Potential violations by Game and Fish
It is my belief Game and Fish acted unethically, and even unlawfully in the way they handled my case.Let me make it clear, I was NEVER convicted of a crime, yet I was punished by being given a written warning and told my walleye didn't qualify for a record. Game and Fish published a press release announcing my walleye broke the state record even though I NEVER filled out the application to be recognized for a record. Game and Fish created a one-sided, misleading investigation report which was published in the media. Game and Fish refused to review my evidence when it was offered to them on May 10th. Game and Fish also stated, there was no way to appeal their decision.
Below, I have highlighted different sections of law where I believe Game and Fish committed violations.
*Let me be the first to point out, I am not an attorney. The points listed below are my interpretation of the laws.
________________________________________
Due Process of Law
Due Process of Law are the guaranteed rights per the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as a safeguard against unfairness in all legal matters to prevent inaccurate or unjustified decisions. Due Process gives each person rights such as:- A hearing before an impartial person.
- The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
- The right to present evidence, including the right to call on their own witnesses.
- An opportunity to appeal a decision.
In my case, I was never allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who spoke out against me. Witnesses were able to make whatever outrageous claims they wanted without providing any evidence to back up their claims. Furthermore, they were able to give false claims without consequences. Me on the other hand, I was disqualified from holding a record, given a written warning, accrued attorney fees, had sick days from work and suffered damage to my reputation.
Game and Fish refused my evidence when it was provided to them on May 10th which is the opposite of Due Process where it states I have the right to present evidence. The evidence I offered included the walleye, videos and pictures which were never reviewed prior to a "conclusion."
Due Process also states, I am allowed to call on my own witnesses. In my case, I was never allowed to call on my own witnesses such as the officers who verified the record walleye, the Game and Fish employee who took pictures and video of the record walleye, the gas station employees who weighed the fish, my friends who saw the fish, the witness who stated, "It was caught right across from me. Looked like it was hooked in the mouth. Not snagged." etc.
Due process states, I have the right to an appeal. When I asked Game and Fish if there was an appeal process, they stated, "there is no appeal process." I later sent Game and Fish the taxidermist report which documented the "fresh" hole/tear in the mouth of my walleye and no hole from a hook anywhere else on the walleye. I asked them to reconsider their conclusion based on this new evidence. They didn't respond to this request.
I was given a written warning and was told my walleye didn't qualify for a state record without being able to use the courts, present my evidence, cross-examine adverse witnesses, call on my own witnesses or have an option of an appeal. These are all violations of Due Process.________________________________________
North Dakota Century Code 29-21-05 - Presumption of Innocence
NDCC 29-21-05. Presumption of innocence – “Acquittal on reasonable doubt. A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant's guilt is satisfactorily shown, the defendant is entitled to be acquitted.”Per North Dakota state law, presumption of innocence is a legal right of a person accused of a crime. And, the legal burden of proof is on the prosecution (Game and Fish) who must present compelling evidence a crime was committed. The prosecution (Game and Fish) must prove the accused (me) is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and if reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be presumed innocent and the defendant is entitled to be acquitted.
- Game and Fish did NOT provide any direct evidence to prove where the hook was located at the time the walleye was caught and netted.
- There is no physical damage on the fish to indicate it was foul-hooked.
- In my case, many people expressed reasonable doubt because of the lack of direct evidence. The only witnesses who officially spoke out against my walleye even stated he was NOT 100% sure my walleye was foul-hooked. If there is reasonable doubt, I was entitled to be acquitted. Instead, I was given a written warning and told my walleye didn't qualify for a state record.
There is NO direct evidence proving the walleye was foul-hooked at the time it was caught and netted. There is no picture, no video and not even an official statement from a witness documenting where the hook was located at the time the walleye was caught and netted. Physical evidence supports the walleye was hooked in the mouth, NOT foul-hooked. Because of the above facts, reasonable doubt remains. Therefore, it could easily be argued Game and Fish violated NDCC 29-21-05.________________________________________
North Dakota Constitution Article I - Declaration of Rights
Article I – Declaration of Rights states, “all individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of…protecting reputation. All courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his…reputation shall have remedy by due process of law. Suits may be brought against the state in such manner, in such courts, and in such cases, as the legislative assembly may, by law, direct.”- It is undeniable, I suffered damage to my reputation.
- Because of the actions by Game and Fish, I was unable to protect my reputation, was unable to defend myself in court, was unable to present my evidence or allowed to face my accusers.
- It could be argued Game and Fish unfairly “convicted” me of a crime when they provided me a written warning, stated my fish didn't qualify for a state record and published the one-sided, misleading investigation report causing damage to my reputation.
- It could have easily been proven Knuth made many false statements to law enforcement during the investigation. And, it could be argued it was reckless for Game and Fish to publish these false statements in a report without comparing the statements to the evidence in their possession. These actions caused damages to my reputation.
Considering the above facts, it could be argued Game and Fish violated my constitutional rights detailed in Article I.________________________________________
North Dakota Century Code 12.1-15-01. Criminal defamation.
1. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if he willfully publishes defamatory matter…3. In this section:
a. “Defamatory matter” means any written or oral communication concerning a natural person made public with actual malice or with reckless disregard of the truth by any…printing, writing…tending to expose such person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule…
c. “Publication” means a knowing display of defamatory matter…to be read or seen…
- It could be easily argued Game and Fish was “reckless” to publish false statements made by witnesses without checking them against the evidence they had in their possession.
- It could be argued it was “reckless” for Game and Fish to publish statements made by non-witnesses in the Investigation Report without clarifying they were statements made by non-witnesses.
- It could be considered “reckless” for Game and Fish to publish a report which intentionally left out information to support claims the walleye was hooked legally such as the statements made about the hole in the mouth of the walleye and their own images and videos which documented NO damage to body, tail and fins from a hook.
- It could be argued Game and Fish made public, published or knowingly displayed defamatory matter with “reckless” disregard of the truth which exposed me to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
Considering the above facts, it could be argued Game and Fish violated NDCC 12.1-15-01 and committed criminal defamation.________________________________________
North Dakota Century Code 12.1-11-02. False statements.
2. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if, in a governmental matter, he:b. Intentionally creates a false impression in a written application for a pecuniary or other benefit, by omitting information necessary to prevent a material statement therein from being misleading; (A material statement is defined as a statement of such importance to a particular matter that the statement could affect the matter's course or outcome.)
3. This section does not apply to information given during the course of an investigation into possible commission of an offense unless the information is given in an official proceeding or the declarant is otherwise under a legal duty to give the information.
4. A matter is a "governmental matter" if it is within the jurisdiction of a government office or agency, or of an office, agency, or other establishment in the legislative or the judicial branch of government.
The Investigation Report was created by Game and Fish as part of a governmental matter, acquired and released as part of an official proceeding, and published. And, it could easily be proven information was intentionally omitted in their report creating a false impression which affected the course or outcome. Here are just a few of the many instances where information was intentionally omitted to mislead:
- Statements I made about how the walleye "bit" my bait and how there was a "huge hole" in the mouth of the walleye.
- Statements Gibbs made about how the "fish was fighting normal the entire time...had no doubts. Tom thought he saw the hook in the mouth. There is a hole in the mouth of the fish. Tom's saving the fish for you guys. He wants you to come get it. He wants this to be legit."
- Statements made by the only witness who officially spoke out against my walleye where he stated, "He caught this massive fish. It was such an epic moment. Didn't really know what was going on. Didn't put 2-and-2 together until later. Didn't see the hook in the fish. 99.5% sure it was snagged...probably."
- Images and video taken at the time the walleye was verified by Game and Fish staff showing no blood or damage from a hook to the body, back, tail or fins. Video and images documenting string burn on the cheek of the walleye pointing to the hole in the mouth.
- Statements made by me and my attorney during the May 10th conversation asking Game and Fish to review new evidence which included the walleye, images and video.
It could be easily argued the intentional omitting of information from the investigation report created a false impression which affected the course or outcome which is a violation of NDCC 12.1-11-02 - false statements.________________________________________
North Dakota Century Code 12.1-11-04. General provisions.
1. Falsification is material under sections 12.1-11-01, 12.1-11-02, and 12.1-11-03 regardless of the admissibility of the statement under rules of evidence, if it could have affected the course or outcome of the official proceeding or the disposition of the matter in which the statement is made. Whether a falsification is material in a given factual situation is a question of law. It is no defense that the declarant mistakenly believed the falsification to be immaterial.It could be argued the misleading investigation report where information was intentionally omitted affected the course or outcome of an official proceeding in my matter which is a violation of NDCC 12.1-11-04.
Changes
We all have rights which were created to protect us against unfairness in all legal matters to prevent inaccurate or unjustified decisions - rights which I was denied. I did not receive Due Process of law. Game and Fish was not an impartial party. My evidence was refused which means I was unable to introduce my evidence. I was unable to cross-examine adverse witnesses or call on my own witnesses. I was unable to appeal the conclusion/decision. I was presumed guilty even though there was a lack of direct evidence. I was presumed guilty even though there was reasonable doubt. Game and Fish published misleading press releases and a misleading investigation report. I suffered damages to my reputation and was unable to protect it. A public agency should not be able to do this! It needs to stop.My rights were violated.As mentioned earlier, I believe Game and Fish violated several laws. My reputation was damaged, and I have to decide how important my reputation is to me. The last thing I want to do is file a lawsuit against a public agency because not only would it cost me money, it would cost us all money. How valuable is a reputation? Is it worth going to court over?
I want my reputation back.I know others who have gone through something similar when they were accused of a "violation." Conclusions were made and citations were issued based on a lack of evidence and lots of reasonable doubt. How many times does this have to happen before something is done to prevent it from happening again? Unfortunately, a lawsuit against Game and Fish might be the only way to get to transparency, changes, and oversight.
#northdakotaslargestwalleye #volkswalleye #justiceforthelargestwalleye
Comments
Post a Comment