Lang v. State
Court of Appeals
v.
State of North Dakota;
Gary Preszler, State Banking
Commissioner; Governor Edward
Schafer; District Judge Benny
Graff; District Judge Burt
Riskedahl; Supreme Court
Judges, Gerald W. VandeWalle,
Mary Muehlen Maring, Carol Ronning
Kapsner, Dale V. Sandstrom, Defendants and Appellees
Judge Richard W. Grosz
| Appellant: | Pro se | |
| Appellee: | Douglas Alan Bahr , Att. General Office |
Can the State of North Dakota be immune from damages arising from a conspiracy of silent neglect of its officials even though the officials may be statutorily immune?
Where or when has the Banking Commissioner ever been exonerated in a complaint by Lang that would now afford him Res Judicata status?
If there be absolute statute immunity does that give judges the immunity to ignore the Bill of Rights?
If there be absolute statute immunity does that give judges the immunity of denying Lang a remedy by due process of law as is set out in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of the Bill of Rights?
If there be absolute statute immunity does that give judges the liberty to ignore their directive in the Constitution?
Does statute immunity give the defendants immunity to ignore their oath of office?
Why should a conspiracy of silent neglect deter Lang from regaining possession of his home that was fraudulently taken by the Bank of Steele without a foreclosure, without a deficiency judgment and without a judge's order when his home and certain other properties were never needed, at any time, for a satisfaction of any debt?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Under North Dakota law, an action caused by the alleged actions of a state employee occurring within the scope of the employee's employment must be brought against the State. The Complaint names as defendants the State of North Dakota and various state employees. The Complaint alleges the individually named defendants are state employees, but does not allege that the individually named state employees acted outside the scope of their employment. Did the district court correctly hold that the State of North Dakota is the sole defendant in this case?
2. Res judicata prohibits the relitigation of claims or issues that were raised or could have been raised in a prior action between the same parties or their privies and which were resolved by final judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction. A prior judgment has been rendered by the North Dakota Supreme Court involving the same facts and the same parties or their privies as Counts 1, 2, and 3 of the Complaint. Did the district court correctly hold Counts 1, 2, and 3 are barred by the doctrine of res judicata?
3. North Dakota statutory and case law provide that the state and state employees may not be held civilly liable for discretionary acts. Counts 1, 2, and 3 of the Complaint attempt to allege a cause of action for conspiracy of silent neglect for decisions of executive officers not to investigate or take other action against a bank. Did the district court correctly hold Counts 1, 2, and 3 are barred by discretionary immunity?
4. North Dakota case law provides that judges are immune from suit for damages for judicial acts. Counts 4, 5, and 6 of the Complaint attempt to state a claim of conspiracy of silent neglect against two judges and four justices for judicial acts and decisions. Did the district court correctly find Counts 4, 5, and 6 fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted?
5. North Dakota courts have inherent power to issue injunctions limiting a litigant's access to the courts when the litigant abuses the process of the courts. Lang has a lengthy pattern of abuse of the legal process. The district court issued a narrowly tailored injunction. Did the district court have authority to issue the injunction?
Add Docket 20000223 RSS