Witzke v. City of Bismarck

20060113 John Witzke, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
The City of Bismarck, a
North Dakota Municipal
Corporation, Defendant and Appellee

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Judge Robert O. Wefald
Nature of Action: Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Counsel:
Appellant: Pro se
Appellee: Smith Bakke Porsborg Schweigert & Armstrong
Term: 06/2006   Argument: 06/26/2006  Waived
ND cite: 2006 ND 160
NW cite: 718 N.W.2d 586


Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
a) Did Judge Wefald err when he dismissed my "Abuse of Process" Civil lawsuit against the City of Bismarck for $100,000.00?
b) Did attorney for the City Robert J. Bakke knowingly lie about having a videotape of me striking my neighbors surveillance camera with a shovel or was he given false information from the City of Bismarck to pass onto Judge Wefald? There is nothing of the sort recorded on film. Why is this conduct allowed and not looked into?
c) Why is Bismarck Assistant City Attorney Paul Fraase allowed to lie in a "material proceeding" at an April 12th, 2005 City Commissioners meeting? He lied to the Mayor, City Commissioners, Charlie Whitman, the good people of Bismarck and whoever might have been in attendance or watching on TV. Why are there no consequences for him doing this?
d) Why is Paul Fraase allowed to mislead Charles Klien and the City Commissioners with misinformation and lies so that they are unable to write a informed and truthful report about the formal complaint I had filed against him?

Add Docket 20060113 RSS Add Docket 20060113 RSS

Docket entries:
104/12/2006 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 04/10/2006
204/18/2006 Amended Notice of Filing of the Notice of Appeal
304/19/2006 APPELLANT BRIEF
404/19/2006 APPELLANT APPENDIX
504/19/2006 DISK - ATB
604/25/2006 Order & NOA for ATA
704/27/2006 TRANSCRIPT DATED 3-16-06
804/27/2006 DISK - TRA dated 3-16-06 (e-mailed)
905/09/2006 RECORD ON APPEAL (not rec'd: #16--court reporter notes)
1005/18/2006 APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed pdf)
1105/18/2006 E-FILED BRIEF (Appellee's Brief)
1205/18/2006 APPELLEE APPENDIX
1305/18/2006 E-FILED APPENDIX (Appellee's Appendix)
1405/19/2006 Payment of $25 fee for filing electronic AEB (Receipt #16871)
1505/23/2006 REPLY BRIEF of Appellant
1605/23/2006 Appendix to Reply Brief of Appellant
1705/23/2006 DISK - ryb
1805/23/2006 S.CT. DETERMINED ORAL ARGUMENT NOT NECESSARY
1906/26/2006 APPEARANCES: waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(a)(2) and submitted on the records and briefs filed
2006/26/2006 ARGUED: waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(a)(2) and submitted on the records and briefs filed
2107/18/2006 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
2207/18/2006 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning
2307/18/2006 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee
2407/19/2006 Judgment Mailed to Parties
2507/31/2006 PETITION FOR REHEARING
2607/31/2006 DISK - per
2708/16/2006 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (PER). Denied
2808/30/2006 MANDATE
2909/01/2006 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 04/18/2014