Lion News: UPDATE: 10-25-21 & 10-26-21 Emails From Boles & Hargter Magically & Mysteriously Cause Abrupt & Unexpected 10-26-21 Reschedule Of 10-28-21 Hearing To 01-20-22? What? "Your Client Jeremy Boles Wants Malicious Rule 20.01 Examination Canceled And Demands Proof Of Competency Of Public Defender Harvey And Demands Evidentiary Hearing Along With Dismissal Of Case!" It's Rigged Case No. 72-CR-20-85 State Of Minnesota Vs Jeremy James Boles Again, Isn't it? A Pattern Of Chief Judicial Officer Kathryn Davis Messerich - District Court Administrator Brian Jones - State of Minnesota Board Of Public Defense Board Chair Anna Restovich & State of Minnesota Board Of Public Defense Chief Administrator Kevin J. Kajer Not Responding To Either Boles' Or Hartger's Complaints? No Surprise There, Huh? It's Cover-Up Time, Isn't It? Hartger Confirms She Hasn't Heard From Anyone In Regard To Her Legitimate Complaint?

From: jer bls iisokrutoo@gmail.com
Date: Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 12:30 PM
Subject: Your Client Jeremy Boles Boles Wants Malicious Rule 20.01 Examination Canceled And Demands Proof Of Competency Of Public Defender Harvey And Demands Evidentiary Hearing Along With Dismissal Of Case!
To: royalwhiterabbithunter@gmail.com, Kevin.Kajer@pubdef.state.mn.us, Harvey, Wesley Wesley.Harvey@pubdef.state.mn.us, Engen, Lisa lisa.engen@pubdef.state.mn.us

Lisa Engen, Office Manager & Wes J. Harvey, Public Defender 612-205-9060:

I want my Rule 20.01 examination canceled. I withdraw my consent. I have reason to suspect that I was coerced and intimidated into agreeing to the malicious psychological examination. I have been previously subjected to a malicious psychological examination by an unlicensed Frayda Rosen. My so-called public defender John Dillon has gone out of his way to sabotage my case in order to force me to plead guilty without ever receiving all of my evidence. I also believed that I was subjected to this malicious and completely unnecessary examination in retaliation for filing a legitimate complaint (Case No. 72-CR-20-85 State of Minnesota vs Jeremy James Boles 08/10/2021 Correspondence Index # 46) with District Court Administrator Brian Jones and Chief Judicial Officer Kathryn Davis Messerich. Not surprising neither Jones nor Messerich responded to my complaint. It is my understanding that neither Jones nor Messerich responded to Jessica Hartger's Complaint (06/22/2021 Correspondence Index # 135 – Case No. 19HA-CR-19-2768 State of Minnesota vs Jessica Danielle Hartger) either.

I want proof that Public Defender Wes J. Harvey is competent to handle my case. I want Harvey's copy or the public defender's office's copy of the Henderson police dept. policy and procedure manual, the Sibley County Sheriff's Dept. policy and procedure manual and the General policy and procedure manual and the prosecutor's policy and procedure manual from the Sibley County Attorney's office. You are put on notice that I want my case dismissed immediately. I want an evidentiary hearing in which law enforcement personnel from the Henderson Police department and the Sibley County Sheriff's office are questioned under oath about their in regard obtaining and preserving audio/video recording preliminary statements from witnesses and suspects as it applies to my case. I want Harvey to ask local law enforcement while they are under oath if they have a practice of illegally withholding squad audio/video and/or body camera video from me for this case.

Did I forget to mention that neither State of Minnesota Board of Public Defense board chair Anna Restovich nor Chief Administrator Kevin J. Kajer 612-279-3509 have bothered to respond to my complaint either? And it is my understanding that neither Restovich nor Kajer have responded to Hartger's complaint either. Sounds like another pattern, doesn't it?

Jeremy Boles

Officers conducting all criminal investigations will, whenever possible, record oral victim and witness statements in lieu of written statements. Statement evidence obtained during an initial investigation can be very powerful evidence in determining the course of an investigation; ultimately impacting charging decisions and convictions. Policy 325 Preliminary Investigation/Required Reports. Duluth Police Department Duluth PD Policy Manual https://duluthmn.gov/police/public-data/policy-manual/

POSITION DESCRIPTION B State Patrol C. Interrogate, interview, and take statements from suspects, witnesses, and others involved in crimes, crashes, and incidents. D. Identify, gather, preserve, and process evidence obtained at crime and crash scenes.
STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY POSITION DESCRIPTION A Employee's Name: Position Control Number: Agency/Division: Public Safety/State Patrol Activity: Classification Title: State Trooper Working Title: Prepared By: Appraisal Period: to. Trooper PD.pdf

Case No. 72-CR-20-85 State of Minnesota vs Jeremy James Boles
08/12/2021 Settlement Conference (1:00 PM) (Judicial Officer Donley, Amber) Result: Held On the Record
08/12/2021 Order for Conditional Release Index # 49 (Judicial Officer: Donley, Amber )
08/12/2021 Notice of Remote Hearing with Instructions Index # 50
08/12/2021 Order-Evaluation for Competency to Proceed (Rule 20.01) Index # 51 (Judicial Officer: Donley, Amber )
08/13/2021 Proposed Order or Document Index # 48
08/13/2021 e-Service State of Minnesota Served 08/13/2021
08/13/2021 e-Service BOLES, JEREMY JAMES Served 08/13/2021
08/24/2021 CANCELED Jury Trial (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Donley, Amber) Other 04/27/2021 Reset by Court to 05/25/2021 05/25/2021 Reset by Court to 06/29/2021 06/29/2021 Reset by Court to 08/24/2021
10/28/2021 Review Hearing (9:45 AM) (Judicial Officer Donley, Amber)
05/04/2017 Evidentiary Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Wermager, Tim D.) 04/14/2017 Reset by Court to 05/04/2017 Result: Held In Re: custody of LLB and EDB; Jeremy James Boles and Colleen Angela Crouley Case No. 19AV-FA-14-1375
Psychological Evaluation: Examinee: Jeremy Boles; Date of Birth: 02/01/1978; Date of Evaluation: 01/06/2015, 01/03/2015; Evaluated By: Frayda Rosen, Psy.D.; Date of Written Report: 01/22/15

At some point, as the district court implicitly suggested, repeated failures of recording equipment point to a “practice” of the law enforcement agency. Such failures may be intentional or may be a result of negligence. It is not enough to simply “blame the equipment” when equipment failure constitutes a pattern of noncompliance with the recording requirement in State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587, 592 (Minn. 1994). … I believe that it is incumbent upon the courts to closely monitor such noncompliance with the requirements of Scales, and when a practice or pattern of violations emerge, courts should impose the available remedy: suppression of any statements obtained from the interrogation. Then, and only then, I would surmise, will police departments consistently “ensure their recording equipment is properly maintained, in working order, and that enough space is available on storage devices to hold video which should be recorded.” State Of Minnesota In Court Of Appeals A16-0743 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Anthony Solon LaBatte, Appellant. Filed March 27, 2017 Affirmed Jesson, Judge Concurring specially, Cleary, Chief Judge Yellow Medicine County District Court File No. 87-CR-14-265. Opinion - Unpublished
https://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/document.do?document=f4a5634bc11c87259e2b01de7caea6a2d5be31e0ef452fc68f14fa28f1756830
Opinion - Unpublished (signed)https://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/document.do?document=0a4286a0a8b76033dd1fc96c8a4e9d8cb352d4ed7a4a7081cd39ac2c7bf364ba

Rosen, Frayda Stipulation and Order Last Modified: May 12, 2017 /boards/assets/Rosen_Frayda_Stipulation%20and%20Order_5.12.17_tcm21-299802.pdf
BEFORE THE MINNESOTA BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY In the Matter of the Application of Frayda Rosen, Psy. D. Application No. 16-0310 STIPULATION AND ORDER
10. Between February 26, 2012, when Applicant's application was closed, until March 15, 2016, when Applicant submitted a new application for licensure to the Board, Applicant engaged in the unauthorized practice of psychology.
a. Reprimand. Applicant is REPRIMANDED for engaging in the conduct and violations described above.
b. Civil Penalty. Applicant shall pay a civil penalty to the Board in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) dollars for engaging in the conduct and violations described in paragraphs 3 through 10, above. Payment of $5,000.00 shall be remitted in full to the Minnesota Board of Psychology at Suite 320, 2829 University Avenue SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414, within 6 months of the date this Stipulation and Consent Order is adopted by the Board. The civil penalty may be paid in installments, at Licensee's discretion, provided payment in full is received within 6 months of the date this Stipulation and Consent Order is adopted by the Board. Signed Frayda Rosen, Psy.D. Applicant Dated May 8, 2017
https://mn.gov/boards/assets/Rosen_Frayda_Stipulation%20and%20Order_5.12.17_tcm21-299802.pdf
https://mn.gov/boards/psychology/public/orders/?id=21-299805

BRADY/GIGLIO POLICY OFFICE OF THE OTTER TAIL COUNTY ATTORNEY Date Issued/Revised: July 20, 2020 It is the policy of this office to disclose to the defense information material to the case, particularly that which may tend to exculpate the defendant, or which may be used to impeach the credibility of state witnesses. The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure start the inquiry as to whether information should be disclosed, but the rules are not the only source of law to be considered. The following is to be considered only a brief outline, not an exhaustive review of the law on disclosure. 1. Scope of Discovery A. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) all "material" information must be provided to the defense by the prosecution. B. "Material" evidence includes exculpatory evidence as well as impeachment evidence concerning government witnesses. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 (1999). C. If any law enforcement agent possesses the information or evidence, the prosecutor has an obligation to learn the information and turn it over to the defense. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). D. The defense does not have to request the information, the prosecutor has the obligation to turn it over. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). E. “Under Brady, the suppression by the State, whether intentional or not, of material evidence favorable to the defendant violates the constitutional guarantee of due process." Walen v. State, 777 N.W.2d 213, 216 (Minn. 2010). 2. Impeachment Evidence: The Brady disclosure obligation includes impeaching information. State v. Hunt, 615 N.W.2d 294, 299 (Minn. 2000) (citing United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985)). A. Where a witness's reliability "may well be determinative of guilt or innocence, nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within the Brady rule". Pederson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2005) (quoting Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972)). B. Incentives offered to witnesses, including plea bargains, offers of favorable treatment and payments to witnesses must be disclosed. State v. Lynch, 590 N.W.2d 75, 79 (Minn. 11999); Plea bargains to cooperate must be disclosed even if made by another office. State v. Smith, 541 N.W.2d. 584, 588 (Minn. 1996). C. Prosecutors are required to disclose prior written or recorded statements of witnesses and summaries of oral statements. Minn. R. Crim. Proc. 9.01; State v. Miller, 754 N.W.2d 686, 705 (Minn. 2008); State v. Palubicki, 700 N.W.2d 476, 490 (Minn. 2005). D. The complete criminal record of witnesses must be disclosed, failure to do so is a violation of Minn. R. Crim Proc. 9.01; State v. Miller, 754 N.W.2d at 705-706. E. Failure to disclose that a witness has been found incompetent to stand trial is a violation of the Brady obligations. State v. Hunt, 615 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2000). F. Failure to disclose that a victim had another name and criminal history under that name is a Brady violation. Gorman v. State, 619 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). G. Failure to disclose police reports involving the victim, is a violation of the prosecutor's duty to disclose. State v. Radke, 821 N.W.2d 316, 326 (Minn. 2012). H. Failure to disclose evidence which the prosecutor believes is relevant only as rebuttal evidence may result in the reversal of a conviction for prosecutorial misconduct. See: State v. Whitcup, No. A14-1666, 2015 WL 499398 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). Note the prosecutor in this case was the subject of a disciplinary proceeding though the referee determined she did not act in bad faith and dismissed the petition. In Re: Olson A16- 0280 (Minn. 2016). I. Failure to disclose impeaching information or misstating factual information in discovery may result in attorney discipline. In Re: Mollin, 906 N.W.2d 260 (Minn. 2018) reinstated 910 N.W. 459 (Minn. 2018). 3. Disclosure is not the same as admissibility A. There is no obligation to communicate preliminary, challenged, or speculative information. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 109, fn 16 (citing Giles v. Maryland, 386 U.S. 66, 98 (1967)). B. Whether evidence is admissible under state law is not dispositive of the question of required disclosure. If the evidence in question could have led to the discovery of admissible impeachment evidence, disclosure is required. See United States v. Morales, 746 F.3d 310, 315(2014); Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1 (1995). As a result, evidence that would not be admissible under Minnesota law must still be assessed for the possibility that disclosure could lead to impeachment information on a case by case basis. 4. Disclosure: Law enforcement agencies are required to produce any impeachment information known about any witness, including law enforcement witnesses, to the prosecution. 2A. Individual prosecutors will determine whether or not a witness with known impeachment problems pursuant to Brady/Giglio is necessary to the presentation of the case, and make disclosures as required. B. Law Enforcement officers with known impeachment issues will not be relied upon by this office to sign a verified complaint, affidavit or search warrant application without disclosing all known impeachment issues to the court. See: Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72 (1978). C. Impeachment information relating to officers includes: i. False written statement, report or other document ii. Misconduct that reflects on truthfulness iii. Misconduct that indicates a racial, religious, or other personal bias iv. Misconduct that indicates promises, offers, or inducements, including the offer of immunity v. Misconduct involving handling of evidence or property vi. Misconduct that involves the use of force vii. Criminal conviction (misdemeanor or above) viii. Misconduct that involves harassment ix. Misconduct that involves the inappropriate or unauthorized use of government data x. Misconduct that reflects on credibility 5. The Otter Tail County Attorney’s Office shall at all times comply with the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct: RULE 3.8: SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal. Comment [1] A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence. Precisely how far the prosecutor is required to go in this direction is a matter of debate and varies in different jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions have adopted the ABA Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function, which in turn are the product of prolonged and careful deliberation by lawyers experienced in both criminal prosecution and defense. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor and knowing disregard of those obligations or a systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Rule 8.4. 3[3] The exception in paragraph (d) recognizes that a prosecutor may seek an appropriate protective order from the tribunal if disclosure of information to the defense could result in substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest. 6. This office will also rely on the admonition of Justice Stevens in United States v. Agurs: "Because we are dealing with an inevitably imprecise standard, and because the significance of an item of evidence can seldom be predicted accurately until the entire record is complete, the prudent prosecutor will resolve doubtful questions in favor of disclosure." 427 U.S. at 108 (1976). 7. Disclosure of Brady Information: Nothing in this policy prohibits the prosecution from disclosing any data about a witness the prosecutor determines must be disclosed pursuant to Brady. A. In Camera Review of Potential Brady Information: Upon receipt or knowledge of possible Brady material the prosecutor has determined should be reviewed by the court for a disclosure determination the prosecutor shall request a hearing for an in camera review by the court to determine if the material is Brady material and must be disclosed to the defense. The prosecutor shall subpoena the appropriate agency personnel to deliver the possible Brady notification or information to the hearing. The prosecutor shall send a copy of the notice of hearing to the employee who is the subject of the possible Brady material. The notice will provide sufficient time for the agency and data subject to respond to the potential disclosure or review but shall be no shorter than five business days prior to the scheduled hearing unless good cause exists. If after in camera review the court rules all or some of the material is not subject to disclosure the prosecutor shall request the material or the portion not subject to disclosure be returned to the agency. A copy of the court's written order(s) regarding the material shall be forwarded to the agency. If the court determines some or all of the material should be turned over to the prosecutor and/or the defense or is Brady material the prosecutor shall maintain a copy of that material in the file along with the disclosure order. Prior court rulings regarding Brady material shall guide the prosecutor in further disclosure determinations. Agencies' investigation and response, if any and if known to the prosecutor and the similarity and difference in the allegations, facts, and criminal charges and those before the disclosing court shall be considered. Most likely if material was ruled disclosable pursuant to Brady in a prior proceeding the material will be disclosed pursuant to Brady in subsequent cases. If there is sufficient doubt as to whether the material should be disclosed again the prosecutor shall submit the previously disclosed material to a court and request an in camera review and follow the procedures. B. Continuing Obligation to Disclose: The prosecutor is under a continuing duty to disclose Brady material. 4 Brady-Giglio Policy.pdf

Hartger Confirms What Boles Is Saying?

from: Harlene Quinzel royalwhiterabbithunter@gmail.com
to: jer bls iisokrutoo@gmail.com
cc: "Kajer, Kevin" Kevin.Kajer@pubdef.state.mn.us,
"Harvey, Wesley" Wesley.Harvey@pubdef.state.mn.us,
"Engen, Lisa" lisa.engen@pubdef.state.mn.us,
Lion News lionnews00@gmail.com
date: Oct 25, 2021, 7:38 PM
subject: Re: Your Client Jeremy Boles Boles Wants Malicious Rule 20.01 Examination Canceled And Demands Proof Of Competency Of Public Defender Harvey And Demands Evidentiary Hearing Along With Dismissal Of Case!
mailed-by: gmail.com
signed-by: gmail.com
security: Standard encryption (TLS) Learn more
: Important mainly because you often read messages with this label.

Lisa Engen, Office Manager & Wes J. Harvey, Public Defender 612-205-9060

My name is Jessica Danielle Cook f/k/a Jessica Danielle Hartger, and I am writing to you as I have experienced similar issues as Mr. Boles. In June 2021, I filed a complaint to former Chief Judge Kathryn Messerich and Administrator Brian Jones, and I have yet to receive a response from either addressed party. Following the submission of my formal complaint, my Public Defender Scott Baker filed a retaliatory Rule 20.01 Motion, which directed the court to question my competency to stand trial. I find it very difficult to take this as anything but retaliation considering litigation 19HA-CR-19-2768 has been on going for 2 years, and this issue has never come up until I filed a formal complaint.

After the presiding Judge Awsumb finding me competent to stand trial, any and all communications have ended between myself and Mr. Baker. I am unsure if this is his silent admission to himself being ineffective counsel, but it seems self evident. It seems Dakota County Public Defenders are failing to do their jobs, in hopes their clients will be forced to plead guilty/be found guilty at trial.

Attached is the unanswered complaint, I'd appreciate a response after months of waiting or I'll simply assume my concerns above are correct and the officers of the court are on notice of such and still refuse to do anything to remedy the situation.

Please feel free to contact me via email or telephone at your earliest convenience.

Jessica Danielle Cook
PO Box 631
Walsenburg CO 81089
507 403 8157

Attachment: complaint file 2021 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T9LmbvlGkk6Yik84qeDC5zmiGA0M8m0o/view?usp=drivesdk

Email from Boles' New Backstabbing Attorney?

From: Harvey, Wesley Wesley.Harvey@pubdef.state.mn.us
Date: Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 9:34 AM
Subject: Time to discuss your cases
To: iisokrutoo@gmail.com iisokrutoo@gmail.com

Good morning Mr. Boles,

Is there a time that is amenable to your schedule when we could discuss your upcoming review hearings for you files: 72-CR-20-172; 72-CR-20-81; 72-CR-20-83; and 72-CR- 20-85?

The review hearing for said files are set for this Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 9:45 a.m. via Zoom. The Zoom information is as follows:
Meeting ID: 161 117 8434
Meeting Password: 038108

Additionally, is there a telephone number that I could reach you at? It would be beneficial to discuss these matters prior to the hearing.

Regards,
Wes J. Harvey

UPDATE: Emails From Boles & Hargter Magically & Mysteriously Cause Abrupt & Unexpected Reschedule Of 10-28-21 Hearing To 01-20-22?

Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/26/2021 State of Minnesota Sibley County District Court First Judicial District Court File Number: 72-CR-20-85
Case Type: Crim/Traf Mandatory Notice of Remote Zoom Hearing FILE COPY
_____________________________________________________________________________
State of Minnesota vs JEREMY JAMES BOLES
You are notified this matter is set for a remote hearing. This hearing will not be in person at the
courthouse.
Hearing Information
January 20, 2022
Review Hearing
9:45 AM
The hearing will be held via Zoom and appearance shall be by video and audio unless otherwise directed with Judicial Officer Amber Donley, Sibley County District Court.
If you fail to appear a warrant may be issued for your arrest.
The Minnesota Judicial Branch uses strict security controls for all remote technology when
conducting remote hearings.
You must:
• Notify the court if your address, email, or phone number changes.
• Be fully prepared for the remote hearing. If you have exhibits you want the court to see,
you must give them to the court before the hearing. Visit www.mncourts.gov/Remote-
Hearings for more information and options for joining remote hearings, including how
to submit exhibits.
• Contact the court at 507-237-4051 if you do not have access to the internet, or are
unable to connect by video and audio.
• If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer and would like to apply for a
court‐appointed attorney before this appearance visit
https://pdapplication.courts.state.mn.us or scan the QR code to start the
application.
To join by internet:
1. Type https://zoomgov.com/join in your browser’s address bar.
2. Enter the Meeting ID and Meeting Passcode (if asked):

Meeting ID: 161 117 8434
Passcode: 038108
3. Update your name by clicking on your profile picture. If you are representing a party,
add your role to your name, for example, John Smith, Attorney for Defendant.
4. Click the Join Audio icon in the lower left-hand corner of your screen.
5. Click Share Video.
To join by telephone (if you are unable to join by internet):
Be sure you know how to mute your phone when you are not speaking and unmute it again to
speak.
1. Call Toll-Free: 1-833-568-8864
2. Enter the Meeting ID and Meeting Passcode:
Meeting ID: 161 117 8434
Passcode: 038108
Para obtener más información y conocer las opciones para participar en audiencias remotas,
incluido cómo enviar pruebas, visite www.mncourts.gov/Remote-Hearings.
Booqo www.mncourts.gov/Remote-Hearings oo ka eego faahfaahin iyo siyaabaha aad uga
qeybgeli karto dacwad-dhageysi ah fogaan-arag, iyo sida aad u soo gudbineyso wixii caddeymo
ah.
To receive an eReminder for future court dates via e-mail or text, visit
www.mncourts.gov/Hearing-eReminders.aspx or scan the QR code to
enroll.
Dated: October 26, 2021
cc:
Karen V. Messner
Sibley County Court Administrator
400 Court Ave., P.O. Box 867
Gaylord Minnesota 55334
507-237-4051
Jeremy James Boles
State Of Minnesota
Donald Everett Lannoye
Regional Psychological Services
Wesley James Harvey