Connect with us

North Dakota

Our view: North Dakotans shouldn’t have to provide personal info when requesting documents they already own

Published

on

Our view: North Dakotans shouldn’t have to provide personal info when requesting documents they already own


When any particular person walks right into a public workplace – some metropolis corridor or faculty headquarters, as an example – they’re entitled to see any public document they need. That particular person doesn’t have to clarify, give their title or why they’ve an curiosity in that public document.

They don’t even should be from that city.

That’s not solely the legislation, it’s simply widespread sense. State legislation even spells it out, saying a public entity or its representatives “could not ask for the motive or motive for requesting the data or for the id of the particular person requesting data.”

Not everyone sees it that means. A proposal within the North Dakota Legislature seeks to alter the legislation in order that an individual requesting a public document should give their title and supply private contact data.” It’s

Advertisement

Home Invoice 1198

, launched by Rep. Mike Lefor, R-Dickinson.

Our recommendation to lawmakers: Don’t do that. Simply wad it up and toss it.

Right here’s why: The extra roadblocks which might be placed on public data, the much less they really grow to be “open” – at the least within the truest sense.

Already, there are charges connected to open data, and generally these charges can add up. An individual with out the cash due to this fact can’t simply entry a lot of paperwork. We perceive why there are charges connected – it’s as a result of public workers should course of the requests – however when a invoice is available in at $100 or extra, it definitely could be a deterrent.

Advertisement

At instances, newspapers within the Discussion board Communications Co. chain have paid hundreds of {dollars} to entry paperwork. We all know of 1 case the place $7,000 was spent.

But in addition, some requesters is perhaps hesitant to connect their title to a request as a result of it may elevate flags that finally may sway them from looking for the data.

What if an individual desires paperwork associated to a small-town mayor or sheriff? That might spark a confrontation, and it would sway the requester from going by way of the difficulty.

This stuff occur. We all know of a case in South Dakota, within the early 2000s, when a newspaper intern was despatched to an area Metropolis Corridor to request details about the chief of police. That intern was then detained in a separate room and questioned.

Everyone seems to be a member of the general public and all of us personal these data. So why ought to it matter who’s making the request for public paperwork?

Advertisement

And why ought to anybody have to supply private data to know what their authorities is as much as?

They shouldn’t should.

Public entities merely should present the paperwork which might be requested, with out query and with out bias. They might should grit their enamel now and again, however that is how transparency works.

For the sake of openness in North Dakota, we hope HB 1198 dies a fast demise.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

North Dakota

McLean County trial ends with guilty verdict for rancher

Published

on

McLean County trial ends with guilty verdict for rancher


WASHBURN, ND — In a trial that stirred local tensions, McLean County rancher Caleb Fallgatter was found guilty on June 26 of allowing his cattle to roam free, concluding a contentious legal battle fraught with allegations against local law enforcement and area ranchers.

Fallgatter faced charges of allowing his cattle to be at-large and of animal neglect following an October 2023 seizure of 323 cattle from pastures being leased on Three Affiliated Tribes land, who were not notified of the seizure by McLean County law enforcement until the seizure was already underway.

The trial, closely watched due to claims of false information used in obtaining the warrant and potential conflicts of interest involving Sheriff Jerry Kerzmann and his family ranch, ended with a verdict after just over two hours of jury deliberation.

Advertisement
A jury of six decided the criminal case between local rancher Fallgatter versus the state of North Dakota.

Josiah C. Cuellar / The Dickinson Press

Fallgatter’s legal troubles began in October 2023 when his cattle were seized in an incident that triggered both civil and criminal proceedings.

The state argued that Fallgatter failed to maintain adequate fencing on his three leased properties, resulting in his cattle wandering onto roadways and neighboring lands. They further alleged that Fallgatter’s cattle were being neglected.

Reports from local residents and law enforcement indicated that the cattle were a recurring nuisance throughout the summer and fall of 2023. Additionally, the prosecution questioned the feasibility of managing a large ranch from over two hours away, where Fallgatter resided.

Advertisement

Conversely, the defense contended that the search warrant was based and issued upon inaccurate information provided by Sheriff Kerzmann’s department to the judge in an effort to seize the cattle. They argued that the cattle were securely fenced and that many of the alleged infractions were exaggerated or fabricated.

The defense also highlighted a potential conflict of interest, noting that Kerzmann is related to Louis and Scott Simenson, the chief complainants and former leasees of the property, Fallgatter’s neighbors. The defense presented evidence that in the days after the seizure, the Kerzmann and the Simensons loaded the seized cattle onto trailers with the intention of having them sold at Kist Livestock. According to the defense, proceeds from this sale were to be distributed to the McLean County Sheriff’s Office and the Simensons, raising additional questions about potential conflicts of interest.

Of the 323 cattle seized, Fallgatter testified that only 317 were delivered or returned to him, arguing that this discrepancy suggests that the Sheriff and/or the Simensons failed to return six of Fallgatter’s cattle, implying they were effectively stolen.

Court_McLeanCounty15.jpg

A jury of six decided the criminal case between local rancher Fallgatter versus the state of North Dakota.

Josiah C. Cuellar / The Dickinson Press

Advertisement

The prosecution argued that Fallgatter’s cattle were repeatedly found on roadways and neighboring properties in 2023. Erickson presented multiple eyewitness accounts from local residents, primarily the Simensons, who testified to seeing the cattle roaming freely and causing damage.

The prosecution also highlighted reports from tribal law enforcement officers who had observed the cattle at large on several occasions.

Court_McLeanCounty06.jpg

A jury of six decided the criminal case between local rancher Fallgatter versus the state of North Dakota.

Josiah C. Cuellar / The Dickinson Press

Advertisement

A significant part of the prosecution’s case was the condition of the cattle.

They presented evidence that the animals were suffering from treatable conditions such as pink eye and hoof rot through testimony by the veterinarian who was called to conduct an evaluation of the cattle in the days following the seizure. She testified that these conditions indicated neglect, arguing that proper care had not been provided. Erickson emphasized that Fallgatter’s failure to provide necessary medical care constituted a clear case of animal neglect and public endangerment.

Later the prosecution would contend that a lack of grass in the pastures owned by the Fallgatters was also a form of neglect.

Advertisement

Court_McLeanCounty12.jpg

A jury of six decided the criminal case between local rancher Fallgatter versus the state of North Dakota.

Josiah C. Cuellar / The Dickinson Press

Fallgatter’s defense team in cross examination responded by presenting evidence that the cattle had, only days prior to their seizure by the Sheriff’s Office, undergone a series of vaccinations and treatments directly aimed at the issues in question. They also called into question the veterinarian’s experience, noting that this was her first time ever conducting such an evaluation and that some of the issues she found, such as a missing eye on one cow, was from years earlier when the cow was a calf.

The defense team concluded by noting that no photos were taken of the cattle during the veterinarian’s evaluation and explained how some issues, such as hoof rot, could have been the result of cattle being kept in a much smaller feedlot in abnormally wet conditions following their seizure.

Advertisement

Court_McLeanCounty14.jpg

A jury of six decided the criminal case between local rancher Fallgatter versus the state of North Dakota.

Josiah C. Cuellar / The Dickinson Press

The prosecution presented a series of witnesses who testified that they had witnessed the Fallgatter cattle loose, with some testifying that they needed only to approach them with a vehicle to force them to return to the pasture. The prosecution argued that if the cattle could return to their pasture with such ease, then the fencing in question was not properly securing the cattle and exacerbating the repeated issues.

They presented exhibits of photographs which they argued showed fencing that was not up to standard, in states of disrepair or outright missing from one of the pastures leased by the Fallgatters.

The defense in cross examination called into question the validity of claims that the Fallgatter’s cattle were those witnessed, with many witnesses testifying that other cattle in the area were routinely out as well. Only a single witness among the many who testified concretely stated that they personally witnessed the Fallgatter brand on some at-large cattle.

Advertisement

Court_McLeanCounty09.jpg

A jury of six decided the criminal case between local rancher Fallgatter versus the state of North Dakota.

Josiah C. Cuellar / The Dickinson Press

The prosecution then presented evidence in testimony and photographs that damage to a silage pit occurred on the Simenson’s ranch, and that the cattle responsible belonged to the Fallgatters. The defense acquiesced that the incident was true, but noted that it was not only the Fallgatter’s cattle who were found to have caused the damage and it was an isolated incident common in ranching in North Dakota.

Fallgatter’s defense, led by attorneys Fintan L. Dooley and Lynn Boughey, focused on what they argued was a lack of evidence throughout the criminal trial. They argued that the charges were based on procedural errors and false information, aiming to demonstrate that Fallgatter was not guilty of the offenses alleged.

Advertisement

The defense focused on challenging the credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution during the day prior.

During a crucial moment in court, Judge Lindsey Nieuwsma upheld repeated objections from the prosecution regarding approximately 15 pieces of photographic evidence that the defense argued were crucial to their case.

Court_McLeanCounty03.jpg

A jury of six decided the criminal case between local rancher Fallgatter versus the state of North Dakota.

Josiah C. Cuellar / The Dickinson Press

Advertisement

Boughey contended that these photos demonstrated that the Simensons also owned cattle that were not properly secured, escaping into the Fallgatter pasture. He insisted that several of these images could prove that Simenson’s bulls had impregnated Fallgatter’s cattle.

The prosecution objected, asserting that the photos depicted calves born months after the events in question in October. In response, the defense argued that the gestation period of cattle meant that photos showing calves born in March could still indicate events from months earlier, potentially casting doubt on the timing of fence damage.

Despite these arguments, Judge Nieuwsma deemed the photos inadmissible.

Additionally, the defense raised concerns about the validity of the search warrant, but Nieuwsma prohibited them from presenting this matter to the jury, citing its ongoing review in another case. Although the defense was not permitted to directly challenge the validity of the search warrant in this trial, they indirectly questioned the necessity and motives behind the warrant’s issuance through multiple lines of questioning with witnesses.

The defense presented a variety of witnesses, including neighbors, a fence contractor, family members, and Fallgatter himself, to testify. These witnesses affirmed that during the period covered by the search warrant—its filing, issuance, and execution—the cattle were properly contained. They described ongoing efforts to mend fences and maintain the cattle’s enclosure, as well as ongoing veterinary care to manage conditions like pink eye and hoof rot.

Advertisement

Court_McLeanCounty08.jpg

A jury of six decided the criminal case between local rancher Fallgatter versus the state of North Dakota.

Josiah C. Cuellar / The Dickinson Press

According to the defense witnesses, any instances of cattle being loose were isolated incidents promptly addressed.

Among the defense witnesses was Rod Froehlich, a prominent figure in North Dakota’s ranching community. Froehlich’s distinguished career includes induction into the North Dakota Cowboy Hall of Fame for his contributions to ranching and rodeo. He has served as a state representative and held leadership roles in the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association, advocating for ranchers and safeguarding the state’s beef industry.

Advertisement

During the trial, Froehlich testified that Fallgatter’s cattle were securely fenced behind recently repaired barriers, in good health, and disputed the prosecution’s allegations of negligence. His testimony supported the defense’s position that the charges against Fallgatter lacked merit and may have been influenced by personal biases within law enforcement.

In response, the prosecution highlighted concerns about potential personal bias, noting that Froehlich is Fallgatter’s grandfather by marriage.

Court_McLeanCounty01.jpg

A jury of six decided the criminal case between local rancher Fallgatter versus the state of North Dakota.

Josiah C. Cuellar / The Dickinson Press

Advertisement

The pivotal moment during the trial’s second day occurred when McLean County Deputy Jericho Swanson testified. Under examination, Swanson admitted that he had filed the affidavit for the search warrant based on second-hand information and had not personally witnessed the cattle being loose. This revelation strengthened the defense’s argument that the search warrant relied on unreliable information.

During cross-examination, the prosecution pressed Swanson on the source of his information. Swanson explained that reports had been received regarding Fallgatter’s loose cattle, and he had previously seen cattle at-large, though couldn’t definitively confirm they belonged to the Fallgatters.

The defense also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, pointing to Kerzmann’s familial ties to Louis and Scott Simenson, former lessees of the land now occupied by Fallgatter. They suggested that many of the complaints to the Sheriff’s Office originated from the Simensons, implying that personal connections may have influenced Kerzmann’s actions and thus cast doubts on the impartiality of the legal proceedings surrounding the warrant.

Throughout the trial, cross-examinations were intense, particularly during Kerzmann’s testimony. The defense scrutinized his motivations and decisions, alleging that his pursuit of the search warrant might have been driven by a personal vendetta rather than genuine public safety concerns.

Kerzmann defended himself by asserting that he had taken measures to remain neutral due to the conflict of interest, preferring tribal authorities to handle the matter. However, he stated that he felt compelled to act when no other solution was apparent.

Advertisement

In response to the defense’s questioning about the location of the cattle during the seizure, Kerzmann admitted they were in a pasture behind a fence, which he had cut to retrieve them.

When pressed further on why he cut the fence if the cattle were not at large, Kerzmann explained that as a law enforcement officer, he was obligated to execute the warrant as issued, which instructed him to seize all cattle, regardless of their location.

The defense then questioned Kerzmann about the fate of the seized cattle. He confirmed that they were transported to the Simensons’ ranch, the only suitable location with access to feedlots and water.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND VERDICT

Advertisement

Court_McLeanCounty04.jpg

A jury of six decided the criminal case between local rancher Fallgatter versus the state of North Dakota.

Josiah C. Cuellar / The Dickinson Press

During closing arguments, the prosecution reiterated their position that Fallgatter’s alleged neglect had resulted in multiple instances of cattle being at-large, posing a threat to public safety. They urged the jury to consider the testimonies of local residents and law enforcement officers as proof of Fallgatter’s purported failure in managing his cattle responsibly.

In contrast, the defense focused on highlighting inconsistencies and potential biases in the prosecution’s case. They underscored the absence of direct evidence linking Fallgatter to intentional neglect and emphasized testimonies supporting the contention that the cattle were generally well-contained and cared for.

The defense also pointed out that the only beneficiaries of the cattle seizure were the Simensons, relatives of Sheriff Kerzmann, who were compensated significantly for storing the cattle.

Advertisement

In their concluding remarks, they criticized the seizure as unnecessary, labeling Sheriff Kerzmann as a “modern-day cattle rustler with a badge.”

Following deliberations that lasted just over two hours, the jury reached a mixed verdict.

Fallgatter was acquitted of animal neglect, but found guilty of allowing his cattle to roam at-large. The verdict prompted emotional reactions by family members on both sides of the case.

Attorney Boughey emphasized that the critical issue of obtaining a search warrant to seize cattle that were no longer at large remains a key component of the civil trial, noting that combining this with a seizure order without a valid basis for either action undermines the legal process and raises serious procedural concerns. Fallgatter’s other attorney, Dooley, said the civil case’s significance is important, noting the right to a jury trial for alleged damages. He argues that allowing damages from the civil case to be included in restitution amounts to “double-dipping,” misusing the criminal process and potentially inflating the penalties unfairly.

A civil case, set for a hearing in July, will further examine the legitimacy of the search warrant and the actions taken by Kerzmann and McLean County State’s Attorney Ladd Erickson. The outcome of this civil case could have significant implications, not only for Fallgatter’s criminal conviction, but the McLean County Sheriff’s Office, the McLean County State’s Attorney Office and a broader state-wide legal precedence.

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

North Dakota

One Killed in Grand Forks Murder

Published

on

One Killed in Grand Forks Murder


(KNOX) -According to the Grand Forks Police Department officers were dispatched to Sledster’s Food and Brew, 21 South 4th Street in downtown Grand Forks Thursday evening for a shooting in-progress incident.

Upon arrival at Sledster’s, officers located one adult victim on the floor inside with apparent gunshot wounds. Life-saving measures were immediately rendered to the victim. However, they ultimately succumbed to their injuries.

The suspect of the shooting incident was located and detained at Tea and Crepe’s at 307 Demers Ave in Grand Forks without incident. The suspect was identified as 26 year-old Nicholas Narveson of Grand Forks. Narveson was arrested and taken to Grand Forks County Corrections, charged with Murder.

There was no threat to the public.

Advertisement

The Grand Forks Police Department was assisted at the scene by the Grand Forks Fire Department and Altru Paramedics.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

North Dakota

Weather Wednesday: telegraphic coded weather observations

Published

on

Weather Wednesday: telegraphic coded weather observations


BISMARCK — Bismarck, Omit, Leafage, Buck, Bank. That was the telegraphic code found on this thin piece of paper, hidden in this silk dress from the 1800s.

Wayne Chan decoded the mysterious message which turned out to be a meteorological one, detailing the weather conditions on May 27, 1888. “I’ve never seen any code that wasn’t meant for secrecy be so complex.”

But in the 1800s the U.S. Army Signal Service used this complex code to send weather reports from across the country to the central Signal Service in Washington, DC through telegram, which charged by the word.

“Basically they’re trying to compress several variables down to one word to save money when they transmit the message,” Chan explains.

Advertisement

Here’s how it breaks down: the first word is the reporting weather station: Bismarck. The second word: OMIT represents temperature and air pressure: 56 degrees with a barometric pressure of 30.08”. The next word LEAFAGE is code for dew point and observation time: 32 degrees at 10pm eastern time. BUCK reveals the wind direction and precipitation, it was a dry day with a north wind. And the final word BANK translates the wind speed of 12mph and sunset conditions which were clear on May 27, 1888.

These condensed weather reports in the beginning of the telegraph era were sent to the D.C. weather office three times a day where meteorologists there would decode the messages and create a national weather map of current conditions… a collection of reports traveling faster than the weather for the first time in history.

Meteorologists would use these weather observations as a base for creating a national forecast within two and a half hours of receiving the reports. The forecast would then be sent through telegram to cities and newspapers across the Union, to help alert people of what type of weather was heading their way… all thanks to these condensed, coded messages.

“It’s kind of like texting, you are compressing and using abbreviations and emojis to compress the message,” Chan adds. Though 136 years later, a text of Bismarck, Unit, Lashing, Silvan, Noisy, Ice would be difficult for to decipher, especially without the correct codebook.

Many weather stations in the 1800s were located near the telegraph office so the reports could be quickly transmitted since they had high priority. Telegraph operators were supposed to send the weather reports before almost anything else.

Advertisement
Jesse Ritka is a StormTracker meteorologist and holds the AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologist seal of approval.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending