Today we shall explore the case of Rodney Brossart. He is the guy that was accused of ‘rustling’ cattle and was arrested by a SWAT team with the help of a drone in North Dakota.
NEAR LAKOTA, ND (WDAZ-TV) – A months-long standoff southeast of Lakota, ND, has ended after two of the family members involved were arrested in a field and three others surrendered.
“We put a tactical operational plan together this afternoon and we implemented it and everything went as planned for us, so we’re very pleased that we did end with a peaceful resolution this evening,” Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke said.
Nelson County Sheriff’s deputy Eric Braathen says a juvenile, school-aged child was also taken into custody.
Sometime between 7 and 8 p.m. Sunday, Rodney’s other children, Abby, Alex and Thomas, gave themselves up at the family’s home without incident.
Then it gets good, kids.
Braathen says a tip called in lead to the farm field arrest. After some negotiation, Rodney and Jacob were arrested without incident. Braathen says they were not armed.
Then the story goes off the rails…
Braathen says family members at the home had been given some time to get things in order before being detained. Rodney’s mother was also apparently at the farmstead. She had been reportedly supplying the family with food during the ongoing ordeal.
Braathen says the mother, Susan, won’t be arrested. She remains with their three juvenile children on the farm that includes a house, trailer home and two RV trailers. She has agreed to appear in court Monday, too, on the Class A misdemeanor charge from June involving giving law enforcement false information.
Just trying to wrap mind mind around those last two paragraphs almost makes my head explode. First, magnanimously, Sheriff
Andy Taylor Kelly Janke allows these people time to brush their teeth before going to jail. Then, the mother who committed the mortal sin of feeding her children was not arrested- only detained- on a misdemeanor charge of lying to law enforcement. What am I missing? The sheriff charges someone with lying and then makes them promise to show up for court? Take that Barney Fife’s bullet away.
The tiny town of Lakota, N.D., is quickly becoming a key testing ground for the legality of the use of unmanned drones by law enforcement after one of its residents became the first American citizen to be arrested with the help of a Predator surveillance drone.
Wooops, the first article quoted Deputy Braathen as saying it was a ‘tip’ that led them to the field. I guess he kinda left out the part about Homeland Security supplying the tip.
The bizarre case started when six cows wandered onto Rodney Brossart’s 3,000 acre farm. Brossart, an alleged anti-government “sovereignist,” believed he should have been able to keep the cows, so he and two family members chased police off his land with high powered rifles.
How do we know these are “sovereignists”? How can you tell them apart from, say, members of PETA? I mean if they would have claimed to be protecting the beasts from slaughter they could have avoided all this.
OR could they have?
We know they are incorrigible citizens because of the papers filed in court. Not the papers filed in this case, but another case in Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota:
From the brief:
German LTD.’s claim for relief by default is not supported by documents submitted by German LTD. that there was an actual default.
German LTD. failed to show proof that there was an actual attorney/client agreement.
The court cannot accept a judgment by default of Brossart. In German LTD.’s own filings, he shows the court that Brossart responded to the complaint brought before him. (R 8)
The summons and complaint was served upon Brossart by the Nelson County Sheriff on July 29, 2011. (R 3) Brossart responded to the summons and complaint on August 16, 2011. (R 8) That was on the 18th day of the 20 day deadline. Brossart’s response was, “This is my property I do not agree to this sale,” signed and dated by the Appellant, Rodney Brossart. German LTD. showed with a received dated stamp that the response was received on August 18, 2011. August 18, 2011 was the 20th day of the 20 day deadline to respond.
The Appellant, Rodney Brossart responded within the allotted time placed before him by German LTD. Therefore, judgment by default is not a decision that the court can make, according to North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 55(a).
In all filings made by German LTD., he lacks to show that an attorney/client agreement actually existed according to North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.5.
In the complaint, German LTD states, “on or about December 31, 2008, Rodney Brossart requested and authorized Raymond J. German, Attorney at Law, to perform legal services related to the Prescriptive Easement matter with William T. Franzen.” “Raymond J. German, Attorney at Law with the firm of Raymond J. German, Ltd., agreed to and did represent Rodney Brossart from December 31, 2008 to March 4, 2011, in exchange for payment of Attorney German’s legal services.” (R 2) This is merely words on paper not made legitimate by record or fact. German LTD. fails to show that an agreement between an attorney and client ever existed.
As you can see, this is about much more than six cows wandering onto his property.
The Honorable Sonja Clapp, Presiding Judge of the District Court, Northeast Central Judicial District was assigned to the case. (R 10) Brossart submitted a motion for summary judgment to the court. The Hon. Clapp, disqualified herself pursuant to Canon 3 (E)(1)(a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (R 12) All the judges in the Northeast Central Judicial District were later disqualified by the order of the Honorable Gerald W. VandeWalle. (R 13) The case was then assigned to the Hon. Christofferson. (R 14-15) Within days of being assigned to the case, the Hon. Christofferson denies Brossart’s Motion for Summary Judgment and awards German LTD. his claim of relief. (R 18)
Whoa. Looks like something else is afoot. Let’s look up Canon 3 (E)(1)(a), shall we?
There should be some period during which the judge recuses himself from any proceeding in which a former opponent for judicial office serves as an attorney, whether or not there is actual bias or prejudice on the part of the judge. If in fact the judge considers that there is actual partiality due to bias or prejudice, the recusal should last as long as the bias exists. If there is no actual bias, the length of the recusal period is governed by what is a reasonable time for the public perception to conclude that there is no bias. The decision as to the period of recusal should be determined by the judge.
Canon 3(E)(1)(a) of the North Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct specifies that
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning the party or a party’s lawyer . . ..”
The dates correspond to this time frame, as well.
This isn’t about cattle rustling, nor drones. This is about some lawyer with clout trying to get his land. They paint him as some militia type and send in the drones.
Wanna bet there is oil under that land?