The appellate court provided a list of evidence in the county file on 8/3/2012.
More than 40 documents served to court successfully are missing from the file.
All audio exhibit disks were missing from the list of evidence in the court file.
All of this evidence appears to have disappeared in Judge Mayer's office, or under his direction.
Audio evidence (to be provided) proves that served documents go to Judge Mayer's office and disappear. The staff refuses to log documents before they go to his office unless Judge Mayer orders them to do so, and the staff can't find the served documents after they send them to his office.
Judge Edward Lynch was notified in a letter on 8/31/2012 (below) from the father which has a list of some of the missing evidence:
"I provided copies of the notarized service affidavits and fax 'success' notices to the appellate court and the county court for documents that continued to mysteriously? disappear from Richard Crabb and Judge Mayer's office after this problem was brought to Heather Montpetit on 4-27-10. when I was punished with an immediate order because I cited the tampering. It took many hours to discover part of the evidence missing from the file. The documents that were successfully received by fax and disappeared from Judge Mayer's office were mostly those providing evidence of his lies planted in the record and requests for him to recuse himself. Clearly Judge Mayer's office has tampered with the file, to cover up, obstruct justice and keep documents from being found by the appellate court. Many documents served and successfully faxed to court didn't show up on the list of court file items, too many to list." them all.
Judge Lynch was asked to verify if the list of audio evidence disks and 20 served documents provided in the letter are still missing. The request included asking to be served with a few 2010 court orders that were never served to the father, and he had no knowledge that they existed. According to supervisor of courts Heidi Carstensen, Judge Lynch's office wrote a comment "no response" on the request, which was repeatedly sent to him since 8/31/2012. Heidi Carstensen also has failed to send the orders or investigate the missing evidence, and expressed fear of the judges. There has still been no response (11/19/2012).
Judge Edward Lynch isn't shy about participating in obstructing justice.
If Judge Mayer's office doesn't like the evidence, they dispose of it. Why would Judge Mayer's office tamper with and remove so much evidence, and Judge Lynch cover-up? if they don't have something to hide? Obviously, because the father's evidence they dispose of, proves the opposite of the lies the judges plant in their orders' findings of 'fact.' But the courts' May 2012 new rule/definition of sworn truth (in affidavits) is that it must only 'contains facts' {together with false allegations like the custodian and Deanne Dulas and Judge Mayer and Lynch}.
A motion of reconsideration regarding the missing documents was filed on 12-19-2012 which is attached.
Judge Mayer responded in a letter on 1-2-2013 which communicated that Judge Mayer believes there is "not a compelling circumstance" for returning the previously submitted evidence to the court file which was disposed of through illegal tampering of the file and obstruction of justice. Judge Mayer has apparently used this "as an opportunity for" a 2nd illegal disposal of the 500+ pages of evidence.
1. Judge Mayer could have just returned the documents to the file and claimed that he had nothing to do with the illegal disposal.
2. Instead Judge Mayer made it very clear that he doesn't want the 500+ pages of documents in the file, and has given approval for a 2nd illegal disposal of evidence.
3. It appears that he may be wanting to apply the new May 2012 rules of court to these documents of evidence, even though all of them were submitted under the old rules. And his claim of improper is knowingly improper because:
- all of the missing documents and audio disks were submitted properly per the rules in place when originally submitted.
- 14 of the missing documents are letters which don't have 'proper' requirements, include one letter from the support agency which proved full and timely payments, which he has never acknowledged - that letter disproves the lies that he plants in his orders.
- 10 of the missing documents are proposed orders and motions for review for which even the new rules don't require notary.
- Some of documents are previous motions. Affidavits aren't mandatory as he demands - even the new rules state "any relevant affidavit." Signed and notarized affidavits of service and fax receipts of "success' were attached to the missing documents that were resubmitted.
4. In rule 115.11 there is no prohibition of facts and argument, as Judge Mayer falsely alleges in his denial letter, but in fact Rule 115.11 requests up to 2 pages of reasoning. Judge Mayer continues to make up fantasy rules and reasons that don't exist in statute or rules. The form of a motion letter for review is in itself 1.5 pages and includes a listing of the relevant rules of court. The less defined Motion for Reconsideration (general court) has no standard form and has basically the same purpose as a Motion for Review (expedited process). The rule 377.03 Motion for Review standard form that the father used (that included Rule 379.04 acknowledgments) in fact specifically requests reasons (facts and argument), and a request to submit "new" evidence. Judge Mayer deceptively left out "new" in his letter stating "not opportunities for presentation of facts or argument."
5. Of course, one could probably never find a definite of 'compelling' - it's not in the General Rules where 115.11 is found.
6. Judge Mayer should be commended for finally not continuing to violate state law by copying the county attorney who has no statutory jurisdiction in general family court. Perhaps Judge Mayer doesn't want the county attorney to be made aware of the illegal disposal of court documents from his file, as the county attorney could prosecute him for obstruction of justice.
7. Judge Mayer again falsely alleges this is an attempt to 'expand or supplement the record' instead of the fact that it is a return of illegally disposed court evidence to the file.
8. Judge Mayer who boasts that he is a youth religious leader is again knowingly showing discrimination toward God and toward the father's faith in God. He finds it 'puzzling' that a Christian would be learning and growing in the knowledge of God's commands, versus falling farther away and discriminating against God's very clear commands as Judge Mayer continues to do.
9. From his 1-2-2013 letter, no one can determine why he denied returning all the documents to the file and no one can determine or know what is lacking in what he imagines to be 'proper.' As has been his continual mode of operation, Judge Mayer uses this mystery excuse without instruction or reason defined and continues to play a 'game' (Puckett v. Cox) and alleges any undefined 'one misstep' in order to achieve a 'decisive outcome' that completely denies 'substantial justice.' Judge Mayer has been notified repeatedly and continues to violate these U.S. Supreme Court mandates on judges which require him to give reasons and instruction (which are also required of judges in the rules of court regarding a motion):
From the Mar. 2012 statement of case:
"Court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instructions of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings." Plaskey v CIA, 953 F .2nd 25
" judge should inform a pro se litigant of the proper procedure for the action he or she is obviously attempting to accomplish." Breck v. Ulmer, 745 P.2d 66, 75 (Alaska 1987)
And, of course, the allegations of a complaint are generally taken as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319,322 (1972).
Defendant has the right to submit pro se briefs on appeal, even though they may be in-artfully drawn but the court can reasonably read and understand them. See, Vega v. Johnson, 149 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1998). Courts will go to particular pains to protect pro se litigants against consequences of technical errors if injustice would otherwise result. U.S. v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243 (D.C.Cir. 1996). {judges are to be considerate of in-artful? without over-generalized criticisms of indeterminable reason?}
Moreover, "the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory." Bonner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975) (quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1974)). {even a theory that the Plaintiff hasn't thought of}
In Puckett v. Cox, it was held that a pro-se pleading requires less
stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth
Circuit USCA). Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957)
"The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is a game of skill in
which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the
principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on
the merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP and the State Court rule which
holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."
In addition, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 5.05 is amended to add a provision relating to filing that was adopted as part of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(e) in 1991. It is important that Rule 5 specifically provide that the court administrator must accept for filing documents tendered for that purpose regardless of any technical deficiencies they may contain. The court may, of course, direct that those deficiencies be remedied or give substantive importance to the deficiencies of the documents. The sanction of closing the courthouse to the filing should not be imposed or if imposed, should be imposed by a judge only after reviewing the document and the circumstances surrounding its filing. The rejection of documents for filing may have dire consequences for litigants and is not authorized by statute or rule.
Another example of the obligations of the court is in MN Family Rule 632.04 which requires that the court "shall prepare a notice of deficiency, stating the reason(s)." This Rule was also violated regarding the 2011-03-10 motion that is in the 2012 appeal. A vague mystery excuse of 'not proper' is not stating a reason or an instruction.
10. What prevents Judge Mayer from secretly and illegally disposing of this evidence a 3rd time?
Below are some of the documents served to court and missing from the court file and a list of 40+ documents detected so far as missing. The letters, motions and order related to the the missing documents are also below.