Peters-Riemers v. Riemers
v.
Roland C. Riemers, Defendant and Appellant
Judge Norman J. Backes
| Appellant: | Pro se | |
| Appellee: | Gjesdahl Law, P.C. | |
| Amicus curiae: | Reid Alan Brady , Att. General Office |
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