Evidence

Although numerous crimes and unethical acts have been committed by a wide range of people (see the wrongdoers section), the evidence for the majority of such actions is scarce. There is, however, one glaring exception. My ex-wife's lawyer at a hearing in 2011, clearly committed fraud upon the court. The evidence is so good it is difficult to imagine that it could be any better. Judge William Leary and Judge Mark Ireland ignored the evidence. John Choi and Richard Dusterhoft clearly committed the crime of obstruction of justice in an attempt to cover it up.

Evidence against my ex-wife's lawyer

During a court hearing held on March 21, 2011, my ex-wife’s lawyer falsely claimed she did not receive the vocational assessment in the docket sent to her. Her words were unambiguous. Below is an extract from a transcript of the hearing showing but a few of the several false statements she made regarding it:

Real names have been removed.

10 THE COURT: The evaluation is at least 11 part of the submissions that (ME) has provided. 12 LAWYER: That was not part of what 13 was provided to me, Your Honor. I did not receive 14 any exhibits. So I would like -- 15 THE COURT: We have a document filed in 16 February 8th, 2011, and it's Document 42 in the court 17 file. It's a December 1, 2009 evaluation by 18 rehabilitation counselors regarding (EX-WIFE NAME), now 19 (EX-WIFE'S NAME). 20 LAWYER: Could the court tell me what 21 else was filed with (MY) affidavit? 22 THE COURT: Well, you can take a look 23 in the file. 24 LAWYER: I did not receive any of 25 that. The only thing I received was his pay stubs as 1 part of an exhibit, so that is why our affidavit does 2 not address the vocational evaluation. Because we 3 did not know that he had filed it with his motion, 4 otherwise I certainly would have done that, Your 5 Honor. 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 LAWYER: And I'm really disturbed by 8 the fact that I didn't receive a complete copy of the 9 submissions.

My ex-wife's lawyer claim that she did not receive the vocational assessment was knowingly false. The docket she received contained an Affidavit of Service, which she did not refute receiving, from a third party which stated: 30

“I served the attached documents, namely Notice of Motion and Motion to Modify Child Support/Spousal Maintenance, Affidavit in Support of Motion to Modify Child Support/Spousal Support, Supplemental Affidavit in Support of Motion to Modify Child Support/Spousal Support, Financial Affidavit for Child Support, Pay stubs for (ME) for the periods June 2010 and December 2010, and Vocational Assessment of (EX-WIFE) f/ k/a (EX-WIFE) performed by (VOCATIONAL EVALUATOR) of Rehabilitation Counselors Inc. “

The vocational evaluation was also listed in the table of contents and referenced in numerous other places throughout the docket. And of course they received the evaluation at the time it was completed. With the exception of my ex-wife's original divorce suite and the custody evaluation, it was the most important document in the whole case.

Looking at the definition of fraud upon the court, it is clear my ex-wife's lawyer's actions do meet this criteria. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated the following:

In order to meet the necessarily demanding standard for proof of fraud upon the court we conclude that there must be: (1) an intentional fraud; (2) by an officer of the court; (3) which is directed at the court itself; and (4) in fact deceives the court.[47]

There is no statute of limitation for fraud upon the court in Minnesota. The Wikipedia article on fraud upon the court states: 

When an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to impair the court's impartial performance of its legal task, the act (known as fraud upon the court) is not subject to a statute of limitation

In addition, Minnesota statutory law makes this clear as well:

518.145 DECREE, FINALITY AND REOPENING.

Subd. 2.Reopening. On motion and upon terms as are just, the court may relieve a party from a judgment and decree, order, or proceeding under this chapter, except for provisions dissolving the bonds of marriage, annulling the marriage, or directing that the parties are legally separated, and may order a new trial or grant other relief as may be just for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under the Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 59.03;

(3) fraud, whether denominated intrinsic or extrinsic, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;

(4) the judgment and decree or order is void; or

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment and decree or order upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment and decree or order should have prospective application.

The motion must be made within a reasonable time, and for a reason under clause (1), (2), or (3), not more than one year after the judgment and decree, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision does not affect the finality of a judgment and decree or order or suspend its operation. This subdivision does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment and decree, order, or proceeding or to grant relief to a party not actually personally notified as provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.

The Minnesota Lawyers Rules of Professional Conduct, a fairly well-written document, has very clear rules regarding truthfulness:

A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. For dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement or for misrepresentations by a lawyer other than in the course of representing a client,see Rule 8.4.

Although it appears to be rarely if ever enforced, the Rules Professional Conduct does have a clear and unambiguous rule on reporting lawyer misconduct. The rule clearly states that every lawyer who viewed the evidence against my ex-wife's lawyer was obligated to report her actions as a violation of the rules.

Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct

(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of the applicable Code of Judicial Conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.

(c) This rule does not require disclosure of information that Rule 1.6 requires or allows a lawyer to keep confidential or information gained by a lawyer or judge while participating in a lawyers assistance program or other program providing assistance, support, or counseling to lawyers who are chemically dependent or have mental disorders.

Rule 8.3 is clear that any lawyer who knows of a violation of the Rules Of Professional Conduct let alone the law, has a duty to report it. The evidence against my wife's lawyer is so clear, so overwhelming that a reasonable person would conclude that every lawyer who views the evidence is required to report it. Yet, to my knowledge, none of the numerous lawyers who have seen the evidence has reported it to either law enforcement of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board.  

Evidence against John Choi and Richard Dusterhoft

In response to the evidence above of fraud committed by my ex-wife's attorney, Ramsey County Attorney John Choi and his criminal division director Richard Dusterhoft stated, in writing:

1. Lawyers can only commit fraud when they are under oath.
2. The term " fraud upon the court" does not exist in Minnesota statues. 
3. When I suggest they open up an investigation of the legal industry in the county, they told me the Ramsey county attorney's office can only investigate individuals and corporations. 

For #2, fraud upon the court, above here is an image of the relevant section in their letter to me:

My reply to them was:

1. No where in Minnesota law does it state lawyers immune from fraud laws unless they are under oath. 
2. A simple google search for "fraud upon the court minnesota" will direct you to the Minnesota statutes which proves that the term "fraud upon the court" does indeed exist in current Minnesota statutes. Indeed it is considered so serious it has no statute of limitations. 
3. Mr. Choi is on record, multiple times, stating his office is investigating the "sex trafficking  industry" so the statement that the Ramsey County Attorney's office can only investigate individuals and corporation was either false or Mr. Choi was begin untruthful to the public. 

Despite multiple letters to both Mr. Choi and Mr. Dusterhoft, they failed to explain their false and misleading statements. It is clear that both Mr. Choi and Mr. Dusterhoft statements constitute obstruction of justice.  

Evidence against Judge William Leary III and Judge Mark Ireland

Both judges Leary and Ireland saw the evidence against my ex-wife's lawyer yet chose to ignore it. Judge Ireland also saw the evidence agaisnt Choi and Dusterhoft which he likewise ignored. Unfortunately in Minnesota judges are effectively immune to having their rulings changed because of bias (e.g. race, gender, creed, personal relationships with the lawyers, or any other illegal criteria) as long as they do not specifically state they have ruled based on such a criteria.  Furthermore, with the exception of child support, state statutes offer little guidance for family court matters.