IN SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA | ||||
| Gregory Delzer and Mary Ann Delzer, Plaintiffs and Appellees Rick Anderson, Defendant and Appellant | ) ) | Appellant's Supreme Court Brief CIVIL CASE NO. 30-07-C-0798 SUPREME COURT NO. 20080206 | ||
Appeal from:
Order dated June 20th, 2008 and Civil Money Judgment dated June 25th, 2008
District Court, Morton County, North Dakota
The Honorable Sonna M. Anderson
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
| Richard Anderson |
| Email: wildernessfireman@hotmail.com |
| Phone/Fax: 866-356-2114 |
Table of Contents
| Table of Contents | Page 2 |
| Table of Authorities | Paragraph 1 |
| Statement to the Court | Paragraph 2 |
| Jurisdictional Statement | Paragraph 3 |
| Statement of Issues Presented for Review | Paragraph 4 |
| Statement of the Case | Paragraph 18 |
| Statement of the Facts | Paragraph 27 |
| Argument | Paragraph 37 |
| Conclusion | Paragraph 48 |
Table of Authorities
1) No Authorities are being referred to.
Statement to the Court
2) Now comes Appellant Richard Anderson who is located in the State of Nevada and can be contacted via Fax number at 866-356-2114 and telephone number 866-356-2114, herein represented by himself at this time due to inability to hire an attorney due to financial strain and responds files this Supreme Court Brief in Supreme Court case no. 20080206 which is an appeal of Hon. Judge S. Anderson's judgment in Morton County District Court No. 30-07-C-0798.
Jurisdictional Statement
3) The appeal of this case falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of North Dakota since the case being appealed stems from the Morton County District Court (case number 30-07-C-0798 Delzer vs. Anderson) and the original case that the aforementioned Morton County Case (30-07-C-0798) allegedly stem's from is a Burleigh County District Court divorce case (Burleigh County Case number 05-C-2286 Kathie E. Anderson vs. Richard A. Anderson).
Statement of the Issues Presented for Review
4) The Court was wrong by not allowing continuance.
5) Neither this case (Morton County District Court Case number 30-07-C-0798 Delzer vs. Anderson) or the original case that this case allegedly stemmed from which is Burleigh County District Court divorce case number 05-C-2286 Kathie E. Anderson vs. Richard A. Anderson have ever been heard in court.
6) Appellant is a professional Wildland Firefighter and has mandatory availability periods to be on call with one-hour response times for wildland fires throughout the western United States and cannot leave his position without risk of losing his employment. And the Court was fully informed of Mr. Anderson's Mandatory Availability Period.
7) The attorney Brian Giese who represents the Plaintiff's has intentionally been seeking relief during times that he was fully aware that the Defendant (Appellant) had mandatory work availability during wildland fire season and could not, without potentially losing his job, return to North Dakota to deal with these matters. By waiting until March to begin proceedings, the action has the appearance of harassment and an attempt to gain an unfair advantage for the Plaintiff's.
8) Hon. Judge Anderson was wrong as she refused to stay legal proceedings while Appellant is out of state fighting fires which considering the nature and demands of Mr. Anderson's employment, should have been given fair consideration, instead showed bias on the part of the Hon. Judge Anderson by imposing impossible demands upon Mr. Anderson because of his employment responsibilities.
9) Hon. Judge Anderson's comment that Appellant has not provided any specific contact for his employment, or any verification that he is required to be out of the state of North Dakota for the months specified for wildland fire duties was out of line and improper since that information was never requested by the court and displays a bias against Mr. Anderson and en unfair expectation to meet unwritten demands that were never requested through proper means by the court prior (ie: contact information for Mr. Anderson's employer and verification that Mr. Anderson is required to be out of the state of North Dakota for the months specified).
10) Attorney Brian Giese waited until March 2008 to file motions with the court and have Appellant served with process and it is believed to be with the intent or disrupting Mr. Anderson's employment and ability to have an income, or knowing that it would make handling matters with this case in court difficult or impossible without the complete loss of Mr. Anderson's employment. There were several months of inactivity in the case prior to March 2008 during which time (the winter months) Mr. Anderson was available.
11) Appellant has disputed the amounts owed to Delzer in his response to the court despite Hon. Judge Anderson's oversight and comment to the contrary.
12) Judge Anderson claimed that Mr. Anderson had not submitted any affidavit in opposition to the amount claimed and stated that Mr. Anderson did not "address the amount owed" which was both an oversight and assumption of guilt of the Defendant on her part. Her comment was biased and in contradiction of evidence of statements contained within filings by Mr. Anderson.
13) Judge Anderson claimed that Mr. Anderson did not identify specific payments made to the Plaintiffs (Delzers) in this case with dates or amounts or proof of payments which is irregular since the case has not been properly heard in court and that information was never requested or able to be presented in the proper forum (ie: the courtroom).
14) Defendant, Richard Anderson made a Motion for Hearing before the court that was filed on January 29th, 2008 and that filing by Mr. Anderson was in essence ignored by the court. Hon. Judge Anderson had not responded to that motion by Mr. Anderson to resolve this case in court prior to the 2008 wildland fire season.
15) Appellant has been experiencing serious financial hardship and cannot afford legal counsel however has sought legal counsel diligently and applied through the North Dakota Bar Association's resources for free or reduced fee service programs. Mr. Anderson was approved for the reduced fee program however could not find any attorney who would be willing to work for the reduced fee under that program.
16) Appellant has intention of seeking modification of the original case between he and Kathie Anderson (05-C-2286 Kathie E. Anderson vs. Richard A. Anderson) which said modification would likely nullify the highly exaggerated and frivolous claim made by the Delzer's in this case. Mr. Anderson believes that proper modification of the original divorce judgment would nullify the grounds of the frivolous claims made by the Plaintiff's in this case. In order to seek modification, Mr. Anderson needs to raise the funds for an attorney. Upon modification, Mr. Anderson believes that the plaintiffs in this case would not have merit to bring this case against Mr. Anderson.
17) The original case (05-C-2286 Kathie E. Anderson vs. Richard A. Anderson) was never heard in court as Appellant was never served at his proper address with notification of court hearing. Plaintiff had the home and office addresses of Mr. Anderson at that time.
Statement of the Case
18) This case is a lawsuit for money by the parents of Mr. Anderson's ex-wife, Kathie Anderson. They are claims made by Greg and Mary Ann Delzer that are exaggerated or false. The Delzer's claim to have the rights assigned to them by Kathie Anderson for collection of the judgment based on her divorce of Mr. Anderson, however no evidence of those "rights" has ever been produced.
19) In the divorce proceeding, primarily funded and fueled by the parents of Kathie Anderson, (Greg and Mary Ann Delzer the Plaintiff's in this case) there was originally an agreement signed by Mr. Anderson at a time that he was undergoing professional counseling for stress and emotional issues. Mr. Anderson signed had no legal counsel, nor could afford legal counsel, and at a time that he was actually trying to work our the marriage with Kathie Anderson. Since the divorce, Mrs. Anderson has violated that visitation rights of Mr. Anderson continually and in fact totally alienated their 3 ½ year old son from Mr. Anderson and has, without just cause, refused visitation requests by Mr. Anderson, even those requests made through the Family Safety Center. This is a related but separate matter that needs to be dealt with as part of the motion to modify in that case that Mr. Anderson has referred to. It is believed that the monetary suit by the Delzer's against Mr. Anderson is a combination of retaliation and a control tactic used to try to further keep Mr. Anderson from having a proper parent-child relationship with his son and attempt to bankrupt Mr. Anderson in order to prevent his abilities even further from pursuing a legal case against their daughter.
20) When the divorce was to go before the Burleigh County District Court, Mrs. Anderson through her attorney Daniel Oster claimed to have served Mr. Anderson as to the date of the hearing before the court, at PO Box 453 in Bismarck, ND. That address had been disbanded by Mr. Anderson in the months prior because of extreme amounts of junk mail that made that address unmanageable. Plaintiff's knowingly and fraudulently used that former address to claim they properly served Mr. Anderson even though they knew that the PO Box was no longer a valid address for Mr. Anderson's and with full knowledge of Mr. Anderson's then current home and work addresses at that time along with additional contact telephonic information that they had and did not utilize so they could keep knowledge of the court date secret to prevent Mr. Anderson from being able to be present to dispute their claims.
21) Mrs. Anderson, in her divorce asked for Spousal Support and several other financial amenities that would not have been provided in accordance with the law if Mr. Anderson were afforded the opportunity to be in court. (The couple was married barely over 2 years). Because of Mr. Anderson's absence in court, Mrs. Anderson received s judgment for Mr. Anderson to pay all medical and other bills in full, plus spousal support and additional monies Mrs. Anderson wanted in her savings account as a financial bonus.
22) Mr. Anderson has experienced business failure, career change and financial devastation as a result of changes in his income, career and the economy. He has been unable to afford legal counsel. Mr. Anderson is currently trying to raise funds for legal counsel to seek modification of the original divorce judgment and has many errors and biases upon which to justify a modification, however needs more time in order to pursue that action because of finances.
23) Mr. Anderson requested a continuance, and instead, Judge Anderson chose to ignore Mr. Anderson's circumstances, evidence of statements made in the case in filings and issue biased and improper judgment against Mr. Anderson's despite that the claims that the case presented by the Delzer's also have inaccuracies. There is serious question as to the legal and rightful claims of the Delzers to even pursue this case. Many of the claims by the Delzer's are frivolous.
24) Mr. Anderson has filed a separate complaint against the attorney Brian Giese for unethical and reckless conduct and possible criminal violations in regard to records covered by both state and federal privacy laws by Giese as a separate action directly related to this case.
25) Greg Delzer, one of the plaintiff's in this case has had police reports filed against him for stalking Mr. Anderson, and had a restraining order filed against him as well that Mr. Anderson dropped in a failed good faith effort to try to make peace. Mr. Delzer also has a history of making false claims in court against Mr. Anderson as he tried to get a restraining order against Mr. Anderson with no cause, and has made proven false statements in court in October 2007.
26) It strongly appears that the Delzer's are using this case, and every "legal" tool they can manipulate in order to continue interference with the parental rights of Mr. Anderson to see his young son who is currently alienated from him and who resides in the home of the Plaintiff's in this case. This case is frivolous and being used only as a tool of harassment toward the Appellant.
Statement of the Facts
27) Mr. Anderson, the Appellant, now resides out of state and is employed fighting wildland fires and has mandatory availability for his job.
28) Mr. Anderson was never requested by the court to provide specific contact information for his employment to the court nor was he requested for any sort of verification that he is in fact a firefighter outside the state of North Dakota for the months he previously indicated.
29) Attorney Brian Giese took no action on this case during the winter months from December 2007 and waited until late March 2008, until filing motions to pursue this in court.
30) Appellant has disputed the amounts owed in this case and has previously made that known to the court.
31) The court (Hon. Judge Anderson), overlooked the fact that Mr. Anderson has disputed amounts "owed" and had overlooked the facts made an improper judgment.
32) Mr. Anderson has for the past few years now and currently is still experiencing financial hardships and he does not have means to afford an attorney in this matter. Mr. Anderson is struggling financially and does not have full time employment.
33) Mr. Anderson will be seeking modification of the original divorce judgment when funds for an attorney are available and he has adequate grounds to seek said modification.
34) Hon. Judge Anderson claimed that Appellant did not submit any affidavit in opposition of the amount claimed nor address the amount owed. Reference to a separate affidavit in opposition of the amount claimed, it was stated in Appellant's DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO DISMISS dated March 18th, 2008 and filed with the Morton County District Court. Mr. Anderson stated in that instrument item # 1 "Plaintiff falsely alleges that Defendant owes Plaintiff approximately $15,000.00". Judge Anderson's statement was incorrect. (See Appellants Appendix page 8)
35) Evidence in defense of Mr. Anderson has not yet been presented because no proper forum for the proper and legal presentation of that evidence, with Defendant (Appellant's) legal rights being adhered to, has not been afforded. The case has never been heard in court. Mr. Anderson did make a MOTION FOR HEARING before the court dated and filed on January 29th, 2008 and the court never responded to that motion, and in essence ignored Mr. Anderson's request for a hearing to resolve this matter. (See Appellants Appendix page 7).
36) Mr. Anderson simply requested a continuance and some flexibility with the court because he has mandatory employment obligations during several months each year and Mr. Anderson no longer resides in North Dakota.
Argument
37) Mr. Anderson, the Appellant, is out of state and is employed fighting wildland fires and no longer resides in the State of North Dakota primarily because he had to accept out of state work 1. because of the lack of work for him in North Dakota in his profession, and 2. because of continued illegal harassment, stalking and threat of harm being brought toward Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Anderson's desire to avoid Plaintiff's and their assign's illegal aggression toward him.
38) Mr. Anderson was never previously requested by the court to provide specific contact information for his employment to the court nor was he requested for any sort of verification that he is in fact a firefighter outside the state of North Dakota for the months he previously indicated.
39) Attorney Brian Giese took no action on this case during the winter months from December 2007 and waited until late March 2008 to file a new motion to pursue this in court knowing Mr. Andersons mandatory work schedule and hardships in dealing with this matter while committed to his work fighting wildland fires often times in very remote areas with limited or no communications or services. In fact, Mr. Anderson did make a Motion for Hearing in this matter on January 29th, 2008 and that Motion for Hearing was never responded to by the court, in essence, it was ignored. (See Appellants Appendix page 7).
40) Appellant has disputed the amounts owed in this case and has previously made that known to the court in his responses to the court. (See Appellants Appendix page 8) No trial was ever conducted so that the details of that dispute could be heard. Mr. Anderson's Constitutional rights also have to be protected and an assumption by Judge Anderson that there are monies owed to the Plaintiff's without a hearing on the matter is questionable and biased in favor of the Plaintiff's.
41) Mr. Anderson is experiencing severe, long term financial hardship with the fact that he has not found full-time sustained employment and does not have means to afford an attorney in this matter. Mr. Anderson however he continues diligently to attempt to raise funds for legal representation primarily to seek modification of the original divorce decree with just cause. Again, this case stems from a claim by vindictive parents of his ex-wife in an effort to cash in on their daughters divorce and use this case also as a tool to harass and oppress Mr. Anderson.
42) Judge Anderson claimed that Appellant did not submit any affidavit in opposition of the amount claimed nor address the amount owed. In regard to a separate affidavit in opposition of the amount claimed, it was stated in the Appellant's DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO DISMISS dated March 18th, 2008 and filed with the Morton County District Court. (See Appellants Appendix page 8). Mr. Anderson stated in that instrument item # 1 "Plaintiff falsely alleges that Defendant owes Plaintiff approximately $15,000.00". Judge Anderson's statement was incorrect. For Judge Anderson to make reference to a separate affidavit presumes that there is a finding of judgment prior to a proper hearing in court on the matter and is in complete ignorance of the Appellants responses as a Defendant.
43) In reference to addressing the amount owed, it is assumed by Judge Anderson that Appellant actually owes money to the Plaintiffs, who were not a party to the divorce between Appellant and his ex-wife where the claim apparently stems from. Also, there are references to a loan that Plaintiff's claim they are paying on that Appellant was not a party of. The case was never heard in court in order to sort out these discrepancies and frivolous claims.
44) Judge Anderson claimed that Mr. Anderson did not identify specific payments made to the Plaintiffs (Delzers) in this case with dates or amounts or proof of payments. (See Appellants Appendix page 17) Again, Mr. Anderson is Defendant in this case and the case was never heard in court. Payments made in regard to items in the divorce case were not requested by the court nor has a proper forum for identification of payments and what they were for been provided. Evidence in defense of Mr. Anderson has not yet been presented because no proper forum for the proper and legal presentation of that evidence, with Defendant (Appellant's) legal rights being adhered to, has not been afforded. The case has never been heard in court.
45) Given the proper hearings in court, it would become clear that Mr. Anderson has been a victim of harassment, stalking and alienation from his son by the ex-wife Kathie Anderson and under the direct influence and control of plaintiff's in this case. The motives of the Plaintiff's in this case are simply to use this case and its burdens upon Mr. Anderson a tool to harass and pressure Mr. Anderson and ultimately make it impossible for him to have a relationship with his son who is their grandson, and under their control in their household.
46) Greg and Mary Ann Delzer have a documented history of harassment and stalking Mr. Anderson. Plaintiff's also have a documented history of forming alliances with former business competitors to bring harm to Mr. Anderson's previous business, his reputation and his finances. Those are separate issues that will be dealt with in a separate legal matter that is well within the statute of limitation and will be dealt with systematically in the future and mentioned here to demonstrate the history of the Plaintiff's in their efforts to create damage to Mr. Anderson.
47) Mr. Anderson simply requested a continuance and some flexibility with the court because he no longer reside's in North Dakota and has mandatory requirements for his work as a wildland firefighter. Mr. Anderson requests that the Supreme Court of North Dakota either dismiss this case as or to have this case heard at a later date and in a court not tainted with bias against Mr. Anderson and provide time so that he can raise appropriate funds for legal counsel.
Conclusion
48) This case has never been heard in court and the Plaintiff's and their counsel have used tactics knowing Mr. Anderson's mandatory work requirements outside the state of North Dakota. To leave work during fire season would be for Mr. Anderson to jeopardize his employment and his employer as his unit he is assigned to supervise cannot deploy without qualified supervision which Mr. Anderson is uniquely qualified to perform.
49) This case has been used as a tool to harass and burden the Appellant with motives outside the Plaintiff's frivolous claims. This case should either be dismissed or heard at a time that can be appropriately scheduled with the court and without jeopardizing Mr. Anderson's employment.
50) There is a long history that is documented and can be proven that this case is intended more so in the spirit of harassment combined with frivolous claims to pursue a different goal of causing unjust burdens and furthering the Plaintiff's continued efforts to further alienate Mr. Anderson and his 3 ½ year old son from a proper parent-child relationship rather than in the righteous spirit of justice.
51) The Appellant's plea to either (1) dismiss this case or (2) to allow Appellant a continuance to be able to handle this case without jeopardizing Appellant's employment, and in a court that is not biased (ie: other than Hon. Judge Anderson's court) should rightfully be granted and judgment issued in favor of Appellant.
Dated this 29th day of October, 2008.
| _ | ||||||
| Richard A. Anderson | ||||||
| Defendant | ||||||
| Email: Wildernessfireman@hotmail.com | ||||||
| Fax & Phone: 866-356-2114 | ||||||