Peters-Riemers v. Riemers
Jenese A. Peters-Riemers, Plaintiff and Appellee
Roland C. Riemers, Defendant and Appellant
East Central Judicial District,
Judge Norman J. Backes
|Nature of Action:||Other (Civil)|
|Term:||10/2000  Argument: 10/09/2000|
|ND cite:||2001 ND 62|
624 N.W.2d 83
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Whether District Court violated Appellant's right to due process and abused its discretion & state law by granting Plaintiff's Protection Order by not allowing him the right to present any type of reasonable defenses such as presenting previous incidents of domestic abuse by the Plaintiff, or the Defendant's state of mind at the time of the incident?
II. Whether the District Court violated the Constitutional and God Given rights of Johnathan Riemers by effectively denying him the love and care by his father, and the love and free association with his brothers and sisters?
III. Whether the District Court violated Appellant's Constitutional right to due process by using just a probable cause standard for finding of domestic abuse when said order could result in criminal contempt of court charges?
IV. Whether the District Court effectively violated Defendant's Constitutional right to possession of his own real and personal property, and/or sexually discriminated against him with no evidence what-so-ever of the ownership of said property: no evidence of the relative need of the property by either party: and no inquiry of the ability of the parties to pay the expenses or even maintain said property?
V. Whether the District Court violated Defendant's right to due process by limiting his defense to that of only "self defense"? VI. Whether the District Court Protection Order is unconstitutionally vague in that it subjects Defendant to arrest for being found within 100 yards of any undefined and unknown residence of the Petitioner?
VII. Whether the District Court Protection Order unconstitutionally prohibits Defendants freedom of speech by forbidding any contact, direct or indirect, by telephone or any other means. Without any evidence or finding that non-physical contact had been or would be a danger to the Plaintiff. And also by subjecting Defendant to criminal prosecution for contacts which could be solely initiated by Plaintiff?
VIII Whether NDCC 14-07.1 is unconstitutional in that it allows for arrest without warrant whether or not the violation was committed in the presence of the officer and thus violating both Federal and State due process?.
VIIII. Whether NDCC 14-05-22(3), 14-05-22(3) and 14-09-06.2(j) are unconstitutional and also violate separation of powers by legislatively mandating procedures for the courts requiring a higher degree of proof to disprove a presumption then is required to obtain the initial presumption in a quasi criminal proceeding?.
X. Whether NDCC 14.07.1 is unconstitutional because although it presents itself as a civil law, its punitive nature and deprivation of strong constitutional rights make its true nature criminal and not civil.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A. Constitutional Issues
1. Can Roland raise the constitutional issues for the first time on appeal?
2. Are all of the constitutional issues ripe for review?
3. Is the Protection Order unconstitutionally vague?
4. Did the District Court violate Roland's due process rights?
B. Evidentiary Issues
1. Did Roland make a sufficient offer of proof concerning his excluded testimony in the District Court to allow the Supreme Court to decide the issue?
2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in deciding which evidence to allow and which to exclude?
C. Request for Attorneys Fees on Appeal
|Add Docket 20000145 RSS|
|1||05/17/2000 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 05/12/2000|
|2||05/17/2000 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 05/12/2000|
|3||06/12/2000 RECORD ON APPEAL|
|4||06/15/2000 SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S CERTIFICATE ON APPEAL DATED JUNE 14, 2000 (ENTRIES 14 & 14A)|
|5||06/20/2000 TRANSCRIPT DATED March 14, 2000|
|6||06/22/2000 DISK - TRA|
|7||06/30/2000 MOTION FOR STAY OF PROTECTION ORDER (7 copies made). RspDue: 07/10/2000|
|8||07/10/2000 Copies of Motion for Stay of Protection Order|
|9||07/11/2000 Jenese A. Peters-Riemers' Opposition to Motion to Stay Protection Order (Fax)|
|10||07/12/2000 JENESE A PETERS-RIEMERS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY PROTECTION ORDER (Original) (7 copies made)|
|11||07/12/2000 Letter dated 7-10-00 from Roland C. Riemers (Re Request for Stay) (7 copies made)|
|12||07/13/2000 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Mot/STAY/Protection Order). Denied|
|13||07/13/2000 Order Mailed to Parties|
|14||07/28/2000 APPELLANT BRIEF, W/ATTACHED 'APPENDIX' - Withdrawn when revised brief filed 8-7-00|
|15||07/31/2000 DISK - atb|
|16||08/07/2000 APPELLANT BRIEF (Corrected/Revised Brief)|
|17||08/07/2000 APPELLANT APPENDIX (Corrected/Revised ATA)|
|18||08/08/2000 DISK - corrected ATB|
|19||08/15/2000 Corrected Docket Sheet for ATA|
|20||08/21/2000 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|21||08/21/2000 APPELLEE APPENDIX|
|22||08/22/2000 DISK - AEB|
|23||09/08/2000 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF|
|24||09/08/2000 DISK - ACB|
|25||09/08/2000 REPLY BRIEF (corrected)|
|27||09/13/2000 Ltr. (fax) from Michael Gjesdahl dtd. 9-13-00 re waiver of oral argument|
|28||09/14/2000 ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning|
|29||09/19/2000 SITTING WITH THE COURT: O'Keefe, James H.|
|30||09/19/2000 APPELLANT'S NOTICE & MOTION TO STRIKE & SANCTIONS (Part I - - Motion to strike Amicus Curiae Brief|
|31||09/20/2000 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (to Part I of Notice & Motion to Strike & Sanctions). Denied|
|32||09/20/2000 APPELLANT'S NOTICE & MOTION TO STRIKE & SANCTIONS (Part II - - Regarding Appellee's Appendix). RspDue: 09/29/2000|
|33||09/20/2000 NO ACTION TAKEN (No separate action taken.)|
|34||09/21/2000 Janese Peters-Riemers' Opposition to Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions and Motion to Strike ACB|
|35||10/09/2000 APPEARANCES: Roland C. Riemers; Michael L. Gjesdahl|
|36||10/09/2000 ARGUED: Riemers; Gjesdahl (Vol. X; page 65)|
|37||12/01/2000 Letter from Michael Gjesdahl dated 11-29-00 re: anticipated date for decision|
|38||03/23/2001 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|39||03/23/2001 SPLIT OPINION: Neumann, William A.|
|40||03/23/2001 Concurring and dissenting: Sandstrom, Dale V.: CON/DIS|
|41||03/23/2001 Concurring and dissenting: Maring, Mary Muehlen: CON/DIS|
|42||03/23/2001 Costs on Appeal taxed in favor of Janese Peters-Riemers|
|43||03/23/2001 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|44||03/27/2001 PETITION FOR REHEARING|
|45||03/28/2001 DISK - PER (Jenese A. Peters-Riemers)|
|46||04/05/2001 PETITION FOR REHEARING (Entitled "Appellant's Response & Cross Appeal of Supreme Court Findings")|
|47||04/05/2001 Addendum to "Appellant's Response and Cross Appeal of Supreme Court Findings"|
|48||04/06/2001 DISK - PER (Roland C. Riemers)|
|49||04/17/2001 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Pet/Rehearing of Roland C. Riemers). Denied|
|50||04/17/2001 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Pet/Rehearing of Jenese Peters-Riemers). Denied|
|52||04/30/2001 "Notice of Gross Error in Court Decision"|
|53||05/16/2001 NO ACTION TAKEN (Notice of Gross Error)|
|54||05/01/2001 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|55||05/29/2007 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|