LAW

54. McKenzie Schultz, Andrew Noreen, Andrew Stoen, James Hunt, James D Hovey,Katherine Marilyn Naumann, John Greenwood, Timothy J Ottmar, Barbara Hill, BrendaKnapp, Thomas E. Merrick, Thomas E Goven, KaraE. Brinster, SallyHolewa, KatieAnderson,a man or a woman as the case may be, being of flesh and blood, having takenan Oathto support anddefend the United States Constitution, Andthe Constitution of theState of North Dakotadid willfullyand knowingly violate said oath by failing to timelymove to protect anddefend the United States Constitution andthe Constitution of theState ofNorth Dakota; and

55. The aforementioned Violators having been learned in the law and having no excuse not toknowthe Law broughtthis instantaction, fullyknowing the court was withoutjurisdiction, beforethe courts is a violation of the rightsto the aforementioned petitionerand some or all of the Proceeding International, Federal, and State Laws; and

56. Having full knowledge by the wayof notice by U.S. mail andthe proximity of the actionwere fully aware of the violations but having failed to act as required by law theaforementioned are guilty of the but not limited to the following:

Petition for Writ ofProhibitionPage 7 of 18

Principles of International Law:Recognized in the Charter of the Niirnberg Tribunal and the Judgment of the Tribunal

Principle IAny person who commits an act which constitutesa crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

Principle IIThe fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime underinternational law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility underinternational law.

Principle IIIThe fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law actedas Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility underinternational law.

Principle IVThe fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or ofa superior does not relieve himfrom responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle VAny person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts andlaw.

Principle VIThe crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging ofa war ofaggression or a war in violation ofinternational treaties, agreements or assurances;(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the actsmentioned under (i).

(b) War crimes:Violations ofthe laws or customs ofwar which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose ofcivilian population oforin occupied territory, murder or ill-treatmentofprisoners of war, ofpersons on the seas,killing ofhostages, plunder of public or privateproperty, wanton destruction ofcities, towns,or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity:Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against anycivilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such actsare 3 done or such persecutionsare carried on in execution ofor in connection with any crimeagainst peace or any war crime.

Principle VIIComplicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime againsthumanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

FEDERAL VIOLATIONS OF LAW

TITLE 18 U.S. Code § 4. Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United

States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in


Page 8 of 18

civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this tide or imprisoned not more

than three years, or both.

TITLE 18 U.S. Code §2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of

the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort there to, shall be fined under this tide or

imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United

States

TITLE 18 U.S. Code §2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of die United States, or to

levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay

the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the

United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this tide or imprisoned not

more than twenty years, or both.

TITLE 18 U.S. Code § 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State,

Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or

privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so

exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises ofanother, with intent to prevent

or hinder his free exercise or enjoymentof any right or privilegeso secured They shall be fined under this

tide or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed inviolation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual

abuseor an attemptto commitaggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined underthis

tide or imprisoned for any term of yearsor for life,or both,or may be sentencedto death.

TITLE 18 U.S. Code § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person

in any State,Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,

or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to differentpunishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of Ids color, or

race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this tide or imprisoned notmore than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this

section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use ofa dangerous weapon, explosives,

or fire, shall be fined under this tide or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results

from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to

kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill,

shall be fined under this title, or imprisonedfor any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced

to death.

Petition for Writ ofProhibition

Page 9 of 18

TITLE 18 U.S. Code §1621 Perjury

Perjury generally: Whoever—(1) having taken an oath before a competenttribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the

United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certifytruly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true,willfUlly and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believeto be true; or

(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statementunder penaltyof perjuryas permitted under

section 1746oftitle 28, United StatesCode, willfully subscribes as true any material matterwhich he

does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by

law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable

whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

TITLE 18 U.S. Code §2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against diem or adheres to their enemies,

giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty oftreason And shall suffer

death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this tide but not less than $10,000;

and shall be incapable ofholding any office under the United States.

TITLE 18 U.S. Code §2382. Misprision of treasonWhoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason

against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the

President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a

particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this tide or imprisoned not more

than seven years, or both.

TITLE 18 U.S. Code §1341. Frauds and swindles

Whoever, having devised or intendingto devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtainingmoney

or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to self dispose of,loan, exchange, alter, give away,distribute, supply, or furnish or procure forunlawful use any counterfeitor spurious coin,obligation, security, or otherarticle, or anything represented to be or intimated orheld

out to be such counterfeitor spurious article, forthe purpose ofexecuting such scheme or artificeor

attempting so to do, places in any postoffice orauthorized depository for mailmatter, anymatter orthingwhatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or

doing whateverto be sent or deliveredby any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives

there from, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causesto be deliveredby mad or such carrier

according to the direction thereon,or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the persontowhom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than

20 years,or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than

$1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.


Page 10 of 18

18 U.S. Code Section 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to doso, or, with intentto do so takes and carriesawayany record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or

otherthing, filed or deposited withany clerkor officerof anycourtof the UnitedStates,or in any publicoffice, or withanyjudicialor public officerof the United States, shallbe finedunderthis titleor imprisonednot more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, havingthe custodyof any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing,willfullyand unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates,obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined

under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified

from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include

the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

TITLE 42 U.S. Code 1983

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of anyState or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizenof the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of anyrights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to theparty injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, exceptthat in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in suchofficer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decreewas violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Actof Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be astatute of the District of Columbia.

18 U.S. Code §1346For the purposes of this chapter, the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a schemeor artifice to deprive another of the intangible right ofhonest services.

VIOLATIONS OF STATE LAW

NDCC 12.1-06.1RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONSf."Racketeering" means any act including any criminal attempt, facilitation,solicitation, or conspiracy, committed for financial gain, which is chargeable orindictable under the laws of the state in which the act occurred and, if the actoccurred in a state other than this state, would be chargeable or indictable underthe laws of this state had the act occurred in this state and punishable byimprisonment for more than one year, regardless ofwhether such act is chargedor indicted, involving:

NDCC12.1-07-01. Treason.

Treason as defined in section 17 of article I ofthe Constitution ofNorth Dakota is a class A

felony.

NDCC 12.1-11-01. Perjury.1.A person is guilty ofperjury, a class C felony, if, in an official proceeding,


Page 11 of 18

the person makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth ofa false statement previously made,when the statement is material andthe person does not believe thestatement to be true.

2.Commission of perjury neednot be proved by any particular number ofwitnesses orby documentary orother types ofevidence.

NDCC 12.1-11-02. False statements.1.A personis guilty ofa class A misdemeanorif, in an official proceeding, he makes a false statement,whetheror not material, under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of such a statementpreviously made, ifhe does not believe the statement to be true.

NDCC12.1-11-05. Tampering with public records.1.A person is guilty ofan offense if he:

a.Knowinglv makes a false entry in or false alteration of a government record; or

b.Knowingly, without lawful authority, destroys, conceals, removes, or otherwise

impairs the verity or availability ofa government record.

3.In this section "government record" means:a.Any record, document or thing belonging to. or received or kept by thegovernment for information or record.

NDCC12.1-11-06. Public servant refusing to perform duty.Any public servant who knowingly refuses to perform any duty imposed upon him by law is guilty ofaclass A misdemeanor

NDCC12.1-18-01. Kidnapping.l.A person is guilty ofkidnapping ifhe abducts anotheror, having abducted another continues to restrain himwith intent to do the following:

a.Hold him for ransom or reward:

b.Use him as a shield or hostage:

c.Hold him in a condition of involuntary servitude:

d.Terrorize him or a third person;e.Commit a felony or attempt to commit a felony: or

f.Interfere with the performance ofany governmental or political function.

NDCC 12.1-18-03. Unlawful imprisonment.1.A person is guiltyofa classA misdemeanor ifhe knowinglysubjects another to unlawfulrestraint.

NDCC 12.1-12-01. Bribery.1.A person is guilty ofbribery, a class C felony, ifhe knowingly offers, gives, oragrees to giveto another, orsolicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another, a thingofvalueasconsideration for:

a.The recipient's official action as a public servant; orb.The recipient's violation ofa known legalduty as a public servant.

2.1t is no defense to a prosecution underthis sectionthata recipient was not qualifiedto act in the desiredwaywhether because he had not yet assumed office, or lacked jurisdiction, or for any other reason.

NDCC12.1-06-04. Criminal conspiracy.1.A person commits conspiracy ifhe agrees with oneormore persons to engage in orcause conductwhich, infact, constitutesan offense or offenses, and any one or more of such personsdoes an overt act to effect anobjective ofthe conspiracy. The agreement neednot be explicitbut may be implicit in the factofcollaborationor existence ofother circumstances.


Page 12 of 18

2.1fa personknows or could expect that one with whom he agrees has agreedor will agreewith anothertoeffect the same objective, he shallbe deemed to have agreed with the other, whether or not he knows theother's identity.3.A conspiracyshall be deemed to continue until its objectives areaccomplished,frustrated, or abandoned. "Objectives" includes escape from the scene ofthe crime,distribution ofbooty, and measures, other than silence, for concealing the crime orobstructing justice in relation to it. A conspiracy shall be deemed abandoned ifno overt act to effect itsobjectives has been committed by any conspiratorduring the applicable period of limitations.

CASE CITINGS

57. Brief and Memorandum of Law in Support of the Counter Complaint as though fullystated herein(Exhibit E ); and

58. "...where any state proceeds against a private individual in a judicial forum it is wellsettled that the state, county, municipality, etc. waives any immunity to counters, crossclaims and complaints, by direct or collateralmeans regarding the matters involved." —Luckenback v. The Thekla, 295 F 1020,226 U.S. 328; Lyders v. Lund, 32 F2d 308;Dexter v. Kunglig /., 43 F2d 705,282 US 896; U.S. v. N.C.B.N.Y., 83 F2d 236,106ALR 1235, affirmed; Russia v. ETC, 4 F Supp 417,299 U.S. 563.

59. "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is afraud perpetrated by officers ofthe court so that the judicial machinery cannot performin the usual manner its impartial task ofadjudging cases that are presented foradjudication. Kenner v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue.. 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7Moorefs Federal Practice, 2ded.,p. 512,160.23.

60. "The elements ofwire fraud under Section 1343 directly parallel those ofthe mail fraudstatute, but require the use ofan interstate telephone call or electronic communicationmade in furtherance of the scheme. " United States v. Briscoe. 65 F.3d 576, 583 (7th Cir.1995) (citing United States v. Ames Sintering Co.. 927 F.2d 232,234 (6th Cir. 1990);United States v. Frey, 42 F.3d 795,797 (3d Cir. 1994)

61. "Fraud in its elementary common law sense ofdeceit... includes the deliberateconcealment ofmaterial information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public officialis a fiduciary toward the public,... and ifhe deliberatelyconceals material informationfrom them he is guilty of fraud" McNally v. U.S.. 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. vHolier. 816F.2d. 304,307

CASE CITINGS: Disqualification of a Judge

62. "Disqualification is required ifan objective observer would entertain reasonablequestions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state ofmind leads adetached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge mustbe disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Litekv v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147,1162 (1994).


Page 13 of 18

63. "Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality ofa judge is not arequirement, only the appearance ofpartiality". Lilieberg v. Health Services AcquisitionCorp.. 486 U.S. 847, 108S.Ct. 2194 (1988)

64. "what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance United States v.Balistrieri. 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985)

65. "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes thathe has received justice. " Pfizer Inc, v. Lord 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972)

66. "justice must satisfy the appearance ofjustice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80S.Ct. 1038(1960

67. "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support ofrecusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the statedcircumstances. Taylor \. CPGradv. 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

68. "The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on theDue ProcessC/gare.ffUnited States v. Sciuto. 521 F.2d842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996)

69. "That the United States Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, held that any judgewho acts without jurisdiction is engaged in an act of treason \ U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200,216, 101, S. Ct. 471,66L.Ed. 2d392,406 (1980): Cohens v. Virginia. 19 U.S. (6 Wheat)264,404, 5 LEd

70. "Each citizen acts as a private attorney general whoon the mantel of sovereign \Wood v.Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7,10-11 (E.D. Wis. 1972). Frankenhauser v. Rizzo. 59 F.R.D. 339

(E.D.Pa. 1973).

CASE CITINGS OF FRAUD

71. "fraudvitiates and destroys everything into which it enters. " Verry v. Murphy.(163N.W. 2d 721) Supreme Court ofNorth Dakota page 731 , [19] (1)

72. "Silence can only be equatedwithfraud where there is a legal or moralduty to speak, orwhere an inquiry left unanswered wouldbe intentionally misleading... "U.S. v. Twee^550 F. 2d 297,299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021,1032;

73. "Deceit, deception, artifice, or trickery operatingprejudicially on the rights ofanother,andso intended, by inducing him topart with property or surrender some legal right".23 Am J2d Fraud §2. "Anything calculated to deceive another to hisprejudice andaccomplishing the purpose, whether it be an act, a word, silence, the suppression ofthetruth, or otherdevice contrary to theplain rules ofcommon honesty"23 AmJ2d Fraud§2

74. The law requiresgoodfaith in business transactions and will not allow oneparty towillfully misleador deceive another. " Stevens v. Barnes, 43 N.D. 438,175 N.W. 709,


Page 14 of 18

75. "There is no question ofthe general doctrine thatfraud vitiates the most solemncontracts, documents, and evenjudgments." United States v Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61

76. "The Constitution ofthese UnitedStates is the supreme law ofthe land. Any law that isrepugnant to the Constitution is null and void ofthe law. " Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1,78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)

77. "The court is toprotect against any encroachment ofConstitutional liberties." Mirandav. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

78. "Constructive Fraud:A contractor act, which, not originating in evil design andcontrivance toperpetuate a positivefraud or injury upon otherpersons, yet, by itsnecessary tendency to deceive or mislead them, or to violate a public orprivateconfidence, or to impairor injure public interest, is deemedequally reprehensible withpositivefraud, and therefore is prohibited by law,..." Bovier9s Law Dictionary-1856Edition, and

CASE CITINGS: JURISDICTION and DUE PROCESS

79. Is a state court judge, who has been individually divested ofall jurisdiction over a case byvirtue ofbeing affirmatively disqualified, who refuses to acknowledge his owndivestment, and thereafter commits unconstitutional torts solely under color of the case inwhich he knows, or should know, that he has lost all jurisdiction, subject to 42 U.S.C.Hirschfeld v. Rogers and the 11thAmendment ofthe United States Constitution, and

80. "When enforcing mere statutesjudges of all courts do not act judicially, (and thusprotected by "qualified" or '(limitedimmunity, " (—SEE: Owen v. City, 445 U.S. 662;Bothke v. Terrv. 713 F2d 1404) " but merely act as an extension as an agent for the

involved agency but only in a^'ministerial" and not a "discretionary capacity...Thompsonv. Smith, 154 S.E. 579. 583: Keller vJP.E.. 261 US 428: F.R.C. v. 281, U.S. 464.

81. "....it is the responsibility of the United States Attorney and his senior staff to create a

culture where"win-at-any-cost" prosecution is not permitted.Indeed,such a culture must be mandated from the highest levels of the United Stated

Department of Justice and the United States Attorney General. It is equally important thatthe courts of the United States must let it be known that, when substantial abuses occur,

sanctions will be imposed to make the risk ofnon-compliance too costly." United Statesv. Shavean. 661F.Supp.2d 1289,1292 (S.D.Fla. 2009).

82. "The United States Attorney is the representative not ofan ordinary party to a

controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling

as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution

is not that it shall win the case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiarand very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim ofwhich is that guilt shall


Page 15 of 18

not escapeor innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, heshoulddo so. But while he may strikehard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones, itis as much his duty to refrain from improper methodscalculatedto produce a wrongfulconviction as it is to use every legitimatemeans to bring about a just one." Berger v.United States. 78,88(1955).

83. "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitutionwithout violating his undertaking to support it. "Mattoxv. U.S., 156 US 237,243.

84. "Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, fromliability. For they are deemed to know the law. "Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,1974

85. "A Constitution differs from a statute... The Constitution is theframework ofthegovernment containing thegeneral principles and builds upon which it mustfunction... Itrepresents the will of the people deriving its 'force directly from the people themselves.Statutes by contrast, are enactments and rules for the government of civil conduct,promulgated by the legislative authority of the state; 16 Am iurld §2 Constitutional Law

86. "The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that isrepugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law. Cooper v. Aaron. 358 U.S. 1, 78S.Ct. 1401 (1958).

87. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation, which would abrogate them." Miller v. U.S., 230 F2d.486,489

88. "Sincesuchjurisdictionaldefectdeprives not only the initial court but also the appellatecourtof its powerover the caseor controversy, to permitthe appellate court to ignore[Wouldbe an] unlawful action by the appellate court itself."Free v. Commissioner. 501U.S. 868 (1991); Miller, supra.

89. "If these sections are unconstitutional, the law is void and an offense created by them is

not a crime and a conviction under them cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment, for nocourt can acquirejurisdictionto try a personfor acts which are made criminalonly by anunconstitutional law ".Kelly v. MeyersJ63 Pac. 903.905 (Ore. 19281.

90. "To fulfill the purpose of identifying the lawmaking authority of a law, it has beenrepeatedlydeclared by the courts of this land that an enacting clause is to appear on theface ofevery law which the people are expected to follow and obey. The almostunbroken custom ofcenturies has been to preface laws with a statement in some formdeclaring the enacting authority. The purpose ofan enacting clause ofa statute is to


Page 16 of 18

identify it as an act of legislation by expressing on its face the authority behind the act.Z73Am. Jur.2d, ffStamtes, § 93.p. 319.320: v. Bvrne. 243N. W. 823.62 NJX35611932).

91. "The enacting clause is that portion ofa statute which gives it jurisdictional identity and

constitutional authenticity. "Joiner v. State. 155 S.E.2d8,10 (Ga. 1967).

92. Our constitution expressly provided that the enacting clause of every law shall be, "Thepeople of the state ofNevada, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows.This language is susceptible ofbut one interpretation. There is no doubtful meaning as tothe intention. It is, in our judgment, an imperative mandate of the people, in theirsovereign capacity, to the legislature, requiring that all laws, to be binding upon them,shall, upon their face, express the authority by which they were enacted; and, since thisact comes to us without such authority appearing upon its face, it is not a law. "StateofNevada v. Rogers. 10 Nev. 120,261 (1875); approved in Caine v. Robbins. 131 P.2d516,518,61 Nev. 416 (1942); Kefauver v. Sparling. 290S. W. 14,15 (Tenn. 1926).

SUPPORTING CONSTITUTIONAL SECTIONS

Article I, Sec. 8 ofthe North Dakota Constitution States, Circa 1889: "Until otherwiseprovided by law, no person shall, for a felony, be proceeded against criminally, otherwise thanby indictment, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actualservice in time ofwar or public danger. In all other cases, offences shall be prosecuted criminallyby indictment or information... "

Article I, Sec. 21. Of the North Dakota Constitution states, Circa 1889: provisions of this

Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory unless, by express words, they are declared to be otherwise.""The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry onhis private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [tosubmit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection ofhis life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law ofthe land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be takenfrom him by due process of law, and in accordancewith the Constitution. Among his rights are arefusal to incriminate himself and the immunity ofhimself and his property from arrest orseizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does nottrespass upon their rights. "Hale v. Henkel 201 US. 43 at 47 (1905).

RIGHT TO ACT IN ONE'S OWN DEFENSE, IN WANT OF COUNCIL

93. "The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State. A State cannotexclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in amanner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal ProtectionSchware v. Board ofExaminers,353 U.S. 238,239

94. "The practice ofLaw is an occupation ofcommon"Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)


Page 17 of 18

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREAS, the facts and the law contained herein are before this court; and. WHEREAS, thefacts and the law contained herein are the Truth; and WHEREAS, we hold said Truths to be self-evident; and, WHEREAS, self-evident Truths are undisputed and incontrovertible, no oralargument is requested, for no words can alter or overcome these Truths; and, WHEREAS,Truth is Sovereign: She comes from God and bears His message, from whatever quarter her greateyes may look down upon you; Psalms 117:2; John 8:32; II Corinthians. 13:8;THEREFORE; this court must perform its duty under the Rule of Law, do Justice, RectumRogare

Thomas E. Merrick and Thomas E Goven cannot correct the error of impartiality and bias,Lack of Due Process, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 4th Amendment Violations, and theDeprivation of Rights:

Command Thomas E. Merrick, Thomas E Goven, and Assistant State' s Attorney, Jeff P.Davis and/or Katherine Marilyn Naumann, Jamestown City Attorney Kara E. Brinster,to cease and desist or refrain from any and all further actions until further order from thiscourt and order Aforementioned Individuals to show cause within a period of thirty (30)days why they should not be detained from any further proceedings.

Provide a Special and Full Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law

County ofState ofNorth Dakota

I, Leland Thomas; Schneider, Sui Juris, Petitioner in the above entitled action, hereby verifyunder penalty ofperjury, under the laws of the united states of America, without the "UNITEDSTATES" (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct,according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God,pursuant to 28 USC 1746(1).

s»L\.f mQt\rt PtAhAH&fSigned: /s/Leland Thomas; Schneider, InPropria Persona

Subscribed and Sworn before nae, / YkZc/j/ (y//7JrJt^rfjmJ Notary for the StateofNor

This^

ibscnbed and Sworn before me, / y<c£C/ANortrugakota, County o^fc^W/0 ifns.gffi day ofNovember, 2016


1 *~JBbt*m*0t*»M&ttm*dKk»**£^Mifoi*i iiiAkMdfttaMtfrfBhMM«Ahw«l0toMJfe»~^ \

CHERYL MCPHERSONNotary Public

State of North Dakota

MyCommission Expires February 2,2022

Page 18 of 18

rf2

imp.// jjuuucscai uii.uucimi u>.gu v/ vâscLycum.aayAf vâscur-j j /«+1jt

Skip to Main Content Logout MyAccount Search Menu New Criminat Search Refine Search Back

Register of ActionsCase No. 47-2016-CR-00544

Location: State of North Dakota Help

State of North Dakota vs. Leland Thomas Schneider Case Type: FelonyDate Filed: 08/12/2016

Location: - Stutsman CountyJudicial Officer: Werrick, Thomas E.

Party Information

Defendant Schneider, Leland Thomas

Jamestown, ND 58401DOB: 1989

SSN: XXX-XX-5735

AttorneysProSe

Plaintiff State of North Dakota

Charge information

Katherine Marilyn Naumann701-241-5850 x0000(W)

Charges: Schneider, Leland Thomas1. Simple Assault on a Peace Officer2. Preventing Arrest Or Discharge Of Other Duties

Statute Level Date

12.1-17-G1(2)(A) Felony C 08/12/2016

12.1-08-02 Misdemeanor A 08/12/2016

09/29/2016

08/12/2016

08/12/2016

08/12/2016

08/12/2016

08/12/2016

08/12/2016

08/12/2016

08/29/2016

09/19/2016

09/19/2016

09/19/2016

09/26/2016

09/27/2016

09/27/2016

09/27/2016

09/27/2016

09/29/2016

09/29/2016

09/29/2016

09/29/2016

09/29/2016

09/30/2016

Events & Orders of the Colrt

DISPOSITIONS

Plea (Judicial Officer Hovey, James D)1. Simple Assault on a Peace Officer

Not Guilty2. Preventing Arrest Or Discharge OfOther Duties

Not Guilty

OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS

Affidavit of Probable Cause Doc ID# 1

Complaint DoclD#2Proposed Findings Doc ID# 3

PCInitialAppearance (3:00 PM) (Judicial OfficerGreenwood, John)Result Hearing EndedOrder DoclD#4

Magistrate'sDetermination on Probable CauseNotification of Rights and Acknowledgement Doc ID# 5Bond Doc ID# 6

PRNotice of Hearing Doc ID# 7

PrelimRequest DoclD#10

forDiscoveryRequest Doc ID# 11

Onofer/brO/sm/ssa/

Service Document Doc ID# 12Service Document Doc ID# 14

Notice DoclD#15

to ShowCause: Missing Audio and Sen/ice to Clerks officeOrder Doc ID# 17

forDiscoveryNotice DoclD#19

Demand for DiscoveryService Document Doc ID# 18Preliminary Hearing and/or Arraignment (2:00 PM) (Judicial OfficerHovey, James D)Result: Preliminary Hearing HeldNotice DoclD#20

to ShowCause

Service Document Doc 1D# 21

Information DociD#22

CriminalNotice of Assignment and Case Number Doc ID# 23

Greenwood

Proposed Order Doc ID# 24Order for Dismissal yw.^

11/22/2016 8:14 PM

ion

10/25/2016

10/25/2016

11/08/2016

11/17/2016

12/29/2016

12/29/2016

12/30/2016

uii}j.//ûuii^sâivii.tiuv<uuiid.gMV/\âdci^c;iaii.adpA{VâscJU^~JJ /*+ut

Recusal Doc ID# 25

GreenwoodNotice of Assignment and Case Number Doc ID# 26

MerrickOrder DoclD#27

Striking Answerand CounterComplaint - Document#8 and Document#9 arestricken)Notice of Hearing Doc ID# 28

OrderSetting CriminalJury TrialPretrial Conference (8:30 AM)(Judicial OfficerMerrick,Thomas E.)Felony Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (JudicialOfficerMerrick, Thomas E.)Felony Jury Trial (9:00 AM)(Judicial OfficerMerrick,Thomas E.)

£M;-h f\11/22/2016 8:14 Ph

lofl

nup;//puoiiv;5cai umiucoui is.gov/v^roei^cimi.aspxâseLU--,} j /huhv

Skip to Main Content Logout My Account Search Menu New Criminal Search Refine Search Back

Register of ActionsCase No. M-2016-CR-00657

City of Jamestown vs. Leland Schneider

Related Case Information

Related Cases

JA-2016-CR-00656 (Multiple Counts)

City Plaintiff City of Jamestown

Party Information


Jamestown, ND 58401

Male

DOB: 1989

SSN: XXX-XX-S735

Charges: Schneider, Leland Thomas1. Failure to Halt

CHARGE INFORMATION

Statute

22-14

Events & Orders of the Court

09/21/2016

08/24/2016

09/21/2016

11/16/2016

12/16/2016

DISPOSITIONS

Plea (Judicial Officer:Ottmar, TimothyJ)1. Failure to HaH

Not Guilty


CANCELED Arraignment (9:00 AM)(Judicial OfficerOttmar,Timothy J)Rescheduled

Arraignment (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Ottmar, Timothy J)CANCELED Court Trial (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Ottmar, TimothyJ)

Awaitingnewhearing dateCourt Trial (10:00 AM)(Judicial OfficerGoven, Thomas E)

Location: State of North Dakota Help

Case Type: MisdemeanorDate Filed: 08/12/2016

Location: -Jamestown MunicipalJudicial Officer: Ottmar, Timothy J

AttorneysAbbagail Catherine Geroux

Retained701-262-6668 xO00O(W)

ProSe

Level

Misdemeanor B

Date

08/12/2016

&kM11/22/2016 8:13 Pfc

nup:// puuiiiiscaiwliwwui io.^v/ • i v^twv

SHp ^ fi/.a.n mntant tnnm«t My Account Search Menu New Criminal Search Refine Search BackRegister of ActionsCase No. JA-2016-CR-G0656

Location.State of North Dakota Help.

City of Jamestown vs. Leland Schneider§§§

Case Type: MisdemeanorDate Filed: 08/12/2016

Location: - Jamestown MunicipalJudicialOfficer: Ottmar,Timothy J

lofl

Related Case Information

Related CasesJA-2016-CR-00657 (Multiple Counts)

City Plaintiff City of Jamestown

Party Information


Jamestown, ND 58401

MaleDOB: 1989SSN:XXX-XX-5735

Charges: Schneider, Leland Thomas1. Criminal Mischief

CHARGE INFORMATION

Statute

22-3.17(B)

Events & Orders of the Court

09/21/2016

08/24/2016

09/21/2016

11/16/2016

12/16/2016

DISPOSITIONS

Plea (Judicial OfficerOttmar, Timothy J)1. Criminal Mischief

Not Guilty


CANCELED Arraignment (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Ottmar, Timothy J)R&sch&dulGd

Arraignment (9:00AM)(Judicial Officer Ottmar, Timothy J)CANCELED CourtTrial (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Ottmar, Timothy J)

Awaiting newhearing dateCourtTrial (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Goven, Thomas E)

AttorneysAbbagail Catherine Geroux

Retained701-262-6668 xO00O(W)

ProSe

Level

Misdemeanor B

Date

08/12/2016

&kvJ-A11/22/2016 8:13 PI

City of JamestownAgainst

Defendant

SUMMONSTHE CITY OFJAMESTOWN TOTHEABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT;

You are hereby summoned to appear before the Municipal Court in the Combined Law Enforcement Center, 510 3rd Ave. S.E.,Northeast Entrance, City of Jamestown, County of Stutsman, on the A_4 day of -^ _>-> ,^±—,at ij yL*Q A.M. to answer to acomplaint which will be filed against you alleging that you have committedthe violation of •'' '••'• • ;- ;- ^—ljjj.—*'JsA H~—— —

in violation of Section •' • •/••;• Municipal Ordinance of the City of Jamestown.At said time and place you must appear in person to answer the complaint and enter aplea to said charge. Youi are> also notifiedthat if you fail to appear and answer said complaint aWarrant of Arcest may be issued and served upon you and if bail has beengiven for appearance, the same may be forfeited. Bond ^V • ^ •- — — —

Sign '- Officer _ L : __- : -^FORM #604

Qjk-h 8

COUNTY OF STUTSMAN i SS IN MUNICIPAL COURTCity of Jamestown Before Municipal JudgeAgainst

Defendant

SUMMONSCITY OF JAMESTOWN TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT;

;n0f ' f ~ AM't0 anSWSr t0 aC°mp,aint which wi" be fited a9^ you alleging that you have ccîiS

^nTolicI iou^l? SeCti0" •: Municipal Ordinance of the City of Jamestown

'ffleJl°LC°Py ' Dated this . Ha»nfdagree to appear. JAMESTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT—* '

•••••• _ Officer

û/f B

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTACOUNTY OF STUTSMAN, CITY OF JAMESTOWN

THE CITY OF JAMESTOWN,

vs.

Leland Thomas Schneider

1212 Western Park VillageJamestown, ND 58401

IN MUNICIPAL COURTBEFORE TIMOTHY J. OTTMAR

Municipal Judge

COMPLAINT

Defendant. )

Mackenzie Schultz, being first duly sworn, says that on or about the 12,h day ofAugust, 2016,

with the City ofJamestown, Stutsman County, the above defendant committed the offense ofFailure to

Halt, inviolation of Section 22-14 of the Jamestown City Code, which states as follows:

Any person...who willfully fails or refuses to stop or who otherwise flees orattempts to elude, inany manner, apursuing peace officer, when given avisual or audible signal to stop, is guilty ofaclass B misdemeanor for a first or second offense...

To wit, the Defendant did fail orrefuse tostop for apursing peace officer after receiving avisual

and/or audible signal tostop, contrary to the City ordinances ofthe said City ofJamestown and against

the peace anddignityof the CityofJamestown.

WHEREFORE, Complainant prays that the defendant be arrested and dealt

with accordingto law.

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this lay of August, 2016

TIMOTHY J. 01

Municipal Judge

Violated: Jamestown City Code Sec. 22-14 - Failure to Halt

Penalty: Jamestown City Code Sec. 1-9-B Misdemeanor: Maximum fine of$1,500.00, maximum ofthirty (30) days imprisonment, or both fine and imprisonment

&lfr-&

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA m MUNICIPAL COURTCOUNTY OF STUTSMAN, CITY OF JAMESTOWN BEFORE TIMOTHY J. OTTMAR

Municipal Judge

THE CITY OF JAMESTOWN,

vs.

Leland Thomas Schneider1212 Western Park VillageJamestown, ND 58401

Defendant.

Mackenzie Schultz, being first duly sworn, says that on or about the 12,h day ofAugust, 2016,

within the City ofJamestown, Stutsman County, the above defendant committed the offense of Criminal

Mischief, in violation ofSection 22-3. l(l)of the City Code ofJamestown, which states as follows:

(1) Aperson is guilty ofanoffense ifhe orshe:

(a) Willfully tampers with tangible property ofanother so as to endanger person or property; or

(b) Willfully damages tangible property ofanother.

To wit, the Defendant did damage ahandle of patrol car 177, contrary to the City ordinances of the

said City ofJamestown and against the peace and dignity ofthe City ofJamestown.

WHEREFORE, Complainant prays that the defendant be arrested and dealt

with according to law.

COMPLAINT

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me thisJ^day ofAugust, 2016.

TIMOTHY J. OTT]

Municipal Judge

Violated: Jamestown City Code Section 22-3.1 - Criminal Mischief

Penalty: Jamestown City Code Sec. 1-9 - BMisdemeanor: Maximum fine of$1,500.00, maximum ofthirty (30) days imprisonment, or both fine and imprisonment

£U/A£


COUNTY OF STUTSMAN


Plaintiff

-vs-

LELAND THOMAS SCHNEIDER,

Defendant

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA):SS

COUNTY OF STUTSMAN)

IN DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Criminal File No. ^Îhl^zM^^

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

1. The Complainant, being first duly sworn, charges:

2. That onorabout the 12th of August, 2016, inStutsman County, North Dakota, theDefendant committed the offense ofSimple Assault, in violation ofNorth Dakota Century Codesection 12.1-17-81(l)(a), by then and there willfully causing bodily injury toanother humanbeing, namely Mackenzie Schultz, apeace officer with the Jamestown Police Department, whilehe was acting in his official capacity, and which the Defendant knew to be afact.

3. Penalty section: class Cfelony, N.D.C.C. §12.1-l7-01(2)(a) &§12.1-32-01(4)Mandatory minimum DNA sample pursuant toN.D.C.C. §31-13-03

4. That onorabout the 12th ofAugust, 2016, inStutsman County, the above nameddefendant committed the offense of: Preventing Arrest orDischarge of OtherDuties, inviolation ofNorth Dakota Century Code section 12.1-08-02, by creating asubstantial risk ofbodily injury to apublic servant or employing means justifying or requiring substantial force toovercome resistance to effecting an arrest with intent to prevent the public servant from effectingsuch arrest ofhimself.

GwfB

5. Penalty section: class Amisdemeanor §12.1-08-02 &12.1-32-01(5)

6. Against the peace and dignity ofthe State ofNorth Dakota. Complainant asks that theDefendant bearrested and dealt with according to law.

C2u ^yy&WV ®pO ' >Complainant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this !3<tay ofAugust, 2016.

^TARYPUBPUBLIC

Katherine Naumann (#06878)Assistant State's Attorney, Stutsman County, NDkmnpimiann<a).nd.gov e-serve: 47sa(%nd,gPV

CYNTHIA A HOOKAH*HoteiyPuWc

State ofNorth DakotaMy Commtasloo Exptm RMiiy17,28tt j

&.'o,f5


STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,andOthers Known and Unknown

Plaintiff

Vs.

Leland Schneider

Defendants

JA-2016-CR-00656JA-2016-CR-00657JA-2016-TR-0121947-2016-CR-00656

ANSWER TO THE ACTIONS

Page 1 of5

ANSWER TO THE ACTIONS Q^L'f f

Leland Schneider: Living Man, Created by God, one ofthe people as contemplated in thepreambles ofthe 1889 Constitution for the State ofNorth Dakota, and the 1789Constitution for the United States ofAmerica. Defendant in the aforementioned instantaction, IN WANT OF COUNCIL; and

1WFANDANT'S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

1 That the undersigned, in want of counsel and laymen without law school training, herebyinvoke the rights, and the indulgence of this Court, as enunciated by the Supreme Courtof the United States; and

2. The Defendant declare that all utterances and written words in this above styled actionshall be defined in the "BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY", Fifth Edition (1979) and allwords not found in fifth edition ofBlacks shall be defined in "WEBSTER'S THIRDINTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY." This requirement shall hold true for both the

defendant and the plaintiff; and

3. The Defendant reserve the right to oral hearings before being dismissed; and4. The North Dakota State Courts' Jurisdiction over the people inthis instant action shall be

established by the record showing that they reside in the boundaries of the state ofNorthDakota and the injury has been committed by the Plaintiffs, singularly or in unison witheach other; and

5. The Right ofthe people to aCOURT OF RECORD has been guaranteed by TheConstitution of North Dakota, Section 110 andthisaction shall be brought by the

convening a Court of Record; and

6. All Rights reserved by the people in the Constitution ofNorth Dakota Article 1,Declaration ofrights and the united states ofAmerica Bill ofrights; and

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

7. Power isnever without responsibility. And when authority derives in part fromGovernment's thumbon the scales, the exercise of that powerby private personsbecomesclosely akin, in some respects, to its exercise byGovernment itself; and

8. The purpose ofimposing vicarious liability isto insure the costs ofinjuries resulting fromdefective actions are placed on the source ofthe actions and others who make the actionspossible rather than oninjured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. For a

Page 2 of5

ANSWER TO THE ACTIONS

w•fff to be vicariously liable it must play an integral and vital part in the overallPlaintiff to bevicariousiy u«u r „n*ition to affect others or,at

I,^t^lyUPlaintiff must be in the business ofc—g,1-*bailing, or licensing the actors; and

9. Each Plaintiff is »> agent offt. other, and each baa his place in the chain ofexposingDefendant Leland to the actors; and

10. Each counter defendant is vicariously liable for each instance of injury to plaintiff; and11. For that cause ofaction therefore Defendant brings his suit; and

STATEMENT OF FACTS

..THeOefenaanînthisân^^STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, is not directly or mdirectlyreceivrag fZ£ pubUc service, is in fact aGrantor and Beneficiary of the Pubhc Trust; and

13. On or about August 12ft 2016, Leland, was outside of his Automobile at the time ofanUnwarranted Traffic Stop; and

a Warrant; and

15 Officer Schultz(#330) extricated Leland from the Top Step ofhis Home with excessive"force causing Leland to land on top ofOfficer Schultz(#330);and

16. On or about August 12th 2016, Officer Schultz's(#330) backup had Arrived and assistedin the Kidnapping of Leland Thomas; Schneider; and

17 On or about August 12th 2016,, Officer Noreen(#303) a^**^^fn.dThomas; Schneider in the Back, causing aPhysical injury to Leland and aLoss of BloodontheScene and hours later; and

18 On or about August 12th 2016, Officer Stoen(#324) and Officers LT. Hunt Arrived andaSisLd in the Snapping and Imprisonment of Leland Thomas; Schneider, causing aDeprivation ofRights; and

19 On or about August 12th 2016, Leland tried to escape his Kidnappers, to protect Angel' Williamson, whom was being threatened and Harassed, in the process broke the interior

door handle of the car; and

Page 3 ofS

ANSWER TO THE ACTIONS ^ -

ETrtLelandThomas; Schneider, before Being Released; and

»MSWff.R TO CITATIONS

2,. The Summons and Complaints are -onstitut^ftreatening, Frivolous and containfictitious statements. The defendant denies all clarms, and

22. The Books called North Dakota Century Code, have no Enacting Clauses; and23 The Books called North Dakota Century Code, have no Enacting Causes, and Defendant,

LefanA does not understand the unconstitutional Charges, and24. Each PlaintitTacted in such away, or failed to ac, in such away, that Defendant Leland

has been deprived ofhis liberty; and

25. Further, each Plaintiff is awiiling participant in concert with each of the remaimngPlaintiffs'; and

26 A, all times mentioned in this action each Plaintiff is the agent of the other and in doingmeûIgTm mis action, each is acting within ft. course and scope of sa,d agency;and

27 Each Plaintiff exceeded his jurisdiction under color oflaw. Each Plaintiff acted in concert^h,L remaining Plaintiffs to effect the unlawful loss of liberty to Defendant, Leiand;and

28. Each Plaintiff lacks jurisdiction and is acting under color of law to effect the unlawfulloss of liberty toDefendant, Leland; and

29. Whereas the defendant, Leland, had to defend his Un-A-lienable Rights as to why theCounter Claims were issued to the Courts; and

30. The Summons and Complaints determined Null and Void due to the Frivolous andfictitious allegations; and

31. The claims be dismissed due to threatening and unconstitutional allegations; and

Page 4 of 5

ANSWER TOTHE ACTIONS

County of^tLuA&fiTVoV)StateofNorth Dakota

,, Leland Thomas; Schneider,» Juris, Defendant ta ft. *££%££££$&,,,under penalty of perjury, under the law* of the on..ed »ta.«.TAmenca wrthouCTATFS" (federal government), that the above statement oftacts ana laws is m«= «•S to fte oefofMy current information, knowledge, and tab* so help me God,pursuant to28 USC 1746(1).

h4^Signed: /s/Leland Thomas; Schneider, /« /Vo/>m ^w"«

Subscribed and Sworn before me,O^^^-^^^^^ *" ** ôfNorth Dakota, County of \S&tM4^ **Vfr tyThis I^ day of September, 2016

Page 5 of 5

ANSWER TO THE ACTIONS /

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTASOUTHEAST DISTRICT COURT


Plaintiff

Vs.

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,Mckenzie Shultz (arresting officer)Officer Noreen (Tazing officer)Officer A. StoenLieutenant and Shift SupervisorJames HuntKatherine Marilyn NaumannJames D Hovey

Timothy J OttmarBarbara HillBrenda KnappJohn Greenwood

andOthers Known and Unknown

Defendants

COUNTER COMPLAINT

JA-2016-CR-00656JA-2016-CR-00657JA-2016-TR-0121947-2016-CR-00544

COUNTER COMPLAINT

Page1 of 15

Leland Schneider: UvingMan,^^^

COUNCIL; and

pi ATNTIFF'S PFSF.RVATIO" <W RIGHTS

Supreme Court of the United States; and2 The PLAINTIFF declares that all utterances and written words in this above styled' action shall be defined in the "BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY", Fifth Edition

(1979) and all words not found in fifth edition of Blacks shall be defined in"WEBSTER'S THIRD INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY »This requirementshall hold true for both the defendant and the plaintiff; and

3 The Plaintiff reserves the right to oral hearings before being dismissed; and4 TheNorthDakotaStateCourts' Jurisdiction over the people in this instant actum' shall be established by the record showing that they reside in the boundaries of the

state ofNorth Dakota and the an injury has been committed by the Defendants ,singularly or in unison with each other; and

5 The Right of the people to aCOURT OF RECORD has been guaranteed by TheConstitution ofNorth Dakota, Section 110 and this action shall be brought by theconvening aCourt ofRecord; and

6 All Rights reserved by the people in the Constitution ofNorth Dakota Article 1,Decision of rights and the united states of America Bill ofrights; and

pycj-piivrmN Off PLAINTIFF

7. Leland Thomas; Schneider, (hereinafter «Leland»)is one of the **»>«"<«*Dakota, without the UNITED STATES aSecure Third Party Creditor andBeneficiary of the Public trust; and

8 The Defendant, Leland, in this instant action is NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THESTATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, is not directly or indirectly receiving

Page 2 of 15

COUNTER COMPLAINT P / ,\<L j\

compensation for any public service, is in fact aGrantor and Benefciary of thePublic Trust; and

iwsCRIPTIC" ™? nFFFNDANTS:

9. City ofl—n, for a«^^%££S£££ capacityCorooration, acting inits capacity; and City otJamestown m rSnga^he injLd party and Plaintiff in the aforementioned cases; and

10. Mckenzie Shultz (arresting officer), for all'^^^^^^âction is aprivate person, acting in his own capacity; and MckenzuShuUz(arresting officer) in his official capacity is acUng as aPohce Officer for theCorporation ofCity of Jamestown; and

„.P,iv*e person, ^ ** ~«fl£S Co^tiL ofcny ofinhis official capacity is acting as aPolice Utticer iorme ^ vJamestown; and

12 officerA Stoen, for all intents and purposes in and for this action is aprivatepe!on, acting in nis own capacity; and Officer A. Stoen in his official capacity isacting as aPolice Officer for the Corporation of City of Jamestown; and

13 Lieutenant and Shift Supervisor James Hunt, for all intents and purposes in and for

Supervisor James Hunt in his official capacity is acting as aPolice Officer for theCoiporation of City of Jamestown; and

14 Katherine Marilyn Naumann, for all intents and purposes in and for this action is aSSersorîng in her own capacity; and Katherine Marilyn Naumann in herStlSpSy is Jting as aStatesAttorney for the State ofNorth Dakota fromthe City ofWilliston North Dakota; and

15 James DHovey, for all intents and purposes in and for this action is aprivateperson, acting in his own capacity; and James DHovey mhis official capacity isacting as aDistrict Court Judge for the State ofNorth Dakota, County ofStutsman; and

16 Timothy JOttmar, for all intents and purposes in and for this action is aprivateperson/acting in his own capacity; and Timothy JOttmar in his official capacxty isacting as aMunicipal Court Judge for the City of Jamestown; and

Page3 of 15

COUNTER COMPLAINT fTj 'III f\

Stog'astMunicipal Court Clerk for the City of Jamestown; and

acting as aDistrict Court Judge for the State ofNorth Dakota, CountyStutsman; and

INTRODUCTION

20. Hereinafter the Plaintiff will be referred to as Plaintiff or in the singular by his fullname; and

21. Hereinafter the Defendants will be referred to as Defendants or in the singular byhis/her full name; and

VTCARIOUS LIABILITY

22 Power is never without responsibility. And when authority derives in part from' Government's thumb on the scales, the exercise of that power by private personsbecomes closely akin, in some respects, to its exercise by Government itself; and

23 The purpose of imposing vicarious liability is to insure the costs of injuries"resulting from defective actions are placed on the source of the actions and others

who make the actions possible rather than on injured persons who are powerless toprotect themselves. For aDefendant to be vicariously liable it must play an integraland vital part in the overall production and promotion activity so that the actor is inaposition to affect others or, at the very least, it must provide alink in the chain ofexposing the ultimate victim to the actor. The vicariously liable Defendant must bein the business ofcontrolling, leasing, bailing, or licensing the actors; and

24. Each Defendant is an agent of the other, and each has his/her place in the chain ofexposing Plaintiff Leland to the actors; and

25. Each counter defendant is vicariously liable for each instance of injury to plaintiff;and

Page 4 of 15

COUNTER COMPLAINT

26. Each Defendant acted in such away, or failed to act in such away, that PlaintiffLeland has been deprived of his liberty; and

27. Further, each Defendant is awilling participant in concert with each of theremaining defendants; and

28 At all times mentioned in this action each Defendant is the agent of the other, andmdoing the acts alleged in mis action, each is acting within the course and scopeof saidagency; and

29 Each Defendant exceeded his/her jurisdiction under color of law. Each Defendantacta in concTrt with the remaining counter defendants to effect the unlawful lossofliberty ofPlaintiffLeland; and

30. For that cause of action therefore Plaintiff brings his suit; and

STATEMENT OF FACTS

31 The Plaintiff, Leiand, in this instant action is NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THESTATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, is not directly or indirectly recervmgcompensation for any public service, is in fact aGrantor and Benefice of thePublic Trust; and

32. On or about August 12th, 2016 Leland attempted to go to his place of residence;and

33. On or about August 12th, 2016 Leland during his operation of the automobileattempted to reach his place of residence; and

34. On or about August 12th, 2016 Leland during his operation of the automobilereached the corner ofthe Liechty Homes trailer park; and

35. On or about August 12,h, 2016 Leland approached the corner of 17th St SW and12th Ave SW; and

36. On or about August 12th, 2016 Leland became aware ofavehicle behind him; and37. On or about August 12th, 2016 Leland veered to the right hand side of the road to

attempt to turn onto 12th Ave SW; and

Page 5 of 15

COUNTERCOMPLAINT

£&%+ 0

38. On or about August 12th, 2016 Leland veered to the right hand side of the road tobetter allow the vehicle behind him to continue on safely and continue on his/herjourney; and

39. On orabout August 12th, 2016 Leland noticed that the vehicle was an emergencytype of vehicle; and

40. On or about August 12th, 2016 Leland was unaware ofany emergency for thevehicle traveling behind him; and

41. Leland, unaware ofany emergency orinfraction due tothe officers inability toeffectively turn onoroperate the emergency lights making Leland unaware ofanyemergency or infraction; and

42. Leland, aware ofthe rules ofthe road for any and all emergency vehicles in whichhe veered to the right hand side ofthe road to better allow the operator oftheemergency vehicle safe passage; and

43. Leland, unawares of the type of emergency vehicle traveling behind him, offeredthe same courtesy to that vehicle ashe does to allemergency personnel andvehicles; and

44. Leland, unaware of any traffic violation oremergency continued upon his journeyhomeward; and

45. On or about August 12th, 2016 Leland turned onto Western Park Village Roadunaware of any infractions; and

46. On orabout August 12th 2016 Leland noticed the vehicle was following him; and

47. Leland, still unaware of any violations or infractions turned into hisdriveway; and

48. Leland, still unaware of any violations or infractions turned into his driveway at

the location of 1212 Western Park Village; and

49. Leland, Still unaware of anyviolations or infractions proceeded to exit hisautomobile; and

50. On or about August 12th 2016, Leland, walked around the back of the car; and

51. Upon walking up andaround theback of hisautomobile, Leland became aware offlashing lights; and

Page 6 of IS

COUNTER COMPLAINT

UUb

52 On or about August 12*, 2016 Leland walked around the back of his automobile,' in which the patrol car turned the comer with the lights on; and

53. On or about August 12th, 2016 Leland walked up to his place of residency; and54. Leland walked up to the house to have Angel Williamson greet him upon the steps

of the residence; and

55. Leland proceeded to sit upon the steps of his place of residence at the address of1212 Western ParkVillage; and

56 Leland proceeded to sit upon the steps of his place of residence at the address of1212 Western Park Village, in which he was still unaware ofany infractions orviolations; and

57. Leland proceeded to sit upon the steps ofhis place of residence watching theofficer inthe emergency vehicle; and

58 Leland proceeded to sit upon the steps ofhis residence only knowing theemergency vehicle had followed him for an extended time penod; and

59 Leland proceeded to sit upon the steps ofhis residency knowing the emergencyvScle and its operator followed him for up to and including the distances of threeor more cityblocks; and

60 Leland proceeded to sit upon the steps ofhis residency and watched the' emergency vehicle turn onto Western Park Road with Emergency Lights on; and

61. Leland proceeded to sit upon the steps ofhis residency and watched the emergencyvehicle stop in front ofhis place ofresidency; and

62. Leland proceeded to sit upon the steps ofhis residency and watched amale officerexitthe emergency vehicle; and

63. Leland remained in the sitting position on his steps at his place ofresidence as theOfficer exited theemergency vehicle; and

64. Leland remained in the sitting position on his steps at his place of residency as theOfficerwalkedup to Leland; and

65. Leland remained in the sitting position on his steps at his place ofresidencyunaware ofwhom, or what in, which he was being presented with; and

Page 7 of IS

COUNTER COMPLAINT /-" / j ) £\

, * ~f k;c rîdencv in which the officer*^d^S^^^-Sonnsnranc, and^.Tneofficerinîonatthisthnedidnotprovideanyinforntationto Leland asto

whom the officer was; andSS.TheofncerdidnotdisclosehisnameorbadgennmbertoLelanddnringthis verba,altercation; and

69. Leiand at this time did look at the name tag ofthe officer ,0 ge, the name ofShultz; and

70. The officer at mis time pursued the need for License, Registration and/orInsurance: and

7, The officer a, mis time pursued the need for License, Registration and/or Insurance' even as Leland sat on the Front Steps ofb. Dwelhng; and

72. Leland refused the requested information to the officer; and73. Leland refused such information for he was not in his Automobile; and74 Leland refused any such documents for he was not in the act ofoperation ofa

mo<Xl vehicle a, the time ofthe visit from the officer; and75. Leland refused the requested information to the officer as he was in the act of

trespass; and

76. Leland refused the requested information to the officer for lack ofwarrant; and77. Uland refused any such information for Officer Schultz, for lack ofawarrant and

The Act ofTrespass on Private Property; and

78. Leland refused the requested information to the officer as per the /' Amendmentofthe Constitution for the united States, and

79 Leland refused any and all such information and documentation as per The/'Amendment Protects the People against unwarranted Search and Seizure, To beSecure in Ones Persons', Papers', Houses', and Effects'; and

80 Leland refused the requested information to the officer as the officer did notdisclose the reason for the visit to the residency ofLeland; and

Page8 of IS

COUNTER COMPLAINT

UU b

81. Leland refused the requested information to the officer as Leland asked the officerwhy he was paying avisit to his home; and

82. Leland refused the requested information to the officer due to the fact the officercould not state areason for the harassment or visit to the residency ofLeland, and

83 Leland refused the requested information to the officer due to the fact the officerwould not state areason for the harassment or visit to the residency ofLeland; and

84. Leland refused the requested information to the officer in which point the officerradioed in foradditional officers; and

85. Officer Schultz escalated the Verbal Exchange and called in for Backup; and

86. The officer radioed in for additional officers to assist in the apprehension ofaforesaid information from Leland; and

87 The officer radioed in for additional officers to assist in the apprehension of' Leland for no or lack of cooperation or failing to comply with requests from an

officer; and

88 The officer radioed in for addition officers to assist in the apprehension of Lelandfor no cooperation or lack ofcooperation or failing to comply with the requestsfrom and officer, in which at this time the officer still did not disclose whom hewas; and

89 The officer radioed in for additional officers to assist in the apprehension ofLeland for no cooperation or lack ofcooperation or failing to comply with therequests from an officer, in which the aforementioned officer did not have awarrant for the arrest of Leland; and

90 The officer radioed in for additional officers to assist in the apprehension ofLelandfor no cooperation or lack ofcooperation or failing to comply with the requests ordemands from an officer, in which the aforementioned officer did not disclosewhat reason he was trying to obtain the papers from Leland; and

91. The officer remained at the base ofthe steps in the yard ofLeland's residenceduring the entire confrontation; and

92. Leland proceeded to stand up and turn into his home; and

93. Leland proceeded to stand up and turn into his home and in order to obtain hispapers for the officer; and

Page 9 of IS

COUNTER COMPLAINT r- / . J f\

94. Leland proceeded to stand up and turn into his home and obtain his keys for avehicle; and

95. Leland proceeded to stand up and turn into home to obtain his keys for avehicle toprovide the information the officer was requesting; and

96. Leland proceeded to stand up and turn into his home, stepped with one foot intothe thresholdof his domicile; and

97. Angel Williamson obtained the keys for the vehicle for Leland; and

98 Leland proceeded to stand up and turn into his home, stepped with one foot intothe threshold of his domicile, the aforementioned officer grabbed onto Leland'sclothing and yanked Leland out ofthe threshold ofhis domicile; and

99. Officer Schultz extracted Leland from the Top Step ofhis Home; and

100. Officer Schultz extracted Leland from the Top Step ofhis Home with excessiveforce causing Leland to land on top ofOfficer Schultz; and

101 Leland proceeded to stand up and turn into his home, stepped with one foot intothe threshold ofhis domicile, the aforementioned officer used excessive force inwhich resulted in Leland falling ontop of him; and

102. Angel Williamson yelled to stop; and

103. Leland and the officer proceeded to stand back upon their feet after officer ShultztoreLelandout of threshold of his domicile; and

104. Officer Schultz's backup arrived upon the scene at the residence for Leland; and

105.Officer Shultz's backup proceeded to tackle Leland back to the ground; and

106. Officer Shultz's backup proceeded to use excessive force and tackled Leland tothe ground; and

107. Leland told Angel Williamson to Call for legal and Lawful counsel; and

108. Leland was tackled tothe ground by the assaulting officers; and

109.Leland was able to remainupon his hands andknees; and

110. Leland was not aware ofhow many officers were assaulting him atthe time; and

111 .Leland was assaulted violently by the officers at the scene; and

Page 10 of 15

COUNTER COMPLAINT

&av- b

112. Leland was held into the position on his hands and knees; and113 Officers proceeded to continue in the assault upon Leland; and,14.Officers proceeded to continue in the assault upon Leland, in which resulted in an

escalation of force; and

ground; and

and

,17 On or about August 12th 2016, Officer Schultz's backup had Arrived andassisted in the Kidnapping of Leland Thomas; Schneider; and

1,8. Atotal of four officers arrived at the residence for Leland; and„9. Names and badge numbers ofofficers were never disclosed to Leland upon the

scene; and

120. Officer Noreen assisted by tazing Leland in the Back; and121 Officer Noreen assisted by tazing Leland, causing aPhysical injury to Leland and

aLoss ofBlood on the Scene and hours later; and

122 Officer Stoen and Officers LT. Hunt Arrived and assisted in the Kidnapping andImprisonment of Leland Thomas; Schneider; and

123. Officer Stoen and Officers LT. Hunt Arrived and assisted inthe'^^Împrisonment of Leland Thomas; Schneider; causing aDeprivation ofRights, and

124. Officers handcuffed Leland and shoved him into apolice cruiser; and125. Officers handcuffed Leland's hands so tight in which he lost feeling in his hands;

and

126. Officers handcuffed Leland's hands so tight in which he lost circulation in hishands; and

127. Leland asked for the handcuffs to be loosened just abit; and

128.Leland asked for the handcuffs to be loosened just abit to relieve the pressure offofhis hands and wrists; and

Page 11 of 15

COUNTER COMPLAINT £ ),) ,J f\

129.0fficers imprisoned Leland in an Officer's cruiser; and130. Officers imprisoned Leland in an Officer's cruiser and proceeded to surround

Angel Williamson; and

131. Officers proceeded to apprehend the cellular phone in Angel's Possession; and132 Officers refused and proceeded to apprehend the cellular phone in Angel's

possession which allowed her to speak with Leland's counsel; and133.0fficers proceeded to steal the phone away from Angel; and134. Officers proceeded to steal the phone away from Angel and would hang up the

phone call; and

135.0fficers proceeded to steal the phone away from Angel every time she would tryand call Leland's choice ofcounsel; and

136. Officers proceeded to surround and intimidate Angel Williamson; and137. Officers proceeded to surround and intimidate Angel Williamson causing her to

have a panic attack; and

138. Officers proceeded to surround and intimidate Angel Williamson causing her tocollapse to the ground; and

139. Leland attempted to escape his Kidnappers; and

140. Leland attempted to escape his Kidnappers to stop them from harming Angel;and

141. Leland attempted to escape his Kidnappers to stop them from causing any dueharm to Angel; and

142. In the attempt to escape his kidnappers vehicle, Leland broke the cruisers interiordoor handle; and

143. In attempt to escape his kidnappers vehicle and protect Angel, Leland Broke thecruisers interior door handle; and

144 Leland was hauled off to the Stutsman County Correctional Center, where theOperators at the Facility continue to Imprison and try to Extort Leland Thomas;Schneider, before Being Released; and

145.Leland was hauled offto the Stutsman County Correctional Center, where theJohn Greenwood continued to impose the color of law upon Leland Thomas;Schneider, before Being Released; and

Page 12 of 15

COUNTER COMPLAINT

jh^cA/i)*/ JJ

before Being Released to include but not limited to 18 hours later, and

147.Le.and was hauleti offto the Stutsman f-^ôf^fuiand

later; and

148.Katherine Marilyn Naumann continues to impose the color of law upon LelandThomas; Schneider; and

149 Katherine Marilyn Naumann continues to impose the color of law upon LelandThomas; Schneider in an attempt to enforce the Color of Law; and

150.Katherin«Thomas; Schneider in anattempt to enlorce tne iNorui v<^

151 Barbara Hill and Brenda Knapp continued to impose the color of law upon LelandThomS ScLdder, before Being Released to include but not limited to 18 hourslater; and

152 Barbra Hill continues to impose the color oflaw upon Leland Thomas; Schneider,by mailing correspondence for The State ofNorth Dakota; and

153. Barbra Hill continues to impose the color of law upon Leland Thomas; Schneider;and

154. Barbra Hill continues to impose the color of law upon Leland Thomas; Schneiderin an attempt to enforce the Color ofLaw; and

155 Barbra Hill continues to impose the color oflaw upon Leland Thomas; Schneiderin an attempt to enforce the North Dakota Century Codes; and

156 Brenda Knapp continues to impose the color oflaw upon Leland Thomas;Schneider, by mailing correspondence for The City ofJamestown; and

157. Brenda Knapp continues to impose the color oflaw upon Leland Thomas;Schneider; and

158.Brenda Knapp continues to impose the color oflaw upon Leland Thomas;Schneider inan attempt to enforce the Color of Law; and

159 Brenda Knapp continues to impose the color of law upon Leland Thomas;Schneider in an attempt to enforce the North Dakota Century Codes; and

Page 13 of 15

COUNTER COMPLAINT f^*. fj ,\ f\

,60 Timothy JOttmar continues to impose the color of law upon Leland Thomas;Schneider, for The City of Jamestown; and

161 .Timothy JOttmar continues to impose the color of law upon Leland Thomas;Schneider; and

164 James DHovey continues to impose the color of law upon Leland Thomas;Schneider, for The State ofNorth Dakota; and

165. James DHovey continues to impose the color of law upon Leland Thomas;Schneider; and

166. James DHovey continues to impose the coloi-of law^pon Leland Thomas;Schneider in an attempt to enforce the Color of Law, and

167 James DHovey continues to impose the color of law upon Leland Thomas;ScSrinJattempt to enforce the North Dakota Century Codes; and

RFOIIEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffrequests relief and judgment against EACH defendant as follows:

1 For general damages in the sum of 10,000 dollars lawful US Money multiplied bythe number ofdays in constructive and actual displacement, ab imtio; and

2 That the court enter adeclaratory judgment that counter defendants' have actedarbitrarily and capriciously, have abused their discretion and have acted not inaccordance with law, but under color of law; and

3. That the court enter adeclaratory judgment that counter defendants' have actedcontrary to constitutional right, power or privilege; and

4 That the court enters adeclaratory judgment that counter defendants1 actions werein excess ofstatutory jurisdiction, authority and short ofstatutory right; and

5 That the court enter adeclaratory judgment that the records of the court not ofrecord are impeached for want of jurisdiction in the Court or judicial officers, for

Page 14 of 15

COUNTER COMPLAINT £ J / I .J |\

collusion between the parties, and/or for fraud in the parties offering the record, inrespect to the proceedings; and

6. That the court grant Plaintiffattorneys fees and costs of 3000.00 dollars in lawfulUS Money; and

7. That the court grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as the court deemsproper; and

8. Forinterest as allowed by law; and

This is ATrue Bill; Your Failure to answer within 20 days from the receipt of this presentment, this

presentment will become ajudgment nihil dicit and will be entered into the court record.

County of Sj^l-sw\îi

State ofNorth Dakota

I Leland Thomas; Schneider, Sui Juris, Defendant in the above entitled action, hereby verifyunder penalty ofperjury, under the laws of the united states of America, without the "UNITEDSTATES" (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct,according to the best ofMy current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God,pursuant to 28 USC 1746(1).

i!\ { < >u S ,' i,

Signed: /s/Leland Thomas; Schneider, In Propria Persona

COUNTER COMPLAINT

Subscribed and Sworn before me, ( Lv^Sr^fe- (0 SjLA'. C•«-^~Notaty for the StateofNorth Dakota, County of >^4-^>t£siq^v0This 1$ day of September, 2016

-vf^rr<g^ rJS^. •««»rv),f||ftfrM rfii iflh rtii i rtli,

AMETA A SCMLECHTNotary Public

State of fôrth Dakota

EUiy Commissi": os March

.Page 15 of 15

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTASOUTHEAST DISTRICT COURT


Plaintiff

Vs

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA,Mckenzie Shultz (arresting officer)Officer Noreen (Tazing officer)Officer A. Stoen

Lieutenant and Shift SupervisorJames Hunt

Katherine Marilyn NaumannJames D HoveyTimothy J OttmarBarbara Hill

Brenda KnappJohn Greenwood

and

Others Known and Unknown

Defendants

JA-2016-CR-00656JA-2016-CR-00657

JA-2016-TR-01219

47-2016-CR-00544

BREIF AND MEMORANDUMOF LAW IN SUPPORT OF

COUNTERCLAIM

BREIF AND MEMORANDUM

Paget of 12

&U.V- £

Leland Schneider: Living Man, Created by God, one ofthe people as contemplated in thepreambles ofthe 1889 Constitution for the State ofNorth Dakota, and the 178S»Constitutioii.forthe United States of America. Defendant in the aforementioned instant action, IN WAN 1OfCOUNCIL; and

PLAINTIFF'S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

1. That the undersigned, in want ofcounsel and laymen without law school training,hereby invoke the rights, and the indulgence of this Court, as enunciated by theSupreme Court ofthe United States; and

2. The PLAINTIFF declares that all utterances and written words in this above styledaction shall be defined in the "BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY", Fifth Edition

(1979) and all words not found in fifth edition ofBlacks shall be defined in"WEBSTER'S THIRD INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY." This requirement

shall hold trueforboththedefendant andthe plaintiff; and

3. The Plaintiff reserves the right to oral hearings before being dismissed; and4. The North Dakota State Courts' Jurisdiction over the people inthis instant action

shall be established by the record showing that they reside in the boundaries of thestate ofNorth Dakota and the aninjury has been committed bythe Defendants,

singularly or inunison with each other; and

5. The Right ofthe people to aCOURT OF RECORD has been guaranteed by TheConstitution ofNorth Dakota, Section 110 and this action shall bebrought by the

convening a Courtof Record; and

6. All Rights reserved by the people in the Constitution ofNorth Dakota Article 1,Declaration ofrights and the united states ofAmerica Bill ofrights; and

BRIEF IN THE FORM OF A MEMORANDUM OF LAW INSUPPORT OFVERIFIEDCOMPLABSTFORVIOLATIONS OF PLAINTIFFSCONSTlTimONALY PROTECTED GODGIVEN RIGHTS

Further, let allbeadvised that allactions commenced against me may be inviolation of,...USC TITLE 18 > PARTI > CHAPTER 13 >§242 Deprivation of rights under color of lawUSCTITLE 18> PARTI > CHAPTER 13>§ 241 Conspiracy against rightsWherefore all have undeniable knowledge.

Page 2 of 12


E4/A B

INTRODUCTION

When we were born, a trust, called a Cestui QueVieTrust("CQV") was set-up, for ourbenefit. Evidence of this is the birth certificate. But what is the valuewhich must be conveyedto the trust, in order to create it? It was our right to property (via Birth into this world), ourbody (via the Live Birth Record),and our souls (via Baptism). Since the state/provincewhich registered the trust is the owner, it is also the trustee.... the one that administers thetrust

We all know from our indoctrination, programming, and schooling that judges areimpartial and haveswornan oath to thiseffect. Thismeans he must not favour eitherplaintiffordefendant. But, our experience reveals that he does, indeed, favour the plaintiff, indicating aglaring conflictof interest—that the prosecutor, judge, and clerk (cleric) allwork for thestate—the owner of the CQV trust. So, as the ease is NOT about "justice", it must be aboutadministering a trust.

RIGHTS OF "WE THE PEOPLE55

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled tocany on his privatebusiness in his own way. His powerto contractis unlimited. He owes nosuch duty [tosubmit his books andpapers foranexamination] to the State, since he receivesnothing there from, beyondthe protection of his life andproperty. His rights are such as existedby the law ofthe land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and canonly be taken fromhim by due processof law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Amonghis rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property fromarrestor seizureexceptunder a warrantof the law. He owesnothingto the public so long as hedoes not trespassupon their rights." Hale v. Henkel. 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

The 2n Thirteenth Amendment ofthe unites states ofAmerica provides inpertinent part that"Neither slaverynor involuntary servitude, exceptas a punishment for crime , shall existwithin the United States, or anyplace subject to theirjurisdiction". These defendants throughtheir private conduct in conspiracy,caused to effectuatethis Plaintiff to "CompulsoryInvoluntary Servitude", an act punishable under Title 18 1584 as a criminal act.

North Dakota Constitution, Article I, Sec. 17. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, unlessfor the punishment ofcrime, shall ever be tolerated in this state.

The rights of "We the People" include the right to freely contract, but to be a bindingcontracts must be fully disclosed, must be agreed to by both parties, and there must bedelivery and acceptance. Any Contract that the court perceives to be binding without theabove qualities are null and void.

"Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowinglyintelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances andconsequences." Bradv v. U.S., 379 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970):

Page 3 of 12BREIF AND MEMORANDUM

&U//- E

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

Section 1. All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certaininalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring,possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness;and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and forlawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

Section 4. Every man may freely write, speak and publish his opinions on all subjects,being responsible for the abuse ofthat privilege. In all civil and criminal trials for libel the truthmay be given in evidence, and shall be a sufficient defense when the matter is published withgood motives and for justifiable ends; and the jury shall have the same power ofgiving ageneralverdict as in other cases; and in all indictments or informations for libels the jury shall have theright to determine the law and the facts under the direction ofthe court as in other cases.

Section 6. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment ofcrime,shall ever be tolerated in this state.

Section 8. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers andeffects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shallissue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the placetobesearched andthepersons and things to beseized.

Section 9. Ail courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands,goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due process of law, and right and justiceadministered without sale, denial or delay. Suits may be brought against the state in suchmanner, insuch courts, and insuch cases, as the legislative assembly may, by law, direct.

Section 16. Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without justcompensation having been first made to, or paid into court for the owner, unless the ownerchooses to accept annual payments as may be provided for by law. No right of way shall beappropriated to the use ofany corporation until full compensation therefor be first made in moneyor ascertained and paid into court for the owner, unless the owner chooses annual payments asmay be provided by law, irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by suchcorporation. Compensation shall be ascertained by a jury, unless a jury be waived. When thestate or any of its departments, agencies or political subdivisions seeks to acquire right of way, itmay take possession upon making an offer to purchase and by depositing the amount of suchoffer with the clerk of the district court of the county wherein the right of way is located. Theclerk shall immediately notify the owner of such deposit. The owner may thereupon appealto the court in the manner provided by law, and may have a jury trial, unless a jury bewaived, to determine the damages, which damages the owner may choose to accept in annualpayments as may be provided for by law. Annual payments shall not be subject to escalatorclauses but may be supplemented by interest earned.

For purposes of this section, a public use or a public purpose does not include publicbenefits ofeconomicdevelopment, including an increasein tax base, tax revenues, employment, orgeneral economic health. Private property shall not betaken for the use of, or ownership by, anyprivate individual or entity, unless that property is necessary for conducting a common carrier orutility business.

Page 4 of 12BREIF AND MEMORANDUM __

EJjklr- £

Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):"No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect," "Anything that is in conflictis null and void of law", "Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supremeLawwas illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevailover all other laws and certainlyourforefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases ofall law and for any law tocome in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bareno obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionalitywould date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court oflaw, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a nearnullity or a fiction of law."

(If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law isunconstitutional.)

Mudook v. Penn. : 319 US 105 (1943):"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment ofa right granted by the FederalConstitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional

liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That theordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise isimmaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Sincethe privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exist independently of thestates authority, the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask areturn, is irrelevant.

(No statemay convertany secured liberty intoa privilege and issuea licenseand a fee for it.)"

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham A!.: 373 US 262 (1962):"If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issuea license and a fee for it, you canignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity."

United States v. Bishop 412 US 346 (1973):Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent

1. It must be proven that you are the party.2. It must be proven thatyouhadthe method or opportunity to do the thing.3. It must be proven that you did this with a Willfiil Intent.

Willfulness - "An evil motive or intent to avoid a know duty or task under a law, with a moralcertainty."

Owen v. Independence 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 1398:(1982)Main v. Thiboutot 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 2502:(1982)'The right of action created bystatute relating to deprivation under colorof law, of a rightsecured by the constitution and the laws of the United States and comes claims which are basedsolelyon statutory violations ofFederal Lawand appliedto the claim that claimantshad beendeprived oftheir rights, in some capacity, to which they were entitled."


&W;/- E

"Officers of the court have no immunity when violating constitutional right, from liability"(When ?ny public servant violates your rights they do so at their own per,..)"Judee vou are deemed to know the law and are sworn to uphold it. You can hardly claim thatyou Se^m goodSh for willful deformation ofalaw and you certsdnly cannot Pedignorance55* law, for that would make the law look stupid for^^^^^^Z„îgnorance ofalaw, when aCitizen on the street cannot claim ignorance ofthe law. Therefoie,there isnojudicial immunity."

Rvars v United States 273USR 28 (1927):^£^Sp^m^ where the security ofaperson and property are to be hbera lyconstoed, and iUs the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional nghts oftheCitizen and against any stealth encroachment therein.

%&w£l p"5£*?£2XofPerson and property should be HbeÛy construed.It is the duty of the courts to be watchful of constitutional rights against any stealthyencroachments thereon."

Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436 (1966):?2rig^tfsecured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule or law making orlegislation which would abrogate or abolish them."

In the absence ofother effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the fifthamendment privileges must be observed. The person in custody must prior to "J"*0^ ~SSy informed that he has aright to remain silent and that anything he says will be usedagainsthhTin acourt of law. He must be clearly informed that he has anght to consult wrth alawyei tohave aUêr with him during interrogation and that ifhe is indigent, alawyer will be appointedto represetf himThe limitations on the interrogation presses required for the protection oftheindividual's constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference the proper system of lawenforcement as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards forded to otherjurisdictions. In each ofthese cases the statements were obtained under circumstances that didnot meet constitutional standards for protection ofthe privilege against self incrimination.

Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425 (1886):"An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords noprotections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has neverbeen passed ""The court follows the decision of the highest court of the state, in construing theconstitution and the laws ofthe state unless they conflict with or impair the efficacy ofsomeprinciple of the Federal Constitution or of the Federal Statutes or rule ofthe commercial orgeneral law. The decision ofthe state court's in questions relating to the existence oiitssubordinate tribunals and eligibility in elections or appointment oftheir officers and the passageofits laws are conclusive upon Federal Courts. While acts ofde facto incumbent ofan officelawfully created by law. An existing or often held to be binding from reasons of public policy.The acts of the person assuming to fill and perform the duties ofan office, which does not exist,can have no validity whatever in law."

Page 6 of 12


&Sf £

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges haveno judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform acriminal act, or for their administrative/ ministerial duties. When ajudge has aduty to act, hedoes not have discretion -he is then not performing ajudicial act, he is performing aministerialact.

Judicial immunity does not exist forjudges who engage in criminal activity, forjudgeswho connive with, aid and abet the criminal activity ofanother judge, or to ajudge for damagessustained by aperson who has been harmed by the judge's connivance with, aiding and abeting,another judge's criminal activity.

Bond vs. UNITED STATES, S29 US 334 - 2000. "The Supreme Court held that the AmericanPeople are in fact Sovereign and not the States or the Government. The court went on to definethat local, state and federal law enforcement officers were committing unlawful actions against^the Sovereign People by the enforcement ofthe laws and are personally liable for their actions."

Title 18 USC - Crimes and Criminal Procedure

Part I - CrimesChapter 101 - Records and ReportsSection 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally{a} Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, orattempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map,book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer ofany court ofthe United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer ofthe UmtedStates, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.£bj Whoever, having the custody ofany such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper,or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, ordestroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both;and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.As used inthis subsection, theterm "office" does notinclude theoffice held by any person asaretired officer ofthe Armed Forces of the United States.

Revised Statutes ofThe United States. 1st session. 43 Congress 1873-1874.Title LXX.~CRIMES.-~ CH. 4. CRIMES AGAINST JUSTICESEC. 5403. (Destroying. &c. public records.)Every person who willfully destroys or attempts to destroy, or, with intent to steal or destroy,takes and carries away any record, paper, or proceeding ofacourt ofjustice, filed or depositedwith any clerk or officer ofsuch court, or any paper, or document, or record filed or deposited inany public office, or with any judicial or public officer, shall, without reference to the value ofthe record, paper, document, or proceeding so taken, pay afine ofnot more than two thousanddollars, or suffer imprisonment, at hard labor, not more than three years, or both: [See §§5408,5411,5412.1]

Page 7 of 12


frl'L'r- E

1977-1991,20042010, 5506-5510.1

afterward disqualified from holding any office under the Government ofthe United States.

The Oath ofoffice is aquid pro quo contract tt s Tnnst. Art. 6. Clauses 2and13,Davis Vs.HitW^Co^^ ™*-W. 2nd. 65S. 657 Tex. Civ.^,^jg» u,_oSls, or officers ofthe government pledge to perform (Support ™***£^ StateSand State Constitutions) in return for substance (wages, perks, benefits). Proponents are^biected tofte Penalties and remedies for Breach ofContract, conspiracy under Titled 18ultse^^^fraud as per A„,rhaPh Va. SmH^, ™™»" 2nd, 1S2., 349 P. 2nd.1112,1114., Aiyany^ w w5T5r »v *«* ^n. 164 183 and Keeton PacR,nP Co. Vs. State, 437S.W. 20.28.

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point oftaking an arresting officer's life, if necessary."Plummer v- State. 136 Ind. 306.

This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad ElkvllS mU.S.529. The Court stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course ofthe disorderwtoch naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with verySrent eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrester> whatit does ifthe officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothm; morethan manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.

"An arrest made with adefective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails toallege acrime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and breakaway If the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more thanan involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111 491, reaffirmed and quot* • **v T.Pflch. 7Conn 4** State v. Glea^ 31 K«n. 245: Ballard v State, 43 Ohio 349-, State vRnnssgaii. 241 P. 2d 447: State v. Spanning. 34 Minn. 3621.

Page 8 of 12

BREIF AND MEMORANDUM ._,

"When aperson, being without fault, is in aplace where he has aright to be is violentlyassaulted,*!* may, without retreating, repel by force and if in the"^^^^right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80, Millerv. State. 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses hisSSÎJSL the bounds thereofby the use ofunnecessary force -dJiobnce as theydo to aprivate individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence^ Jones v. State, 26 Tex.Ann. T: Beaverts v- State. 4Tex. Ar-p 17fe Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93,903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained ofhis libertyhas the same right to use force in defending himselfas he would in repelling any other assaultand battery." (State v. Robinson. 145 ME. 77.72 ATL. 260).

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such acase, the person attempting thearrest stands in the position ofawrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in sell-A^n^»(State v. Moblev. 240 N.C. 476.83 S.E. 2d 100).

"One may come to the aid ofanother being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one isbeing assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from theunlawful custody ofan officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, withoutresistance." {Adams v. State. 121 Ga. 167 48 S.E. 910).

TRESSPASS AND TRESSPASS ON THE CASE

Uncertain things arc held for nothing. Maxim of Law. The law requires, not conjecture,but certainty. r„ffi» v. Oeden. 85 U.S. 120.124.1 Where the law is uncertain, there is no law.Rnuvier's haw Dictionary, vol. 2. "Maxima."

"The failure ofalaw to display on its face an enacting clause deprives it ofessential legality, andrenders astatute which omits such clause as "a nullity and ofno force oflaw." Joiner v. State,supra.

The "laws" used against the Accused are unnamed. They show no sign ofauthority ontheir face as recorded in the "NORTH DAKOTA CENTURY CODE." They carry with them noevidence that the Legislature ofNORTH DAKOTA, pursuant to Article II ofthe Constitution ofNORTH DAKOTA (1889), is responsible for these laws. Without an enacting clause the lawsreferenced to in the complaints have no official evidence that they are from an authority whichthey are subject to orrequired to obey.

All written laws, in all times and in all countries, whether in the form ofdecrees issued byabsolute monarchs, or statutes enacted by king and council, or by arepresentative body, have asarule, expressed upon their face the authority bv which they were promulgated or enacted. Thealmost unbroken custom ofcenturies has been to preface laws with astatement in some formdeclaring the enacting authority. If such an enacting clause is amere matter of form, arelic olantiquity, serving no useful purpose, why should the constitutions of so many ofour states

Page 9 of 12

BREIF AND MEMORANDUM ^ ,

£j>/b/-h £

require that all laws must have an enacting clause, and prescribe its form. If an enacting clause isuseful and important, if it is desirable that laws shall bear upon their face, the authority by whichtw »re. enacted, so that the neonle who are to obey them need not search legislative and otherrJ,rds to ascertain the authority, then it is not beneath the dignity of the framers of aconstitution, or unworthy of such an instrument, to prescribe a uniform style for such enactingclause.

The so called "statutes" in the "NORTH DAKOTA CENTURY CODE" are not only absentenacting clauses, but are surrounded by other issues and facts which make their authorityunknown or uncertain or questionable.

Upon inspection The Title page ofthe NORTH DAKOTA CENTURY CODE states"Comprising Statutes ofaGeneral and Permanent Nature Including Those Enacted by the xxthLegislative Assembly. It does Not say that they are the official laws of the Legislature ofNORTH DAKOTA.

Webster's NEW WORLD DICTIONARY defines Include "to have as part ofthe whole". Sothis leaves thereader to guess what is the law and what is not.

The NORTH DAKOTA CENTURY CODE also states: "This Volume also includes annotations"

Webster's NEW WORLD DICTIONARY defines annotations as: "acritical orexplanatory noteor notes" The annotated notes appear to be opinions of so called authorities, many times judgeswhich have differing political agendas. The annotations do not include the opinions of thelegislators) whom wrote the act. That which is uncertain cannot be accepted as true or valid inlaw.

"Trespass on the case signifies aform ofaction designed to cover all cases where an actionableclaim under the particular circumstances of the case stated." Nolan v. New York cited in Wordsand Phases

"Passive negligence or "trespass on the case" at common law was aform ofaction adapted to therecovery ofdamages for some injury resulting to aparty from the wrongful act ofanother,unaccompanied by direct or immediate force, or consequences ofdefendants' act." Crawford v.Pennel as cited in Words and Phrases.


£>a.f £

STATES ATT™^^ IMMUNITY:

carried out in conspiracy with astate actor or state officialêfD^n.sv.^ ^101 S.O.. 183 ah- «~ Adickes v. S» *™«* &Co.. 398 US. 144,90 b.lt. AMft.

Action 1985(3) under Title 42 reaches both conspiracies under color of law and conspiracies^Z^^^V^P^^ conduct. In this case Plaintiff has alleged aclass-basedS35Sminator^ animus is behind the conspirators' action as the-ourtre^ reflect.That actionable cause is the treatment ofanon-lawyer pro se litigant as.^disttnct erasedsubiect" ofthe Court, wherein denial ofequal protection ofthe laws and denia ofdue processwS clearlyZ piofbias and prejudice ofthe Court. Soo Criffen v. Breekenndfie, 403U.S. 88.102 (1971).

US Supreme Court has ruled that "private parties" may be held to the same standard of "state£1" in cases such as the instant cause where the^[^^^^^^*conspiracy with astate official. See Dennis v. Spark*, 449 U.S. 24,101 S. Ct., 183 andAdi^Lv. S.H. K™« *• C«- 398 U.S. 144,90 S. Ct. 1598.

ATin F. I. Sbc 20 «*** North Dako*» rotation states; "No special privileges orimmunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered, revoked or repealed by theSSve Assembly; no?*dl any citizen or class ofcitizens be granted privileges orimmunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all citizens.

"Officers ofthe court have no immunity when violating^^^^^^sinFor they are deemed to know the law." "™* v. Impendence, 100 S.C.T 1398,445 U.S. 622

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL,NOTICE TO PRICIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT....

Page 11 of 12


&A,r^ £

County ofO/^/Jlii^j---


I, Leland Thomas; Schneider, Sui Juris, Defendant in the above entitled action, hereby verifyunder penalty ofperjury, under the laws of the united states ofAmerica, without the "UNITEDSTATES" (federal government), that the above statement offacts and laws is true and correct,according to the best ofMy current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God,pursuant to 28 USC 1746(1).

iii %LL [VHPSigned: /s/Leland Thomas; Schneider, In Propria Persona

Subscribed and Sworn before me, _

ofNorth Dakota, County of Slfrdz <vd/->This <<>' day of September, 2016

V /

*A •' i I- '•• -f-

Notary for the State

nffiimrffltr rffrii

$tot»«fNorth OatoteMy Commtsston faolns January 30,2020

•iî ^••^ygFy^r1


}^K<b!i

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTACOUNTY OF STUTSMAN

IN DISTRICT COURTSOUTHEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOTIFICATION OF ASSIGNMENT AND CASE NUMBER


vs.


INTERESTED PARTIES:Defendant

Plaintiff

Defendant Attorney:Plaintiff Attorney:

CASE NO. 47-2016-CR-00544

Leland Thomas Schneider

State of North DakotaLeland Thomas SchneiderKatherine Marilyn Naumann

Re: Simple Assault on a Peace OfficerPreventing Arrest Or Discharge Of Other Duties

Felony CMisdemeanor A

This case has been assigned to the Hon. John Greenwood on September 29, 2016. All futureproceedings will be before this judge.

Pursuant to Rule 3.1 of the North Dakota Rules of Court, it is incumbent upon you to place theassigned file number on the front or title page in the upper right-hand corner of the instrument tobe filed.

Dated this 29th day of September, 2016

Barbara Hill

CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Clerk of District Court

The deadline for MOTIONS and PLEA AGREEMENTS in this case will be 10/29/2016.

The Court must be notified of binding plea agreements bv that date.

Any pleas after that date will be open pleas.

EM'i><^ ^

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTACOUNTY OF STUTSMAN

IN DISTRICT COURTSOUTHEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOTIFICATION OF RE-ASSIGNMENT AND CASE NUMBER


vs.

Leland Thomas Schneider1212Western ParkVillageJamestown, ND 58401

CASE NO. 47-2016-CR-00544

INTERESTED PARTIES:Defendant

PlaintiffDefendant Attorney:Plaintiff Attorney:

Re: Simple Assault on a Peace OfficerPreventing Arrest Or Discharge Of OtherDuties

Leland Thomas SchneiderState of North DakotaLeland Thomas SchneiderKatherine Marilyn Naumann

Felony CMisdemeanor A

This case has been assigned to the Hon. Thomas E. Merrick on October 25, 2016. All futureproceedings will be before this judge.

Pursuant to Rule 3.1 of the North Dakota Rules of Court, it is incumbent upon you to place theassigned file number on the front or title page in the upper right-hand comer of the instrument tobe filed.

Dated this 25th day of October, 2016

<^t^ D^**^Barbara Hill

CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

The deadline for MOTIONS and PLEA AGftEEMENTS in this case will be the date of the Dispositional Conference.The Court must be notified of binding plea agreements by that date.

Any pleas after that date will be open pleas.

EMl'^&i


COUNTY OF STUTSMAN

State of North Dakota,

Plaintiff,v.

Leland Thomas Schneider,

Defendant

IN DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

FILE NO 47-2016-CR-544

ORDER STRIKING ANSWER AND COUNTER COMPLAINT

[1] The Answer (Document #8) and Counter Complaint (Document #9) arestricken from the record. This is a criminal action governed by the NorthDakota Rules of Criminal Procedure, and such pleadings are net allowed. Thebrief and memorandum of law in support of counterclaim (Document #13) isalso stricken.

[2] IT IS SO ORDERED.

[3] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: The clerk shall not accept for filing anydocument bearing a file number beginning with JA.

Dated this 8th day of November, 2016.

Oiiginal;Copy:

OICAJtS. OI OUUiL

Mr. Fritz Fremgen (email)

Mr. Leland Thomas Schneider

1212 Western Park VillageJamestown, ND 58401

BY THE COURT:

H<foh.6rable Thomas E. MerrickDistrict Judge

£^H>,'-h H

IN DISTRICT COURT, STUTSMAN COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA

City of Jamestown,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Leland Schneider,

Defendant.

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

JA-2016-CR-656&657

TO: Municipal Clerk ofCourt, JamestownBrendaKnapp510 3rd Ave. SEJamestown, ND 58401

f 1THE ABOVE MATTER came before this court on the Recusalof the

Honorable Timothy Ottmar, Municipal Judge.

fl2 This case is nowassigned to the Honorable Thomas Govenand he will

preside over all future proceedings in this matter.

Dated this27th day ofOctober, 2016.

BY THE COURT:

~JPaMMi[Pf{aAUj^

Daniel D. Narum

Judge ofthe District Court

h<hii>/ ~l i-a-

NOTICE OF DISQUALIFICATION

TO: The Honorable cuflfl ipl Vlfiw, n , ,Presiding D1strict Judge r frMâu'—

RE: City of Jamestown

court judge has b^S^LSiSîJ0^' *?e «"<ters1fflied municipal

Judge T^tV,^^?y-f»T^/,Â^t^^r&^,s^^^"rfive y" «**>to hear the matterOs) UG>,9"are J"00* ^7*7^ T A*./*- /

Sincerely.

CC: £1Sy ProsecutorDefendant Cor defendant's attorney)

I

f^-2Q.ff&tZ &&&£&'•? ^ «*<* under Sectionto the presiding dlsSS &T "** °ls° Send a*** of tteSnand

hpvb)' J^


COUNTY OF STUTSMAN, CITY OF JAMESTOWN

The City ofJamestown,Plaintiff,v.

Leland Thomas Schneider,Defendant.

IN MUNICIPAL COURT

BEFORE THOMAS GOVEN

FILE NO JA-2016-CR-656,657

ORDER STRIKING ANSWER AND COUNTER COMPLAINT

[1] The Answerto the Actions,Counter Complaint, and Brief andMemorandum ofLaw insupport of counterclaim are stricken from the case file. This isacriminal action governed bytheNorth Dakota Rules ofCriminal Procedure, and such pleadings are notallowed.

[2] IT IS SO ORDERED.

[3] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: The Clerk shall not accept for the case file any documentbearing a filenumberbeginning with 47.

Dated thitf10* day ofNovember, 2016.

Original: Clerk ofCourtCopy: Kara Brinster (email)


BY THE COURT:

•/I

Hcttibrable Thomas GovenMunicipal Court Judge

&u/^ o

Cody Rodney; SchmittP.O. Box 151

Dawson, ND [email protected]

RECCED BY CLERKSUPREME COURT 3 0 2016


In the Supreme Court ofNorth Dakota


City of Jamestown

Plaintiffs

Vs.

Leland Thomas; SchneiderDefendant

CASE No. 47-2016-CR-00544

JA-2016-CR-00656

JA-2016-CR-00657

Affidavit of Service

Supreme Court ofNorth Dakota

I, Cody Rodney; Schmitt hand delivered an original of the Writ ofProhibition, Affidavit ofServices (x4) to the Supreme Courtof NorthDakota, Personally on November 30 ,2016.

Supreme Court ofNorth Dakota600 East Boulevard Ave

Dept. 180Bismarck, ND 58501

County ofT)(ca-**ZState ofNorth Dakota

I, Cody Rodney; Schmitt, hereby verify under penalty of perjury, underthe lawsof the UnitedStates of America, without the "United States" (federal government), that the above statementof facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge,and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 USC 1746(1).

37Signed siI Cody Rodney; Schmitt

Subscribed and Sworn before me, /c j^n* yfe^â^^C_ Notary for the State

ofNorth Dakota. County of ^^Îal/<^This day of Jtme-, 3o 20W-

\ I iftl A i^^d^^ÂAaJtbAAA^ \

ROBIN J. REWALD' Notarv Public< State of North Dakota

My Commission Expires March 26, 2020«w MP


Dawson, ND 58428lisarott(a)/outlook.com




City of JamestownCASE No. 47-2016-CR-00544

Plaintiffs JA-2016-CR-00656

JA-2016-CR-00657

Vs.


Leland Thomas; Schneider District Clerk of Court

Defendant

I, Cody Rodney; Schmitt hand delivereda copy of an original of the Writ ofProhibition to theDistrict Clerk ofCourt Stutsman County / Barb Hill, Personally onNovember 28th ,2016.

Clerk of District Court

Stutsman County Courthouse511 2nd Ave. SE

Jamestown, ND 58401-4210

County of K>Mte~x^State ofNorth Dakota

I, Cody Rodney; Schmitt, hereby verify under penalty of perjury, underthe lawsof the UnitedStates of America, without the "United States" (federal government), that the above statementoffacts and laws istrue and correct, according to the best ofMy current information, knowledge,and belief, so helpme God, pursuant to 28 USC 1746(1).

Signed siI Cody Rodney; Schmitt

Subscribed and Sworn before me, Jed hrri Jol^S^6ôfNorth Dakota, County of ^~*d<d^This day ofNovember JSo\ 2016


•^ ***" •** ^h iriV ifflti rfTfcnrfh rfTii ifti

ROBIN J. REWALDNotary Public

State of North DakotaMy Commission Expires March 26,20201


Dawson, ND 58428lisarott(a),outlook.com




City ofJamestown

Plaintiffs

Vs.


CASE No. 47-2016-CR-00544

JA-2016-CR-00656

JA-2016-CR-00657


District States AttorneyJeff P. Davis

I, CodyRodney; Schmitt hand delivered a copyof an original of the Writ of Prohibition to theDistrict States Attorney JeffP. Davis Office / JeffP. Davis, Personally onNovember 28th, 2016.

District States AttorneyJeff P. Davis

511 Second Ave. S.E.,Jamestown, ND 58401


I, Cody Rodney; Schmitt, hereby verify under penalty ofperjury, under the laws of the UnitedStates of America, without the"United States" (federal government), thattheabove statementoffacts and laws istrue and correct, according to the best ofMy current information, knowledge,and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28USC 1746(1).

icXk^

Signea s// Cody Rodney; Schmitt

Subscribed and Sworn before me, /c^6*W /C^ty^^ôfNorth Dakota, County of^^Ca£&&L>This day ofNovember,^ 2016


,dTH, rfh dtain

ROBIN J. REWALDNotarv Public

State of North DakotaIMy Commission Expires March 26,2020]I * — i .M^y iqp nflin^H ft


Dawson, ND [email protected]




City of Jamestown

Plaintiffs

Vs.


CASE No. 47-2016-CR-00544

JA-2016-CR-00656

JA-2016-CR-00657


Municipal Clerk of Court

I, Cody Rodney; Schmitt hand delivered a copy of an original of the Writ of Prohibition to theLEC of JamestownCity Police Department, Due to the Municipal Clerk of Court being closed,LEC Office identified themselvesas a Point of Contact, Servicewas Made, Personally onNovember 28th, 2016.

Clerk ofMunicipal CourtCity of Jamestown205 6th St SE #104,

Jamestown, ND 58401


I, CodyRodney; Schmitt, hereby verify underpenalty of perjury, under the laws of the UnitedStates of America, without the "United States" (federal government), that the above statementof facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best ofMy current information, knowledge,and belief, so help me God, pursuantto 28 USC 1746(1).

K'cjder

^/fezrffe-Signed siI Cody Rodney; Schmitt

Subscribed and Sworn before me, /&htii fcZ^JaM^ Notary for the StateofNorth Dakota, County of ^^g/lÔ This day ofNovemberJfeT'̂ ; 2016.

i«iiiifcir^---'~,'"'i,'-'"*,A

ROBIN J. REWALDNotary Pub!ic

State of North DakotaIMy Commission Expires March 26,20201


Dawson, ND 58428lisarott(g),outlook.com




City of JamestownCASE No. 47-2016-CR-00544

Plaintiffs JA-2016-CR-00656

JA-2016-CR-00657

Vs.


Leland Thomas; Schneider City Attorney Kara BrinsterDefendant

I, Cody Rodney; Schmitt hand delivered a copy ofan original of the Writ ofProhibition to the,City Attorney Kara Brinster / Office ofKara Brinster, Personally onNovember 28^,2016.

City Attorney Kara Brinster208 Second Avenue Southwest suite 201

Jamestown, ND 58402


KMe-r

I, Cody Rodney; Schmitt, hereby verify under penalty ofperjury, under the laws of the UnitedStates of America, without the "United States" (federal government), that the above statementof facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge,and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 USC 1746(1).

5d s/iSignea siI Cody Rodney; Schmitt

i, pibffi jk^tU*^Subscribed and Sworn before me,

ofNorth Dakota, County o^^t^ctu ,This day ofNovember,SO 2016


lift rfh dfflu iffr i \m "* *tfc^^^»

ROBIN J. REWALDNotary Public

State of North DakotaIMy Commission Expires March 26,20201

IP V