10-12-16 To: (2) All Licensed Attorneys Residing in North Dakota (2) All Newspapers in North Dakota (3) All Radio and TV Stations in North Dakota From: Robert V, Bolinske, Attorney at Law Re: Alleged Criminal and Ethical Violations by Burleigh County District Court Judge and North Dakota Supreme Court Justice | take no pleasure in delivering this information to you. | believe strongly in truth and justice, and in the equal treatment of all persons. That, however, is not what we have been receiving through our justice delivery system. Herein are allegations which | believe | can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. | have previously made them available to: 1. The Supreme Court itself; 2. The N.D. Attorney General's Office; 3. The Burleigh County States Attorney; 4, The Burleigh County Sheri 5, Various members of the N.D. Press. To date none of them have, to my knowledge, taken any action. Hence, | now write to you {As you likely know, | am a candidate for a seat on the N.D. Supreme Court. Things simply need to change. We, in my opinion, need diversity on the Court. It is from the clash of divergent opinions and points of view that Truth and Justice come. | promise to bring change. | promise to “Bring the Clash.” Favoritism and special treatment in North Dakota's legal system, and specifically in our District and Supreme Courts and in the ND. State Bar Association must also stop, If elected | promise to do my very best to see that everyone is treated fairly and equally. have broad and diverse education and background. | have represented plaintiffs, defendants, criminal defendants, and workers compensations claimants for now over 40 in every type of case imaginable. 1am a trial attorney, and very proud of it. | believe it is an attorney's duty to pursue the matters | raise, and | intend to do it aggressively. For more on my background, please go to www.BolinskeSrLaw.com. ‘The very judges | name herein have severely chastised many lawyers over the years regarding their ethical and professional failings. Yet, they have not even kept their own house in order, ner has the N.D. Supreme Court even really truly investigated its own failings. I'm sick and tired of it and will tolerate it no more. {have in my possession substantial background documentation and evidence to support these allegations of misconduct and would not write these words if did not. If you desire to examine them, please so advise. Please see attachments for an outline of the allegations | made. Very truly yours, Robert V. Bolinske O“The Sorry Saga of ‘Justice’ in North Dakota” Robert V. Bolinske Harvard Law School, 1969January 20, 2016 Re: Alleged Criminal and Ethical Violations by Burieigh County District Court Judge and North Dakota Supreme Court Judges To: (1) Burleigh County, North Dakota Sheriff's Department; (2) Burleigh County States Attorney; (3) North Dakota Attorney General; (4) Governor, State of North Dakota By the delivery of the enclosed Volume | and Volume |! materials | am calling to your attention alleged violations of the North Dakota Criminal Code, the Code of Professional Conduct for Attorneys and the Code of Judicial Conduct for Judges. Please investigate these matters. In your handling of the investigation you should be aware that the materials have been or will also be delivered to the following entities: (1) The FBI (2) UND School of Law (3) ABC. (4) NBC (6) CBS (6) Harvard Law Schoo! (7) Yale Law Schoo! (8) Stanford Law School (9) University of Chicago Law School (10) Associated Press (11) Prairie Public Radio (12) New York Times (13) Others, as deemed necessary and appropriate It is expected that you will conduct your investigation in accordance with the highest standards and without regard to political favoritism or fallout. Very truly yours, Robert V. Bolinske Harvard Law School, 1969 7600 Northgate Drive Bismarck, North Dakota 58504 (701) 390-6015 (701) 204-7311Gee by Qa pox b Cy flan apn 6 eh nyt 39 To: (1) North Dakota Supreme Court ¢ (2) Judicial Conduct Commission (3) ND. Attomey General (4) Burleigh County State’s Attorney s the From: Robert V. Bolinske, Attomey at Law ( tm ake ») per WO Re: Potential (1) Ethical Violations and 2) Criminal conduct committed by North Dakota Supreme Court Justice Dale Sandstrom and District Judge, Gail Hagerty For some time now I have been investigating potential (1)criminal conduct and (2) ethical violations by Supreme Justice Dale Sandstrom and District Court Judge Gail Hagerty, husband and wife. Substantial evidence exists indicating that Justice Sandstrom and Judge Hagerty conspired to violate N.D.C.C, §12:1-11-05, dealing with tampering with public records. The statute provides as follows: 12.1-11.05. Tampering with public records. 1. A person is guilty of an offense if he: a. Knowingly makes a false entry in or false alteration of government record; or b. Knowingly, without lawful authority, destroys, conceals, removes, or otherwise impairs the verity or availability of a government record. 2. The offense is: fv a. Aclass C fel government record. b. Aclass A misdemeanor if committed by any other person. 3. In this section “government record” means @ if committed by a public servant who has custody of thea. Any record, document, or thing belonging to, or received or kept by the government for information or record. b. Any other record, document, or thing belonging to, or received or kept by the government for information or record. Italso appears that N.D.C.C. §54-46-07 relating to transferring, destroying and removing public records has been violated. That statute provides as follows: 54-46-07. Records not to be damaged or destroyed. All records made or received by or under the authority of or coming into the custody, control, or possession of public officials of this state in the course of their public duties are the property of the state and may not be mutilated, destroyed, transferred, removed, or otherwise damaged or disposed of, in whole or in part, except as provided by law. 1. On September 16, 2008, the undersigned wrote the following letter to Chief Justice of the North Dakota Supreme Court Gerald W. VandeWalle: September 16, 2008 Chief Justice Gerald W. VandeWalle ND Supreme Court State Capitol — 600 E Blvd Ave Bismarck ND58505-0530 Re: Robert vs. Gail H. Hagerty (Supervisory Writ) Dear Justice VandeWalle: Will you please investigate and advise me in writing how it came to be that the document entries relating to the above-referenced matter ended up on the Supreme Court web site essentially hidden, not under Bolinske vs. Hagerty but instead under State vs. Shepherd? ‘Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, Robert V. Bolinske ND State Bar ID # 03266 (September 16, 2008 letter attached as Exhibit A.)2. See Justice VandeWalle’s responsive letter to the undersigned dated September 19, 2008, (Attached hereto as Exhibit B.) in which Justice VandeWalle states: “September 19, 2008 Robert V. Bolinske Attorney at Law 7600 Northgate Drive Bismarck, ND 58504 Re: Bolinske v. Hagerty Dear Bob: was startled to read your letter of September 16, 2008, relative to the above captioned matter. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. 1 spoke with our staff yesterday when I received the letter and they were unaware of the situation. They are unsure of what happened. However, some time ago data was transferred from one machine to another and it appears that during the transfer the improper case name was entered for the above case. Staff told me they would reenter the data and case name yesterday and that it should regenerate overnight and if it did not it was a system problem. I am told it did regenerate overnight and it should now be correct on the website. | regret the mistake and I appreciate the opportunity to correct it. Sincerely, Gerald W. VandeWalle” 3. The séeds of this matter were sown, I believe, way back in the 1970s, when my brother Rick Bolinske, then a student at the University of North Dakota dated Gail Hagerty and unceremoniously “dumped” her. Worse, Rick “handed her off” to a fraternity brother at a party so he could date another young woman. Please see Delano Grey Bear v. North Dakota Department of Human Services documents attached hereto as Exhibit C. Those documents include the Affidavit of Attorney Robert V. Bolinske in Support of Motion to Disqualify Judge, dated April 13, 1999, specifically District Judge Gail Hagerty. (The undersigned pursued the Grey Bear ©case to the United States Supreme Court, where the U.S. Supreme Court, after substantial study by the staff, the Court decided not to take the case and denied the Petition for Certiorati.) Please see Robert V. Bolinske v. Gail Hagerty Supervisory Writ Documents entitled Combined Petition for Supervisory Writ, Brief and Affidavit of Robert V. Bolinske dated March 17, 2000, attached hereto as Exhibit D. Those documents describe Judge Hagerty’s conduct in a personal injury action entitled Machelle I. Torpy v. MeCrothers Corporation, et al. The undersigned was the attorney for plaintiff Torpy in that case. respectfully submitted that Judge Hagerty (1) acted unethically, (2) with ‘personal animous and (3) bias toward the undersigned when she (1) refused to recuse herself (2) refused to continue the trial (3) refused to allow the undersigned to withdraw as plaintiff Torpy’s attomey (4) forced the matter to trial (5) dismissed plaintiff Torpy’s case with prejudice (6) encouraged Ms. Torpy to consult an attorney to bring a malpractice action against the undersigned and (7) essentially “set up” the ‘undersigned for a malpractice action by Ms. Torpy by the decisions Judge Hagerty made in that case. Please see relevant portions of the Torpy file attached hereto as Exhibit E, submitted as evidence of the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 above. See Affidavit of Robert V. Bolinske dated February 22, 2000 submitted in the Torpy matter in support of his motion to withdraw as her attorney, attached hereto as Exhibit BR7, It is submitted that, given the facts and totality of the circumstances in the Torpy case, Judge Hagerty’s decisions (1) were the product of an extreme bias against the undersigned and (2) that she should have recused herself. Instead, she refused to recuse herself, refused to even continue the trial so Ms. Torpy could find new counsel, and dismissed Ms. Torpy’s case with (rather than without) prejudice, meaning it could never ever even be heard by a court and/or jury. Ms. Torpy was, for no good reason, denied her day in Court by Judge Hagerty. Inso acting in the Torpy case Judge Hagerty violated the provisions of cannon 3(B)(5) and 3 (E)(1) which provides that a judge shall disqualify himself or herself where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Those provisions provide in relevant part as follows: Cannon 3(B)(5): (8) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so. A judge shall refrain from speech, gestutes, or other conduct that could reasonably be perceived as sexual harassment and must require the same standard of conduct of others subject to the judge’s direction and control. Cannon 3(6)(1): E. Disqualification. (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings; (Emphasis added.) COMMENTARY - SECTION 3(B)(5) ‘A judge must perform judicial duties impartially and fairly. A judge who manifests bias on any basis in a proceeding impairs the faimess of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute. Facial expression and body language, inaddition to oral communication, can give to parties or lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media and others an appearance of judicial bias. A judge must be alert to avoid behavior that may be perceived as prejudicial. 8. For law and argument that judge Hagerty was required to disqualify herself in Torpy please see Combined Petition for Supervisory Writ, Brief and Affidavit of Robert V. Bolinske, attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. In fact, Judge Hagerty had previously disqualified herself in Grey Bear v. North Dakota Department of Human Services, a case in which the undersigned represented Mr. Grey Bear, when personal bias and animosity toward the undersigned was alleged. (See Exhibit.) 10. Because Judge Hagerty would not allow the undersigned to withdraw in Torpy, the undersigned commenced an action against her in the United States Distriet Court. (Please see Exhibit H, attached hereto entitled Robert V. Bolinske v. Gail Hagerty, individually and as District Judge of the Burleigh County District Court.) That action ‘was voluntarily and very reluctantly dismissed by the undersigned when it was realized that, in litigating against the state, as he had in Grey Bear, (which case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court), the undersigned would likely spend literally years of work and thousands of dollars in that litigations. T the undersigned’s experience many attomeys for the sate and federal governments have endless money and time to litigate ~ see commentary in the Grey Bear materials. The undersigned believes the federal court action against Hagerty had substantial merit, and thet, in any just system, the undersigned would have, and should have prevailed for reasons stated therein.11. The Combined Petition for Supervisory Writ, Brief and Affidavit of Robert V. Bolinske (Exhibit G attached hereto which was prepared by the undersigned and submitted in the Torpy case) is severally critical of (1) Judge Hagerty, (2) her refusal to recuse herself, (3) her refusal to (twice) allow the undersigned to withdraw, (4) her dismissal of Ms. Torpy’s case with prejudice and (5) other actions in that case. Judge Hagerty’s actions, itis submitted, reek of injustice. It is the undersigned’s considered personal opinion, after substantial experience with Judge Hagerty, that she is not qualified to service as a District Judge because of her (1) temperament, (2) propensity for bies and prejudice, and even more concerning, (3) her willingness to make decisions to the serious determent of litigants (here, Ms. Torpy) based upon those factors. 12, Somehow, the undersigned’s allegations against Judge Hagerty in the Tompy case (even though the undersigned sought a Supervisory Writ against her in the North Dakota Supreme Court were posted only briefly. if at all, on the North Dakota ‘Supreme Court’s website. In the usual course, the allegations and all documents in connection therewith would be posted on the North Dakota Supreme Court’s website. However, that was not the case here. The questions are obviously “why?” and “how?” did that occur? (Query: who had the motive and opportunity to keep them from public view? And, how would those persons prevent public access and scrutiny of the documents?) 13. The undersigned has investigated this matter for many months. Here is what has been discovered.14. The Hagerty Supervisory Writ documents were transferred to and essentially hidden on the North Dakota Supreme Court website in a case entitled State v. Shepherd, a criminal case. (See Exhibit I attached hereto.) 15, How did that occur? Chief Justice Vande Walle concluded and stated in his September 19, 2008 letter to Robert V. Bolinske (Exhibit G) that it appeared to have happened during a “data transfer.” (See Exhibit B.) Subsequent investigation by the undersigned, however demonstrated that that is not correct. 16, After receiving Justice VandeWalle’s letter, (Exhibit B), the undersigned investigated further through the use of an Open Record’s Request dated October 27, 2008 (See Exhibit J attached hereto) to determine when the so called “data transfer” occurred. 17, After receiving the Open Records Request, the North Dakota Supreme Court conducted an additional investigation and determined that the “data transfer” was not the cause of the disappearance from public view of the derogatory Hagerty Supervisory Writ Documents. ‘The court then concluded that it was “human error”, and that one Marla Loxdol (a data entry clerk who retired in May, 2006), placed the Hagerty Supervisory Writ documents under the State v. Shepherd case heading on the N.D. Supreme Court website for unexplained reasons. Please see letter to the undersigned from Chief Deputy Clerk Colette Bruggman, dated October 30, 2008, attached hereto as Exhibit K. In conversation, Chief Deputy Clerk stated “human error” was the “only explanation.” The facts and circumstances, however suggest otherwise. 18. Justice Date Sandstrom is the creator and “webmaster” of the North Dakota Supreme Court website,19. Justice Dale Sandstrom is Judge Gail Hagerty’s husband. 20. Justice Sandstrom and Judge Hagerty had every motive to conspire to conceal the negative Hagerty Supervisory Writ documents. 21. Justice Sandstrom wrote the opinion in State v. Shepherd, meaning no other justice, when reviewing his or her decisions on the Supreme Court website would have occasion to discover concealment. (Exhibit L.) 22. It is respectfully requested that further investigation be conducted to determine whether Justice Sandstrom and his wife, Judge Hagerty, conspired to violate (1) N.D.C.C. §12.1-11-05 which makes it a CRIME to tamper with public records. That offense is a FELONY if committed by a public servant who has custody of the government record and/or (2) N.D.C.C. §54-46-07 which prohibits mutilating, destroying, transferring, removing, or otherwise damaging or disposing of records. 23. A competent and thorough investigation, and an examination of the relevant computer data by a qualified expert would, itis submitted, determine (1) who did and who did not have access to the relevant Torpy data (documents) and (2) the relevant Shepherd documents (3) the knowledge to make the change to essentially “hide” the documents critical of Judge Hagerty from public view and (4) the motive and (5) opportunity to do so. 24. The Supreme Court website log report establishes that the name of the individual deputy indicated to have mage the change to the website is Marla Loxdal. (Bruggman letter dated October 30, 2008, attached as Exhibit K.) Several questions arise. Did she in fact make the changes or did someone having knowledge of and access to the website use her name to conceal their own identity Was she in fact‘working with those two cases? Why? One is a civil case, the other a criminal case. How would those two cases collide? When? What time of day were the changes made? Was she in fact even on duty when the changes were made? What other activities is she shown to have been engaged in on the day and at the precise time of the change? If she did in fact make the changes, who if anyone instructed her to do 80? Has she talked already to anyone about these matters? Who, when, about what and why? ([have not questioned Ms. Loxdal because an impartial experienced investigator knowledgeable about all facts of this case should do so.) 10