On August 9, 2010, the Plaintiffs in Wolfchild v. United States filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.  The cross-motion can be found here.  The hearing on the cross-motion and other motions is scheduled to be heard in the United States Court of Federal Claims before Judge Charles Lettow on October 22, 2010 in Washington, D.C.

Attorney Erick G. Kaardal comments, "After the interlocutory appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of the petition for writ of certiorari, the Plaintiffs are glad to be back in the trial court to resolve the Plaintiffs' claims once and for all.  The cross-motion, if granted, would mean the government is liable to the Plaintiffs for monetary damages. We all look forward to the October 22 hearing and future proceedings."

The Des Moines Register has covered Paul Dorr's and neopopulism's victory in the U.S. District Court in Iowa.  The article can be found here.

Dear Friends of Neopopulism.org:

I am forwarding you the neopop pro se self-help kit to defend against Minnesota seat belt violation charges. Feel free to share it with your friends who are charged with seat belt violations based on a police stop for a seat belt violation only. Of course, my personal advice is "wear your seatbelt." Best regards.

egk

-----Original Message-----

From: Erick Kaardal

Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:11 AM

Dear all:

This email and attachment is a pro se self-help litigation packet to defend against Minnesota seat belt violations based on a police stop for a seat belt violation only. Currently, the defenses explained herein are being argued by myself on a formal motion to dismiss in Dakota County District Court. Pro se defendants, however, are now making the arguments and winning in at least 6 counties.

Here is my advice to you:

My understanding is you will be representing yourself at a hearing in your County on a seat belt violation based on a police stop for only a seat belt violation. If your circumstances are different than those described, then my advice is not intended for you.

In preparation for your hearing, you should print off the official law that is stated below in my letter below. Tell the judge at the hearing the following:

1. The charges should be dismissed because the official law is that the police can not stop for a seat belt violation. (The critical sentence is in the note section.)

2. According to Minnesota statute 3C.11, subd. 1 (quoted in the letter below), the court needs to rely on the official law which is published by the Office of Revisor.

3. The official law states in the note section that the statute was amended to prohibit the police from stopping for a mere seat belt violation.

4. Because the police violated the official law, you should go free.

As you know, I have given you this advice; but, I decline representation in your criminal proceeding.

Now, you promised that you would call me after the hearing, to tell me how you did. I would appreciate it. Thanks.

egk

LETTER USED IN REAL COURT CASE:

Dear Judge Moynihan:

            This correspondence is a short reply to Mr. Porter's correspondence of June 3, 2010.  Mr. Porter's arguments regarding the session laws fail to cite or overcome the presumption expressed in Minn. Stat. 3C.13:

Any volume of Minnesota Statutes, supplement to Minnesota Statutes, and Laws of Minnesota certified by the revisor according to section 3C.11, subdivision 1, is prima facie evidence of the statutes contained in it in all courts and proceedings...

1984 c 480 s 13; 1984 c 655 art 2 s 19 subd 2.  Since the published Minn. Stat. § 169.686 favors my client on the disputed law, the burden shifts to the State to show that the statute is something other than what the Revisor has reported as the law.

            The Revisor of Statutes under the authority vested in Minn. Stat. Ch. 3C published Minnesota Statutes 2009 Supplement which states in relevant part under Minn. Stat. § 169.686 (copy attached):

Note: Subdivision 1 was also amended by Law 2009, chapter 82, section 2, to read as follows:.... A peace officer may not issue a citation for a violation of this section unless the officer lawfully stopped or detained the driver of the motor vehicle for a moving violation other than a violation involving motor vehicle equipment...

Nowhere in Minnesota Statutes 2009 Supplement is there reflected the State's position that this language has been amended or deleted. 

             The State has only pointed to a session law which has an earlier effective date -- June 9, 2009 versus July 1, 2009.  On the basis of the session law with the earlier effective date, the State argues that this session law deletes the Revisor's published law which became effective on July 1, 2009, three weeks after the effective date of the law purporting to delete the later-effective law. 

             The most reasonable court response to the state's arguments is "not proven."  My client deserves a lot more from the State than what she is receiving in this particular case as to what the law is.  The Eagan citation indicated that she violated Minn. Stat. § 169.686.  She has argued that the stop was illegal based on the Revisor's published Minn. Stat. § 169.686.  After the hearing, the State produces a letter attaching session laws stating a law with a later effective date was repealed by a law with an earlier effective date.  Meanwhile, hundreds are being ticketed statewide without this issue being resolved one way or the other.  The way the State has handled this matter of "law" should be unacceptable from the Court's point of view - prosections based on a contradiction of the Revisor's published laws.   Fundamentally, the people are entitled to rely on the Revisor's published laws - and the law enforcement agencies are expected to.  If there is a problem with the Revisor's published laws, it is incumbent on the state, not a criminal defendant, to fix them prior to prosecution.

            Since Minn. Stat. 3C.13 shifts the burden of proof onto the State, the State in this particular case has failed to meet its burden showing that the Revisor's published law on Minn. Stat. § 169.686 is not the law of the state.  Accordingly, the seat belt charge against ____________ should be dismissed.

Very truly yours,

 ______________

On July 14, 2010, Olmsted County Judge Kevin A. Lund dismissed a seat belt charge against Patrick Evans based on Minnesota's official law, published by the Office of the Revisor, barring traffic stops for mere seat belt violations.

Minnesota's law enforcement agencies claim the power to make traffic stop for mere seat belt violations. But, Minnesota's official law states the contrary.

The Olmsted County is the first known victory based on neopopulism's "Official Law" defense.

Former criminal defendants Patrick Evans who is now free of the seat belt charges wrote the following to neopop counsel Erick Kaardal in appreciation:

Dear Mr. Kaardal:

I would first off like to thank you for all your advice if it weren't for you I probably would have been paying a fine on Wednesday (7/14). I called and left you a message. I just thought I would email you as well and say Thank you very much for everything. I know you have been busy and I just want you to know that if I can get mine dismissed your client should as well. I want to wish you the best of luck in everything you do. I didn't even get to plead in my case, as I walked up the judge asked me if I was in the same situation as the person before me and I told him "yes". He said that mine was dismissed. It made it a great day for me and I hope it made your day as well. Like I say I don't know how to say Thank you to you. But I really really do mean it when I say it and I want to say Thank You very very much for all of the advice.

Thank You,

Patrick Evans

Ever since the KSTP-TV coverage of the seat belt defense in Dakota County District Court case State of Minnesota v. Sara Rechtzigel, the phone of criminal defense attorney Erick Kaardal has been ringing off the hook. 

Kaardal reports, "I have received eight calls from criminal defendants or their attorneys regarding charges based on stops for seat belt violations.  In all but two of the cases, the people calling were unrepresented by attorneys. In the other two cases, attorneys were representing the parties -- one of whom was a Hennepin County public defender.  In each instance, I have shared the written law with the people who, in turn, have indicated that they will argue in five different counties (Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, Scott and Washington Counties) to five different judges that 'the state should enforce the written laws -- not the unwritten laws.'  I am so proud of these people and their willingness to stand up for the rule of law in Minnesota -- despite what the prosecutors and police have said and done.  All eight people have told me that they will report back their court results based on the seat belt defense.  Stay tuned to neopopulism.org to find out more."

On July 7, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge (Iowa) Mark Bennett issued an order determining that Osceola County Sheriff Douglas Weber had violated the 1st Amendment free speech rights of political activist Paul Dorr.  Sheriff Weber denied Dorr a conceal and carry permit because Dorr joined the Osceola County Taxpayers Association which was engaged in criticizing the Osceola County government's spending habits. 

As part of the court's decision, the federal judge has ordered the county sheriff to attend a college-level course on the U.S. Constitution. 

The Sioux City Journal ran an article summarizing yesterday's opinion. It can be found here.

The Minnesota Lawyer, the state's leading legal newspaper, has profiled neopopulism.org's advances and victories in its July 2, 2010 issue.  The article can be found here online.

Attorney Erick Kaardal comments, "It means a lot to neopopulists that the Minnesota Lawyer is following neopopulism.org.  It's a great newspaper.  Thank you."

On July 2, 2010, KSTP-TV covered the seat belt case being prosecuted in Dakota County District Court.  The interview of Erick Kaardal can be found here.

Attorney Erick Kaardal responds, "The seat belt case poses important public law issues.  Can Minnesota's prosecutors and law enforcement community enforce unwritten laws?  Should the State of Minnesota have two sets of laws: written laws and unwritten laws? From a neopopulist perspective, this issue was decided a long time ago when Minnesota established the Office of Revisor to publish Minnesota's official laws.  The official written laws are published by the Office of Revisor.  All other laws are unofficial, unwritten laws.  Because the official, written laws prohibit traffic stops based on mere seat belt violations, the Dakota County District Court should allow my client Sara Rechtzigel to go free."

In this criminal case, the State of Minnesota (City of Lakeville) is prosecuting Sara Rechtzigel for a seat belt violation.  The prosecution admits that Rechtzigel was pulled over by the police officer on a suspicion that Rechtzigel was not wearing a seat belt.

Rechtzigel has made a motion to the Dakota County District Court that the charges should be dismissed because the prosecutor is relying on an unwritten law to permit the police officer stop based on a seat belt violation being a primary offense.  The official law, published by the Office of the Revisor, prohibits stopping an automobile for a mere seat belt violation:  a moving violation is required for a traffic stop

The Dakota County District Court judge heard the case on June 3, 2010.  A court decision is expected in July or August.

The Iowa media is beginning to cover the U.S. District Court decision in the Dorr gun case.  The Sioux City Journal covered the court's ruling here.  Another cite to an Iowa media page can be found here.