Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Mitchell S. Sanderson, Petitioner v. Kari Agotness, Judge, District Court of North Dakota, Northeast Judicial District Five

Supreme Court briefMar 17, 2025

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

'-1

No.

•

■

< '

'■*1

eSi

8*xjj

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

MAR 1 7 2025

*■

In The

J m

•. <.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

Supreme Court of the United States

♦

Mitchell S. Sanderson,

Petitioner,

Kari Agotness, et al.

Respondent.

♦

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

To The North Dakota Supreme Court

♦

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

♦

Mitchell S. Sanderson

214 Sandwood Circle

Park River, ND 58270

701-331-0410

mitchell_sanderson@hotmail.com

Pro Se Litigant

V-

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVEIW

This case involves Constitutional/Federal questions that must be codified in law by

the U.S. Supreme Court that All Courts must follow! The Walsh Court ignored

Forgery, ignored Evidence Tampering, rules of court, Judicial Cannons, State,

Federal and Constitutional law and the Supremacy Clause, the ND Supreme Court

did the same. It also ignored U.S. Supreme Court Rulings. The Questions Presented

are:

Whether a County District Judge can ignore/violate the Rules of Court?

Weather a County District Judge can ignore/violate Judicial Canons?

Weather a County District Judge can ignore/violate State laws?

Weather a County District Judge can ignore/violate Federal laws?

Weather a County District Judge can ignore/violate Constitutional laws?

Whether a County District Judge can ignore/violate their Oath of Office?

Weather a County District Judge can ignore/violate Due Process?

Weather a County District Judge can ignore/violate the Supremacy Clause?

Weather a County District Judge can ignore/violate Proper Service rules?

Weather a County District Judge can allow a Defendant to file the Summons and

Complaint to initiate a case?

Weather a County District Judge can award excessive attorney fees for a simple

dismissal without a hearing on the Merits?

Weather a County District Judge can ignore/violate the Oath of Office, Constitution,

Federal laws, State law, U.S. Supreme Court case law, Federal appellant court case

law, North Dakota Supreme Court case law and have immunity!

A Judge cannot take an Oath to the U.S. Constitution and then violate that

Constitution! We are either a Constitutional Republic of laws or we are an

Authoritarian police State where the laws only apply to the people and not the

Government.! The Citizens should be able to bring Criminal charges when the

Government fails to do so!

(II)

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

The Petitioner, is Mitchell S. Sanderson.

The Respondent, is Kari Agotness.

Andrew Moraghan: Office of the ND Attorney General.

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

There is no Corporate disclosure due to Sanderson is a private citizen and Kari

Agotness is a State employee.

RELATED PROCEEDINGS/CASES

Sanderson v. Kari Agotness Court case, et al., No. 20240054, Supreme Court of

North Dakota, Judgment entered December 19, 2024.

Sanderson v. Kari Agotness, Walsh County District Court case. No. 50-2023-CV-287,

Walsh County District Court Northeastern Division of North Dakota, Judgment

entered January 30, 2024.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED.....................................................

LIST OF PARTIES....................................................................

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE...................................................

RELATED PROCEEDINGS.....................................................

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.... .................................................

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI...........................

III

1-40

OPINIONS BELOW...................................................................

JURISDICTION............................................ ............................

CONSTITUION & STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

INTRODUCTION/STATEMENT OF THE CASE....................

A. Factual Background....................

2-15

B. District Court Walsh County case

3-12

C. ND Supreme Court case .......

1345

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

38-39

Walsh County Judge and the North Dakota Supreme Court ignored U.S.

Supreme court rulings, Federal Appellate Case law, ND Supreme court case

law. Constitutional law, Oath of office, the Supremacy Clause, Due Process,

and Federal law! State law! Proper service “rules of court” was not done, so no

Jurisdiction, Sanderson was Prejudiced and Courts ignored high crimes.

II. CONCLUSTION

(IV)

APPENDIX

Page

Appendix A (Order Granting Motion to Dismiss and Request for Fees and Costs) *

Walsh County District Court Northeastern Division of North Dakota, No. 50-2023CV-00287, order (Dec. 14, 2023)

App. la-6a

Appendix B (Judgment) - Walsh County District Court Northeastern Division of

App. 7a

North Dakota, No. 50-2023-CV-00287, Judgment (Jan. 30, 2024)

Appendix C ( Supplemental Order for Attorney fees) - Walsh County District Court

Northeastern Division of North Dakota, No. 50-2023-CV-00287, Order (Jan. 19, 2024

App. 8a-9a

)

Appendix D (Order Denying Motion for Relief from Judgment) - Walsh County

District Court Northeastern Division of North Dakota, No. 50-2023-CV-00287, Order

(May 14, 2024).............................................................................................. App.l0a-14a

Note: Walsh County Court - No findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Appendix E — North Dakota Supreme Court, No. 20240054, Opinion (Dec. 19, 2024)

........................................................................................................................ App.l5a-21a

Appendix F - North Dakota Supreme Court, No. 20240054, Judgment (Dec. 19, 2024)

........................ .........................................................................................................App.22

Note: North Dakota Supreme Court - No findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Appendix G — Janne Myrdal case index No. 50-2023-CV-00129

App. 23 - 30

Appendix H - Kari Agotness case index No. 50-2023-CV-00287

. App. 31-32

(V)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page

Bonner v. Circuit court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331,1334 (8th Cir. 1975)

Ridge at Back Brook LLC v. Klenert

Filler v. Bragg, 1997 ND 24, f 14, 559 N.W. 2d 225

Gepner v. Fujicolor Processing (2001) 637 N.W. 2d 681, 684

Flaten v. Couture (2018) 912 N.W. 2nd 330, 338

Haines v. Kerner

Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc'ns Enters. Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 533, 540 (1991)

24,30

Thompson v Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L. Ed. 381

Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3 L. Ed. 471

Bindell v. City of Harvey, 212 Hl.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991) ... 14

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1,78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)

Hagans v. Levine, 415 U.S. 533, n.3

Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-520 (1972)

Hughes v Rowe, 449 U.S. 4, 9-10 (1980)........................................................

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 231 (2009)...........................................

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800,818 (1982)..........................................

Harris v. Harvey, 605 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1979)...........................................

Chase v. McMasters, 573 F.2d 1011, 1019 n. 8, 1019-1020 (8th Cir. 1978)

(VI)

Floyd v. Trice, 490 F.2d 1154 (8th Cir. 1974)....... .....................

Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den....................... .

Seller v. Rankin, 101 S. Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326

Scheur v. Rhodes 416 U.S. 232, 94 as. act. 1683, 1687, (1974)...

Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24,31 (1980)......................................

Floyd v. Barker...............................................................................

Murphy Brothers, Inc., Petitioner v. Michetti Pipes Stringing, Inc., Case No. 97-1909,

U.S.(1999)

Bus. Guides, Inc. Chromatic Commc'ns Enters, Inc., 498 U.S. 533. 540 (1981)

25,29

Brookhart v. Jams, 384 U.S.

Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129, 131 (1968)

25, 29

United States v. Real Props., 750 F. 3d 968, 972 8th Cir. (2014)

Sieg v. Karnes, 693 F.2d 803, 807 (8th Cir. 1982)............................

Franciere v. City ofMandan, 2019 ND 233 f 2-6, 932 N.W. 2d 907

26, 29

Smith v. City of Grand Forks, 478 N.W.2d 370, 371 (N.D. 1991)

Sanderson v. Walsh County, 2006 ND 83, f 13, 712 N.W.2d 842

Riemers v. State, 2006ND 162,1 7, 718N.W.2d 566

King v. Menz, 75 N.W.2d 516, 521 (N.D. 1956) ...

Sieg v. Karnes, 693 F.2d 803, 807 (8th Cir. 1982)

J. Moore and J. Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice, ^ 4.02[3], at p. 4-66 (2d ed. 1991).

S. v. Will, U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d. 392, 406 (1980)

Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129,131 (1968)

Longer v. Pender (2009) 764 N.W. 2d 159, 163

(VII)

Steele Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523, U.S. 83,94 (1998)

Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. LaVoie, 475 U.S. 813,825 (1986)...

Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975)

Davis v. Alaska 415 U.S. 308 (1974)

Carroll v. Greenwich Co., 199 U.S. 401, 410 (1905)

French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U.S. 328 (1901)

State v. Moores, 52 Neb. 770, 73 N. W. 299

Osborn v. Rogers, 49 Hun, 245,1 N. Y. Supp. 623

Mason v. Aldrich, 36 Minn. 283, 30N. W. SS4

United States v. Real Props., 750 F. 3d 968, 972 8th Cir. (2014)

Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81,100 (1996)

U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61

Owen vs. City of Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398

Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250

18, 19

18, 19, 25

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)

Ex Parte Young

Dossett v. First State Bank, 399 F. 3d 940, 947 (8th Cir. 2005)

Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 931 (1982)..........

20, 24

Palmer v. Hall, 517 F. 2nd 705 (5th Cir. 1975)........................

Aldridge v. Mullins, 474 F. 2nd 1189 (6th Cir. 1973)

McDaniel v. Carroll, 457 F. 2nd 968 (6th Cir. 1972)

... 19

Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 185 (2002)

(VIII)

Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275,280 (2001)

Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 703 (1979).

Latch v. United States, 842 F. 2d 1031, 1033 (9th Cir. 1988)

Estate of Dion, 2001ND 53, f 46, 623 N.W.2d 720

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368 (1981)

State of North Dakota v. Castleman, 2022 ND 7969 ]f9 N.W.2d 169

Stephenson v. Hoven, 2007 ND 136737 If 14 N.W.2d 260

Brookhart v. Jams, 384 U.S.

Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129,131 (1968)

United States. Dossett v. First State Bank, 399 F.3d 940, 947 (8th Cir. 2005)

State ofND v. Stuart ND Supreme Court

Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)

Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2nd 906 at 910

Appalachian Voices v. McCarthy, 989 F. Supp. 2d 30, 54 (D.D.C. 2013).

Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, 579 U.S. 162, 171-72, 136 S. Ct. 1969,

1977, 195 L. Ed. 2d 334 (2016)

Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35, 118 S. Ct.

956, 140 L,Ed.2d 62 (1998)

Marbury v. Madison

31, 32

Strand v. Cass Cnty., 2008ND 149, f f 12-13, 753N.W.2d 872

Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333, 337 (1867)

Fines v. Ressler Enterprises, Inc. 2012 ND 175

(IX)

Bachmeier v. Wallwork Truck Ctrs., 507 N.W.2d 527, 532 (N.D. 1993)

34, 36

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984)

34, 37

Martin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 251 F.3d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 2001)

34, 35

34,

Everyday Learning Corp. v. Larson, 242 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2001)

Scott v. Garfield, 454Mass. 790, 798 (2009)

Foust v. McFarland, 698 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)

Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc., 456N.W.2d 434, 437

(Minn. 1990)

Himes

Woodings-Verona

Tool

Works,

Inc.,

565

N.W.2d

469,

471

(Minn.App.1997)

Spencer v. Rhodes 1988

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

30, 33

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (20090......................... .....................

30, 33

Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998)

CONSTITUIONAL LAW

ND Constitution Article VI section 3

2, 9, 12

ND Constitution: Article I Section 13:

ND Constitution: Article I Section 9:

ND Constitution: Article VI Section 11

(X)

U.S. Constitution 7th Amendment

U.S. Const. Amend XTV

Article XIND Constitution Section 4

Article VI of the US Constitution

Article VI, Clause 2 US Constitution

20, 23

30,31,32

30, 32

... 14,18, 20

STATUTES (FEDERAL')

42 U.S.C. Section 1983

10, 19,20,24

18 U.S.C. Section 241

10, 19,20

18 U.S.C. Section 242

10, 19

18 U.S.C § 471................ ..

....12, 37

8 U.S.C 1324(c)............ .

12, 36, 37

42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)...........

19,20, 24

Title 42 US Code Sec. 1986

18 U.S.C. 1918..................

Title 18 of United States Code Sections 1503, 1510, 1512 and 1519

Title 18 U.S.C. 73.

28 U.S.C 144.........

28 U. S. C. §455(a)

STATUTES (STATE1)

N.D.C.C. § 28-26-01

NDCC 12.1-09-03

2, 8, 27, 28, 35

(XI)

N.D.C.C. § 01-02-02

NDCC 44-01-05

30, 31

NDCC 44-01-05.1..

30,31

NDCC 44-05-04

NDCC 12.1-24-01

REGULATIONS AND RULES

Rules of Civ. Pro. Rule 38

Rule 4....... ..................... .

23, 29

ND R. Civ. P 12(b)(iv).....

24, 32

N.D.R. Civ. P. 59Q)

Rule 12 (a)

21, 24, 25

Rule 12(b)(6)

NDR. Civ P 54(e)(ii)

N.D. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1)

N.D.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(6)

V»

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Mitchell S. Sanderson respectfully petition for a writ of certiorari to review the

judgments of the North Dakota Supreme Court and Walsh County District Court in

this case.

♦

OPINIONS BELOW

The North Dakota Supreme Court’s (State Court of Appeals) North Dakota

Supreme Court, No. 20240054, Opinion (Dec 19, 2024) & North Dakota Supreme

Court, No. 20240054, Judgment (Dec. 19, 2024)

Walsh County District Circuit (Judgment) - Walsh County District Court

Northeastern Division of North Dakota, No. 50-2023-CV-287. (Jan. 30, 2024)

♦

JURISDICTION

The opinion and judgment of the North Dakota Supreme Court were entered on

December 19, 2024. App. L & M. Pursuant to this Court’s Rules 13.1 and 13.3, a

petition for certiorari was initially due by March 19, 2025. This petition is timely

filed on or before the extended due date. Rules 13.1, 13.3, 13.5.

Petitioner invokes this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1).

CONSTITUIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The Federal and U.S. Supreme Courts have ruled that Proper Service is

needed for a court to have jurisdiction. They also have ruled that rules of court must

be followed like the 21-dav Default rule. That Clerks of Court must have an Oath of

Office. That a violation of the Oath of Office by a Judge is treason. That Courts must

provide Due Process. That lower courts must follow Constitutional, Federal and

State law and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That the U.S.

Constitution is the Supreme law of the land! See the index and case law below!

♦

INTRODUCTION / STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Take Judicial Notice of these facts and laws violated!

Agotness and Knutson are County District Judges! The Districted Court erred,

Judge Knutson, by allowing a filing by the State for a Motion to Dismiss when cases

are to be heard on the Merits and Judges do not have Absolute Judicial Immunity

when they act outside the scope of their authority/jurisdiction or grossly violate the

law, Constitution and Due Process!

The District Courts erred in the awarding of attorney fees for a supposed

frivolous action in accordance with N.D.C.C. § 28-26-01.

Ther District Court, Judge Agotness and Judge Knutson errored in not

following ND Constitution Article VI section 3: The District Courts failed to address

the legitimacy of all motions, violated Constitutional Due Process by denying all

Motions, Hearings and a Trial Hearing and charged Sanderson with Attorney fees.

Judge Agotness and Judge Knutson also ignored forgery in the case and evidence

tampering/Spoliation/obstruction!

Sanderson Motions this Court and brings a legal Federal question and

Constitutional challenge that Absolute Judicial Immunity is unconstitutional, a

Judge cannot take an Oath to the U.S. and ND Constitution and then give themselves

immunity to violate the U.S. Constitution, Federal and State laws.

Sanderson also Motions and brings a legal Federal Constitutional question and

challenge to the Constitutionality of the Walsh Clerks of Court having no Oath of

Office.

Plaintiff demanded a Jury Trial, see CASE No. 50-2023-CV-00287 index # 2

Complaint, guaranteed to the citizens by the ND Constitution: Article I Section 13:

The right of trial by jury shall be secured to all, and Article I Section 9: All courts

shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or

reputation shall have remedy by due process of law, in this matter and under ND

Rules of Civ. Pro. Rule 38 and under the U.S. Constitution 7th Amendment a jury trial

is guaranteed for any offence over $20! Dismissing a case by court procedure is in

violation of Due Process.

B. WALSH COUNTY DISTRICT COURT:

Judge Kari Agotness was served on October 30th, 2023, by the Pembina County

Sheriffs Department. The State was served on the Attorney General’s Office by the

Burleigh County Sheriffs Office on November 1, 2023. Sanderson never filed the

Summons and Complaint with the Walsh County Clerk of Court. The Defendant filed

on November 9th 2023. The Defendant never compelled Sanderson to file the

summons and complaint on the Court. The State never provided Notice of Appearance

in this case. Also, on November 9th the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss CASE

No. 50-2023-CV-00287 see Index #3,#4. Judge Agotness’s own ruling in Sanderson v.

Myrdal clearly states that cases should not be dismissed by default but should be

heard on the Merits!

On December 15th Judge Knudson granted the Dismissal see CASE No. 502023-CV-00287 see index #11. No hearing or bench trial much less a Jury Trial like

Sanderson requested!

There are several legal reasons when a judge does not have immunity such as

the Court lacked jurisdiction or failed to provide Sanderson with Due Process. A

Plaintiff can request Declaratory and Injunctive relief which are reliefs the Court can

grant, and the Judge has no immunity from. Monetary relief is available by Federal

law and Federal appellate case law. On January 19 2024 Judge Knutson ordered

attorney fees of $3,213.80 to be paid to the State and Dismissed the case without a

jury trial. This court has ruled that no attorney fees can be granted without hearing

the case on its merits!

The State requested a Dismissal and attorney fees when they are the sole

perpetrators that filed this action upon the court. Cases are supposed to be filed by a

Plaintiff with a Summons and Complaint and served upon the Court otherwise the

Defendant is acting as the Plaintiff and Defendant when they file!

On . December 14th Judge Jay Knutson dismissed the case and found the

Complaint frivolous and not in good faith and awarded excessive attorney fees to the

Defendant. Sanderson filed nothing with the Court but was ruled frivolous!

Sanderson filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment on 2-1-2024 see index # 26,

27, 28. With all the legal issues with this case this Court must address the

“corruption’* in this North Dakota Court! Sanderson has never received any filings

such as index #51 order granting Motion for extension.

Judge Agotness was being sued due to case No. 50-2023-CV-00129 which

involves a 1st and 14th Amendment allegations. The Senator was served on May 2,

2023, and the service see index #3, #4, was done through the USPS under Rule 4(d)

through the USPS and is proven by the USPS Inspector General email as an Exhibit

to the District Court see index and exhibit from Inspector General filed with the

Walsh Court in the Mvrdal case! The Service was signed by the Senator’s husband,

but he signed/forged the senator’s name! The Walsh Clerk of Court accepted the filing,

and the case began. Recusal of Judge Agotness under Rules of court and Judicial

Canons is allowed as well as in case law. In a previous case before Judge Agotness,

Sanderson asked for a time sensitive injunction ignoring the issue and proceeded to

be biased against Sanderson ignoring State law -1 continued with this case knowing

full well she would be biased. Article VI Section 11 clearly states that if there is a

conflict of interest another judge must be assigned.

In this case No. 50-2023-CV-00129 the Senator replied with an Answer on

June 5, 2023 see index # 10. Defendant provided an Answer on 6-12-2023, see index

#19, well beyond the 21day deadline by Civil Procedure rules. Motion for Default and

a Summary Judgment by Sanderson was denied see index # 39.

It was also discovered that the Walsh Clerk of Court has no Oath of Office in

violation of Constitutional law and federal and state law and US Supreme Court Case

law! Everything the two Walsh Clerks have done is in violation of the ND

Constitution and North Dakota Century Code and is Null and Void due to it being in

violation of the ND Constitution!

This matter is very clear that both the Defendant and the State have alleged

improper Service -See filings in Myrdal case. If so, then this case must be dismissed

according to US Supreme Court Case law, Eight Circuit case law and ND Supreme

Court case law that the court had no jurisdiction to hear of even rule on any issues.

The Clerk of Court should not have accepted the service. The Judge could not rule on

or even hear the case much less rule on the case. The Facts are clear that the Plaintiff

did not file any frivolous filings and in fact backed all filings up with Exhibits and

law and case law to support them. This judge has shown bias against the Plaintiff

enforcing Rules on the Plaintiff but not on the Defendant and State. She has ignored

Federal & State law; she has ignored US Supreme Court case law bound to the

Supremacy Cause. She has retaliated against the Plaintiff by charging attorney fees

in violation of the law. She is in violation of the Judicial Cannons and her Oath of

Office.

Sanderson has factually stated that Judge Kari Agotness has violated each one

of the issues listed in the Complaint and this removes her Judicial Immunity and

Judge Knutson ignores all this evidence!

Senator Myrdal made multiple statements in her replies to discovery which

were untrue and refused to answer most all the other questions because they would

have incriminated her see index # 63. Senator Myrdal has perjured herself in her

Answer and in many other filings and the Agotness ignored this as well as Judge

Knutson. This Court has ruled that failure to adhere to Discovery is grounds for

Dismissal.

These violations presented to the court by Sanderson to Judge Knutson are

true and Agotness violate everything a judge is NOT to do. See complaint index # 1.

Yet Judge Knutson as well ignored all these criminal violation of law! Every Motion

and Hearing was denied or canceled in case No. 50-2023-CV-00129 and NO bench

Trial was had, see index #107, # 140, # 156, # 158, # 160, # 183, # 188, canceled Trial

Hearing 3-19-2024! Judge Knutson did not even rule on Sanderson’s right to a Jury

Trial!

The Appellant filed a Summons and Complaint on Senator Janne Myrdal, and

the Senator did not respond in the allotted time as required by Court Rules of Civil

Procedure Rule 55(a) in violation of U.S Supreme Court rulings that if an answer was

not timely the court rules must be followed as the written word. Judge Agotness

knows full well that personal service must be done on the State as by a third party

such as a Sheriff because she never answered when Sanderson first served her

through the USPS! Judge Knutson ignored this evidence!

Sanderson as well provided an Order for Dismissal Without Prejudice see index

# 176\ This is in line with ND and U.S. Supreme Court rulings Due to Improper

Service!

Judge Agotness violated Rules of Court/Civ. Procedure, Judicial Canons, State

law, Federal law, Constitutional law, ND Supreme Court case law, Federal Case law,

and U.S. Supreme Court case law. Judge Knutson ignored this evidence as well!

Myrdal did commit evidence tampering and Obstruction and her husband did

commit Forgery through the USPS!

A Motion for Relief from judgment is allowed by rules of court! The lower court

has a duty to provide relief to the Plaintiff on any good theory. The Motion was denied!

All Motions and Hearing were denied or canceled and no trial was held in

violation of Constitutional Due Process when there was ample evidence submitted by

Sanderson to support them! Judge Knutson ignored this as well.

Agotness and Knutson violated U.S. Supreme Court rulings on Default

Judgment, and Agotness is in violation acting with no Jurisdiction!

Sanderson is demanding his time and costs be awarded to him for having to

defend himself against the frivolous claims of the State and the Myrdal. See Ridge at

The District Courts erred in the awarding of attorney fees for frivolous action

in accordance with N.D.C.C. § 28-26-01 was not proven by the Judge with findings of

facts and conclusions of law.

Ther District Courts errored in not following ND Constitution Article VI section

3: The supreme court shall have authority to promulgate rules of procedure, including

appellate procedure, to be followed by all the courts of this state. Judge Agotness and

Knutson both ignored the ND and US Constitution most importantly the Supremacy

Clause!

The District Court failed to address the legitimacy of all Motions, and violated

Constitutional Due Process by denying all Motions, Hearings and a Trial Hearing

and charged sanderson with Attorney fees. Judge Agotness also ignored forgery in

the case and evidence tampering/obstruction as well as Judge Knutson!

Judge Agotness ruled in Sanderson v. Myrdal denying Motion for Default

sighting Filler v. Bragg, 1997 ND 24, ]f 14, 559 N.W. 2d 225. “Mindful of North

Dakota’s strong preference that cases be decided on their merits, this court will exercise

its discretion and deny Sanderson’s request for an entry of default judgment”. Then

she dismisses the case without hearing the case on the Merits. Judge Knutson does

the same.

Rule 60(b) governs the trial court’s authority to vacate a judgment. (See Gepner

v. Fujicolor Processing (2001) 637 N.W. 2d 681, 684.) This may be done if there is

mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. It can be used to correct errors of law.

See Flaten v. Couture (2018) 912 N.W. 2nd 330, 338. Yet Agotness and Knutson

refused to address the law properly and violated the Supremacy Clause doing so.

There are many errors in law and extreme neglect of the law and case law by

Judge Agotness and by Judge Knutson dismissing the case in violation of their Oath.

The Walsh County District Court lacked jurisdiction due to improper service

and Judge Knutson failed to provide Sanderson with Due Process. A Plaintiff can

request Declaratory and Injunctive relief which are reliefs the Court can grant, and

Monetary relief is available by Federal law and Federal case law in a 42 U.S.C.

Section 1983 or 18 U.S.C. 241, 242.

Sanderson Motioned for Relief from Judgment is based on solid legal argument

and Judge Agotness and Knutson denied the Motions.

Sanderson believed according to the many Federal court cases and U.S.

Supreme Court cases that Government actors could not violate the First and

Fourteenth amendment by blocking Sanderson on a Senator’s Facebook page if it had

the Trappings of a Governmental page/actor and at the time most Federal Court had

ruled as such!

The additional violations of law bv the Mvrdal and the Judges involved in these

two cases are still legal arguments needed to be addressed and settled. To say the

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim that cannot be granted is utterly false and

deceptive. See Haines v. Kerner, Pro Se Litigants cannot be dismissed for failure to

state a claim which cannot be granted! This court must rule that there are no material

facts are in dispute and support it in findings of fact and conclusions of law to allow

a Summary Judgment or any Declaratory relief to dismiss this case and to be able to

charge Sanderson with attorney fees without ever hearing the case on the Merits.

In app. A Judge Knutson dismissed the case on the false premise that Judge

Agotness has Absolute Judicial immunity. When Judge Agotness ignored improper

service she was in violation of rules/case law and should have dismissed the case

without prejudice. He falsely claims Sanderson asked for a remedy that could not be

granted by the court which is in direct violation of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on

Pro Se. Litigants. Judge Knutson dismissed the case without any issues being heard

on the Merits and the State Immediately filed and dismissed the case with NO

hearings! Sanderson’s fifing was in good faith not frivolous and was supported in a

Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment! Sanderson had demanded a Jury Trial which

is mandatory in the ND Constitution and available under the US Constitution.

In app. B, the Judgment was signed by a Deputy Clerk of Court with NO Oath

of Office in violation of ND Constitution, State statutes, ND Supreme Court Rulings

and the US Supreme Court has ruled any unconstitutional act is Null and Void! The

award of $3213.80 is also excessive for a case that never seen the inside of a

courtroom! This violated the 8th Amendment!

In app. C, again attorney fees were awarded when Sanderson has a disability

and at times he was bedridden for days and cannot work much less sit and respond

to a deadline. Sanderson did not know it was in the mail until the 14 days had passed.

It is very unlikely that the County District Judge would have changed his mind given

the absolute corruption Sanderson has experienced even if he was able to respond.

In app. D, Judge Knutson denied a motion for Relief from Judgment. Knutson

did not rule on the Motion until the ND Sup. Co. requested him to do so. Sanderson

had to file an appeal with the ND Sup. Co. because the deadline was approaching

even though Judge Knutson had not responded to the Motion for Relief. Sanderson

provided ample argument that Judge Agotness violated everything in his Complaint.

Knutson also ignored his Oath, the Supremacy Clause and 8th Circuit case law as well

as ND Supreme Court Case law in support of Sanderson’s filing. Knutson’s ruling is

complete gobble goop and lies. Knutson ignored a Jury trial demand and dismissed a

case to protect a corrupt judge! When a Defendant files a Plaintiffs Summons and

Complaint with the court they are acting as the Plaintiff and this cannot happen in

law. Judge Knutson even ruled that Sanderson’s Motion was not frivolous! In app G,

is the index of case No. 50-2023-CV-00129.

The District Court violated the rules of Civil Procedure and the ND Supreme

Court ignored these violations which are sound in U.S. Supreme Court rulings and

all judges are bound to follow them. The District Courts, Judge Agotness and

Knutson, errored in not following ND Constitution Article VI section 3: The supreme

court shall have authority to promulgate rules of procedure, including appellate

procedure, to be followed bv all the courts of this state. This Court has ruled “Courts

are supposed to read any rule of civil procedure according to its "plain meaning", just

like a statue."

The District Court erred in judgment because documents filed by the Clerk of

Court and Deputy Clerk are invalid due to the Clerks not having any Oath of Office!

The District Court and ND Supreme Court failed to address high crimes and

misdemeanors and Material Facts and did not address all actions of Sanderson’s

motion’s including Forgery 18 U.S.C § 471,

Tampering/Spoilation/Obstruction.

8 U.S.C 1324(c).

Evidence

NORTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT:

The ND Supreme Court ignored all violations of law in this case ignored their

own rulings and Oath of Office and the Supremacy Clause and other high crimes.

In app. E, the ND Supreme Court errors by stating Sanderson did not prove

improper service and that Judge Agotness has immunity which is in violation of ND

Supreme Court rulings on Service and U.S. Supreme Court rulings on service and

Jurisdiction! The Court ruled Sanderson filed frivolous actions — which Sanderson

clearly did not and supported it in Motion for Relief from Judgment. The Court also

ignored forgery and Evidence Tampering that were clearly supported in exhibits in

case No. 50-2023-CV-00129.

In app. F, the Court Corruptly ruled against Sanderson ignoring all the

crimes committed by Judge Agotness and Judge Knutson. In app. H, is the index of

case No. 50-2023-CV-287 (ND Sup. Co. No. 20240054)

Myrdal Answering Sanderson’s Complaint after 21 days does not negate U.S.

Supreme Court case law that Proper Service must be done before the Lower Court

could exercise Jurisdiction. The U.S. Postal Service Inspector General’s email is

evidence that service was done by US Mail in violation of Court Rules instead of by a

Third Party. The N.D. Supreme Court is in violation of its own rulings on Proper

Service as well as U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Both the Defendant and the Plaintiff

agreed in filings to the lower court that improper service was done. The Eight Circuit

has ruled "Where there is absence of proof of jurisdiction, all administrative and

judicial proceedings are a nullity, and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford

no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack." Thompson v

Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L. Ed. 381; and Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3 L. Ed. 471. "the

burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it." Bindell v. City of

Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991).

The ND Supreme Court violated their Oath Office, violated the Supremacy

Clause of the U.S. Constitution which they are bound to uphold. Ignored Oath and

violations of ND Constitution. It violated 8th Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

It also violated/ignored many Federal and State laws. Any judge or officer of the

government who does not comply with his Oath to the Constitution of the United

States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme

law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason." Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S.

1,78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958). Article VI, Clause 2 US Constitution: This Constitution, and

the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all

Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,

shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound

thereby,.

The ND Supreme Court erred by dismissing the case with prejudice due to lack

of jurisdiction by the Court and improper service by Sanderson. The Court never

addressed jurisdiction as stated in; Hagans v. Levine, 415 U.S. 533, n.3. “once

jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proved”.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Pro Se Litigants are not to be held to

the same standard as a learned attorney but Courts are bound to the rules and the

law! Due Process Provides the “rights of Pro Se Litigants are to be construed liberally

and held to less stringent standard as stated in Haines v Kerner,404 U.S. 519-520

(1972) and Hughes v Rowe, 449 U.S. 4, 9-10 (1980). It also ruled that a Pro Se litigants

case cannot be dismissed for failure to state a claim which the court cannot grant —

but Sanderson’s claims were all credible and not frivolous.

The ND Supreme Court abused its discretion and violated Mr. Sanderson’s due

process rights!

LAW AND ARGUMENT

The District Court and ND Supreme Court erred by granting judicial

immunity to Judge Agotness, when she lacked jurisdiction due to improper

Service and Violations of Law!:

It was important that Fitzgerald sued for damages as qualified immunity is '

unavailable as a defense against claims for injunctive relief. See, e.g., Pearson v.

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 242—43 (2009). The doctrine of qualified immunity shields

officials from civil liability so long as their conduct

ii (

does not violate clearly

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

have known.

5 JJ

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v.

Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982)).

In Ex Parte Young, the Supreme Court held that a private litigant can bring

suit against a state officer for prospective injunctive relief in order to end “a

continuing violation of federal law.” A state official who enforces “'an unconstitutional

legislative enactment . . . comes into conflict with the superior authority of the

Constitution/ and therefore is 'stripped of his official or representative character and

is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has

no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority

of the United States.

Absolute immunity, without reasonable limits, allows judges and their

decisions to be elevated above the Constitution. This would void a Constitutional

government and allow for a dictatorship (government without the people’s consent).

Sanderson asked for Declaratory and Injunctive relief which the Judge does not have

immunity from. Federal Appellate cases show judges can be sued for monetary

damages.

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). Here the 8th clearly states that the court

should have looked at any possible relief.

In Harris v. Harvey, 605 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1979), cert, denied, 445 U.S. 938,

100 S. Ct. 1331, 63 L.Ed.2d 772 (1980), a jury assessed $200.000 in punitive damages

against a county judge who had seriously abused his judicial power. Here the

defendant was acting under color of law, and the jury found that his racially

motivated actions had injured plaintiff. Such a claim is clearly within the purview of

Section 1983. Chase v. McMasters, 573 F.2d 1011, 1019 n. 8, 1019-1020 (8th Cir.

1978); Floyd v. Trice, 490 F.2d 1154 (8th Cir. 1974). We also agree that nonetheless

Judge Harvey was acting under color of law by using the power and prestige of his

state office to damage the plaintiff, the court did not find the punitive damages award

to be excessive or shocking to the judicial conscience since there had been "a serious

abuse of judicial power" by defendant (App. 35-36). In view of the jury's finding

that defendant had acted "maliciously, wantonly or oppressively," we may not

disturb its award of punitive damages. In this Federal case it is clear judges can be

held accountable under the Color of Law!

When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of cearly vlid

suature epressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immuitv is lost. Rankin v.

Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Seller v. Rankin, 101 S. Ct. 2020, 451 U.S.

939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326. Agotness has NO immunity because she was acting with NO

jurisdiction due to improper service bv Sanderson. Both these Judges violated this

ruling! When the judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow

the law, the judge loses, subject matter jurisdiction, and the judge’s orders are void, of

no legal force or effect. The US Supreme Court, in. Scheur v. Rhodes 416 U.S. 232, 94

as. act. 1683, 1687, (1974) stated that “when a state officer acts under a state law, in

a manor violative of the federal Constitution, he “comes into conflict with the superior

authority of that constitution, and he is in that case, shipped of his official or

represented character and his subject and his person to the consequences of his

individual conduct. The state has no power' to impart to him any immunity from

responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States”. By law, a judge is a state

officer. The judge didn’t act not as a judge, but as a private individual. All Judges

should have followed this case but were more interested in retaliating against

Sanderson and protecting corruption in the government!

Article VI, Clause 2 US Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the

United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or

which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme

Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in

the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. All Judges

violated everything a judge has sworn to protect!

U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 officials and even judges have no immunity

See, Owen vs. City of Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398; Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct.

2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21; officials and judges are deemed to know the

law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in good faith

in willful deprivation of law. they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law,... the

courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law Cooper v. Aaron, 358

U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958). "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can

war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. See

Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 31 (1980) Judges are subject to criminal prosecutions

as are other citizens.

Floyd v. Barker, the Supreme Court has held that judges lack immunity from

prosecution for violating constitutional rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242 because

Congress acted to proscribe criminal conduct by judges in the Civil Rights Act of

1866. 18 USC 242 - Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,

or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,

Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,... See Palmer v.

Hall, 517 F. 2nd 705 (5th Cir. 1975); Aldridge v. Mullins, 474 F. 2nd 1189 (6th Cir.

1973); McDaniel v. Carroll, 457 F. 2nd 968 (6th Cir. (1972).

“The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of law,

of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the United States and comes

claims which are based solely on statutory violations of Federal Law and applied to

the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights, in some capacity, to which

they were entitled." - Owen v. Independence 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports.

1398:(1982); Main v. Thiboutot 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports 2502:(1982). Title 18

US Code Sec. 241 & Sec. 242. Title 42 US Code Sec. 1983, Sec. 1985, & Sec. 1986

clearly established the right to sue anyone who violates your constitutional rights. 42

USC 1983 - Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,

custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the

jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured

by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law,

suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,. Judges cannot have immunity

when rights are violated and any such case law in opposition to 1983 and 242 would

be in violation of Federal law. Courts must interpret law as the clearly written word!

42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), a federal law that dates to the Reconstruction era,

prohibits private and governmental actors from working together to violate the

constitutional rights of Americans...Section 1983 provides a remedy against any

person who, under color of state law, deprives another of rights protected by the

Constitution and laws of the United States. Dossett v. First State Bank, 399 F.3d 940,

947 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 931 (1982j);