Supporting Documentation
Who was the first judge who was arrested and subsequently resisted arrest? So-called Judge Donald M. Spilseth!
Yeah Donny, I made you my little bitch that day, didn't I?
[Note: If you file a complaint against a judge, then don't be surprised if the county attorney files felony charges against you to shut you up by trying to discredit you. That's what Boyd Beccue did, didn't he? Boyd you were so pissed that day when you had to state in court that Spilseth had to recuse himself from the case, weren't you? What did I say that made you so mad that you would give me that look of death? It was
"Thank you for admitting that Spilesth was placed under arrest," wasn't it?]
Donny's arrest made it onto the front page of the rag called the West Central Tribune (They're a bunch of political whores, aren't they?)
How can a prisoner act as a judge? Answer: He can't, can he? On March 13, 2007 Assistant County Attorney, Shane Baker stated in open court: "The state refuses to pick up the charges." What charges? The charges leveled in the arrest of Donald M. Spilseth in open court on March 13, 2007. The VALID arrest was made by Terry Dean, Nemmers in open court on March 13, 2007. How can you tell it was valid? Shane Baker confirmed
the validity by declining to prosecute. {Only a prosecutor can bring charges into court to prosecute you} Thanks Shane!
I have two lawyers and one judge who have testified that the arrest was valid:
1. Shane Baker - Assistant Kandiyohi County Attorney: Refused to pick up charges in court.
2. Boyd Beccue - Kandiyohi County Attorney: Announces recual in open court.
3. Donald Spilseth - Judge for the Eighth Judicial District: Files recusal because of arrest.
In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. 2 Corinthians 13:1 KJV
Oh that son of bitch Spilseth wanted me to write an apology letter to him. Does this look like an apology? That idiot accepted it! All my cell mates said I was going to get more days for contempt of court. They were wrong!
What was the first complaint I filed against a judge? It was against this crook Donny, wasn't it?
Here is what Donny teaches his thugs (Bailiffs) to do - steal your paperwork that you are trying to sign and then make false statements that you "refused to sign" it.
Do you want to see what thugo looks like? He is the thug who is refusing to ID himself in this video:
Anthony is thug, isn't he?
I went to the court adminstrator's office and made a big scene. I told how Spilseth's thug ripped my paperwork from my hands as I was signing it. Not only did they give me a new paper to sign they gave me the original that Anthony, the thug, stole from me. Thanks for the evidence!
Did you know I was special? My little bitch Donny hired me a private attorney. Have you ever had a judge hire you a private attorney? See I am special.
Donny hired a back-stabber called Jenna Fischer.
I called Jenna Fischer a back-stabber in court, didn't I Jenna?
Jenna didn't want to follow orders and report that crook Spilseth, did she? Isn't that right Jenna?
Shane Baker just about wet his pants when I told you I was going to report you to Donny, didn't he? [
We have to be kind to Shaney since he did admit that Donny was under arrest during court, correct? I'll never forget what the idiot said "The state refuses to pickup the charges!" The dope admitted that Donny was under arrest right there and then, didn't he?]
Jenna Fischer is the newly elected County Attorney for Kandiyohi county. Jenna got that job for helping my litle bitch Donny cover-up his resisting arrest, didn't she? Jenna turned out to be a back-stabbing bitch, didn't she? Well actually she was assigned to back-stab me. However, I never let her close enough to stab me in the back!
Ready for the cameras, Jenna?
Hand-written notes from Jenna [the back-stabber] on March 13, 2007. It's a trap. The average idiot would jump at the deal. Sorry Jenna but I arrested the judge, so I never was convicted, was I? (Minnesota Statue 629.37) You wanted me to take a deal and get convicted, didn't you! Sneaky bitch! I was too smart for her, wasn't I? Thank you Lord!
Mail Fraud Complaint
Complaint filed with the U.S. Attorney's office:
(Click on image for larger view of document)
The Pseudo-Warrant: Proof that Donny was arrested on March 13, 2007
Notice that the date and signature are missing from the Judge's signature line on page 3? Also, the boxes for determining whether the warrant is limited to just the state of Minnesota or a nation-wide warrant are not checked either. This is just a scrap of paper that has "warrant" printed upon it. It is not a legal warrant, is it? No, it is a just prop. A prop in a malicious arrest. A prop in a malicious prosecution. Finally, it is a prop in a malicious imprisonment.
It says:
"Recommendation of supervisory agency and request for: WARRANT"
It's a PHONY RECOMMENDATION since it is
pre-dated for the 23rd of July. The malicious arrest was on the 20th of July!
Notice that the space for the date and the Judge's signature are both empty! Plus, the box is not checked for the scope of the warrant.
Donald M. Spilseth, why didn't you sign this piece of paper? You couldn't, could you? Why? You were placed under arrest on March 13, 2007!
WARRANT ... WARRANT ... WHOSE GOT THE WARRANT?
Without a warrant the thugs from Pope County had no right to arrest Terry Dean, Nemmers or enter his home, did they? This is a career-ender for Riley, Larson, Stafsholt, Siebel, Kundrat, Fischer and Spilseth, isn't it?
Did Judge Jon Stafsholt violate Due Process against Terry Dean Nemmers/ArrestaJudgeKit?
'Deputy Ross advised Nemmers of the arrest warrant and instructed him to step outside the door. The deputy then attempted to open the screen door, but Nemmers pulled the door closed and advised Deputy Ross that the deputy was under arrest for "breaking and entering."'
Sounds reasonable when the armed thugs don't have a warrant, right? Actually, the crooked assholes never pulled out the phony warrant until after they broke into the house. Timmy was just re-writing history (engaging in perjury) to make his thugs sound "honest," right?
Why would I go outside (or let them in) when I knew they didn't have a valid warrant before they ever came near the house? How could a judge who was on the front page of the 03-14-07 edition of the West Central Tribune for being arrested (and resisting arrest) sign a valid warrant? He couldn't, could he? That's why Spilseth had to recuse himself from the malicious prosecution.
Of course, it's important to make sure that the police do have an arrest warrant for you, before leaving the safety of your home. If you answer the door and the police say, “Come on outside, so we can talk to you,” it's likely that they don't have a warrant and are just trying to lure you out then – where they can easily detain, question and pat search you, in the hope of finding grounds for arrest. You should say no, close the door, and call a criminal defense attorney.
Katya Komisaruk. Attorney at Law. Beat the Heat: How To Handle Encounters With Law Enforcement, (2003: Oakland), page 87.
Okay a little context here. On 07-20-07 two (2) Sheriff's deputies, one (1) probation officer and one (1) city cop come to my door to maliciously arrest me for trumped up weapons charges (Gross Misdemeanor - Max Jail time 1 year), right? On 09-17-09 a SWAT team (
Stevens County - not Pope County - What?) is sent to maliciously arrest me for a
trumped up failure to appear charge ( Misdemeanor - Max jail time 90 days) Do you see something wrong with this picture here? Well the agenda-driven shit for brains won't but the sane people should, right?
The thugs from Pope County own report said they entered the home and assaulted Nemmers. That makes it a HOME INVASION with a weapon and with bodily harm to the occupants -
Burglary in the first degree.
Timmy? Timmy? Timmy?
WARRANT. . . .WARRANT. . . WHOSE GOT THE 07-20-07 WARRANT? Timmy these statutes [
Mn Statute 629.13;
Mn Statute 625.03;
Mn Statute 629.402;
Mn Statute 611.01] say that you're a liar (Perjurer right?), don't they?[
Flyer with statutes]
If they were "smart" they should have back-dated the phony warrant, right?
It says:
"Recommendation of supervisory agency and request for: WARRANT"
The
Phony Warrant for 07-20-07 (Note it is dated the
23rd of July -- not the 20th and it's a RECOMENDATON/REQUEST
not a warrant) [It's a PHONY RECOMMENDATION since it is
pre-dated for the 23rd of July. The malicious arrest was on the 20th of July!]
"RECOMMONDATION I respectfully recommend a warrant be issued for Terry Dean Nemmers and that he be brought before the Court to address the alleged violation of his probation dated this 23rd day of July, 2007 Signed Deborah West, Director Kandiyohi Community Corrections Corrections Bob Tepfer, Probation Officer"
The Phony Warrant was fraudulently signed FIVE (5) days later -- after the malicious arrest. I guess the sheriff was supposed to use a time machine to go back in time to apprehend me, correct?
"Therefore Terry Dean Nemmers is to be apprehended by the Sheriff, taken into custody and brought before the Court.. Dated 7/25/07 Signed Frank J. Kundrat Judge of District Court"
This asshole Kundrat was imported from Stearns County. Why? All the complaints I filed against the local crooked judges and Spilseth's 03-14-07 front page arrest in the West Central Tribune! See - crooked judges from the beginning to the end!
This is the
crook (or asshole if your prefer) who signed. As I said, they had to import this asshole from Stearns county (The Seventh Judicial District).
Kandiyohi is in the Eight Judicial District. Whose said my complaints and the arrest of Spilseth didn't work? This asshole wouldn't have been imported if they weren't effective.
The crooks in Pope county obviously think the rule of law is a joke. That is why Pope county is in a state of anarchy. This anarchy is justice for the crooked cops (escaping consequences for criminal acts) and injustice for everyone else. The crooks with badges and guns feel they need to break the law to enforce the law. That is the very definition of lawlessness.
How can anyone feel their family is safe in a county where the thug cops (or elected officials) refuse to follow the rule of law?
Examples of Valid Warrants:
Arrest Warrant:
Search Warrant:
2010 Minnesota Statutes
609.582 BURGLARY.
Subdivision 1.Burglary in the first degree.
Whoever enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime, or enters a building without consent and commits a crime while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice, commits burglary in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $35,000, or both, if:
(a) the building is a dwelling and another person, not an accomplice, is present in it when the burglar enters or at any time while the burglar is in the building;
(b) the burglar possesses, when entering or at any time while in the building, any of the following: a dangerous weapon, any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a dangerous weapon, or an explosive; or
(c) the burglar assaults a person within the building or on the building's appurtenant property.
Subd. 1a.Mandatory minimum sentence for burglary of occupied dwelling.
A person convicted of committing burglary of an occupied dwelling, as defined in subdivision 1, clause (a), must be committed to the commissioner of corrections or county workhouse for not less than six months.
Subd. 2.Burglary in the second degree.
(a) Whoever enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime, or enters a building without consent and commits a crime while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice, commits burglary in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if:
(1) the building is a dwelling;
(2) the portion of the building entered contains a banking business or other business of receiving securities or other valuable papers for deposit or safekeeping and the entry is with force or threat of force;
(3) the portion of the building entered contains a pharmacy or other lawful business or practice in which controlled substances are routinely held or stored, and the entry is forcible; or
(4) when entering or while in the building, the burglar possesses a tool to gain access to money or property.
(b) Whoever enters a government building, religious establishment, historic property, or school building without consent and with intent to commit a crime under section
609.52 or
609.595, or enters a government building, religious establishment, historic property, or school building without consent and commits a crime under section
609.52 or
609.595 while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice, commits burglary in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both.
Subd. 3.Burglary in the third degree.
Whoever enters a building without consent and with intent to steal or commit any felony or gross misdemeanor while in the building, or enters a building without consent and steals or commits a felony or gross misdemeanor while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice, commits burglary in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
Subd. 4.Burglary in the fourth degree.
Whoever enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a misdemeanor other than to steal, or enters a building without consent and commits a misdemeanor other than to steal while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice, commits burglary in the fourth degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
And since since there was no warrant every single sworn statement would be false regarding the existence of a valid warrant - perjury!
2010 Minnesota Statutes
609.48 PERJURY.
Subdivision 1.Acts constituting.
Whoever makes a false material statement not believing it to be true in any of the following cases is guilty of perjury and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 4:
(1) in or for an action, hearing or proceeding of any kind in which the statement is required or authorized by law to be made under oath or affirmation;
(2) in any writing which is required or authorized by law to be under oath or affirmation;
(3) in any writing made according to section
358.115; or
(4) in any other case in which the penalties for perjury are imposed by law and no specific sentence is otherwise provided.
Subd. 2.Defenses not available.
It is not a defense to a violation of this section that:
(1) the oath or affirmation was taken or administered in an irregular manner; or
(2) the declarant was not competent to give the statement; or
(3) the declarant did not know that the statement was material or believed it to be immaterial; or
(4) the statement was not used or, if used, did not affect the proceeding for which it was made; or
(5) the statement was inadmissible under the law of evidence.
Subd. 3.Inconsistent statements.
When the declarant has made two inconsistent statements under such circumstances that one or the other must be false and not believed by the declarant when made, it shall be sufficient for conviction under this section to charge and the jury to find that, without determining which, one or the other of such statements was false and not believed by the declarant. The period of limitations for prosecution under this subdivision runs from the first such statement.
Subd. 4.Sentence.
Whoever violates this section may be sentenced as follows:
(1) if the false statement was made upon the trial of a felony charge, or upon an application for an explosives license or use permit, to imprisonment for not more than seven years or to payment of a fine of not more than $14,000, or both; or
(2) in all other cases, to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
Chad Larson, Assistant Pope County Attorney Willfully, Knowingly and Intentionally sends contraband (aka a weapon) to the Todd County jail:
MINNESOTA STATUTES 2009
641.165 CONTRABAND ARTICLES FORBIDDEN; PENALTY.
Subdivision 1. Definition. "Contraband" is any controlled substance as defined in section
152.01, subdivision 4, or any intoxicating or alcoholic liquor or malt beverage.
Subd. 2. Acts prohibited. (a) Whoever introduces or in any manner causes the introduction of contraband, as defined in subdivision 1, into any jail, lockup, or correctional facility, as defined in section 241.021, subdivision 1, without the consent of the person in charge, or is found in possession of contraband while within the facility or upon the grounds thereof, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(b) Whoever introduces or in any manner causes the introduction of a dangerous weapon, as defined in section 609.02, subdivision 6, into any jail, lockup, or correctional facility, as defined in section 241.021, subdivision 1, without the consent of the person in charge, or is found in
possession of a dangerous weapon while within the facility or upon the grounds thereof, is
guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than
five years.
Subd. 3. Exceptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to physicians carrying drugs into such institutions for use in the practice of their profession, nor to peace officers carrying revolvers or firearms in the discharge of their duties.
History: 1959 c 64 s 1; 1974 c 291 s 2; 1978 c 778 s 4; 1980 c 602 s 7
It's the lead story of Lion News Issue 4 -
Page 1,
Page 2
This is an example of
Notice of Non-Delivery form from the Kandiyohi County Jail. By reading this form you can see that sending a disc (which would be classified as a weapon .... aka contraband) would be not delivered for the following reasons:
1) Item was confiscated as evidence
2) Constitute a threat to the safety and security if the facility, specific individuals, or the general public.
3) Pertains to sending contraband into or out of the facility.
The people with normal mental abilities would reason this without this form being added. However, a certain criminal element has been spreading lies, misinformation, disinformation in order to criminally defame me. Unfortunately some innocent souls have fell under the spell of this agenda-driven plague to society. So in order to dispel their vile propaganda this form was added to shed some light onto the dark and deceptive lies of this pathetic scum.
Death Threat
From Kandiyohi County Guard:
Notice the complaint was not signed by the appropriate staff nor was it ever acted upon:
Danny-boy Hartog is invoking his right to remain silent, also, isn't he? What's the matter Danny-boy?
Didn't you hear that if you can't handle the media exposure time you shouldn't do the crime?
The July 8, 2009 malicious arrest of Terry Dean, Nemmers
Look at the smile on this guy! He looks happy, doesn't he?
Why? Look here:
Tommy
[Did you notice it is signed "Void: signed under threat, duress, and coercion"?]
To add a little color to the incident. The story of the pink handcuffs on the transport belt: (Click on pink link below pink handcuffs)
The Pink Handcuff Incident
(It's just one more way I made Tommy my little bitch that day, isn't it?)
Made the July 13th Police blotter:
Here
Released on own recognizance. (It is crucial to remember this very important detail)
Jerry, why did you cross out the date of the next hearing? Jerry, were you thrown off when I asked you how you liked it when I arrested for obstruction of justice that last time you were my alleged judge? You were, weren't you? Jerry, you resisted arrest that time, didn't you? Jerry, are you going to submit to arrest now? Jerry, you were really pissed when I told you when you were under arrest that time, weren't you? Jerry, your bailiff wasn't happy with you this time, was he?
A recusal from Judge Jon Stafsholt? Oh yeah you were witness, weren't you? Didn't you make that little bitch sound when I tried to hand you the flyer in the courthouse immediate prior to my malicious arrest? Or was it because of all the complaints I filed or helped file against you?
Jonny, you were my little
bitch here, also, weren't you?
Pay close attention to all the dates in regard to the recusal. Timely notification? Not hardly.
The phony Trespass bill
Tampering with the mail is federal offense, isn't it, Troy-boy? That's why you invoked your right to remain silent, isn't it? Troy-boy, you're remaining silent since everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, aren't you?
The printing and release of
Lion News issue #3 dated
05-28-10 forces Douglas County Sheriff Troy Wobersen to break the invocation of his right to remain silent, doesn't it?
Sheriff Wolbersen engages in stonewalling tactics and avoids all the embarrassing and incriminating questions, doesn't he?
Sheriff Wolbersen's bill to the Pope County Commissioner appears to be lacking the name Terry Dean, Nemmers, doesn't it? Why does the billing invoice #3677 for October 19, 2009 shows that Terry Dean, Nemmers was there, doesn't it? Is the Sheriff trying to hide the fact that Terry Dean, Nemmers was just a political prisoner run through a kangaroo court? Sheriff Tom Larson engaged in the criminal act of perjury in Nemmers' case, didn't he? Mary Teresa Lehtola engaged in the criminal act of perjury in Nemmers' case, didn't she? Wouldn't the bill to the County Commissioners for Nemmers remind them of the malicious prosecution? So many question and so many video opportunities.
Note: You will notice that Sheriff Wolbersen does not address the tampering with the legal mail "hot potato." Wait a minute! I thought I was in jail? This says I wasn't! Can you find the name "Terry Dean, Nemmers"? I can't! Wait a minute, I arrested that crook called judge Randall Slieter (special judge from Renville County), didn't I? Who says arresting a crooked judge doesn't work!
..........................................................
Sheriff Tommy Larson gets his bitch-ass handed to him by a gray-haired grandmother of 5:
Little Tommy never did responded, did he? The little bitch invoked his right to remain silent, didn't he? What's the matter Tommy? Anything your little bitch-ass says can and will be held against you in a court of law, correct? That's why your little bitch-ass is scared to send out a response, correct?
..........................................................
Some of the crooked tricks of so-called Judge Gerald Seibel. First, my charge is in Pope County. However, for some odd reason I am to have a hearing in Stevens county on January 16, 2008. Since I am representing myself I get the notice and inform my mother that the hearing in in Morris. She drives to Morris on the date mentioned only to find that they moved the hearing back to Pope county. I did not find out about this until I was in the transport car being taken to Pope County. The hearing was held up until my mother could arrive.
This was an attempt to prevent any supporters from showing up at my hearings. This is not the only time diesel therapy was used on me. January 16, 2008 is also the hearing where I dropped the bomb on Chad Larson for sending me a
weapon into the Todd County jail. Here is picture of the
contraband right here. Chad didn't know what hit him, did he? I made Chad my little bitch when I reported his felonious behavior to the judge, didn't I? Jerry, you didn't think the world would find out that you are huge crook, did you?
..........................................................
Judd Hoff Holding Business Card Of Randy O. Olson Of The Herman-Hoffman Tribune On October 30, 2010.
Hey Randy - Why didn't you put the video of the cops harassing Judd onto your website or up on Youtube? Oh yeah you aren't concerned about changing anything are you? You just want people to think that you're a "crusader for the truth" and that you are "concerned about the common man," don't you? Well, we pulled the sheep's clothing off of you, didn't we, wolfy?
Lion News: Judd Hoff On Tom Emmer Protest Coverage - Waitress Remark/Cop Harassment
..........................................................
****************************
http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Reid_technique
Resisting Reid technique
The Reid technique works to the extent that the suspect aligns himself with the interrogator and accepts his explanations for the suspects motivations and actions.
To be successful the interrogator must:
1. Establish and maintain control over the source and the interrogation.
2. Establish and maintain rapport between the interrogator and the source.
3. Manipulate the suspect's emotions and weaknesses to gain his willing cooperation.
Resistance therefore requires denying the interrogator control of the interrogation, preventing the interrogator from building rapport, and preventing any attempts at emotional manipulation. The suspect must maintain an attitude of detached hostility and skepticism at all times.
The Reid Technique has three main places of weakness. The initial announcement of guilt, the use of leading questions to obtain incremental agreement, and the assumptive close. Each of these can be challenged individually and all of them rely on the assumption that the interrogator is a credible source of information.
Attacking and denying the interrogators credibility serves several purposes. It reduces the interrogators ability to communicate, it disrupts the interrogation process, it creates a healthy state of opposition in the suspect that prevents internalization of the interrogators ideas, and it allows the suspect an outlet for anxiety and fear.
The initial opener can be challenged by denying guilt and forcing the interrogator to explain and justify his beliefs. Making personal questioning attacks on the interrogator's honesty and sincere intentions can quickly create a hostile atmosphere that is not conducive to successful interrogation.
Leading questions can be challenged on the premise that things that did not occur, and are speculative in nature. Consistently pointing out the speculative nature of statements/nature made by the interrogator and refusing to give personal opinions, prevents incremental agreement. Again creating opportunities to express skepticism and hostility to the interrogation process.
The assumptive close can be neutralised by preventing the creation of a "compliant atmosphere" and by pointing out that both forks of the question are invalid.
http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/False_dilemma
False dilemma
The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, or bifurcation) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices are offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice.
When a person really does have only two choices, as in the classic short story The Lady or the Tiger, then they are often said to be "on the horns of a dilemma".
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omission—possibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorance—rather than by deliberate deception.
When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.
Contents
* 1 Examples
o 1.1 Morton's Fork
o 1.2 False choice
o 1.3 Black and white thinking
o 1.4 There is no alternative
* 2 How to tell a false dilemma from a true dilemma
* 3 See also
* 4 References
Examples
Morton's Fork
Very often a Morton's Fork, a choice between two equally unpleasant options, is a false dilemma. The phrase originates from an argument for taxing English nobles:
"Either the nobles of this country appear wealthy, in which case they can be taxed for good; or they appear poor, in which case they are living frugally and must have immense savings, which can be taxed for good." [1]
This is a false dilemma, because some members of the nobility may in fact lack liquid assets.
False choice
The presentation of a false choice often reflects a deliberate attempt to eliminate the middle ground on an issue. A modern example of this is George W. Bush's speech of September 20, 2001, in which he said
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.[2]
Black and white thinking
A common form of the false dilemma is black-and-white thinking. Many people routinely engage in black-and-white thinking, an example of which is feeling boundless optimism when things are going well and suddenly switching to total despair at the first setback. Another example is someone who labels other people as all good or all bad.[citation needed]
There is no alternative
The assertion that there is no alternative is an example of the false dichotomy taken to its ultimate extreme, in which the options are reduced to one, the proposal of the speaker. Of course the speaker does not believe there are no alternatives otherwise he would not bother to argue the point; rather he opposes the alternatives and seeks to dismiss them by denying their existence.
"This was the mantra chanted by 'dries' during the prime ministerial reign of Margaret Thatcher, by which they demonstrated their belief that free-market capitalism was the only possible economic theory. It was said so often amongst them that it was shortened to TINA. The hard-right Thatcherites called themselves 'dries' to demonstrate their opposition to the 'wets', i.e. the One-Nation Tories whom Thatcher despised. Wet was the public school nickname for any boy who showed any sign of caring for his fellow beings."[citation needed]
How to tell a false dilemma from a true dilemma
Consider the following three patterns of reasoning, the first valid, the others invalid.
* Example 1: Three is an odd number. Only even numbers are evenly divisible by two. Therefore three is not evenly divisible by two. (Valid, because every natural number is either even or odd.)
* Example 2: Since this number is not three, it must be four. (Invalid, because there are more than two numbers.)
* Example 3: Since one-half is not even, it must be odd. (Invalid, since one-half is not a natural number, and the terms "even" and "odd" only apply to integers numbers.)
To determine whether a dilemma is true or false, you must check first whether the two choices offered are the only two possible choices, and also whether the choices are appropriately applied to the case at hand.
****************************
Complaint made by Judd Hoff on November 16, 2010
WARNING:
Use of Arrest Reports in Criminal Cases
Arrest reports are almost always one-sided. They recite only what the police claim took place, and may include only witness statements that support police theory. While they are generally not admissible as evidence in a trial, arrest reports can have a major impact in criminal cases. Not only do arrest reports often determine what charges prosecutors file, but they also may play a key role in how much bail is required, the outcome of preliminary hearings (where hearsay evidence is often admissible), the willingness of the prosecutor to plea bargain, and trial tactics (for instance, the police report can be used to discredit testimony of the police officer who prepared the report).
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman. The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive The System, 11th Edition. Page 142.
Downtown Alexandria - outside of Traveler's Inn.
Lee Motors - South of Alexandria
Lee Motors - South of Alexandria
Lee Motors - South of Alexandria
Senator Bill Ingebrigtsen's Youtube channel page on November 23, 2010 at approximately 8:25pm
Senator Bill Ingebrigtsen's Youtube channel a few minutes later:
Billy's really running from the truth, isn't he?
Oh my look! An individual named Joshua Ross Erickson has made legal determination that Terry Dean, Nemmers and Judd Hoff are engaged in illegal activity. He has published that legal determination on a public forum. I certainly hope Joshua Ross Erickson has clear precise and unquestionable proof of that claim. It's a crime to defame someone in Minnesota, isn't it Joshua?
Stonewalling Billy?
Screenshot of MN Senator Joe Gimse's youtube channel page at 6:48am on 11-26-10.
Billy has a Youtube account and has been making all sorts of new tv appearances and hasn't updated his account. Why? Billy would have to admit to the slander against me on the site?
This is the biggest joke: Billy is on the
Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct:
Beware of Agent Provocateurs
Agent Provocateur n., pl., a·gents pro·vo·ca·teurs (ă-zhäN' prô-vô'kä-tœr').
A person employed to associate with suspected individuals or groups with the purpose of inciting them to commit acts that will make them liable to punishment.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=168.053
2010 Minnesota Statutes
168.053 DRIVE-AWAY IN-TRANSIT LICENSE.
Subdivision 1.Application; fee; penalty.
Any person, firm, or corporation engaged in the business of transporting motor vehicles owned by another, by delivering, by drive-away or towing methods, either singly or by means of the full mount method, the saddle mount method, the tow bar method, or any other combination thereof, and under their own power, vehicles over the highways of the state from the manufacturer or any other point of origin, to any point of destination, within or without the state, shall make application to the registrar for a drive-away in-transit license. This application for annual license shall be accompanied by a registration fee of $250 and contain such information as the registrar may require. Upon the filing of the application and the payment of the fee, the registrar shall issue to each drive-away operator a drive-away in-transit license plate, which must be carried and displayed on the power unit consistent with section
169.79 and the plate shall remain on the vehicle while being operated within the state. Additional drive-away in-transit license plates desired by any drive-away operator may be secured from the registrar of motor vehicles upon the payment of a fee of $5 for each set of additional license plates. Any person, firm, or corporation engaging in the business as a drive-away operator, of transporting and delivering by means of full mount method, the saddle mount method, the tow bar method, or any combination thereof, and under their own power, motor vehicles, who fails or refuses to file or cause to be filed an application, as is required by law, and to pay the fees therefor as the law requires, shall be found guilty of violating the provisions of sections
168.053 to
168.057; and, upon conviction, fined not less than $50, and not more than $100, and all costs of court. Each day so operating without securing the license and plates as required therein shall constitute a separate offense within the meaning thereof.
Subd. 2.Delivery of trailer or building.
Notwithstanding any provisions of subdivision 1 inconsistent herewith the provisions of sections
168.053 to
168.057 shall also apply to the delivery of new travel trailers, park trailers, manufactured homes, sectional buildings, and semitrailers by towing methods whether or not the power unit is a part of the combination being delivered.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=168.36
2010 Minnesota Statutes
168.36 UNLAWFUL USE OF UNREGISTERED VEHICLE CERTIFICATE, PLATES.
Subdivision 1.Misdemeanor; use of vehicle or certificate.
Any person who shall use or cause any motor vehicle to be used or operated in violation of the provisions of this chapter or while a certificate of registration of a motor vehicle issued to the person is suspended or revoked, or who shall knowingly deliver a motor vehicle to another to be used or operated in violation of this chapter, or who shall violate any of the provisions thereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Subd. 2.Misdemeanor; use of plates or certificate.
Any person who shall loan or use any number plate or registration certificate upon or in connection with any motor vehicle except the one for which the same was duly issued, or upon any such motor vehicle after such certificate or plates, or the right to use the same, have expired, or any person who shall retain in possession or shall fail to surrender, as herein provided, any such number plate or registration certificate shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who manufactures, buys, sells, uses or displays motor vehicle license number plates, motor vehicle registration certificates, or tax receipts issued by this state or any other state, territory or district in the United States, without proper authority from such state, territory or district of the United States, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Subd. 3.Misdemeanor; use of altered plates or certificate.
Any person who shall deface or alter any registration certificate or number plate or retain the same in possession after it has been defaced or altered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Subd. 4.Officer may seize registration plates.
If a peace officer stops a motor vehicle and determines, through a check of the motor vehicle registration record system, that the vehicle is being operated while the certificate of registration for the vehicle is revoked, the officer may immediately seize the vehicle's registration plates and destroy the plates or return them to the commissioner of public safety.
****************************
****************************
BEWARE OF THE WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING!
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2052&issue_id=42010
Handling Citizen Complaints through Proactive Methodology
By Louis M. Dekmar, Chief of Police, LaGrange Police Department, LaGrange, Georgia
Law enforcement organizations nationwide deal with complaints on a frequent basis. Some citizen complaints are unfounded or simple misunderstandings resulting from poor communication. However, even minor infractions can become agency spectacles and a serious problem for administrators if individuals carry their grievances to third parties. Police leaders can easily prevent citizen complaints from becoming political headaches, lawsuits, racial disputes, or media storms by emulating some of the medical community’s proactive initiatives to reduce malpractice litigation when patients experience negative outcomes. In addition to a thorough policy of consistently handling complaints, successful resolution requires patience, a respectful response, and the right attitude on the part of the supervisor receiving the complaint. If done correctly, these three simple ingredients can spare police agencies untold time, money, and difficulty while helping the agency maintain its credibility with the community.
Consider how many citizen complaints involving encounters with police officers go awry because of how individuals are treated during the initial interview process. An angry citizen enters a police department to file a complaint against an officer. The on-duty supervisor greets the citizen in the lobby and asks about the complaint. The citizen begins to provide a detailed description of the incident. After less than a minute, the supervisor politely interrupts the citizen and attempts to explain why the officer behaved in a particular fashion—and to tell the citizen why the officer’s behavior followed agency policy. Frustrated by the unresolved complaint, the citizen likely will leave the police department lobby.
Oftentimes, citizens will abandon their unresolved matters, instead sharing their frustration and annoyance with friends or relatives. In other instances, citizens become even more determined to obtain positive resolutions to their complaints, bringing their issues to the attention of an elected official, a city manager, a district attorney, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, a plaintiff’s attorney, a media outlet, or a civil rights group. Once citizens embrace any of these alternatives, the police department largely loses control of the investigations, along with the opportunity to correct, address, and resolve the complaints in manners that preserve public confidence in the agency. So how do law enforcement agencies avoid this situation and successfully “take care of business” when addressing citizen complaints? According to a recent article by attorney Dan Groszkruger, the medical profession provides some excellent ideas.1
Think Like a Physician
Groszkruger cites studies in the New England Journal of Medicine2 and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)3 that detail key steps physicians should take to avoid malpractice suits. One of those studies appears to have instructive lessons for police department supervisors who are responsible for investigating citizen complaints against police department personnel.
The JAMA study found that “effective physician–patient communication . . . not the quality of the care or documentation is key to avoiding malpractice lawsuits.”4 The considerations that could improve physician-patient communication and a close reading of the research strongly suggest these concepts extend to other professions, where liability is an issue (for example, law enforcement) and where service providers have the opportunity to interact with individuals who suffered real or perceived harm.
These studies analyzed the dynamics involved between the patient and the treating physician that resulted in a bad outcome. The findings indicate that physicians who developed a rapport with their patients were less likely to be sued than those who did not. What does that mean to police officials? It suggests that when law enforcement supervisors receiving complaints effectively communicate that they are sincerely concerned about a citizen’s problem, the interaction is likely to reduce potential litigation.
The following five-step model for improving police-citizen communication is based on the medical profession’s success in reducing medical malpractice lawsuits:
1. Spend time with the complainant. The agency representatives should provide citizens plenty of time to fully air their complaints. According to Groszkruger the studies reveal “a strong correlation between extra time spent . . . and lower frequency of . . . claims.”5 Citizens do not want to feel rushed, minimized, brushed-off, or disrespected. To accomplish this, supervisors should be prepared to spend as much time as necessary to gain the details of the complaint and the issues in conflict. Radios, cell phones, and other distractions should be eliminated if possible.
2. Meet in a private place. Agency supervisors should always have a private place to meet with a citizen who is filing a complaint against a police employee. The location should include a place for the supervisor and the complaining citizen to sit and discuss the nature of the complaint. Seating everyone involved during the initial complaint intake significantly calms emotions and communicates that the agency representative is prepared to spend as much time as necessary to listen to everything the citizen has to share.
3. Establish a rapport. After creating an atmosphere that demonstrates the complaint will be handled in a serious and deliberate fashion that will not be rushed, it is paramount to establish effective communication and rapport with the complainant. The supervisor should explain the process and time lines for conducting a sufficient inquiry into the facts and circumstances related to the complaint.
4. Allow citizens to describe the complaint without interruption. Once the supervisor has established a rapport, the citizen should be able to explain the incident without interruption. While receiving the citizen’s description of the incident, agency personnel should refrain from filling any empty time or pauses with questions or explanations while the complaining party is gathering its thoughts and explaining grievances.
5. Ask facilitating questions. After the citizen has provided the details of the situation, the supervisor should ask a series of facilitating questions that demonstrate how seriously the police agency is taking the complaint. For example, the supervisor may ask, What about the officer’s conduct particularly upset you? What would you like to see occur as a result of your complaint? Why do you think the officer behaved that way? You look upset—what can I do to help you?
It is critical for supervisors to recognize that when they are receiving a complaint, how they say something may be as important as what they say. When talking with the citizen, the supervisor’s tone of voice and facial expressions should be neutral or supportive toward the complaining party. A supervisor can validate a citizen’s feelings and emotions without affirming allegations against police employees. For example, “I understand you are angry” or “I see you are upset, let me look into this for you” are appropriate but do not prejudge the complaint before the facts are established.
Reducing Liability, Creating Accountability
Groszkruger’s analysis of the research surrounding physician-patient communications and the reduction of liability makes a compelling case for including an orientation and facilitation component in the complainttaking process. When a supervisor provides an orientation to a citizen, it reduces emotion, anxiety, and apprehension. In addition, facilitative questions promote communication and foster feedback that assists the supervisor in gauging what is important to the citizen in resolving the complaint.
A police agency that fails to obtain, investigate, and resolve citizen complaints against law enforcement personnel can create a situation in which others define the agency. When the media reports allegations made by a citizen who is frustrated by a process or a supervisor who behaves in a way that makes it uncomfortable for citizens to approach the department, the story likely can never be effectively retracted or revised, even once the facts are ascertained. In short, without an effective citizen-police complaint process, the agency risks a tepid “the matter is now under investigation” response to media inquiries, and questions from elected officials or other community members. However, a well-documented citizen-police complaint and a thorough investigation often will result in a different media story.
Further, when a process that deliberately receives and investigates citizen complaints is in place, a police culture of accountability is sustained. Employees understand the likelihood that misconduct will be reported and that the agency will follow up on those reports. In instances where a police employee performed or behaved inappropriately, the agency can act quickly to address the issue and restore a sense of fairness to the citizen making the complaint. When an agency acts promptly and effectively in cases of inappropriate behavior or performance by a police employee, this clearly communicates that conduct is not representative of the entire agency. An active and robust citizen-complaint procedure, which provides and includes supervisor training in that process, ensures the confidence of the public, demonstrating the agency operates properly and professionally and reduces the opportunity for others to manage the agency’s business. ■
Louis M. Dekmar has 32 years of law enforcement experience and has been a police chief for 18 years. He is currently chair of the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies and a frequent lecturer on the topics of police management, leadership, ethics, and internal affairs.
Resources
Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve: An Internal Affairs Promising Practices Guide for Local Law Enforcement. This guide examines all aspects of complaint taking and internal affairs operations and recommends strategies to improve and sustain community trust building, regardless of agency size. Available online at www.theiacp.org.
The Public Image of the Police: Final Report to The International Association of Chiefs of Police by The Administration of Justice Program, George Mason University. This document is a comprehensive review of the factors that form the public’s opinion of their police department. Available online at www.theiacp.org.
Frank A. Colaprete, Internal Investigations: A Practitioner’s Approach, (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 2007) pp 336.
Notes:
1Dan Groszkruger, “Physician-Patient Dialogue: Key to Avoiding Malpractice Lawsuits,” CDC Healthsystems, http://www.ccdsystems.com/Products/RootCauseAnalyst/PapersandArticles/PhysicianPatientDialogAvoidingMalpractice.aspx (accessed February 24, 2010).
2Troyen A. Brennan, Colin M. Sox, and Helen R. Burstin, “Relation between Negligent Adverse Events and the Outcomes of Medical Malpractice Litigation,” New England Journal of Medicine 335, no. 26 (December 1996): 1963–1967, http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/335/26/1963 (accessed February 24, 2010).
3Wendy Levinson et al., “Physician-Patient Communication: The Relationship with Malpractice Claims among Primary Care Physicians and Surgeons,” Journal of the American Medical Association 277, no. 7 (February 1997): 553–559, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/277/7/553.pdf (accessed February 24, 2010).
4Ibid.
5Groszkruger, “Physician-Patient Dialogue.”
A fair amount of survey research has focused on the impact of people’s direct experiences with the police on their general attitudes toward the police. A study completed by Reisig and Chandel provides a detailed analysis of different aspects of the citizen’s contact experience with police and its impact on the citizen’s general level of satisfaction with the police department. The researchers found that the strongest predictor of the citizen’s satisfaction with the police department in general was how courteous/friendly the officer was with the citizen.
Source: Michael D. Reisig, and Meghan Stroshine Chandek. “The Effects of Expectancy Disconfirmation on Outcome Satisfaction in Police-Citizen Encounters.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 24 (2001): 88-99.
Please cite as:
Louis M. Dekmar, "Handling Citizen Complaints through Proactive Methodology," The Police Chief 77 (April 2010): 50–52,
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=2052&issue_id=42010 (insert access date).
****************************
Some of the Complaints filed by Kathleen Barbara, Mayer:
****************************
Have you ever written a letter to a totally separate person and then that same letter causes an elected official to decide not to run for re-election? I have. This letter caused a Pope County Commissioner to reconsider her plans to run for re-election.
****************************
Dealing With Political Whores & Stenographers For The Political WhoresCriminal Complaint Against Douglas County Attorney Christopher Karpan
December 2, 2010
Case#: 10-13403
Notes given to Captain and Sergeant:
Also a copy of Lion News Issue No. 04:
Side 1.
Side 2
Flyers for removal of Karpan and Wolbersen
Side 1 and
Side 2.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.765
2010 Minnesota Statutes
609.765 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION.
Subdivision 1.Definition.
Defamatory matter is anything which exposes a person or a group, class or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace in society, or injury to business or occupation.
Subd. 2.Acts constituting.
Whoever with knowledge of its defamatory character orally, in writing or by any other means, communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed is guilty of criminal defamation and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
Subd. 3.Justification.
Violation of subdivision 2 is justified if:
(1) the defamatory matter is true and is communicated with good motives and for justifiable ends; or
(2) the communication is absolutely privileged; or
(3) the communication consists of fair comment made in good faith with respect to persons participating in matters of public concern; or
(4) the communication consists of a fair and true report or a fair summary of any judicial, legislative or other public or official proceedings; or
(5) the communication is between persons each having an interest or duty with respect to the subject matter of the communication and is made with intent to further such interest or duty.
Subd. 4.Testimony required.
No person shall be convicted on the basis of an oral communication of defamatory matter except upon the testimony of at least two other persons that they heard and understood the oral statement as defamatory or upon a plea of guilty.
****************************
George R. Dekle, Sr, Prosecution Principles: A Clinical Handbook (Thompson/West:2007), Page 6.