Lakota Perspectives 

 

ND Officials Cause Death

 

                                                                                                                             

960 REPORT OF CHILD FATALITY

OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES REFUSE TO INVESTIGATE CHILD ABUSE

 

This is a first person witness to institutional abuses against Native American students taking place at Warwick Public School during school year 2006-07, and how officials refused to investigate reports of abuse and criminal assault.

 

                The cover up goes higher and deeper than Penn State, with officials committing perjury, obstruction, endangering the welfare of children, failure to properly report suspected abuse and conspiracy.  Top officials in North Dakota engaged in a “conspiracy of silence” to “actively conceal the truth.”  If officials and lawyers had done what they were supposed to do and legally required to do, Jami Jetty would be alive today.  This was a conspiracy of silence by top officials to actively conceal the truth.

          Once the court and officers of the court realized they took an action which did undeniable damage, they did not move to correct. Rather they moved to conceal their unlawful misconduct by the use of more unlawful misconduct. The greater the damage known, the harder they fought, collusively, to conceal their unlawful actions. Thereby willfully causing more damage in reckless disregard for rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the public and lives of those citizens who come before them, and the ones who didn’t, but whose lives were destroyed by the reckless misconduct of officials. Jami Rose Jetty is dead because of official misconduct and cover up.   Plainly stated, I believe that is called murder by officers of the courts who have been routinely abusing Native Americans for years, children, the most vulnerable in our society.  And I got caught in the cross hairs for exposing them, and have paid a high price.

 

November 14, 2011

 

Reporter:     Janis Schmidt,

                   418 Griffin St.

                   Warwick, ND  58381

                    701-294-2196

                   jlschmidt@gondtc.com

 

Relationship to deceased:        teacher

Name of deceased child:           Jami Rose Jetty, Native American

Age at time of death:                14

Date of death:                          November 3, 2008

Cause of death:                        suicide by hanging

Place where abuse occurred:    Warwick Public School, ND

 

AUTHORIZATION AND JURISDICTION

 

          I have a duty to report the facts and identify the circumstances that contributed to the death of Jami Rose Jetty, pursuant to NDCC 50-25.1-03.[1]   Social Services has a duty to investigate all reports of suspicious child fatalities.[2]  Social Services refused to act on my 960 Report of a Child Fatality on October 28, 2011, (Exhibit 185, Letter from Marlys Baker) and refused to investigate my 960 report of child abuse in January of 07.  (Ex 1)  The US attorney refused to investigate.  (Exhibit 186, US Attorney refusal letter)

 

          I, Janis Schmidt, citizen and teacher. come to submit a 960 child fatality report with evidence that proves  that Warwick School officials, superintendent Charles Guthrie, principal Gene Riedinger, Councilor Shirley Tiokiason (Erickson), NDEA rep. Steve Michels, Business teacher and computer expert Jana Jensen led to Jami Jetty taking her own life. Superintendent Charles Guthrie deliberately chose not to report the rape of a student, M H, when it became known to him,  and abused Jami by questioning Jami about a rape in violation of child abuse laws which prohibits any unauthorized questioning of students,  making the girl, Jami Jetty and her parents, believe that I had told school administrators that Jami had been raped,  which caused everyone to regard Jami as the rape victim which then made life intolerable for Jami, and was the reason why she killed herself, as told to me by her father, James Jetty in a conversation I had with him in February of 2011.  It all started from the fact that Social Services refused to investigate my 29 page Report of institutional abuse, as advised by states attorney James Wang.  (Exhibit #1, Report to School Board Members, December 29, 2006) 

 

          Contributing to Jami’s death by failing to uphold child abuse laws, tampering with witnesses and evidence were attorneys Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson of Pearce & Durick from Bismarck, along with a lawyer from Devils Lake, Ulysses Jones, with the knowledge and cooperation of states attorney James Wang and sheriff Rohyer, deputy Shawn Benet, agencies Social Services Millie Benet, director Ed Forde, agency ND Human Resources Ed Meier,  Job Service who falsified facts and evidence, hearing officer Dave Clinton, assistant attorney generals Michael Pitcher, Doug Bahr, Doug Anderson, Education Standards and Practices Board as advised by assistant attorney general Bill Peterson, all officers of the court, did conspire to unlawfully to circumvent the child abuse laws that led to the untimely death of Jami Rose Jetty.   Had my original 960 Report which I submitted to Social Services in January of 2007 as Report to School Board Members (Exhibit A) been correctly assessed, with an investigation ordered, Jami Rose Jetty would be alive today.  This is the consequence when Social Services 960 Reports are not given due credence and North Dakota Century Code of child abuse laws are ignored by the very agency who is mandated to protect children.[3]  

         

 

          1.      Rape of student

 

          This all began with Warwick school administrators when they decided not to report a rape that had been told to the school administrators back in the fall of 2006.  The administrators, supt. Charles Guthrie, principal Gene Riedinger, and counselor Shirley Tiokiason had deliberately chosen not to report the rape when they first learned of it at the beginning of the semester.  Administrators had sexual issues in their background  (Exhibit #3, Melissa Erickson emails detailing Riedinger’s unwanted sexual advances) (Guthrie had been fired from 4 Winds because a student had been raped on his watch) and so administrators Supt. Charles Guthrie and Principal Gene Riedinger decided not to report the rape, which they were well aware of.  (Exhibit #2, rape victim mother’s Affidavit)    

 

          I was hired to teach art at Warwick Public School in 2006, with the help of Cory Christofferson, who had found me on line.  Cory thought I could be helpful to him and recommended to the Principal, Gene Riedinger, that I be hired.  So I moved from Nebraska to North Dakota. 

           Cory helped me buy my house.  Cory came over to my house constantly, and I told him what was happening at Warwick School.  This is important because Cory later become the conduit for Guthrie to conduct his retaliation against me, after he assaulted and battered a student, which Guthrie did not report.  (Ex #1)

 

          Warwick School is 99% Native American student body with an all white staff.  All went well until the end of September when a 15 year old Native American girl announced to me in class that she had been raped.   Students in the class could be subpoenaed as to the truth of this statement.   Knowing that I had a duty to report, I immediately told Supt. Charles Guthrie and Principal Gene Riedinger about it.    Guthrie told me it was taken care of, and that I didn’t need to report.  This was my first experience with a duty to report.  I knew I was obligated to report.  Guthrie did not inform me that he had not reported to law enforcement or Social Services.  I took him at his word that he had reported the rape to proper authorities.  The rape issue developed into situation where the administration felt they needed to cover up the fact that they had not reported the rape, as required by law. NDCC 50-25.1-03.[4]    Supt. Guthrie admits that a student had been raped.  (Ex 5, tab D)    

         

          Mandated reporters are entitled to immunity for any report of child abuse or neglect under the Act as long as the report is made in good faith However, any failure of a mandated reporter to make a report may be subject to criminal prosecution, license suspension or revocation and civil liability.  The administrators were afraid if I told, they could have their education license revoked, pursuant to NDCC 50-25.1-13[5] (Doc 204, #80)  so, instead of reporting, they staged a fight and expelled the rape/suicide victim, (Doc 204, #16-18) and set up newly enrolled Jami Rose Jetty, Native American, by telling  I had said she had been raped.[6] ( Ex #1,  Report to School Board Members)   The girl forced to fight with M H can witness to the truth of this.  Guthrie and administrators went from disobeying child abuse laws to criminal actions, all to cover up the fact that they had not reported a rape as required by law.[7]  Why?  They were afraid they would lose their teaching license if I talked, so they retaliated against me.    Warwick administrators and their lawyers made a deliberate, calculated illegal decision not to report the rape,  and when I found out, they staged a fight and immediately expelled the rape victim.  Most of all, they thought they could get by with it.  And they did with the help of clever, arrogant attorneys and complicit government agencies, Social Services, Job Service, and Education Standards and Practices Board.  (Ex #1)  Mr. Guthrie would then later claim that I was making false statements that girls were being raped in school and that it wasn’t his responsibility to report a rape that happened on the reservation.  (Job Service hearing transcript,  p. 88, line 1-3)

 

MR. GUTHRIE:  Ms. Schmidt had talked about a student or students being raped at the school and claiming that nothing had been done and in fact the rape that she was talking about happened during the summer time and that was followed up on… (Id.)

 

Although that may have been true, it does not mean that Mr. Guthrie fulfilled his duty to report.  Guthrie admits he knew of the rape.  He had a mandated duty to report to Social Services.  (NDCC  50-25.1-03  Duty to Report)

 

 

          2.      Jami victimized and set up as rape victim 

 

          Once Guthrie, Riedinger, and Tiokiason discovered that I knew about the rape because I had told them, they realized that they might be discovered for having not reported the rape, so they expelled the rape victim as a means of getting rid of the evidence.  But then they had to come up with a pretend rape victim. Jami Jetty, a new student, 12 years old, provided that opportunity. 

 

          Rather than report a rape as required by law, defendants Supt. Guthrie and Principal Riedinger chose not to report that a student told me she had been raped, in defiance of NDCC Child Abuse laws.[8]  Instead, they expelled the rape victim.     Defendants Supt. Guthrie, Principal Riedinger, Counselor Tiokiason, and Michels, a member of Warwick’s “Sexual Harassment Investigative Team”[9] then became child abusers instead of protectors, when they singled out a newly enrolled, 12-year-old 7th grader, a young Native American girl, Jami, and deceived her into believing that I had told administrators that she had been raped.   (Ex #1)

           J J, a new student, 12 years old,  enrolled in both of my 7th grade classes sometime in early November of 06.   Jami, age 12,  had told me in confidence in November of 2006, that neither parent (who were divorced) never had time to play with her or even talk to her.  She said they both had boyfriend/girlfriend whom they spent more time with, and she felt she was in the way.  She said that she had taken a drink at a party, passed out on the sofa,  and that some kids stripped her naked.  When she woke up, they were all laughing at her.  I asked if she had been sexually assaulted.  She said no.  I asked what her parents permitted her drinking.  She said they were drinking themselves with their boyfriend/girlfriend, and that they didn’t care about her.  I found that hard to believe, but it was the way Jami perceived her home situation.  She said that’s why she liked me and my homeroom, because I let the kids play games, something she never had an opportunity to do growing up.  It was a very emotional moment.   I comforted her and told her what a smart girl she was, very bright, and that if she could just get beyond these teenage years, she would discover there was a whole world of people out there who would understand and appreciate her.  She then told me that she wanted to do something for her people, that she wanted to fight for their rights, like Anna Mae and AIM.  She asked about Leonard Peltier, to whom she was related on Jetty side, although I did not know that at the time.  Jami showed me a book she was reading about AIM and Wounded Knee, Lakota Woman.   She said she wanted to be just like Mary Crow Dog, with whom she really related.  She wanted to shake people out of their stupor, and have them act more like real Indians.

          Without revealing any confidences, I asked the counselor, Shirley Tiokiason, to talk with Jami.  Instead Supt. Guthrie, Principal Riedinger, and Tiokiason seized this opportunity to make it appear that I had told Ms. Tiokiason that Jami, 12 years old, had been raped.   Mr. Riedinger and Mr. Michels decided to  question Jami  about a rape.  They did so without the knowledge or permission of Social Services or James Jetty or myself, in violation of NDCC Child Abuse Laws.[10]   (Ex #1)

          I noticed a marked change in J J who was exhibiting moods of humiliation and despair.  In December of 06, when I confronted Ms. Tiokiason, she admitted that Riedinger and Michels had questioned Jami concerning a rape.  (Ex #1) I only discovered that Jami had been questioned about a rape after defendants Guthrie and Riedinger had performed sex talks to all students grade 7th-12th , taking a whole class period, in violation of Child abuse law NDCC 50-25.1-01.[11]  (Exhibit #2, Guthrie’s memo to staff on sex talks)   In fact, Principal Riedinger held my whole 7th grade English students from class without informing me, to talk to them about sex. (Exhibit #1-A, 7th grade statements threatened with police)  I was excluded from this event.  Why didn’t Guthrie and Riedinger meet in my room with my class, which Jami was a part of?   What was said in that room when 7th graders were supposed to be in English class with me?   The damage had been done in an irreversible sort of way, and Riedinger and Guthrie were fueling the fire by talking to my 7th graders behind my back. (Ex #1) 

          In order to set Jami up as the rape victim, Mr. Riedinger and Mr. Michels, music teacher and NEA representative, along with Ms. Tiokiason, all acting in their official capacity, did question Jami in Ms. Tiokiason’s office, about a rape, without the knowledge or permission of Social Services, Jami’s father, the custodial parent, or myself, in violation of Child Abuse laws concerning privacy and that only Social Services is authorized to investigate, NDCC 50-25.1-02(14)[12] and criminal laws, NDCC 12.1-16-04.  (see footnote #7)  Outraged, I accused Tiokiason of damaging a 12 year old who was having difficulty adjusting to a new school, and stormed out of her office.   Together, she and Mr. Guthrie came to my room and explained that I had a duty to report, and that Jami had admitted to them that she had been raped, when in fact, Jami had made no such admission to me.   (Ex #1)  If this were true, Guthrie had a legal duty to report it, but he did not.   It was very important to Mr. Guthrie to make me believe that Jami had admitted to them that she had been raped, just as it was very important to make Jami believe that I said she had been raped.  That way they could cover up the fact that they expelled the real rape victim, M H, whom they had expelled illegally, and set up Jami as the rape victim.  At the same time, Principal Riedinger found reasons to keep Jami out of my classes during the month of December of 06.   Questioning Jami whether or not she had been raped was a criminal act, causing Jami pain and humiliation, and the questioning caused Jami and her parents to believe Guthrie’s false and fraudulent story that I said Jami had been raped,  to spread around the school and Indian community, with Guthrie constantly fanning the story. 

 

          Jami had been attending two classes I taught.  Following this incident, she was removed from both my classes without explanation.     The record shows that Supt. Guthrie gave conflicting accounts concerning Jami’s “confession” and my role in it.  The undermining of me professionally and personally had entered a new chapter.

          One must always remember that James Jetty, the father, was the custodial parent of Jami.  Cora Tiger, Jami’s mother, worked for tribal chairwoman, Myra Pearson.  I saw James Jetty one day in December of 2007, and I asked him if he was aware that administrators had questioned Jami about a rape.  He was furious, and this was the first he had heard of it.  He said he was getting a lawyer to come and talk to Guthrie. 

          I saw Jami and her mother, Cora Tiger, coming out of Riedinger’s office on the night of teacher conferences in December of 06.  It is the first time I saw her, and since Jami was with her, I knew her to be Jami’s mother.  She had not been to teacher conference.   I followed her into the hallway, hoping to get away from Riedinger, but he followed right along.  I shook her hand and gave her my phone number, and told her to call me.  But she never did, because she obviously believed Riedinger’s lies about me.   Riedinger never explained why she wasn’t at teacher conferences, considering that Jami was missing so much class.  I did not realize that Riedinger had deliberately removed Jami from my classes.  I began to suspect that Riedinger had been telling Jami and her mother how I was spreading the story that J J had been raped. (Schmidt v. Warwick Public School District #29, Doc 204, Statement of facts, Ex. 2, p. 23, #34)   Ms. Tiger was being victimized by Principal Riedinger and Supt. Guthrie to believe that I had started a pernicious rumor that Jami had been raped. Riedinger worked especially hard to convince Ms. Tiger of this lie because of Ms. Tiger’s close association with the tribal chairwoman, Myra Pearson.  Administrators ruthlessly cultivated this lie to disguise the fact that they had not reported a rape of a student when it became known to them in August of 2006.  Ms. Tiger was not the custodial parent of Jami, but lived with a man, Tiger Dubois, who was convicted of raping a young girl.  Ms. Tiger had ulterior reasons for working closely with Principal Riedinger.

 

          I have an astonishing discovery.  On 4-14-12, an Indian man came over to my house looking for work.   Talked about Jami.  Told story.  Asked if he knew James Jetty and Cora Tiger.  Knows them both.  I wondered why James had custody, and not Cora.  He then told me that Cora was really a Whiteman, and she went by the name of the man she was living with, "Tiger" Benjamin Dubois, who the man told me was sent off 4 or 5 years ago to federal prison for raping a little girl.  My god!  Could that little girl have been Jami???  It certainly fits the facts as I know them.  When I talked with Jami back in November of 2006, she told me she lived with her father, who was the custodial parent.  She told me that each parent had boyfriend/girlfriend and were not interested in her.  She said she had been depressed for the past 2 years, and was on medication for it, which really surprised me because she seemed so bright and cheery.  She was to me because I talked about Indian things, Wounded Knee (1890) and Sitting Bull and pre-reservation Indian way of life, and she loved it and she loved me.  Then she told me about a party where she had drunk whiskey and fell asleep on sofa.  When she woke up, she discovered she had been stripped naked and all the kids were laughing at her.  I asked if anything happened to her while naked, like rape;  she said no.  I believe her.  In school, the Dubois sisters kept chasing her up and down the hallways, even trailed her into the bathroom calling her a slut, tits, and bitch.  I never told anyone about that, but I asked the counselor to talk with Jami because she was having trouble fitting in.  So that's when counselor Tiokiason, teacher and NDEA rep Michels and principal Riedinger questioned Jami about a rape in Tiokiason's office, calling themselves the "Sexual Harassment Team," (Ex 5 a gross violation of child abuse law 50-25.1-04.1.)  It is entirely possible that Jami may have admitted to Tiokiason/Riedinger/Michels that she had been raped by Tiger Dubois, her mother's boyfriend.  Guthrie and Tiokiason told me she had admitted to being raped, which could have been true, but that gave Guthrie an additional problem.  If indeed, Jami did admit this to Tiokiason/Riedinger/Michels/Guthrie, who illegally questioned her, they certainly didn't report it as required by law because additionally, Tiokiason/Riedinger/Michels/Guthrie now had a 2nd rape to report or hide.  Instead they set up poor little Jami to believe I had told them that she had been raped, which she never did, but they gave that false information to Jami to broadcast to the school and community that I had told them that Jami had been raped, to cover up the fact that they had not reported a student rape  and in fact, had expelled the rape victim, and then gave me a directive that I could have no contact with Jami or her parents.  The facts fit Cora Tiger, the very guilty mother, who took the name Tiger from Tiger Dubois, her boyfriend, convicted of raping a small girl.  It is quite possible Jami that Tiger molested Jami, and that she told Tiokiason/Riedinger/Michels/Guthrie.  However, Jami did not tell me that.  Either way, the Guthrie cabal is responsible for causing her death by suicide, a double AA felony.

          This lie believed by Jami’s mother and eventually her father, would eventually be the cause of Jami’s suicide death, after Jami discovered the truth and couldn’t get her parents to believe her that this was Guthrie’s lie.  (Ex 33, audiotape)  For 2 years, Jami had suffered the stigma of a rape victim. She was taunted and tormented mercilessly by Riedinger’s “special” girls, saying,  “We heard you were raped at Warwick School.”  (Ex #33, audiotape of Four Winds student) 

 

 

 

  1. Supt. Guthrie told me that Jami had been raped.

 

          Riedinger and Guthrie had already removed Jami from my classes in December, without giving me any reason for doing so.  When I asked Mr. Riedinger, he said Jami was in detention.  I confronted Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Riedinger that putting J J in detention was the wrong thing to do, (Ex A) and Mr. Guthrie’s responded with the following which can only be characterized as an oppression of rights NDCC 12.1-14-01 and conspiracy to commit child abuse, NDCC 12.1-06-04, and retaliation against reporter, NDCC 50-25.1-09.1.  (see footnote 8)

   I went through another terrifying inquisition styled interrogation. Guthrie told me in no uncertain terms that there is a chain-of-command in place and I was not to question administrative decisions. Guthrie told me that my student J J was not my problem or concern. I told Guthrie that he had enrolled her in two of my classes, and it is a teacher’s duty to know what is happening to her students. Guthrie told me that they could remove J J from my classes without consulting me or even giving me any reasonsI asked him if she told him she had been raped, why was he putting her in detention?   Guthrie emphatically did not feel he had to answer any of my questions about what they were doing, stating,  “It was an administrative decision.”  (Ex #1)

And Riedinger had the rumor mill going full blast that I was saying that students were being raped in Warwick School, specifically that Jami had been raped, aided by teacher Steve Michels.  In his Response to ESPB dated March (sic, May) 8, 2007, of which I was not served a copy, (which was withheld from me until I subpoenaed the ESPB 2 years later) Mr. Riedinger stated: 

“As to the claim that two rapes occurred in the school, we have several long term staff members and they said they had never heard a report or even rumor of a rape ever taking place on school property.  I have only been here two years and I had never heard such a report until students came to the office asking about the rapes because Ms. Schmidt was talking about them to students during class.”  (Ex C, Tab #2)

 

These statements to ESPB were pernicious lies, which is why I was not served a copy of these Responses.  This is proof that Riedinger was manufacturing rumors that “two rapes occurred in the school” and “students came to the office asking about the rapes because Ms. Schmidt was talking about them to students during class,”  entirely untrue, said to ESPB to obscure the real reason which was to hide an unreported rape, and for firing me before the end of the school year, without hearing or notice.

          The only persons spreading that rumor were Riedinger, Michels, Guthrie, and Tiokiason, which is what Riedinger’s statement proves. The most pernicious evil accomplished was getting Cora Tiger, Jami’s mother to believe their lie.  What Riedinger presented was a letter from counselor Shirley Tiokiason who said in a May 2, 2007 letter:

“On January 3, 2007, I received a phone call from the FBI out of Grand Forks stating that they had received a phone call on January 2nd from a teacher, with a Warwick telephone number, informing them that a rape had been reported to the counselor and administrators at her school, and the “rape” had not been reported to the proper authorities….”

A couple of weeks after this allegation was made, two different students came to see me concerned because Ms. Schmidt had told them that there had been “rapes” at the school that the administrators were covering up.  I assured the students that in the seven years that I have been here, there had not been any rapes in the school.  I further stated that I and administrators report all alleged abuse incidents to the proper authorities for their further investigation.”  (Ex #5, at Tab F) 

 

This is proof that the Warwick administrators were spreading the rumor that girls were being raped in Warwick School, a rumor that eventually caused Jami to kill herself.  (Ex 33)  If indeed I had made such a statement, why wasn’t I hauled into the office and questioned about it?  I never was.  I had been fired on April 11, 2007, and was not in the school when this letter was written.  If there were any truth to this statement, why wasn’t I questioned back in January of 07?  And, in fact, if this were true, why didn’t Tiokiason, Riedinger, and Guthrie turn me in to Social Services for making false statements about rapes?  NDCC 50-25.1-13[13]    Instead, nothing was said to me at the time; no warnings, no reprimands, not even a note saying that Guthrie had talked to me about it.  What this statement proves is that Tiokiason, Riedinger, and Guthrie abusing students by perpetrating a lie about me to cover up the fact that they had not reported a rape.  (Ex 1)

 

 

         

4.      Felony assault and battery on student goes unreported.

 

          In early December of 2006, Cory Christofferson, whom I thought was my friend,  assaulted a student.[14]  (Ex #1-D)  It took several students and the janitor, Cecil Stewart, to pull Cory off the student, who was almost unconscious.  I have talked to 3 students who were eye witnesses to this incident, who remember it vividly.  The assault occurred on front of approximately 30 students, who could witness this.   Supt. Guthrie was told immediately.  Cory resigned as girls’ coach.  Mr. Guthrie did not report the assault to Social Services or to the police or the Sheriff.  Instead, he made a deal with Cory to make the assault go away.  Cory would circulate petitions to get rid of the varsity coach as a reason for his involuntary resignation.   The December 12, 2006, school board minutes prove this to be true. (Ex 55) Cory brought a copy of the petition to my room, and asked me to word the petition for him.  I told him I couldn’t do that because it was a very bad idea to get rid of the 6th grade teacher and coach, Mr. Klein, and I would have nothing to do with it.  It is now obvious to me that Mr. Guthrie cut a deal with Cory, that he involve me in the petition to get rid of Coach Klein in exchange that Mr. Guthrie wouldn’t report him to the police.  The school board minutes reflect this.  “Cory Christofferson presented a letter with a petition to Board President Thiele…..Mr. Christofferson voiced his concerns about the boy’s basketball program.”  (Exhibit #55, 12/12/06 school board minutes)  In the January 23, 2007, school board meeting, Supt. Guthrie reported this way:  “Mr. Guthrie stated he received a letter of apology from Cory Christofferson in regards to a complaint[15] he had at the December 12th meeting.”  (Ex #53) I attended the January 2007 school board meeting, thinking that the school board would ask me about my 29 page report, but they didn’t. Mr. Michels was also in attendance of this meeting, held in the library.  Mr. Michels had a grouping of chairs lined up in front of the school board. He kept going in and out.  No one occupied those chairs.  I strongly suspect he was going to call the teachers in to testify that I was saying that girls were being raped in Warwick School.  But he never called them in because I was there. 

          Cory tried to get me to write a legal brief for him, which I refused.  Cory was a frequent visitor at my house until I was fired in April of 2006.  Cory himself told me that he had choked a student, but that he had gone over to the parents house and had made things alright with the boy and parents.  Supt. Guthrie knew or should have known that he had a duty to report this as a crime and as child abuse, but the record shows he did neither.  Cory asked me not to attend the March school board meeting, in which Guthrie announced that he was going to nonrenew me.

 

 

5.      Report to School Board Members, Ex 1

 

          Back in December of 06, I wrote a 29 page report to each of the Warwick school board members, detailing that administrators had refused to report the rape of a Native American student when it became known to them. (Exhibit #1, Report to School Board Members) This Report is a very important document because it is a first person witnessed.account of all the abuses going on at Warwick School, written daily or weekly at the time it happened, from August through December of 2006.  It was also used as a 960 report of a rape to Social Services in January of 07.  All facts can be substantiated through email with my attorney, Barry Bachrach, which I with whom I had a daily correspondence of the events unfolding. 

 

          Once the administrators decided to disobey child abuse laws, it became an obsession with them to get rid of the evidence and retaliate.  Unfortunately, the students were the evidence, and Supt Guthrie and Principal Riedinger used students to carry out administrators’ foul agenda.  So school administrators got rid of  the real rape victim by staging a fight and expelling her.   It became very important to Guthrie to change my Report concerning the rape victim and the girl, Jami Jetty, who he set up to replace the real rape victim after he had expelled her. [16]  By not reporting a rape led to cover up and more criminal actions against students.  By now Guthrie was afraid he would be discovered and that he would lose his educational license.  Lawyer Thune was fearful that he might lose his license if  the truth were ever made known.  A big problem standing in their way was me.  They were afraid I would expose the truth to authorities.  (Ex #1)

 

          In his Response to my Complaint to Education Standards and Practices Board, unsigned and unsworn, (Ex #5)  which was withheld from me until I subpoenaed the records from ESPB in 2009, Principal Riedinger refers to my 29 page Report:

 

“Mrs. Schmidt has sent over twenty pages of information to school board members including names of students, describing events that have happened in her classroom or other teacher’s classrooms or the hallways.  She has not followed our grievance procedure or our negotiated agreement…”  (Ex C, #2)  

 

This statement demonstrates the existence of the 29 page Report which I sent to each school board member and to Social Services as a 960 report, which was my duty according to NDCC 50-25.1-03.  It is interesting that Riedinger does not deny the truth of the Report; instead, he claims that I didn’t follow grievance procedure.  This is absurd on its face; the law does not say I should file a grievance. As a mandated reporter, I had duty to report, as did the Warwick school officials, who chose not to report a student rape when it became known to them.  This statement is also evidence of retaliation for my having reported.  I felt that school board members should be aware of the routine disregard for child abuse laws going on at Warwick School. 

 

          Astonishingly, I heard nothing from any of the school board members.   Gary Thune must have advised the school board not to talk to me because    Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune, lawyers for Pearce & Durick, submitted a copy of the tampered version of my Report to School Board Members to the court in summary judgment in October of 2009, which is the first I learned that my Report had been tampered.  However, both Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune were aware of the tampering in January of 2007, when I was still employed at Warwick Public School.  (Schmidt v. Warwick Public School District #29, et al., Doc 196-198) 

 

 

         

6.      Other abuses occurred at Warwick Public  School which were never reported by authorities.

 

          The following list of abuses is taken right from my Report to School Board Members.  (Ex 1)  I reported to school board because I thought they should know what was going on in their school, but they didn’t believe me and didn’t want to hear it. 

 

“North Dakota Century Code states that a teacher, educator, administrator is obligated to report all abuse or crimes that happen to children.  Mr. Riedinger and Mr. Guthrie state we have a chain-of-command policy at Warwick School that employees are obligated to follow.  I have more or less been told that if I speak up, there will be serious consequences, and strong measures will be taken.  In talking with other teachers, I find no one willing to support me.”  (Ex 1, p. 17)

 

a.       Cory Christofferson assault of student goes unreported

          In December of 2006, Cory took a petition around to get rid of the 6th grade teacher, who was also the Varsity basketball coach.  On or around January of 2007, Cory Christofferson was coaching grade girls basketball after school in Warwick Public School gymnasium.  Some high school boys came in the gym and were shooting hoops at the other end of the gym.  Cory, who has a history of an uncontrolled temper, told the boys to get on out of the gym.  Anthony Falcon told Cory that he didn’t have to listen to him since Cory wasn’t staff.  Words flew.  Cory grabbed Anthony and threw him to the floor, jumped on top of him and began to choke him.  Someone ran to get Guthrie, and Cecil Steward, the janitor, subdued Cory.  Cory resigned as coach.  Guthrie never reported this incident to law enforcement or Social Services.  Mr. Guthrie asked Cory to turn in his keys at a school board meeting, in which Cory stormed out of.  (Ex A, p. 16-17)  Cory came over to my house the next day and told me about the incident.  He said he had his keys taken away, and was told to stay away from Warwick School.  He said Guthrie told him to take anger management classes.  Cory was extremely angry when he told me about this.  He wanted me to help him bring a lawsuit against Guthrie, which I told him he had no basis for a lawsuit, nor could I help him.  Many witnesses can attest to this incident.

          b.       Students sent to Detention for ulterior reasons

          From the first day of school, Principal Riedinger and teacher Steve Michels were fearful that I knew about Riedinger’s illicit sexual activities, and would somehow expose them to authorities.  (Ex A-3)  Riedinger told me that I had to call him in order to discipline students,  (Ex A, p. 7-8) and at the same time, Riedinger told students they could get up and leave my class any time they wanted.  As a result, students were not in class so that later Mr. Riedinger could say that I did not have control of my classroom.  As a result, students would be put in detention for little or no reason, which could be construed as false imprisonment.  (Ex A, p. 8-9)   

 

          c.       Student announced to me in class that she had been raped, goes unreported

          She said that administrators had not reported it.  I immediately reported to Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Riedinger, who said they reported it when the girl  enrolled.  However, there is no record that Guthrie had reported to Social Services.  And, more importantly, he prevented me from reporting by telling me he would report for me.  He did not instruct me on how to report or to whom.   (Ex A, p. 9-11) Shortly thereafter, Riedinger set up the rape victim with a punching bag, staged a fight, and expelled the girl, without a hearing.  (Ex 2) Riedinger, Guthrie, and Tiokiason had to get rid of the rape victim or admit that they had not reported a rape, as required by child abuse laws.   So, not only did they not report the rape initially, they didn’t report for me, and they committed further abuse by unlawfully expelling a poor rape and suicide victim. 

          d.       Students allowed to smoke in school, goes unreported

          I caught 2 girls smoking in the bathroom.  Both girls on Student Council. Took smoking cigarette to office.  Principal Riedinger wanted to know if cigarette was in their hand, otherwise he couldn’t do anything, and he didn’t.  I wrote a complaint to Mr. Guthrie, but nothing came of it, and he didn’t respond.  (Ex A, p. 11)

          e.       8th grade 13 year old girl becomes impregnated, goes unreported

          An 8th grade girl, 13 years old, assigned to my reading class was very openly sexually active, kept a journal outlining her sexual forays.  She was constantly writing sex notations and sharing a 7th grader, BB.   When I confiscated her journal, she ran to the office to tell Mr. Riedinger.  I gave the journal to Riedinger, who did nothing to discipline AR or to report her detailed sexual activity with an 18 year old Senior boy.  Riedinger enjoyed reading AR’s smutty sexual forays.  Riedinger shared a special relationship with this girl.  I once caught him hugging her.  When I tried to make her behave in class, and not disrupt, she would tell me, “fuck you,” and I would send her to Riedinger’s office, from which she never returned.  Nothing was done about her foul mouth.  She never got placed in detention.  (Ex A, p. 11-12)  At October 2006 teacher conferences, her mother told me that AR was totally out of her control, and could I please do something about it.  However, there was nothing I could do because Principal Riedinger would not permit me to discipline.  The following semester, AR began missing most of reading class, and ended up with an F for the semester.  Her mother came to see me.  I told her that she had missed too much class, and we down to see Mr. Guthrie, who avoided talking about the missed class altogether.  Instead he talked about what a fine basketball player AR was.  Her 18 year old boy friend was on the Main Five, Varsity basketball. (Ex CC, #79)   What I was not told by Riedinger or Guthrie is that AR was pregnant.  And she had a miscarriage.  Question is, who impregnated her?  The 18 yr. old or possibly Riedinger?  Riedinger spent a lot of time after school with basketball students.  Either way, should not the situation have been reported to Social Services?  And whose jurisdiction is it to investigate, had it been reported, which it wasn’t?  

          f.       Threatened with termination for reporting  sexual harassment in the workplace.

          In mid November, 2006, Riedinger assigned me to chair a committee for Native American day and to choose my committee.  I chose all Native American support staff to be on committee.  Riedinger and Michels decided to have Michels run the meeting and to interject all of his ideas, when committee members wanted a pow wow.  Michels wouldn’t permit it, and to get his own way, he said,  “the kids don’t want any fucking speaker!”  I was shocked, as were all the women sitting there. (Ex A, p. 12)

           I filed a grievance letter with both Mr. Riedinger and Mr. Guthrie.  The next day, I was ordered to Ms. Tiokison’s office.  I was not told that this was to be a grievance hearing, which it turned out to be.  I had no opportunity to be represented, nor was I given an opportunity to call witnesses.  I was essentially told by Riedinger that I had not heard correctly. He dismissed Michels.  Then, with Ms. Tiokiason present, he took this opportunity to falsely accuse me of talking about Leonard Peltier or Native American history in my classroom.  I was totally unprepared, and I did not realize at the time that Riedinger was setting me up to give me a bad teacher evaluation. (Ex A, p. 12) 

          As a result of this meeting, the following day, I was called to Mr. Guthrie’s office, again I was not told the nature or purpose of the meeting.  Mr. Guthrie then told me he had something of serious consequence to talk to me about.  He said that Mr. Michels was upset and kids were saying he was about to be fired because of what I had done.  I insisted that he call my attorney, Barry Bachrach, who was also Leonard Peltier’s attorney, so he could be present for these serious consequences.  I gave Barry’s number to Mr. Guthrie, who immediately backed down, and all of a sudden, had nothing to say to me.  Instead of addressing a serious sexual remark made to me and subordinate Native American women, Mr. Guthrie accused me of spreading false rumors.  This has to be viewed as harassment in retaliation of my having discovered that he and administrators had not reported a rape and had expelled the rape victim.  (Ex A, p. 13)

          g.       Jami Jetty set up by Warwick administrators to replace expelled rape victim, MH.

          (see pp. 17-24 for full report.)  (Ex 1, p. 13-15)

         

          h.      Mr. Riedinger holds whole 7th graders hostage instead of allowing them to go to English class.

          Because I was getting close to discovering what was going on with Jami,  one day in fall of 2006, Mr. Riedinger interrupted my reading class to accuse me of giving radio to 7th grader to say dirty things over school air waves.  Later he held 7th graders hostage from English class, and threatened them with the police if they didn’t tell him that I gave them the radio.  I later asked student to write what happened in that room, and I presented these statements (Ex A-2) to the school board along with my Report,  (Ex A)  also presented to Social Services in 960 Report (Ex A, p. 17-18) on or around the 1st of January, 2007.  (Ex A, p. 15-16)  Astonishingly, the Warwick School Board did nothing with my Report.  They didn’t even ask me any questions.  Even more amazing is that Benson County Social Services could not find any abuse or criminal acts to investigate.  (Ex G)

 

7.      Student assaulted and battered at Warwick School.

 

          I never discovered Cory Christofferson’s involvement until he drug a 60 foot cottonwood tree into my garden in May of 2010, at the same time I had an Appeals brief due.  (Exhibit 41, Motion for Time) 

 

          The problem was that Warwick School administrators were allowing students to be abused, and abused students.  At about this same time period, December of 06, Cory Christofferson assaulted a student.  Cory was coaching the younger girls basketball after school.  High school boys would come in and shoot hoops at other end of gym.  Cory said something to them.  Anthony Falcon, a freshman, told Cory they didn’t have to listen to him.  Cory flew into a rage, knocked the student to the floor, leaped on top of him, and began choking him.  There were many witnesses to this.  Guthrie was made aware of the incident.  Cory resigned.  This was a reportable incident which was never reported.  Mr. Guthrie distracted attention away from the fact that he did not report to police, the sheriff, or Social Services by getting Cory to circulate a petition to get rid of the varsity basketball coach and 6th grade teacher Principal Riedinger then told the 7th graders that I was working with Cory to get rid of the coach.

 

          Suddenly in March, Cory started taking the petitions to get rid of the coach around again.  Then Cory came to my room and asked my not to go to a school board meeting in which he was going to ask for his keys back since he had been reinstated as girls coach.  Little did I know that this was the open school board meeting in which Guthrie told the school board that he was going to recommend me for nonrenewal.  Had I been at the meeting, I could have confronted him for his reasons why, and could have told the school board that this was in retaliation for my having reported to authorities that Guthrie had not reported a rape, and was now abusing Jami.  (Exhibit 54, March school board minutes)  All the time I thought Cory was my friend, he was helping set me up.  And why, after choking a student did Guthrie reinstate Cory?  Did Mr. Guthrie report this incident to Social Services?

 

          Cory was very interested in my leaving Warwick.  He offered to buy my place for $7000.  Cory later became a school board member for 07-08 school year.  He stopped talking to me.  After I filed my lawsuit, Cory tried to get me to write an appeals brief for him, something about his tire fence and the Health Dept, stating that he would pay me.  I told my lawyer, Barry Bachrach, who told me I couldn’t and shouldn’t write any legal papers other than my own.  Cory then stopped seeing me.   Why would Cory have a tree drug into my garden, with a message, no one wants you here, so why don’t you leave?   Cory was elected to the school board for the year 07-08 and recently for 11-12.

 

          This is the way officials operate—they get something on an otherwise good person who made a mistake, a legal mistake for which there are felony or jail consequences, and they blackmail that person into doing their bidding.  That and officials lie and cover up for each other.  They use the law to thwart their victims (law abiding citizens like me) from uncovering the truth, which would very likely send them to prison, where they belong, except the court and the judges are part of the cover up of official misconduct.

 

   

 `       

 

         

          8.      Tampering of my Report to School Board Members

 

          Alarmed that a suicide attempt had taken place, and that Guthrie was not being truthful,  I called Jami’s father, the parent she lives with.  I told him that Riedinger and Guthrie were saying that Jami had been raped and that  Guthrie and Riedinger had talked to all 7th-12th graders about rape, (Ex #1-A) singling out Jami as the rape victim.  He was confused and furious.   He said he was going to bring his lawyer to Warwick Public School.  He called his daughter, Jami, and told her what I had said.  Jami must have believed what Guthrie had told her, and repeated it to her father, that I was the one who said she was raped.   Mr. Jetty then asked me not to call Jami.   Jami called me. She was furious that I had told her father.  Guthrie later claimed that I was the one calling Jami.  This was a very critical moment whereby James came to believe his daughter and Mr. Guthrie’s lies, which is why James Jetty allowed Guthrie to use his attorney, Jones, to get his hands on my Report to School Board Members, and I would be none the wiser.   Later Mr. Jetty called me and asked if I would talk to his attorney, Ulysses Jones from Devils Lake. I agreed, not realizing that I was being set up, and James was unaware that he was being used.   (Exhibit #6,  James Jetty Deposition)

 

          Shocked that administrators were harming students by violating the law, and after many futile meetings with Supt. Guthrie, I thought I should inform the school board of what was going on in Warwick Public School.   On December 29, 2006, I wrote a Report to School Board Members.  On or about January 8th, I sent a copy of the Report to school board members, explaining my teaching philosophy as it relates to Native Americans, and reporting how administrators were abusing students.  (Exhibit #1, Report to School Board Members)   Instead of taking my report to the other board members, and holding a hearing, Mr. Thiele, president of the school board, took my Report to Mr. Guthrie and lawyer Gary Thune.   At some point within this narrow time frame, my Report was tampered to say that I had reported to Ms. Tiokiason that  Jami had been raped, (Doc 198, Ex #4)  which is criminal tampering with evidence, NDCC 12.1-11-05, also federal offense, 73 U.S.C. 1506.   (Tampered Report, Ex #8)  (See Exhibit 5, Thune’s letter at Tab #A)  I never discovered this tampering until Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson submitted the tampered Report in summary judgment as Exhibit 4 on October 22, 2009, a federal offence, 73 U.S.C. 1504.   (Schmidt v. Warwick Public School Dist. #29, Doc 198)  The filing of the tampered Report was fraud upon the court.  (Id., Doc 214)

 

 

          I brought a motion to strike the tampered doc and fraud upon the court, after Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune filed a motion for summary judgment, Schmidt v. Warwick Public School District #29, et al., Doc 198.   Tiffany Johnson  and Gary Thune filed a Response, which reveals that Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson were involved in Official Misconduct, Fraud Upon the Court, and Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice by hiding child abuse and shielding child abusers.  (Exhibit 9, Response to Motion to Strike)  In it, Johnson and Thune committed further fraud upon the court: 

 

  1. Ms. Schmidt's focus on fraud is a smokescreen to shift Court's focus from real issue which is non-renewal.
  2. District has 3 copies of Report to school board members:  a).  Guthrie's,  b).  Larry Thiele's,  c).  copy sent by Ms. Schmidt in answer to interrogatory.  All 3 contain Ms. Schmidt's signature.
  1. In her Complaint, Ms. Schmidt refers to Report being 15 pages long, so we chose the [tampered] 15 page doc, Mr. Thiele's.
  2. In 2 Reports, Ms. Schmidt states that Jami told her she had been raped, but not so in 3rd.  "What Ms. Schmidt neglects to realize is that this difference is immaterial to the issues presented in her case.  Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no material issues of fact."
  3. "The Court's concern lies with whether the District had legitimate non-retaliatory reasons to not renew Ms. Schmidt's contract and place her on ad leave.  The District does not deny that Ms. Schmidt made a report to Social Services (even though Ms. Schmidt refused to provide them with a copy of her report during discovery) nor does the District deny that Ms. Schmidt filed a complaint against administrators and certain teachers with ESPB.  The District, however, had legitimate reasons for not renewing her contract and placing her on ad leave that are irrespective and unrelated to her report to Social Services or her complaint to ESPB. 

I provided lawyers Thune and Johnson with 2 copies of my Report to School Board Members in discovery, which I also filed with the court.  However, it didn’t make any difference to the court, who allowed Gary Thune to control the court proceedings.  Thune and Johnson used discovery to manufacture lies.   It was just as important to Thune as it was to Guthrie, that my Report to School Board Members be tampered to say that I had said that Jami had been raped.  (1)  The pain and humiliation Jami suffered for being labeled as ‘raped at Warwick School’ was the main reason for her suicide.  (Ex 33, audiotape)  (2)  Only the school board can fire a teacher.  The January 2007 school board minutes  do not reflect any firing or administrative leave.  (Ex 53)  Here is how these statements are a fraud upon the court and official misconduct:

 

  1. The smokescreen was created by Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune with their non-renewal to disguise the fact that as attorneys they had helped their clients circumvent the child abuse and teacher dismissal laws.    Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune knew of the existence of a tampered Report to School Board Members, as early as January 4, 2007, yet kept this information hidden. 

 

  1. Thune and Johnson have admitted knowing of the existence of the Report to School Board Members in January of 2007, and must have recklessly made their submission of the tampered Report  knowing  they were submitting tampered evidence to the court.    

 

  1. Thune and Johnson submitted the tampered Report to the Court with an intent to deceive the Court for the purpose of inducing the Court to rely on the tampered Report and to act upon it by dismissing my lawsuit in summary judgment.

 

  1. I did not become aware of the tampered Report until Thune and Johnson submitted it in summary judgment.  If I had known of the tampered Report back in 2007, I would have acted to make Jami and her parents aware of it, and Jami might still be alive today.  Johnson and Thune admit that even if there was tampering, the document isn’t material.  If it wasn’t material, then why did Thune and Johnson submit it to the court as material evidence? The unreported rape of a student and setting up Jami Jetty to replace the real rape victim, was very material to my case as it was the reason I was fired. Supt. Guthrie, Principal Riedinger, Counselor Tiokiason, and Steve Michels are the ones who said that Jami had been raped, making it known to students and staff.  As a result, Jami was hounded and harassed by students teasing her saying,  “we heard you were raped at Warwick School,” and not being able to stand it any longer, 2 years later, Jami hung herself.  (Ex 33, audiotape)

 

  1. The Court’s concern should have been in applying the law to the facts and evidence presented, which in this case, Thune and Johnson had submitted a tampered document as evidence.  I did not have a copy of the Report submitted to Social Services because states attorney James Wang, legal advisor to Benson County Social Services, refused to supply me with a copy, even under subpoena.  (Ex 12) The Report to Social Services and the Complaint to ESPB are copies of the original Report to School Board Members, and would be definitive proof that what Thune and Johnson has submitted were tampered, and that nonrenewal was part of the retaliation against me for having reported the administrators.   As a result of this reckless tampering, the Court accepted the tampered document and dismissed my case.  The Court’s concern should have been whether or not child abuse laws were being obeyed by an educational institution.  (Exhibit 9-A, Order Denying Motion to Strike Document)  “The explanation of why there are different versions of the documents is acceptable to this Court.  All documents contain the signature of the Plaintiff.”

 

 

          On January 3, 2007, a lawyer, Ulysses Jones called me.  He questioned me about Jami and what she told me.  I told him that Mr. Guthrie had told me that Jami told him that she had been raped.  I did not say that Jami had been raped.   He asked if I could give him any evidence.  I said I could, the same Report I mailed to the school board.  I was quite surprised when Mr. Jones asked if he could represent me at my evaluation.  I didn’t think it necessary, but I finally agreed, having no idea that this was all a set up to alter the facts regarding Jami in my Report to School Board Members. (Ex 8)  This is why it is so important to have the untampered Report (Ex #1) which I had sent to Social Services in January of 2007 as a 960 report.

 

          On January 4, 2007, I was going over my evaluation with Mr. Reidinger, with Mr. Jacobson present, at approximately 9:30am.  We were interrupted by Mr. Guthrie, who told Mr. Reidinger to go to his office.  He said we could finish the evaluation on the 5th.  He said my attorney wanted to talk to me.   If Jones was my attorney, why wasn’t he with me in Riedinger’s office going over my evaluation?   Mr. Guthrie did not inform me of the meeting with Jones, Jami and her parents concerning the fact that I had told Mr. Jetty that Guthrie had J J questioned about a rape.  (Ex #5 and #39) 

 

          Mr. Jones and I were directed to go into Mr. Jacobson’s office, who was not present.  Mr. Jones told me he could not represent me as an attorney, and he would not tell me why.  He handed me the envelope containing my Report to School Board Members, supposedly unopened.   But it had been opened and tampered to say that I had said that Jami had been raped.  I never opened this envelope until 2009 during discovery in my lawsuit.   (Ex 8-A)  (original envelope with post date, addressed to Ulysses Jones, containing tampered Report to School Board Members, available to federal judge and special prosecutor)

 

 

          Cora Tiger testified that Jones said in the meeting that he represented me.  (Exhibit #7, Cora Tiger deposition)  James Jetty testified that Jones left the meeting to meet with me, and when he returned, he said he represented me, and had a conflict of interest in representing them.  (Ex #6, James Jetty deposition) What I was unaware of at this point, was that Guthrie had convinced James Jetty that I was the one making claims that Jami had been raped, and that Guthrie had enlisted Jetty’s cooperation in getting me to give lawyer Ulysses Jones a copy of my Report to School Board Members so he could tamper it to say that I said Jami had been raped, which was very important for Guthrie on behalf of himself and other administrators to hide the fact that they had not reported the rape of the rape victim, and in fact, had expelled her so as to get rid of the real rape victim, not only a violation of child abuse laws, but criminal laws as well.  What they did to Jami was criminal, and so Guthrie had to tamper with my Report (Ex #1) to say that I had reported to them that Jami had been raped, a bald faced lie, which I was unaware of until summary judgment. (Schmidt v. Warwick Public School Dist. #29, Doc 198)  This means that lawyer Gary Thune was advising Guthrie and the school board on how to circumvent the child abuse laws.

 

           Guthrie called Jami to his office and asked her if she had told me that she had been raped.  Of course, she said no.  He didn’t tell Jami’s parents that Riedinger had been telling Jami that I had told them that she had been raped.  (Id.)  I was not called to Guthrie’s office to answer these serious accusations.  Instead, after everyone left, Guthrie called me to his office and instantly fired me, January 4, 2007.  He told me to go to my room, clear out my desk, and go home, which I did.  I did not have notice, warning or hearing, a serious violation of child abuse laws forbidding employer retaliation.[17]

         

          Guthrie and other administrators’ actions were illegal and unethical,[18] and most of all, had a profound and disturbing effect on Jami, who now had to endure all the abuse of being known as being raped at Warwick School, which eventually led to her death by suicide. (Ex 33, Audiotape)  Guthrie must have hired the lawyer Ulysses Jones in order to get his hands on my Report to School Board Members, because this is how the tampering took place.[19]  Jones must have been working with Guthrie from the very beginning.  Jones gave the envelope with the Report back to me on January 4, 2007. (See Exhibit #5, Guthrie’s statement at Tab D) He made a big point of saying that the envelope had been unopened.  (The envelope will be available to Grand Jury.)   I incorrectly assumed that it contained my Report to School Board Members intact.   However, when I opened it much later, after I filed a lawsuit, to my shock, I discovered that my Report had been tampered.[20] (Ex 8)   (See footnote #7)  Guthrie changed my Report to say that I had said that Jami had been raped in Warwick School.  (Exhibit #8, Tampered version of Report)  (See footnote #7)  Guthrie and Warwick administrators abused Jami by telling her and her parents that I said she had been raped.  (See Ex #5)  In doing so, they manipulated James into aiding and abetting with the tampering of my Report, without his knowledge.  (Ex #6)

 

          Guthrie could not have accomplished the circumvention of child abuse laws without the aid of his lawyer Gary Thune and the lackey, Ulysses Jones.    Gary Thune was heavily invested in the cover up because either he was careless on checking out Guthrie’s story, or he deliberately chose to advise Guthrie and the Warwick school board on how to circumvent child abuse and teacher dismissal laws.  So, together they had to change the facts. Either way, Thune could also be disbarred and face criminal charges (see footnote #26) if I were ever allowed to tell what I know as a first person witness to these events.  Lawyer Thune and states attorney Wang had to have been aware of a tampered version of my Report to School Board Members in January of 2007, (see footnote #26) so that makes them culpable at the very least.[21]  (See footnotes 5, 6, and 7) [22]  The Warwick School Board took no inquires or actions as a result of my Report to School Board Members, based upon advice from Gary Thune. (Ex #5-A)  The fact that my Report had been tampered in January of 2007 to say that I said Jami had been raped is proof that administrators and attorneys knew they were covering up the non-reporting of the real rape victim,  and abusing Jami by making her believe I had said she had been raped, when it was Guthrie who said that Jami had been raped. (Exhibit #17, Complaint to ESPB)   The 5 Directives is also proof.  (Ex #26, Five Directives)

 

 

          9.      I was fired January 4, 2007, for having reported child abuse to school board members.

 

          Having just been fired, January 4, 2007,  I went home as ordered by  Supt Guthrie. (Doc 1, #52)   I called the State Dept. of Education, who said there was no basis for my dismissal.  (Doc 1, #52)   I reported to the Devils Lake Police Dept., ND Standards and Practices, U.S. Attorney Drew Rigley, and the FBI. (Id.)   I wrote a letter to the Warwick School Board, informing them that I had just been fired in retaliation for having reported child abuse, and I asked for a hearing.  I mentioned the student rape victim, who was expelled, and another girl, meaning Jami.  Even if the letter was ambiguously worded, it was serious enough to have warranted a hearing.  I never got as much as a phone call from any school board member, obviously because their lawyer, Gary Thune, told them not to talk to me. (Exhibit #28, Letter to Warwick School Board)    I reported to Social Services by sending them a copy of the 29 page Report to School Board Members.  (Ex A)  Astonishingly, Social Services said there was nothing to investigate.   (Exhibit #10, Social Services Letter denying investigation).  Once again, the invisible hand of lawyer Gary Thune was at work here, with the Dept. of Human Services and Social Services.

 

          The January 4, 2007, firing was a very important date. A contract teacher cannot be dismissed without notice or hearing, pursuant to NDCC 15.1-15-07. Mr. Guthrie did not discuss any issues with me before he fired me.  He did not provide me with any notice.  No hearing with the school board was scheduled.  Upon advice from his attorney, Gary Thune, he called me and told me to come back to school, that he would call the firing an administrative leave, that he would discuss the conditions under which I would be readmitted to my teaching duties.  (Ex 17) I was not told anything about the 5 Directives (Ex 26)  in Guthrie’s phone call on January 4, 2007.   The purpose of the 5 Directives was to shift the focus from the fact that Guthrie had not reported a rape, was abusing Jami Jetty, and had just illegally fired a contract teacher, to some bogus misconduct I was to have committed.  His lawyer, Gary Thune, was involved in the 5 Directives so as to create a diversion, and focus on reasons for getting rid of me, like that I was talking about Leonard Peltier and not teaching the curriculum.   It was very important to Guthrie and Thune that a tampered version of my Report (Ex 8) to School Board Members reflect that I (falsely) said that Jami had been raped, because the 5 Directives were based on the tampering in my Report.  It was very important to include a copy of the Chain of Command with the 5 Directives,  (Ex 26) because the Chain of Command would be used as a reason to fire me by falsely accusing me of failing to report a rape to supervisors before I reported to authorities, and charge me with misconduct for having reported abuse. 

 

 

         

  1. How the illegal 5 Directives were given.  

 

          At  2:30 that same day, January 4, 2007,  Supt Guthrie called me and told me to come back to school, that he would call the firing an administrative leave.  He said he would let me know under what conditions I would be allowed to return to my teaching duties.  There is no statute that provides for administrative leave in lieu of a dismissal hearing,  nor can Directives be given as warnings  AFTER the firing.  Mr. Guthrie then had 2 major problems he needed to cover up:  (1)  an unreported rape, and (2)  the illegal firing of a teacher, because I was a whistleblower.[23]  Child abuse laws specifically state that employer retaliation is forbidden “because the employee in good faith reported having reasonable cause to suspect that a child was abused or neglected, or died as a result of abuse or neglect, … is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.   It is a defense to any charge brought under this section that the presumption of good faith, described in section 50-25.1-09, has been rebutted.”  So Mr. Guthrie and his lawyer Gary Thune had to overcome 2 North Dakota statutes, illegal teacher dismissal and retaliating against a teacher for having reported child abuse.  To accomplish this goal, Guthrie had to lure me back to school so he could ignore the fact that I had just been fired for having reported child abuse.  It was vital to Mr. Guthrie and his attorney Gary Thune to get me back in school so Mr. Guthrie could create reasons and warnings for the “administrative leave” which was really a firing, hence the need for Directives, NDCC 15.1-15-07, 42 U.S.C. 1983, so they could create a false set of facts through teacher evaluations, as coached by lawyer Gary Thune. 

 

          On January 5, 2007, instead of a conference between myself and Mr. Guthrie to discuss why Jami’s parents had come to school with a lawyer, Ulysses Jones, to sue him for having questioned Jami about a rape,  Guthrie had assembled a formal administrative meeting with Supt. Guthrie, Prin, Riedinger, Counselor Tiokiason, and Elem. Prin. Jacobson, and myself present, for the purpose of censoring me for discussing things outside the curriculum, such as discussing Leonard Peltier, Wounded Knee, AIM, lawsuit against tribal members in South Dakota, problems with the administration, and alleged rapes of two students,  which resulted in giving me 5 illegal Directives which I was to obey or Guthrie would not allow me to teach.  (Ex #1)  I stated that if this was to be a hearing, I was unrepresented, and therefore did not wish to answer questions. (Id.)  Mr. Guthrie totally ignored my rightful and legal request in violation of my First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment  rights of due process. (Id.)  He said that  I had reported the rape of Jami to himself, Mr. Riedinger and Ms. Toikison, and that administrators had done nothing  about it, and did I report them? In violation of NDCC 12.1-14-01 Official Oppression, NDCC 12.1-17-06 Criminal Coersion (Id.)  He said I would not be allowed to teach unless I confess, which is criminal coercion .  NDCC 12.1-17-06  (Doc 204, Aff #54)  He said he wanted a yes or no answer. He kept on and on bullying me and threatening me, harassment, NDCC 12.1-17-07. (Id., #55)  I asked for a hearing with the school board, but Mr. Guthrie refused in violation of my 5th and 14th Amendment rights to due process.  (Id., #57)  Guthrie specifically told me that I had to go through him first (Chain of Command), before I could talk to the school board.   Mr. Guthrie then asked Mrs. Tiokiason, who said, “You told me that J J had said she had been raped,” (Id., #56) which was a deliberate false statement, NDCC 12.1-11-02,  deliberately said to create a record to be used against me, which is criminal conspiracy,  NDCC 12.1-06-04, and criminal facilitation NDCC 12.1-06-02. and retaliation against me for having reported to Social Services, in violation of 50-25.1-09.1. (Id.)  I did not at any time tell Ms. Toikiason that Jami had been raped.  What was very confusing is that Guthrie had told me that Jami Jetty had told him that she had been raped. (Id.)  I realized for the first time that Mr. Guthrie and the administrators had not reported the rape of the student victim, and were now denying that there was any rape to report and were blaming me, which is defamation  (Id.,  #56)  conspiracy, 42 U.S.C. 1983  and an Oppression of civil rights,  NDCC 12.1-14-05.  Having expelled the rape victim, they needed a new rape victim, which ended up being Jami.  By questioning Jami Jetty about a rape that never happened, getting Jami  and her parents to believe I had said that Jami had been raped,  ultimately led to her death by suicide, once she found out what Guthrie did to her. (Ex 33, audiotape)  Her father, James Jetty, can testify to the fact that kids were teasing her at Four Winds Indian School about being raped at Warwick Public School.

 

          Mr. Riedinger told me go to his office to continue the evaluation.  He did not give me any opportunity to respond. Instead of going over the Evaluation, he repeated the things Mr. Guthrie had just said in the meeting such as I was continuously talking about Leonard Peltier.  He utilized  the evaluation  as an opportunity to pad my evaluation with false statements in retaliation for my having reported that administrators had not reported a rape. The evaluation was used as a punishment, rather than a program for improvement as intended by the laws of North Dakota Century Code.  Had I walked out of the meeting and the school, Riedinger and Guthrie would not have had an opportunity to screw up my evaluations with false reports, in retaliation for my having reported them to Social Services and other authorities, and more importantly, Jami would probably be alive today.   Through the 5 Directives, Guthrie and his attorney Gary Thune reframed the real issue of child abuse to curriculum and chain of command.  They used the bogus information in the teacher evaluations as evidence against me in my Job Service hearing and in my lawsuit, Schmidt v. Warwick Public School District 29, et al, in order to create a record of false facts, in violation of child abuse law NDCC 50-25.1-09.1[24] and NDCC 50-25.1-13.[25]  The evaluations were used as evidence in courts of law with the intention of deceiving the court and did deceive the court including the ND Supreme Court, which is fraud upon the court, and they got by with it because they had the most ruthless and crooked lawyers in the state, Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson of Pearce and Durick, legal counsel to ND School Boards Assn., who tampered with witnesses and documents to produce their desires results.       Lawyers Thune and Johnson presented my teacher evaluations 6 times to Boards, entities, and the courts as evidence of my misconduct.  Gary Thune and his partner Tiffany Johnson have helped North Dakota write laws that make teacher evaluations the only evidence that a court will consider when determining the outcome of a teacher’s job. 

 

            On January 6, 2007, I turned in a rebuttal to the evaluation  (Rebuttal to Riedinger’s evaluation, Exhibit #30)   On January 6th, 2007, I contacted every official I could think of by phone , to report the official unreported rape of M H, age 15, and the subsequent cover-up using J J, age 12.  Contacted were U.S. Attorney in Fargo, FBI in Minneapolis, Senators Conrad and Dorgan,  Attorney General Wayne Stenejehm, and Victim’s Assistance.  I contacted the State Department of Education, and was referred to the Standards and Practices Board. However, no official would investigate.  Why?  Because Gary Thune had said there was nothing to investigate.  (Ex #5-A)  I had already contacted Social Services with a 960 Report,  (Ex 1) who refused to investigate.  (Ex 10)

 

 

            Mr. Guthrie did not hand me a copy of the Directives until January 8, 2007, accompanied by Carol Walford, the business manager.  He said nothing, nor was I asked to sign anything.  (Ex #26, Guthrie letter and 5 Directives)  He put a copy of the 5 Directives in my permanent file.  I handed him a letter in response to the meeting and the Directives on January 8, 2007.  He did not put this letter in my permanent file.  (Letter to Guthrie, 1-8-07, Exhibit #29)  I was not told, nor did I realize just how damaging the 5 Directives were to me and my position.

 

         

 

          On January 5, 2007, Guthrie said that I had to agree to 5 Directives (Exhibit #26)  if I wanted to be allowed back in the classroom, which was legally incorrect, teacher dismissal NDCC 15.1-15-07,  criminal coercion, NDCC 12.1-17-06, and  employer retaliation prohibited, NDCC 50.25.1-09.1.   Mr. Guthrie then fraudulently added things never before discussed and things I had had not done in the classroom, and he provided no proof that I had done the following: (1)  that I have been talking about lawsuits in class with students, (2) that I discussed personal issues in class, (3) that I constantly talked about Wounded Knee of 73,  Leonard Peltier and AIM;  all false allegations,  NDCC 12.1-11-02, falsification affecting outcome.  Mr. Guthrie’s Response to my ESPB Complaint, (Ex 5) which was withheld from me until I subpoenaed the records, reveal that lawyer Gary Thune of Pearce and Durick, advised Mr. Guthrie on making the 5 Directives part of the record. (Ex 5, tab A)  Mr. Guthrie then told Mr. Riedinger to add these accusations to my evaluation, in violation of education evaluation statute NDCC 15.1-15-01, child abuse laws NDCC 50-25.1-09.1 and criminal defamation, DCC 12.1-15-01.  (Ex L)  Mr. Guthrie made it very clear that I would not be allowed to teach if I did not  agree to his 5 Directives, (Ex #26) criminal coercion, NDCC 12.1-17-06 and child abuse laws NDCC 50-25.1-09.1.  (Id.)  Mr. Guthrie said that if I broke any of these directives, I would be taken before the school board and fired. (Id.)  Criminal coercion NDCC 12.1-17-06, official oppression, NDCC 12.1-14-01  and child abuse laws NDCC 50-25.1-09.1,  a violation of my First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.    He admonished me for contacting the FBI, the police, the Attorney General, and the State Dept. of Education,  (Id.) a violation of NDCC 50-25-1-09, employer retaliation.  He willfully, recklessly, and knowingly falsely accused me of reporting a rape outside the chain of command, which was a deliberate false interpretation of child abuse law, duty to report, NDCC 50-25-1.03,  criminal defamation, NDCC 12.1-15-01,[26] 42 U.S.C. 1983,  and a violation of my First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.    He said that I had violated him personally, which was a deliberate false statement, NDCC 12.1-11-02, and by doing so, he meant to scare me into agreeing to the 5 Directives, which is criminal coercion, NDCC 12.1-17-06.  He said that my reporting a rape amounted to Defamation of Character, that it was a serious charge to state that they had not reported a rape to proper authorities, a serious deliberate misinterpretation of child abuse laws,  NDCC 50-25.1-03, duty to report; 50-25.1-04, method of reporting;   50-25.1-09, immunity from liability;  50-25.1-09.1, employer retaliation prohibited.  (Id.)  Mr. Guthrie said if there were any rapes to be reported, he would deal with them, not me,   which was in total disregard for child abuse laws, NDCC 50-25.1-03, 04, 09, and 09.1 and my First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

 

          The first Directive was that I was to have no contact with Jami Jetty or her parents, which effectively prevented me from discovering the truth of what  Jami had told Mr. Guthrie, and more importantly, prevented Jami and her parents from discovering the truth that Guthrie and Riedinger were using Jami to spread the false story around the school that I had said that Jami had been raped, which was criminal child abuse.  (Ex 17)

 

          Two years later, Supt. Guthrie and lawyer Thune based their reasons for my January 4th dismissal on the the 5 Directives (Ex 26) and on the tampered Report (Ex #8) and presented their facts in a motion for summary judgment,  (Doc 198)

 

“After finding out that Ms. Schmidt was contacting a student at home against the parents’ wishes, continuing to teach outside the curriculum, and circumventing the chain of command policy, Supt. Guthrie placed Ms Schmidt on administrative leave with pay for the afternoon or January 4, 2007 so he could determine what further action to take.” (Appellee’s brief to ND Supreme Court, p. 4)

 

“[M]s. Schmidt claims she was fired by Mr. Guthrie on January 4th, but later it was changed to an administrative leave with pay.  On January 5, 2007, Guthrie met with Schmidt regarding her work performance, and as a result of that meeting, Schmidt was required to follow Five Directives:”  [the trial court quotes the 5 Directives (Ex T) in full in its Order Granting Summary Judgment)

 

          The key words are “[M]s. Schmidt claims she was fired by Mr. Guthrie on January 4th, but later it was changed to an administrative leave with pay.” This is an admission that I was initially fired.  It was very important to Thune and Guthrie that they get rid of the fact that I was fired, because it was an illegal firing.  Where did these facts come from?  From the secret Response made to ESPB and Job Service. (Ex #5) Lawyers Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune submitted a motion for summary judgment to the court claiming that I was “contacting a student at home against the parents’ wishes, continuing to teach outside the curriculum, and circumventing the chain of command policy,” in which they supplied no evidence to prove these false claims, other than the Responses to ESPB by Riedinger and Guthrie, which were not copied to me, and I had no opportunity to rebut their false statements, including Gary Thune’s ESPB statement. (Ex 5-A)  The court then accepted the Defendant’s Responses to ESPB and the tampered Report to School Board Members and the Job Service decision as true facts, in violation of ND R. Civ. P. 56, and dismissed my lawsuit, declaring there were no disputed facts, even though I had submitted 99 exhibits to prove my claims, which was blatant fraud upon the court, which should not stand.  That and the death of Jami Jetty by suicide is why we need an independent investigation ordered by a fair and impartial federal judge, Judge Royce Lamberth.  (Schmidt v. Warwick Public School, Doc 243, Judgment, p. 11, #9)

 

          A school administrator cannot fire a teacher;  that is illegal.  NDCC 15.1-15-07 states that only the school board can fire a teacher, plus, the FBI had called the school, asking about an unreported rape.  It is also very illegal for an employer to retaliate against a teacher who reports child abuse.  NDCC 50-25.1-09.1.   It was imperative for Mr. Guthrie to get me to agree to the 5 Directives, because he needed to create a reason for not reporting a rape and for firing me.  The 5 Directives functioned like a confession that I was falsely reporting rapes.   The 5 Directives (Ex 26) are proof that Guthrie was covering up an unreported rape and making Jami look like the rape victim so he could say I was falsely reporting rapes.  If the truth ever became known, he could be fired himself, and lose his license, as could Gary Thune for advising the Warwick School Board on how to circumvent child abuse laws.  Ultimately, the courts believed Guthrie and the 5 Directives (Ex 26) and the tampered Report to School Board Members. ( Ex 8)  Had I known at the time what they were up to, I would have never agreed to the 5 Directives.  I should have refused to agree to the 5 Directives, walked out of the meeting, and out of the school building, and I should have gone home and called my attorney, but I didn’t;  I followed the chain of command.

 

          For causing Jami to commit suicide, Guthrie and his attorneys should be given the death penalty, death by hanging would be appropriate,

which is why we need an independent investigation from a federal court in a different venue.  I ask that federal  chief judge Royce Lamberth hear this Complaint and order an independent investigation.  

 

          The 5 Directives (Ex 26) were given to me AFTER I had been fired, which Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Thune make it appear that the Directives were warnings, which clearly, they were not.  Mr. Thune, as legal counsel for Warwick Public School,  (Thune’s letter to ESPB, Ex 5 at Tab A)  and Mr. Guthrie concocted Guthrie’s testimony in a Job Service hearing, August of 2007, to deny that I had been fired on January 4, 2007.  They both had a double reason for doing that:  (a)  Administration had not reported a rape when it became known to them;[27] and they were in retaliation against me (see footnote #`33)  and (b) I had been illegally fired.[28]               

  1. Fraudulent use of teacher evaluations

 

          It was very important to Thune and Guthrie that I come back to school, otherwise I would remain illegally fired, and Guthrie and Thune would have no evidence to present detailing good reasons to fire me.  The only way to do that was through the teacher evaluations. 

 

          Having extracted a coerced verbal agreement from me to the 5 Directives (Ex 26),  Mr. Guthrie then set up my Teacher Evaluation  with Principal Riedinger, by bringing up false allegations of what I was supposedly doing wrong in my classroom, all coached by his lawyer Gary Thune, so that I could be nonrenewed.    Mr. Guthrie then said that I was not to talk about Leonard Peltier, AIM, or Wounded Knee, which was odd for 2 reasons:  (1)  I didn’t talk about these things specifically in my classes, and (2) Guthrie was coaching Riedinger as to what to include in my evaluation, which if Mr. Reidinger found anything further to be added to my evaluation, he would add them.    Mr. Guthrie told me I was not to speak to anyone about this, that if I broke any of these directives, I would be taken before the school board and fired.  He said I had told him that I had contacted the FBI, the police, the Attorney General, and the State Dept. of Education, which I had, and I had told him so on the 4th.    He said  that I had reported a rape outside the chain of command, and that I had violated him by doing so.  He said that amounted to Defamation of Character, that it was a serious charge to state that they had not reported a rape to proper authorities. If there are any rapes to be reported, he would deal with them, not me.  (Ex #1)

 

          Guthrie, upon the advice of his attorney, Gary Thune,  falsely accused me of untrue allegations so as to disguise the fact that he had not reported the rape of a student, expelled her, and set up Jami Jetty to believe that I had told him that she had been raped, thus violating not only child abuse laws, but criminal statutes as well.  Guthrie and his attorney especially wanted to mention Leonard Peltier’s name because they knew that no North Dakota federal judge would look at a case involving Leonard Peltier.  The tragic truth was that Jami was related to Leonard Peltier through her father, James Jetty, which is why we need an investigation from outside the state of North Dakota.

         

           In his own words, this fits the prohibition of employer retaliation, NDCC 50-25.1-09.1. Gary Thune, attorney for Warwick School proffered the 5 Directives as evidence of my misconduct at the Job Service Hearing.  Gary Thune is also the lawyer for ND School Boards Association, which Warwick School belonged to at that time. (Ex 47) The NDSBA cover sheet is proof that Mr. Thune was very well aware that I had just been illegally fired by Mr. Guthrie, just as Mr. Thune is very well aware that only the school board can fire a teacher, just as Mr. Thune was very well aware that the 5 Directives were fraudulently presented to an administrative Job Service hearing, and later to the courts, as some kind of bogus legal procedure that I was obliged to follow, when Mr. Thune knew or should have known that North Dakota Century Code has no such provision to substitute administrative leave and directives for a lawful teacher dismissal hearing before the school board.  It was imperative for Guthrie and Thune to get me to agree to the unlawful 5 Directives (Ex 26) so they could deny that I was fired on January 4, 2007, because only the school board can fire a teacher and to cover up an unreported rape.  The whole purpose of this fiendish, terrifying meeting was to punish me for having had reported to authorities and Social Services that Warwick administrators were not following the ND child abuse laws as I stated in my Report to School Board Members.  (Ex #1)

         

          I had been deceptively lured back to teach so that Supt. Guthrie, upon advice of his attorney Gary Thune, would have an opportunity cover up the fact that I had been illegally fired, in violation of NDCC 15.1-15-08, through the teacher evaluations.  (Ex 53)

 

 

          12.    Events leading up to the second firing

         

          Right after the Directives in January of 07, Guthrie and Riedinger began making plans to nonrenew me in retaliation for my having reported them to Social Services for child abuse. Guthrie, Riedinger, Tiokiason and Michels began using the 5 Directives to manufacture evidence that against me.  They enlisted the aid of students in order to carry out their illegal agenda. (Ex 29=A, Letter with first hand events)

          If a student misbehaved, I had to send the student to the office, because Mr. Riedinger will not allow me to discipline my students.  Mr. Riedinger told the student that he can walk out of my class anytime he feels like it.  Then he questioned the student for all the “bad” things I am doing as a teacher.  He told the student that he doesn’t have to go to reading class if he doesn’t want to.  As a result, students grades have suffered.  (Ex 39 - #79,  Ex 40)

          Mr. Guthrie began locking his outer office doors to keep me from overhearing conversations with Riedinger and Michels.   I once had a teacher let me in so I could use the fax machine.  I had gone near Gutherie's office, and I overheard he and Riedinger discussing how they needed evidence for nonrenewal to disguise the fact that they had not reported a rape.  (Ex 39)

         

          On 1-16-07, Mr. Michels, NEA Rep, acting as salary negotiator for the teachers, called a teacher's meeting after school.  After talking briefly about negotiations, he announced to the whole staff that  a teacher was telling students that girls were being raped.  He said that girls told him that girls were being raped in the school and they were feeling unsafe. “Could we teachers please be careful about what we say to students in our classrooms?”   He told the staff that I was reporting rapes that hadn’t occurred, and making up stories and/or talking to girls about rape.  It must be remembered that Michels was involved in questioning Jami about being raped back in November of 2006, in violation of child laws.  (see p. 14, D How administrators set up Jami Jetty to become the rape victim)  Michels was obviously acting on his knowledge of the tampered version of my Report to School Board Members, which I had no idea was in existence.  In his response to ESPB, Michels stated: 

 

“Any issue involving sexual harassment would be addressed to me as I am the Sexual harassment officer for the school district along with Beth Neuman.  The only thing she met with me for was to sign off that she had met with us.  Again, we would not make this public to any of our teachers.  I certainly didn’t address the issue to students in our school.”  (Ex 5-E) [29]

         

          In my Complaint to ESPB, I detailed how Michels was very active in manufacturing phony “evidence” against me, once again using his music room and class time to tell students that I had said that girls were being raped in Warwick School.   Michels was actively engaged in using students to manufacture evidence against me, which not only violated child abuse laws, it was also criminal.   Michels violated child abuse laws by questioning Jami about a rape, then spreading the story to students and staff that I had said that Jami had been raped.  (Ex 39)  In his response to ESPB, Mr. Michels made reference to his involvement with rape issues, in a distorted version of the facts, and vigorously denied talking about rapes with students, which simply is not true.  (5-E)  Michels and principal Riedinger were largely responsible for manipulating students to spy on me, or create rumors that I was saying that students were being raped in Warwick School. (Ex 5, at Tab #E)  I  wrote a grievance complaint to Mr. Guthrie, and asked to be put on the school board agenda. Mr. Guthrie which Mr. Guthrie refused, nor was Mr. Michels reprimanded for using a staff meeting to defame my character, nor did Mr. Guthrie allow me to take this to the school board, citing number 5 of his Directives that I was obliged to follow the chain of command.  (Ex 39)   

 

          Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune entered Michel’s statement to ESPB as evidence in summary judgment.  These responses were withheld from me for 2 years until I subpoenaed them.  Since I was never copied these Responses in May of 07 when they were submitted to ESPB, Thune should know they were inadmissible as evidence in a motion to dismiss.  No matter how you look at it, Michel’s comment is an admission of child abuse law violation because only Social Services or law enforcement is supposed to question any one.

 

          Officials got by with violating child abuse laws because they have absolute, unfettered power.[30]  This law has been interpreted by North Dakota Attorney General to mean that the state can assume that Supt. Guthrie and his attorneys are telling the truth, and conversely, that my Report of child abuse can be ignored. 

         

          a.       Guthrie calls meeting to find out what I know.

 

          On 2-9-07, elementary Principal Mr. Jacobson called me outside of class and told me I to report to Mr. Guthrie's office for an unscheduled meeting.  He said he was supposed to take my class.   I was not told, as usual, the purpose of this meeting.  I discovered  Mr. Reidinger present in Mr. Guthrie’s office.  Mr. Guthrie who said he wanted to know why I hadn’t ironed out differences with  Mr. Riedinger.   Riedinger said he didn't like the way the FBI had called the school, questioning why they hadn't done anything about reporting the rape.  Mr. Riedinger said, “We could lose our license over this.” I sat in stunned silence.  He accused me of having a hidden agenda of coming to Warwick School to bring a lawsuit, that it would ruin his career and they would have their administrative teacher’s license pulled, if I did that. Mr. Guthrie told me that Mr. Riedinger has been open and honest with me, but that I failed to be honest with him.   Mr. Guthrie  blew up at Mr. Riedinger for being honest and open.  He screamed at him to shut up.  I sat in shock and did not say anything.  I did believe Riedinger was being honest at that moment, and that it was Guthrie who was not being honest.   Guthrie told me to file a grievance.   (Ex 39) 

 

          I responded to the meeting by writing a grievance letter to Mr. Guthrie.   In it, I outlined the problem a rape had occurred which had not been reported.  Instead, another girl was accused of being the rape victim, which had led to abusing and threatening students to misbehave. I claimed that Mr. Riedinger and Mr. Guthrie were retaliating against me for having reported a rape which they hadn’t reported, and setting up Jami to replace rape victim.   I asked for a hearing with the school board, which Mr. Guthrie refused.   (Exhibit 31,  February 11, 2007 letter to Guthrie.)  On 2-13-07, Mr. Guthrie responded by ignoring  the serious issues I had put before him.  Instead he used my letter as an opportunity to reject it as a grievance letter, so that later, in case I filed a lawsuit, he could say I failed to exhaust remedies by not filing a grievance, obviously coached by his lawyer, Gary Thune.  (Ex C-1)  He said he would take over as my supervisor.   Letter was placed in my permanent file.  ( Ex. 32,  February 13, 2007,  Guthrie letter to me)  Lawyers Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune later filed a motion for summary judgment, Schmidt v. Warwick Public School Dist. #29, et al., Doc 198,  claiming that I did not use the grievance procedure. (Ex 38-A)   It must always be remembered that Gary Thune was closely advising Mr. Guthrie on how to circumvent child abuse and teacher dismissal laws.  (See Ex 5 at Tab A, Thune’s letter to ESPB)  This summary judgment motion and exhibits is proof of a conspiracy to circumvent child abuse laws, and proves official misconduct.

          b.      Janet Welk tells me to file a Complaint with Education Standards and Practices Board.

          On February 26, 2007, I  contacted  Janet Welk, director of Standards and Practices Board. (Ex 40, February 26, 2007,  my letter to Janet Welk, ESPB)  In the letter, I detailed some of the criminal actions taking place against students.  At this point in time, I was unaware that Gary Thune, Guthrie’s attorney, also advised the Education Standards and Practices Board.  (Ex 47)  I did not realize what an invisible hand Thune played in this from the very beginning.  (Ex 39)  On or about February 27, 2007, Janet Welk suggested I make a formal complaint to the Standards and Practices Board.  (Ex 39)

 

          c.       Guthrie involves the Spirit Lake Tribal Chairwoman Myra Pearson for evidence against me

 

          On or about 2-15-07, at parent-teacher conferences, Darla Thiele, wife to the president of the school board, Larry Thiele,  mother of Sherlyn, senior girl in my art class, complained to me that I was teaching LA-kota and not DA-kota, and that I had forced Sherlyn to write letters on my behalf.   Mrs. Thiele had spent most of the evening in Riedinger’s office with Sherlyn.  She came to my room alone during the last remaining 15 minutes.  These accusations were totally false without any proof.  What I didn’t realize is that Supt. Guthrie and his lawyer Gary Thune were manufacturing evidence so as to make a false charge against me that I wasn’t teaching the curriculum. (Ex 31)  Darla is related to Jami, and therefore was made aware by Riedinger and Michels of their false claim that I had said Jami had been raped, and that I was trying to sue the school.  (Ex 31)    On or about 2-16-07, Mr. Guthrie sent me an email message stating that Darla Thiele demanded that her daughter, Sheryln, be immediately removed from my class, and that I was to have no further contact with her, either spoken or written. (Ex 5)  Guthrie did not discuss this with me prior to his decision, nor did he schedule a conference with Darla, Sheryln and myself, although I would constantly see Darla going into Guthrie’s office.

          Mr. Riedinger planted a student council boy, Tribal Chairwoman’s grandson in my 11th-12th grade art class, to spy on me.  He runs down to Mr. Guthrie to report if I am talking about student rights, teacher expectations in the classroom, Indian history and culture.  This boy interrupted my 7th grade class while Mr. Guthrie was in the room talking to the 7th graders.  He wanted me to sign a paper, with his grade.  I told him, “later”.  Less than an hour later, I saw the boy in the hall and told him I could assign his grade.  He informed me he had already put a grade on the paper, (and had signed my name to it, giving himself and A!!).  I informed Mr. Guthrie of it, who extolled the virtues of the Upward Bound program to me!  (Ex 39, #79,  Ex 40)  The student suffered no consequences for his outrageous behavior. 

          Mr. Guthrie did not discipline Tribal Chairwoman’s grandson, Stephen Cloud, nor did he see that I changed the grade from an A to a C.  Mr. Guthrie did nothing about the boy forging my signature to this document.  The boy, a junior, was 16 years old.  He had a special relationship with Principal Riedinger.  The boy was gay, and Mr. Riedinger was always taking him out of class.  He took the boy on several over night trips, something to do with student council, or so we were told.  I reported all of this to Janet Welk, ESPB executive secretary, who urged me to write a complaint.  (Ex 40)

 

          On 3-22-07, Mr. Guthrie put a letter in my box, addressed to Mr. Guthrie from president of the Tribe, Myra Pearson, in which she objected to my teaching because I was teaching La-kota instead of Da-kota, demanded that the do something about me.  She gave no specifics nor did she name one parent, student, or incident that would have caused her to write this letter.  However, Cora Tiger, Jami’s mother was First Administrative Assistant to Myra Pearson.  Darla Thiele is related to Cora Tiger. 

          If indeed this was true, why wasn’t I hauled before Mr. Guthrie and questioned?  Why isn’t there any letter of reprimand in my file for having said such a thing?  Why wasn’t I allowed to confront the students who made these claims?  If indeed any student did.  Not even Jami said that.  

          Because administrators knew they had lied to Jami and her parents, the lie kept growing larger and larger, involving Cora Tiger’s employer, the tribal chairwoman, Myra Pearson, and now the Education Standards and Practices Board, whom Gary Thune also advises.  (5-A)  Then lawyers Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune submitted Myra Pearson’s letter as evidence in a motion for summary judgment.  (Ex 38)  The lawyers were obviously in on this from the very beginning.

“The District received a letter, on March 22, 2007, from the Tribal Chairwoman of the Spirit Lake Tribe regarding the teaching methods used by Ms. Schmidt and her inappropriate relations with students and parents.  (attached as Tab 1, to Walford’s affidavit as Exhibit 1)  The Chair woman stated:

‘I have recently been contacted by a number of tribal members regarding concerns over the conduct of Janis Schmidt, the art teacher at Warwick School….I have been informed that the art teacher has taken it upon herself to provide education to our children regarding culture….I have a great deal of concern that the teacher is neither qualified to teach such a subject matter and that the information she is imparting is neither accurate nor relevant to Dakota culture and history, not to mention outside the scope of what an art teacher’s duties would generally entail.  As a tribal leader, I strongly believe that our children should be educated about the culture and history of our Tribe, however I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that the education is accurately provided by qualified individual and that the curriculum is age appropriate.’  Myra Pearson

The Chairwoman went on to state that, in her opinion, Ms. Schmidt’s conduct interfered with the right of parents to parent their children as they deemed appropriate and that Ms. Schmidt’s discussion of culture, politics, and religion negatively impacted the impressionable students in her classes.  The District placed a copy of the Chairwoman’s letter in Ms. Schmidt’s personnel file.”  (Ex 38, p. 8, Tab B)                                     

         

          One must always remember that Cora Tiger, Jami’s mother, was first assistant to Myra Pearson.  Invariably, Cora had many conversations with tribal chairwoman Pearson about me.  Pearson’s many complaints from parents about me undoubtedly came from Cora Tiger. (Ex 38-B)

 

          d.       Cory Christofferson takes around petition to remove coach again

 

            On 3-14-07, Brandon J, a 7th grader, stopped coming to English Class, 4th hour.  I e-messaged Mr. Guthrie, asking why Brandon had been removed from my class without my knowledge. Guthrie's answer was, “In my February 13, 2007 letter to you informing you that I was assuming the role of your immediate supervisor. You were informed that Mr. Riedinger would remain responsible for all other duties as 7-12 principal. Those duties include students transferring in and out of classes, including your classes.”   (Ex 39) But I was the only teacher who had students removed without my knowledge or permission.  At the same time, Cory Christofferson began taking around his petition to remove Coach Kline, and at the same time he scheduled himself to go before the school board and ask for his keys to the school back.  Cory Christofferson asked me not to go to the school board meeting.  I thought he didn’t want me to jeopardize my teaching position by defending him.  Because I was deceived into thinking he was my friend, because he came over to my house every week for coffee, I did not suspect his true motive was to keep me from hearing the announcement of my nonrenewal in open meeting.  (Exhibit 54,    3/20/07 school board minutes)  (See #IV, assault on student goes unreported, p. 13)

 

        

          e.       Fraudulent teacher evaluations

                    (1).    Guthrie’s evaluation

          Guthrie utilized the evaluations to (a)  give himself a reason for firing me and nonrenewing me, and (b)  change the fact that he had not reported a rape to ‘I was talking about unfounded rapes,’ not to mention that the law only looks at teacher evaluations when determining whether or not a teacher has been noticed incorrectly performing duties or refusing to perform duties.  On 3-13-07, Mr. Guthrie held an evaluation review, and had me sign the evaluation, leading me to believe that I was doing a good job, and that all I needed to do was to improve a couple of areas.  However, he utilized the comment section to present false “facts” concerning Jami Jetty:

“You have adversely affected parents of female students regarding alleged rapes that are ungrounded.  I have been notified by parents to remove their children from your classes with no contact by you with their children….”

 Guthrie has inserted into this evaluation after I have signed it, totally false facts concerning the issue of my reporting to him that M H had said she had been raped, and that he had not reported, as he was required to do by law.  By referring to issue as rapes, plural, denotes the fact that he was aware of the tampered Report to School Board Members.  (Ex #1 and Ex #8)   (See p. 6, How administrators set up Jami Jetty to become the rape victim)

            On March 18, I submitted a rebuttal to Guthrie’s teacher evaluation. (Exhibit 48, Rebuttal to Guthrie)   I have repeatedly and consistently stated that I was given low scores because I had reported child abuse to authorities, which has been ignored by officials, which is to say that officials ignored child abuse laws.

 

Beginning

“I, Janis Schmidt, must object to this evaluation as being biased and nonobjective.  A student told me in class that she had been raped.  I immediately reported this to my supervisors, Mr. Riedinger, and Mr. Guthrie.  They expelled the rape victim.  When a girl enrolled in November, very interested in Leonard Peltier, with personal problems, I asked Ms. Tiokason to talk with her.  Instead, Mr. Guthrie told Riedinger, Michels, and Tiokiason to question Jami about a nonexistent rape.  Riedinger removed JJ from my classes.  Now, Mr. Riedinger and Mr. Guthrie are retaliating against me by giving me low teacher evaluations…

End

“I view this evaluation as nothing more than retaliation against me for have reported the coverup [of a rape] to authorities.  As far as this being a fair and unbiased evaluation and classroom observation of my teaching abilities, this is a crock, and should be disregarded in its entirety.  For both the sake of teachers and students, I am calling a higher authority to investigate Warwick School.”  (Ex LL)

            The higher authority in my rebuttal I referred to was the Education Standards and Practices Board.  Janet Welk, the Executive Secretary, with whom I had constant telephone conversations with since January of 2007, told me I could write a Complaint (Inquiry)  on the administrators who had not reported a rape, had covered it up, and were now retaliating against me for having reported them to the FBI and Social Services.  (Exhibit 49, Janet Welk deposition)  I filed a Complaint with ESPB on April 5, 2007 and on April 11, 2007, I was fired.  Very sadly, all the higher authorities I reported to, refused to investigate,  (Ex 10 and Ex 46) all because of lawyer Gary Thune, who told Janet Welk that I made the whole thing up and there was nothing to investigate.  (Ex 5-A)   Even the North Dakota Supreme Court, was unduly influenced by Gary Thune, upheld Guthrie’s evaluation, and affirmed a Job Service Decision that I had committed misconduct, ignoring that I had reported Guthrie to ESPB for child abuse, misstating instead my final statement in my rebuttal:

“Schmidt objected to the evaluation, claiming Guthrie was biased against her. She claimed the evaluation was retaliation against her for reporting the rapes to authorities and the evaluation was a "crock" and should be disregarded in its entirety. She then indicated she was "calling a higher authority to investigate Warwick School."  (Exhibit  50,  Schmidt v. Job Service ND, Oct 22, 2008)

          I very clearly said that the evaluation was retaliation against me for having reported that Guthrie and administrators had not reported a rape when it became known to them.  Very clearly I said,  “Instead, Mr. Guthrie told Riedinger, Michels, and Tiokiason to question Jami about a nonexistent rape.  Riedinger removed Jami from my classes.  Now, Mr. Riedinger and Mr. Guthrie are retaliating against me by giving me low teacher evaluations.”    Very sadly, even the ND Supreme Court is unwilling to enforce child abuse laws, and focused instead on my saying that Guthrie’s evaluation was a “crock,” which in truth and reality, it was.  The Supreme Court just refused to look at all the facts.  Ten days after this decision was posted, Jami Jetty hung herself because “no one would believe what Guthrie did to me.”  (Ex 33)  Authorities in North Dakota are quick to cover up child abuse committed by officials, and blame the reporter instead, which is why a federal judge, Royce Lamberth, should help me with an investigation into the wrongful death of Jami Jetty.          

            (2).    Jacobson’s evaluation

          In January of 07, I had asked Steve Jacobson, Elementary Principal, if he would conduct an evaluation because I did not receive a fair evaluation from Riedinger.  I asked many times, but Mr. Jacobson just didn’t get around to it.  I talked privately to Mr. Jacobson many times about how Guthrie had not reported the rape of a student and set up Jami.   Suddenly, on March 20, 2007, Mr. Jacobson sat in my 6th grade art class for an evaluation.  He never discussed the evaluation with me, nor did I even see the evaluation, a 3rd evaluation unauthorized by law.[31]   I was not asked to  sign anything.   What I did not understand is that Mr. Jacobson had longevity because he always did whatever the superintendent told him to do.  (Exhibit 52,  Steve Jacobson deposition)  There never  would have been a third evaluation if I hadn’t asked Mr. Jacobson to do one.  (Ex 52)  I never knew Mr. Jacobson submitted an evaluation for my file.  He had signed his name to it, but not the date.  Of course, I did not sign because I never saw this evaluation until after I was fired on April 11, 2007, when I asked for a copy of my file.  I was shocked to discover Jacobson’s evaluation in my file.   In addition to failing marks (1 or F) there were many unsubstantiated statements.   Some of the unrebutted statements made were:

“One issue that kept coming up was Ms. Schmidt’s allowing elementary classes to play duck, duck, goose during class.  I talked with Ms. Schmidt at least once if not twice that this was not to be allowed.  One child was even hurt during these games.  Even after I discussed this with Ms. Schmidt, it continued.  Many staff continued to report that Ms. Schmidt continued allowing these running games to happen.  This is insubordination.”

The Duck, Duck, Goose game was set up between Principal Riedinger, next door English teacher, Shelley Armstrong, and secretary Monica Christofferson, who is related to Cory Christofferson as indicated in my January 7, 2007, email.  (Ex 29-A)  No child was hurt, and there is no evidence proving this statement.

“Finally, Ms. Schmidt’s area of greatest need is being professional regarding confidentiality.  I have talked with many students regarding this area and the majority all said that Ms. Schmidt would openly talk about her legal matters in class and the problems she was having with the administrators at the school.  This violates the teacher’s code of conduct in North Dakota.”  (Exhibit 61, Jacobson’s evaluation)

          Mr. Jacobson could not recall the shocking things Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Riedinger said to me in his presence, yet he had vivid recall of this hearsay.  Neither of these statements are true, and, in fact, it is uncertain whether Mr. Jacobson or Mr. Guthrie wrote these statements.  There is absolutely no evidence, proof, notes, meetings that Guthrie or Jacobson presented to prove that I talked to students about any legal issues, because I didn’t.  But Guthrie needed something like this in the evaluations, so as to justify nonrenewing me and firing me, because he didn’t have any evidence of real, truthful facts in just his and Riedinger’s evaluations.  (Ex 61)

          Mr. Jacobson had between January and March to have conducted an evaluation at my request.  Therefore, I was quite surprised when, on March 20th he suddenly decided to do an evaluation.  It was Guthrie who told him to go ahead and do the evaluation.  Mr. Jacobson told me he must always do everything Guthrie told him to do, or risk being fired  (Ex 52)  Guthrie must have prompted  Mr. Jacobson to make a third evaluation so the Guthrie could say everything in Jacobson’s unofficial evaluation that wasn’t said in Guthrie’s evaluation.   There is no law permitting a 3rd evaluation.   Mr. Jacobson had between March 20th and April 11th to sit down with me and go over the evaluation, but he didn’t.  The evaluation is unsigned by myself because it was never completed and I never saw it.  As such, by law, Jacobson’s evaluation is void;  the contractual nature of the evaluation was never completed.       

MS. SCHMIDT:  Was this a normal or required procedure for an elementary principal, to evaluate a high school teacher?  (Steve Jacobson deposition, (Ex 61, p. 44, line 12-14)

MS. JOHNSON:  Objection.  You just established earlier that you taught an elementary class and that Mr. Jacobson was the principal for the elementary class, so your question is misleading.  (Id, line 18-22)

MS. SCHMIDT:  I object to the objection.  Counsel is, once again, coaching the witness.  (Id., line 23-25)

Ms. Johnson’s objection commentary denotes that the lawyers, Johnson and Thune, were aware that Mr. Guthrie, through Mr. Jacobson was improperly using a teacher evaluation to justify nonrenewal and firing me.  It was very important to lawyer Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune to prevent me from establishing that Jacobson’s evaluation was (a) not required by law, (b) outside the evaluator’s area of primary grade level, and/or (c)  fraudulently obtained and completed.  Why?  Because the 2 mandatory evaluations did not contain evidence or reasons to support firing for misconduct.  Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune were very complicit in supporting Mr. Guthrie’s decision not to report child abuse and illegally firing a teacher.  Mr. Jacobson’s evaluation was submitted as evidence to prove that I had committed misconduct in a Job Service hearing and to supply a reason for why I had been terminated before the end of my contract.  Thune and Johnson had advised Guthrie and Warwick Public School on how to circumvent child abuse laws and teacher dismissal laws.  The deposition speaks for itself:  lawyer Tiffany Johnson was obviously coaching the witness.

MR. JACOBSON:  I will answer it this way.  My job as elementary principal is to evaluate elementary teachers who are teaching elementary students.  And in that, and in that area, you taught elementary art.  (Id., p. 45, line 3-7)

MS. SCHMIDT:  But you were not required by law to do an evaluation?  (Id., line 8-9)

MR. JACOBSON:  When you had one out of seven classes and two’d already been done, no, by law two evaluations are required on a first-year teachers into the school.  (Id., line 10-15)

MS. SCHMIDT:  And this would have been a third evaluation?  (Id., line 16)

MR. JACOBSON:  Correct.  (Id., line 17)

Clearly established, the evaluation was not necessary.

MS. SCHMIDT:  Was the evaluation ever completed?  (Id., p. 45-46, line 25, 1)

MR. JACOBSON:  In what way?  (line 2)

MS. SCHMIDT:  ….you meet with the teacher, you go over the evaluation?  (Id., line 6-7)

MR. JACOBSON:  No.  (line 8)

Continued.

MS. SCHMIDT:  Was this evaluation then completed after Ms. Schmidt had been terminated?  (Id., p. 50, line 15-17)

MR. JACOBSON:  No. No, it was given to you after you’d been terminated.  Was it completed before then;  yes.  (line 18-20)

MS. SCHMIDT:  We had not sat down to discuss it?  (line 23)

MR. JACOBSON:  All the other stuff was going on at that time.  And as I said, there were already two completed evaluations, and that’s what the law requires.  (Id., p. 50, 51, line 24-25, 1-3)

Established; the evaluation was never completed, signed or discussed, and it was unnecessary.

MS. SCHMIDT:  Were you aware that this evaluation was used as a submission to the Education Standards and Practices Board?  (Id., p. 53, line 15-17)

MR. JACOBSON:  How would I know that?  (line 18)

MS. JOHNSON:  Objection.  What – do you have proof of that?  Do you have proof of that?  That is was submitted to the Education Standard and Practices Board?  (p. 53, line 19-22)

MS. SCHMIDT:  Yes.  I do.  (line 25)

Through her questioning of me, the Plaintiff, during my deposition, Ms. Johnson has admitted that she knew that I had not received the Responses  (Exhibit 63, Letters to Janet Welk, ESPB) until I subpoenaed the records over 2 years after I had requested them. After I made a Complaint on Guthrie, Riedinger, and Michels to the Education Standards and Practices Board on April 5, 2007, I was fired on April 11, 2007.  Guthrie made a Response in a package deal to my Complaint, received by ESPB on May 14, 2007.  These Responses were withheld from me until April of 2009, when I subpoenaed the records.

MS. SCHMIDT:  Were you aware that Gary Thune was the legal counsel for Warwick during the 06-07 school year?  (Id., p. 67, line 12-14)

MS. JOHNSON:  I’m going to object here.  His knowledge of Mr. Thune’s relationship with the Warwick Public School District falls underneath the attorney-client privilege and I’m going to instruct him not to answer that question.  (line 15-20)

MS. SCHMIDT:  I’m going to object to the objection,  that this  --does not fall within client privileged information.  (line 21-23)

MS. JOHNSON:  I’m still instructing you not to answer the question.  (line 24-25)

            Lawyer Tiffany Johnson had a conflict of interest in representing Warwick Public School, and she unethically obstructed my deposition whenever any of my questions would elicit the conflict, if Mr. Jacobson were to answer fully and completely.  In the ESPB Responses was a letter from Mr. Jacobson:

“I have just received notification that my name was added to a request for inquiry form against Mr. Gene Riedinger and Mr. Charles Guthrie.  This was done by Ms. Janis Schmidt, a teacher at Warwick, who was recently placed on administrative leave by our school board.  She put my name on her request as someone who could substantiate her claims.  I am writing to you to officially request that my name be taken off this form.  She has never asked me if I was willing to substantiate her claims.  I will in no way substantiate anything this woman has claimed.  It is Ms. Schmidt who should be looked at for license revocation.  I have never seen nor worked with anyone like this person.  But this is another issue.”   (Ex C-7)

In deposition, I asked Mr. Jacobson what he meant when he wrote this letter.

MR. JACOBSON:  By May 1, I learned a lot of things.  I had many Native American parents in.  I’ve had – I had talked with the head of the Spirit Lake Nation.  [Myra Pearson]  And all had complaints on you at that time.  And that is why I said what I said then.  (Steve Jacobson deposition, p. 57, line 11-17)

MS. SCHMIDT:  Just the complaints?  (p. 58, line 8)

MR. JACOBSON:           No.  I had talked to two kids, including Jami Jetty, who had some very shocking things to say about you calling her at home and harassing her.  And her parents asked you to stop doing it.  I mean, to me, that’s not behavior of a teacher.  When somebody asks you to stop doing something, you stop doing it.  (p. 58, line 9-16)

          Mr. Jacobson testified that by May 1, 2007, he heard many bad things about me, including Myra Pearson, the tribal chairwoman, and Jami Jetty. 

MS. SCHMIDT:  ….so you were informed not to have any contact with me?  (Id, p. 75, line 19-21)

MS. JOHNSON:  Objection.  I don’t know where you’re going here, but if you’re asking about things that he was instructed or advised by counsel, that is privileged (line 22-25) information and I’m going to instruct him not to answer the question.  (p. 76, line 1-2)

MR. JACOBSON:  I think I was instructed by our lawyer.  (line 9-10)  Gary Thune.  (Ex 5-A) 

          So, Mr. Jacobson was instructed by the lawyers on what to say in the evaluation and his response to ESPB.         

 

          f.       Non-renewal

          From the time I returned to school on January 5, 2007, having been fired on January 4, 2007, I was retaliated against for having reported Mr. Guthrie and the Warwick administrators to the authorities for committing child abuse on Jami Jetty and for not reporting the rape of M H.  The 1/23/07 school board minutes reflect that a motion was made and passed that Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Thiele attend the non-renewal and negotiations seminar in Bismarck, Feb 15-17.  (Exhibit 53, 1/23/07, school board minutes)  The seminar was conducted by Gary Thune, assisted by Tiffany Johnson, sponsored by the ND School Board Association, which Warwick School belonged to.  All the evidence points to my Nonrenewal as being planned back in January of 07 in retaliation for my having reported school administrators to authorities for child abuse.  North Dakota Century Code says that a reporter is not to be retaliated against.[32]  Although the non-renewal was supposed to have been by-the-book legal, it was fraught with fraud:

 

1.       Cory Christofferson asked me not to go to the school board meeting.  I thought he didn’t want me to jeopardize my teaching position by defending him.  Because I was deceived into thinking he was my friend, because he came over to my house every week for coffee, I did not suspect his true motive was to keep me from hearing the announcement of my nonrenewal in open meeting.  (Exhibit 54,    3/20/07 school board minutes)  (See #IV, assault on student goes unreported, p. 11)

 

2.       On 3-25-07, Mr. Guthrie and Carol Wolford delivered a letter to me in my room from Larry Thiele. It was an Agreement to Nonrenewal. Their first offer was to continue health insurance as stated by contract. The second was for purposes of unemployment compensation. “no misconduct on the part of the teacher has been alleged.  Mr. Guthrie told me if I signed, I would not have to come to the nonrenewal hearing, which he said was going to be very unpleasant for me. He did not want me to go the hearing.   ( Exhibit 51,  Agreement to Nonrenewal)  Rather than tell me that this was my only opportunity to defend myself, Mr. Guthrie encouraged me not to go to the nonrenewal hearing.  I knew that school boards could nonrenew a first year teacher for any reason they chose, so I decided not to go.

3.       On 3-22-07, I received emailed message from Mr. Guthrie stating that I had a complaint which he put in my box, which he put in my permanent file. The letter was addressed to Mr. Guthrie from president of the Tribe, Myra Pearson, in which she objected to my teaching any Native American history and culture, and demanded that he do something about me.  She gave no specifics nor did she name one parent, student, or incident that would have caused her to write this letter.  Cora Tiger, Jami’s mother worked as First Assistant to Myra Pearson.  (Ex 38-B, Myra Pearson letter)

4.       I was not told that this was a dismissal hearing or a hearing to determine if I had committed misconduct.   

 

          On 3-28-07, I was delivered a Notice of Nonrenewal  by Carol Walford.  It simply stated that my teaching contract would not be renewed for the 07-08 school year.  It did not state that I was subject to dismissal at any time., nor did I receive any warnings that my teaching methods constituted misconduct.  ( Ex. 56, Notice of Nonrenewal)

 

          g.       After Nonrenewal

          Once the nonrenewal was in place, hostilities increase against me, creating a very toxic and hostile work environment for me.  Students knew that I was going to be fired.    On 3-28-07,,while at my teaching duties at Warwick School, my knee gave out on me.  Science teacher Mr. Peterson, drove me to the emergency room in the Devil’s Lake hospital.  I was out of school for 5 days.  I was not in school Thursday or Friday. 

          On April 3, 2007, I finished the ESPB Complaint on Guthrie and Riedinger, and sent it to Janet Welk.  I later included Steve Michels.  (Ex 39, Complaint to ESPB)  The Complaint for 2006, was copied from my Report to School Board Members.  (Ex #1)  If one were to compare Ex 1 with Ex 39, you would find they say the same thing, which proves that my Report to School Board Members that Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson presented to the court was tampered.  (Ex 8)  Considering that I had sent both Report to School Board Members (Ex 1) and Complaint to ESPB (Ex 39) to Ms. Johnson in response to an Interrogatory, the lawyers knew, or should have known, that the Report to School Board Members they submitted to the court in summary judgment was tampered.  (Ex 8)

 

          When I returned to my teaching duties on April 5th, I discovered a real nightmare.  Kids were entirely disrespectful, and totally out of control.   Something very strange  was going on. At 8:00am, when I brought up attendance for my reading class, I discover that all of my students have been dropped. Ms. Jensen, computer teacher responsible for school computers, told me that's normal procedure.  ( Ex. 57,  Reading Class Attendance)  Jana Jensen was the business teacher and computer expert.   She is the only one who could have dropped students from my computer attendance log.  She is the only one who can manipulate someone else’s computer.   She is very likely responsible for having tampered with my Report to School Board Members.  I had to look for the reading students, who were all in Mr. Michel’s class.  They were misbehaved beyond anything in the past.  Brigitte was constantly fooling around with my computer, every time I was out of my seat.  She also had a video camera, borrowed from Ms. Jensen, taking pictures of herself and Alyssia bouncing items off the wall.  Then, in the middle of reading class, in marched the 11th and 12th graders with Principal Riedinger and computer expert, Ms. Jensen.  Ms. Jensen gave a little speech on how it was illegal to use the Internet in the classroom for pornographic purposes.  Then they all marched out.  Lord only knows how many pornographic sites were put on my computer while I was gone.  (Ex 39) 

           April 4, 2007,  in Mr. Guthrie’s absence, Mr. Riedinger placed  me under “house arrest” for an incident in my classroom which he had created by playing cards with my students.   I was ordered to stay in my room, and no students were to come to their classes with me.   The next day, for the first time, Mr. Guthrie had arranged for me to meet in his office, with a furious parent.  Riedinger had falsely accused me of saying disparaging remarks against a student.   Mr. Guthrie asked me to stay after Mrs. Geramo left.   Mr. Guthrie did not discuss with me why I had been placed under house arrest.  Mr. Guthrie approved of Mr. Riedinger ordering  me being held in my classroom without students.  Instead of doing anything about Mr. Riedinger’s strange behavior, Mr. Guthrie tried to get me to take medical leave for rest of year. (Ex 39)

          Mr. Guthrie said I could take medical leave until school was out.  I asked him how that would work, since my knee was much better and I could walk.  He said it was better than administrative leave, that  he was trying to protect me from angry parents coming to the school board.  He said the medical leave would help me avoid the situation of my being fired.   I asked him why I would be fired.  He said that many parents were angry with me, and that I could take a medical leave for the rest of the year.  I asked, “How would this work? I am under contract. Who will teach my classes?” He said I could just stay home and write lesson plans, and a sub would do the rest.   That I would be paid full salary.   I told him I couldn't make a decision today.  I called Janet Welk, Standard and Practices Board, who said if I took medical leave without being sick or unable to work, that would be fraud and advised against it.  I told Mr. Guthrie next day, I refused medical leave and I planned on teaching out my contract.  (Ex 39)

          I wrote a letter to the Sheriff to inform him of Mr. Riedinger’s bizarre behavior, that children were being threatened.  I informed Mr. Guthrie I had done so.  (Ex. 58,  April 10, 2007 letter to sheriff)  I copied this letter to Supt. Guthrie and Janet Welk, ESPB.  The Sheriff never investigated, nor did he take my letter seriously.  In his Response to ESPB, Principal Riedinger said:

“…Mrs. Schmidt also informed Sheriff Roher on April 10th of this rape and the schools failure to act on it.  Sheriff Roher contacted us and said he had read the police report and law enforcement was informed, so he did not know why Mr. Schmidt [said] the rape was not reported to authorities,”  (Ex 5-B)

Which is an admission that he, Mr. Riedinger and Mr. Guthrie did not report a rape as mandated by law, NDCC 50-25.1-03.  It is also an admission that Sheriff Rohyer was part of the conspiracy to cover up the non reporting of a felony crime, (Ex 58) and covering up for states attorney James Wang’s involvement in the tampering and destruction of my 960 Report to School Board Members, unknown to me at this time.

 

 

13.    Fired, April 11, 2007

 

          On Aril 11th, 2007, I had no students in my high school classes.  I went to Mr. Guthrie’s office, who wasn’t in.  Passing by Carol Walford’s door, I saw her office filled with 10th graders.  Very strange.  I took the 6th graders to show their art work depicting Native American subjects to Mr. Guthrie.  Teacher Mr. Kline accompanied students.  At 3:30, I was alone with Mr. Guthrie, who made no reference to the school board, meeting in the next few minutes for the sole purpose of dismissing me.  Mr. Guthrie told me  that I should hang up the art work in the hallway.  As I walked down the hall, I noticed school board members.  I unlocked the door to the Ivan room for board members McKevely and Brown.  Neither one mentioned the special meeting in which they were going to terminate me.  .    A few minutes later, I was hanging the 6th grade art work in the hall of the library, where the school board meeting was taking place for the purpose of terminating my employment before the end of my contract.  I could see teachers going into Mrs. Eversvik’s room..  At 4:10pm, I heard Michels voice, then peals of laughter.  I left the school building.  No one spoke to me.  Forty five minutes later, Mr. Guthrie called to tell me to get my things and clear out. “And don't set foot on school property.”    The Board voted unanimously to dismiss me from my teaching duties, effective immediately after Mr. Guthrie’s negative comments against me were taken under advisement.  Guthrie refused to tell me the reason for which I was terminated before the end of the school year.  (Ex 39)

          Both Mr. Guthrie and Business Manager Carol Walford had every opportunity to tell me about the impending school board meeting in which I was to be terminated, but they failed to do so.  Why?  Because I had just sent a Complaint to Education Standards and Practice Board, detailing how Guthrie and others were committing child abuse.   The meeting to terminate me was illegal.

 

          I was fired on April 11, 2007, without a hearing.  I had not been notified in writing by Warwick School Board they were contemplating discharging me for cause prior to the expiration of the terms of my contract.  I was not informed in writing of the time and place for a special meeting of the school board that was held on April 11th, 2007, on the question of my discharge prior to a final decision on the matter.  I was not informed in writing of the reasons for the discharge, which should have been delivered to me five days prior to the meeting to be held on the question of my discharge.  Twelve days after my nonrenewal hearing, 5 days after Mr. Guthrie learned that I had filed a Complaint with ESPB, I was told to clear out my things and not return to teach out my contract.  I was not discharged at the nonrenewal hearing or charged with misconduct.  The Carol Walford deposition clearly prove that I was terminated without notice of the dismissal hearing.  (Ex 62 , Carol Walford deposition)

 

  1. Do you recall if I was – when I was put on this so-called administrative leave, was I served notice?  (Carol Walford deposition,  p. 17,  line 8-10)
  2. I don’t remember that.  (line 11)
  3. And the notices always had your signature on it for the nonrenewal, but there was – you had…nothing to do with serving me any notice, then, for the administrative leave hearing?  (p. 17, line 12-16)
  4. I don’t remember that.  I know it was with the nonrenewal, but I don’t remember, --  (line 17-18)
  5. Right.  Uh-huh.
  6. -- but I don’t remember the administrative leave.
  7. Very good.  That’s all the questions I have.  (line 22-24)  (Ex 62)

 

Very clearly, Ms. Walford had copies of notices of my nonrenewal, but she did not have a copy of a notice served for my dismissal, because one doesn’t exist because I was never served.   Call it whatever you want,  dismissal or administrative leave,  the question here is was I served notice of this April 11th hearing?  And the answer is no. 

 

15.1-15-07. Discharge for cause - Hearing.

1. If the board of a school district contemplates the discharge for cause of an individual employed as a teacher, a principal, or as an assistant or associate superintendent, prior to the expiration of the individual's contract, the board shall provide written notice to the individual at least ten days prior to the discharge date.  (emphasis added)

 

Now is Ms. Johnson’s opportunity to question the witness.

 

MS. JOHNSON:  Were you present at the board meeting when the board voted to place Ms. Schmidt on administrative leave?  (p. 18, line 6-8)

MS. WALFORD:   Yeah, I was.  (line 9)

  1. Did you post notice for that board meeting?  (line 10-11)
  2. A.       We, we always posted.  (line 12)
  3. How did you post notice?  (line 13)
  4. A.      We usually post a notice…in the school.  (line 14, 17)

Q       Where at?  (line 19)

  1. They’re usually put, like on the front door in the teacher’s lounge.  (line20-21)
  2. Okay.  Is – how else do you notice school board meetings?  (line 22-23)
  3. That’s about all we do, because all we’ve got is like weekly news – you know, our official newspaper’s like a weekly one or --  (p. 18-19, line 25, 1)
  4. Okay.  (p. 19, line 2)
  5. Yeah, weekly.  (line 3)
  6. So you don’t post notice in the weekly newspaper, then or –  (line 4-5)
  7. No.  (line 6)
  8. No, just post on the school or in the school?  (line 8-9)
  9. Uh-huh.  (line 10)
  10. And you posted notice for this meeting?  (line11-12)
  11. I’m sure we did, yeah.  (line 13)
  12. Okay.  That’s all I have.  (Ex 62)

 

Pursuant to 15.1-15-07,  the board shall provide written notice to the individual at least ten days prior to the discharge date.  Ms. Johnson is a lawyer in Pearce and Durick law firm, who specialize in school law.  In argument before the ND Supreme Court, Ms. Johnson had to admit there was no legal basis to have put me on administrative leave.  Century Code provides for a dismissal hearing only.   Ms. Johnson has just turned North Dakota Century Code on its head by intimating that as long as public notice was posted, I didn’t need to be notified of a hearing in which I was about to be dismissed from my teaching duties, in violation of 15.1-15-07.

 

MS. SCHMIDT:  I have a few further questions then.  (p. 19, line 16-17)

Q.      At this meeting that we are talking about, April 11, 2007 (is when this meeting took place.)  There was only one item on the agenda for that meeting.  What was the purpose of that meeting?  (line 21-25)

A.      I suppose it was something with that, I don’t – there’s been a lot of board meetings since.  (p. 20, line 1-3)

Q.      Wasn’t it to terminate Ms. Schmidt’s employment before the end of her contract?  (line 4-6)

MS. JOHNSON:  Objection.  Now you’re, now you’re putting words into the witness’s mouth.  You can ask her if she remembers.  (p. 20, line 7-10)

MS. SCHMIDT.     Objection.  ( line 11)

MS. JOHNSON:    She said she doesn’t remember.  (line12-13)

MS. SCHMIDT:     Please answer the question.  (line 15-16)

A.      What was it again?  (line 17)

Q.      Could you repeat the question?

COURT RECORDER:  [“Wasn’t the April 11, 2007, meeting to terminate Ms. Schmidt’s employment before the end of her contract?] (line 20-21)

A.      I’m sure that’s what it was, yeah.  (line 22)

Q.      Thank you.  And you say that notices were, were put up in the school, but were – was Ms. Schmidt noticed personally, specifically of this, of this action?  (p. 20, 21, line 24-25, 1-2)

A.      (no verbal response)

Q.      Administrative leave action.  Was she personally delivered a notice such as the nonrenewal notice?

MS. JOHNSON:  Objection.  She’s already been asked this question and already answered it.  She said she did not remember giving you notice.  (line 7-10)

MS. SCHMIDT:  Please – Objection noted.  Could you please answer the question.  (line 11 – 14)

A.      I don’t remember that there was, no.  (line 15-16)

Q.      And, and so, therefore, I do not have a record of a notice personally served and the – you claim that notices were posted in the building.  And how would..it be known, then, that I received notice by a notice posted in the building?  (line 17-22)

MS. JOHNSON:  Objection, I don’t understand –  (line 23-24)

MS. SCHMIDT:  Objection noted.  (line 25)

MS. JOHNSON:  You have to wait for my objection –  (p. 22, line1-2)

MS. SCHMIDT:  Objection.  (line 3)

MS. JOHNSON:  -- and then you can talk.  (line 4-5)

MS. SCHMIDT:  No, you do not explain, you just – that was…eliminated several years ago, where—whereby you object and then –in your, in your prolonged diatribe, you are actually coaching the witness and that is not to be allowed.  You can object and --  (p. 22, line 6-12)

MS. JOHNSON:  I am asking you to –  (p. 22, line 13)

MS. SCHMIDT:  The only thing that you can object to is, privileged information and that is all, you do not get to go on and on and on.  (line 14-17)

MS. JOHNSON:  I need to know what your question is.  In your last statement, I didn’t hear a question.  My objection is, because there was no question in there.  (line 18-20)

MS. SCHMIDT:  You didn’t allow me to get to the question.  (line 22-23)

MS. JOHNSON:  Well, can you repeat – (line 24-25)

MS. SCHMIDT:  The --  (p. 23, line 1)

MS. JOHNSON:  -- your question?  (line 2)

MS. SCHMIDT:  The question was – Again, there is a question.  How would it be known that I received notice by a public notice posted in the school?  How could it be ascertained, for the record, that I received notice?  (line 3-9)

A.      I don’t know.  (line 10

Q.      Okay.  Thank you.  (Ex 62, line 11-12)

 

This obviously was a question which Ms. Johnson did not want answered.  The question was, did I personally receive notice of the school board meeting to terminate my employment.  Ms. Johnson was coaching the witness not to admit to failure to serve notice for a dismissal hearing.   I have established that no notice was given for my dismissal.  Ms. Johnson is insistent upon breaking the discovery rules, so as to protect herself and the role of attorney Gary Thune in misadvising their client, Warwick Public School.  Ms. Johnson violated Rule 30 with total abandon, taking unethical and improper advantage of a pro se litigant by constantly making objections which are speeches used to coach the witness.  Ms. Johnson actually testified.   Why would Ms. Johnson not want me to discover if I were served notice for the hearing in which my employment was going to be immediately terminated?  Because then the hearing would have to be a dismissal hearing in which I had not received written notice, and the school board had just breached my contract.  And the lawyers, Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune  knew it, and had advised their client on how to circumvent teacher dismissal laws and child abuse laws.

 

MS. JOHNSON:  I have one more question now.  (Ex 62, p. 23, line 13-14)

Q.      You just said that that meeting was to terminate her contract before the end of the contract term.  Are you sure about that?  Is – I’m – I think Ms. Schmidt said that and you, you agreed with her.  Is that correct?  (line 18-22)

A.      It was to put –  (line 23)

Q.      You were – that –  (line 24)

A.      I think the April one was to put her on administrative leave.  (p. 23, 24, line 25, l)                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Q.      So the April 11th meeting, the purpose of it, that was noticed, was to consider placing her on administrative leave; -- (p. 24, line 2-5)

A.      Uh-huh.  (line 6)

Q.      -- is that correct?  (line 7)

A.      Yeah.  (line 8)

Q.      Okay.  (line 9)

MS. WALFORD:  Are we done?  (line 10)

MS. SCHMIDT:  And just, just one final note.  Administrative leave, I call it termination.  But no further questions.  (line  11-13)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

 

          I have proved with evidence that I was not noticed of a dismissal hearing, in violation of NDCC 15.1- 15-07 which states that  the board shall provide written notice to the individual at least ten days prior to the discharge date.  I have proved with evidence that Warwick Public School’s hearing for my dismissal of teaching duties was in violation of the open record laws, NDCC 44-04-20.  (Ex. 59, Guthrie’s letter of termination.)  

 

          On April 12, Mr. Jacobson and Carol Walford delivered a letter of dismissal to my house from Mr. Guthrie, in which he did not advise me of any appeal rights, nor did I have a dismissal hearing, nor did the letter contain any reasons listed for my dismissal.  (Ex. 59, Guthrie’s letter of termination.)   I wrote letter to Mr. Guthrie demanding a reason for my termination, a copy of  my file, a copy of school policy.  (Ex. 60, my letter asking for a reason for my termination.)    Several days later, Mr. Jacobson delivered a copy of my file.  He said there was no policy.  I gave him the keys.  He did not mention that my file included a copy of his evaluation.   In my file was Mr. Jacobson’s evaluation, with very negative commentary on high school issues.  Much later in the summer,  I asked Mr. Jacobson about it, he said he wasn’t aware that his evaluation had been placed in my file since we had never completed it.  He said he would remove it, but Mr. Guthrie forbid him from removing it.  ( Ex. 61,  Mr. Jacobson’s evaluation)

          On July 13th, 2007, I sent a letter of intent to sue and offer of settlement to school board members, Thiele, McKelvey, Christofferson, Brown, and Gravdahl, and superintendent Guthrie and principal Riedinger by first class registered mail.  (Ex. 63,  letter intent to sue)  No response.

 

 

14.    Disqualified for unemployment by Job Service because of misconduct 

 

          On July 5, 2007, I applied for unemployment.  I was disqualified for “misconduct.” This is the first I was informed of any misconduct charges charged to me as a reason for my dismissal.  I appealed the decision, up to the ND Supreme Court, and lost, because Gary Thune tampered with witnesses and evidence to create his own facts through the manipulation of Social Services, Job Service, and Education Standards and Practices Board.  Later I will detail with evidence how Gary Thune used his position to manipulate agencies into making unlawful decisions. Janis Schmidt v. Job Service ND.

         

          On November 3, 2008, Jami Jetty could no longer endure kids teasing her about “being raped in Warwick School, and having discovered the truth, she said to a classmate,  “What’s the use?  No one will believe me what Guthrie did.”  Not even her parents, and she hung herself.  (Ex 33)  (Exhibit #23, Obituary)

 

          On December, 2008, I filed a lawsuit, which I could not win because too many officials were involved in covering up child abuse.  North Dakota protects its child abusers if they are too important to jail.  The courts ruled against the law, which is the only way defendants could possibly win.  Later I will cover how lawyers Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune used the courts to disguise the fact that they had manipulated the justice system to cover up crimes of child abuse committed by Warwick administrators.  Janis Schmidt v. Warwick Public School District #29, et al.   

 

15.    Social Services had a duty to investigate, but refused

 

          I presented this 29 page Report to School Board Members to Social Services as a 960 Report at about the same time I sent the Report to the school board members, which was about the 1st of January, 2007.  (Ex 1, Report to School Board Members)  So, Benson County Social Services would have received the untampered Report.  In my Report, I detailed all the abuses I saw taking place at Warwick School by officials, and many of their actions involved criminal abuse of students.  Astonishingly, Social Services refused to investigate.  (Exhibit 10, Social Services refusal letter, January 16, 2007)  Making that decision were Dennis Meier, Ed Forde, and Millie Banet, meaning that Benson County Social Services accepted jurisdiction.  States Attorney Wang advises Social Services.  I could not discover why Social Services refused to act on my 960 Report because Meier and Forde refused to talk to me.  Millie Banet told me she didn’t make any of the decisions.  After I filed a lawsuit, on January 12, 2009, I contacted Dennis Meier in an attempt to find out why my 960 Report of institutional abuses contained in the Report to School Board Members (Ex 1) had not been acted upon.   Mr. Meier stated to me that he had destroyed the 29 page Report.  What I did not understand was the role the states attorney James Wang played in influencing Social Services’ decision not to investigate or to turn the investigation over to the Attorney General.  (Exhibit #11, two letters to Dennis Meier) 

          In my 12/31/08 letter to Dennis Meier and Millie Banet, Social Services, I said:

“In addition to being raped, M H had twice tried to kill herself.  Bear in mind that things happened in a state run school, therefore, you do have jurisdiction.  2nd, the perpetrators of abuse are non-Indian.  Therefore, you have a duty to order a criminal investigation, especially since the perpetrators happen to be the Warwick School administration and their attorneys.  They did much more than just non-reporting;  they retaliated against me [the reporter] and finally illegally fired me.  They continued to abuse students.  Please examine the facts in my Complaint, and compare it with the 29 page 960 Report I sent you 2 years ago.  You missed it, and now a lot of people are paying a price for that.”  (Ex 11)

 

Social Services has steadfastly refused to produce the 960 Reports I filed with them.  Dennis Meier even told me that they had destroyed the original 29 page 960 Report.  I called Lake Region Human Services Center, December, 2011, and asked for Dennis Meier.  I was told he no longer works there, and had been fired.  He now works for Tribal Social Services.

“Please examine items #23-74, the setting up of innocent little 12 year old [Native American] Jami Jetty to replace M H, how she was interrogated by Principal Riedinger and NEA Rep Steve Michels, asked if she had been raped.  Then Supt. Guthrie and Riedinger have sex talks to 7th through 12th grades, not only once but twice, culminating in calling Jami to Supt. Guthrie’s office and telling her and her father, James Jetty, that I had told them that she had been raped.  (Ex 2)  Jami eventually took her own life (Ex23) [because kids kept mercilessly teasing her about being raped in Warwick School.]  (Ex 33)  Now, that probably could have been prevented had a proper criminal investigation been done.  You have jurisdiction to investigate Guthrie, Riedinger, Michels, and others involved at Warwick Public School, located in the incorporated town of Warwick, where all property is taxed by the state.  The Tribe does not have jurisdiction over Warwick Public School.  Now that there is a death involved, since Attorney General Stenejhem and Senator Dorgan claim that is it your responsibility, don’t you think you need to order an investigation?”  (Ex 11)

          On January 12, 2009, I filed a 3rd 960 Report as a letter to Dennis meier, (Exhibit 83, 3rd 960 Report in 1/12/09 letter to Dennis Meier)  in which I asked for copies of the first 2 Reports and the results, which has not been forth coming. 

“You told me you destroyed the 29 page Report.  I emailed a copy of my Complaint which contained the same facts as in the December 29, 2006, Report.  I asked you why you had not investigated the child abuse I had reported.  You said that the rape of the student (M H) occurred on the reservation, so you referred it to tribal Social Services.  You told me that the state did not have jurisdiction over what happens on the reservation.  I told you that M H had told me in class in a state run school that she had been raped.  I had a duty to report this.  I told my supervisors, Supt. Charles Guthrie and Principal Gene Riedinger, who are both non Native American.”  (Ex 82)

 

Perhaps the reason Mr. Meier did not want to produce a copy of the denial letter (Ex 10 dated January, 2007 is because the state did initially accept jurisdiction over my Report, and had declined to investigate.  (Ex 10)  Now they say that the 960 Report was turned over to Tribal Social Services, which is a lie they cannot prove.

 

16.    States Attorney James Wang’s involvement with Social Service’s refusal to investigate.

          Instead of an investigation, the states attorney aided in destroying my 960 Report.  I called Dennis Meier who said he destroyed the 960 Report, that Social Services doesn’t keep a Report after a year’s time.  Which leads to a question, what happened to the 29 page Report I submitted to the school board members and to Social Services to report a rape as told to me by the student rape victim?  Is this what Social Services does with 960 Reports?  When I subpoenaed the records from Social Services, their in house attorney, Jonathan Ahm, said he never received a 29 page Report mentioned in Dennis Meier’s letter.  (Ex 13,  Subpoened Documents from Social Services)  He said it was a county decision, which means it was a Benson County Social Services Board and states attorney decision.  The question is:  Did the Benson County Social Services Board ever see a copy of my 960 Report?  (Ex 1)  What happened to the 960 Report?  When I subpoenaed Millie Banet in deposition, she refused to answer these questions, as advised by states attorney Wang, who was sitting by her side.  (Exhibit 14,  Millie Banet Deposition)

          In an attempt to get down to the bottom of why Social Services did not investigate my Report, I subpoenaed to deposition, the persons who made that decision for Social Services, namely, Millie Banet, Ed Forde, represented by Benson County states attorney James Wang.  Dennis Meier was represented by Douglas Bahr, who wrote the objection to producing documents for Social Services.  Mr. Meier did not produce my 29 page report as requested nor did he appear.  (See Ex 13 and #x 11)  Sitting in as the attorney for Warwick Public School was Tiffany Johnson from Pearce & Durick.  Depositions were scheduled for August 26, 2009. 

 

          Scheduled first was Millie Banet, who, as the record reflects, was 12 minutes late because Mr. Wang was busy filing an objection with the clerk of court on deposition time, and very possibly talking to Judge Christofferson.   He must have been talking to the Judge because it doesn’t take that long to file papers. (Doc 156, 157)   Upon arrival, he motioned for Tiffany Johnson to come outside, leaving me with Millie and the recorder.  Wang and Johnson went out in the hallway for an ex parte discussion, obviously discussing Johnson’s motion to end my taking of depositions.  Finally, I went out in the hallway and demanded that they get on with the deposition at hand.  Wang informed me that Dennis Meier was not appearing for his deposition and Johnson confirmed that Meier would not be there.  Wang made a big deal out of telling me that he represented Benson County Social Services and not the Dept of Human Resources. 

 

          Millie refused to answer any questions as to why there had been no investigation, and would not answer any questions about child abuse laws in general, as advised by Wang.  (Exhibit 14, Millie Banet Deposition)  Tiffany Johnson kept interrupting the Ed Forde deposition  (Exhibit 15)  so as to prevent me from asking Mr. Forde what they did with my 29 page Report to School Board Members, the 960 Report.  It became apparent what Johnson’s and Wang’s meeting in the hall was about, when Johnson and Wang suddenly left the deposition to see Judge Christofferson.  (Exhibit 16, Affidavit)  Lawyer Johnson insisted that I come, so I followed Johnson and Wang into Judge Christofferson’s Chambers, which I never should have done because (Ex 15 and 16) it gave Judge Christofferson an opportunity to make an illegal ruling on Guthrie/Johnson’s motion to suppress my discovery through a 3rd protection order.  (Ex 18) 

          The first thing that Judge Christofferson said to Johnson and Wang was,  “I expected to see you earlier,”  which tells me that Christofferson, Wang, and Johnson had prearranged this meeting, unrecorded, in order to prevent me from taking any more depositions.  Johnson had submitted a motion to restrict me from taking any more depositions on August 26, 2009, the day of the depositions.  (Exhibit 18, Motion for 3rd Protective Order)   Judge Christofferson never listened to me or asked any questions about the deposition at hand, nor did he resolve any deposition issues.  Instead he allowed states attorney Wang and defendant Johnson to state that I was causing unnecessary cost to the District, and that I wasn’t asking any questions about nonrenewal.  (!!)  Which, why should I?  My lawsuit was not about nonrenewal, but about illegal firing.  Wang didn’t feel that the Social Services decision not to investigate a rape was an issue for deposition.  The judge made an instant ruling on Johnson’s motion, and Ordered that I could not take any more depositions, in an astonishing violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure, .[33]  (Exhibit 19,. Order granting 3rd Protective Order).  I was given no opportunity to respond to Johnson’s spurious motion,  a big time violation of my 14th Amendment right to due process, my 7th Amendment right to bring a civil suit to court, and my 1st Amendment right to bring a grievance to court for adjudication.

           Judge Christofferson buried his unlawful ruling amongst a bunch of other Orders. (Ex 19)   Judge Christofferson unlawfully granted this motion in which he obviously had ex parte discussion with Johnson and Wang.  I asked for a transcript of this Chamber meeting on Ms. Johson’s motion for a 3rd Protection Order, but Judge Christofferson said it wasn’t recorded because no one requested it.  (Exhibit 20, Judge’s statement on nonrecording)  This is a blatant fraud upon the court, committed by a judge, a states attorney, and a lawyer.  I filed an Affidavit (Exhibit 16, Affidavit)  and a Motion for Contempt on Dennis Meier,  (Exhibit 85, Motion for Contempt)  for failing to show up for his deposition, which Judge Christofferson denied.  (Exhibit 85, Order)  (hiccup)

          Judge Christofferson, States Attorney Wang, and lawyer Tiffany Johnson are officers of the court.  They were aware that hearing a motion in the judge’s chambers on the very day the motion is filed with the court, (Doc 153)  is highly immoral, unethical, and illegal.  They could do it and get by with it because they enjoy absolute, unquestioned power to act illegally under enjoyment of absolute immunity, meaning that child abuse laws do not apply to them and because North Dakota has laws that protect governmental agencies such as Social Services from any liability. 

          Shortly thereafter, Tiffany Johnson brought a motion for summary judgment which Judge Christofferson granted, in spite of the staggering amount of evidence I produced to show contested facts.  (Doc 204)  I submitted a motion for an evidentiary hearing,  (Exhibit 21, Motion for Evidentuary Hearing) which Judge Christofferson ignored.  In short, administrators in a state run school and agents Dennis Meier, Ed Forde, Millie Banet, and lawyers Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson are clearly above the child abuse laws, and cannot be touched, which is precisely why there needs to be a grand jury investigation.[34]  The only problem with this is that the prosecutor, James Wang,  was deeply involved in destroying evidence.[35]

          At the heart of the case was a suicide of Jami Rose Jetty, 14 years old, November 3, 2008.  (Exhibit 22, Letter to Governor Hoven on Jami’s death)  I also reported to the Attorney General who said he could not investigate Jami’s death:        

“We cannot take the action you requested because the Attorney General does not have jurisdiction or authority over the Indian Reservations or Native Americans living on the reservation.  We also do not have authority over the social service agencies, the schools, states’s attorneys or the local law enforcement agencies.  Even if we had jurisdiction in this matter, however, we are not able to initiate an investigation except at the request of an authorized criminal justice official having jurisdiction.”  (Exhibit 24, Letter, AG denies authority to investigate)  

          Where did the Attorney General get the idea that the causes of Jami’s death occurred on an Indian reservation?  The AG conveniently overlooked the fact that the crime against Jami occurred in a state run school under the jurisdiction of the state, while mistakenly insisting that Jami’s death occurring on the reservation is the issue.  Jami’s death could have occurred on the moon;  it still doesn’t change the causes of her death.  The causes for Jami’s death occurred in a state run Warwick Public School located on state taxed ground.  (Ex 33)  So, in other words, States Attorney Wang can shred documents, lie, misadvise Social Services, confuse the county commissioners, and refuse to investigate reported crimes simply because he has the unchecked power to do so, without any oversight whatsoever.  The highest legal authority in the state of North Dakota, the Attorney General, cannot investigate official misconduct of a prosecutor and cannot order an investigation, which is why there needs to be a grand jury investigation.

          States attorney Wang then wrote 2 letters, one to Social Services director Paul Olson dated 12/19/11, and one to AG Wayne Stenehjem dated 12/20/11, which he copied to me ant county commissioners.  (Exhibit 80, Wang’s December 2011 letters to AG and Social Services)  However, he did not send the letters to me until Decemeber 31st, meaning I did not receive his letter until January 2, 2012, the day before I was scheduled to speak to the commissioners about calling a grand jury.  Wang saved the letters to the commissioners and presented their copies just before their meeting on January 3, 2012.  In short, no one had an opportunity to adequately read, much less respond intelligently to Wang’s letters.

          Wang was present at the January 3rd Benson County commissioners’ meeting.  At that meeting, Wang said that Millie Banet, child protection, had turned over my 960 Reports to Tribal Social Services.  I called Millie, 1/4/12, phone number 701-662-1125, in Devils Lake, and told her what Wang had said.  She said she no longer worked for Social Services, couldn’t answer any questions, and hung up on me.  In 2007-08, I had talked extensively with Millie.  I gave her copies of a lot of information I had.  She said Wang wouldn’t accept it, that she didn’t make the decisions, which is corroborated by her deposition.  (Ex 14)

 

          In his letter to Paul Olson, Wang stated:  (Ex 80)

“When generated, the 960 reports of Child abuse and neglect will arrive at Benson County Social Services with a Child Protection Worker.  [Millie Banet, Ex #10]  A determination is made by the Child Protection worker to see if it is appropriate for Benson County’s jurisdiction, or another jurisdiction.  The 960 report which Ms. Schmidt is in search of, was administratively transferred to the Fort Totten, Spirit Lake Tribe jurisdiction, and rightly so.  Therefore, your staff or the child protection team would not maintain, nor would they have seen the 960 Report.”  (Ex 80)

         

          My 960 Report (Exhibit #1, 960 Report to School Board Members)  which I sent to Benson County Social Services in January of 2007 was assessed by Meier, Ed Forde, and Millie Banet, meaning Benson County assumed jurisdiction in January of 2007 (Ex 10), cooberated by state Social Services.  (Ex 13)  Dennis Meier, Dept. of Human Resources, sent an official letter in January 2007 for Benson County, declining to take any action.  (Ex 10)  My 960 Report was clearly outlining institutional abuse taking place in Warwick Public School.  The record shows that Benson County Social Services assumed jurisdiction.  (Ex 10 and 13)  Mr. Wang has provided absolutely no proof that my 960 Report was turned over to Spirit Lake Tribe.  In the January 3rd, 2012, meeting Wang took over my presentation, and demanded to know who I had talked to in Tribal Social Services to prove that he didn’t have 960 Reports.  I said I had made my report to Benson County Social Services, not to the Tribe because all of the events happened in a state run school and that the perpetrators of crime were white, and not Native American.  Wang said that made no difference, that Millie Banet gave the 960 Report to Tribal Social Services, so he wasn’t responsible for any 960 Reports.  I pointed out the denial letter, (Ex 10) shows that Benson County did accept jurisdiction.  Wang disregarded the evidence.  Commissioner Mike Steffans, a lawyer, former states attorney and judge, insisted that jurisdiction lay with the Tribe, and therefore moved that the commissioners reject any calling of a grand jury.  Vote was taken and the motion passed before commissioners had a chance to examine the evidence.  Both states attorney Wang and commissioner Steffan unduly, inappropriately, and fraudulently influenced the other 4 commissioners to vote immediately against calling a grand jury, rather than allow me to present evidence.

 

          In his letter to Paul Olson, Mr. Wang then says:  “Suffice it to say, this office DOES NOT have, nor has it ever had 960 reports as regularly kept records.”  (Ex 80)  Mr. Wang says he doesn’t have my 960 Report, Social Services doesn’t have it, the Tribe never heard ot it.  So, where is it?  The denial letter (Ex 10) is proof of its existence.  What happened to it?  Is this the way records are kept in Benson County?

In his 12/20/11 letter to the Attorney General, Mr. Wang says:


“At the time Ms. Schmidt first made her appearance in my office, the child of whom she speaks, [Jami Jetty] was already deceased.  I did advise at that time that she should have filled out an abuse and neglect report, which I think is what has put her on the path of obtaining a copy of what she says she submitted.”

 

Mr. Wang lied when he said that I first made my appearance in his office after Jami’s death.  I first appeared on 11/19/07 and asked Mr. Wang to investigate child abuse going on in Warwick School.  (Exhibit 25,  2nd 960 Report)  Jami was very much alive in 2007.  Jami’s death was November 3, 2008.  Why does Wang make it a point to tell the AG that Jami was deceased?  At the time, Wang told me I had to first fill out a 960 report before he could investigate, and led me to believe he would investigate if I just filled out another 960 Report.  (Ex 25)   He sent me over to see Millie Banet at Social Services and I filled out a second 960 Report, dated 11-19-07, clearly a year before Jami’s death.  (Ex 25)   When I returned to Wang’s office, he refused to see me, nor would he answer the phone or return phone calls. Clearly, Mr. Wang set me up so as to destroy the first 960 Report (Ex 1) and replace it with the handwritten 960 Report.  (Ex 25)  Destroying evidence is a criminal, felony offense. 

          Mr. Wang continues in his letter to the AG:

“If Ms. Schmidt did submit a 960 report, and Millie Banet (a former employee of Benson County Social Services) has told me she did file a 960 report, it was summarily transferred to the Spirit Lake Tribe jurisdiction and correctly so.  They handle their own suspected abuse and neglect complaints.  There was no criminal activity engaged in with it that I am aware of.  I have never seen the 960 report alleged by Ms. Schmidt, nor would there have been any reason to.”  (Ex 80)

Wang lied, as evidenced by exhibits #1 and #25.  The criminal activity was conducted by states attorney Wang.  State Social Services said:

“Tara Lea Muhlhauser recalls this and it was a county decision;  she [Janis Schmidt] served the school district.  No child abuse and neglect received by Tara—decision made by county.  Regional Office [Dept of Human Resources, Dennis Meier] made the decision.”  (Ex 13)

         

          The State Department of Human and Social Services has emphatically stated that Benson County had original jurisdiction.  Clearly the Benson County has jurisdiction (Ex 13)  and not the Tribe as Mr. Wang made the commissioners believe in his 12/20/11 letter to the AG.  (Ex 80)  In his phone call to me, in house lawyer for DHS, Jonathan Alm, said:

“…decision stands and does not change because of suicide.  Told her if she has new evidence, she can always file another report—no state law that stops her.  She will do that and we will review it and make a determination if we can investigate the report.”

I filed a 2nd, 3rd, and now a 4th 960 Report.  The 4th Report was submitted to Benson County Social Services, who, under advice of states attorney Wang, refused to investigate, stating that the County did not have jurisdiction.  Yet the evidence proves otherwise.  There is no record of what happened to the 2nd 960 Report, (Ex 25) which Wang made me fill out before he would investigate, but then he refused to investigate, stating to me that I was just looking for free legal advice.  (Exhibit 82,  Letters to Wang)  There were no jurisdictional issues to resolve until Jami killed herself.  Then, Wang scurried to turn my 960 Reports over to tribal jurisdiction.

 “…Whether or not Ms. Schmidt did generate a second 960 report, I do not know, nor would this office know due to the jurisdictional issue attached to the second report, which would be the same as the first alleged report.  It would be sent to the Spirit Lake Tribe for determination and investigation…. I turned over everything I have to Ms. Schmidt, at considerable expense to this office, I might add…she has received, perhaps, better treatment than most others.”  (Ex 80)

Mr. Wang did not turn over anything to me.  I received nothing.  If I received preferential treatment, I would hate to see what others received. That means Wang got rid of the 960 Reports and he is lying.  Mr. Wang was desperately trying to get rid of jurisdiction by thrusting it unto the Spirit Lake Tribe, by confusing when Jami died and by trying to get rid of jurisdiction.

          I did receive a copy of the assessment letter ( Ex 10) which the state obviously had a copy of.  In their notes they say,  “It was a county decision.”  (Ex 13)  “Feb 2007 –DHS—letter—nothing to investigate.”  (Ex 13)  “NO CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES/INVESTIGATED”  “told her correct, regional rep and Tara [Muhhauser, Dir., CFS Division Nd Dept of Human Services, Bismarck] looked at it and made the decision—dicision stands and does not change because of suicide.”  (Ex 13) 

 

          On January 12, 2009, I wrote a third 960 Report in a letter to Dennis Meier at Lake Region Human Service Center, with a copy to Millie Banet.  (Exhibit 83, 3rd 960 Report, 1/12/09)  In it, I asked for a copy of the 29 page report and a copy of the response letter.  Meier said that after a year, 960 reports are destroyed and therefore he didn’t have a copy of the 960 report.  Mr. Meier refused to send me a copy of the Social Service denial letter.  (Ex 10)  I finally received the January 2007 denial letter from state Social Services when I subpoenaed the state Social Services in Bismarck,  (Ex 13)  which clearly demonstrates that Benson County Social Services had assumed jurisdiction over my 960 Report in January of 2007.  I asked for a response to my third 960 Report.  On August 27, 2009, the day after depositions, I received a letter from Millie Banet stating:

“The abuse and neglect reports you filed on 07-21-09 were received by Benson County Social Services and forwarded to the Fort Totten Police Department.”  (Exhibit 84, 8/27/09, letter from Millie Banet)

Midstream, Millie Banet, upon advice from James Wang, said that Jami’s death was a matter for the Tribe, and that the rape happened on the reservation.  That’s not the point;  the point is that the cause that prompted Jami’s death originated in a state run school by white administrators.  Because he has the power to do so, Wang is rephrasing the issue so as to avoid an investigation of himself.  By a sloppy overlapping of irrelevant facts, states attorney Wang, social worker Millie Banet, Ed Forde, and Dennis Meier have suddenly taken the jurisdiction from Benson County and placed it with the Spirit Lake Tribe, in a bait and switch routine.  (Ex 84)

 

17.    Sham jury selection

          Fate intervened when I was summoned for jury duty, December 5, 2011.  I was summoned for jury duty for Benson County to meet at the Ramsey County Courthouse in Devils Lake at 9:00am on 12/5/11, Judge Donovan Foughty presiding.  Not withstanding that the whole process was taking an unusually long time, I noticed several irregularities:

  1. Potential jurors were questioned in secret while the potential jurists waited in the jury room.
  2. At about 4:00 pm, the bailiff came to the holding room and announce my name.  Sheriff Royher followed and said I was dismissed, without ever being called, no reasons given.

          I am a citizen of the U.S., and a resident of Benson County.  I am 65 years old and speak only English.  I have no felony convictions.  I am of sound mind and reasonably sound body.  I did not know the defendant, nor had I heard anything about the case.  I sent a letter to Judge Foughty asking the reason why I was summarily dismissed as a juror.  (Exhibit 78,  letter to Judge Foughty, 12/7/11)

          At the first recess, about 10:00 am,  I had told the bailiff that I had unpleasant dealings with both the defense attorney Ulysses Jones, who had facilitated the fraudulent altering of my Report to School Board Members, (Ex 8)  and the prosecutor, States Attorney James Wang, who aided and abetted in the destruction of my 960 Report of a rape,  and the judge, Donovan Foughty, who refused to order the Attorney Generals to send me a copy of the Job Service Record when I was trying to write an Appeals brief.  The bailiff said he would relay that information to the judge.  After a long time, the bailiff returned and told me I had to wait until I was called and that I would not be excused at this time.  Very ironically, the case involved a rape involving an older man as the defendant.  So, I waited with the rest of the potential jury candidates in the jury room while others were being secretly questioned in the court room.  Finally, at 4:00 pm, before I had been called, Sheriff Royher, who was working closely with Principal Riedinger in the cover up of a student rape, came to the door of the jury room, and called my name, and told me I was excused, no explanations.

          I received a letter from Judge Foughty, explaining why I was dismissed as a juror before being selected:

“you were dismissed from the selection process because the Court became aware through the Clerk that you were discussing a sexual assault matter with at least one potential juror and it was my opinion that such discussions may taint the objectivity of the jury.

“You were not questioned by the Court on this matter because at the time the Court became aware of the allegation who had for the most part a jury selected.  Both the state [James Wang] and defense [Ulysses Jones] agreed that you should be dismissed from jury duty.  However, you have no legal right to know the reason for your dismissal.  Jury selection is not always public.”

And Judge Foughty copied this to (1) AG;  (2)  James Wang, Benson County States Attorney, the one who facilitated the destruction of my 960 Report of a rape  (Ex 1);  and (3)  Ulysses Jones, defense attorney, the one who facilitated the tampering of my Report to School Board Members, (Ex 8).  (Exhibit 79,  Letter from Judge Foughty)  I contacted ND Supreme Court.  I received response from Supreme Court, via State Court Administrator, Sally Holewa, who said that according to ND Century Code “potential jurors have no legal right to know why they were not chosen for jury service nor is there any recourse to object to the decision.  Although Judge Foughty voluntarily disclosed the reason to you, that les not entitle you to a hearing on the matter.”  (Exhibit 78-A,  1/6/12,  Letter from Holewa, State Court Administrator)  Judge Foughty denied me the right to receive the Job Service Record when I was trying to write my Appeal Brief in Janis Schmidt v. Job Service ND.  In my case, I had not been called;  I was just summarily dismissed, no reasons given, and no opportunity to confront my accusers of:

“you were dismissed from the selection process because the Court became aware through the Clerk that you were discussing a sexual assault matter with at least one potential juror and it was my opinion that such discussions may taint the objectivity of the jury.”

 

Well, yes, under normal circumstances, but I was dismissed under very abnormal circumstances, without any due process.   I deserved an answer, but no official wanted to answer my question because of their official misconduct.  I was denied my legal, constitutional right to sit on a jury because Wang, Jones, and Foughty were guilty of official misconduct, covering up a crime of rape, no less!!!  In North Dakota, officials routinely cover up for each other, and therefore justice is impossible for the average citizen.  That’s the way justice works in North Dakota.

 

 

18.    Lawyer, Gary Thune, advised Warwick Public School on how to circumvent child abuse and teacher dismissal laws.

 

           Guthrie could not have circumvented the law without the help of his well known attorney, Warwick’s lawyer, Gary Thune of Pearce & Durick out of Bismarck.  (Exhibit 67, Thune speaks out)  Thune has been working for school boards and administrators for the past 30 years. (Id.) He heads up the ND School Boards Association, and advises many educational boards, including Educational Standards and Practices Board and Job Service unemployment concerning teachers. (Ex 67) He is very busy in the halls of Congress when the legislature sits, always speaking in favor of authoritarian school administrative laws, and opposing anything to do with teacher rights and responsibilities. 

 

          Warwick is, was, and has been a member of NDSBA.  (Ex 62) Dues are over $3000 a year.  Schools that are apt to screw up and are in need of legal advice belong to NDSBA.  (Ex 62, Carol Walford deposition, Tab A)   Gary Thune, advising so many Boards, even the Attorney General’s Office,  (Ex 47) believed Guthrie’s story and advised Guthrie on how to circumvent child abuse and teacher dismissal laws, thus creating a conflict of interest because Thune could lose his bar license if the truth were ever known.   How would he accomplish this?  Use or misuse of the Agencies, Social Services, ESPB and Job Service.  Thune  stated that he was the attorney for Warwick School during the 60-07 school year in a letter which he included to Education Standards and Practices Board, in Response to my Complaint, which was withheld from me for over 2 years until I subpoenaed the records.   (Exhibit 5,  at Tab A, Warwick administrators’ and Gary Thune’s Response to ESPB Complaint)    

 

          One of my primary facts that Warwick administrators and their lawyer Gary Thune needed to subvert was the fact that I reported to Guthrie in Warwick Public School, September of 2006, that a rape victim had told me in class that she had been raped, which administrators knew about the beginning of the semester, (Ex 4) but deliberately chose not to report it to Social Services.  Thune first used ESPB to establish false facts. (Ex 5-A)  When I filed for unemployment with Job Service in July of 2007, lawyer Gary Thune seized that opportunity to utilize Job Service as a vehicle to establish a version of false facts for the record. (Exhibit 71, Claim, separation information)  It was very important to Thune and to Guthrie to (a) deny that I told Guthrie and Riedinger that a student had told me in class in state run Warwick School,  that she had been raped, and (b) deny that I had been fired, because both were very illegal, and Gary Thune had advised Guthrie and Warwick Public School on how to circumvent child abuse laws through (a) the 5 Directives, (b)  teacher evaluations, and (c) nonrenewal.  Gary Thune used the agencies ESPB, Job Service, and the Department of Human Services to fabricate his own facts, all to save his own license to practice.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

 

 

 

19.    ESPB  Complaint

           

            On or about April 3, 2007, I filed a Complaint to Education Standards and Practices Board (ESPB)  of child abuse against Supt. Guthrie, Principal Riedinger, and teacher Steve Michels at Ms. Welk’s suggestion.[36]  (Ex 39)  I was immediately fired.  On or about April 12, 2007, I contacted Janet Welk, State Standards and Practices Board, and told her that I had been fired.  She stopped talking to me after that.  I asked her for the Responses to my Complaint, (Ex 49) which, by law, she should have provided me with copies of the Responses.  She said I would have to talk to a lawyer.   She had been advised by her lawyer, Assistant Attorney General Bill Peterson and Gary Thune, (Ex 5, Tab A) not to talk to me.  Because of my persistence in questioning her, Welk made the exasperated statement,  “Oh that Gary Thune;  I should have never listened to him!”

            I never got a copy of the Responses until I subpoenaed the record, in April of 2009.  (Exhibit 68, Subpoena Records, ESPB)  The record shows that ESPB received the Responses May 9, 2007.  (Ex 5)  When I subpoenaed Bill Peterson, Douglas Bahr, Michal Pitcher and Gary Thune for a deposition, lawyer Tiffany Johnson immediately motioned to quash the depositions, (Exhibit 69, Motion to Quash) even though she did not represent those persons.  Judge Christofferson immediately granted, (Exhibit 70, Order granting Motion)  thus protecting herself, Gary Thune, Bill Peterson, and ESPB from my discovering the reason why the Responses to my Complaint were withheld from me.  

          The fact that the ESPB Responses were withheld from me made a huge difference in my claims for unemployment and subsequent legal actions.  The Warwick School administrators managed the facts in my cases, orchestrated by lawyers Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson, who were deeply involved in the coverup of a rape.  I had no opportunity to rebut these bogus “facts” because the Responses were withheld from me.   The biggest reason was that lawyer Gary Thune had written a letter advising ESPB to disregard my Complaint. (Ex 5-A)

In my Complaint to ESPB, I copied the facts from my Report to School Board Members, which covered the first semester up to 2007.  In my Complaint, I numbered the paragraphs.  At #21, I stated:  (Ex 39)

21.       A 9th grade girl, announced to me in class, while I was talking about Indian art and culture, Indian customs and behaviors, that she had been raped.  She said that Mrs. Tiokison and Mr. Reidinger told her to say nothing, but she wanted everyone to know.  She said this happened just before school started, and when nothing was done about it, she tried to hang herself.  I asked if she had reported this.  She said she had, but Mr. Reidinger told her not to talk about it.  I asked her how she felt about it.  She said she wanted everyone to know, and she wanted to tell me about it.  Then she told how her father was beaten to death some 5 years ago, and nothing was ever done about it.  I reported this to Mr. Reidinger and Mr. Guthrie, as I know I have a duty to report.  They already knew about the rape and suicide attempt.  I asked what was being done for her.  They said it was confidential, it was being taken care of, it was none of my business.  I said I thought the law stated that we, as teachers, are mandated to report these kinds of things.  They assured me I had done the right thing, consider it reported, and they were taking care of it.  I assumed that meant reporting the rape to the proper authorities.  All of a sudden this student was missing from class or came late.  She said Mr. Reidinger gave her permission to “walk.”  One day, she said her hands were sore when I asked her to do a drawing.  She told me that Mr. Reidinger had a picture of himself on a punching bag in the gym, and she could take out her anger and frustration by punching his picture.  I was incredulous that such a method was being applied to a girl who had been so brutally treated and understandably, had anger issues.  My talking to the rape victim about the Dakota way of dealing with things, like going to a sweat lodge, was certainly trumped by Mr. Riedinger’s methods.  And I had been expressly told by Mr. Reidinger and Mr. Guthrie that a teacher was not to interfere with counseling students, that the administration was trained to deal with these problems, and that I was expressly told to butt out.  Shortly thereafter, the rape victim was missing from school.  We are told by Mr. Reidinger that the rape victim was a trouble maker, that she was picking on students, causing fights, and creating an unsafe environment for other students and was  s a danger and threat to other students and staff, and had been suspended.  Mr. Reidinger cautioned us not to talk to anyone about this.  This happened in October, 2006.”

 

        This paragraph alone should have prompted the Education Standards and Practices Board to order an investigation, but it didn’t.  Why?  Because Gary Thune said there was nothing to investigate, (Ex 5, Tab A)  which is also the reason why ESPB illegally withheld the Responses from me.

 

         In a letter to ESPB, dated March 7, 2007, (sic, should be May), unsigned and unsworn, which was withheld from me, (Ex 5, Tab D) in Response to my Complaint, Mr. Guthrie deliberately lied by saying that I did not report a rape  to any administrators.  Someone was lying, and ESPB had a duty to discover the truth, especially when my Complaint was unreported child abuse, rape and assault, unlawful retention.  ESPB breached its duty to me by:

 

            (a) refusing to send me the Guthrie/Riedinger/Michels’  Responses;  ( Ex 68 and 71) 

            (b)  dismissing my Complaint when there was an obvious disputed issue of unreported child abuse; (Ex 46) and

            (c)  allowing lawyer Gary Thune to control the Board’s decision.  (Ex 5-A)

            In Mr. Guthrie’s Response to ESPB, with his lawyer Gary Thune’s help,  (Ex 5-A) he said:

“Ms. Schmidt did not report any suspected rape to Mrs. Tiokison, school counselor, Mr. Riedinger, secondary principal, or to me, superintendent of Warwick Public School.  We were not aware that she had reported a rape to any authority until Mrs. Tiokasin received a call inquiring about a call that had been placed to the FBI.  The rape in question happened during the summer before school started in the fall of 2006 which was reported by the mother to Tribal Police and handled by Spirit Lake Tribe Victim’s Assistance.  The mother had called and informed Mr. Riedinger of the incident who informed Mrs. Tiokasin.  (Ex 5-D)   When the student enrolled in school, Mr. Tiokasin met with the student.  (See attachment letter #1 from Shirley Erickson dated May 2, 2007.  Ms. Erickson is the former Mrs. Tiokasin.)  (Ex 5, Tab F)

Guthrie admitted there was a rape involving a student and that he knew about it.  It doesn’t matter where the rape took place or that the police investigated, the law specifically states that administrators have a mandated duty to report all child abuse or even suspected abuse.  (NDCC 50-25.1-03)  The point is that Supt. Guthrie did not report a rape as required by law, and then attempted to cover it up, with the help of his attorney, Gary Thune, who  lined up the facts in such a way that would get my Complaint dismissed, which it did. (Ex 5-A)  Gary Thune wrote a letter and included it with the Responses to ESPB  (Ex 5-A) which most likely is the reason Guthrie’s facts were believed over mine and my Complaint was dismissed.  (Exhibit 46, Notice from ESPB dismissing Complaints)  With all the allegations of institutional child abuse in my Complaint, there is no reason that ESPB didn’t investigate, except that Gary Thune unduly influenced ESPB’s decision, all to protect his license for misadvising Warwick Public School to circumvent child abuse laws. (Ex 5-A) 

 

“Ms. Schmidt has stated that she reported a girl [Jami] had been raped during the school year to Mrs. Tiokasin, Mr. Riedinger, and to me.  Again, she did not report a rape to school officials but called the mother and father to report a rape of their daughter, stating that she had notified us and nothing was being done.  She was calling the daughter at night at home and then during the evening hours on January 2, 2007, the father overheard his daughter yelling and swearing at Ms. Schmidt over the phone to stop calling her.  That next day, January 3 (sic, should be 4th), the father, mother, and an attorney [Ulysses Jones] came to my office at school concerned about Ms. Schmidt’s saying a rape had occurred and her continually calling their daughter.  The daughter was brought into the meeting and she was asked about the alleged rape.  She replied that she never told Ms. Schmidt that she was raped.  (See Attachment #2 –letter dated May 7, 2007)”  (Ex 5, Tab D) 

Supt Guthrie purposely jumbled the rape victim and Jami together.  I never said a girl had been raped during the school year,  and he has absolutely no proof that I did, whereas my detailed Report to School Board Members  (Ex 1)  relays how I had said that     “A 9th grade girl, announced to me in class that she had been raped.”  (Ex 1)  The girl’s mother told Guthrie that her daughter had been raped BEFORE school started.  (Ex 4)  Guthrie’s statement that I had said that a girl had been raped during the school year becomes a very important statement because it proves that Guthrie, the Warwick administrators and their attorney Gary Thune caused Jami Jetty’s suicide.  (Ex 33)   Mr. Guthrie did not report the rape of the student (girl #1) when it became known to him as required by law, (Ex 4)  and he was afraid if it became known, he would lose his license.  The fact that Guthrie set up Jamie Jetty (girl #2) to replace the real rape victim was a criminal act.  The fact that he did this is in the ESPB Responses.  (Ex 5-D)   ESPB withheld these Responses from me for over 2 years.  (Exhibit 71, Letter to Janet Welk, 8-7-07)

 

“The in-school-suspension of the second girl [Jami] also had no connection to a rape not being reported.  The girl [Jami] in question was being harassed by another girl and she [Jami] reported the harassment to the administration.  The complaint was investigated by the sexual harassment investigative team[37] and was deemed to be harassment…..”  (Ex 5, Tab D)

         Warwick school board had set up a sexual harassment team to investigate Principal Riedinger’s sexual forays, hitting on the staff, the previous year, 05-06. (Exhibit  #3, Melissa Erickson emails) It was not intended to function in a role of Social Services’ Child Protection Team, as Guthrie suggests in his Response to ESPB.  This deception was blatantly illegal, and his lawyer Gary Thune was aware of it.  See letter, Ex 5 at Tab A.   It was important for Guthrie and Warwick administrators to get me to believe that Jami had admitted to being raped, so as to cover up the fact that they did not report the rape of another student, whom they expelled.  (Ex #1 and #39)  Administrators questioned Jami about a rape.   Child abuse law provides that only Social Services to ask questions, NDCC 50-25.1-05.1. (Ex #6, James Jetty deposition)  Mr. Jetty was outraged, and said he was going to get an attorney,  which he did, Ulysses Jones. (Id. )  Mr. Jetty gave me his phone number, and J J’s phone number, and asked me to call him if Riedinger or Guthrie did any more questioning of their daughter without his knowledge or permission. (Exhibit 72, James Jetty Phone numbers) 

           Instead of talking about the real rape victim, Guthrie brought Jami forth as the rape victim.    Guthrie admitted that Jami was questioned by “the sexual harassment investigative team” which was Steve Michels, Principal Gene Riedinger, and counselor Shirley Tiokiason who questioned Jami about a rape.  (Ex 1)  Even if they were questioning Jami about a sexual harassment, it was still highly illegal for administrators to question anyone about a sexual issue or rape, pursuant to NDCC 50-25.1-04.1.  Defying child abuse laws can lead to other very serious results, as it did in this case.  Jami believed Guthrie’s lie that I had said she had been raped.  Guthrie went out of his way to insure that everyone knew that I was ‘reporting rapes’.  (Exhibit #2,  Guthrie’s staff memo, sex talks)  The questioning of Jami was the main cause for her suicide 2 years later, November 3, 2008 because it caused Jami, her parents, staff and community to believe that I had said that Jami had been raped.  (Ex 33, audiotape)  Had ESBP done its job back in June of 2007, and investigated the allegations in my Complaint (Ex 39), Jami would be alive today.  (Ex 33) Mr. Guthrie was supposed to be answering my Complaint.  Instead, he stated his facts to get himself and others off the hook for disobeying child abuse and teacher dismissal laws. 

          Gary Thune’s letter to ESPB dated May 21, 2007, hand delivered, reveals that Thune had a talk with Janet Welk regarding my Complaint to ESPB,  (Ex 5-A) which unduly influenced the ESPB Board to drop my Complaint without any investigation.  Interestingly enough, Mr. Thune did not even mention the matter of a rape not reported, or how Jami was set up to replace the rape victim.  Thune did not send me a copy of this letter.  Thune had a real conflict of interest here because he had advised Warwick School on how to circumvent child abuse laws and teacher dismissal laws. (Ex 5-A)   Welk refused to send me copies of the Respondents’ Responses, refused to talk to me, and refused to answer my letters,  (Ex 71) undoubtedly influenced by Gary Thune.  (Ex 5-A)    

“The father and mother informed me that they wanted their daughter taken out of Ms. Schmidt’s class and that Ms. Schmidt was to have no contact with their daughter.  The attorney that accompanied the parents [Ulysses Jones] was also going to represent Ms. Schmidt in her evaluation review later that morning.  After hearing what the parents and their daughter stated in the meeting with them, he [Ulysses Jones] asked to see Ms. Schmidt.  He visited with Ms. Schmidt for a few minutes and asked to visit with me again.  (See Attachment #3)  [which happens to be the 5 Directives]  He [Ulysses Jones] informed me that he had informed Ms. Schmidt that he would not representing her, that it would be a conflict of interest.”  (Ex 5-D)

         

          Why wasn’t I at this meeting with Jones, James Jetty, Cora Tiger, and Jami?  Because the object of the meeting was to deceive Jami and her parents into believing that I had said that Jami had been raped.  I reported the rape of the other girl to Social Services because she had told me in class in Warwick Public School that she had been raped.   Supt. Charles Guthrie and Counselor Shirley Tiokiason lied to me when they told me that Jami had admitted to him that she had been raped.  Jami never said any such thing to me.  So why would I say Jami had been raped?  I had absolutely no reason to do so, whereas Guthrie and his lawyer certainly had reasons to claim I said that.   Lawyer Gary Thune used Job Service and the Education Standards and Practices Board to cement the lie into the record because they both could be prosecuted for circumventing the child abuse laws.

           I never at any time called Cora Tiger, mother of Jami, and Guthrie has absolutely no proof that I did.  (Ex #1)  

“That next day, January 3 (sic, should be 4th), the father, mother, and an attorney [Ulysses Jones] came to my office at school concerned about Ms. Schmidt’s saying a rape had occurred and her continually calling their daughter.  The daughter was brought into the meeting and she was asked about the alleged rape.  She replied that she never told Ms. Schmidt that she was raped.  (See Attachment #2 –letter dated May 7, 2007)”  (Ex 5-D)

          Woila!  Guthrie manipulated Jami to say exactly what he wanted her to say.  Why didn’t Guthrie call me to this meeting?  Because the truth would come out that he was setting Jami up to replace the real rape victim.  Guthrie did not report the rape of a student to authorities when he first learned of it at the beginning of the 06 semester, violating child abuse law duty to report.  (Ex B)  He refused to report the rape a month later, when I informed him that the girl  had told me in class that she had been raped, another legal violation.[38]   Instead, he expelled the rape victim, and set up Jami to replace her, another legal violation.   He now was getting into criminal violations.  Then he unlawfully questioned Jami about being raped so as to tell her that I had said Jami had been raped, which is strictly forbidden by child abuse laws, NDCC 50-25.1-04.1 (see footnote #10).

          “Ms. Schmidt was not reprimanded for reporting rapes.  She was informed that she should let the administration know if she had knowledge of a student rape so that we could also report to the proper authorities.”  (Ex 5-D)

          At no time did Mr. Guthrie tell me I should let the administration know if I had knowledge of a student rape.  This was a blatant lie to ESPB.  Notice how Guthrie used plural rapes to include the lie of Jami being raped.  You have to keep in mind that this statement was made by Guthrie in May of 2007 after he had fired me, and after he had tampered with my Report to School Board Members in January of 07, both of which I had no knowledge of.  However his attorneys knew of the tampered Report, (Ex 8) and also knew that Guthrie had made this Response to ESPB (Ex 5) because Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson submitted Guthrie’s Response and the tampered Report to the court in a motion for summary judgment.  (Schmidt v. Warwick Public School District #29, et al., Doc 198)  In other words, both Guthrie and his attorneys knew the statements in the Response (ex 5) were lies, and what they did was commit fraud upon the court, did deceive the court, and got by with it.  They knew they could have their license revoked if the truth became known.

          Guthrie was purposely blurring the identity of the two girls so as to confuse ESPB.  After all, ESPB has the power to revoke Guthrie’s teaching certificate, and charge him and his clever attorney Thune, with a crime.  You have to remember that his clever attorney, Gary Thune, hand delivered a letter to ESPB in support of Guthrie and his lying statements. (Ex 5-A)   And since he hand delivered it, I’m sure he had a long ex parte discussion with Janet Welk about me.  Also, Gary Thune frequently advises the ESPB board decisions on whether or not to investigate.  (Exhibit 47,  Alyssa Martin deposition)   These ESPB Responses were withheld from me for over 2 years.

          After a confrontation with Ms. Tiokiason as to why Mr. Riedinger and Mr. Michels had questioned J J about a rape,  Mr. Guthrie and Ms. Tiokiason soon appeared in my room, and told me that through the questioning by the Sexual Harassment Team (Ex 5, Tab B) they had discovered that J J had been raped, which violates child abuse law providing only Social Services to ask questions, NDCC 50-25.1-05.1.[39]  This is prima facie evidence that Warwick officials were abusing Jami by making her think I had told them that she had been raped by illegally questioning her about a rape.  In fact, they made it a point of telling Jami and her mother, Cora Tiger, First Asst. to Tribal Chairwoman, Myra Pearson, that I had said that Jami had been raped.   Tiokiason, the school counselor, sits on a tribal Social Services Child Protection team and should have been fully aware that it was illegal for Warwick school official to conduct any questioning about a rape.  When I protested that Jami was being abused, Mr. Guthrie told me it was none of my business, (Ex 1) when as Jami’s teacher, it was my duty to keep Jami safe.  Mr. Guthrie abused Jami by fraudulently turning her into the rape victim, and spreading the false story throughout the school and Indian community, which eventually caused Jami to take her own life.  (Ex 33, Audiotape)   If Social Services had ordered an investigation back in January of 2007 when I submitted my Report to School Board Members (Ex #1) as a 960 report, Jami would be alive today. If ESPB ordered an investigation in June of 2007, Jami might be alive today.  Because ESPB and Social Services had every opportunity to do so, but failed to apply child abuse laws, we need an outside the state federal judge to order a thorough investigation.  North Dakota lawyers and judges have proven themselves totally incapable, unwilling, and incompetent to investigate because they are part of the fraud, and they know that Cora Tiger and James Jetty have a case for wrongful death.  What is the problem here?  Too big to jail or be investigated?

         

          The conditions under which Guthrie confronted Jami with a rape were grossly illegal and immoral.  He called Jami out of class to attend meeting with himself, Ulysses Jones, and her mother and father in his office.  I was not called to this meeting, nor did I even know it was taking place.  Jami came into the middle of the discussions.  Guthrie asked her if she ever told me that she had been raped.  Of course, she answered no, because she didn't.   Guthre led her to believe that I had broken trust with her by telling her and her parents that I had told him that Jami had been raped.  Guthrie immediately inflicted 5 Directives on me, (no contact with Jami or her parents) so that Jami would never discover the truth.  We are dealing with a 12 year old here, and a very guilty mother, Cora Tiger, whose boyfriend possibly raped Jami.  Either way, Guthrie and his cabal, never gave it a second thought that they had destroyed Jami’s life and caused her to commit suicide. Guthrie had no interest in protecting anyone but himself and his cabal.  So he used this as an opportunity to set me up, without caring whether or not Jami was in fact raped.  Guthrie lied about me, saying  I had said Jami had been raped in order to find a basis to punish me.  Jami was collateral damage.    

          In Nov 2006, when Tiokiason told me she, Riedinger, and Michels had questioned Jami about a rape in her office because "that's what I told her," I called Tiokiason stupid, and stormed out of her office.  Two minutes later, Guthre and Tiokiason came to my room and told me Jami had admitted to them that she had been raped.  This much I know happened.  Maybe Jami told them that she had been raped by her mother's boyfriend, Tiger Dubois.  That is the gray area.  I don't know.  Fact:  Jami never told me that she had been raped, but it doesn't mean it never happened.  Fact:  Jami did tell me she had been depressed and was taking medication.  (12 years old)  I asked for how long.  She said 2 years, which would be 2004.  She was telling me that she really liked being in my classes and homeroom where I let the kids play games like tag and duck, duck, goose.  And I asked if she ever played games at home.  That's when she began to cry.  Then she told me what happened at party, drinking, falling asleep, and being stripped naked.  Guthrie;  if he didn't report the first rape, he certainly wasn't going to report that Jami had been raped.  Furthermore, the way he found out was entirely illegal, not to mention that it didn't fit his agenda.  But Guthrie wasn't smart enough to figure all this out on his own;  he had a lot of help from Gary Thune.  I am thinking that Jami's admission was a big bump in the road, on the way to covering up the fact that he hadn't reported a rape.  You can see his dilemma.  Hence, the 5 Directives, that I have no contact with Jami, and that I make no reports of rapes that I can't prove. 

          If Guthrie cabal knew, so did Thune and Tiff, who submitted the tampered Report to School Board Members and Responses ESPB as their ONLY evidence !! and in summary judgment.  Remember, the Report was tampered to say that I said Jami had been raped.  I never said that because Jami never said that to me, although Guthrie and Tiokiason told me that Jami had told them she had been raped.  Maybe she had, I don't know.  If Jami told Mr. Guthrie that she had been raped, then Guthrie had a duty to report.  But then they blamed me.  The big issue should be that the one who did not report should suffer the consequences.  

         

          Guthrie’s statements to ESPB are false, totally unsubstantiated, unsigned, and unsworn.  And most of all, these Responses were deliberately kept from me for 2 and ½ years until I subpoenaed them These false facts were reported to ESPB by Guthrie in response to a Complaint I had filed on April 5, 2007.  (Complaint to ESPB, Exhibit 39)  In my Complaint, I used my Report to School Board Members for the first half of my Complaint to ESPB.  In my Complaint to ESPB, I said that  Warwick administrator Responses to my Complaint were withheld from me by ESPB upon advice of their attorney, assistant attorney general Bill Peterson.  I called Bill Peterson in July of 2007, asking for the Responses.  He pretended like he didn’t know what I was talking about.  When I kept calling, he refused to answer the phone or return my phone calls.  I did not receive these Responses until I subpoenaed the records, June 2009, to which Bill Peterson objected.  Later, on October 16, 2009, lawyers Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune, submitted these hearsay Response statements to the court in a motion for summary judgment.  (Schmidt v. Warwick Public School Dist. #29, Doc 198)

 

 

 

19.    ESPB’s  second chance to get it right

 

          On or around March 4, 2009, before I filed lawsuit, Schmidt v. Warwick Public School Dist. #29, et al., and before I subpoenaed the records, I once again asked for the Responses from my first Complaint, and I filed a second Inquiry with ESPB.  (Exhibit 74,  2nd Inquirey filed with ESPB)   In a letter to Janet Welk, dated March 4, 2009, I said:  (Exhibit 75, 3/4/09  letter to Janet Welk)

 

“… you rely on the Attorney General’s office for advice in Inquiries….. the same Attorney General’s office withheld the Job Service record from me, in which [Gary Thune] stated in hearing that a nonrenewal could substitute for a dismissal hearing, [who] also advised the ESPB Board to dismiss my complaint.”  (Ex 75)

 

This right here should have been reason enough for the Board to review their hasty decision in dismissing my first Complaint.    (Ex 46)  I sent the original Complaint along with new Inquiry to prove that “Guthrie and Warwick School administration were in gross violation of Child Abuse laws and were retaliating against me because I not only reported to Social Services, but to ESPB as well.  The lawyers were in on it, [Gary Thune, Tiffany Johnson, asst. attorney general Bill Peterson] and to cover up their own negligence, they would rather throw the teacher under the bus.”  (Ex 75)

 

“The Board dismissed the Inquiry, without copying me the Responses of Guthrie, Riedinger, and Michels.  [although I had repeatedly asked for them.]  (Ex 71)  I was not told who represented them, or what was said to made the Board drop my Inquiry without an investigation.  As a result of this lack of investigation, one of the victims, a 14 year old [Native American] student, Jami Jetty, killed herself, a rapist is running loose, and I have been fired, charged with misconduct for falsely reporting rapes.”  (Ex 75) 

 

          I heard nothing from Janet Welk, nor did she answer my questions, nor did she take any phone calls.  (Ex 75)  The record shows that I copied this 2nd Inquiry to states attorney James Wang, attorney general Wayne Stenehjem, and senator Byron Dorgan.  (Ex 74)  In a letter dated December 1, 2008, the AG through Liz Brocker said:  (Exhibit 76, 12/1/08  letter from AG)

 

“We cannot take the action you requested because the Attorney General does not have jurisdiction or authority over the Indian Reservations or Native Americans living on the reservation.  We also do not have any authority over the social service agencies.  Even if we had jurisdiction in this matter, however, we are not able to initiate an investigation except at the request of an authorized criminal justice official having jurisdiction.”  (Ex 76)

 

The matters that I spoke of did not originate on the reservation, and the attorney general was in error to say so.  The proof is in the ND Dept. of Human Services’ letter accepting jurisdiction by refusing to investigate my 960 Report of institutional abuse at Warwick Public School.  (Ex 10)  The AG had a duty to investigate, but failed to do so.  The authorized criminal justice official having jurisdiction was and still is, states attorney James Wang, the one who facilitated the destruction of a 960 Report and falsely claimed that county Social Services turned it over to the Spirit Lake Tribe.

  (Ex 76)  In North Dakota, one official covers up for the other, and the whole thing snowballed bigger than Penn State.

 

          I heard from Senator Dorgan, who said:  (Exhibit 77,  1/16/08 letter from Bryon Dorgan)

 

“You’ve repeatedly asked that I investigate a criminal offense and the reasons for you not being allowed to continue your employment with your former employer.  However, I do not have the ability to investigate criminal wrongdoings  nor do I have the authority to negotiate employment contracts.  Instead, when a crime is reported, it is the obligation of the local law enforcement to act on it.  Occasionally, for a variety of reasons, law enforcement may not act on a report of a crime.  When that occurs, it’s wise to contact an attorney who can provide guidance and offer possible options.”

 

          Ver;y sadly, a respected senator deliberately misrepresented the facts soas to wash his hands of the whole matter.  My reason was not my employment, but the wrongful death of a little Indian girl who was my student. As chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Dorgan had to power and authority to order an investigation into the death of Jami Rose Jetty.  I wasn’t talking about employment contracts, but the death of an Indian girl caused by white men. The local law enforcement is Sheriff Royher and states attorney James Wang, who, with their conflict of interest, refused to investigate.  Wang claims that the 960 Report was turned over to Tribal Social Services,  (Ex 80) but there is not one shred of evidence to prove it.  It’s a standard avoidance technique used by officials when they want to avoid the obeying the law and protect their buddies by claiming lack of jurisdiction.  It is very disappointing that Senator Dorgan did the same thing.

 

          This certainly is a case of official misconduct, negligence, and criminal actions taken by educators, agencies, officers of the court, especially the ND lawyers which led to the illegal firing of a teacher wrongfully charged with misconduct, the wrongful expulsion of a rape victim and the untimely death of a child by suicide.  Although I offered the ESPB Board another chance to investigate my Inquiry, the Board turned it down, which means that ESPB is part of the conspiracy, and has a lot to hide, considering they did not turn over the Responses in a timely fashion, which meant I was greatly disadvantaged in fighting my lawsuits.  (Ex 49)

 

 

 

20.    Lawyer Gary Thune used Job Service to create a whole new false set of facts

 

          Supt. Charles Guthrie could not possibly put together the web of lies needed to convince the agencies, Social Services, Education Standard and Practices Board, and Job Service to ignore my Complaint and/or Report of child abuse because he didn’t have the pull or connections.  Only a lawyer like Gary Thune could mastermind such a scheme and fool the courts, including the ND Supreme Court.

         

          It was lawyer Thune’s lucky day when I applied for unemployment in July of 2007.  I had never received any reasons for my firing, and I knew, or at least believed, that I would receive a reason for my termination if I applied for unemployment.  (Ex 59) I was shocked when I received a Job Service Determination stating that “You were discharged for reasons which constitute misconduct.”  (Ex 66,  Nonmonetary Determination)  Everything took place in Bismarck.  The initial claims was taken over the phone instead of the local office. In the space of 15 minutes, a claims taker, B. Kuntz, took my claim.  I was given no opportunity to see what the claims taker had written.  I never saw the claim, nor did I sign it.  All I saw was the Nonmonetary Determination Notice. (Ex 66)   All of the essential facts surrounding my discharge were stated incorrectly in my Claim, which I never saw, nor was I provided a copy of.  I never saw the Claim until I asked the Supreme Court for a copy of the Job Service Record, which the AGs had failed to provide me with.  All the facts supported Supt. Guthrie’s facts and were not my facts at all.  What was not obvious to me is that the Unemployment Claim had been tampered so that I would be charged with misconduct for refusal to follow the Chain of Command.  (Ex 47)  The problem is that all the agencies, such as Job Service, Workman’s Comp., etc., have been out-sourced from the local offices to Bismarck.  Agencies no longer serve the people, but are now political tools for unscrupulous lawyers.   Lawyers know if they really want to break the law and get by with it, to use an agency and administrative law to establish the false facts.

 

          I appealed the Determination.  (Exhibit 67, Appeal Request)   I mistakenly thought that if I corrected all the false facts in Nonmonetary Determination, the judge would rely on it.  But little did it matter, because Gary Thune was pulling all the strings by controlling what was said in the Unemployment Claim, (Ex 88)  which I did not see nor sign, and the deal was done by the time it reached the court.   A hearing was scheduled for August 9th, 2007.  Upon hearing that the school was going to be represented by Gary Thune, the foremost lawyer for school boards in the state, I asked my friend, Barry Bachrach to represent me at the hearing.  I called Job Service to ask if it was permissible for an out-of-state attorney to represent me.  Job Service told me the hearings were informal, and that I could have anyone represent me.  Bachrach agreed to represent me at the hearing only;  I was expected to submit evidence, which I tried to do, but hearing officer Dave Clinton would not permit me to submit evidence.  He refused to subpoena Responses from ESPB and 960 Report to School Board Members from Social Services.  (Exhibit 73, Email to Barry, Social Services and ESPB)

 

MR. CLINTON:  The statements entered by the Claims Representative on your behalf, are they true and accurate as entered?  (Job Service hearing, p. 80, line 2-3)

 

MS. SCHMIDT:  For my dismissal you mean?  No, they are not.  (Id., line 4)

 

          Hearing officer Dave Clinton refused to base his Job Service Decision (Exhibit 68, Unemployment Decision)  on any of my facts, and instead based his decision inaccurate facts written by N. Kuntz, who was taking my claim for Unemployment over the phone, from Bismarck, I believe. (Exhibit 88, Unemployment Claim, separation information) It was close to 5:00 pm on a Friday in July, 2007.  N. Kuntz  jumbled a complex separation issue into a mish-mash.  I was not permitted to write my own separation information.  Instead, I was falsely accused of committing misconduct as a reason for my dismissal within my own unemployment claim, which I was not allowed to see.  This is not true.  No where in the school proceedings has it ever been mentioned that I committed misconduct. (Ex 59)  The entire claim is false.  I never signed it.  I had a right by law to expect that Job Service claims taker would record my statements accurately, including references to the statutes that were violated.    The hearing officer, Dave Clinton, violated NDCC 28-32-21, and applied improper procedure by not allowing me to correct the Claims Taker’s statements on my behalf.  Instead, he based the unemployment decision on those statements.  (Ex 68) 

 

MR. CLINTON:…The hearing is the result of a timely appeal filed by the claimant from a Determination dated July 17, 2007, that Determination held that Ms. Schmidt was discharged for failing to comply with instructions or directions from her employer and according to the information in the record, the Deputy determined that she was discharged for reasons that constitute misconduct and as a result she was disqualified from receiving Unemployment Insurance benefits.  That is the issue that we will address in the hearing, why is Janis Schmidt no longer employed by Warwick Public School District.  If she were discharged, the employer would have to show that she committed acts of misconduct in connection with the work or she voluntarily quit, she would have to demonstrate good cause attributable to the employer for leaving.  (Transcript, p. 56, line 10-19)

 

 

28-32-21. Adjudicative proceedings - Procedures. Administrative agencies shall comply with the following procedures in all adjudicative proceedings:

1. a. For adjudicative proceedings involving a hearing on a complaint against a specific-named respondent, a complainant shall prepare and file a clear and concise complaint with the agency having subject matter jurisdiction of the proceeding. The complaint shall contain a concise statement of the claims or charges upon which the complainant relies, including reference to the statute or rule alleged to be violated, and the relief sought.

 

          In other words, the hearing officer relied on the statements made by N. Kurtz who took my claim for unemployment.   I was not provided a copy of my Claim containing all the false facts.  So how could I rebut secret accusations?

 

          On August 9th, Mr. Clinton explained the procedure of the hearing and swore in me, the Claimant, and Supt. Charles Guthrie, witness for Warwick Public School.    

(beginning of hearing)

MR. CLINTON:  Please note that I am recording this conversation, and that I will record the hearing and that the taped hearing will serve as a basis of the record in case there is an appeal of my decision.  Once again, my name is David Clinton;  I’m an Appeal’s Referee with Job Service North Dakota.  Today’s date is the 9th of August, 2007, the time I have is approximately 1:30 pm Central…Ms. Schmidt is speaking on the phone and will be offering direct testimony and is being represented by Barry Bachrach.  The employer, Warwick Public School District, is being represented by Gary Thune…Alyssa Martin is present and observing the proceedings this afternoon.  (Job Service hearing, p. 56, line 1-10)

 

MR. CLINTON:  (continuing)  The hearing is the result of a timely appeal filed by the claimant from a Determination dated July 17, 2007.  That Determination held that Ms. Schmidt was discharged for failing to comply with instructions or directions from her employer and according to the information in the record, the Deputy determined that she was discharged for reasons that constitute misconduct, and as a result, she was disqualified from receiving Unemployment Insurance benefits.  That is the issue that we will address in the hearing;  why is Janis Schmidt no longer employed by Warwick Public School District.  If she were discharged, the employer would have to show that she committed acts of misconduct in connection with the work or she voluntarily quit, she would have to demonstrate good cause attributable to the employer for leaving.  (Id.,  p. 56,  line 10-20)

 

MR. CLINTON:  Now, generally at this time I would enter the documents into the record, but I know Mr. Thune had a preliminary matter;  you may raise that now, sir.  (Id., p. 58, line 12-13)

 

          The Determination is not the same thing as the unemployment claim, which I never saw.  Yet Mr. Clinton based the hearing on statements in the unemployment Claim that constitute misconduct, statements that I never made. 

 

22.    Hearing officer Dave Clinton aided and abetted lawyer Gary Thune to use Job Service to unlawfully create a false Record

 

 

          Guthrie would then later claim in a Job Service hearing, August 2007, that I was making false statements that girls were being raped in school and that it wasn’t his responsibility to report a rape that happened on the reservation. 

 

MR. GUTHRIE:  Ms. Schmidt had talked about a student or students being raped at the school and claiming that nothing had been done and in fact the rape that she was talking about happened during the summer time and that was followed up on… (Job Service transcript)

 

             Later, when I filed for unemployment after being fired, I was charged with misconduct because of Guthrie’s lies.  When cross-examined in a Job Service hearing before an in-house hearing officer, Dave Clinton, Mr. Guthrie had fuzzy recollections about the real rape victim, the student whom he admits was raped in the summer of 06, but he remembers emphatically and incorrectly that I told him that Jami had been raped when it was Guthrie who told me that Jami had been raped.  Guthrie and the administrators set up a newly enrolled girl, Jami, to replace the rape victim.   Jami, a new student, 12 years old, was enrolled in both 7th grade reading and English classes sometime in early November, 06.  Jamie wanted to talk about Wounded Knee of 73, AIM,  and Leonard Peltier, whom she was related to.  Jami wanted to be a part of the Indian civil rights movement, and asked me questions about Leonard Peltier.   (Ex A)

MR. BACHRACH:  So, it’s your testimony, Mr. Guthrie, that Ms. Schmidt never reported to you that (the rape victim) had indicated in her class that she had been raped.  (Transcript, p. 108, line 21-22)

MR. GUTHRIE:  No, I don’t remember her doing that.  (Id., line 23)

MR. BACHRACH:  And, Mr. Reidinger never indicated to you that it had been reported to him by Ms. Schmidt?  (p. 109, line 1-2)

 MR. GUTHRIE:  No, I don’t recall that.  Later she claims that she had told the Counselor that which the Counselor (inaudible)  (Id., p. 109, line 3-4)

MR. BACHRACH:  There’s another issue that, there’s two issues right here, there’s (the rape victim) and there’s Jami Jetty, correct?  (Id., line 5-6)

MR. GUTHRIE:  Correct.  (line 7)

MR. BACHRACH:  Now, it’s true that Jami Jetty, Ms. Schmidt never told you or Mr. Reidinger anything about Jami Jetty, correct?  (line 8-9)

MR. GUTHRIE:  Well, no, she did tell me about Jami Jetty.  (line 10)

MR. BACHRACH:  Oh, she did, when?  (line 11)

MR. GUTHRIE:  I don’t recall exactly when.  (line 12)

MR. BACHRACH:  So, a Counselor told you about the rape situation?

MR. GUTHRIE:  A Counselor?  (line 14)

MR. BACHRACH:  Yes.

MR. GUTHRIE:  No, I did not say that.  (line 16)

MR. BACHRACH:  Who told you about, you said the FBI….  (line 17)

MR. GUTHRIE:  The FBI called the Counselor, yes.  (line 18)

MR. BACHRACH:  Okay, now, (the rape victim) was suspended from school by Mr. Riedinger, correct?  (line 19-20)

MR. GUTHRIE:  Yes, she was.  (line 21)

MR. BACHRACH:  And that was, you know, about the middle of October of 06?  (line 22)

MR. GUTHRIE:  Um, I don’t recall.  (line 23)

MR. BACHRACH:  Now, Jami Jetty entered the school when?  (p. 110, line 1)

MR. GUTHRIE:  I don’t know exact dates she came in, I would assume it was the beginning of school, when school started.  (line 2-3)

MR. BACHRACH:  Well, wasn’t it true that she [Jami Jetty] didn’t come into the school until about November of 06?  (Id., p. 110, line 4-5) 

MR. GUTHRIE:  I don’t know.  (line 6)

MR. BACHRACH:  And isn’t it true, who made the first complaint to you that Ms. Schmidt was discussing AIM or Leonard Peltier in her class?  (Id., line 7-8)

MR. GUTHRIE:  I, it was different students, I don’t recall their names.  (Id., p. 110, line 9)

MR. BACHRACH:  You can’t recall any of their names?  (line 10)

MR. GUTHRIE:  No.  (line 11)

MR. BACHRACH  Can you recall when they made this complaint to you?

MR. GUTHRIE:  Yep, was not just once or twice, it was different times and I had talked to Ms. Schmidt about that, you know.  (line 13-14)

MR. BACHRACH:  Well, when was the first time?  (line 15)

MR. GUTHRIE:  When was the first time, what?  (line 16)

MR. BACHRACH:  That a student came to you and complained.  (line 17)

MR. GUTHRIE:   I said I did not recall.  (line 18)

MR. BACHRACH:  Well, can you recall generally?  (line 19)

MR. GUTHRIE:  No, I cannot.  (line 20)

MR. BACHRACH:  Did you make a note of it?  (line 21)

MR. GUTHRIE:  I don’t know.  (line 22)

MR. BACHRACH:  Did you make any note to Ms. Schmidt and say you can’t, the first time you heard this that you can’t talk about anymore about Mr. Peltier?  (p. 111, line 1-2)

MR. GUTHRIE:  I did talk to her about how she was talking about the culture and she had submitted a letter that, she had a letter that she was using or was going to use in the classroom and at that time she did show it to me and I told her that she shouldn’t be using that.  (p. 111, line 3-6) 

This was entirely incorrect.  I showed Mr. Guthrie a story I had written about Sitting Bull that I proposed to use in my English class, at Mr. Guthrie’s suggestion.  The story can be found on my website, www.lakotaperspectives.com.

MR. BACHRACH:  What was the letter?  What did the letter consist of?  (line 7)

MR. GUTHRIE:  Well, it consisted of, you know, the atrocities against the, against the Native Americans and you know I  never, all of our teachers, because we are in a Native American school are expected to blend Native American Culture into their everyday studies as much as they can, but they are not to exclusively teach what happed with Native Americans and make that their own curriculum.  (line 8-12)

MR. BACHRACH:  With respect to Jami Jetty, isn’t it a fact that Jami  Jetty is the first person who brought up AIM and Mr. Peltier in Ms. Schmidt’s classroom?  (Id., p. 111, line 18-20)

MR. GUTHRIE:  I don’t know, I don’t recall.  (line 21)

MR. BACHRACH:  Do you ever remember her complaining to you about Ms. Schmidt talking about AIM or Mr. Peltier?  (line 22-23)

MR. GUTHRIE:  No, Jami complained about Ms. Schmidt calling her at home.  (p. 112, line 1)

MR. CLINTON:  Please, Mr. Guthrie, address only the scope of the question that is asked.  Please continue Mr. Bachrach.  (p. 112, line 2-3)

MR. GUTHRIE:  I do have one question that I’d like to get clarified.  Ms. Schmidt was recommended for nonrenewal on the 3 reasons and I’m not hearing any of these questions to those 3 reasons…………..  (line 4-6)

MR. BACHRACH:  Mr. Guthrie!  Mr. Guthrie, please let me conduct my cross examine the way, you’ll see how it all ties in.  (line 7-8)

MR. GUTHRIE:  I would like an answer to that question.  (line 9)

MR. BACHRACH:  Mr. Guthrie, I’m asking the questions, you give the answers, or Mr. Referee, through you, could you indicate that to Mr. Guthrie?  (line 10-11)

MR. CLINTON:  Mr. Bachrach, I thought you had stated  your  point.  I had stated the point before.  (line 12-13)

MR. BACHRACH:  Okay, I just didn’t want to make a confrontation.  (line 14)

MR. CLINTON:  Once again, and for a timeline Mr. Guthrie, what I’d like to do is find those events and I know you couldn’t recall some of them, but see if they occurred between the January 5, which I will kind of consider, kind of the first fire here because that’s when you sit down.  She gets half day to discuss those thing.  She’s give a Directive.  I then want to move on from that, you know, so, in terms of what happens after that Directive and then up to the Notice of Nonrenewal.  If we’re gonna tie these things together.  Understand?  Mr. Bachrach, please proceed.  (p. 112, line 15-21)

Hearing officer Dave Clinton did not advise Guthrie to answer the questions put to him.  Instead, he advised Guthrie that he is only looking at the time period between January 5 and March 20th, and that he would make his decision based on whether I followed the 5 Directives.  This is what is called coaching the witness, by a judge, no less.  In arbitrarily and capriciously choosing to consider only the time period between January 5 and March 20, 2007, hearing officer eliminated the fact that I was fired because I had discovered that Guthrie had not reported a rape.

MR. BACHRACH:  Okay, thank you.  Now isn’t it true with respect to Jami Jetty that Ms. Schmidt reported in or about November of 07 to Ms. Tiokiason the Counselor that Jami Jetty had some issues and that could she speak to Ms. Jetty?  (p. 113, line 1-3)

MR. THUNE:  Your honor, I’m gonna object.  I think you’ve made it pretty clear that the time frame that you’re looking at, cuz this  starts in January, we’re still back in November and we’ve been at this line of questioning for some time.  (line 4-6)

          Why was a time frame imposed by the ALJ if he wasn’t working hand in glove with Gary Thune to prevent me from establishing my facts that Jami Jetty had been set up by Guthrie to replace the real expelled rape victim?  Thune has a real conflict of interest in objecting because he advised Guthrie on how to circumvent the child abuse laws, which was what he is doing in this hearing to create his own false set of facts.

MR. BACHRACH:  This is the reason that she got fired the first time.  (p. 113, line 7)

MR. GUTHRIE:  She’s never been fired and she wasn’t fired the first time.  (line 8)

MR. BACHRACH:  Mr. Thune, he already said she was fired on January 4.  When you tell someone to go to their classroom and clear out, that’s a firing and an illegal one at that.  (line 9-11)

MR. CLINTON:  Mr. Bachrach, I’m not even going there.  That’s the point of the issue I’m gonna take it off the table because she knows and I know, I understand from her writings that she could  not have been fired with that regard.  Even if you’re told to go home when you have a contractual right…not to be nonrenewed, that’s not gonna constitute a firing or and if it is then it is reemployed and I’m still looking at the same thing that I was looking at before and that is conduct after those Directives were issued up to the time of the Notice of Termination.  I think  Mr. Thune is correct.  I allowed some leeway here;  I think that was sufficient, so let’s go back and lets turn to those, particularly to the issue of the claimant’s compliance with the Directives that were given to her on 1-5-07.  Thank you, sir.  (p. 113, line 12-21)

Clearly, hearing officer Dave Clinton is protecting his buddy, Gary Thune, by using his power as judge to prevent Mr. Bachrach from establishing that I had been fired for reporting Guthrie to the school board for failing to report a rape, and setting up Jami Jetty as the rape victim.  Clinton told Mr. Bachrach he could only ask questions regarding whether or not I complied with the (illegal) 5 Directives.  This demonstrates how biased and unfair the judge was, plus he denied me due process.

MR. BACHRACH:  Okay, certainly, but one of the issues here is and I’ll move on to another topic.  I think I’ve made my point there, although, …………………  (line 22-23)

MR. CLINTON:  I think I allowed you to go down that road far enough.  (p. 114, line 1)

MR. BACHRACH:  Okay,  Mr., are you aware Mr. Guthrie that Mr. Riedinger in or about late October of 06 took Ms. Schmidt’s entire class of 7th graders out of class and held them to discuss a claim that someone from her class stole a Walkie Talkie?  (line 2-4)

MR. THUNE:  And, I’m gonna object again.  We just moved the wrong direction.  Instead of moving ……………..  (line 5-6)

MR. CLINTON:  I, I, I understand that, Mr. Thune.  Let’s go back, Mr. Bachrach.  Once again, let’s look at conduct after January 5 of 07.  (line 7-8)  (Schmidt v. Job Service North Dakota, transcript,  record in Benson County Courthouse.)

Thune with the help of the judge successfully reframed the issues to eliminate the issue of unreported child abuse to the 5 Directives, which was to deny me due process.

          Not only did Supt. Guthrie expel the real rape victim, the rape which he did not report, but he set up a 12 year old, Jami Jetty and her parents, to make them believe that I had said that Jami had been raped.  I contend that Jami’s death was caused by the Warwick administrators who had refused to report a rape when it became known to them, and their attorneys and minions, along with Social Services who refused to investigate, and Job Service, who, with the help of Gary Thune, obfuscated the facts and tampered with evidence.   My Complaint based upon my Report to School Board Members was that I had been fired before the end of term without notice or hearing after I had reported to Social Services, Standards and Practices Board, and Sheriff Royher and states attorney Wang that Warwick School administrators were abusing Native American students by refusing to report a rape when it became known to them, expelling the rape victim, and setting up Jami Jetty to make it seem like she was the rape victim.  I should have never lost my lawsuits because the law and the facts were on my side;[40]  I lost because law enforcement refused to investigate crimes and clever lawyers, Gary Thune and states attorney Wang, tampered with evidence and witnesses to get my lawsuit dismissed, and most of all, lawyers deliberately and criminally withheld information from me. Child Abuse laws were not upheld by Warwick School administrators, lawyers, agencies and law enforcement, including ND Attorney General.   Who enforces the law that prohibits the employer from retaliating against the teacher for reporting child abuse?

 

          A.      Pro Hoc Vice

 

          Clinton and Thune use pro hoc vice as a ploy to tamper with evidence.  Guthrie sent his evidence to Job Service, per rules of hearing.  Thune sent a second set of facts to HO Clinton.  So Thune had to create a diversion with the pro hoc vice in order to get the hearing rescheduled.   My facts are that the Directives were given AFTER I had been fired.  It is very important to both Guthrie and Thune that Clinton base he Decision on the facts between January 5th and March 27th, so as to hide the fact that Guthrie had not reported a rape, expelled the rape victim, and set up another girl, J J, to replace the real rape victim, then question J J about a rape without her father’s knowledge or permission, all in violation of child abuse laws.  It wasn’t the unemployment benefits that concerned Guthrie or Thune;  it was the fact that both of them could lose their license if the truth became known. 

           

 

MR. THUNE:  We’ve done some checking and we many have missed something but I don’t believe that Mr. Bachrach is licensed to practice under North Dakota law and under our Rule of 5.5 and the Admission to Practice Rule 3, he would need to be admitted to practice in North Dakota before he can participate in an administrative agency hearing such as this one and I thought my role to as least point out that concern rather than having a violation of our professional conduct in North Dakota… I think that need to be addressed and we probably need to continue this matter until he has been admitted.  (Transcript, p. 58, line 14-21)

 

MR. BACHRACH: ….I’m not admitted to the State Bar…We had checked into it with Unemployment who indicated that in this hearing I, you didn’t need to be admitted, that anyone could represent, not necessarily be an attorney…(Id., p. 59, 1-4)

 

MR. THUNE:  I have no interest in processing a complaint for professional misconduct either.  That’s just why I brought it up….. (Id., p. 59, line 5-6)

 

          This is a very deceitful statement by Mr. Thune.  There is something more valuable at stake here for Mr. Thune and Mr. Guthrie than my unemployment benefits.  It becomes obvious from the facts, my true facts that:  (1)  Guthrie and school administrators did not follow proper child abuse procedure when they:  a)  failed to report the rape of a student when it became known to them;  b) expelled the rape victim, who was on an IEP;  c)  questioned J J about a rape without her father’s knowledge or permission;  d)  told J J and her parents that I had said that J J had been raped;  e)  removed J J from my classes;  (2)  Guthrie and administrators retaliated against me by:  a)  fired me without notice or hearing;  b)  unlawfully gave me 5 Directives, which had nothing to do with my teaching, discipline, or curriculum, but instead prevented me from having contact with Jami and her parents;   c)  gave me unwarranted low teacher evaluations;  d) nonrenewed me; and e) fired me without warning, notice, or hearing before the end of my contract.  It must be remembered that Thune was legal counsel for Warwick School during the 06-07 school year.  Both Guthrie’s and Thune’s license were on the line if the truth ever came out, which is why they manipulated the hearing to include only the nonrenewal.  (Thune’s letter to ESPB, Ex #5-A) 

 

          MR. CLINTON:  Let me, because I heard the issue and I heard the response.  Now, under our Administrative Rules, we talk about hearing on Appeal.  When a party is present, the referee shall examine the party and at any hearing, the referee without notice, may take additional evidence.  The parties and their representatives may examine or cross examine witnesses, inspect documents, and explain any evidence.  What I must note that is actually fairly rare in an Unemployment Compensation hearing for a party to be represented by Counsel.  It is not, however, rare that that person would generally have to have a representative.  We allow a person to select their own representative and we allow that representative to ask questions and to cross examine all witnesses.  In that light, I don’t believe it is the unauthorized practice of law because if so, we’ve got a lot of people that are violating that particular provision because we have a lot of lay people who are not licensed to practice law who do serve a representatives.  (Id., p. 59, line 8-19)

MR. THUNE:  Mr. Clinton, …Rule 3 of the Adminissions to Practice Rule makes it clear that it’s only if somebody is licensed as an attorney in another state…, but is not licensed in North Dakota that they must be admitted…pro hac vice, but that’s a distinction we’ve never objected when a non lawyer represents a party.  That is not the unauthorized practice of law under this Rule, but if you’re licensed in another state, under our rule, it is a…..(Id., p. 59-60, line 20-23, 1-2)

MR. CLINTON:  Mr. Bachrach, I certainly did not want to mislead you, but I will tell you that we have a lot of times Interstate appeals and a lot of times we have attorneys from other states… (Id., p. 61, line 1-3)  We haven’t generally required them to be licensed, nonetheless, I’m gonn defer.  I don’t want to get you in trouble Mr. Bachrach.  (Id., line 7-8)

MR. BACHRACH:  No, and it may be a non issue, but now that it’s raised, I think if we put this off a week…(line 9-10)

 

 

 

23.  Lawyer Gary Thune used Job Service to tamper evidence, aided by Hearing Officer Dave Clinton

 

MR. CLINTON:  But, I am wondering, Mr. Thune, if at least could we, because we’ve already sworn people in, I would like to at least get the documents into the record, would that be possible even if Mr. Bachrach is not licensed?  (Id., line 13-15)

 

          Why should Mr. Clinton want to get documents into the Record before Mr. Bachrach has appeared pro hoc vice?  It only goes to prove that the pro hac vice was just a ruse so that hearing judge Clinton could illegally enter evidence.  If there is some question about the legality of Mr. Bachrach’s license to practice in North Dakota, is it then legal to enter evidence?  Bear in mind, the only evidence in my favor before the administrative law judge was the Claims taker’s statement, which was totally incorrect, whereas, Mr. Guthrie, with the help of Mr. Thune, had submitted 36 pages of evidence. 

 

MR. THUNE:  I guess I would………………… (Line 16)

MR. CLINTON:  Or is it only the cross examination that would be difficult?  (line 17)

 

Why would Clinton say something like that?  Is he the judge or not?   Why is he deferring to Thune?  Other than that they had a prearranged deal.

 

MR. THUNE:  I think actually it’s appearing and being designated as Counsel in an action.  Administrative agency and the rule, there’s five things that the Attorney has to address in a motion and then there are five things that an affidavit accompanying that request has to address…but let me put it this way, if it were me, I would not do anything more than what has been done right now without getting admitted first, but that’s because like Mr. Bachrach, I’d be very concerned about not jeopardizing that and so…(Id., p. 61-62- line 19-23, l-2)

 

          Without waiting, Mr. Clinton went ahead and entered the evidence, except he did not enter my evidence.

 

MR. CLINTON:  ….did you receive, because Mr. Bachrach submitted a series of three faxes to me?  Id., p. 62, line 10-11)

MR. THUNE:…I received them yesterday, but I ….(line 14)

MR. CLINTON:  That’s when I got them.  (line 16)  Okay, and in that light, to be fair as well, Mr. Bachrach, I received these, but I have not reviewed this with as much time as I would have liked as well, and I’m sure Mr. Thune would probably concur considering (a) the large number, and (b) the complexity of this particular case.  I also don’t fault you, I’m just saying that this might be an additional reason to warrant continuing the hearing.  (Id., p. 62, line 18-22)

 

          This is the height of hypocrisy;  Mr. Clinton refused to allow me to enter the evidence, refused to subpoena records for me two weeks before the hearing, as elucidated in argument no. I.  At the same time, speaking out of both sides of his mouth, Mr. Clinton wanted to enter evidence and postpone the hearing.  As the hearing unfolded, it becomes obvious that lawyer Gary Thune made a deal with hearing officer, Dave Clinton, to enter evidence, a letter for Mr. Guthrie to read when asked about Exhibit A and assign misconduct to my termination so as to provide a reason for firing me, by tampering with the evidence.  Such behavior by a judge was designed to ignore child abuse laws, which makes Mr. Clinton culpable[41] to a crime of failure to report a rape.

 

MR. CLINTON:  Mr. Bachrach, let me ask you a question…(p. 63, line 5)…Now, the North Dakota School Boards Association did send in some additional information as well.  They, I asked them or requested that they serve you as well because generally I wouldn’t forward it at that late date.  If I had it earlier, I, the process is generally we will dissemble it, but when I’ve got two people and they should be aware that they need to serve the other parties, so I did that, so to follow up on that, did you receive a copy of those additional documents sent to you by the North Dakota School Boards Association?  (Id., p. 53, line 8-14)

    

MR. BACHRACH:  I don’t recall seeing that.  (Id., p. 64, line 1)

MR. CLINTON:  What did he sent you?  (Id., line 2)

MR. BACHRACH:   Here……(line 3)

MR. THUNE:  Oh, Mr. Bachrach, what I recall, I sent you Exhibits A, B, C, and D…(Id., line 4)

 

          Mr. Bachrach did not see those additional documents, and I was not copied those additional documents.  Only Guthrie and Clinton received the additional documents.  Those additional documents referred to by Clinton was a letter of instructions by Thune to Guthrie of what he is supposed to say when asked about the 5 Directives.  Clinton and Thune were afraid that Barry might have received a copy, which only Guthrie was supposed to see.  There was no way to really know, so therefore they had to find a reason to postpone the hearing to find out what was submitted as evidence, and to especially make sure that Guthrie didn’t screw up, as he was so wont to do.  The record shows that Thune and Guthrie’s evidence are both Exhibits A, B, C, etc. and Exhibit 1,2,3, etc.  Why should the exhibits be lettered and numbered?  Because there were 2 sets.

 

MR. CLINTON:  Okay, so you do that?  (Id., p. 64, line 7)

MR. BACHRACH:  Yes.  (Id.,  line 8)

MR. CLINTON:  Okay, that’s another little dot I wanted to…another little “I  I wanted to dot I should say… (Id., line 9-10)

MR. THUNE:  …for clarification, I might just point out that when I sent those documents, NDSBA is the North Dakota School Boards Association.  They also are responsible for the North Dakota Unemployment Compensation Group Account, and I am their lawyer in these unemployment cases, but when I sent it to Mr. Bachrach, I sent it on our letterhead with a fax from our letter head.  Anyway, so, he wouldn’t have had any way of knowing it was from the NDSBA, but those are the……((d., p. 64, line 11-16)

MR. CLINTON:  Mine does say that.  (line 17)

 

          Hearing officer Clinton and lawyer Gary Thune were clearly manipulating and tampering with the evidence, which is unlawful.  Clinton clearly was an accomplice in circumventing the child abuse laws.[42]

 

22.  Job Service through hearing officer Dave Clinton and lawyer Gary Thune fraudulently manufactured misconduct as the reason I was no longer employed by Warwick Public School 

 

          The record will show that Thune had sent a letter to Guthrie to read when asked what occurred that led to a brief Administrative Leave for Janis Schmidt,  The reason hearing officer wanted to know if Guthrie had screwed up and sent this letter to Barry, because this letter was written by Thune to Guthrie for him to read when asked the question, what occurred that led to Administrative Leave.  Two weeks later, in hearing.

 

MR. THUNE:  We had provided some exhibits.  They had been admitted into evidence and I believe they are labeled Ex #4, but in front of you, I think we sent you copies of it and in Exhibit 4 I’d like you to turn to Exhibit A.  Do you have that in front of you?  (Job Service Transcript, p. 87, line 15-18)

MR. GUTHRIE:  Yes.  (line 19)

MR. THUNE:  You wrote that letter, is that correct?  (line 20)

MR. GUTHRIE:  Correct.  (line 21)

 

Exhibit 4 is the letter Mr. Guthrie gave me when he gave the 5 Directives.  (Ex 26)  Exhibit A is the letter Mr. Thune sent to Guthrie which he wants Guthrie to read, the letter I have not seen.  Why else do we have Exhibit #4 and Exhibit #A?

 

MR. THUNE:  On the first page of the letter itself, would you describe what occurred that led to a brief Administrative Leave for Janis Schmidt?  (Job Service hearing transcript, p. 87, line 22-23)

MR. GUTHRIE:   Ms. Schmidt had talked about a student or students being raped at the school and claiming that nothing had been done and in fact the rape that she was talking about happened during the summer time and that was followed up on and she was—and the kids were dropping out of her class because she was not just talking Native American culture, but the issues that she was talking about such as Leonard Peltier, Wounded Knee, AIM, and she was even talking to the students about her personal law suits in South Dakota against that tribe and there was a teacher who had a son here who is non Native that was even beginning to feel safety reasons, concerns, and also, we do have a chain of command policy that’s approved by the board which she was not following and she was making allegations that she just, she just could not prove.  (Id., p. 88, line 1-10)

 

          Mr. Guthrie is reading from a letter that lawyer Thune provided him to read from, Exhibit A.    Because this was a phone hearing, there was no way for me to inspect the letter that Mr. Guthrie was reading from.  This was improper introduction of evidence.[43]  Right here is where the false facts originated from with absolutely no proof or evidence to support these false accusations, a total violation, both state and federal, of my constitutional right to due process.

 

          My facts were that a student,  made the statement in class in a state run school that she had been raped, which Guthrie knew to be true, but he chose to lie about it.   If a student’s mother calls the school saying her child was raped, then, under the law, the administrator has to report it.  They also know it isn’t their job to check with the police to see what is being done;  their job is to report within 48 hours.  Their job is not to question students, or anyone else.  It is a criminal act for the administration to have told the parents of J J that I told them that J J had been raped, something I had not done, when the facts are that Guthrie, Riedinger, Tiokiason, and Michels perpetrated the story that Jami had been raped.  Lawyer Gary Thune tampered with evidence and witness through the agency of Job Service.  Lawyer Thune had arranged with the Job Service Hearing Officer Dave Clinton to admit a statement written by Thune for Guthrie to read in hearing. 

 

 

(continued from above, Job Service transcript, Schmidt v. Job Service North Dakota)

MR. THUNE:  Followed that occurring during regular class time?  (Id., p. 88,  line 11)

MR. GUTHRIE:  During regular class time, yes.  (Id., line 12)

 

          Lawyer Gary Thune and superintendent Charles Guthrie misused the Job Service hearing to create false and misleading record of facts which they later used as evidence to dismiss my lawsuit, Schmidt v. Warwick Public School Dist. #29, et al.,  in summary judgment.  (Doc 198)  Thune and Guthrie changed the fact that a student,  had reported in class to me that she had been raped, to, Ms. Schmidt had talked about a student or students being raped at the school.”  (see above)  This is criminal witness and evidence tampering, NDCC 12.1- 09-01,[44] which is also criminal attempt,  NDCC 12.1-06-01,[45]  criminal facilitation, NDCC 12.1-06-02,[46] criminal solicitation NDCC 12.1-06-03,[47] and criminal conspiracy, NDCC 12.1-06-04.[48]  This is how child abuse laws were circumvented.  Not only did Thune and Guthrie misuse the agency Job Service to create a false set of “facts”, they also misused the legal system by presenting these false facts to the court, to deceive the court, and did deceive the court, which is fraud upon the court.[49]  So Thune and Guthrie successfully denied that any rape was ever reported to the Warwick School officials, and that I had made the whole thing up, so as to avoid detection that Guthrie had failed to report a rape (student MH) when it became known to him.  (Ex A)  Failing to report a rape is a misdemeanor;  refusing to report a rape by denial by saying the teacher made it up is a criminal offense with serious consequences.  In this case, Jami’s death by suicide, because students kept bullying Jami about “being raped at Warwick School,” which is clearly stated in the ESPB Responses (Ex 5) and in the pleadings submitted by lawyers Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson.  

 

          In his own words, Mr. Guthrie was reading from a letter, but it was NOT the letter he submitted in evidence to me, nor had I ever been delivered any such letter, nor had Mr. Guthrie ever spoke these words to me on or before January 4, 2007, the day I was fired.  Guthrie and Thune presented absolutely no evidence to prove that this was the letter written on January 8, 2007.  Compare with the letter I received on January 8, 2007.  (Ex 26)  The letter Guthrie was reading from was written  sometime after I was fired April 11, 2007, and before the August, 2007, Job Service hearing.  This letter was NOT entered into the Job Service Record, nor did I ever receive a copy of this letter, in violation of NDCC 28-32-26.[50]  The evidence (Ex 26) was available to hearing officer Dave Clinton.  There is absolute no reason that the judge should have accepted this perjured letter into his decision, but he did, and he based his facts and decision on this perjured letter.  Dave Clinton was instrumental in unlawfully entering this perjured letter as evidence in my Job Service Hearing.

 

         

24.  Job Service through hearing officer Dave Clinton and lawyer Gary Thune fraudulently manufactured misconduct as the reason I was no longer employed by Warwick Public School 

          I stated under oath in the Job Service hearing, that a student told me In class that she had been raped, and that I had told Guthrie.  Lawyer Gary Thune would not permit my facts into testimony, and hearing officer Dave Clinton sided with Thune in violation of administrative law, NDCC 28-32-24.[51]

 

MR. BACHRACH:  …There was a situation in your class where a M H indicated that she had been raped?  (Transcript, p. 146, line 5-6)

MS. SCHMIDT:     Yes.  (Id., line 7)

MR. BACHRACH:  What did you do after that class ended, what did you do?  (Id., line 8)

MS. SCHMIDT:  As soon as I had free time I went to report this to Mr. Reidinger, who was not in his office;  he was in Mr. Guthrie’s office, so I went and I reported this to both of them.  (Id., line 9-11)

MR. BACHRACH:  Did they tell you that you had done the right thing?  (line 12)

MS. SCHMIDT:  Yes and Mr. Guthrie said that he would [take care of it for me, meaning I thought, he would report the rape to proper authorities.]  (line 13) 

MR. BACHRACH:  Now, so, just to make one quick point here, contrary to what Mr. Guthrie said, you did in fact tell him about (a student’s) complaint that she had been raped.  (p, 146, line 14-15)

MR. THUNE:  Object to that...........(line 16)

MR. BACHRACH:  Okay, that's okay, I'll withdraw the question.  The record states for itself here, you're right, Mr. Thune, sorry.  (line 17-18)

 

          The question is, why should Mr. Thune object to the fact that I told Mr. Guthrie that a student had told me in class that she had been raped?  Because Mr. Guthrie and administrators had not reported a rape, and Mr. Thune, as the school’s attorney, had concealed this information from the school board.  Their whole card house of lies depended upon whether I had told Mr. Guthrie about a specific student,  saying in school that she had been raped.  Not reporting a rape is a criminal act.  Retaliating against the reporter is a crime.  The damage done to students as a result of not reporting is immeasurable.  Attorney Thune was subverting the truth, and using Job Service to create his own version of false facts. (Ex #1)  Very important to Thune and Guthrie not to let me state that , contrary to what Mr. Guthrie said, I did in fact tell him about the student’s complaint that she had been raped, that it happened in the summer on the reservation, just before school started, corroborated by the mother’s Affidavit.  (Ex 4)  Thune was building an argument that I didn’t follow the Chain of Command by not telling Guthrie what the student had told me class, and Job Service hearing officer Dave Clinton colluded with Thune by entering the perjured letter as evidence, a second letter which neither me nor my attorney saw, and therefore had no opportunity to inspect.

 

          Mr. Guthrie would then later claim that I was making false statements that girls were being raped in school and that it wasn’t his responsibility to report a rape that happened on the reservation, based on the letter which his lawyer Thune wrote for him:

 

MR. GUTHRIE:  Ms. Schmidt had talked about a student or students being raped at the school and claiming that nothing had been done and in fact the rape that she was talking about happened during the summer time and that was followed up on… (Job Service hearing transcript, p. 88, line 1-3)

The only place that Guthrie could have come up with this lie is the tampered Report to School Board Members and the letter Gary Thune gave him to read during the Job Service hearing.  (Ex 8)  Gary Thune stated the rape facts this way in his Appellee Brief in Schmidt v. Job Service ND:

¶4 Sometime during the early part of the first semester, an art student told Ms. Schmidt that over the summer someone raped her. C.R. at 146. Ms. Schmidt informed the administration of the rape. Id. The administration already knew of the rape and also knew that the police conducted a full investigation into the incident - the rape did not occur on school grounds nor during school hours. Id. at 88, 107 and 170. The administration later suspended the art student for an unrelated incident and her parent's began home schooling her. Id. at 109. Ms. Schmidt felt that the administration did not handle the situation with the student appropriately. Id. at 251.  

Gary Thune relied on my Report to School Board Members (Ex 8) which had been tampered to purposely misstate material facts.  “The administration already knew of the rape and also knew that the police conducted a full investigation into the incident - the rape did not occur on school grounds nor during school hours. Id. at 88, 107 and 170.”  This is a serious admission of failure to report a rape when it becomes known to administrator, NDCC50-25.1-03.  The law does not say that the administrator doesn’t have to report to Social Services if the police are investigating;  in this case, the tribal police.  It doesn’t matter if the rape occurred on the moon, the administrator still has a legal duty to report. 

¶5 Subsequently, Ms. Schmidt reported the rape of a seventh grade student to the School Counselor and the administration. Id. at 109. The seventh grader denied the rape occurred. Nevertheless, Ms. Schmidt relentlessly pursued the issue by making calls to the student's parents and insisting that they get help for their daughter. Id. at 171. The seventh grader's parents complained to the administration about Ms. Schmidt's bizarre conduct and asked the administration to put an end to Ms. Schmidt's harassment. Id. at 112. The administration advised Ms. Schmidt to stop calling the student and her parents. Id. at 227. Again, Ms. Schmidt felt that the administration did not handle the situation with the student appropriately. Id. at 251.

¶6 Ms. Schmidt's disapproval of the way the administration handled the two rape reports spilled over into the classroom. Id. at 88. Ms. Schmidt began to consistently complain to her students that the administration did not handle the two rape incidents correctly. Id. The administration directed her to stop making accusations against the administration to her students and instructed her to follow the appropriate chain of command procedure to address her complaints. Id. at 227. She did not do so and continued to complain about the administration to her students. Id. at 89.

 

“Ms. Schmidt has stated that she reported a girl [meaning Jami] had been raped during the school year to Mrs. Tiokasin, Mr. Riedinger, and to me….”  (Ex C at Tab 4)

“Again, she did not report a rape [of Jami] to school officials but called the mother and father to report a rape of their daughter, stating that she had notified us and nothing was being done.  She was calling the daughter at night at home and then during the evening hours on January 2, 2007, the father overheard his daughter yelling and swearing at Ms. Schmidt over the phone to stop calling her.…..”  (Ex C at Tab 4)

 

Lawyer Gary Thune made these statements in 2007, proof that he was aware of the tampered Report to School Board Members.  (Ex 8)  In summary judgment Thune and Johnson stated it this way:

 

"Prior to the start of school, a student reported to authorities that she had been raped during the summer, they investigated, charged someone with the crime, and ultimately dismissed the charges. 

 

This is not what the student’s mother said in affidavit.  The student did not report anything;  the mother did.  (Ex 4)  The Child Abuse law is fairly clear:

 

50-25.1-03. Persons required and permitted to report - To whom reported.

1. Any … schoolteacher or administrator, school counselor, … having knowledge of or reasonable cause to suspect that a child is abused or neglected, … shall report the

circumstances to the department if the knowledge or suspicion is derived from

information received by that person in that person's official or professional capacity.

 

          Thune and Johnson purposely do not have their facts straight. The student did not report to authorities.    The mother called Warwick Public School in August, 2006,  before school had started and told them that her daughter had been raped.  (Ex 4)   At that point, Guthrie and other administrators had a duty to report.  Period.  It was not Guthrie’s duty to check with the police to see what they were doing.  His job was to report to Social Services.  The mother said she reported to Carol Walford and to the tribal police.  (Ex 4)  So Guthrie did not report to Social Services or to the “police”.  He simply chose not to report in violation of NDCC 50-25.1-03.  Lawyer Thune aided and abetted in the circumvention of the reporting of a rape.

 

50-25.1-04. Method of reporting. All persons mandated or permitted to report cases of

known or suspected child abuse or neglect shall immediately cause oral or written reports to be made to the department or the department's designee. Oral reports must be followed by written  reports within forty-eight hours if so requested by the department or the department's designee.  A requested written report must include information specifically sought by the department if the reporter possesses or has reasonable access to that information. Reports involving known or suspected institutional child abuse or neglect must be made and received in the same manner as all other reports made under this chapter.

 

Pursuant to NDCC 50-25.1-03, any administrator or teacher has a duty to report when child abuse when it becomes known to them.  The administrators’ problem:  they had not reported the rape when it became known to them which was the beginning of the school year when the mother  called the counselor and told her what had happened.  (Exhibit #4)   

 

MR. BACHRACH:  Isn’t it true that during one of Ms. Schmidt’s classes, a student, out of the blue, announced to the class that she had been raped?  You knew that, correct?  (transcript, p. 106, line 21-23)

MR. GUTHRIE:  According to Ms. Schmidt, yes. (Id, p. 107, line 1)

MR. BACHRACH:  Well, did you check with anyone in the class to dispute what Ms. Schmidt said?  (Id., line 2-3)

MR. GUTHRIE:  No, I did not.  (Id., line 4)

MR. BACHRACH:  Do you have any reason to doubt that Ms. Schmidt isn’t telling the truth about that?  (Id., line 5-6)

MR. GUTHRIE:   The only problem that I had with what Ms. Schmidt did, was not informing the Administration that a student had informed her that she had been raped.  I was led to believe that that happened during the school year, which it did not, it happened during the summer which it was fully investigated by the police and had nothing to do with the school.  (Id., line 7-11)

 

Mr. Guthrie is lying, obviously coached by his attorney, Gary Thune, to say that I had not “informed the Administration” which then became the basis of my so called misconduct.  (Ex 5-A)  Even if that were true, which it is not, it demonstrates Mr. Guthrie’s lack of understanding of his responsibility to the rape victim, which was he had a duty to report it to Social Services which he admits he did not do.  NDCC 50-25.1-04

 

MR. BACHRACH:  Well, Mr. Guthrie, that might have been your problem, but Ms. Schmidt, at that point, was faced with a student saying she’d been raped, correct?  (Id., line 12-13)

MR. GUTHRIE:  That’s what Ms. Schmidt informed everyone, except…(Id., line 14)

 

Here is another lie.  I did not talk about the rape of a student to anyone, especially not to students.  Mr. Guthrie has presented no proof of this false statement, nor did his lawyer Gary Thune. 

 

MR. BACHRACH:  Ms. Schmidt went to your office………(Id., line 15)

MR. GUTHRIE:  No, she did not…………(Id., line 16)

 

This is a lie.

 

MR. BACHRACH:  Well, went to Mr. Riedinger’s office and you were present at that time, correct?  (Id., line17-18)

MR. GUTHRIE:   Which time?  (Id., line 19)

MR. BACHRACH:  The same day that the student had announced she was raped, Ms. Schmidt went to Mr. Reidinger’s office and you were present and Ms. Schmidt told you and Mr. Reidinger that MH had indicated in her class that she was raped, correct?  (Id., line 20-22)

MR. GUTHRIE:  No, I do not remember that.  (Id., line 23)

 

Mr. Guthrie is lying and having a convenient memory lapse.

 

MR. BACHRACH:  You don’t remember Ms. Schmidt ever telling you that a student had indicated during class that she was raped?  (Id., p. 108, line 1-2)

MR. GUTHRIE:  No, I do not.  (Id., line 3)

 

This is a lie.

 

MR. BACHRACH:  Did Mr. Riedinger ever tell you that Ms. Schmidt had gone to his office that day and informed him that a student had been raped?  (Id., line 4-5)

MR. GUTHRIE:   No, I do not remember him telling me that, no.  (Id., line 6)

MR. BACHRACH:  So, when was the first time you recall Ms. Schmidt ever telling you about a student being raped?  (Id., line 7-8)

MR. GUTHRIE:  When we found out about it through a call that was made to the school by the FBI.  (Id., line 9-10)

 

          Mr. Guthrie was making his testimony straight from his Response to ESPB,  (Ex 5-D) which hearing officer Dave Clintion refused to subpoena for me,[52]  which Gary Thune helped him to write.    (Exhibit 73, Email to Barry, Subpoena Social Services and ESPB)  If I had access to these records, my unemployment outcome would have been reversed.  Even without these Responses, the hearing officer, Dave Clinton, had a duty to see that child abuse laws were upheld.  Instead, Clinton covered for Gary Thune by admitting illegal evidence, the letter from Thune, as Exhibit #4.[53]

           

          Rather advise his client Guthrie that he needed to abide by the child abuse laws, Gary Thune advised Mr. Guthrie on how to circumvent child abuse laws and teacher dismissal laws, and get by with it.  Whether he was drawn in or decided on his own to advise Guthrie and the school board on how to disobey child abuse laws by tampering with evidence and get by with it, amounts to the same thing, and is not a defense in the eyes of the law.[54]  In doing so, Thune put his bar license on the line, gambling that he was good enough to tamper with evidence and get by with it, and, as it turned out, he did, as I shall detail later.  But he had a lot of help from a whole herd of attorneys, including States Attorney James P. Wang, who advised Social Services not to investigate the 960 Report I submitted in January of 2007.  (Ex G)

 

          Just as important was that I was twice illegally dismissed, without warning, notice or hearing, first on January 4th, 2007, and second on April 11th, 2007.  When I filed for unemployment in July of 2007, Gary Thune seized the unemployment opportunity to be able to go back and manipulate the facts to show that I was nonrenewed, and not dismissed by manipulating the facts.  Being a very skillful lawyer, he slickered through his objective, and manipulated the entry of evidence and new interpretations on teacher dismissal laws in a wonderland ruling that defies North Dakota Century Code on how a teacher can be dismissed. 

 

MR. CLINTON:  Now, so, so, but, I thought you drew the distinction in terms of when she actually receives Notice that she’s being let go and in this case I’m going to make an interim finding, unless Mr. Bachrach objectures, that I will consider the Notice of Nonrenewal the Notice of Discharge.  Mr. Bachrach, and objection?  (line 9-12)

MR. BACHRACH:  I understand, but now, my concern, based upon what I’ve heard, is that they have not introduced any procedure by which she was terminated for misconduct.  (line 15-16)

MR. CLINTON:  We’ll go there later, Mr. Bachrach.  (line 17)

         

          Hearing officer ruled that a nonrenewal is the same as a dismissal, which is contrary to teacher dismissal law, NDCC 15.1-15-07.  Mr. Clinton never did go there later.  It was never established by Job Service, the procedure that Warwick Public School District terminated me or my contract for reasons of misconduct.  In order to stick with this ruling, Clinton and Thune had to make sure none of my facts got entered into the Record, nor would he permit me to testify as to my facts.    Upon very bad advice from their attorneys, Warwick Public School did not follow procedure in dismissing me as provided for by law.

          Warwick Public School District breached my 06-07 contract.  I did not have a dismissal hearing,  (Ex 1, Tab A, Discharge letter, minutes, response)   pursuant to 15.1-15-07 which clearly mandates a hearing.  (Ex 62, Carol Walford deposition)

 

         

                Thune with the help of the judge successfully reframed the issues to eliminate the issue of unreported child abuse to the 5 Directives.

          Not only did Supt. Guthrie expel the real rape victim, the rape which he did not report, but he set up a 12 year old, Jami Jetty and her parents, to make them believe that I had said that Jami had been raped.  I contend that Jami’s death was caused by the Warwick administrators who had refused to report a rape when it became known to them, and their attorneys and minions, along with Social Services who refused to investigate, and Job Service, who, with the help of Gary Thune, obfuscated the facts and tampered with evidence.   My Complaint based upon my Report to School Board Members was that I had been fired before the end of term without notice or hearing after I had reported to Social Services, Standards and Practices Board, and Sheriff Royher and states attorney Wang that Warwick School administrators were abusing Native American students by refusing to report a rape when it became known to them, expelling the rape victim, and setting up Jami Jetty to make it seem like she was the rape victim.  I should have never lost my lawsuits because the law and the facts were on my side;[55]  I lost because law enforcement refused to investigate crimes and clever lawyers, Gary Thune and states attorney Wang, tampered with evidence and witnesses to get my lawsuit dismissed, and most of all, lawyers deliberately and criminally withheld information from me. Child Abuse laws were not upheld by Warwick School administrators, lawyers, agencies and law enforcement, including ND Attorney General.   Who enforces the law that prohibits the employer from retaliating against the teacher for reporting child abuse?

          B.      Thune/Guthrie muddy up my last day of work by incorrectly basing my dismissal on Nonrenewal

                My Nonmonetary Determination said that I was disqualified for benefits because of misconduct.  (Ex 43)  The problem is that I was never told the reason behind my dismissal by the school board.    At no time did Mr. Guthrie warn me that I was about to be fired for misconduct.  The fact that I had filed a Complaint with Education Standards and Practices Board stating that Mr. Guthrie had not reported a rape as required by law is what prompted Mr. Guthrie to convene a school board meeting for the purpose of firing me without any notification to me, April 11, 2007.  So, where does the misconduct come from?  In the Job Service hearing, Mr. Clinton stated:

“…I will take official notice of the July 17, 2007, Nonmonetary Determination which disqualified Ms. Schmidt from receiving benefits on the basis that she was discharged from employment for reasons that constitute misconduct…”  (Job Service hearing, p. 77-78, line 24-25, 1)

The Determination never stated what the misconduct was.  I was never told that I was being let go because of misconduct.  Teacher dismissal laws clearly outline a procedure of notification, warnings, and hearings, (NDCC 15.1-15-07) which was not done in my case.  (Ex But this Determination was based on false facts contained in my Unemployment Claim, which I never saw nor signed.  (Ex 88)  Mr. Clinton ruled in violation of NDCC 28-32-24. 

          Mr. Thune, in his summation, called it a nonrenewal case.  (Exhibit 92, Thune’s summation)  “… Mr. Guthrie testified that he went to the School Board “and our Exhibit D from Part of Exhibit 4, and recommended on April 11 that they place her on Administrative Leave for the rest of the year.  This she has chosen to characterize as Discharge or Firing and if you as a Hearing Officer agree that it constitutes discharge or firing, then we have to establish that there was misconduct…”  (Ex 92) Mr. Thune admitted two sets of evidence proffered by himself as Exhibit A and Supt. Guthrie as Exhibit 4.  Mr. Thune admitted that I was not fired for misconduct in my leaving Warwick Public School.  He cannot lawfully establish through Job Service that I was fired for misconduct.  But he did because my facts were never considered by Job Service.  Dave Clinton decided that I had committed misconduct based solely on Thune/Guthrie  “facts”.  (Ex 90)  Thune obviously had a conflict of interest.  He advised the school board and/or superintendent on how to circumvent child abuse and teacher dismissal laws, so if the truth came out, his license would be on the line, along with Supt. Guthrie’s.  So he used the state agencies of Social Services, Education and Practices Board, and Job Service to create his own set of false facts.

 

25.    AG’s conspire with Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson to commit fraud upon the court when I appealed the Job Service Decision to the court.

          I was shocked by the Job Service Decision.  (Ex 90)  I appealed the decision to the court by filing a Petition for Review with Job Service.  (Ex 93)  The Bureau turned it down.  (Ex 94)  By law for appeal, NDCC 52-06-27, Job Service was required to transcribe the Record and Upon the filing of a petition for review by the bureau or upon the service of the petition upon it, the bureau forthwith shall send by registered mail to each other party to the proceeding a copy of such petition and such mailing is deemed to be completed service upon all such parties.   Assistant AG Michael Pitcher was assigned to represent Job Service and was responsible for the record.  On November 20, 2007, Mr. Pitcher sent copies of the Record to Gary Thune, Barry Bachrach and Warwick Public School Dist. #29. (Ex 95, Letter from Asst. AG Michael Pitcher)   He did not send me a copy.  I was the person appealing my case, and the main party to the case.   I had filed an Affidavit with the clerk of court when I filed the appeal, (Ex 96, Affidavit of Facts) along with other evidence, proving the events leading up to my dismissal, which were entered into the Record.  (Ex 97, Complaint to Guthrie about Riedinger removing students from my class)  (Ex 98, Details which led to my being fired April 11, 2007)  I was pro se and did not understand that Job Service represented by the Attorney General’s Office of the State of North Dakota, was supposed to provide me with the Record.  However, the AG’s understood that it was their duty by law to provide me  with the Record.  In his letter, 11/20/07, Mr. Pitcher suggested that I “send a copy of all briefs or other correspondence filed with the court to me.”   He said that “enclosed was the Certificate of Filing.”  However, I did not receive a copy of the Record.  Pitcher sent the Record with Certificate of Filing to the Benson County Court.  (Ex 99, Certificate of Filing) I was trying to get a copy of the Record, and no state official would talk to me or tell me how I was to get the Record.  I called Job Service hearing officer Dave Clinton, but he refused to talk to me.  I called the clerk of Benson County Court, Lana Johnson, and asked her how I was to get a copy of the Record, so I could write an appellate brief.  Lana told me that I would have to pay 25 cents a page on a Record almost 400 pages.  Judge Foughty gave a Briefing Order on December 6, 2007. (Ex 101, Briefing Order) My brief was due on 1-4-08.  A copy of the Briefing Order was sent to me, Gary Thune for Warwick Public School, and Michael Pitcher, AG’s Office representing Job Service.  It is law that Job Service, represented by the Attorney General’s Office, was to send me, the appellant, a copy of the Record.[56]  I was finding it almost impossible to write an appeals brief without the Record and transcript of hearing.  I had to ask for a time extension, which was granted, and I had until January 22, 2008, to write the Appeals Brief.  I finally called my attorney, Barry Bachrach, on January 16, 2008, to ask him for help.  That is when I discovered that Barry had been sent a copy of the Record.  (Ex 105, Email to and from Barry Bachrach concerning Record)   He did not realize that I did not have a copy.  I called Michael Pitcher.  He told me it was Barry’s responsibility to send me the Record, which is not what the law says.

52-06-27. Judicial review of decision - Petition - Filing.   With its answer or petition, the bureau shall certify and file with the court a verified copy of the record of the case, including all documents and papers and a transcript of all testimony taken in the matter, together with the bureau's findings, conclusions, and decision therein. Upon the filing of a petition for review by the bureau or upon the service of the petition upon it, the bureau forthwith shall send by registered mail to each other party to the proceeding a copy of such petition and such mailing is deemed to be completed service upon all such parties.

 

          I was deliberately kept in the dark, and material information was being kept from me.  It was a conspiracy between Gary Thune, Attorney General’s Office, Judge Donavan Foughty, Job Service, and Warwick Public School to prevent me from getting the Record so I could write my Appeals Brief.

          The Assignment and Case Number prove that I was representing myself. (Ex 110, Assignment and case number)  Asst. AG Pitcher told me he would send me a copy of the Record which he is required by law to do.  He never did.  Barry immediately sent me a copy of the Record.  (Ex 106, Copy of Record sent by Barry Bachrach)   I filed a Motion for more time.  (Ex 103,  2nd Motion for Time)  Judge Foughty granted 2 weeks, but said that “This is the final extension granted by the Court.”  (Ex 104, Order granting Time)  By the time I received the Record from Barry, I had less than a week to write my appeals brief and cite from the Record.    This proves that lawyer Gary Thune, Attorney General Asst. Michael Pitcher, and state agency Job Service and even Judge Foughty were in conspiracy to prevent me from getting the Record.

          Once opposing counsel became aware that I knew about the Record, and would receive the Record from my attorney,  Michael Pitcher was suddenly removed from the case, and Solicitor General Douglas Bahr stepped in to represent Job Service.  (Ex 108,  Douglas Bahr, Solicitor General, replaced Michael Pitcher)  Why would an unemployment case need to be litigated by the solicitor general?   At the same time, Tiffany Johnson replaced Gary Thune as counsel for Warwick Public School.  Why?  The facts prove that Gary Thune, Douglas Bahr, Michael Pitcher and Tiffany Johnson had fraudulently sent the Record to Barry Bachrach, instead of me, the appellate, knowing full well that the Briefing Order listed me as the appellate.  And knowing full well that the law states that the Record is to be sent to ALL parties. (Ex 109, Briefing Order) This was fraud upon the court of the worst kind with the Court colluding with the defendants to deny me due process and obstruct justice.    

          Gary Thune orchestrated the fraud;  however, lawyers willingly chose to be part of the fraud.  Why would Thune do such a thing?  Because he had misadvised Warwick Public School on how to circumvent child abuse laws and got by with not reporting a rape;  and how to get rid of a teacher by substituting nonrenewal for a dismissal, both very illegal.  In short, Thune was responsible for covering up crime and could lose his license if the truth became known.   He had a lot of influence with the Attorney General’s office.   If I had access to the Record, I would have been able to prove the fraud when it was timely to do so.  But Judge Foughty would not allow me time. Judge Foughty knew I was pro se.  Judge Foughty knew that by law Job Service was obligated to send me a copy of the Record.  Judge Foughty knew or should have known that withholding the Record is a crime,[57] yet he did nothing to see that the law was upheld. 

          I didn’t have time to study the Record or to cite my facts to the Record in my Appeals Brief.  Solicitor General Douglas Bahr, representing Job Service, took advantage of the fact that the Record had been withheld from me, and asked the Court to disregard my facts unless cited to the Record.  (Ex 111, Bahr’s brief for Job Service)

 “Schmidt’s brief contains many factual assertions not in the record.  Schmidt, who was represented by legal counsel, had the opportunity to present evidence at the hearing.  She cannot now do so through her appellate brief.  Accordingly, Job Service requests the Court not consider the factual assertions in Schmidt’s brief unless a citation to the record is provided and that citation supports the factual assertion.  To do otherwise … would be fundamentally unfair and deny Job Service procedural due process.”  (Ex 111)

 

Bahr was fully aware that I was not represented by counsel and that I did not have a copy of the Record.  Actually, just the opposite was true;  I was not represented by legal counsel at this time, and Bahr knew this as evidenced by his Affidavit of Service.  (Ex 115)  Barry Bachrach had agreed to represent me at the Job Service hearing only.  All Bahr’s facts were based on Thune’s facts, taken from Guthrie and administrator Responses to my Complaint to ESPB, (Ex 5) which were withheld from me.  Barry Bachrach is a witness to the truth of this. 

Barry Bachrach, Esquire

The Law Office of Barry Bachrach

62 Paxton Street

Leicester, MA 01524

Telephone No.: (508) 892-1533

Facsimile No.: (508) 892-1633

Email: bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net

          All of my facts were supported by the Record, except I didn’t have time to cite from the Record.  The Record also demonstrated that evidence had been fraudulently entered into the Record.  Wherefore, Bahr deliberately lied to the Court so as to cover up official misconduct.  At the height of arrogance and hypocrisy, Douglas Bahr proposed a Judgment in which he wanted the Court to rule that I was afforded due process, and that I had a fair hearing.  I had neither.  I objected which Judge Foughty ignored.   Withholding the Record certainly obliterated due process and fairness.  Judge Foughty signed anyway.  (Ex 114, Bahr’s proposed Order Affirming)    Bahr’s letter clearly shows that he knew I was the Petitioner representing myself, and not Barry Bachrach.  (Ex 115, Bahr’s letter to court and Affidavit of Service)   Bahr knew I did not have the Record as evidenced by his letter to the court, affidavit, and Notice, all addressed to me.  (Ex 116,  Bahr’s Proposed Judgment, letter and affidavit)  However, I did have an opportunity to write a Reply Brief, (Ex 119, Reply Brief)  in which I was able to cite to the Record.  However, Judge Foughty ignored that and on 3/08, Judge Foughty affirmed the Job Service Decision, knowing that the Record had been withheld from me.  (Ex 103)  On 3/14/08, I filed a Motion to Stay the Judgment, citing, among other things, that the Record had been withheld from me.  Douglas Bahr objected.  Judge Foughty denied.  The court upheld fraud, official misconduct, and obstruction of justice.  Therefore, the Court, Judge Foughty, failed to rule by the Century Code, and failed to uphold the ND and US Constitutions.  As such, his decision should have been declared void by the Supreme Court, but it wasn’t.

 

          I appealed the Decision to the ND Supreme Court. (Ex 117,  Appellate Brief, Schmidt v. Job Service)  The damage had been done in and through Job Service.  The Attorney General’s Office, Michael Pitcher, withheld the Record from me, making it impossible for even a seasoned attorney to write a brief.  Solicitor General Douglas Bahr asked the Court to disregard my facts unless cited to the Record.  (Ex 111)  The Supreme Court could only base its decision on the briefs as presented to the district court.   The Record actually does back up all my facts that I had reported a rape and other child abuse, but no one was willing to act on it.  Why?  Because Gary Thune misadvised the school board on how to get by with not reporting a rape and the teacher dismissal laws over a superintendent who refused to report a rape.  The Record also contained evidence of fraud and evidence tampering, which is why Mr. Bahr did not want me to have the Record.   The clerks of the Supreme Court sent me a copy of the Record. (Ex 120,  Supreme Ct. clerk sends copy of Job Service Record) Mr. Bahr presented a false and fraudulent Appellee’s Brief for Job Service to the Supreme Court.  (Ex 118, Appellee Brief, Schmidt v. Job Service)   I submitted a Reply Brief.  (Ex 119,  Reply Brief,  Schmidt v. Job Service)  The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ruling on October 28, 2008, and wrote a Decision based on all the fraud and lies perpetuated by Job Service, (Ex 50) in spite of the fact the Court was made aware that the Record had been withheld from me.  (Ex 118)  The Court was made aware that Warwick administrators had not reported a rape and because I reported, I was unlawfully fired.  Still the Supreme Court would not allow me to have unemployment benefits.  The Supreme Court condoned fraud. 

 

26.  Jami Jetty Commits Suicide

          I wanted to file a lawsuit while I pursued the unemployment, but I could not get any lawyer to represent me.  Those whom I did talk to, advised me to wait for the unemployment decision.  I shouldn’t have even fooled with the unemployment because it just gave malefactors  an opportunity to screw up any lawsuit by restructuring the facts in a permanent record.  Be that as it may, I couldn’t leave the record as it now stood.  Job Service had found me guilty of misconduct, whereas Warwick Public School had not.  (Ex 92)  A copy of the Job Service misconduct decision, all of them, were placed in my permanent file.  As a teacher, that meant my career was over and that I would never get another teaching job, not even as a substitute.  My name and reputation was further defamed by the public decision found on line, Schmidt v. Job Service ND, and my permanent file, which supt. Guthrie put copies of the decision in my file, available to any future employer.  My facts had been totally disregarded by the legal and justice system.  Child abuse laws had been totally ignored, and had teacher dismissal laws.  Damage had been done not only to me, but to my students, who now believed Guthrie’s lies, as did the whole community, all because I reported a rape that Supt. Guthrie had refused to report.

          Once I had the Record, and had an opportunity to study it, I discovered much but not all the fraud that had taken place, and I fully intended to bring a  motion under Rule 60(b).  Then I heard that Jami Jetty had committed suicide on November 3, 2008.  (Ex 23, obituary)  I wrote a letter and sent to Governor John Hoeven, Benson County Social Services Director Ed Forde, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, ND Dept. of Ed. Wayne Sanstead, Senator Byron Dorgan, and others.  (Ex 121,  Letter to authorities on Jami Jetty’s death)  I was incensed that authorities caused the death of an innocent girl and covered their unlawful actions by covering up for themselves and each other, using the very agencies designed to keep children safe.  This letter could be considered and should have been considered a 960 report on a child fatality, which Benson County did not bother to even contact me.  A number of students have stated that Jami was being taunted by students saying,  “We heard you were raped at Warwick School.”  This was the lie that Supt. Guthrie and his lawyer Gary Thune perpetuated to make it sound like Jami was the rape victim.  I wrote a letter to Gov. Hoeven, Senator Dorgan, and others. There is no record of Benson County Social Services turning this letter over to Tribal Social Services. 


“I am copying to you the pertinent facts from my Complaint to inform you of what I know of Jami, and reasons that may have contributed to her suicide.  I do not claim to have all the pieces;  that is the job of authorities.  I have included Supt Charles Guthrie’s 5 Directives in which he ordered me not to talk about Leonard Peltier or I would be fired.  [which was a red herring to prevent the FBI from investigating]  Very sadly, I filed three 960 reports with Social Services, I contacted States Attorney Wang, along with the Sheriff.  I contacted the Attorney General.  All of them, without exception, refused to investigate.  An abused 14-year-old [Native American] is dead, a raped 15-year-old now lives with the knowledge that rape can take place on the reservation, and no authority is willing to investigate, and the rapist goes free.  And affecting the whole community, is that the Warwick School administration got by with no consequences for not reporting child abuse, by substituting Jami for the real rape victim, all because they had not reported a rape…”

“…I am asking for an investigation, on behalf of students as their teacher.  If I don’t, no one else will.”  (Ex 121)

          There’s a lot of dirty hands involved in the death of Jami Jetty.  Foremost, is Benson County Social Services, advised by states attorney James Wang.   (see pp. 61-71) I’m sure that no one intended that Jami Jetty should die.  However, they did intentionally disobey Century Code child abuse laws which led to the death of Jami Jetty.  Disobeying the laws are public officials, who are afraid they will be removed from office, have their license to practice revoked, and charged with  a double AA felony of causing the death of a child by suicide.[58]  Too big to jail?  What is wrong with North Dakota that it allows official misconduct, and even protects the criminals if they happen to be lawyers and officials?

           I also wrote a letter to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee:  (Ex 121-A, Letter to Senators Committee)

“Very sadly, I filed three 960 reports with Social Services.  I contacted states attorney Wang, along with the Sheriff.  I contacted the Attorney General.  All of them, without exception, refused to investigate.  [As a result] an abused 14 year old is dead, a raped 15 year old now lives with the knowledge that rape can take place on the reservation, and no authority is willing to investigate, and the rapist goes free.  And affecting the whole community, it that the Warwick School administration got by with no consequences for not reporting child abuse, by substituting Jami for the real rape victim, [who was expelled] all because the administration had not reported a rape as required by law.”

“…What I have demonstrated here, is a total incompetence of authorities to effectively deal with teen suicide, compounded by serious felony crimes going unprosecuted.  Just like Supt. Guthrie, the authorities lamely lament that the crime took place on an Indian reservation, and they cannot interfere with the tribe’s sovereignty.  When in reality, the sheriff, the CIs, Social Services, even ND Standards and Practices Board, all took Guthrie’s lie for the truth and failed to act. 

“…I am asking for an investigation, on behalf of students as their teacher.”  (Ex 121)

        I contacted officials who had the authority to act, to investigate, or order an investigation, but they all refused to.  (Ex 121)  Senator Dorgan responded by saying it was up to the states attorney or attorney general.  (Ex 122-A, Letter from Dorgan, 12/16/08) (Ex 77)   Senator Dorgan invited the family to Washington, D.C. to talk about suicide. (Ex 123, Jami’s family goes to Washington, D.C.) He set up a federal program, headed by Cora Tiger, Jami’s mother, whereby Cora has a federal job.  One needs to look at all the letters I wrote to Senator Dorgan regarding the problem of Warwick Public School administrators refusing to follow child abuse laws affecting Native Americans.  Had Senator Dorgan insisted on an independent investigation, since students involved were Native American, Jami would most like be alive today.  Yes, it’s nice he created a job for Cora Tiger, but I regard it as a payoff for not following up on child abuse that I had repeatedly asked him to look into.  (Ex 124, Letter to Byron Dorgan, 3/18/09)

“Last week, I learned that you sponsored the suicide victim’s family [Jami Jetty] to come to Washington and testify before the Senate Committee on the reason for suicides on the reservations.  You put a confused, grief stricken family forth to talk about suicides, when they don’t know, because the real reason has been covered up by trained officials.  And you say more trained officials are needed to address the problem.  Don’t you think that is the height of hypocrisy, Senator?  You know, there’s a lot of blame to go around for that girl’s death, starting with you Senators and your trained officials.

The psychologically abused are being led to the slaughter, and you pick the most abused to discuss a problem while wrapped in the fog of their grief.  You take a grief stricken father, who has been told by the school superintendent (Guthrie) that the teacher was falsely reporting his girl’s rape, which caused the school officials to question her.  That was all a lie, to prevent the parent from suing the school, and throwing authorities off track about the real rape victim.  If you really wanted an answer to the problem of depression, abuse, and suicide on Indian reservations, you should have asked me.”

 

Senator Dorgan never responded to this letter.   The Attorney General said that it wasn’t his jurisdiction, but tribal jurisdiction.  (Ex 76)  (Discussed in Chapt. 19, pp. 69-71)  Nothing ever came of my letters, and officials did nothing.

          On July 13, 2007, I wrote a letter to Charles Guthrie and members of Warwick Public School, stating my intention of suing, and offering a settlement.  (Ex 126, Letter of Intent to sue, 7/13/07)  No one responded; no doubt because of Thune’s advice.

 

 

25.              I file a lawsuit

         

          Prompted by Jami’s death, I filed a lawsuit, December 19, 2008.  (Ex 125,  Complaint, Schmidt v. Warwick Public School District #29, et al.) In addition to the school board members, I named the Warwick administrators as defendants.  Warwick Public School and employees were represented by Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune.  A big problem and mistake in filing a lawsuit is that I couldn’t then name Johnson and Thune as defendants, which really needed to be done.  Because of their conflict of interest, Johnson and Thune could then deny all my facts and substitute their own false facts, with cooperation from Judge Lee Christofferson, and prevented me from engaging in discovery, causing me to lose my lawsuit.   Defendants Answered, 1/19/09.  (Ex 127, Defendant’s Answer  In the Answer, lawyers Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson used facts from my Unemployment Claim, which by law, they are forbidden to do,[59]  and the tampered Report to School Board Members, which is, of course, fraud and criminal, NDCC 12.1-09-03, a class C felony.

          The facts and the law was on my side.  I should have never lost my lawsuit, but I did, because Judge Christofferson was in on the conspiracy to hide the truth about an unreported rape of an Indian girl. 

 

26.    I contacted Agencies and law enforcement to report that defendants contributed to the death of Jami Jetty by suicide.

          The first thing I did was Contact Social Services in an attempt to find out why there was no investigation into the 960 rape report I made back in 2007, and to get copies of all documents pertaining to me under open records law.  Attorney General’s Office answered for Social Services, stating that the rape  happened on the reservation, and that the state lacked jurisdiction to pursue it.  This is how lawyers and public officials circumvent the law.  They simply change the facts. I was not talking about a rape or where it happened.  That is irrelevant.  I was saying that officials did not report a rape.  I reported this to Social Services in a 29 page 960 Report in January of 07. (Ex 1)  Social Services did not turn over my 960 Report as subpoenaed.  I repeatedly pointed out that I had a duty to  report a rape, and that I was reporting that administrators in a state run school had not reported and were in violation of NDCC 50-25.1-03 and 50-25.1-09, retaliation forbidden.   AG also said it was up to the states attorney to call for an investigation.  However, states attorney James Wang was responsible for the destruction of my 960 Report.  (See Ch. 15 and 16, pp. 62-71)  )   States attorney James Wang advises Social Services in these matters.  This is how child abuse investigations are conducted in North Dakota.  The Attorney Generals can get by with not investigating and telling any lie which has to be accepted because they have the absolute, unquestioned authority to do so.

 

          The damage had been accomplished by Gary Thune through the agency of Job Service.  I wrote a letter of reconsideration to Job Service executive director Maren L. Daley, outlining the fraudulent Job Service Decision, March 18, 2009.  (Ex 128,  Letter to Job Service Exe. Dir. Maren Daley)  Answering for Ms. Daley was solicitor general Douglas Bahr, who was responsible for seeing to it that I never received the Job Service Record when I was trying to write my appeals brief.  (See pp. 106-110)  (Ex 136,  Letter from Douglas Bahr in defense of Job Service Decision    This is a real problem within the American justice system:  state and federal agencies and their employees get the benefit of free litigation, whilst as people such as myself, who have been wronged and abused by the Agencies,  has no access to legal help.    Agencies are aided by government lawyers to cover up crimes.  In my case, the crime of child abuse was covered up through Job Service, from the taking of my claim for unemployment to the hearing officer Dave Clinton, as orchestrated by lawyer Gary Thune.  (See pp. 81-104)  On October 24, 2007, I wrote a letter to Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, asking for an Opinion pursuant to “NDCC 44-04-21 asking whether Supt Charles Guthrie and Warwick School Board violated NDCC 44-04-20 by failing to notify me of a hearing held by Warwick School Board for the sole purpose of terminating my employment.  I also asked the AG to investigate the failure of Supt. Guthrie to report a rape as required by Child Abuse laws.   (Exhibit 137, Letter to AG asking for Opinion)  I supplied 17 exhibits of evidence.  The AG declined to give an Opinion, contrary to what the law says,   he refused.  The AG was informed of criminal felony activities, and chose to do nothing about it, just like Penn State, just cover it up.  My second Request was also summarily turned down, and I never received any Reponses and ESPB would not tell me whether or not Guthrie/Riedinger/Michels responded. 

          I filed a 2nd Inquiry with ESPB.  (Ex 74)

 “In April of 07… in a detailed report of 29 pages, I listed Warwick School administrators in violation of Child Abuse laws, Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, violations of NDCC school laws, violations of the US Constitution by suppressing rights of due process , freedom of speech, and wrongful termination of a teacher.  At that time, the Board voted not to review my Complaint.  I tried to get a reason for this decision, but none was offered.  Because the illegal questioning of a young girl, Jami Jetty, inflicted upon her by Riedinger, Michels, Tiokiason, and Guthrie, the must be raised:  Did the shame and humiliation of Guthrie setting Jami Jetty up to be the rape victim, contribute to her suicide?  And a more troubling question:: Could her suicide have been prevented if this Board had actively investigated the abuses I reported in detail of what was taking place at Warwick School?” 

ESPB owed me answers to my questions.  At that time, the Board voted not to review my Complaint.  I tried to get a reason [the Responses] for this decision, but none were offered.”  I still have not received any Responses, if there were any.  This Agency decision not to order an investigation was reckless, irresponsible, and negligent.  Instead they allowed Gary Thune to unduly influence the Board’s decision.  (Ex 5-A)

          I called a U.S. Attorney and the FBI and reported sexual abuse of Indian minors. (Ex 139, Letter to FBI, 4-8-09) I called Devils Lake police and told them that I had suffered inquisition styled intimidation tactics before I was terminated in retaliation for have reported a rape of an Indian student.  They told me I should get an attorney and take civil action, and report this to Social Services. I contacted Senators, who said that that was a state issue, and they could do nothing.  I contacted the Attorney General, (Ex 140,  Letter to AG, 3/25/09)  who said that “this is solely within the statutory discretion of the states attorney, not this office.”  (Ex 138, Letter from AJ, 7/29/10) 

          In short, law enforcement was totally sold out, and/or part of the criminal activity, which is why they refused to investigate, but it was very difficult to believe, but the facts prove this to be true.  By taking my case to court in a civil suit, I unknowingly permitted Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson to manipulate the facts in such a way to create a false record, and the agencies and attorney generals covered up for them, which is how North Dakota protects its officials from prosecution.

          Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson got by with the unreported rape through the legal system:  namely, motion to dismiss and protection orders.

         

 

27.    Law Enforcement and the Attorney Generals refuse to uphold the law.

          I wrote a letter to the Sheriff to inform him of Mr. Riedinger’s bizarre behavior, that children were being threatened.  I informed Mr. Guthrie I had done so.  (Ex. 58,  April 10, 2007 letter to sheriff)  I copied this letter to                                        he take my letter seriously.  In his Response to ESPB, Principal Riedinger said:

“…Mrs. Schmidt also informed Sheriff Roher on April 10th of this rape and the schools failure to act on it.  Sheriff Roher contacted us and said he had read the police report and law enforcement was informed, so he did not know why Mr. Schmidt [said] the rape was not reported to authorities,”  (Ex 5-B)

Which is an admission that he, Mr. Riedinger and Mr. Guthrie did not report a rape as mandated by law, NDCC 50-25.1-03.  It is also an admission that Sheriff Rohyer was part of the conspiracy to cover up the non reporting of a felony crime, (Ex 58) and covering up for states attorney James Wang’s involvement in the tampering and destruction of my 960 Report to School Board Members, unknown to me at this time.

 

          Right at the end of the 06-07 school year, Principal Gene Riedinger, NEA Rep Steve Michels, and counselor Shirley Tiokiason all resigned, Riedinger moved to Las Vegas, all defendants.  Business manager Carol Walford refused to give me Reidinger’s address, as did lawyer Tiffany Johnson.  I asked Sheriff Royher to help.  He was very surly and unhelpful.  I asked the court to order the Sheriff to locate Riedinger, to no avail.  (Ex 129, Motion for sheriff to locate Riedinger)   Having exhausted all possible means to serve Riedinger, I published in the Benson County Farmers Press that I was suing him.  (Doc 35) Hoping to get my whole case thrown out, Tiffany Johnson brought a motion to the court to not accept my service by publication. (Ex 127) 

 

30.    Defendants file Motion to Dismiss

          Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson filed a Motion to Dismiss, based on the false facts they presented in the Job Service Supreme Court Decision. (Doc 52) They set up a straw man of reasons and totally ignored my facts, nor did they address my claims. In other words, they rewrote my Complaint. The Standard of Review is fairly straightforward in Rule 12(b)(6): “a claim can be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when, viewing the allegations contained within the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” This is what everyone knows the Standard to be. However lawyers Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson always added something to the law, rule, or standard that doesn’t belong there. “It appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to relief.” Reasons given did not arise to the Standard of Review, as follows:

          Thune

A. Individually name defendants are statutorily immune from liability.

     My response

              A.  That would be like saying Jerry Sardusky, Timothy Curley, and Gary Schultz should have had immunity.

 

     Thune

B. Board members were acting within the scope of their duties, based upon nonrenewal.

My response

          B.  Yeah! Right!  Curley and Schultz were acting within the scope of their duties by not reporting a rape.

 

Thune

C. Plaintiff failed to state claim for defamation against individual defendants.

My response

          C.  Defamation well stated in my Complaint (Ex 125) Count 4, #129-184.  Individuals were named in the Facts.  Even so, this was not the basis for my case to be dismissed.  Defamation of character by saying I committed misconduct and putting that in my file is/was a very good reason for this case to be heard since defendants (all named) destroyed my means of ever getting another teaching job.

 

Thune

D. Individual defendants did not have contract with plaintiff.

My response

          D.  Flat out stupid.  A teacher doesn’t sign a contract with individual administrators.  Defendants breached my contract when they fired me before the end of term, without notice of hearing.       

 

Thune

E.   A school does not have to report a rape of a student if the student is Indian and the rape occurred on an Indian Reservation.

My Response

          E.  Yet this is the argument that Judge Christofferson accepted instead of ordering an investigation

 

Thune

F. Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson claimed I was afforded due process through the Job Service case, Schmidt v. Job Service ND.

My Response

          F.  It was through Job Service that Gary Thune abused the system by fraudulently entering documents, and coaching the witness.

 

Thune

G.   Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson claimed that I received due process by notification of the nonrenewal process.

My Response

 G.            Which although true, is totally irrelevant, and does not explain why I was never noticed of the April 11, 2007, dismissal hearing.

 

Thune

H. Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson maintained that defendants’ conduct was not outrageous, therefore there could be no emotional distress.

My Response

H.  Which is only true if one accepts defendant facts as true, which cannot nor should not be done on a motion to dismiss or summary judgment, which is exactly what Judge Christofferson did.

 

          Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune presented bogus reasons for a motion to dismiss, none of them amounting to reasons for Judge Christofferson to dismiss my lawsuit or any of my claims.  Furthermore, Judge Christofferson regarded the defendants’ facts as true, not mine, which he was prohibited from doing by the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Constitution.  He dismissed (1) breach of contract, (2)  retaliation,  (3)  wrongful termination,  (4)  defamation,  (5)  conspiracy, (6) fraudulent concealment, (7) official oppression of civil rights, and (8) constitutional violations.  He left (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress.  (Ex 125)   Judge Christofferson did all this before I had any chance of discovery.  It only goes to show that laws and rules don’t matter, when one wants to cover up officials’ crimes against children.  When one has unqualified power and absolute immunity, one can ignore the law and the Constitution, which is how Judge Christofferson ruled.  (Ex 187, Transcript of Motion to Dismiss hearing)

          I filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss and asked for hearing, which was scheduled for June 22, 2009.  (Doc 85)  Defendants (Thune/Johnson) filed a Reply Brief on June 17, 2009, (Doc 89)  Oddly enough, Thune/Johnson filed all the nonrenewal letters as evidence, thus attempting to change motion to dismiss to one of summary judgment.  However, Thune/Johnson did not follow the Rule for converting motion to dismiss to summary judgment:

Rule 56, Summary Judgment

c) Serving the Motion; Proceedings. The motion and supporting papers must be served at least 34 days before the day set for the hearing. An opposing party must have 30 days after service of a brief to serve and file an answer brief and supporting papers. The judgment sought shall be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment, when appropriate, may be rendered against the moving party.

I had no time to respond with an answer brief and supporting papers.  Judge Christofferson treated the Reply as summary judgment, and held the hearing in violation of the Rules and due process.  (Ex 141, Motion to Dismiss hearing transcript)  Judge Christofferson was/is aware of the Rules, and never should have permitted this hearing to take place without notice of summary judgment.  I objected to the proceeding, but Judge Christofferson would not permit my objections and allowed the hearing to continue.  The judge would not listen to any motion to dismiss argument, nor did he consider any of my facts to be true.  He just went ahead and dismissed half my claims without any basis of law. (Ex 142, Order Partially Granting Motion to Dismiss)  My due process was egregiously violated by the court and defendant attorneys.  Using illegal, unfair tactics, the court and defendants’ attorneys ruined my lawsuit without actually dismissing it. 

          It must be remembered at all times that my facts were that Superintendent Charles Guthrie deliberately chose not to report the rape of a student, M H, when it became known to him,  and abused Jami by questioning Jami about a rape in violation of child abuse laws which prohibits any unauthorized questioning of students,  making the girl, Jami Jetty and her parents, believe that I had told school administrators that Jami had been raped,  which caused everyone to regard Jami as the rape victim which then made life intolerable for Jami, and was the reason why she killed herself.  Lawyers Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson covered Guthrie by advising him on how to circumvent child abuse laws.  In other words, Thune/Johnson were looking at a double A felony, which is conflict of interest.

 

 

31.  Defendant attorneys Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson continue dirty fight through Discovery and protective orders

          Thune/Johnson had an ideal cover with the Protective Order, through which they could attack me at will through discovery, and the complicit Court would always agree with them.   To begin with, clerk of court Lana Johnson, would not sign my subpoenas for depositions.  (Ex 149, Affidavit of facts surrounding subpoenas, Doc 248)   She told me to read the Rules.  I told her I did, and that only a lawyer or a clerk could sign depositions, and she wouldn’t sign.  I called the ND Bar Assoc. and told Bill Neumann about it, who made a couple of phone calls for me.  After 3 weeks of fooling around, suddenly clerk Lana Johnson called to say that she would sign the subpoenas.  (Ex 143, letter from Lana Johnson and letter to Tiffany Johnson, Discovery) 

          It must be remembered that Johnson/Thune proffered the Supreme Court Job Service Decision early in the litigation.  (Ex 133)  In the end, Thune/Johnson proffered the Job Service Decision as evidence in summary judgment,  yet they were bound and determined not to allow me discovery to question the Job Service decision upon which the defendants based their whole defense.

          Judge Christofferson granted defendant/Johnson’s motion for a Protective Order.  (Doc 61)  On April 17, 2009, I filed a motion For Additional Findings to the Protective Order, and asked that Rule 7.1(3) be applied, which is “any party can move the court to make additional findings.”    (Ex 134,  Motion for Additional Findings)

“I ask this Court to weigh the evidence carefully before granting a Protection Order to someone who caused a young girl and her father believe I was falsely reporting rapes, someone who questioned a little girl about being raped, which caused that child to take her own life….I have tried to share this information with Social Services, who say its not their jurisdiction, and with the Sheriff, who never returned my phone call, and with the States Attorney, who said he wasn’t going to help me with a lawsuit, when I had asked him to investigate into the wrongful death of J J.  I contacted the FBI to investigate, but I have heard nothing from them…. A total lack of investigation or concern for Child Abuse laws by various agencies and law enforcement has contributed to defamation of my character and death of a child.  Based on the allegations contained in my Complaint, evidence submitted in Affidavit and newly discovered evidence, and testimony from 2 witnesses, James Jetty and Ulysses Jones, attorney, I will offer evidence to the Court that warrants an investigation into the death by suicide of Jami Jetty.”  (Ex 134)

          The Court, Judge Christofferson was totally informed that defendants had violated the child abuse laws, which Judge Christofferson turned a blind eye to and did not order an investigation.  I asked the Court for oral arguments on the motions, (Ex 134) which the court totally ignored, along with the motion.  In my affidavit, I stated:

4.       Attached to this affidavit is a true and correct copy of a public announcement of a seminar help November 13, 2008, entitled School Law Seminar by North Dakota School Boards Association, featured as speakers are Defendants’ counsel Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson, with my unemployment case Janis Schmidt v. Job Service North Dakota and Warwick Public School District #29  discussed in a presentation entitled, “Who’s Being Sued and Why?”, with example, “Warwick – Follow the Curriculum”.  Also listed, is Tiffany Johnson, giving a presentation on “Discrimination Claims On The Rise”.  It would appear that I am the one in need of a Protection Order against Counsel disseminating false information that is harmful to my professional and personal reputation.  The Job Service Decision was based on fraud upon the court, which I intend to prove in a Rule 60 Motion.

5.       Attached to this affidavit is a copy of a January 8, 2007 letter written by Defendant Guthrie, containing 5 Directives and a copy of the Chain of Command fraudulently submitted to Job Service by Gary Thune on NDSBA letterhead, to be used as evidence of misconduct, as Defendants’ reason for why I was fired.  This proves that Counsel brought all their motions to Court in bad faith.  The 5 Directives were given to prevent me from informing the School Board of my illegal firing over Warwick High School Administrators’ refusal to report a rape, and further abusing a little 12 year old, J J by questioning her about a rape without her father’s knowledge or consent.

6.       Attached to this Affidavit is number 46-75 from my Complaint, which details the circumstances under which the 5 Directives were given;  the pertinent fact being that I was fired by Mr. Guthrie on January 4, 2007, before the Directives were given, proof that the Directives were given to me AFTER I had been fired, with Counsel Gary Thune’s advise, contrary to the interest of Warwick Public School District.  I was not fired for failure to follow Directives, which had not yet been given to me, but because I had reported the real rape of M H and how Guthrie expelled her, then sit up J J to replace in the eyes of the law.  Mr. Thune of Pearce & Durick advised Mr. Guthrie that he better let me back in school so I could be fired properly, starting with the 5 Directives.

7.       Counsel’s statement is blatantly false, “She [the Plaintiff] has attempted to destroy or conceal evidence of offering to drop her lawsuit against one individually named defendant.”  Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune, whose names appear on the Protective Order Motion, are attempting to protect their own self interests in not wanting me to discover their involvement in the cover-up of a felony crime, aiding in continued abuse of students by Mr. Guthrie, retaliation, unlawfully firing of a teacher.  I have hard evidence to prove these statements to be true, most of which are enumerated in my Complaint, which Counsel is obligated to follow, rather than their own version of the facts. 

Lawyer Johnson was creating a diversion away from the fact that defendant and lawyers had committed criminal acts.  Ms. Johnson was referring to elementary principal Steve Jacobson and the school board members whom I had dismissed as defendants when I realized it was the lawyers who should have been included as defendants, for reasons enumerated above. 

8.       Counsel has made further false, fraudulent, and libelous statements,  “She [the Plaintiff] has threatened police action unless a School District employee provided her with information.”  I asked Social Services, Educational Standards and Practices Board, the States Attorney, and the FBI to investigate administrators for child abuse which has lead to the death of a child.  I am supposed to have a protected duty to do that.  And I do have hard evidence of that which I tried to turn over to the sheriff and the states attorney, but both rejected it.  That I threatened Carol Walford with police action is blatantly false and self-serving.  I am the only one who risked my job and my reputation in attempts to protect my students from abuse perpetuated upon them by the defendants, and the evidence I need to prove this is so noted in my Complaint, which Defendants and their attorney are obligated to follow, instead of making up unsubstantiated stories to blow smoke up the judge’s robe and then ask for a Protection Order. 

10.     In Defendants’ objection to my Request for a Continuance, Tiffany Johnson attached a copy of the ND Supreme Court’s Opinion in Schmidt v. Job Service and Warwick Public School, which prove that Thune and Johnson are not responding to my Complaint, but in fact, are relying upon an agency decision, which is contrary to the Rules of Civil Procedure, that the Plaintiff’s facts contained in the Complaint are to be accepted as true.”

          Another diversion from crime which Judge Christofferson allowed.   Defendants’ attorneys, Thune/Johnson responded by saying that I was inappropriately applying Rule 52.   They frequently misapplied the law to suit their own foul purposes.   It was also very illegal for Thune and Johnson to submit a copy of the Supreme Court Opinion, according to Century Code,[60] but I was unaware of the Code prohibiting a Job Service Decision to be submitted as evidence.   It was even more illegal for Judge Christofferson to have accepted inadmissible evidence.  He breached his duty to me by failing to adjudicate according to the law and Rules.  Judge Christofferson should have been aware of all the criminal actions of the defendants and the attorneys just from reading my Complaint.  My Motion for Additional Findings certainly nailed it down.  Judge Christofferson ignored the legal process in which I should have been allowed a hearing before the Protection Order was granted.  I had a right to a hearing for additional findings on the Protective Order, pursuant to ND Rule 7.1(3) and ND R. Civ. P. 52(b).   Judge Christofferson prevented me from receiving a full, fair, impartial hearing or a full, fair, impartial administration of justice.  I proffered evidence which would lead a reasonable person to believe I had been  prevented or hindered from receiving full, fair, impartial hearings or the full, fair, impartial administration of justice.

          On May 5, 2009, I filed an Objection to the Protection Order, Motion to Vacate PO, and strike from record.  (Doc 70)  (Ex 135,  Objection to Protection Order) 

“The Court cannot deny my proffered material evidence which clearly demonstrates Thune was involved in my unlawful dismissal.” 

 

          Because lawyer Tiffany Johnson would not allow me to subpoena witnesses for deposition, I decided to depose individuals from Bismarck who were responsible for unlawfully influencing the Job Service Decision, Asst. AG Michael Pitcher, Asst. AG Bill Peterson, Solicitor General Douglas Bahr, Job Service hearing officer Dave Clinton, lawyer Gary Thune, Alyssa Martin of ND School Boards Assn. and Janet Welk, ESPB. All deponents responded.  (Ex                                                                                                                                  146,  Responses)  Pitcher, Peterson, Bahr,  Clinton and Welk were all represented by Asst. AG Douglas Anderson.  (Ex 146)   Johnson/Thune moved to quash the depositions.  I called Mr. Anderson and asked him if he had agreed to quash the subpoenas.  AG Anderson was unaware that lawyer  Johnson had moved to quash subpoenas for his clients.  (Ex 147,  Letters to AG Anderson)   Tiffany Johnson had no valid reason to quash these subpoenas.   The judge partially granted the motion to quash.  (Ex 145,  Order partially granting motion to quash)  Judge Christofferson had no right to quash the subpoenas, and in fact, violated my right to discovery.  The only subpoena which Ms. Johnson had a right to quash was to lawyer Gary Thune.

          Tiffany Johnson had no protection order on these people, nor could she claim she represented them.   Yet Tiffany Johnson motioned the court for a second protection order.  (Ex 144, Motion for 2nd Protection Order)  The motion was signed, August 25, 2009, by both Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune, for the following bogus reasons:

  1. The depositions Ms. Schmidt had taken and proposes to take will not lead to information reasonable relevant to claims made by Ms. Schmidt in the above captioned matter;
  2. Ms. Schmidt’s purpose for taking these depositions appears to be to harass and annoy the District;
  3. Ms. Schmidt’s about of the discovery process has led to unnecessary cost to the District and has become unreasonably burdensome.

          And Judge Christofferson signed the Order to quash the deposition subpoenas, except for Allysa Martin and Janet Welk.  (Ex 145) Ass’t AG Mr. Anderson suggested I postpone and he would weigh in on Ms. Johnson’s motion to quash, which he never did.  I submitted a motion of solution for the depositions.  (Ex 148, Solutions to Subpoenas) 

“All objections … have been answered.  Deponents Dave Clinton, Michael Pitcher, Douglas Bahr, Bill Peterson, and Janet Welk testimony was vital for me to prove my case.  Prior to contacting the court, none of the above referenced deponents tried to contact me.  Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1), I have a right to discovery regarding any matter.  Deponents did not claim privilege, therefore, there is no reason why they should not appear at deposition.  It is not fair to me, the Plaintiff, that they rely on their rank and position to avoid answering a subpoena for deposition. 

I have a prima facie case.  I am likely to win my case.  My facts are that the defendants retaliated against me because I reported them to authorities for refusing to follow child abuse laws.”  (Ex 148)

       With all the facts before him, that administrators had not reported a rape, expelled the rape victim, and set up another girl to replace the rape victim, Judge Christofferson did not order an investigation, or try to see that child abuse laws were upheld.  When we met for a pretrial conference, Judge Christofferson never asked me what progress I had made in discovery.  He simply allowed Johnson/Thune to act unethically, if not illegally to prevent any discovery.   Judge Christofferson quashed subpoenas outside of his jurisdiction.  And I was likely to win if I didn’t have unfair, biased judicial and lawyer interference with my discovery.  Ms. Johnson was misusing the Protection Order with total abandonment.  I filed a motion asking the court to clarify the Protection Orders:  (Ex 150, Protection Order casing problems with Discovery) 

“The Protection Order states specifically that I am not to contact defendants, WPS employees or their agents….  Now Ms. Johnson decides, 3 days before deposition, that four former employees and defendants, do not come under the Protection Order, and that I have to subpoena them….And I would like it explained how I am to prove my case if I can’t depose witnesses of my choosing without Tiffany Johnson’s interference, backed up by the court….I will go ahead with the 5 that Ms. Johnson is allowing me to depose, but I reserve the right to depose the other 4 whenever the court gets it figured out and explained in a clear and concise fashion….If I am not allowed discovery, how am I to prove my claims?”

The court never clarified anything, and I was not allowed discovery, all because the justice system and law enforcement did not want any investigation into the causes of Jami Jetty’s suicide, since they were all to blame for failing to uphold the child abuse laws. 

          When I postponed Guthrie’s deposition, Tiffany Johnson seized the opportunity to falsely accuse me of being rude to her secretary.  (Ex 151)

           I deposed Alyssa Martin and Janet Welk in Bismarck, as the first depositions.  I attempted to depose defendants, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Johnson’s constant interference.   I sent a letter to Bill Newman, who suggested I contact the Disciplinary Council.  The court did nothing.  (Ex 151, Johnson’s letter falsely accusing me)      

          Before I could depose any Warwick witnesses and defendants, Judge Christofferson restricted my depositions to “defendants named in the lawsuit who are represented by Ms. Johnson and to current employees of the Warwick Public School Dist.” (Ex 154,  Order restricting discovery) This Order makes absolutely no sense, unless one interprets Judge Christofferson as deliberately preventing me from discovery because I would not only prove my claims, but discover the criminal acts of the defendants and their attorneys.  It can only be interpreted that crime against Indians has been going uninvestigated in this area, and that there is a racial bias against Indians. 

 

          The next and third illegal Protection Order has been discussed in Chapt. 16, p. 63.  Depositions were scheduled for August 26, 2009.  Scheduled first was Millie Banet, who, as the record reflects, was 12 minutes late because Mr. Wang was busy filing an objection with the clerk of court on deposition time. (Doc 156, 157)   Upon arrival, he motioned for Tiffany Johnson, and they left Millie and me with the recorder and went out in the hallway for an ex parte discussion.  Finally, I went out in the hallway and demanded that they get on with the deposition at hand.  States Attorney Wang informed me that Dennis Meier was not appearing for his deposition and Johnson confirmed that Meier would not be there.  Wang made a big deal out of telling me that he represented Benson County Social Services and not the state Dept. of Human Resources.  Millie refused to answer any questions as to why there had been no investigation, and would not answer any questions about child abuse laws in general.  (Exhibit 14, Millie Banet Deposition)  Tiffany Johnson kept interrupting the Ed Forde deposition, (Exhibit 15) so as to prevent me from asking Mr. Forde what they did with my 29 page Report to School Board Members.  It became apparent what Johnson’s and Wang’s meeting in the hall was about, when Johnson and Wang suddenly left the deposition to see Judge Christofferson. (Exhibit 16, Affidavit)  Lawyer Johnson insisted that I come, so I followed Johnson and Wang into Judge Christofferson’s Chambers, which I never should have done because (Ex 15 and 16) it gave Judge Christofferson an opportunity to make an illegal ruling on defendant/Johnson’s motion to suppress my discovery through a 3rd Protection Order.  (Ex 18)   The first thing the Judge Christofferson said to Johnson and Wang was,  “I expected to see you earlier,” which tells me that Christofferson, Wang, and Johnson had prearranged this meeting, unrecorded, in order to prevent me from taking any more depositions.     Johnson had submitted a motion to restrict me from taking any more depositions on August 26, 2009, the day of the depositions. (Exhibit 18,  Motion for 3rd Protective Order) Judge Christofferson never listened to me or asked any questions about the deposition at hand.  Instead he allowed Wang and Johnson to state that I was causing unnecessary cost to the District, and that I wasn’t asking any questions about nonrenewal.  Wang didn’t feel that Social Services decision not to investigate a rape was not an issue for deposition.  The judge made an instant ruling on Johnson’s motion, and ordered that I could not take any more depositions, in an astonishing violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure.[61] (Exhibit 19,  Order granting 3rd Protective Order.  I was given no opportunity to respond to Johnson’s spurious motion, be it 10 or 14 days.  Judge Christofferson buried his unlawful ruling amongst a bunch of other Orders.  (Ex 19)  Judge Christofferson unlawfully granted this motion in which he obviously had ex parte discussions with Johnson and Wang.  I asked for a transcript of this chamber meeting on Ms. Johnson’s motion for a 3rd protection order, but Judge Christofferson said it wasn’t recorded because no one requested it.  (Exhibit 20,  Judge’s statement on nonrecording)  This is blatant fraud upon the court, committed by a judge, a states attorney, and a lawyer.  I filed an Affidavit (Exhibit 16, Affidavit) and a Motion for Contempt on Dennis Meier,  (Exhibit 85, Motion for Contempt) for failing to show up for his deposition, which Judge Christofferson denied.  (Exhibit 85, Order)

 

         

          Another person who did not show up for deposition was Ulysses Jones, the lawyer who accompanied James Jetty and Cora Tiger to meet with Supt. Charles Guthrie about the questioning of Jami Jetty about a rape, without the parents’ knowledge or permission, January 4, 2007.  I was really unaware of the role he played in deceiving Jami’s parents into believing that I was the one who had said that Jami had been raped.  Emails to my attorney friend reveal that I had been totally deceived by Ulysses Jones.  I had deposed both James Jetty and Cora Tiger, who revealed that Ulysses Jones told them that he was my attorney.   It wasn’t until I opened the packet I had given Jones back in January of 07 that I realized that Jones was instrumental in the tampering of my Report to School Board Members.  (Ex 152,  Emails to Barry about Jones tampered Report)  Guthrie, in his Response to ESPB, said that Jones told me he could not represent me because of conflict of interest.  And that is what Jones told me on 1/4/07, conflict of interest.  So, if Jones didn’t represent James Jetty and he didn’t represent me, he must have been working for Supt. Guthrie, according to Guthrie’s Response to ESPB.  (Ex 5-D)  And if he didn’t represent Jetty, why was he so determined to get his hands on my Report to School Board Members?  (Ex 152)  It is now obvious that Jones facilitated the tampering of my Report to School Board Members back in 2006-07.   (Ex 8 and 8-A)  This is also the obvious reason that he didn’t show up for his deposition.  (Ex 153,  Ulysses Jones deposition)  I filed Contempt, but astonishingly, Judge Christofferson denied contempt charges.  (Ex 155,  Order denying Contempt)

 

          I had to now get permission from the court to take any further depositions, so I tried to depose key persons.  So I motioned the Court for permission.  (Ex 156,  Permission to Depose)  Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune opposed my taking any more depositions, based on nonrenewal,  (Ex 157, Opposition to Depositions) which Johnson/Thune were trying to substitute for the time I was fired without notice or hearing.  Nonrenewal was not my fact, which was that nonrenewal was part of retaliation against me for having reported that Mr. Guthrie had not reported a rape when he first learned of it, which I very clearly stated in my Complaint.  Johnson/Thune were substituting false facts.  The judge breached his duty to me by accepting defendant facts and not Plaintiff facts as true.  Judge Christofferson allowed Johnson/Thune/Guthrie to get by with not reporting a rape, and unlawfully dismissing me for having reported them.  The nonrenewal was totally immaterial to my lawsuit, yet Thune/ Johnson got the court to focus on it, and prevented me from my rightful discovery.  (Ex 158,  Order quashing Depositions)    Just like the lawyers, the judge refused to uphold the child abuse laws.

 

          Judge Christofferson, States Attorney Wang, and lawyer Tiffany Johnson are officers of the court.  They were aware that hearing a motion in the judge’s chambers on the very day the motion is filed with the court (Doc 153) is highly immoral, unethical, and illegal.  They could do it and get by with it because they enjoy absolute, unquestioned power to act illegally under enjoyment of absolute immunity, meaning that child abuse laws do not apply to them, and because North Dakota has laws that protect governmental agencies such as Social Services from any liability.  Shortly thereafter, Tiffany Johnson brought a motion for summary judgment which Judge Christofferson granted, in spite of the staggering amount of evidence I produced to show contested facts.  (Doc 204)  I submitted a motion for an evidentiary hearing, (Exhibit 21, Motion for Evidenturay Hearing) which Judge Christofferson ignored.   In short, administrators in a state run school and agents Dennis Meier, Ed Forde, Millie Banet, and lawyers Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson are clearly above the child abuse laws, and cannot be touched, which is precisely why there needs to be a  grand jury investigation of all officials involved.[62]  The only problem with this is that the prosecutor was deeply involved in destroying evidence, and the judges adjudicating for Benson County have committed fraud upon the court.[63] 

 

 

30.    Defendants make personal attacks on me, and law enforcement refused to protect me or my property

 

          On July 28, 2009, Tiffany Johnson asked for more detailed answers to interrogatory, and that I be sanctioned and my lawsuit dismissed.  (Doc 115)     Then Judge Christofferson issued a very biased, unfounded letter in which he unethically and unlawfully attempted to justify his interference in my discovery and he gave me some busy work to distract me from writing the supervisory writ.     (Ex 159,  Letter from Judge Christofferson) 

 

“So, formal discovery by Ms. Schmidt would be limited to her two remaining claims of retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  These claims must be decided by the trial court based upon the record developed before the Board at the time of the non-renewal decision.  There is no authority on these two claims to supplement the record, so discovery is quite limited…

 

“Whether the alleged actions meet the threshold of extreme and outrageous conduct is a question of law to be decided by the Court.  Dahlberg at 21.  The test is not whether or not a termination of employment was traumatic but whether or not the termination was outrageous.

“Thus, the time has come in this litigation for Ms. Schmidt to succinctly set forth in affidavit form the evidence of outrageous behavior which she believes justifies her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Ms. Johnson may also address the matter by motion.”  (Ex 159)

 

What was outrageous was this letter, which is proof that Judge Christofferson was working against me, a pro se litigant, to stifle my lawful discovery.  He was attempting to conduct a trial without a trial, and he was suggesting to defendant counsel to write a motion for summary judgment.  (Ex 159)    Why would a judge do such a thing?  Because he has something to hide, as do the defendants and all the officers of the court.  Violence against Indians has obviously been going on for a long time, there has been no investigations or prosecutions into these matters.  Why else would Judge Christofferson rule so recklessly in my case so as to get rid of it, when my Complaint was based on child abuse and teacher dismissal laws?    And that Jami Jetty had been set up to replace the real rape victim after she had been expelled once I had discovered that Supt. Guthrie had not reported the rape of the other student.

 

          Guthrie/Thune/Johnson never planned that Jami would kill herself over what they did to her.  But dead is dead, and I am the only living witness to what actually happened, which is why Guthrie/Thune/Johnson had to destroy my lawsuit and ruin my life with their lies, because if the facts in my Complaint were/are true, then they are guilty of causing a child’s death by suicide,[64]  which I am saying, they did.

 

29.    Summary Judgment and inadmissible evidence

 

          Just as Judge Christofferson suggested she do, Tiffany Johnson and Gary Thune wrote a motion for summary judgment.  (Ex 38, Doc 196)  For evidence, Johnson/Thune submitted as evidence:

 

  1. Tampered version of my Report to School Board Members  (Ex 8)
  2. Supreme Court decision Schmidt v. Job Service,  (Ex 50)
  3. Responses to ESPB  (Ex 5)

 

          In short, Johnson/Thune submitted inadmissible evidence for summary judgment, and Judge Christofferson accepted it, even though I proved it to be inadmissible.  I submitted 99 exhibits of evidence, proving all my facts to be true, but still Judge Christofferson astonishingly granted summary judgment. 

 

          I did not discover that my Report to School Board Members had been tampered with until around August 20, 2009, and it was still very difficult for me to believe that Jones was involved in the tampering, (Ex 152) which is why he never showed up for his deposition.  Depositions were held on August 26, 2009.  I discovered the tampered Report when I opened the envelope containing the Report.  (Ex 8-A)  Obviously Guthrie, Jones, Johnson, and Thune knew about the tampered report ever since January 4, 2007.  The fact that they entered it in summary judgment is proof of that they knew they were trying to hide the fact that they had not reported a rape and other abuse, and if fact, had become the abusers with Jami Jetty.  Why else would they tamper the part to say that I had said the Jami had been raped?  Obviously, they were basing their facts in part on the tampered Report.  (Ex 8)  The cover up of crimes against children exceeds that of the Penn State scandal.   There was no reason to report this to the court until Johnson/Thune filed a summary judgment, and submitted the tampered Report as evidence.  I had submitted my untampered Report to Defendants in response to an Interrogatory, twice.  Once on July 28, 2009, (Doc 135) and September 16, 2009, (Doc 167-174).  By this time, I knew that Johnson/Thune were crooked and dishonest, so I filed all my answers and documents with the court, so they couldn’t say I didn’t respond.  One of those documents was a correct copy of my Report to School Board Members.  (Ex 135, and Ex 1)  Surely Thune/Johnson must have noticed some discrepancies between the original and the tampered version.  As the author of the Report, I am the authority on it.  Why would Thune/Johnson not at least contact me about the discrepancy before summary judgment?  They had to be part of it.  I filed a Motion to Strike the tampered report.  (Ex 160, Motion to Strike Tampered Report)  In response, Ms. Johnson said that all copies had my signature and she chose the one by the number of pages, (Doc 219) to submit in summary judgment.  Astonishingly, Judge Christofferson accepted this bogus reasoning, and denied my motion to strike.  (Ex 161,  Order denying Motion to Strike)   How could a judge rule so unlawfully?   If nothing else, this certainly created a disputed fact over a material issue, and my case should never have been dismissed in summary judgment.

 

          I then discovered an unemployment law stating that any unemployment decision cannot be used in any further proceedings.

 

52-06-37.1. Applicability of decision to separate proceedings. Any finding of fact or

law, judgment, conclusion, or decision made by a claims examiner, appeals referee, the bureau, or any person with the authority to make findings of fact or law in any action or proceeding before the bureau is not conclusive or binding on, nor may it be used as evidence in, any separate or  subsequent action or proceeding unrelated to the North Dakota unemployment compensation law, except for workforce safety and insurance purposes, between an individual and the individual's present or prior employer brought before an arbitrator, court, or judge of this state or the United States, regardless of whether the prior action was between the same or related parties or involved the same facts.

 

52-06-40. Penalty for violation or failure to perform duty when no penalty provided.

Any person who willfully violates any provision of this title, or any order, rule, or regulation thereunder, and for which a penalty is neither prescribed in this title nor provided by any other applicable statute, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

 

The law is very clear:  Thune/Johnson improperly applied the Job Service Decision as evidence for summary judgment, which the law clearly says they cannot do.  Gary Thune and Tiffany Johnson work with unemployment laws all the time, and therefore had to know that what they did was illegal, and in fact, was fraud upon the court.  I filed a motion in limine asking the court to strike and exclude inadmissible evidence. (Doc 228)  (Ex 162, Motion to Strike and Exclude inadmissible evidence)  In Opposition, Defendants/Thune/Johnson argued that “The District is not asking the Court to adopt factual findings made by Job Service, rather the District is asking the Court to apply the rule of law established the the Supreme Court in Schmidt v. Job Service of North Dakota.”   (Doc 232)   In other words, Thune/Johnson were asking the court to ignore the facts, and just apply the Job Service Decision.  This was totally moronic statement flies in the face of the law, which clearly states that no unemployment fact or decision may be used as evidence in any subsequent proceeding.  I wrote a reply brief in which I said that lawyers Johnson and Thune were using the Warwick School District as a buffer for their own misconduct.  “They have wasted a whole year of my time, and have denied me the right of discovery to be able to prove my claims in court….”  (Ex 163, Reply Brief)  Judge Christofferson refused to apply the law, and accepted Johnson/Thune’s lame reasoning.  “This statute does not limit restating facts, using a Supreme Court decision in whole or part….’’  (Ex 164, Order on Inadmissible Evidence)  The court breached its duty to me by unfairly and unlawfully misinterpreting the law in favor of the defendants, the movers.  I asked the court to order defendants to pay expenses and hold lawyers in Contempt. 

56 Summary Judgment 

 (g) Affidavit Submitted in Bad Faith. If satisfied that an affidavit under this rule is submitted in bad faith or solely for delay, the court must order the submitting party to pay the other party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, it incurred as a result. An offending party or attorney may also be held in contempt.

           Judge Christofferson allowed inadmissible evidence and  dismissed my lawsuit in summary judgment.  (Ex 165, Summary Judgment)  One can only conclude that Judge Christofferson wanted to protect defendants and their attorneys from criminal charges if one were to accept my facts as true, for the death of Jami Jetty and for failing to report a rape and uphold child abuse laws. 

 

 

 

30.              Decision appealed to ND Supreme Court

 

          I appealed the Judgment to the ND Supreme Court.   While trying to write my appellate brief, Cory Christofferson drug a huge cottonwood into my garden, for the purpose of causing a serious delay in planting, harassment, and a message that the citizens of Warwick do not want me here.

         

          I asked the Sheriff  to investigate who entered my property and drug this tree across a hedge, and deliberately left it in the middle of my garden at planting time.  The huge trunk of the tree remained in my garden, as I was not able to remove it.  The hedge was severely damaged, and the tree in my garden prevented me from planting in a timely fashion, and has prevented me from farming my garden to the extent I usually can.  I had to file a motion for a time extension to write my Appeals Brief.  (Exhibit 166,  Motion for Time) 

 

          Coming out to investigate was Deputy Sheriff Shawn Banet, son of Millie Banet.  The Deputy Banet asked if I had any idea who did this.  I told him that Don January, a resident of Warwick, helped me remove my chainsaw which had become pinched in a tree limb.  In conversation, I said I wonder who drug this tree into my garden.  Don said,  “Cory said you wanted the tree drug into the garden so it would be easier to cut up.”  I have seen a tractor at January’s place.  It used to be parked in front of his garage.  I haven’t seen it there for the past couple of months.   A tractor left deep holes in my garden by the tree trunk which shows that the tractor strained, with tires spinning, to move that tree across the 10 ft. high hedge.  Gary Elfman, father-in-law to Cory Christofferson, told me he moved the tree from the hedge to the south side with his tractor, but that is all he did.  He said he did not enter my garden and move a tree into the garden. 

 

          I never realized the connection between Cory and Supt. Guthrie until this happened.  I always thought Cory was my friend.  And the connection ties into Benson County law enforcement, both Sheriff Royher and States Attorney James Wang.  Cory has a violent personality that is reckless and dangerous.  He was also elected to the Warwick School Board, so the recent Judgment and dismissal of my lawsuit, and especially Ms. Johnson’s Protective Orders which he felt would protect him.  So he criminally trespassed unto my private property and drag a huge tree into my garden.  (see next section, XXX, for a full discussion.  

 

          Deputy Banet never questioned Cory Christofferson or Don January. 

In the Report, the Deputy Banet relied on Monica Christofferson’s statements, which I know to be false.  Why didn’t he question Cory Christofferson and Don January?  Why did he take Monica’s word over that of Gary Elfman, a respected business man and president of the city council?  Why wasn’t Elfman’s statement included in the Report?

         

          The court granted me time and I finished my Appeals Brief.  I felt confident that the ND Supreme Court would reverse the decision because of all the disputed facts.  I was shocked that the Supreme Court affirmed the decision.  (Ex 167, ND Supreme Court Affirmation)  The laziness and indifference of the Supreme Court is astounding, to have allowed Gary Thune to influence the decision.  I really didn’t discover that the Supreme Court had based its Decision on Defendant facts until rehearing was over.  I then wrote a letter to the Court in objection, (Ex 168, Letter to Supreme Court, Case Summary)  which did not good since they had their mind made up, and were set on ignoring child abuse and teacher dismissal laws, which only goes to show the length that ND Courts will go to protect their own, rather than administer justice.

 

 

31.    AG refuses to allow me School Board Minutes

 

          Now that the litigation was over, I decided to ask for the school board minutes.  After I filed a lawsuit in 2008, I was obstructed by Tiffany Johnson from receiving any minutes through lawful discovery, pursuant to ND R. iv. P. 26 and Rule 30, in which I made 3 or 4 attempts to receive the minutes through discovery.  I made my 12/23/2010 request for 2006-2010 minutes directly to Carol Walford, believing that litigation was over, and that Tiffany Johnson would not be able to obstruct my receiving the minutes as she was able to do throughout the litigation.  (Ex 172,  Letter to AG Wayne Stenehjem, 1/18/11)    However, I was quite mistaken;  the AG said that she took the word of Tiffany Johnson over mine, and that the school didn’t have to turn over the minutes because they said they had turned them over before, which was a lie.     I asked for the minutes under the Open Records law, which the AG totally ignored, which, of course, he had something to hide.  I had asked him to investigate child abuse crimes, which he refused to do.  AG sent letter stating that they only took the word of Tiffany Johnson against me by assuming that Johnson was the entity or Warwick Public School.  (Ex 173, Letter from AG, 1/19/2011)       `                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

         

         

32.    Cory Christofferson assaulting student goes unreported, in exchange for Cory carrying out Guthrie’s agenda.

         

          The death of Jami Jetty begins and ends with Cory Christofferson.  He is the missing link, flying under the radar.  But then he got careless.

 

          Cory Christofferson is a sheep rancher living northeast of Warwick on deeded land within the boundaries of the Spirit Lake Reservation.  Cory contacted me via the Internet, having read about my legal battles in Pine Ridge, SD in 2006.  We struck up a phone conversation.  Cory thought it would be great if I moved to North Dakota and I could help him sue the ND Health Board.  Cory was very instrumental in landing me a job as high school art teacher at Warwick Public School through Principal Gene Riedinger.  Cory helped negotiate the sale of a house which I still live in today.  I regarded Cory as a friend.

 

          Cory is the one who told me that Gene Riedinger had sexually harassed a kindergarten teacher, Melissa Erickson, who brought charges against him before the school board in April of 06.  Riedinger resigned.  But then they fired the superintendent for sexually harassing the business manager, Carol Walford.  Riedinger, who had actually committed sexual harassment, quickly reapplied for his job and was rehired.   (Ex 3)   Orchestrating this event was Steve Michels.  Not only had Cory told me this story, but the janitor, Cecil Stewart, and reading supervisor, Jody Wellman, and the kindergarten teacher Melissa Erickson, all said the same thing.  (Ex 3)  Michels had conned himself into a position whereby he did not teach the curriculum;  instead of teaching any music, band, or chorus, he showed a few videos, and gossiped with students.  The old superintendent was going to make him perform his job or be fired, but Michels turned it around on the superintendent with a bogus sexual charge.  He threatened Melissa and Jody, intimidated the teachers, so no one would testify for Melissa at the school board hearing, and her complaint was dismissed.  Jody Wellman told me this in February or March of 2007.

         

          Cory was very friendly towards me, came over to my house for coffee, discussed situation at school.  After Cory choked the baskelball player, Anthony Falcon, Cory expressed an intense hatred towards Supt. Guthrie, without explaining why.    

 

          In early December of 2006, Cory Christofferson, whom I thought was my friend,  assaulted a student.  (Ex 1-B)  It took several students and the janitor, Cecil Stewart, to pull Cory off the student, who was almost unconscious.  I have talked to 3 students who were eye witnesses to this incident, who remember it vividly.  The assault occurred on front of approximately 30 students, who could witness this.   Supt. Guthrie was told immediately.  Cory resigned as girls’ coach.  Mr. Guthrie did not report the assault to Social Services or to the police or the Sheriff.  Instead, he made a deal with Cory to make the assault go away.  Cory would circulate petitions to get rid of the varsity coach as a reason for his involuntary resignation.   The December 12, 2006, school board minutes prove this to be true. (Exhibit #55, Dec 12, 06, school board minutes) Cory brought a copy of the petition to my room, and asked me to word the petition for him.  I told him it was a very bad idea to get rid of the 6th grade teacher and coach, Mr. Klein, and I would have nothing to do with it.  It is now obvious to me that Mr. Guthrie cut a deal with Cory, that he involve me in the petition to get rid of Coach Klein in exchange that Mr. Guthrie wouldn’t report him to the police, and distract the school board and staff from the real reason for dismissing Cory as girl’s coach.  The school board minutes reflect this.  “Cory Christofferson presented a letter with a petition to Board President Thiele…..Mr. Christofferson voiced his concerns about the boy’s basketball program.”    In the January 23, 2007, school board meeting, Supt. Guthrie reported this way:  “Mr. Guthrie stated he received a letter of apology from Cory Christofferson in regards to a complaint[65] he had at the December 12th meeting.”  (Ex #53) I attended the January 2007 school board meeting, thinking that the school board would ask me about my 29 page report, but they didn’t. Mr. Michels was also in attendance of this meeting, held in the library.  Mr. Michels had a grouping of chairs lined up in front of the school board. He kept going in and out.  No one occupied those chairs.  I strongly suspect he was going to call the teachers in to testify that I was saying that girls were being raped in Warwick School.  But he never called them in because I was there.

 

           Cory was a frequent visitor at my house until I was fired in April of 2006.  Cory himself told me that he had choked a student, but that he had gone over to the parents house and had made things alright with the boy and parents.  Supt. Guthrie knew or should have known that he had a duty to report this as a crime and as child abuse, but the record shows he did neither.  Before I was nonrenewed, Cory once again revived the petition to remove the coach.  Once again, I feel this was to distract teachers’ attention away from the fact that I was being illegally removed from my teaching duties.  Michels had a lot to do with orchestrating this, as the facts will bear out.  I spoke frequently with Cory about Guthrie not reporting a rape, then using Jami Jetty to make it seem like she was the rape victim.

 

Suddenly, in March Cory began taking that petition to remove Coach Klein around for signatures.  Cory then asked me not to go to the school board meeting.  I thought he didn’t want me to jeopardize my teaching position by defending him.  Because I was deceived into thinking he was my friend, because he came over to my house every week for coffee, I did not suspect his true motive was to keep me from hearing the announcement of my nonrenewal in open meeting.  (Exhibit 54, 3/20/07 school board minutes) 

 

          During the summer of 07, Cory came over to my house, as usual, but this time he wanted to know when I would be leaving, and he offered to buy my house.  He helped me get broken windows fixed.  Then he ran for school board and got elected for 07-08 year.  When I didn’t leave because I had no job, and no prospects of a job because of the misconduct charge, and because I owned my house free and clear, Cory stopped coming over.

 

          At the end of 08 school year, Cory was asked to resign his position from the Warwick school board because of his violent temper.  He was told to take anger management classes, which he told me he did, as he had started to come over to my house again.  I had filed a lawsuit, and he would ask about it.  Then Cory asked me to write an Appeals brief for him in his lawsuit with the ND Health Dept.  and that he would pay me.  He brought over the record in 3 binders.  I told my lawyer friend, Barry Bachrach, about it.  Barry told me in no uncertain terms that I could not do that, and that I must return all materials immediately to Cory, because Barry told me they would get me for practicing without a license.  I drove over to Cory’s house with the binders and told him I couldn’t write a brief for him.  He stopped coming over to my house after that, except once in November to tell me that Jami Jetty had killed herself on November 3, 2008.

         

 

33.    Cory Christofferson drags tree in my garden, and sham investigation.

 

          I still hadn’t figured out that Cory had been extorted by Mr. Guthrie to help get rid of me.   In March of 2010, I asked Cory if he could help cut down some trees on my property so as my gardens could get more sunlight.

 

          Finally, in April, 2010, Cory came over to cut down the trees in April, when it was time to plant, and an Appeals brief due.   Cory cut down the cottonwood on my back lot. It fell on the other side of the hedge, away from the garden.   I asked Cory to cut down the pine trees in my yard bordering the east edge of my garden.   Instead of cutting the trees to fall into the yard, Cory cut them to fall into the garden.  I had to cut up the trees and haul them out before I could plant the garden. 

 

          It was my understanding that my property line ran 10 feet on the other side of the trees.  I discovered later, after the trees were cut down that the trees had been planted on the line. 

 

          On or about April 29, 2010, Gary Elfman, Cory’s father-in-law;  Sandy Barber,  Cory’s cousin, and another member of the Warwick City Council, all members of the Warwick City Council, came over to my house.  Sandy claimed the cottonwood was her property.  I said I thought the tree was 10 feet inside my property, but she showed me map with the tree being on the line.  I asked her what she wanted me to do about it.  She said she wanted an apology, and for me to remove the tree.  I agreed;  I said I would (1) plant the garden, (2) write an appeals brief, and (3)  cut up and remove tree, in that order.  Sandy Barber agreed.  It must be remembered that Gary Elfman is father-in-law to Cory Christofferson.  A year ago, I had wanted to talk to the City Council about my lawsuit against the school, to clear up some false rumors.  I received a certified letter from them stating that I could not speak at the meeting of the City Council, although I am a resident.  (Ex 169, Certified letter from City of Warwick)

 

          Someone or ones entered my private property without my knowledge or permission about mid-May of 2010 with a tractor and drug a huge cottonwood across a hedge and into my garden, for the purpose of causing a serious delay in planting, harassment, and a message that the citizens of Warwick do not want me here.

         

          I asked the Sheriff  to investigate who entered my property and drug this tree across a hedge, and deliberately left it in the middle of my garden at planting time and the tree in my garden prevented me from planting in a timely fashion, and has prevented me from farming my garden to the extent I usually can.  I had to file a motion for a time extension to write my Appeals Brief.  (Exhibit #64, Motion for Time) 

 

          Coming out to investigate was Deputy Sheriff Shawn Banet, son of Millie Banet, the Social Services worker who agreed that no investigation should be made into Supt. Guthrie not reporting a rape and setting up Jami Jetty.  (Ex 10)   The Deputy Banet asked if I had any idea who did this.  I told him that Don January, a resident of Warwick, helped me remove my chainsaw which had become pinched in a tree limb.  In conversation, I said I wonder who drug this tree into my garden.  Don said,  “Cory said you wanted the tree drug into the garden so it would be easier to cut up.”  I have seen a tractor at January’s place.  It used to be parked in front of his garage.  I haven’t seen it there for the past couple of months.   A tractor left deep holes in my garden by the tree trunk which shows that the tractor strained, with tires spinning, to move that tree across the 10 ft. high hedge.  Gary Elfman, father-in-law to Cory Christofferson, told me he moved the tree from the hedge to the south side with his tractor, but that is all he did.  He said he did not enter my garden and move a tree into the garden.  (Ex 170, 2010 Sheriff’s Report)

 

          Deputy Banet never questioned Cory Christofferson or Don January. 

In the Report, the Deputy Banet relied on Monica Christofferson’s statements, which I know to be false.  Why didn’t he question Cory Christofferson and Don January?  Why did he take Monica’s word over that of Gary Elfman, a respected business man and president of the city council?  Why wasn’t Elfman’s statement included in the Report?  Because Deputy Banet is the son of Millie Banet, the CP Social Worker who, with Director Ed Forde and Human Resources Meier decided not to investigate my 960 Report of rape.  (Ex 10)

         

          The Report says that the tree in my garden was unrelated to my lawsuit.  Why is that even in the Report?  Everyone involved is related to the Defendants in my lawsuit.  Chances are very good that it is related to my lawsuit.  The fact that it is included in this Report makes it appear that Benson County law enforcement has wrongfully labeled the incident as a civil matter, not criminal.     Monica Christofferson was an elementary secretary at Warwick Public School, and is daughter to Donna Christofferson, a school board member, whom I named as a defendant in my lawsuit.  Cory Christofferson, also related to Donna Christofferson, is a former school board member.  These are undeniable facts.  So, how could Deputy Banet say that the tree in my garden was  unrelated to my lawsuit?

         

          How can entering someone’s private property with a tractor for the purpose of dragging a tree across the hedge into my garden not be a criminal act?   The tree was drug across the hedge, damaging the lilacs, and deliberately drug into my garden, not yard as stated in the report  It appears to me that Deputy Banet deliberately breached his duty to me to investigate a criminal act as I asked him to.  I was unaware the Deputy Banet was the son of Millie Banet, social worker, which is why he produced a sham investigation, stating that it was a civil matter and not criminal.  I wrote a letter states attorney Wang, quoting the law, and asked why he isn’t doing a proper investigation.  (Ex 171,  Letter to Wang, 7/10/10)  He replied by saying that the states attorney and local law enforcement has total jurisdiction.  (Ex 174,  AG declines jurisdiction)

 

 

 

34.  Cory returns to steal cotton wood, documents, and make threats against me

 

          Emboldened by the lack of investigation and prosecution, Cory Christofferson returned in 2011, following the same path, backing a vehicle, most likely a pick up into the garden in exactly the same location as before.  This time he came to pick up the cottonwood that had been cut.  Gone were piles of cottonwood piled along side garden, and from by the garage.  This was not a theft, but an attempt to remove evidence.  Also missing were my documents pertaining to the tree in the garden, taken from a folder which I had lying in front of the computer.  Then Cory Christofferson came over to my house to threaten me that I was to say nothing about the tree in the garden or anything about him.  (Ex 175,  Letters to Sheriff and states attorney about tree/document theft)  I reported to sheriff, knowing it would do no good to do so.  (Ex 176,  Report to Sheriff) 

         

          I was a little alarmed now, knowing that Cory and former defendants could come unto my property, even come in my house and threaten me, and the sheriff and states attorney would do nothing.  Since the AG insisted that Tiffany Johnson still had control over defendants, even though lawsuit was over, I decided to put the problem to her.  Since Cory was and is a member of the school board, I asked Ms. Johnson to inform Cory that anything he wants to say to me, he needs to tell Ms. Johnson who then can inform me.  (Ex 177,  Letter to Tiffany Johnson)

 

          Deputy Sheriff Banet conducted another sham investigation.  (Ex 182,  Deputy Sheriff’s 2011 Report)  Had this not happened, I would have not realize that states attorney James Wang had a role in what happened from the very beginning, starting with the tampering of the Report to School Board Members.  (Ex 8)  Child abuse laws had been violated with impunity, and no one was willing to investigate, which resulted in the death of a Native American girl by suicide.  I was and am the only witness to what happened to Jami Jetty.  That’s when I looked up the law concerning grand juries and realized that the county commissioners have the authority to call a grand jury.    So, I met with the commissioners to have them call a grand jury to investigate the suicide death of Jami Jetty.  I also asked for an investigation into why the sheriff conducted a sham investigation of criminal trespass and threats against me.  This prompted states attorney James Wang to finally respond with a letter, which he copied to all the commissioners.      (Ex 178, Wang’s letter, copied to Commissioners, 7/26/11)  Mr. Wang sent me the letter in a timely fashion, a week before the meeting.  However, he waited until just before the meeting to spring the letter on the commissioners, just before the meeting.  Rather than address the issue, Mr. Wang lied about his involvement in the death of Jami Jetty, and libeled my position:

 

“You seem to convolute, twist, and circumvent your issues to bolster your own agenda when communicating both written and in verbal communication.  Further accusations by you to, that I somehow engaged in official misconduct by not investigating some crime that you failed to file  a 960 Report on a reservation which I have no felony jurisdiction will not be tolerated.  If your badgering behavior continues, I may ignore your request of assistance in the future.”  (Ex 178)

 

                                                                                                              

Wang’s letter was intended to poison the minds of the commissioners, who have been trained to do whatever the states attorney tells them to do.  Unfortunately, they are not the kind of people who think for themselves.  Wang purposely lied when he said I never filed a 960 Report.  I filed a 960 Report in January of 2007,  (Ex 1)  and received a reply from Benson County Social Services in January of 2007, stating they had received a 20 page Report from me.  (Ex 10)  Benson County did have jurisdiction, (Ex 10) and I did file a 960 Report.  (Ex 1)

 

          Instead of an investigation, Benson County Social Services destroyed my Report, most likely on the advice of states attorney Wang.  I called Dennis Meier who said he destroyed the report, that Social Services doesn’t keep a Report after a year’s time.  Which leads to a question, what happened to the 29 page Report I submitted to Social Services to report a rape as told to me by M H?  Is this what Social Services does with 960 reports?  When I subpoenaed the records from Social Services, their in-house attorney, Jonathan Alm, said he never received a 29 page Report mentioned in Dennis Meier’s letter.   (Ex 13, Subpoenaed Documents from Social Services)  He said it was a county decision, so that must mean it was a Benson County Social Services Board and states attorney James Wang decision.   The question is, did the Benson County Social Services Board ever see a copy of my Report to School Board Members, dated December 29, 2006, which I submitted as a 960 report?  When I subpoenaed Millie Banet in deposition, she refused to answer these questions, as advised by states attorney Wang, who was sitting by her side.  (Exhibit 14,  Millie Banet Deposition)

 

          At the heart of the case was a suicide of Jami Rose Jetty, 14 years old, November 3, 2008.  (Q-1)  (Exhibit 22, Letter to Governor Hoeven on Jami’s death) I also reported to the Attorney General who said he could not investigate Jami’s death:  

 

“We cannot take the action you requested because the Attorney General does not have jurisdiction or authority over the Indian Reservations or Native Americans living on the reservation.  We also do not have authority over the social service agencies, the schools, states’s attorneys or the local law enforcement agencies.  Even if we had jurisdiction in this matter, however, we are not able to initiate an investigation except at the request of an authorized criminal justice official having jurisdiction,”  (Exhibit 24, Letter, AG denies authority to investigate)

 

          Where did the  Attorney General get the idea that the causes of Jami’s death occurred on an Indian reservation?   Obviously from states attorney James Wang.  (Ex 178)  The AG conveniently overlooked the fact that the crime against Jami occurred in a state run school under the jurisdiction of the state, while mistakenly insisting that Jami’s death occurring on the reservation is the issue.   Jami’s death could have occurred on the moon;  it still doesn’t change the causes of her death.   The causes for Jami’s death occurred in state run Warwick Public School located on state taxed ground.  (Ex 33)   So, in other words, States Attorney Wang can shred documents, lie, misadvise Social Services, confuse the county commissioners, and refuse to investigate reported crimes simply because he has the unchecked power to do so, without any oversight whatsoever.  The highest legal authority in the state of North Dakota, the Attorney General, cannot investigate official misconduct of a prosecutor and cannot order an investigation, which is why only an independent investigation needs to take place through a grand jury. 

 

          The one who convolutes, twists, and circumvents the facts is states attorney James Wang, who has total unfettered power to lie with total abandonment.  It is Wang who has not offered one shred of evidence to back up his reckless, lying statements, whereas, I have offered a one hundred and fifty page tome with almost two hundred exhibits to back up my statements.  I am threatened by a school board member who has a violent history, and Mr. Wang only said,  “If you are threatened by Mr. Christofferson, you may certainly apply for a civil disobedient restraining order.”   (Ex 178)   I asked my attorney about that, and he said that a restraining order is only as good as the officers willing to enforce it.  In other words, a restraining order for me would be worthless, so I wrote a letter to the school’s attorney, Tiffany Johnson, instead.  (Ex 177)  About someone entering my house and stealing documents, Mr. Wang said that “you probably lost the letter because you didn’t like the answer I gave you.”  (Ex 178)  Mr. Wang wrote his letter to throw the commissioners off track, and it worked.  Here’s my reply to the Commissioners, which I have copied in its entirely:

 

November 11, 2011

 

 

 

Benson County Commissioners

 

          Re:    Request to convene Grand Jury based on unreported child abuse resulting in death of a child by suicide.

 

Dear Commissioners,

 

          The recent event of massive cover-up of child abuse at Penn State has really highlighted my situation as a mandatory reporter of child abuse.  As a mandated reporter of child abuse,  unlike the grad student who turned and ran when he discovered the coach sodomizing a young boy, I stood and fought for my students who were being abused.  The grad student played it safe and protected himself and the reputation of a pedophile.  Grad student went on to become an assistant coach.  Whereas, for reporting, I was harassed, retaliated against, perjured, fired, and charged with misconduct, which as a teacher, means I will never teach again.  The problem at Penn State is that no authority would investigate reports of child abuse, which is the situation I have here.

 

          The abuse that I witnessed took place in Warwick Public School, beginning in the year 2006.  I reported to every conceivable authority, only to find the entities, Boards, and agencies, all refused to investigate the serious crimes I was reporting.  As Jami’s teacher, I was a first person witness to many of the uninvestigated abuses committed in Warwick Public School, a state run school under jurisdiction of the state of North Dakota, school year 2006-2007.  I have first person knowledge and reason to suspect that the massive institutional child abuse taking place at Warwick Public School, located in Benson County in the state of North Dakota, contributed to the cause of death of Jami Rose Jetty by suicide.   I have reason to believe that Principal Gene Riedinger was and most likely still is, a pedophile.

 

          You as Commissioners have only recently become aware of the unreported abuse taking place in Warwick Public School.  On the August 2nd commissioner’s meeting, Mr. Wang had poisoned the well with his unethical 5 page letter.  In it, he has made false statements, and he attempts to justify why he has allowed a sham investigation of criminal acts against me, including criminal trespass, theft of documents, and threats.  The problem began with Social Services failing to act on reported crimes, in which Mr. Wang was in direct control.   I had sent a letter to Mr. Wang, asking him for copies of any correspondence he has relating to me, my lawsuit, and my reporting of crimes, under the open NDCC open record laws.  Instead, of complying with the law, Mr. Wang then placed this letter addressed to me in your mail boxes, so you would receive it just before your meeting.  Mr. Wang did not produce a copy of the 29 page 960 Report I had given to him back in 2007.  At the same time, Bonnie, the auditor who formerly worked for Mr. Wang, delayed giving me a copy of the minutes of the July 19th meeting until  August 2nd, just before I was to speak, and I had no opportunity to review the minutes.   It appeared Mr. Wang does not want a grand jury investigating any noncompliance with child abuse laws, nor does he want an independent investigation of crimes and threats committed against me. 

 

          In his letter dated July 26, 2011, Mr. Wang stated:

 

“You seem to convolute, twist, and circumvent your issues to bolster your own agenda when communicating both written and in verbal communication.  Further accusations by you to me, that I somehow engaged in official misconduct by not investigating some crime that you failed to file a 960 report on a reservation which I have no felony jurisdiction will not be tolerated.  If your badgering behavior continues, I may ignore your request for assistance in the future….  (Ex P, p. 2)

“Grand Jury was never brought up nor addressed.  The County Commissioners never mentioned anything about Grand Jury….  So, as you continue your writing exercises, please get the facts straight.

 

          Mr. Wang has admitted culpability.  The “crime” was that Warwick administrators failed to report a rape when I reported to them that a student had told me in class that she had been raped.  And that Guthrie expelled the rape victim, then set up Jami Jetty to replace the real rape victim by questioning her about a rape, then telling her that I had said that. Because Social Services was deeply involved in the cover-up of a rape and the setting up of Jami Jetty by Benson County Social Services legal counsel, James Wang, (conflict of interest), I am exhausting all remedies in my attempt to have North Dakota authorities investigate the wrongful death of Jami Rose Jetty at age 14.   North Dakota governmental agencies  have refused to investigate because they were part of the cover up, and in fact, were responsible for the tampering and destruction of my original 960 Report.  (Ex A)    High ranking officials and their attorneys should not be allowed to get by with causing the death of a child by suicide, which is what happened here.  ND child abuse laws and retaliation laws were not upheld by the very officials responsible for enforcing and abiding by these laws.  There are no statutes of limitations on wrongful death.

         

 The “crime” I asked Mr. Wang to investigate was the child abuse inflicted upon students by school administrators, in a state run school in Benson County over which Wang DOES have jurisdiction,[66] as detailed in my Report to School Board Members, (Ex 1) and Complaint to ESPB,  (Ex 17) which he refused to do because he was involved in having me fill out another 960 report (Ex 25)  so as to get rid of the Report to School Board Members.  (Ex 1)   This is serious evidence tampering.   By refusing to investigate serious reports of abuse, Mr. Wang refused to do his job, which is a criminal offense.[67]  Reporting crime or child abuse is a mandated duty, and it is outrageous that Mr. Wang considers it “badgering.”  My reporting or filing a grievance are protected duties and rights under law and the Constitution.  I have my facts straight, as evidenced by the exhibits;  Mr. Wang needs to get his understanding of the law straight and explain to this Board why they never saw my Report to School Board Members until I provided them with a copy.

 

 

 

35.   I present my case to Social Services Board and Benson County Commissioners

         

          The Social Services Board has a mandated duty to investigate child deaths,[68] which was not done in the case of Jami Jetty because officials refused to obey child abuse laws.  There is no evidence that the Commissioners had any knowledge of the unreported abuse taking place in Warwick School until I recently brought it to your attention in September of 2011.  (Ex 183, Letter to Social Services Director, Paul Olson, 10/13/11)  No one replied to my letter.

 

          At the Social Services meeting, I was prevented from even giving a 960 report, being constantly interrupted by Director Paul Olson, who thought I should report this to tribal Social Services, which only demonstrates Mr. Olson’s ignorance and lack of appreciation for the serious situation when state officials refuse to comply with the child abuse laws and commit criminal acts against children.  Just who is supposed to see that child abuse statutes are followed, if not Social Services?   The Attorney General took to sending me form letters, claiming that he didn’t have jurisdiction.  (Ex 184, Form letters from AG) 

 

          Let us look at Penn State and officials who were told of the sexual abuse, and chose not to report:

 “This is a case about a sexual predator who used his position within the university and community to repeatedly prey on young boys,” attorney general Linda Kelly said. “It is also a case about high-ranking university officials who allegedly failed to report the sexual assault of a young boy after the information was brought to their attention, and later made false statements to a grand jury that was investigating a series of assaults on young boys.”

          Curley and Schultz are each charged with one count of perjury, a third-degree felony punishable by up to seven years in prison and a $15,000 fine, along with one count each of failure to report (under the Child Protective Services Law), a summary offense punishable by up to 90 days in prison and a $200 fine.

          This case demands answers to deep and troubling questions right up the chain of command at Penn State, including Spanier and the legendary Paterno.  Instead, thus far, all we’ve gotten is a pathetic statement from Spanier who quite incredibly deemed Sandusky’s charges as merely “troubling” (and said little more) and then expressed continued support for Curley and Schultz.

          “Despite a powerful eyewitness statement about the sexual assault of a child, this incident was not reported to any law enforcement or child protective agency, as required by Pennsylvania law,” said Kelly, the attorney general. “Additionally, there is no indication that anyone from the university ever attempted to learn the identity of the child.”

          How? How could all these people of power, people of education, people of authority simply look the other way? And how could Graham Spanier maintain a level of arrogance to release that statement on this day?

            There can simply be no tolerance, no leniency, no looking the other way with any charge involving an adult and a child. None. There isn’t a gray area here, not only in the letter of the law, but in the spirit of any semblance of ethical conduct.

            The legal process will and should be allowed to play out and determine the guilt and innocence of all involved. For that to happen, however, an immediate, thorough and limitless investigation must be launched by a federal judge from outside North Dakota, since North Dakota agencies are a big part of the coverup, to find out why an investigation was not made into the death by suicide of Jami Rose Jetty.   And why was no investigation into abuse made, when I reported to every conceivable North Dakota authority? 

          Century Code gives Commissioners the authority of oversight to subpoena witnesses and to call a Grand Jury.

 

12.1-01-04. General definitions. As used in this title, unless a different meaning plainly is required:

 22. "Official proceeding" means a proceeding heard or which may be heard before any

government agency or branch or public servant authorized to take evidence under

oath, including any referee, hearing examiner, commissioner, notary, or other

person taking testimony or a deposition in connection with any such proceeding.

 

          Commissioners have been given the authority to convene a Grand Jury, which based on evidence, I am asking the Commissioners to call an executive  special session to consider my request that Commissioners ask a federal judge to convene a federal Grand Jury, and I expect the matter be put to a vote. 

 

                                    Sincerely,

 

 

                             Janis Schmidt

                            

 

Cc:     Curtis Hvinden, Commissioner

          Jason Lee, Commissioner

          Michael N. Steffen, Commissioner

          Lowell Haagenson, Commissioner

David Davidson, Commissioner

 

 

          The commissions could not or would not accept the fact that it was states attorney Wang’s duty to investigate a crime that happened in a state run school on state property.  The commissioners told me that they didn’t make a move unless told to do so by states attorney Wang.   (Ex 181,  Benson Co. Commissioner Minutes, 7/19/11)  Why should Wang tell the commissioners that I should talk to Wang rather than the commissioners?  The education department recognizes that there is no protection from retaliation within the educational system.  This means that a situation like young boys being repeatedly raped by a coach can go on for 20 years, because no one is going to report it.  In my situation I am trying to report it, but law enforcement and official keep destroying the evidence and Reports, and refuse to accept Reports.                                                                                                                    

“For every whistle-blower brave enough to come forward, there are dozens or even hundreds who remain in the shadows.  Why? Becoming a whistle-blower is a big risk. Speaking the truth about workplace wrongdoing often wrecks careers through smear campaigns or even firing. Whistle-blowers find themselves blacklisted from their industries and unable to support their family.”

          I contacted the commissioners many times, and I informed them of criminal abuses, but still they took states attorney Wang’s “advice” over my documented facts.  I contacted Social Services Board and tried to submit my 960 Report of Child Fatality, but they wouldn’t accept it.  (Ex 180, Letter to Social Services, 8/30/11)   They inaccurately and incorrectly said that I had to contact tribal Social Services, upon Wang’s advice.  Why would I contact tribal Social Services for something that happened in a state run school on state property?   When I finally received the minutes for January 07, I discovered that no mention was made of my 960 Report to School Board Members,  (Ex 1)  although I had receive official verification that it had been received and that the Board declined to act on it because they felt there were no child abuse issues to be addressed.  (Ex 10)  They did not suggest that I contact tribal Social Services at that time.  (Ex 181,  Minutes January 26, 2007,  Social Services Board) 

 

          Before I could present my 960 Report of a Child Fatality, Mr. Wang advised the Board that “they had no authority and/or jurisdiction to act on Ms. Schmidt’s concerns.  However, due to open meeting laws, the Board will allow Ms. Schmidt to give her presentation with a time limit imposed.”   (Ex 182, Minutes, 9/30/11,  Benson Co. Social Services)  (Letter from  Bonnie Erickson, Auditor)  I tried to present my 960 Report of a Child Fatality  to the Board at their October 2011, meeting, but even limited to 10 minutes, I was constantly interrupted and was unable to make a 960 Report.  The Board refused to even listen, upon Wang’s advice.  One would think the death of a child would at least deserve to be heard out, but obviously, they didn’t want a 960 Report of it, at Wang’s request.

         

          Just recently, on October 28, 2011, when I tried to present this 960 Report of a Child Fatality to the Benson County Social Services Board, I was told by Social Services Director Paul Olson that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear my Report, even though I showed him the Social Services acknowledgment of receipt of my 29 page 960 Report, and their decision not to investigate, dated January of 2007.  Social Services President Sheila Erickson said that States Attorney James Wang had advised them that “the Board has no authority and/or jurisdiction to act on Ms. Schmidt’s concerns.  However, due to open meeting laws, the Board will allow Ms. Schmidt to give her presentation with a time limit imposed.”  (Ex 181)  I was not permitted to give even a 10 minute report, because of constant interruptions by Director Olson and President Erickson.  Olson insisted that the matter had been turned over to tribal Social Services.  However, tribal Social Services does not have any knowledge of a 29 page 960 Report being turned over to them in January of 2007.[69] 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

          This is by no means a complete report, but there is obviously enough evidence to warrant an investigation into the death of Jami Rose Jetty and the investigation into all those who caused her death.   There is much more evidence and testimony to be gathered, which only the Department of Justice can get at, which the ND Attorney General and US Attorney refused to do.  North Dakota courts have proven themselves to be biased and impartial as evidenced in the record.  The fraud and deception goes all the way from the states attorney, to the attorney general, and the courts, including the Supreme Court.  Because 3 state agencies are deeply involved in the deception, Social Services, Dept. of Human Resources, Job Service, and Education Standards and Practices Board,  Social Services at the forefront, I am suggesting that Social Services cannot police itself or the North Dakota Attorney General cannot conduct a credible investigation.   Just like the Penn State cover up, a special investigator such as federal solicitor general needs to investigate. 

 

          I asked the Social Services Board to accept a 960 Report of a child fatality, and they refused, based on states attorney James Wang’s advice. (Ex 185)  I asked Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem to investigate, but he refused.  (Ex 174)  I asked the U.S. Attorney to investigate, but he refused.  (Ex 186)   Involved in the deception and cover up of child abuse were states attorney James Wang, sheriff, and attorney general, along with judges and agencies.  The above mentioned officials should not be allowed to get by with causing the death of a child by suicide, and failing to uphold the child abuse laws, but they did.  What kind of message does that send to the public?  That officials are too big to jail?  The Department of Justice should jump in and see that justice is restored in North Dakota for the most vulernerable, Native Americans, who never get any justice.    

 

          I swear under pains and penalties of perjury that I am presenting the truth of the matter.

 

                                                Sincerely,

 

 

                                                Janis Schmidt



[1] 50-25.1-03. Persons required and permitted to report - To whom reported.

1. Any physician, nurse, dentist, optometrist, medical examiner or coroner, or any other

medical or mental health professional, religious practitioner of the healing arts,

schoolteacher or administrator, school counselor, addiction counselor, social worker,

child care worker, foster parent, police or law enforcement officer, juvenile court

personnel, probation officer, division of juvenile services employee, or member of

the clergy having knowledge of or reasonable cause to suspect that a child is

abused or neglected, or has died as a result of abuse or neglect, shall report the

circumstances to the department if the knowledge or suspicion is derived from

information received by that person in that person's official or professional capacity….

2. Any person having reasonable cause to suspect that a child is abused or neglected,

or has died as a result of abuse or neglect, may report such circumstances to the

department.

 

[2] 50-25.1-04.2. Child fatality review panel. The state child protection team shall serve as

a child fatality review panel. The department shall appoint a peace officer licensed in the state, a

mental health professional, and any other person as appropriate to assist the panel in the

performance of its duties. The department, in coordination with the state department of health,

shall adopt rules for the operation of the panel. Panel members are not entitled to compensation

or reimbursement of expenses for service on the panel.

 

 

[3] CHAPTER 50-25.1

CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT

50-25.1-01. Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to protect the health and welfare

of children by encouraging the reporting of children who are known to be or suspected of being

abused or neglected; the providing of adequate services for the protection and treatment of

abused and neglected children and to protect them from further harm; the identifying of the cause of children's deaths, when possible; the identifying of those circumstances that contribute to children's deaths; and the recommending of changes in policy, practices, and law to prevent

children's deaths.

 

[4] 50-25.1-03. Persons required and permitted to report - To whom reported.

1. Any physician, nurse, dentist, optometrist, medical examiner or coroner, or any other

medical or mental health professional, religious practitioner of the healing arts,

schoolteacher or administrator, school counselor, addiction counselor, social worker,

child care worker, foster parent, police or law enforcement officer, juvenile court

personnel, probation officer, division of juvenile services employee, or member of

the clergy having knowledge of or reasonable cause to suspect that a child is

abused or neglected, or has died as a result of abuse or neglect, shall report the

circumstances to the department if the knowledge or suspicion is derived from

information received by that person in that person's official or professional capacity.

A member of the clergy, however, is not required to report such circumstances if the

knowledge or suspicion is derived from information received in the capacity of

spiritual adviser.

2. Any person having reasonable cause to suspect that a child is abused or neglected,

or has died as a result of abuse or neglect, may report such circumstances to the

department.

 

[5] 50-25.1-13. Penalty for failure to report - Penalty and civil liability for false reports.

Any person required by this chapter to report or to supply information concerning a case of

known or suspected child abuse, neglect, or death resulting from abuse or neglect who willfully,

as defined in section 12.1-02-02, fails to do so is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. Any person

who willfully, as defined in section 12.1-02-02, makes a false report, or provides false information which causes a report to be made, under this chapter is guilty of a class B misdemeanor unless the false report is made to a law enforcement official, in which case the person who causes the false report to be made is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. A person who willfully makes a false report, or willfully provides false information that causes a report to be made, under this chapter is also liable in a civil action for all damages suffered by the person reported, including exemplary damages.

 

[6] 12.1-02-05. Causal relationship between conduct and result. Causation may be

found where the result would not have occurred but for the conduct of the accused operating

either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly

sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the accused clearly insufficient.

 

[7] 12.1-02-02. Requirements of culpability.

1. For the purposes of this title, a person engages in conduct:

a. "Intentionally" if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his purpose to do so.

b. "Knowingly" if, when he engages in the conduct, he knows or has a firm belief,

unaccompanied by substantial doubt, that he is doing so, whether or not it is his

purpose to do so.

c. "Recklessly" if he engages in the conduct in conscious and clearly unjustifiable

disregard of a substantial likelihood of the existence of the relevant facts or

risks, such disregard involving a gross deviation from acceptable standards of

conduct, except that, as provided in section 12.1-04-02, awareness of the risk is

not required where its absence is due to self-induced intoxication.

d. "Negligently" if he engages in the conduct in unreasonable disregard of a

substantial likelihood of the existence of the relevant facts or risks, such

disregard involving a gross deviation from acceptable standards of conduct.

e. "Willfully" if he engages in the conduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.

2. If a statute or regulation there under defining a crime does not specify any culpability

and does not provide explicitly that a person may be guilty without culpability, the

culpability that is required is willfully.

3. a. Except as otherwise expressly provided, where culpability is required, that kind

of culpability is required with respect to every element of the conduct and to

those attendant circumstances specified in the definition of the offense, except

that where the required culpability is "intentionally", the culpability required as to

an attendant circumstance is "knowingly".

b. Except as otherwise expressly provided, if conduct is an offense if it causes a

particular result, the required degree of culpability is required with respect to the

result.

c. Except as otherwise expressly provided, culpability is not required with respect

to any fact which is solely a basis for grading.

d. Except as otherwise expressly provided, culpability is not required with respect

to facts which establish that a defense does not exist, if the defense is defined

in chapters 12.1-01 through 12.1-06; otherwise the least kind of culpability

required for the offense is required with respect to such facts.

e. A factor as to which it is expressly stated that it must "in fact" exist is a factor for

which culpability is not required.

4. Any lesser degree of required culpability is satisfied if the proven degree of

culpability is higher.

5. Culpability is not required as to the fact that conduct is an offense, except as

otherwise expressly provided in a provision outside this title.

 

[8] 50-25.1-13. Penalty for failure to report - Penalty and civil liability for false reports.

Any person required by this chapter to report or to supply information concerning a case of

known or suspected child abuse, neglect, or death resulting from abuse or neglect who willfully,

as defined in section 12.1-02-02, fails to do so is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. Any person

who willfully, as defined in section 12.1-02-02, makes a false report, or provides false information which causes a report to be made, under this chapter is guilty of a class B misdemeanor unless the false report is made to a law enforcement official, in which case the person who causes the false report to be made is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. A person who willfully makes a false report, or willfully provides false information that causes a report to be made, under this chapter is also liable in a civil action for all damages suffered by the person reported, including exemplary damages.

 

[9] The Century Code does not provide for a “Sexual Harassment Team” to investigate child abuse.  Steve Michels, the NEA Rep, headed up this “team” by threatening and intimidating teachers such as Melissa Erickson.  See Ex #3.

[10] 50-25.1-11. Confidentiality of records - Authorized disclosures. A report made

under this chapter, as well as any other information obtained, is confidential and must be made

available to:

9. A parent or a legally appointed guardian of the child identified in the report as

suspected of being, or having been, abused or neglected, provided the identity of

persons making the report or supplying information under this chapter is protected.

Unless the information is confidential under section 44-04-18.7, when a decision is

made under section 50-25.1-05.1 that services are required to provide for the

protection and treatment of an abused or neglected child, the department shall make

a good-faith effort to provide written notice of the decision to persons identified in this

subsection. The department shall consider any known domestic violence when

providing notification under this section.

 

[11]60-25.1-01(5). "Authorized agent" means the county social service board, unless another entity is designated by the department.

 

[12] 14. "State child protection team" means a multidisciplinary team consisting of the

designee of the department and, where possible, of a physician, a representative of

a child-placing agency, a representative of the state department of health, a

representative of the attorney general, a representative of the superintendent of

public instruction, a representative of the department of corrections and

rehabilitation, one or more representatives of the lay community, and, as an ad hoc

member, the designee of the chief executive official of any institution named in a

report of institutional abuse or neglect. All team members, at the time of their

selection and thereafter, must be staff members of the public or private agency they

represent or shall serve without remuneration. An attorney member of the child

protection team may not be appointed to represent the child or the parents at any

subsequent court proceeding nor may the child protection team be composed of

fewer than three persons.

 

[13] 50-25.1-13. Penalty for failure to report - Penalty and civil liability for false reports.

Any person required by this chapter to report or to supply information concerning a case of

known or suspected child abuse, neglect, or death resulting from abuse or neglect who willfully,

as defined in section 12.1-02-02, fails to do so is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. Any person

who willfully, as defined in section 12.1-02-02, makes a false report, or provides false information which causes a report to be made, under this chapter is guilty of a class B misdemeanor unless the false report is made to a law enforcement official, in which case the person who causes the false report to be made is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. A person who willfully makes a false report, or willfully provides false information that causes a report to be made, under this chapter is also liable in a civil action for all damages suffered by the person reported, including exemplary damages.

 

[14] 12.1-17-02. Aggravated assault. A person is guilty of a class C felony, except if the

victim is under the age of twelve years or the victim suffers permanent loss or impairment of the

function of a bodily member or organ in which case the offense is a class B felony, if that person:

1. Willfully causes serious bodily injury to another human being;

2. Knowingly causes bodily injury or substantial bodily injury to another human being

with a dangerous weapon or other weapon, the possession of which under the

circumstances indicates an intent or readiness to inflict serious bodily injury;

Page No. 1

3. Causes bodily injury or substantial bodily injury to another human being while

attempting to inflict serious bodily injury on any human being; or

4. Fires a firearm or hurls a destructive device at another human being.

 

[15] Cory didn’t like the way Coach Klein was coaching and was circulating a petition to get rid of Mr. Klein. 

[16] 12.1-09-03. Tampering with physical evidence.

Page No. 1

1. A person is guilty of an offense if, believing an official proceeding is pending or about

to be instituted, or believing process, demand, or order has been issued or is about

to be issued, he alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, or removes a record,

document, or thing with intent to impair its verity or availability in such official

proceeding or for the purposes of such process, demand, or order.

2. The offense is a class C felony if the actor substantially obstructs, impairs, or

perverts prosecution for a felony. Otherwise it is a class A misdemeanor.

3. In this section, "process, demand, or order" means process, demand, or order

authorized by law for the seizure, production, copying, discovery, or examination of a

record, document, or thing.

 

[17] 50-25.1-09.1. Employer retaliation prohibited.

1. An employer who retaliates against an employee solely because the employee in

good faith reported having reasonable cause to suspect that a child was abused or

neglected, or died as a result of abuse or neglect, or because the employee is a

child with respect to whom a report was made, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. It

is a defense to any charge brought under this section that the presumption of good

faith, described in section 50-25.1-09, has been rebutted.

2. The employer of a person required or permitted to report pursuant to section

50-25.1-03 who retaliates against the person because of a report of abuse or

neglect, or a report of a death resulting from child abuse or neglect, is liable to that

person in a civil action for all damages, including exemplary damages, costs of the

litigation, and reasonable attorney's fees.

3. There is a rebuttable presumption that any adverse action within ninety days of a

report is retaliatory. For purposes of this subsection, an "adverse action" is action

taken by an employer against the person making the report or the child with respect

to whom a report was made, including:

a. Discharge, suspension, termination, or transfer from any facility, institution,

school, agency, or other place of employment;

b. Discharge from or termination of employment;

c. Demotion or reduction in remuneration for services; or

d. Restriction or prohibition of access to any facility, institution, school, agency, or

other place of employment or persons affiliated with it.

 

[18] 12.1-06-01. Criminal attempt.

1. A person is guilty of criminal attempt if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise

required for commission of a crime, he intentionally engages in conduct which, in

fact, constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime. A "substantial

step" is any conduct which is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the actor's

intent to complete the commission of the crime. Factual or legal impossibility of

committing the crime is not a defense, if the crime could have been committed had

the attendant circumstances been as the actor believed them to be.

2. A person who engages in conduct intending to aid another to commit a crime is

guilty of criminal attempt if the conduct would establish his complicity under section

12.1-03-01 were the crime committed by the other person, even if the other is not

guilty of committing or attempting the crime, for example, because he has a defense

of justification or entrapment.

3. Criminal attempt is an offense of the same class as the offense attempted, except

that (a) an attempt to commit a class AA felony is a class A felony and an attempt to

commit a class A felony is a class B felony; and (b) whenever it is established by a

preponderance of the evidence at sentencing that the conduct constituting the

attempt did not come dangerously close to commission of the crime, an attempt to

commit a class B felony shall be a class C felony and an attempt to commit a

class C felony shall be a class A misdemeanor.

12.1-06-02. Criminal facilitation.

1. A person is guilty of criminal facilitation if he knowingly provides substantial

assistance to a person intending to commit a felony and that person, in fact,

commits the crime contemplated, or a like or related felony, employing the

assistance so provided. The ready lawful availability from others of the goods or

services provided by a defendant is a factor to be considered in determining whether

or not his assistance was substantial. This section does not apply to a person who

is either expressly or by implication made not accountable by the statute defining the

felony facilitated or related statutes.

2. Except as otherwise provided, it is no defense to a prosecution under this section

that the person whose conduct the defendant facilitated has been acquitted, has not

been prosecuted or convicted, has been convicted of a different offense, is immune

from prosecution, or is otherwise not subject to justice.

3. Facilitation of a class A felony is a class C felony. Facilitation of a class B or class C

felony is a class A misdemeanor.

 

[19] 12.1-06-03. Criminal solicitation.

1. A person is guilty of criminal solicitation if he commands, induces, entreats, or

otherwise attempts to persuade another person to commit a particular felony,

whether as principal or accomplice, with intent to promote or facilitate the

commission of that felony, under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent,

and if the person solicited commits an overt act in response to the solicitation.

2. It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that, if the criminal object were

achieved, the defendant would be a victim of the offense, or the offense is so

defined that his conduct would be inevitably incident to its commission, or he

Page No. 1

otherwise would not be guilty under the statute defining the offense or as an

accomplice under section 12.1-03-01.

3. It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the person solicited could not

be guilty of the offense because of lack of responsibility or culpability, or other

incapacity or defense.

4. Criminal solicitation is an offense of the class next below that of the offense solicited.

 

[20] 12.1-11-05. Tampering with public records.

1. A person is guilty of an offense if he:

a. Knowingly makes a false entry in or false alteration of a government record; or

b. Knowingly, without lawful authority, destroys, conceals, removes, or otherwise

impairs the verity or availability of a government record.

2. The offense is:

a. A class C felony if committed by a public servant who has custody of the

government record.

b. A class A misdemeanor if committed by any other person.

3. In this section "government record" means:

a. Any record, document, or thing belonging to, or received or kept by the

government for information or record.

b. Any other record, document, or thing required to be kept by law, pursuant, in

fact, to a statute which expressly invokes the sanctions of this section.

12.1-11-06. Public servant refusing to perform duty. Any public servant who

knowingly refuses to perform any duty imposed upon him by law is guilty of a class A

misdemeanor.

 

[21] 12.1-02-01. Basis of liability for offenses.

1. A person commits an offense only if the person engages in conduct, including an

act, an omission, or possession, in violation of a statute which provides that the

conduct is an offense.

2. A person who omits to perform an act does not commit an offense unless the person

has a legal duty to perform the act, nor shall such an omission be an offense if the

act is performed on the person's behalf by a person legally authorized to perform it.

12.1-03-02. Corporate and limited liability company criminal responsibility.

1. A corporation or a limited liability company may be convicted of:

a. Any offense committed by an agent of the corporation or limited liability

company within the scope of the agent's employment on the basis of conduct

authorized, requested, or commanded, by any of the following or a combination

of them:

(1) The board of directors or the board of governors.

(2) An executive officer, executive manager, or any other agent in a position

of comparable authority with respect to the formulation of policy or the

supervision in a managerial capacity of subordinate employees.

(3) Any person, whether or not an officer of the corporation, who controls the

corporation or is responsibly involved in forming its policy.

(4) Any person, whether or not a manager of the limited liability company,

who controls the limited liability company or is responsibly involved in

forming its policy.

(5) Any other person for whose act or omission the statute defining the

offense provides corporate or limited liability company responsibility for

offenses.

b. Any offense consisting of an omission to discharge a specific duty of affirmative

conduct imposed on a corporation or a limited liability company by law.

c. Any misdemeanor committed by an agent of the corporation or the limited

liability company within the scope of the agent's employment.

d. Any offense for which an individual may be convicted without proof of

culpability, committed by an agent of the corporation or the limited liability

company within the scope of the agent's employment.

2. It is no defense that an individual upon whose conduct liability of the corporation or

the limited liability company for an offense is based has been acquitted, has not

been prosecuted or convicted, has been convicted of a different offense, is immune

from prosecution, or is otherwise not subject to justice.

12.1-03-03. Individual accountability for conduct on behalf of organizations.

1. A person is legally accountable for any conduct he performs or causes to be

performed in the name of an organization or in its behalf to the same extent as if the

conduct were performed in his own name or his behalf.

2. Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever a duty to act is imposed upon an

organization by a statute or regulation thereunder, any agent of the organization

having primary responsibility for the subject matter of the duty is legally accountable

for an omission to perform the required act to the same extent as if the duty were

imposed directly upon himself.

3. When an individual is convicted of an offense as an accomplice of an organization,

he is subject to the sentence authorized when a natural person is convicted of that

offense.

 

 

[22] 12.1-06-04. Criminal conspiracy.

1. A person commits conspiracy if he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or

cause conduct which, in fact, constitutes an offense or offenses, and any one or

more of such persons does an overt act to effect an objective of the conspiracy. The

agreement need not be explicit but may be implicit in the fact of collaboration or

existence of other circumstances.

2. If a person knows or could expect that one with whom he agrees has agreed or will

agree with another to effect the same objective, he shall be deemed to have agreed

with the other, whether or not he knows the other's identity.

3. A conspiracy shall be deemed to continue until its objectives are accomplished,

frustrated, or abandoned. "Objectives" includes escape from the scene of the crime,

distribution of booty, and measures, other than silence, for concealing the crime or

obstructing justice in relation to it. A conspiracy shall be deemed abandoned if no

overt act to effect its objectives has been committed by any conspirator during the

applicable period of limitations.

4. It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the person with whom such

person is alleged to have conspired has been acquitted, has not been prosecuted or

convicted, has been convicted of a different offense, is immune from prosecution, or

is otherwise not subject to justice.

5. Accomplice liability for offenses committed in furtherance of the conspiracy is to be

determined as provided in section 12.1-03-01.

6. Conspiracy is an offense of the same class as the crime which was the objective of

the conspiracy.

 

[23] 50-25.1-09.1. Employer retaliation prohibited.

1. An employer who retaliates against an employee solely because the employee in

good faith reported having reasonable cause to suspect that a child was abused or

neglected, or died as a result of abuse or neglect, or because the employee is a

child with respect to whom a report was made, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. It

is a defense to any charge brought under this section that the presumption of good

faith, described in section 50-25.1-09, has been rebutted.

2. The employer of a person required or permitted to report pursuant to section

50-25.1-03 who retaliates against the person because of a report of abuse or

neglect, or a report of a death resulting from child abuse or neglect, is liable to that

person in a civil action for all damages, including exemplary damages, costs of the

litigation, and reasonable attorney's fees.

3. There is a rebuttable presumption that any adverse action within ninety days of a

report is retaliatory. For purposes of this subsection, an "adverse action" is action

taken by an employer against the person making the report or the child with respect

to whom a report was made, including:

a. Discharge, suspension, termination, or transfer from any facility, institution,

school, agency, or other place of employment;

b. Discharge from or termination of employment;

c. Demotion or reduction in remuneration for services; or

d. Restriction or prohibition of access to any facility, institution, school, agency, or

other place of employment or persons affiliated with it.

 

[24] 50-25.1-09.1. Employer retaliation prohibited.

1. An employer who retaliates against an employee solely because the employee in

good faith reported having reasonable cause to suspect that a child was abused or

neglected, or died as a result of abuse or neglect, or because the employee is a

child with respect to whom a report was made, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. It

is a defense to any charge brought under this section that the presumption of good

faith, described in section 50-25.1-09, has been rebutted.

2. The employer of a person required or permitted to report pursuant to section

50-25.1-03 who retaliates against the person because of a report of abuse or

neglect, or a report of a death resulting from child abuse or neglect, is liable to that

person in a civil action for all damages, including exemplary damages, costs of the

litigation, and reasonable attorney's fees.

3. There is a rebuttable presumption that any adverse action within ninety days of a

report is retaliatory. For purposes of this subsection, an "adverse action" is action

taken by an employer against the person making the report or the child with respect

to whom a report was made, including:

a. Discharge, suspension, termination, or transfer from any facility, institution,

school, agency, or other place of employment;

b. Discharge from or termination of employment;

c. Demotion or reduction in remuneration for services; or

d. Restriction or prohibition of access to any facility, institution, school, agency, or

other place of employment or persons affiliated with it.

 

 

[25] 50-25.1-13. Penalty for failure to report - Penalty and civil liability for false reports.

Any person required by this chapter to report or to supply information concerning a case of

known or suspected child abuse, neglect, or death resulting from abuse or neglect who willfully,

as defined in section 12.1-02-02, fails to do so is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. Any person

who willfully, as defined in section 12.1-02-02, makes a false report, or provides false information

which causes a report to be made, under this chapter is guilty of a class B misdemeanor unless

the false report is made to a law enforcement official, in which case the person who causes the

false report to be made is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. A person who willfully makes a false

report, or willfully provides false information that causes a report to be made, under this chapter

is also liable in a civil action for all damages suffered by the person reported, including exemplary damages.

 

[26] DEFAMATION - INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS

12.1-15-01. Criminal defamation.

1. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if he willfully publishes defamatory

matter or knowingly procures such publication or in any way knowingly aids or

assists in the same being done.

2. It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that:

a. The matter alleged to be defamatory is true; or

b. The matter alleged to be defamatory was contained in a privileged

communication.

3. In this section:

a. "Defamatory matter" means any written or oral communication concerning a

natural person made public with actual malice or with reckless disregard of the

truth by any utterance, printing, writing, sign, picture, representation, or effigy

tending to expose such person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule or to

deprive him of the benefits of public confidence and social intercourse or any

written or oral communication concerning a natural person made public as

aforesaid designed to blacken and vilify the memory of one who is dead and

tending to scandalize or provoke his surviving relatives and friends.

 

[27]  50-25.1-03. Persons required and permitted to report - To whom reported.

1. Any physician, nurse, dentist, optometrist, medical examiner or coroner, or any other

medical or mental health professional, religious practitioner of the healing arts,

schoolteacher or administrator, school counselor, addiction counselor, social worker,

child care worker, foster parent, police or law enforcement officer, juvenile court

personnel, probation officer, division of juvenile services employee, or member of

the clergy having knowledge of or reasonable cause to suspect that a child is

abused or neglected, or has died as a result of abuse or neglect, shall report the

circumstances to the department if the knowledge or suspicion is derived from

information received by that person in that person's official or professional capacity.

A member of the clergy, however, is not required to report such circumstances if the

knowledge or suspicion is derived from information received in the capacity of

spiritual adviser.

 

[28]  15.1-15-07. Discharge for cause - Hearing.

1. If the board of a school district contemplates the discharge for cause of an

individual employed as a teacher, a principal, or as an assistant or associate

superintendent, prior to the expiration of the individual's contract, the board shall

provide written notice to the individual at least ten days prior to the discharge date.

The notice must:

a. State the date and time at which the board will conduct a special hearing to

address charges against the individual; and

b. State that the individual may demand a list of the charges.

2. If the individual demands a list of charges under subsection 1, the board shall

furnish the list to the individual at least five days before the hearing.

3. If the individual notifies the board in writing at least two days before the hearing

that the individual intends to contest the charges, the board shall produce evidence

of the charges at the hearing, together with witnesses who are subject to

cross-examination by the individual or by a representative of the individual.

4. If a witness is a minor and if it is the wish of the witness or the witness's parent, the

witness may be accompanied by legal counsel and a parent.

5. At the hearing, the individual may produce evidence and witnesses to refute any

charges. Any witnesses produced by the individual are subject to

cross-examination.

6. The hearing must be conducted in accordance with chapter 28-32.

 

[29] 50-25.1-02. Definitions. In this chapter, unless the context or subject matter otherwise

requires:

4. "Assessment" means a fact finding process designed to provide information that

enables a determination to be made that services are required to provide for the

protection and treatment of an abused or neglected child.

5. "Authorized agent" means the county social service board, unless another entity is

designated by the department.

9. "Institutional child abuse or neglect" means situations of known or suspected child

abuse or neglect when the institution responsible for the child's welfare is a

residential child care facility, a treatment or care center for mentally retarded, a

public or private residential educational facility, a maternity home, or any residential

facility owned or managed by the state or a political subdivision of the state.

10. "Local child protection team" means a multidisciplinary team consisting of the

designee of the director of the regional human service center, together with such

other representatives as that director might select for the team with the consent of

the director of the county social service board. All team members, at the time of

their selection and thereafter, must be staff members of the public or private

agencies they represent or shall serve without remuneration. An attorney member

of the child protection team may not be appointed to represent the child or the

parents at any subsequent court proceeding nor may the child protection team be

composed of fewer than three members. The department shall coordinate the

organization of local child protection teams on a county or multicounty basis.

14. "State child protection team" means a multidisciplinary team consisting of the

designee of the department and, where possible, of a physician, a representative of

a child-placing agency, a representative of the state department of health, a

representative of the attorney general, a representative of the superintendent of

public instruction, a representative of the department of corrections and

rehabilitation, one or more representatives of the lay community, and, as an ad hoc

member, the designee of the chief executive official of any institution named in a

report of institutional abuse or neglect. All team members, at the time of their

selection and thereafter, must be staff members of the public or private agency they

represent or shall serve without remuneration. An attorney member of the child

protection team may not be appointed to represent the child or the parents at any

subsequent court proceeding nor may the child protection team be composed of

fewer than three persons.

 

[30] 44-04-21.1. Administrative review procedure.

1…..In any opinion issued under this section, the attorney general shall

base the opinion on the facts given by the public entity.

 

[31] 15.1-15-01. Performance reviews - Written reports.

1. a. The school district shall conduct two performance reviews of each individual

employed as a teacher, a principal, or as an assistant or associate

superintendent during each of the first three years an individual holds such a

position. The school district shall prepare written reports of the individual's

performance. The school district shall make the first yearly report available to

the individual on or before December fifteenth. The school district shall make

the second yearly report available to the individual on or before March fifteenth.

 

[32] 50-25.1-09.1. Employer retaliation prohibited.

1. An employer who retaliates against an employee solely because the employee in

good faith reported having reasonable cause to suspect that a child was abused or

neglected, or died as a result of abuse or neglect, or because the employee is a

child with respect to whom a report was made, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. It

is a defense to any charge brought under this section that the presumption of good

faith, described in section 50-25.1-09, has been rebutted.

2. The employer of a person required or permitted to report pursuant to section

50-25.1-03 who retaliates against the person because of a report of abuse or

neglect, or a report of a death resulting from child abuse or neglect, is liable to that

person in a civil action for all damages, including exemplary damages, costs of the

litigation, and reasonable attorney's fees.

3. There is a rebuttable presumption that any adverse action within ninety days of a

report is retaliatory. For purposes of this subsection, an "adverse action" is action

taken by an employer against the person making the report or the child with respect

to whom a report was made, including:

a. Discharge, suspension, termination, or transfer from any facility, institution,

school, agency, or other place of employment;

b. Discharge from or termination of employment;

c. Demotion or reduction in remuneration for services; or

d. Restriction or prohibition of access to any facility, institution, school, agency, or

other place of employment or persons affiliated with it.

 

[33] RULE 7.1 JUDGMENTS, ORDERS AND DECREES

 (b) Preparation of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

(1) Preparation by One or More Parties. Preparation of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) may be assigned by the court to one or more parties. Any findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by one or more parties must be served upon all other parties for review and comment. The other parties may serve a response in writing, within 14 days of service, or such other time as the court, in its discretion, may allow. All proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law must be filed with the clerk. The court must thereafter enter findings of fact and conclusions of law as it may deem appropriate.

 

[34] 29-10.1-02. When grand jury may be called.

No grand jury may be drawn, summoned, or convened in any county within this state unless

the district judge thereof shall so direct by a written order filed with the clerk of the court in the

county wherein the said grand jury is required to attend. Any judge of the district court for any

county must direct, in the manner herein provided, that a grand jury be drawn and summoned to

attend whenever:

1. The judge deems the attendance of a grand jury necessary for the due enforcement of

the laws of the state;

2. The board of county commissioners of the county wherein the court is to be held, in

writing, requests the judge so to do; or

3. A petition in writing requesting the same is presented to the judge, signed by qualified

electors of the county equal in number to at least ten percent of the total vote cast in

the county for the office of governor of the state at the last general election.

 

[35] 29-10.1-03. Judge to summon grand jury.

Upon presentment of the request of petition, the judge shall promptly summon and convene

the grand jury.

 

[36] 15.1-13-24. Complaints against teachers or administrators.

1. Any person may file with the board a complaint against a teacher or an administrator.

The complaint must state the claims or charges and it must be signed. The complaint

may include supporting documentation.

2. Upon receiving the complaint, the board shall serve a copy of the complaint and any

supporting documentation upon the individual personally or by certified mail.

3. The individual has twenty days from the date the individual receives the complaint

within which to file a response. The response may include supporting documentation.

4. If the individual files a timely response, the board shall meet to review the complaint,

the response, and any documentation submitted by the parties, but may not accept

testimony.

5. Based on the complaint, the response, and the documentation submitted in

accordance with this section, the board may:

a. Dismiss the complaint as unfounded; or

b. (1) Determine there is a reasonable basis to believe the claims or charges are

true and subject to action by the board under this chapter;

(2) File a formal complaint against the individual in accordance with chapter

28-32; and

(3) Schedule and hold a public hearing on the complaint in accordance with

chapter 28-32.

6. If the individual fails to file a timely response, the board shall determine whether the

individual's failure to file a timely response constitutes an admission of the allegations

in the complaint and whether the individual's teaching license should be subject to

action by the board. If the board determines that the individual's failure to file a timely

response is an admission of the allegations in the complaint and that the individual's

teaching license should be subject to action by the board, the board shall hold a

hearing in accordance with chapter 28-32 to take any appropriate action.

 

[37] 50-25.1-04.1. State child protection team - How created - Duties.

1. The department shall name the members of the state child protection team. The

members must be appointed for three-year staggered terms. The member who

represents the department shall serve as presiding officer and is responsible for the

transmittal of all team reports made pursuant to this chapter. The presiding officer

shall set meetings for the purposes of fulfilling the duties set forth in sections

50-25.1-02 and 50-25.1-04.

2. Under procedures adopted by the team, it may meet at any time, confer with any

individuals, groups, and agencies, and may issue reports or recommendations on

any aspect of child abuse, neglect, or death resulting from abuse or neglect it deems

appropriate. All reports or recommendations issued are subject to section

50-25.1-11, except that the team shall make available information reflecting the

disposition of reports of institutional child abuse, neglect, or death resulting from

abuse or neglect, when the identity of persons reporting, and of the children and

parents of children involved, is protected.

3. In every case of alleged institutional child abuse or neglect, the state child protection

team shall make a determination that child abuse or neglect is or is not indicated.

Upon a determination that institutional child abuse or neglect is indicated, the state

child protection team promptly shall make a written report of the determination.

When the subject of the report is a state-operated institution, the state child

protection team promptly shall notify the governor of the determination.

 

[38] 67.1-01-01-02   Duties of the Education Standards and Practices Board

4.  Complaint process

   h.  Denial and revocation of an educator’s professional license for convictions   of crimes against children or sexual offenses.

       (1)  Notwithstanding any other law, the ESPB shall deny an application for a teaching license and the ESPB or Administratior’s Professional Practices Board shall revoke immediately the teaching license of an individual who has been found guilty of a crime against a child or a sexual offense.

[39] 50-25.1-05.1. Services required - How determined. Upon completion of the

assessment of the initial report of child abuse or neglect, a decision must be made whether

services are required to provide for the protection and treatment of an abused or neglected child.

1. This determination is the responsibility of the department.

2. A decision that services are required may not be made when the suspected child

abuse or neglect arises solely out of conduct involving the legitimate practice of

religious beliefs by a parent or guardian. This exception does not preclude a court

from ordering that medical services be provided to the child when the child's life or

safety requires it or the child is subject to harm or threatened harm.

50-25.1-05.2. Report to the court - Entry of report in the child abuse information

index.

1. Upon a decision that services are required, the department promptly shall make a

written report of the decision to the juvenile court having jurisdiction in the matter.

2. The department promptly shall file a report of a decision that services are required

under this section in the child abuse information index.

 

 

[40] 50-25.1-09.1. Employer retaliation prohibited.

1. An employer who retaliates against an employee solely because the employee in

good faith reported having reasonable cause to suspect that a child was abused or

neglected, or died as a result of abuse or neglect, or because the employee is a

child with respect to whom a report was made, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. It

is a defense to any charge brought under this section that the presumption of good

faith, described in section 50-25.1-09, has been rebutted.

2. The employer of a person required or permitted to report pursuant to section

50-25.1-03 who retaliates against the person because of a report of abuse or

neglect, or a report of a death resulting from child abuse or neglect, is liable to that

person in a civil action for all damages, including exemplary damages, costs of the

litigation, and reasonable attorney's fees.

3. There is a rebuttable presumption that any adverse action within ninety days of a

report is retaliatory. For purposes of this subsection, an "adverse action" is action

taken by an employer against the person making the report or the child with respect

to whom a report was made, including:

a. Discharge, suspension, termination, or transfer from any facility, institution,

school, agency, or other place of employment;

b. Discharge from or termination of employment;

c. Demotion or reduction in remuneration for services; or

d. Restriction or prohibition of access to any facility, institution, school, agency, or

other place of employment or persons affiliated with it.

 

[41] 12.1-02-01. Basis of liability for offenses.

1. A person commits an offense only if the person engages in conduct, including an

act, an omission, or possession, in violation of a statute which provides that the

conduct is an offense.

2. A person who omits to perform an act does not commit an offense unless the person

has a legal duty to perform the act, nor shall such an omission be an offense if the

act is performed on the person's behalf by a person legally authorized to perform it.

12.1-02-02. Requirements of culpability.

1. For the purposes of this title, a person engages in conduct:

a. "Intentionally" if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his purpose to do so.

b. "Knowingly" if, when he engages in the conduct, he knows or has a firm belief,

unaccompanied by substantial doubt, that he is doing so, whether or not it is his

purpose to do so.

c. "Recklessly" if he engages in the conduct in conscious and clearly unjustifiable

disregard of a substantial likelihood of the existence of the relevant facts or

risks, such disregard involving a gross deviation from acceptable standards of

conduct, except that, as provided in section 12.1-04-02, awareness of the risk is

not required where its absence is due to self-induced intoxication.

d. "Negligently" if he engages in the conduct in unreasonable disregard of a

substantial likelihood of the existence of the relevant facts or risks, such

disregard involving a gross deviation from acceptable standards of conduct.

e. "Willfully" if he engages in the conduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.

2. If a statute or regulation there under defining a crime does not specify any culpability

and does not provide explicitly that a person may be guilty without culpability, the

culpability that is required is willfully.

3. a. Except as otherwise expressly provided, where culpability is required, that kind

of culpability is required with respect to every element of the conduct and to

those attendant circumstances specified in the definition of the offense, except

that where the required culpability is "intentionally", the culpability required as to

an attendant circumstance is "knowingly".

b. Except as otherwise expressly provided, if conduct is an offense if it causes a

particular result, the required degree of culpability is required with respect to the

result.

c. Except as otherwise expressly provided, culpability is not required with respect

to any fact which is solely a basis for grading.

d. Except as otherwise expressly provided, culpability is not required with respect

to facts which establish that a defense does not exist, if the defense is defined

in chapters 12.1-01 through 12.1-06; otherwise the least kind of culpability

required for the offense is required with respect to such facts.

e. A factor as to which it is expressly stated that it must "in fact" exist is a factor for

which culpability is not required.

4. Any lesser degree of required culpability is satisfied if the proven degree of

culpability is higher.

5. Culpability is not required as to the fact that conduct is an offense, except as

otherwise expressly provided in a provision outside this title.

12.1-02-03. Mistake of fact in affirmative defenses. Unless otherwise expressly

provided, a mistaken belief that the facts which constitute an affirmative defense exist is not a

defense.

 

[42] 1. A person may be convicted of an offense based upon the conduct of another person

when:

a. Acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes the other

to engage in such conduct;

b. With intent that an offense be committed, he commands, induces, procures, or

aids the other to commit it, or, having a statutory duty to prevent its

commission, he fails to make proper effort to do so; or

c. He is a coconspirator and his association with the offense meets the

requirements of either of the other subdivisions of this subsection.

A person is not liable under this subsection for the conduct of another person when

he is either expressly or by implication made not accountable for such conduct by

the statute defining the offense or related provisions because he is a victim of the

offense or otherwise.

2. Unless otherwise provided, in a prosecution in which the liability of the defendant is

based upon the conduct of another person, it is no defense that:

a. The defendant does not belong to the class of persons who, because of their

official status or other capacity or characteristic, are by definition of the offense

the only persons capable of directly committing it; or

b. The person for whose conduct the defendant is being held liable has been

acquitted, has not been prosecuted or convicted, has been convicted of a

different offense, is immune from prosecution, or is otherwise not subject to

justice.

 

[43] 28-32-24. Evidence to be considered by agency - Official notice.

1. The admissibility of evidence in any adjudicative proceeding before an administrative

agency shall be determined in accordance with the North Dakota Rules of Evidence.

An administrative agency, or any person conducting proceedings for it, may waive

application of the North Dakota Rules of Evidence if a waiver is necessary to

ascertain the substantial rights of a party to the proceeding, but only relevant

evidence shall be admitted. The waiver must be specifically stated, orally or in

writing, either prior to or at a hearing or other proceeding.

2. All objections offered to evidence shall be noted in the record of the proceeding. No

information or evidence except that which has been offered, admitted, and made a

part of the official record of the proceeding shall be considered by the administrative

agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

3. Upon proper objection, evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, unduly repetitious, or

excludable on constitutional or statutory grounds, or on the basis of evidentiary

privilege recognized in the courts of this state, may be excluded. In the absence of

proper objection, the agency, or any person conducting a proceeding for it, may

exclude objectionable evidence.

4. The North Dakota Rules of Evidence in regard to privileges apply at all stages of an

administrative proceeding under this chapter.

5. All testimony must be made under oath or affirmation. Relevant statements

presented by nonparties may be received as evidence if all parties are given an

opportunity to cross-examine the nonparty witness or to otherwise challenge or rebut

the statements. Nonparties may not examine or cross-examine witnesses except

pursuant to a grant of intervention.

6. Evidence may be received in written form if doing so will expedite the proceeding

without substantial prejudice to the interests of any party.

7. Official notice may be taken of any facts that could be judicially noticed in the courts

of this state. Additionally, official notice may be taken of any facts as authorized in

agency rules.

 

[44] 12.1-09-01. Tampering with witnesses and informants in proceedings.

1. A person is guilty of a class C felony if he uses force, threat, deception, or bribery:

a. With intent to influence another's testimony in an official proceeding; or

b. With intent to induce or otherwise cause another:

(1) To withhold any testimony, information, document, or thing from an

official proceeding, whether or not the other person would be legally

privileged to do so;

(2) To violate section 12.1-09-03;

(3) To elude legal process summoning him to testify in an official

proceeding; or

(4) To absent himself from an official proceeding to which he has been

summoned.

2. A person is guilty of a class C felony if he solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from

another a thing of pecuniary value as consideration for:

a. Influencing the actor's testimony in an official proceeding; or

b. The actor's engaging in the conduct described in paragraphs 1 through 4 of

subdivision b of subsection 1.

 

[45] 12.1-06-01. Criminal attempt.

1. A person is guilty of criminal attempt if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise

required for commission of a crime, he intentionally engages in conduct which, in

fact, constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime. A "substantial

step" is any conduct which is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the actor's

intent to complete the commission of the crime. Factual or legal impossibility of

committing the crime is not a defense, if the crime could have been committed had

the attendant circumstances been as the actor believed them to be.

2. A person who engages in conduct intending to aid another to commit a crime is

guilty of criminal attempt if the conduct would establish his complicity under section

12.1-03-01 were the crime committed by the other person, even if the other is not

guilty of committing or attempting the crime, for example, because he has a defense

of justification or entrapment.

3. Criminal attempt is an offense of the same class as the offense attempted, except

that (a) an attempt to commit a class AA felony is a class A felony and an attempt to

commit a class A felony is a class B felony; and (b) whenever it is established by a

preponderance of the evidence at sentencing that the conduct constituting the

attempt did not come dangerously close to commission of the crime, an attempt to

commit a class B felony shall be a class C felony and an attempt to commit a

class C felony shall be a class A misdemeanor.

 

[46] 12.1-06-02. Criminal facilitation.

1. A person is guilty of criminal facilitation if he knowingly provides substantial

assistance to a person intending to commit a felony and that person, in fact,

commits the crime contemplated, or a like or related felony, employing the

assistance so provided. The ready lawful availability from others of the goods or

services provided by a defendant is a factor to be considered in determining whether

or not his assistance was substantial. This section does not apply to a person who

is either expressly or by implication made not accountable by the statute defining the

felony facilitated or related statutes.

2. Except as otherwise provided, it is no defense to a prosecution under this section

that the person whose conduct the defendant facilitated has been acquitted, has not

been prosecuted or convicted, has been convicted of a different offense, is immune

from prosecution, or is otherwise not subject to justice.

3. Facilitation of a class A felony is a class C felony. Facilitation of a class B or class C

felony is a class A misdemeanor.

 

[47] 12.1-06-03. Criminal solicitation.

1. A person is guilty of criminal solicitation if he commands, induces, entreats, or

otherwise attempts to persuade another person to commit a particular felony,

whether as principal or accomplice, with intent to promote or facilitate the

commission of that felony, under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent,

and if the person solicited commits an overt act in response to the solicitation.

2. It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that, if the criminal object were

achieved, the defendant would be a victim of the offense, or the offense is so

defined that his conduct would be inevitably incident to its commission, or he

otherwise would not be guilty under the statute defining the offense or as an

accomplice under section 12.1-03-01.

3. It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the person solicited could not

be guilty of the offense because of lack of responsibility or culpability, or other

incapacity or defense.

4. Criminal solicitation is an offense of the class next below that of the offense solicited.

 

[48] 12.1-06-04. Criminal conspiracy.

1. A person commits conspiracy if he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or

cause conduct which, in fact, constitutes an offense or offenses, and any one or

more of such persons does an overt act to effect an objective of the conspiracy. The

agreement need not be explicit but may be implicit in the fact of collaboration or

existence of other circumstances.

2. If a person knows or could expect that one with whom he agrees has agreed or will

agree with another to effect the same objective, he shall be deemed to have agreed

with the other, whether or not he knows the other's identity.

3. A conspiracy shall be deemed to continue until its objectives are accomplished,

frustrated, or abandoned. "Objectives" includes escape from the scene of the crime,

distribution of booty, and measures, other than silence, for concealing the crime or

obstructing justice in relation to it. A conspiracy shall be deemed abandoned if no

overt act to effect its objectives has been committed by any conspirator during the

applicable period of limitations.

4. It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the person with whom such

person is alleged to have conspired has been acquitted, has not been prosecuted or

convicted, has been convicted of a different offense, is immune from prosecution, or

is otherwise not subject to justice.

5. Accomplice liability for offenses committed in furtherance of the conspiracy is to be

determined as provided in section 12.1-03-01.

6. Conspiracy is an offense of the same class as the crime which was the objective of

the conspiracy.

 

[49]   Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is    engaged in "fraud upon the court".   In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and  is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."

 

[50] 28-32-25. Adjudicative proceedings - Consideration of information not presented at

a hearing. In any adjudicative proceeding, an administrative agency may avail itself of

competent and relevant information or evidence in its possession or furnished by members of its

staff, or secured from any person in the course of an independent investigation conducted by the agency, in addition to the evidence presented at the hearing. It may do so after first transmitting a copy of the information or evidence or an abstract thereof to each party of record in the proceeding. The agency must afford each party, upon written request, an opportunity to examine the information or evidence and to present its own information or evidence and to cross-examine the person furnishing the information or evidence. Any further testimony that is necessary shall be taken at a hearing to be called and held, giving at least ten days' notice. Notice must be served upon the parties in the manner allowed for service under the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure. This section also applies to information officially noticed after the hearing when the issuance of any initial or final order is based in whole or in part on the facts or material noticed.

 

[51] (14) BURDEN OF PROOF,  In unemployment insurance appeals, it is inaccurate to say that either party bears the burden of proof.  Unemployment insurance appeals differ from the adversary proceedings of the traditional judicial proceedings.  The courts will not take action unless the party seeking judgment can make out an affirmative case in its behalf.  In the unemployment insurance appeal, the appellant’s action in bringing the appeal is the occasion for an inquiry by the Hearing Officer into the facts of the case.  This inquiry takes the form of a hearing on the appeal where it is the Hearing Officer’s duty to elicit all the available facts and render judgment based upon the evidence.  In a sense, it may be said that the Hearing Officer has the procedural burden of proof.  (Hearing Officer’s Handbook)

[52] 52-06-23. Administering oaths - Taking depositions - Compelling attendance of

witnesses and memoranda - Penalty.

In the discharge of the duties imposed by the North Dakota unemployment compensation

law, the chairman of an appeal tribunal, or any duly authorized representative or member of the

bureau, may administer oaths and affirmations, take depositions, certify to official acts, and

issue a subpoena to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers,

correspondence, memoranda, and other records deemed necessary as evidence in connection

with a disputed claim or the administration of the North Dakota unemployment compensation

law. Any person who willfully fails to obey a subpoena issued under this section, unless good

cause for failure to obey is shown, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

 

[53]MR. THUNE:  We had provided some exhibits.  They had been admitted into evidence and I believe they are labeled Ex #4, but in front of you, I think we sent you copies of it and in Exhibit 4 I’d like you to turn to Exhibit A.  Do you have that in front of you?  (Job Service Transcript, p. 87, line 15-18)

MR. GUTHRIE:  Yes.  (line 19)

MR. THUNE:  You wrote that letter, is that correct?  (line 20)

MR. GUTHRIE:  Correct.  (line 21)

 

Exhibit 4 is the letter Mr. Guthrie gave me when he gave the 5 Directives.  (Ex 26)  Exhibit A is the letter Mr. Thune sent to Guthrie which he wants Guthrie to read, the letter I have not seen.  Why else do we have Exhibit #4 and Exhibit #A?

 

MR. THUNE:  On the first page of the letter itself, would you describe what occurred that led to a brief Administrative Leave for Janis Schmidt?  (Job Service hearing transcript, p. 87, line 22-23)

MR. GUTHRIE:   Ms. Schmidt had talked about a student or students being raped at the school and claiming that nothing had been done and in fact the rape that she was talking about happened during the summer time and that was followed up on and she was—and the kids were dropping out of her class because she was not just talking Native American culture, but the issues that she was talking about such as Leonard Peltier, Wounded Knee, AIM, and she was even talking to the students about her personal law suits in South Dakota against that tribe and there was a teacher who had a son here who is non Native that was even beginning to feel safety reasons, concerns, and also, we do have a chain of command policy that’s approved by the board which she was not following and she was making allegations that she just, she just could not prove.  (Id., p. 88, line 1-10)

 

          Mr. Guthrie is reading from a letter that lawyer Thune provided him to read from, Exhibit A. 

[54] 12.1-03-01. Accomplices.

1. A person may be convicted of an offense based upon the conduct of another person

when:

a. Acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes the other

to engage in such conduct;

b. With intent that an offense be committed, he commands, induces, procures, or

aids the other to commit it, or, having a statutory duty to prevent its

commission, he fails to make proper effort to do so; or

c. He is a coconspirator and his association with the offense meets the

requirements of either of the other subdivisions of this subsection.

A person is not liable under this subsection for the conduct of another person when

he is either expressly or by implication made not accountable for such conduct by

the statute defining the offense or related provisions because he is a victim of the

offense or otherwise.

2. Unless otherwise provided, in a prosecution in which the liability of the defendant is

based upon the conduct of another person, it is no defense that:

a. The defendant does not belong to the class of persons who, because of their

official status or other capacity or characteristic, are by definition of the offense

the only persons capable of directly committing it; or

 

[55] 50-25.1-09.1. Employer retaliation prohibited.

1. An employer who retaliates against an employee solely because the employee in good faith reported having reasonable cause to suspect that a child was abused or neglected, or died as a result of abuse or neglect, or because the employee is a child with respect to whom a report was made, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. It is a defense to any charge brought under this section that the presumption of good faith, described in section 50-25.1-09, has been rebutted. 

2. The employer of a person required or permitted to report pursuant to section 50-25.1-03 who retaliates against the person because of a report of abuse or neglect, or a report of a death resulting from child abuse or neglect, is liable to that person in a civil action for all damages, including exemplary damages, costs of the litigation, and reasonable attorney's fees.

3. There is a rebuttable presumption that any adverse action within ninety days of a report is retaliatory. For purposes of this subsection, an "adverse action" is action taken by an employer against the person making the report or the child with respect to whom a report was made, including:

a. Discharge, suspension, termination, or transfer from any facility, institution, school, agency, or other place of employment;

b. Discharge from or termination of employment;

c. Demotion or reduction in remuneration for services; or

d. Restriction or prohibition of access to any facility, institution, school, agency, or other place of employment or persons affiliated with it.

 

[56] 52-06-27. Judicial review of decision - Petition - Filing. A party to proceedings before

the bureau may obtain a judicial review of the decision of the bureau by filing a petition for review within thirty days after the date of mailing the bureau's decision to the party at the party's

last-known address, or in the absence of mailing, within thirty days after delivery of the decision

to the party. The petition for review must be filed in the district court of the county in which the

petitioner resides, must be verified, and must state the grounds upon which review is sought. All

other parties to the proceeding before the bureau must be parties respondent. The bureau is

deemed to be a party to any such proceeding. If the bureau is a party respondent, the petition

must be served upon it by leaving with it or its chairman, or any other representative as it may

designate for that purpose, as many copies of the petition as there are respondents. With its

answer or petition, the bureau shall certify and file with the court a verified copy of the record of

the case, including all documents and papers and a transcript of all testimony taken in the matter, together with the bureau's findings, conclusions, and decision therein. Upon the filing of a petition for review by the bureau or upon the service of the petition upon it, the bureau forthwith shall send by registered mail to each other party to the proceeding a copy of such petition and such mailing is deemed to be completed service upon all such parties. In any proceeding under this section the finding of the bureau as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, is conclusive and the review by the court must be confined to questions of law. Such proceedings must be heard by the court and must be given precedence over all other civil cases except cases arising under the workforce safety and insurance statute of this state. An appeal may be taken from the decision of the district court to the supreme court of this state in the same manner as is provided in civil cases. Upon the final termination of such judicial proceeding, the bureau shall enter an order in accordance with the mandate of the court.

 

[57] 52-06-40. Penalty for violation or failure to perform duty when no penalty provided.  Any person who willfully violates any provision of this title, or any order, rule, or regulation thereunder, and for which a penalty is neither prescribed in this title nor provided by any other applicable statute, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

 

[58] 12.1-16-01. Murder.

1. A person is guilty of murder, a class AA felony, if the person:  a. Intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another human being;  b. Causes the death of another human being under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or

12.1-16-04. Assisting the commission of suicide - Causing death by suicide -

Penalties.  1. Any person who intentionally or knowingly aids, abets, facilitates, solicits, or incites another person to commit suicide….2. Any person who, through deception, coercion, or duress, willfully causes the death of another person by suicide is guilty of a class AA felony.

 

[59] 52-06-37.1. Applicability of decision to separate proceedings. Any finding of fact or

law, judgment, conclusion, or decision made by a claims examiner, appeals referee, the bureau,

or any person with the authority to make findings of fact or law in any action or proceeding before the bureau is not conclusive or binding on, nor may it be used as evidence in, any separate or  subsequent action or proceeding unrelated to the North Dakota unemployment compensation law, except for workforce safety and insurance purposes, between an individual and the individual's present or prior employer brought before an arbitrator, court, or judge of this state or the United States, regardless of whether the prior action was between the same or related parties or involved the same facts.

 

[60] 52-06-37.1. Applicability of decision to separate proceedings. Any finding of fact or law, judgment, conclusion, or decision made by a claims examiner, appeals referee, the bureau, or any person with the authority to make findings of fact or law in any action or proceeding before the bureau is not conclusive or binding on, nor may it be used as evidence in, any separate or  subsequent action or proceeding unrelated to the North Dakota unemployment compensation law, except for workforce safety and insurance purposes, between an individual and the individual's present or prior employer brought before an arbitrator, court, or judge of this state or the United States, regardless of whether the prior action was between the same or related parties or involved the same facts.

52-06-40. Penalty for violation or failure to perform duty when no penalty provided.

Any person who willfully violates any provision of this title, or any order, rule, or regulation thereunder, and for which a penalty is neither prescribed in this title nor provided by any other applicable statute, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

 

[61]RULE 7.1 JUDGMENTS, ORDERS AND DECREES

 b) Preparation of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

(1) Preparation by One or More Parties. Preparation of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) may be assigned by the court to one or more parties. Any findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by one or more parties must be served upon all other parties for review and comment. The other parties may serve a response in writing, within 14 days of service, or such other time as the court, in its discretion, may allow. All proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law must be filed with the clerk. The court must thereafter enter findings of fact and conclusions of law as it may deem appropriate.

Paragraph (b)(1) was amended, effective March 1, 2011, to increase the time to serve a response to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law from 10 to 14 days.

[62] 29-10.1-02. When grand jury may be called.

No grand jury may be drawn, summoned, or convened in any county within this state unless

the district judge thereof shall so direct by a written order filed with the clerk of the court in the

county wherein the said grand jury is required to attend. Any judge of the district court for any

county must direct, in the manner herein provided, that a grand jury be drawn and summoned to

attend whenever:

2. The board of county commissioners of the county wherein the court is to be held, in

writing, requests the judge so to do; or

 

[63] 29-10.1-03. Judge to summon grand jury.

Upon presentment of the request of petition, the judge shall promptly summon and convene

the grand jury.

[64] 12.1-16-01. Murder.

1. A person is guilty of murder, a class AA felony, if the person:

a. Intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another human being;

b. Causes the death of another human being under circumstances manifesting

extreme indifference to the value of human life;

12.1-16-04. Assisting the commission of suicide - Causing death by suicide -

Penalties.

2. Any person who, through deception, coercion, or duress, willfully causes the death of

another person by suicide is guilty of a class AA felony.

 

[65] Cory didn’t like the way Coach Klein was coaching and was circulating a petition to get rid of Mr. Klein, which was a ruse. 

[66] 12. "Government" means:

a. The government of this state or any political subdivision of this state;

b. Any agency, subdivision, or department of the foregoing, including the

executive, legislative, and judicial branches;

c. Any corporation or other entity established by law to carry on any governmental

function; and

d. Any commission, corporation, or agency established by statute, compact, or

contract between or among governments for the execution of

intergovernmental programs.

13. 12.1-01-04. General definitions "Governmental function" includes any activity which one or more public servants are legally authorized to undertake on behalf of government.

 

[67] 12.1-03-02. Corporate and limited liability company criminal responsibility.

1. A corporation or a limited liability company may be convicted of:

a. Any offense committed by an agent of the corporation or limited liability

company within the scope of the agent's employment on the basis of conduct

authorized, requested, or commanded, by any of the following or a combination

of them:

(1) The board of directors or the board of governors.

(2) An executive officer, executive manager, or any other agent in a position

of comparable authority with respect to the formulation of policy or the

supervision in a managerial capacity of subordinate employees.

(3) Any person, whether or not an officer of the corporation, who controls the

corporation or is responsibly involved in forming its policy.

(4) Any person, whether or not a manager of the limited liability company,

who controls the limited liability company or is responsibly involved in

forming its policy.

(5) Any other person for whose act or omission the statute defining the

offense provides corporate or limited liability company responsibility for

offenses.

b. Any offense consisting of an omission to discharge a specific duty of affirmative

conduct imposed on a corporation or a limited liability company by law.

c. Any misdemeanor committed by an agent of the corporation or the limited

liability company within the scope of the agent's employment.

d. Any offense for which an individual may be convicted without proof of

culpability, committed by an agent of the corporation or the limited liability

company within the scope of the agent's employment.

2. It is no defense that an individual upon whose conduct liability of the corporation or

the limited liability company for an offense is based has been acquitted, has not

been prosecuted or convicted, has been convicted of a different offense, is immune

from prosecution, or is otherwise not subject to justice.

 

[68] 50-25.1-04.1. State child protection team - How created - Duties.

1. The department shall name the members of the state child protection team. The

members must be appointed for three-year staggered terms. The member who

represents the department shall serve as presiding officer and is responsible for the

transmittal of all team reports made pursuant to this chapter. The presiding officer

shall set meetings for the purposes of fulfilling the duties set forth in sections

50-25.1-02 and 50-25.1-04.

2. Under procedures adopted by the team, it may meet at any time, confer with any

individuals, groups, and agencies, and may issue reports or recommendations on

any aspect of child abuse, neglect, or death resulting from abuse or neglect it deems

appropriate. All reports or recommendations issued are subject to section

50-25.1-11, except that the team shall make available information reflecting the

disposition of reports of institutional child abuse, neglect, or death resulting from

abuse or neglect, when the identity of persons reporting, and of the children and

parents of children involved, is protected.

3. In every case of alleged institutional child abuse or neglect, the state child protection

team shall make a determination that child abuse or neglect is or is not indicated.

Upon a determination that institutional child abuse or neglect is indicated, the state

child protection team promptly shall make a written report of the determination.

When the subject of the report is a state-operated institution, the state child

protection team promptly shall notify the governor of the determination.

50-25.1-04.2. Child fatality review panel. The state child protection team shall  el in the

performance of its duties. The department, in coordination with the state department of health,

shall adopt rules for the operation of the panel. Panel members are not entitled to compensation

or reimbursement of expenses for service on the panel.

 

50-25.1-04.3. Child fatality review panel - Duties. The child fatality review panel shall

meet at least semiannually to review the deaths of all minors which occurred in the state during

the preceding six months and to identify trends or patterns in the deaths of minors. The panel

shall promote:

1. Interagency communication for the management of child death cases and for the

management of future nonfatal cases.

2. Effective criminal, civil, and social intervention for families with fatalities.

3. Intervention and counseling of surviving and at-risk siblings, and offer the same.

4. Interagency use of cases to audit the total health and social service systems and to

minimize misclassification of cause of death.

5. Evaluation of the impact of specific risk factors including substance abuse, domestic

violence, and prior child abuse.

6. Interagency services to high-risk families.

7. Data collection for surveillance of deaths and the study of categories of causes of

death.

8. The use of media to educate the public about child abuse prevention.

9. Intercounty and interstate communications regarding child death.

10. Use of local child protection team members as local child fatality review panelists.

11. Information that apprises a parent or guardian of the parent's or guardian's rights

and the procedures taken after the death of a child.

50-25.1-04.4. Child fatality review panel - Access to records. Upon the request of a

coroner or the presiding officer of a child fatality review panel, any hospital, physician, medical

professional, medical facility, mental health professional, mental health facility, school counselor, or division of juvenile services employee shall disclose all records of that entity with respect to any child who has or is eligible to receive a certificate of live birth and who has died. The person submitting the request shall reimburse the disclosing entity for the actual costs of assembling and disclosing the information.

 

[69] I taped this October 2011 meeting with Social Services.  A copy of this audiotape is available to the Dept. of Justice.

+
Website Builder