State ex rel. Dept. of Labor v. Riemers
North Dakota Department of
Labor, for the benefit of
Fair Housing of the Dakotas, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Roland Riemers, Defendant and Appellant
and
Affordable Apartments, LLC, Defendant
Judge Karen Kosanda Braaten
| Appellant: | Pro se | |
| Appellee: | Michael Trent Pitcher , Att. General Office |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
I. Did the Court err and deny Roland Riemers (here-in-after just Riemers) his right to Due Process under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by denying his Rule 60 N.D.R.Civ.P. request to reopen the case when this Court had already clearly indicated the District Court had violated Rule 55, and thus violated federally mandated Due Process?
II. Did the Court err and violate Riemers state and federal constitutional right to Commercial Free Speech by punishing him for publishing a truthful rental advertisement, and thus the judgment has to be considered null and void?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Default judgment was entered against Riemers. Riemers filed a request to reopen case. The district court denied Riemers' request. Riemers appealed the default judgment but did not appeal the order denying his request to reopen case. This Court held Riemers' failure to file a notice of appeal on his request to reopen case precluded relief from being granted. Riemers now appeals from the denial of his second request to reopen case. Is Riemers' claim barred by res judicata or the law of the case?
II. Riemers' second request to reopen the case, dated April 20, 2009, came almost 5 months after entry of this Court's judgment and 14 months after the district court's denial of his first request to reopen the case. Should Riemers' appeal be denied because his April 20, 2009, request to reopen the case was untimely?
III. Riemers never raised a constitutional free speech argument before the district court in either of his requests to reopen the case. Is Riemers' constitutional free speech argument barred because it was not raised below?
IV. Commercial speech concerning unlawful activity is not protected speech under the First Amendment. Riemers' rental advertisement was commercial speech concerning illegal housing discrimination. Was Riemers free to publish discriminatory advertising?
Add Docket 20090190 RSS