ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL. 2003-2004

May 13,2004 Ex. No. 14

Affidavit of Richard Stevens

State of Montana) ..SS

County of Flathead )

I, Richard Stevens Being fxst duly sworn, upon oath Depose and say that I have reviewed this case and knows of its contents and informatian to prosecute and believe it to be tnre of f a d and suplrortd by Montana's Constitution and statutory laws

I Believe that Montana Supreme Court all Justice's, from 1998 through 2002 Judge Curtis, Judge Lympus and Judge Stadler of the Eleventh Judicial District Court has been bias and prejudice used criminal acts failing to Their duty to our constitution and to the people of Montana In Case's DV-95 - 70(b) case 98-446 Case DV-00-57(A) 00-6 16 and other cases in Montana Supreme Court and in case DV-02-634

These charges also are on The Attorney Generals arid County Attorney's of Flathead County of 1995 through 2003 and Governor Kacicot That has acted in a criminal matter failimg to their oath of o ff'ice .and is

supported by our Montana Co~lstitution and statutory Laws

This case is more then Official Misconduct 1 am nlaking criminal charges against these public officials (Felony Charges)

Dated this Day 1 May 2004

Subscribed and sworn to me this day ?* May 2003

-.c %?dZasQ

NANCY GC3CH I,C ;G~ICYI 5 ~ 0 1 Residing at

S!a:2 of r ~ 4 ~ r ~ i b n a

expires q~ 2-< - &

Richard Stevens 2398 Middle Road Columbia Falls, Mont.

59912

To Attorney General Mlke McGrath

Follow up on Saturday March 20,2004 Meeting in Livingston Mt.

You told me that you would look into this matter and talk to Candace West on this matter before you say that I am rehashing my arguments you better look at our constitutional laws that you took an oath of office to defend and up hold then look at you duties to our state

Then you will see that I defending my rights as citizens of Montana the right to a fair trail and the right to be heard in which you by through .this office has denied by and through deceit

Brett Dahl of the Department of Administration has a copy of the book 1 showed you in Livingston that I sent to him some time ago if he dose not have it any more there is one in the Eleventh Judicial District Court Judge Stadler Case DV-02-634 Criminal act in court proceedings

As you will see me' am trying to have you and others removed from office and employment over the criminal acts by and through this office for there has been nothing but criminal acts by public servants through out this and criminal acts by attorneys this case is not and well not be resolved until Justice is served and I am looking forward to resolve this with you

Thank you Richard Stevens

Copy To Senator Grimes

c r

REPRESENTATIVE LOREN "GEORGE" EVERETT HOUSE DISTRICT 84

HELENA ADDRESS: PO BOX 200400 HELENA. MONTANA 59620-0400 PHONE: (406) 444-4800

HOME ADDRESS: PO eox 5267 KALISPELL. MONTANA 59903-5267

.,,?t\,E. i ' p? , - ? - . r a n -

Mike McGrath C35cc of the Attorney General 21 5 N. SandclJ P.O. Box 201401 Helena, MT. 50620-1401

COMMITTEES: JUDICIARY TRANSPORTATION NATURAL RESOURCES

March 30,2004

Dear Mr. McGrath, . . - , . . . ~ * . . - . . .. ~ . . - " , ~ .. ..., ,, -, . .

FT,y.->:s;Fq 2,:. ..,"&*-;:.,;- & :+- ,+:i-;.. :+: ..- ... * . . . . . ,

This letter is to ask that you investigate the against the MT. L.E.Q., etd. Mr. Stevens is a d that he suoke with vou at the Justice Conference in I i

Mr. Stevens is trying to seek justice in what he claims-were illegg4 actions by the D.E. Q. and others in 1996. An adjacent land owner to &4r.:~tevqu was &en illegal authorization to dredge a pond on his property which adversely ;lffected Mr. Stevens rights to irrigate fiom the dredged pond.

I have read some of the litigation action and talked with a Larry VanRinsum, of the Flathead Conservation District, about Mr. stevens situation. Larry VanRinsum's comment was that "Richard Stevens got screwedn.

I am not an attorney and Mr. Stevens has no money or equity to hire more attorneys to represent him. All Mr. Stevens wants is to know why someone can acquire an illegal dredging permit which took away his'rights to irrigate and cost him thousands of dollars to defend the rights he always had under Montana water laws.

Thank you for time and consideration to Mr. Stevens.

Sincerely, v-- CC: Richard Stevens

Office of the Flathead County Attorney THOMAS J. ESCH, County Attorney JONATHAN 6. SMITH. Chief Deputy DENNIS J. HESTER, Deputy EDWARD J. CORRIGAN. Deputy PETER A STEELE, Deputy DANIEL M. GUZYNSKI, Deputy TIMOTHY K. WENZ, Deputy

P.O. Box 1516 920 South Main Street

Justice Center, Second Floor Kalispell, Montana 59903-1 516

(406) 758-5630 FAX (406) 758-5642

www.co.flathead.mt.uslattrny

October 24, 2002

Mr. Richard Stevens P.O. Box 296 Somers, MT 59932

Dear Mr. Stevens:

I have reviewed the materials you left with me last month. It is apparent that you have taken your case to both the District Court and the Montana Supreme Court. Those Courts have declined to find in your favor.

I understand your frustration in believing that State and local officials are not doing the jobs that you believe the statutes require. However, there is nothing that this office can do in light of the fact that the courts have declined to find that your rights have been violated by the actions of any State and local officials.

When you are able, please stop by the office to pick up the materials you left with me.

Very truly yours,

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY Flathead County, Montana

6nathan B. ~hith, Deputy i' '

The Legislative Environmental Quality Council and Law and Justice Interim committees

The State of Montana Plaintiffs

Case No.

The State of Montana, Montana Supreme Court Chief Justice Karla Gray, Montana Attorney General Mike Mc Garth, the Department of Administration Bill Gianoulias Dept. Natural Resources and Conservation Author (Bud) Clinch Director The Eleventh district Court Judge Curtis and Judge Lyrnpus and Judge Stadler et.al Defendants

Summons

The State of Montana to the above -named Defendants:

As an Equal branch of State Government

Order

You are hereby summoned to answer this criminal complaint in this action which is filed in the office Of the Environmental Quality Council Interim Committee, May - 2004 and in Law Justice Committee November 22, 2003 and The Eleventh Judicial District Court November 12, 2002 for criminal action in court proceedings a copy of which is here within served upon you and to file your answer and serve a copy thereof upon the plaintiffs within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service; and in

case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.

Witness my hand and seal of said committees, this day of 2004

n The Eleventh Judicial District Court Of the State Of M m * r ' ~ : ~ q . 7 ~ c t 2 y q ~

In and for The County Of Flathead ?$n?fl:i,73 pn 2: 34

t r ' % - L. 1,

Richard Stevens and Betty J. Stevens ) Plaintiffs ) case NO. D V - O B ~ ~ : ~ ~ ; . - --

vs. I The State Of Montana, et.al., 1 Amended Summons

Defendant's 1 Summons

The States Of Montana, to listed Names here are listed As Defendants and hereby Ordered to answer Individually

1. Montana Supreme Court Chief Justice Gray ,and all Justice of this Court

2. Ex Governor Marc Racicot and ex Attorney General Joseph P. Mazurek

3. Montana Attorney General, Mike McGath and Assistant's

4. Thomas G. Bowe and Jim Schier and Candace West, Clay R. Smith

5. Department Of Administration, Bill Gianoulias

6. The Commissioners Of Political Practice Linda L. Vaughey

7. Citizens Advocate , Myrna Onholt-Mason

8. Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Arthur (Bud) Clinch

9. Administrator of Water Resources Division Jack Stults

10. Employees of this Department Kurt Hafferman, Charles Brasen, Roger Noble, Linda Colter (Molina)

1 1. Attorney's For DNRC Chief Legal Counsel, Donald Mclntyer and Fred Robinson

12. Flathead Regional Development Office, enforcement Eric Mulcahy,

13. Tom Jentz Director Of Planing Office (FRDO) Forrest Sanderson

14. The Eleventh Judicial District Court Judge Curtis and Judge Lympus

15. Montana Commison of Practice All Eleven Menbers

16. Officers Of The Court Jeff Ellingson, 24 lave. E Kalispell Mont. C. Mark Hash, 136 1"' Ave. W. Kalispell, Mont. Peter F. Carroll, 725 Main St. Kalispell, Mont. Mark Stemitz Missloua, Mont. John Paul 104 Fourth St. Great Falls Mont. Martin King Missloua, Mont.

17. Flathed County Attorney, Tom Esch, Edward Corrigan, Jonathan Smith

1 8. Flathead County Commissioners, 800 S. Main St.Kalispell, Mont.

19. Montana Legislative Audit Division, Jim Mann, and .Ms. Lora Norris

20. Human Rights Commission, Ken Coman

2 1. Department Of Environmental Quality, Jeff Ryan Kevin Keenan and Betsy Wal1,Ed Thamke

22. Joe Russell Flathead Environmental Heath Department

23. Flathead County Sheriff Jim Dupant, Mike Meehan

24. Culyer P. Medore, Neal and Greta Carstens, Douglas Miller, T.D. & Hoskins Mike Fraser Kalispell Mont.

25. You are hereby Ordered to answer this complaint that you have been named as a Defendant's in this action which is filed in the Montana Court of Impeachment In the Clerk of Court, Office A copy of which is hereby served upon you, you are to appear in Court within 20 days of This order of this exclusive of the day of service; and in case of your fake to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for relief demanded

26. You Have Been Named in the Above Action for your failure to your Duty as a public Servant Section 45-7-401 MCA and for sectian 45-7-303 Obstructing Justice MCA 45-7-20? MCA T'bfnpriwE-wl& or Fab&atiwg Evidence, Fraud upon the Court Section 27-2-206 MCA Legal Malpractice, 27-28-205 MCA Unlawful assertion of Authority ,45-44- 102 MCA Conspiracy to commit Perjury to cover up the action of the

defendants withholding evidence aiding and abetting 27.

28. Section 46- 1 1-1 10 MCA Provides; When a complaint is presented to a court charging a person with the commission of an offense, the court shall examine the sworn complaint or any affidavits, if filed, to determine whether probable cause exist to allow the filing of a charge

29. Section 46-6-201 MCA Provides in part: if it appears ... that there is probable cause to believe that the person against whom the complaint was made has committed an offense, a warrant shall be issued by the court for the arrest of the person's complained against.

30. Section 46- 16-2 13 MCA states; A person is legaIly accountable for the conduct of another when: (3) either or during the cnmmiss~lrn of an offense with the purpose to promote of facilitate such comission, he solicits, aids, abets, agrees, or attempts to aid such other person in the planing or the commission of the offense.

Richard Stevens 2398 Middle Rd. Columbia Falls, Mont.

59912

May 1 1,2004

To Environmental Quality Council Interim Committee P.O. Box 201704 Helena Montana

59620- 1704

WATER RIGHTS IN MONTANA IN FLATHEAD COURTY FOR STEVENS PAMILYS LIVING OFF RESVATIONS {see 85-2-101 MCA#6)

Subject 27-1-712 MCA Liability for deceit (2) The Suggestion as a fact that which is NOT TRUE

See the right to State Protection 49-1 -1 0 1 MCA and 49-1 -201 MCA Also 85-2-101 MCA #6 3-7-204 MCA (I) Montana Supreme Court SHALL Supervise the activities of personal to Chapter 85

See 2- 1-408 MCA Legislative review and oversight

THIS IS A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT UPON NAMED DEFENDANTS

Action Based on contract or other obligation 27-2-202 MCA liability founded upon an instrument in writing is within 8 years

It's well known and well written that you can not appropriate water after July 1, 1973 without the due process of law see Article IX section 85-2-30 1 MCA it's got to be for a beneficial use (a legal obligation owed)

It's well known that before you start your work you got to apply and receive a permit from DNRC 85-2-302 MCA and before you get this permit you must meet the criteria of 85-2-3 11 MCA and there are other permits {a Duty

by law) mandates by Article IX title 75&76 for dredging in a lake (Flood- plain permit) and 3A permit (Equal Protection of the law)

It's well known that a right to appropriate water may not be acquired by any other method, including by adverse use, possession, prescription, or estoppel 85-2-30 1 #3 MCA {the method prescribed by this chapter is exclusive)

See Stevens pleading for case that Montana Supreme Court up held for these kinds of cases a legal Duty by the obligation by law and by contract with the state for my legal use of the states surface water of Altenburg Slough

Montana Supreme Court says these cases have been resolved

How can these cases be resolved when constitutional rights are violated by public servants? And there been nothing but criminal acts (Felony acts) in and out of all court proceedings

(Justice Denied By our Supreme Court) fundamental rights violated by our Courts) obstruction of Justice by our courts and the attorney general office by and through Deceit, Forgery, conspiracy to defraud the public for the advantage of Public servants subverting the integrity of our courts see Filler v. Richland County 275 Mont. 287,911 P 2.d 1 165 for Extrinsic Fraud

The court disallowed Stevens a fair submission to this conversely

See Anderson v. Werner Enterprise Inc. 1998 Mont. 333, 30,282 Citing Cameron v. Mercer, 1998 Mt. 134, 8,289, 960 P.2d 302 The court will exercise great self-restraint in interfering with the constitutional right of trail by j ury, Anderson, 30

See Case DV-02-634 of Montana's Eleventh Judicial District Court Filed November 12, 2002 sees Complaint to Law and Justice Interim Committee File November 24,20004

There was never any hearing on this case or any other case for the Stevens to show cause of action to prove their claim on Motion to Dismiss or to reopen our case or for a new trail denied by the courts

Due process of law and equal protection of the law the right to state protection the right to be heard and present evidence see court records for case laws whch Stevens has submitted to the Courts

In all Of Stevens pleading to the courts it was told and shown there was no permit from any state agency ie due process of law and equal protection of law Article I1 and Article IX of Montana's Constitution See Case 98-446,OO-616 and all case to Montana Supreme court

See Justice W. William Leaphart delivering the opinion of the Court February 22,2001 Case 00-616 of Montana Supreme Court Richard and Betty J. Stevens v. DNRC, Arthur (Bud) Clinch, Director

See Line 3 Sometime between December 1993 and March Of 1994 the owners of an adjacent parcel dredged material from the slough to create access for stock watering and recreation

{Aiding and abetting in the talung private property for a public Use) see 85-2-301 MCA see 3-7-204 MCA Montana Supreme Court Shall supervise

See 85-2-102 MCA (1) "Appropriate"

{ This is true) and there was other beneficial uses see applications

See 2 "Beneficial Use" see 85-2-102 MCA see U.S. Bankruptcy Court fimdings and U.S. District Court Findings this is TURE to stop EPA fine of $125,000

At the time, DNRC determined that the dredging "was not an appropriation of water" and the owners of the adjacent parcel did not need a DNRC permit for the dredging "Deceit" by Montana Supreme Court

("It was not DNRC at the time") it was Jell Ellingson attorney for Carsten's and Medore and Linda Colter of DNRC Conspiracy to forge a document to get a permit mandated by law and Flathead Regional Development Office (FRDO) (Flood-plain permit) April 23 1993 mandate letter

See Book Plaintiffs Expert Witness list October 8, 1997 page 5 1 Deposition Exhibit 4

See Flood-plain laws when a county dose not enforce these laws ARM 36.15.209

(Again look at section 85-2-101 MCA 85-2-30 1 MCA 85-2-302 MCA) Obstructing Justice by Deceit and Unlawful aeration of authority subverting the integrity of the court to protect Public servants

Look at Medore's consultant T.D. & Hoskins March 23 letter telling them just what permits where needed and how much for the permits and where to send the application for the permits see purpose for dredging in all applications look at the laws of Article IX of Montana's Constitution page 40

(its DNRC conspiracy to protect Linda Colter (Molina) for aiding and abetting in forging a Document By Colter of DNRC and Jeff Ellingson Attorney For Adjacent owner (Medore and Carsten's) May 12 1993 to get Mandated permit by FRDO and by our Montana' Water Use Act Article IX Title 85 chapter 2 sections 1,2,3,4 ie due process of law and equal protection of law

This was discovered October 1997 After Bankruptcy Case in Depo; of Colter in case DV95-70 (B)

See 2-1 0-102 MCA and 2- 10-104 MCA Guidelines for action with taking implications see picture of before and after the dredging of the slough reads the testimony of Carsten how deep where the dredging took place 3"to 6" inches no more then two feet deep and would dry up by fall it would dry up page 12 of book 2-1 0-1 02 MCA its eight feet deep after the dredging (ie) Low Spot that surface water will flow to taking surface water from Stevens point of diversion during the time Stevens would need his full use of his legal water right July through October

Read June 27, 1994 letter from Kalispell DNRC ofice see 85-2- 1 14 MCA Judicial enforcement

See 85-2-101 MCA #6 No state agency took any kind of action for violation

See U.S. C. 42 section 1983 and Montana's Constitution Article I1 section 29

I

See 28-1 -203 MCA Enforcement of obligations by the operation of law

See Exhibits In Court Records For the propose of dredging presented by the Stevens in this case and of case DV-95-70(b) and 98-446 see 85-2-301 MCA see 85-2-302 MCA see FRDO April 23 1993 letter mandating owners of adjacent property to get a water right permit before the would issue a Flood- plain permit see 85-2-1 02 MCA Definitions

An obligation by law which time limit is within 8 years there was a stay for the Bankruptcy

In all of Montana Supreme Court opinions they with held (the suppression of a fact by one who is bound to disclose it) see Stevens appeal 98-446 and 00-6 16 and every other case of the Stevens rehashing our constitutional rights to the court

Stevens did present other Experts (EPA) and open file report 177and pictures on how the dredging would and did affect the surface water of the Altenburg Slough to Judge Curtis who violated our rights to a fair trail and hearing on this matter After they fired their attorney for not using the evidence and laws to protect us June 18" 1998 Suppression of a fact by one who is bound to disclose it

The court never says anything about our attorney (incomplete attorney) with holding evidence in case DV-95-70(b) or the actions of DNRC in this case or any other case that the Stevens brought to the Supreme Court in their pleadings to all of the courts or that Roger Noble was a state employee with DNRC see 85-2-3 11 #6 MCA and that it was well known that the dredging was to appropriate water before these court cases

See the supervision of the Montana Supreme Court 3-7-204 MCA (Activities) Official Misconduct and obstructing justice by the courts

In this is a copy that 1 have submitted to the Law and Justice Interim Committee information that this committee also needs to take action on Also

Thank you

Richard Stevens Cc; Representatives George Everett Verdell Jackson, Dee Brown Jim Shockley And Senator Jerry O'Neil and Candace West Assistant Attorney General

27-2-202. Actions based on contract or other obligation. (1) The period prescribed for the commencement of an action upon any contract, obligation, or liability founded upon an instrument in writing is within 8 years.

(2) The period prescribed for the commencement of an action upon a contract, account, or promise not founded on an instrument in writing is within 5 years.

(3) The period prescribed for the commencement of an action upon an obligation or liability, other than a contract, account, or promise, not founded upon an instrument in writing is within 3 years.

History: Ap. p. Sec. 1, p. 172, L. 1889; re-en. Sec. 5 12, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6445, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9029, R.C.M. 192 1; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 337; re-en. Sec. 9029, R.C.M. 1935; Sec. 93- 2603, RC.M. 1947; Ap. p. Sec. 513, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 157,L. 1901; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 128, L. 1903; re-en. Sec. 6446, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9030, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 339; re-en. Sec. 9030, R.C.M. 1935; amd. Sec. 13, Ch. 263, L. 1975; Sec. 93-2604, R.C.M. 1947; Ap. p. Sec. 5 14, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; amd. Sec. 2, p. 157, L. 1901; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 128, L. 1903; re-en. Sec. 6447, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 903 1, RC.M. 192 I; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 339; re-en. Sec. 903 1, R.C.M. 1935; Sec. 93-2605, R.C.M. 1947; Ap. p. Sec. 5 10, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6443, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9027, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 335; re-en. Sec. 9027, R.C.M. 1935; Sec. 93-2601, R.C.M. 1947; R.C.M. 1947,93-2601(part), 93-2603,93-2604(1), 93-2605(3); amd. Sec. 16, Ch. 12, L. 1979.

Richard Stevens 2398 Middle Road Columbia Falls, Mont

59912 (406) 892-3448

Subject; 1-1-403 MCA Allegiance. Allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and obedience which every citizen owes to the state

Not only our laws mandate this duty but by your oath of office also mandate this duty and by your contract to your oath of office (Public Trust-Public Duty 2-2-103 MCA see Article I1 section 3, 4, 17, 29 & 34

Undisputedly Facts

1. Fact is, that Stevens has the right to state protection 49-1-1 0 1 MCA and 49-1-201 MCA and duty to his constitutional rights from his contract of his right to appropriate water from the State of Montana PO0 189-76LJ March 28, 1974 see Article I1 section 29 and 2-1 0-1 02 MCA and By U.S.C. section 42 section 1983 Article IX title 85 sections 85-2- 10 1 MCA 85-2-30 1 MCA 85-2-302 MCA 85-2-3 1 1 MCA the right to trail by jury 27-26-303 MCA

2. Fact is, that Stevens contract was good until The state willhlly and in a Malice intent allowed Stevens to be removed from their Home and property (Damage) Evicted September 28, 200 1 case 102-1 97 from the states Montana Supreme Court failure to act See 3-7-204 MCA Supervision and administration by Supreme Court also see Stevens request for supervisory control that was denied by the court see 3-2- 204 MCA Powers and duties of court on appeals in book 27-28-1 03 MCA see Book 2- 10- 104 MCA Guidelines for actions with taking implications see Book 2- 10- 102 MCA Purpose also see 85-2-3 1 1 MCA Criteria for issuance of permit {Guideline for taking) ie due process of law and equal protection of law in Montana's Water Use Act

3. Fact are the state by and through DNRC and the Attorney General office has intruded to our right to a fair trail 27-26-303 MCA [Substantial rights of parties] by and through deceit undue influence of the court orders for the protection of state employees see Article I1 section 34 see case DV-57 (a) Case 00-616 see Article IX for 85-2- 301 #3 MCA and 85-2-3 11#6 MCA this case was decided by other court decision 98-446 DV-95-70(b) Fraud obtain Judgments and in the U. S Bankruptcy Court and U. S. District Court

4. not on the criminal conduct of the State employees that would have been proven in any hearing request by .the Stevens in case DV-00- 57(A) 00-6 16 and for hearing not to dismiss

5. see All Stevens pleadings to our Supreme Court fiom 1998 Through Feb. 12, 2002 and when they did act it was in a criminal matter 27-1 - 7 12 MCA Liability for Deceit the deceit comes through the courts orders and denying our constitutional rights to a fair trail the right to a hearing to produce the evidence see Stevens request for Hearing to Montana Supreme Court for case 00-616 under rule 34 Of M.R. Civil P.

6. Fact are,!! the court orders is to deceit others that Stevens could not and did not have the evidence when in fact The Stevens have produce the evidence to the courts and defendants in these cases see Case's 98- 446 and 00-6 16 of Montana Supreme Court and Case's DV-95-70(b) and Case 00-57(A) and case 02-634 of the Eleventh Judicial District Court

7. Fact is, the proof of 45-7-201 Perjury 27-28-205 Unlawfbl assertion of authority 27-2-202 MCA Actions based on contract or other obligation 27-2-206 Action for legal malpractice 45-7-40 1 MCA Official Misconduct 45-7-303 MCA Obstructing justice 27-1 -7 12 MCA Liability for deceit 45 -4- 102 MCA Conspiracy 2- 10- 102 MCA taking of private property for Public use 45-7-207 MCA tampering with or fabricating evidence 45-6-325 MCA Forgery subverting the integrity of our courts by and through Extrinsic FRAUD

8. Fact is, all The Enviromental and Natural resources laws of Article IX of Montana Constitution and civil rights laws of our Montana and

U.S. constitution (Declaration of Rights) is violated by these named defendants

9. Fact is, from the cost trying and get our constitutional and contract rights enforced by and through our Courts and every other agency that has the duty to stop these kinds of actions (Attorney General) and named defendants

lO.Fact! Medore, Carsten's and Miller never had any legal right to dredge the Altenburg Slough at the time of the dredging or dose NOT have a water right for this stock-pond and recreation use see court records or had any priority to any surface water from the Altenburg Slough see 85-2-30 1 MCA see book 2-1 0-1 02 MCA Purpose

11. Fact, that Medore and Carsten's proved in court proceeding that .the dredging is for stock-watering see 85-2-102 MCA without any state permits see ACE No permit letter telling that they need to get all other permits In Book Plaintiffs Expert Witness List [Note other Expert may be called] Note that FRDO Mandated a Water Use Permit Note our laws Mandate permits

12.Note that DEQ gave them a permit without any regard to see if there was anyone using the water Note date when issued and Note time of Dredging in book 2- 10- 102 MCA Purpose (NO valid permit) taking without the due process of law no equal protection of the laws No public notice on this permit No action for violating these laws see Article I1 section 3 the right to a clean and healthful environment see pictures in BOOKS see Our declaration of Rights see Montana Supreme Court decision on Article I1 section 3 submitted to the courts by the Stevens in court records

13.Fact is, that The State By and through our laws has the duty to prosecute the named defendants for their criminal acts in and out of Court proceedings

14.Fact are, we are the class of persons that are to be protected from these lunds of criminal acts and to be compensated for the state actions

15. Facts are, that the courts has the duty under the rules of conduct to report these criminal acts by the attorney's of these cases and the duty to uphold and enforce of constitutional laws not only by law also by their contract to the people of the state Oath of Office see 1-1-403 MCA Allegiance

16.The Facts are, that the courts allowed irreparable injury and violations to constitutional rights by failing to uphold our laws and duty to our laws

17.Facts are, the courts actions did interfere with the administration of criminal justice UnlawM assertion of authority 27-28-205MCA 27-1 - 712 MCA Liability for deceit 45-7-303MCA obstructing justice and more criminal acts by the courts and named defendants

18. see State ex rel. Freebourn v. Carroll (1 929) 85 Mont. 439,279 P.234, at 235 citing [A] Court of equity has no jurisdiction in matters merely criminal or immoral it leaves the correction of these matters to the criminal courts

19. Facts are, that in all pleadings and complaints to all state agencies showed the criminal acts and violations of constitutional rights the evidence produced by The Stevens proved be on any doubt criminal acts in and out of court proceedings that the state had the duty to prosecute the right to state protection

20. Facts are, in case DV-02-634 In the Eleventh Judicial District Court and is another violation of Stevens rights for redness and compensation and to the right to state protection by Judge Stad.ler

21. Fact is, that Medore and the Carsten's used state employees to defiaud the government by and through their attorneys

22.Fact is, that the state of Montana state attorneys used deceit through out this action to protect state employees

23. Facts is there is some big problems in our Supreme Court when this court declines to look at our rights in our constitutions to protect public servants

Richard Stevens

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

3. Richard Stevens and Betty Stevens Plaintiffs and Appellants,

4. Department of Natual Resource and Conservation, Author (Bud) Clinch

5. Director Defendants and Respondents

6. Err and Legally insufficient to Dismiss and Breach of Duty, Bad Faith

7.

8. Pursuant to section 45-7-303 (2)(c) and 45-2-302 (3) MCA

9. Sec. 45- 7-303(2) (c ),MCA read as follows:

1 0. (1) for the purpose of this section "an offender "means a person who

1 1 .has been or is liable to be arrested, charged, convicted, or punished for

1 1 2. a public ogence.

13. (2) A person commits the offense of obstructing justice if, knowing a

1 4 .person is an offender, he purposely:

15. (C) provides an offender with / other means of avoiding discovety or

1 6. apprehension

1 7. Section 45-2-301 (3) I)f CA, states, in relevant part, that legal

18.accountability for the conduct of another exists wlzen" either before or

19. during the commission of an offense with the purpose to promote or

20.facilitate such commission, he solicits, aids, abets, agrees, or attempts

1. to aid such other person in the planning or commission of the offense"

2. . On the facts here that The State by and through Mr. Clinch and the

3. Department of DNRC has and the State by and through the Attorney

4. General Joesph P. Mazwek and Now Mike McGrath and by the

5. Assistant Attorney General Thomas G. Bowe has obstructed with the

6. Due Process of law in the breach of the Duty in which they have taken

7. an oath to uphold, provided in the Montana Constitution

8. citing from the Estate of Robert J. Strever Decided June 27,1996

9. In the frist place, Montana's Public policy, already set forth in our

10.Statutes and in force for decades, clearly and unequivocally imposes

I1.On Each citizen the legal duty to, in all matters, act prudently, with a

12. Kew To the nature andprobable consequences of his conduct, and to

13. Abstain from injuring other persons or their property or infringing on

4 Their Rights section 1-1-204, MCA and 28-1-201 MCA.

15. These Statutes, enacted by our legislature, makes no exception from the

16. duty of care so imposed on the basis of the 'status" of the individual

1 %injured by another person's act or failure to act in the manner

18.prescribed by these laws. Rather, these statues mandate that each

19.Person owes a general duty of care to every other person.. moreover, in

20. Furtherance of and consistent with that policy, our statutory law

I

1. imposes liability on those who either willfully or negligently breach

2. that duty of care--again regardless of the "status" of the person

3. Injured Section 2 7-1 - 701 MCA

4. While the special concurrence would carve out an exception from this

5. statutorily- imposed general duty of care for criminals who are injured

6. By another's breach of that duty, The black-letter law clearlv does not - 7. Make such an exce~tion The Attorney General office is not above the

8. laws of the Constitution has acted in bad faith

9. In this case the state was not only willfully and negligent to the duty to

10. care but is negligent to the 1973 water Use act and acted without the

1 1 .Authority infringing upon the Stevens Right to a fair trail.

12.[A]s a matter of law, a property owner owes a legal duty in this case

13. the State owns the water within the of the state section 85-2- 10 1 M C A

14. Declaration of policy and purpose ( I ) Pursuant to Article IX of the

15. Montana constitution , the legislature declares that any use of water is

16.A public use and that the waters within the state are the property of the

17.state for the use of its people and are subject to appropriation for

18. beneficial uses as provided in this chapter.

29.And dose owe a duty not only to The Stevens But to the laws in which

20. the are sworn to up hold see official Misconduct section 45-7-401 MCA

1. While the special concurrunce would carve out an exception from this

2. statutorily-imposed general duty of care for criminals who are injured

3. by other's breach of that dug

4. rather than upholding the public policy set by the legislature as

5. evidence in the referred-to statutes, the special concurrence would

6. simply ignore that policy in favor of one which rewards or punishes

7. negligent conduct on the basis of the status of person

8. injured unjbrtunately, in so doing, the special concurrence also

9. ignores the obligation of the courts to uphold and to fairly appEy, as

10. Written, all Constitutional laws.

11. We have not rewritten public policy in this opinion; we have, to

12. contrary, properly upheld and applied the policy which the public,

13.through its elected representatives, has enacted.

14.In this case The State shouldn't be shock that it is the owner of the water

15. and has The duty of care same for the attorney general office also to the

16.1973 water use act and to the Stevens constitutional rights section 3

1% Section 4. And section1 7 of article I1 of the Montana Constitution

18.Its not a shock to the legal water users of Montana that there is the

19. general duty to care and the 1973 water Use Act is the prevention of

20. a legal water user to protect their rights without the interference of the

1 . state See 85-2-301 MCA (3) 85-2-302 MCA 85-2-308 MCA 85-2-3 1 1

2. MCA ( 1 ) & (6)

3. These statutes clearly show the duty of the state and of the employee's of

4. the State as well as to the citizens of the state

5. Filler v. Richland County 247 Mont. 285

6. "Extrinsic fraud is some intentional act or conduct by which prevailing

7. party has prevent unsuccessful party from having fair submission of

8. controversy"

9. The subject matter here is the duty of the State to the laws of Montana

10. (citing from G-K Properties v. Redevlopment Agency, of San Jose

1 l .P Cir. 1978),577 F.2d 645,647

12. Rule 1 I , M. R Civ.P., provides: every pleading, motion, or other paper

13. of A party represented by an attorney shaN be signed by at least one

14. Attorney.. . The signature.. . constitutes a certificate by the signer that

15. The signer has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the

16. Best of Signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after

17. Reasonable Inquirv it is well grounded in fact and is warranted bv

18. Existing law. And that it is not interposed for any improper purpose,

I9.Such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in

20. The cost of Litigation

1. Again the fact of the Matter is the laws in the 1973 water use Act

2. The Obligation of the State to its duty to the general duty to care and

3. To Its duty to section 85-2-101 MCA and section 28-1-102 MCA

4. See Hodges v. Cannon (Arl. Ct. App. 1999)

5. The purpose of the Montana rules of Civil Procedure is to "secure the

6. just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action"

7. Rule I , M.RCivil P. When litigants and their attorneys abuse the rules

8. They are subject to sanctions, See Sullivan, 268 Mont. at 77,885 P.2d

9. At 493.

10. The state has continued to obstruct the Stevens Rights through the

1 1. DNRC and Now the Attorney General office

12. It is clear that Mr.Bowe has never look at h s obligations of his duties

13.The Attorney General office shouldn't be obstructing justice

14. By the 28- 1 - 102 MCA this is an operation of law in which the Attorney

15.General office has the duty to enforce and uphold

16. It has been held in Cirtco Enterpises,Znc. v. Benso Okla890 P.2d 866

1 7. (1 994) Statements of Counsel Brief or in argument are not sufJiient

1 8 for motion to dismiss Tinsey K Pagliaro D. C Pa (1 964) 229

19. F.Supp. 64% Where there are No depositions, admissions, answers to

20.interrogatories, or affldavifi in support of motion for summary

1. conclusion, the motion can not be considered see O.S. Title 12 chapter

2. 12 Rule 13 Pro se litigants can not be dismissed for failure to state a

3. claim upon which relief can be granted see Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S.

4. 51 9 (1 972)

5. The defendants has not even offered any law to prove that Medore never

6. needed a permit for dredging the Altenburg Slough that on part of

/ 7. Medore's property, by law Medore needs two permits from DNRC

8. By willful Misconduct the State by and through the DNRC and

9. Mr.Clinch permitted Aided assisted with an unauthorized appropriation

10.0f water for Medore without the due process of the 1973 Water Use Act.

11. By the operation of law 85-2-3 1 2 (6) MCA the state emnployee's

12.wa.s forbidden to do and failed to the duty of the obligation to

13. 85-2- 1 12 MCA ; department duties: the department Shall:

14. (1) Enforce and administer this chapter

15. As of todav Medore has no permit for this stock pond

16. See Adj.of the Musselshall River Drainage 255 Monk 43 (1 992)

I 7. citing the supreme court " stating that all new appropriations must be

18. establised through a water use permit system the right to appropriate

19.water may not be acquired by any other method section 85-2-301 (3)

20. MCA " and in 79 Ranch Inc v. Pitch 204 Mont 426 "The Supreme

1. Courtjhe 1973 Water Use Act of 1973 section 89-880 (1) 1947 (now

2. 85-2-301 MCA) emphatically stated that it contained the exclusive

3. procedures for acquisition of water rights after 1973.

4. In July of 1997 the U.S. Bankruptcy Court found that Medore made

5. A Stock-pond with the aid of employees of the state by and through

6. The DNRC {see the defendants exhibits in the court records)

7. In February of 1997 The employee's of DNRC obstructed Justice

8. with the Stevens right to a fair trail and again in June of 1998

9. Through fraud and misrepsention of laws of the 1973 water use act

10. Section 45-7-401 MCA Offical Misconduct

11.(1) A public servant commits the offence of Offical misconduct when

12. in his Offical capacity, which he knows or with the purpose to obtain

13.advantage for himself or for another performs an act in excess of his

14. lawful authority

15.in this case the advantage was for Medore not to pay EPA a fine of

16. $125,000 and to appropriate water without the due process of the

17. 1973 water Use Act to gain water to gain attorney fees from EPA

18. and not to pay the Stevens damages for interfering with the rights of

19. the Stevens

20.The attorney General office should investigate just what the

1. employee's of the state got for their part in this instead of wasting

2. the Supreme Court time and the Stevens time and money

3. The action of the employee's of DNRC has cost the Stevens

4. A fair trail and the lost of the equal protection of the laws

5. Denied the due process of the law

6. ISSUE OF THE OFFENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY

7. ACCOCTNTABILITY

8. State v. Ahmed (1994) 278 Mont.200,207,924 P.2d 679

9. We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict in

10.a criminal case to determine whether, after viewing the evidence in

1l.the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact

12.could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a

13.reasonable doubt. State v. Lantis, 1998 Mt.172,32,966 P.2d 147,

14.32,55 St.Rep.694,32.

15.Now the action of the attorney general office is obstructing justice

16. By trying to get this case dismissed

17.Lf the Attorney General office used their duty of care the Stevens

18.Would not be losing their home over the action of the State By and

19.through Mr. Clinch and DNRC

!O.the is sustainable evidence to prove the Obstruction of Justice

1. In the Court records from the defendants and from the Stevens

2. Beyond reasonable doubt Just read the Laws of the Montana

3. Constitution Section 3 and 4 and 17 of Montana Constitution

4. the 1973 Water Use Act and section 1-1-204 MCA & 28-1-201 MCA

5. "Quoting" (Woff v. McDonnell(1974) U.S. 539,557,94 Ct.2963,2975,

6. 41 L,Ed.2d 935,951) In determining whether a liberty interest

7. existed, we state [a] liberty interest is when the legislature expressly

8. mandates to an agency the performance of some activity to be

9. carried out within specific parameters which include definition,

lO.criteria, and mandates "shalls" { see 85-2-101 MCA the intent of the

11. legislature.)

12.27-2-202 MCA actions based on contract or other obligation

13. the obligation here is the operation of law in which liability is

14,founded upon an instrument in writing and is 8 years

15. from May of 1993 the state has acted in bad faith

16. and now the Attorney General ofice

1 7.

18. Richard Stevens P.O.Box 296 Somers Mont.59932 (406) 857-3839

1 . IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

7. ) )

8.RICHARD STEVENS AND BETTY STEVENS ) Plaintiffs ) Case No.

9. v. 1 0 1-203

10. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND) CONSERVATION, ARTHUR @UD) CLINCH 1

1 I. Director Defendants ) )

12. ORDER

2 3. Defendants motion to Dismiss can not lawfblly considered

14, by this court Defendant's to dismiss pleads matters off record

15. Facts of issue is under the 1973 water use Act Title 85 Chapter 2 MCA

16. See U.S. Supreme Court (1 972) Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 5 19

17. Prisoner's pro se complaint seeking to recover damages for claimed

18.physical injuries and deprivation of rights in imposing disciplinary

19. confinement should not have dismissed without affording him the

20.opportunity to present evidence on his claim

1. The Stevens has never had the opportunity to an evidence hearing

2. as the requested on 27 O f March 2000 (see order of Plaintiffs)

3. Stevens claim through out this preceding was that Mr. Clinch and the

4. DNRC has been and still is committing fraud and Misrepsention of the

5. 1973 water Use Act And the judgments was made through fraud and

6. misrepsention by employee's of the state by and through the DNRC

7. and has offered evidence of that evidence would be

8. admissible to the court

9. This court fmds that the state by and through Mi-.Arthur (Bud) Clinch

1O.Director of DNRC and the Department has acted in malice recklessly

1 1 .Matter and is in non-compliance with the 1973 Water Use Act.

12. In the same matter obstructed justice to the Stevens allowing

13.employee's of the state DNRC to commit fraud and misrepsention

14. of the duty of the Department of DNRC

15. The defendants has never offer any evidence or law to show that

16.The Conduct of the defendants was just. Or any law showing their action

17. Is within the law

18.Hicks v. Oklahoma supra also Fetterly V. Paskett 997 F.2d 1295,1300

19.The 9th Circuit Of Appeal as well as the United States Supreme Court of

20. Appeals has held on more then one occasion, the failure of a state to

1. Abide by its own statutory commands, may implicate a liberty interest

2. protected by the fourthteenth amendment,

3. 45-7-40 1 MCA Official Misconduct

4. (1) A public servent commits the offence of official misconduct when

5. In his official capacity, he purposely or negligently fails to perform any

6. Mandatory duty as required by law or by a court competent jurisdiction

7. Or knowingly perform an act in h s official capacity which he knows is

8. forbidden by law or with the purpose to obtain advantage for himself or

9. another, performs an act inexceess of his lawfbl authority

10. 28-1 - 10 1 .definitions; (I) An obligation is a legal duty by which

1 1 .a person is bound to do or not to do a certain thing

12.28- 1 - 1 02 MCA how obligations arise; and obligation arise either from

13.(1) the contract of parties; or (2) the operation of law

14. 85-2-101 MCA (3) it's the policy of this state and the purpose of this

15. chapter to encourage the use of the states water by making them

16. available for appropriation consistent with this chapter

1 7.85-2- 1 12 MCA Department duties. The department shall; enforce

18. and administer this chapter

19.42 U.S.C. section 1983 States: Every person who under the color of any

20. Statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State.. . subject,

1. or cause to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person

2. within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,

3. immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to party

4. injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for

5. redress to prevail on the due process claim Plaintiff must prove that a

6. defmite liberty or property interest and that such was under the color of

7. state law abridged without the appropriate process

8. See Brosd of Regents v. Roth 408 U.S. 564,569-70,92 Ct.2701,2705,

9. 33 L.E.2d 548 (1972)

10. Mr. Stevens dose have a property interest in Altenburg Slough and a

11. the Stevens do have an liberty interest in the Due Process of the

12.Constitutional laws 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 and in the Montana

13. Constitution Article [I section 17 and 4 and 3

I 14. FACTS AND FINDJNG

1S.That the Stevens constitutional rights has been violated by the state of

16.Montana by and through Mr. Arthur (Bud) Clinch as Director of the

17. DNRC and by the department of DNRC

18.111 the Montana Constitution Article 1 1 Sections 3, 4, and 17

19. has caused damages from the actions and non-action of the state

20.the right to a fair trail and allow property damage

4

1. or cause to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person

2. w i w the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,

3. immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to party

4. injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for

5. redress to prevail on the due process claim Plaintiff must prove that a

6. defmite liberty or property interest and that such was under the color of

7. state law abridged without the appropriate process

8. See Brosd of Regents v. Roth 408 U.S. 564,569-70,92 Ct.2701,2705,

9. 33 L.E.2d 548 (1972)

10. Mr. Stevens dose have a property interest in Altenburg Slough and a

1 1. the Stevens do have an liberty interest in the Due Process of the

12.Constitutional laws 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 and in the Montana

13. Constitution Article I1 section 17 and 4 and 3

14. FACTS AND FINDING

15. That the Stevens constitutional rights has been violated by the state of

16.Montana by and through Mr. Arthur (Bud) Clinch as Director of the

17. DNRC and by the department of DNRC

( 18. In the Montana Constitution Article 1 1 Sections 3, 4, and 17

19. has caused damages from the actions and non-action of .the state

20.the right to a fair trail and allow property damage

1. it is here by order by this court on this day of March 200 1

2.that the State of Montana and Mr. Arthur (Bud) Clinch to pay the Stevens

3.Damages for the cost and lost of the Stevens income and lost of their

4. Property under section 2-9-10 1 MCA(1) claim means any claim against

5. Governmental entity, for money damages only, which any person is

6. legally entitled to recover as damages because of personal injury or

7. property caused by a negligent or wrongful act or omission committed by

1 8. any employee of the governmental entity while acting within the scope of

9. his employment, under circumstances where the governmental entity, if a

1O.private person would be liable to the claimant for such damages under the

I 1 1. laws of the state

1 13. CHIEF JUSTICE