Dwight Docken 5th June, 2018
318 Morse St. N.
Norwood/YA. 55368
612-910-6432
jiljconinc@gmail.com
To: Chief Judicial Officer Kathryn Davis Messerich % 1st Judicial District Court Administration Brian Jones 1620 S. Frontage Rd. #200. Hastings, MN 55033 651-243-4352
Emailed to: mmetz@co.carver.mn.us brian.jones@courts.state.mn.us jason.schmucker@ecm-inc.com
I, Dwight Docken am making this complaint as I have been harassed, and abused, and denied evidence by the Carver County Prosecutors Mark Metz in regard to Carver County Court Case File Number #10-CR-17-897.
On two separate occasions I was hauled into Carver County Jail and arrested without a valid warrant. I was held in detention without access to a phone call. And finally, I was hauled in front of a judge the next day and then released the next day with no charges filed against me.
I have not received full disclosure of my evidence making it impossible to prepare a proper defense. I have received only paper documents and not readily available, free, electronic data in the required searchable PDF format. Plus, my limited evidence has come by snail-mail. Also, I could only get 2 of the 5 CDs from the prosecutors office one photographs of the scene, one audio only to play. Three of the Squad video (labeled #8, squad video) would not play on my son’s computer. One of the CD’s stated “it has come to our attention that the copy previously disclosed may have been defective.” I have not received any of the other six deputies (Matthew Klukas, Ross Thompson, Dustin Bones, Jacob Hodge, David McDonald, and female deputy not identified ) squad audio or squad videos that were on scene at the time of the incident. The female deputy’s (who was not identified) data is also missing. Ever deputy should have electronic data for my case.
It is also impossible to prepare a proper defense when I am being denied the transcripts that I requested. I have requested the Court Record Transcripts in a Request for Production document. Lisa Anderson of the Court administration called me on May 22nd, informing me that I was not entitled to “the Court Record Transcripts” unless I pay for each transcript. Also Ms. Anderson informed me that it would be virtually impossible to receive transcripts prior to the trial date on 6/12/2018.
I have not been able to consistently work since this incident because the primary work truck that along with Brandon Vatnsdal(owner and operator of pickup) was confiscated leaving me essentially broke and unable to pay for Court Record Transcripts. Why isn’t the judge asking me if I am too broke to get the data that I need to prepare for trial? I have reason to suspect that the judicial officers (Michael Wentzell, and Janet L. Barke Cain) know or should know that I am broke. However, none of the judicials officers (Michael Wentzell, and Janet L. Barke Cain) want to determine my financial status on the court record. Why? I have reason to suspect that they want to break me financially as well as mentally so I am forced to plead guilty.
Prior to the phone call from Ms. Anderson, I had filed a motion for a continuance stating that the overwhelming burden placed on myself by trying to prepare for trial after I had been stuck down with pneumonia for two weeks. Then immediately after the bout with pneumonia it was necessary for me to care for my infant grandson for that very next week. Why? My daughter Crystal (Lily) had been admitted into the Hutchinson Mental Health ward for Suicide prevention and depression. Likewise she had been Hospitalized at Prairie Care in Brooklyn Center for suicide prevention and depression on the days prior to and after the the night of the incident. She and my whole family suffer greatly from depression since the suicide death of my youngest daughter Iris (then age 12), less than one year prior to the incident. All of this have been a huge mental and financial burden. Which is why I was not surprised that Motion for Continuance was denied. It was just another opportunity to kick poor, harassed Dwight Docken while he was down.
We all live in the age of technology. However, I suspect that Carver Co. Attorney Mark Metz and the judicial officers (Michael Wentzell, and Janet L. Barke Cain) want to keep me from benefiting from the age of technology. Which is why I am receiving snail-mailed pieces of paper and not electronic data in searchable pdf format. It is amazing that the court rules say that a party can be sanctioned for not giving a judicial officer electronic data in searchable pdf format. But poor, harassed Dwight Docken can have pieces of paper shoved into his face. Obviously, General Rule of Practice, Rule 14, does not apply to poor, harassed Dwight Docken.
In conclusion, I have reason to suspect that Carver Co. Attorney Mark Metz and the judicial officers (Michael Wentzell, and Janet L. Barke Cain) want to force poor, harassed Dwight Docken to plead guilty or to be found guilty at trial without ever receiving all his evidence.
Dwight Docken
Because a violation of the constitutional right to counsel is a structural error and not subject to harmless-error analysis, we begin by addressing appellant’s argument that his constitutional right to counsel was violated. ... Reversed and Remanded. Page 9,16. This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A18-1658 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Dwight Lee Docken, Appellant. Filed September 23, 2019 Reversed and remanded Hooten, Judge Carver County District Court File No. 10-CR-17-897
What sort of idiotic nonsense was Docken spewing prior to Nemmers' intervention?
II. Appellant’s pro se arguments are meritless Even though we reverse and remand for a new trial, we still address appellant’s pro se arguments because, if any of them were successful, the remedy would be reversal of his convictions rather than remand. Appellant raises a number of distinct arguments. “Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 629 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn. App. 2001). “[O]n appeal error is never presumed. It must be made to appear affirmatively before there can be reversal . . . [and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 13 N.W.2d 461, 464–65 (Minn. 1944). Appellate courts decline to reach issues that are inadequately briefed. State v. Butcher, 563 N.W.2d 776, 780 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Aug. 5, 1997). An assignment of error in a brief based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection. State v. Anderson, 871 N.W.2d 910, 915 (Minn. 2015). Validity of Minnesota statutes Appellant argues that his conviction is not valid because, “It is clear that this [United States] Constitution is the governing document by which all criminal law will be decided.” It is unclear what exactly appellant is arguing in this section, but we conclude that, to the extent appellant is raising any argument, we reject it on the grounds that it is undeveloped and unsupported by relevant authority. See Andersen, 871 N.W.2d at 915. Probable cause for arrest Appellant next argues that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to place him under arrest. He argues that, “The fact that the deputy believed that the defendant committed a misdemeanor . . . did not authorize him to arrest” appellant. A district court’s determination of probable cause is reviewed de novo. State v. Burbach, 706 N.W.2d 484, 487 (Minn. 2005). Probable cause for DWI exists “whenever there are facts and circumstances known to the officer which would warrant a prudent man in believing that the individual was driving or was operating a motor vehicle on the highway while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.” State v. Harris, 202 N.W.2d 878, 881 (Minn. 1972). If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual is driving while impaired, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, the officer has the authority to arrest that individual without a warrant. Minn. Stat. § 169A.40, subd. 1 (2018). To the extent that appellant is arguing that Deputy Peterson needed a warrant to arrest him, section 169A.40 explicitly defeats that argument. To the extent that appellant is arguing that the facts were insufficient to constitute probable cause that he had been driving while impaired, the facts clearly support the district court’s finding of probable cause. Appellant was driving on the wrong side of the road; he did not stop immediately after Deputy Peterson started following him with his squad lights on; when Deputy Peterson approached appellant’s vehicle the odor of alcohol emanated from it; the time was roughly 1:30 a.m.; appellant was wearing a wristband of the type used to signify at bars that someone is allowed to drink alcohol; and appellant refused to comply with officer requests and directives. All of these facts are certainly sufficient to “warrant a prudent man n believing that the individual was driving or was operating a motor vehicle on the highway while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage,” as required for a finding of probable cause. Harris, 202 N.W.2d at 881. Jurisdiction Appellant also challenges the jurisdiction of this court. A district court’s finding of jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. State v. Ali, 806 N.W.2d 45, 51 (Minn. 2011). Minnesota courts have jurisdiction and may convict and sentence a person under Minnesota laws if the person “commits an offense . . . within this state.” Minn. Stat. § 609.025(1) (2018). The record demonstrates that the offense took place within the State of Minnesota, in Carver County, and appellant does not contest the actual location of the offense. Therefore, Minnesota courts have jurisdiction over the offense that appellant is now challenging. This argument also fails. Cause of action Appellant finally argues that his conviction must fail because there is, “No case or cause of action (corpus delicti).” Appellant’s argument is that because “there is no accusation alleged the defendant did not violate anyone’s legal rights.” He argues that because the state cannot point to a “true adversary,” there is no victim and therefore no crime. Appellant does not cite to any relevant legal authority to support this argument, and does not articulate a cogent argument. We therefore reject the argument as undeveloped and not properly before the court. See Andersen, 871 N.W.2d at 915.
Page 14-16. This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A18-1658 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Dwight Lee Docken, Appellant. Filed September 23, 2019 Reversed and remanded Hooten, Judge Carver County District Court File No. 10-CR-17-897
A Cautionary Tale: Why You Have To Avoid Incompetent Scam Artists Like Kirk Pendergrass & Chris Hallott Of E-Clause, Right?
You need to avoid "Patriot Paperwork," don't you? You do, don't you? What sort of "Patriot Paperwork"? Like the kind that the incompetent scam artists Kirk Pendergrass & Chris Hallott of E-Clause are duping people with, right? That's right, isn't it? Actually, you need to run, not walk away, from any incompetent idiot spewing "Patriot Paperwork," don't you? You do, don't you?
What sort of idiotic jibber jabber will you be taught by Perndergrass, Hallett or any other "Patriot Paperwork" guru?
Appellant claimed that he did not need to produce his license because he was “traveling under the constitution of the republic of the United States.” Page 2-3.
Appellant was extremely obstreperous at his hearings. This included: asking judges and a witness multiple times if they were going to uphold their respective oaths of office; arguing that maritime admiralty jurisdiction applied to his case; asking a state’s witness on cross-examination, “are we at land or at sea,” presumably in an attempt to support his claim that maritime jurisdiction applied; objecting over and over again to the jurisdiction of the court after such objections had been overruled multiple times, including during the state’s direct examination of a witness; refusing to answer the judges’ questions; refusing to enter a plea; asserting that he could not be charged under Minnesota statutes because they are “contractual corporate statutes”; arguing that Minnesota statutes are not valid because of the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution; asserting that he could only be criminally charged in federal court; telling the judge “I am here upon your ship under duress . . . . I had no intention of boarding your ship”; talking over the judges multiple times; when one judge left the courtroom for a moment, appellant declared that he was the highest authority in the courtroom and that he was dismissing the case against himself “in its entirety with prejudice”; reading a prepared statement into the record against one judge’s direction; objecting to the introduction of evidence without asserting a legal basis as to why; asking the witness, “Are you aware that it is unconstitutional to deprive someone about their life, liberty, and property?”; stating, “This is a farce and a fraud”; in response to a judge’s question on whether appellant wished to make a written motion, he replied, “I realize that because it would be a violation of my due process and it would be a violation of my due process for you to answer, correct?”; in response to a question asking if appellant wished to call a witness or testify himself, appellant answered “I wish you to not violate my due process”; stating that he did not “wish to participate” in the proceedings; bringing up new legal arguments at inappropriate times after the judge had asked for written briefing on any new arguments; insisting that he was not named in the complaint because he was “a living person and I am not the corporate entity listed on your paperwork”; stating that he would not “acquiesce to quasi jurisdiction”; asking the prosecutor to “certify [his] right to subrogation” for the criminal charge against him; when asked if he wanted to apply for a public defender, appellant stated that “the defendant is not even capable because the defendant is a piece of paper”; and finally, inquiring into the prosecutor’s law license and certification and requesting that he submit his law license into the record. Page 4-6.
Link To Decision?
Case Information Case Number: A18-1658
Filing Date: 10/15/2018
Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals
Status: Post-Decision
ORCA: Carver County District Court
Hearing Type: Nonoral
Classification: Standard - Criminal - Conviction or Order (Defense Appeal)
Short Title: State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Dwight Lee Docken, Appellant
Document Description Jurisdiction Filing Date Docket Entry Type Filing Type Status PDF Opinion - Unpublished Court of Appeals 09/23/2019 Opinion Unpublished Final
http://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/document.do?document=8423885fca46addb35083b365d609ee5831a94e088a538defa550007580d2f60
More to come . . .
Related Links:
Demand For Carver Co. Administrative Investigation Into Case No.10-CR-17-897 State Of Minnesota VS Dwight Lee Docken?
