Evidence

The document below (names changed/removed as indicated) was sent to the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility in a complaint I filed against Spring's lawyer, Nelly Wince. It was also filed with the Court after it was referenced by Spring in a an affidavit.

In my experience perjury, lying and fraud by litigants and lawyers is very common in divorce cases. And unfortunately bad lawyers are very skilled in making sure that such actions cannot be proven. For example, Spring stated in an affidavit that I was abusive and that this had alienated me from the children. This is totally false and constitutes perjury, a very serious crime. But how can I prove that? I pleaded with the Court on several occasions to simply talk to the children but was refused when Nelly Wince objected. A lawyer I talked to told me that I even if I obtained an affidavit from the children once they turned 18 and they testified in the strongest possible terms that Spring's statements were knowingly false it would do no good as Spring could simply state that was how she felt. In fact, the lawyer told me that it would hurt my case to have the children provide an affidavit or testify which I find totally bizarre.


Another example is that I have a stack of checks that Spring admitted to the Court she forged my signature on. Forgery is a very serious crime. In counseling with a minister, one she chose I'll add, Spring agreed with the minister that her doing so was “evil”. However, in a sworn affidavit filed with the Court she stated she had my permission to sign the checks with my name. So she committed perjury on top of forgery. Yet, this did not hurt her case one bit.  

With my lawyers and others I have talked to it sometimes becomes a game where I try to get them to put statements that are of dubious veracity into writing but they insist on meeting in person or discussing the matter over the phone.

The exception to this occurred at a hearing where Nelly Wince committed the infractions detailed in my complaint. As the complaint is based solely on documents filed with the court and an official transcript of the hearing (all publicly available) it constitutes about as strong of a case as can be imagined. I can distinctly remember the day I received the transcript. In reading it, I realized that I had incontrovertible evidence that Nelly Wince lied in court. I truly believed that a a minimum she would be publicly rebuked and likely have her license suspended if not simply disbarred. Her actions were blatant and malicious. Little did I understand how institutionally corrupt the system had become.

An investigation was opened Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and a real estate lawyer was assigned to the case. However the investigator was later changed to another person who I found out much later was a divorce mediator. To state the obvious, the investigator was a person whose livelihood depended to a large part on referrals from divorce lawyers. The investigation was, in my opinion, a whitewash. The report reads like something one would expect from Saddam Hussein or Vladimir Putin's government. It would be comic if it were not so tragic. An appeal was dismissed in a similar manner.

Judge Mearly told me, without even reading the evidence, that I should not disparage Ms. Wince's name and doing so would hurt my case as he knew that she was a fine lawyer.

Of great significance here is that Nelly Wince was confident enough that neither the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, nor Judge Mearly, nor law enforcement would take any action against her for lying in court no matter how strong the evidence. This, I think, strongly supports my belief that the divorce system is institutionally corrupt. This does not, I'll emphasis, mean that all lawyers, divorce or otherwise, are corrupt. Certainly there are many fine lawyers but I think it is clear that unethical and criminal behavior is common within the divorce system. All too often this leads to the good and innocent suffering while the bad and criminal are rewarded.

Complaint against Nelly Wince

Although the evidence against Nelly Wince is clear it isn't the most exciting read if you are not directly affected by it. Therefore I will summarize in plain words complaint # 1 below which is the one with the strongest evidence.

At the hearing Ms. Wince stated that in my response to her motion I had not sent an employment evaluation that was done on Spring. The judge received an identical packet and when in court he stated that the evaluation was in his packet she stated, “ I did not receive any of that.” This was a knowingly false statement by Ms. Wince. To make matters worse she later stated, “And I'm really disturbed by the fact that I didn't receive a complete copy of the submissions.” Again another false statement. The fact of the matter is:
  1. Two identical packets were created and stapled by the self-help center official in the courthouse. One was sent to Judge Mearly and the other to Shelly Wince.
  2. An Affidavit of Personal Service was created and signed by a third party that proves the evaluation was sent to Ms. Wince.
  3. The evaluation was mentioned several times in other documents, which Ms. Wince does not deny receiving, in the packet.

Not only did Nelly Wince lie when she stated she did not receive the evaluation she did so in a malicious manner by stating that she was, “really disturbed” at not receiving it.

The employment evaluation was a critical component in that it stated that Spring could make just as much as me and it also showed that she had not applied for a single position in her most marketable fields. At a minimum this should have eliminated all spousal support. Due to Ms. Wince's false statements, I am not even sure the judge read the evaluation.


Filed Complaint Against Nelly Wince

Background

In 2009 my then wife <Spring – real name removed> filed for divorce. She was represented from the onset by <Nelly Wince - real name removed> of <name removed>. The case was filed in County, Second District and the Court file Number is . The type is Dissolution with Children.

From the beginning the plaintiff's strategy was to use false statements, false innuendos and outright perjury to obtain as much money from me as possible. A secondary strategy was to force me to spend a much as possible defending myself so that I would settle. This strategy worked brilliantly. I was forced into a a horribly unfair settlement in mid-2010. The settlement included temporary spousal support until the end of 2011. It also included a provision that required us to start negotiations for a permanent agreement no later than <month removed> 2011.

Immediately upon the signing of the decree, the plaintiff started breaking the agreement in fact and intent. I attempted to negotiate a resolution as the J and D stipulated; however, my letter and proposal to <Ms. Wince - real name removed> received no response.

In <month removed> of 2011 I filed a motion for the elimination of spousal support among other matters. A hearing was held in on <date removed>2011 where my motion was dismissed and I was required to pay the plaintiff's legal fees to respond to the motion.

Complaints

During the motion hearing <Ms. Wince - real name removed> committed several acts that are clear violations of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct . Furthermore and more seriously, these acts clearly constitute fraud on the court.

A transcript of the hearing has been created and is on file with the court.

Specific Complaint 1
<Ms. Wince - real name removed> falsely stated to the court that an employment evaluation performed on <Spring – real name removed> in 2009 was not received by her as part of the motion filing.

From Transcript:

Pages 23-25
4 THE COURT: Not having reviewed all of

5 Petitioner's documents, and the answer may be within

6 those documents, is it true that <Spring - real name removed> has

7 not pursued work in the area of hotel management?

8 <Ms. Wince - real name removed>: If you look at --

9 THE COURT: No, no. <Ms. Wince - real name removed>.

10 <Ms. Wince - real name removed>: If you look at her

11 Exhibit 5, which is quite extensive, Your Honor, that

12 is not her only area of expertise. Right now she's

13 in communications and web site, which is what she's

14 been doing for a number of years, that's really where

15 her criteria lies. As far as I know, the vocational

16 evaluation that the Respondent continues to refer to

17 is, number one, not part of the court file. This was

18 done as part of the divorce proceeding, and all of

19 those facts were known before we settled the issue of

20 spousal maintenance and those are clearly not her

21 areas of expertise.

22 THE COURT: Okay.

23 <Ms. Wince - real name removed>: In this case.

24 THE COURT: So you would take the

25 position that even though she underwent employment or

1 employability evaluation she's not in any way bound

2 by the conclusion of that evaluator?

3 <Ms. Wince - real name removed>: That wasn't the conclusion,

4 Your Honor, which I know is not part of this court

5 file. Event planning is what her area of expertise

6 was in, and that's where she's not been able to find

7 -- and you can see, she's applied at coffee shops

8 even, and hasn't even gotten jobs at coffee shops.

9 It's a tough economy.

10 THE COURT: The evaluation is at least

11 part of the submissions that has provided.

12 <Ms. Wince - real name removed>: That was not part of what

13 was provided to me, Your Honor. I did not receive

14 any exhibits. So I would like --

15 THE COURT: We have a document filed in

16 February 8th, 2011, and it's Document 42 in the court

17 file. It's a <date removed>, 2009 evaluation by

18 <name removed> regarding <Spring – real name removed>, now

19 <name removed>.

20 <Ms. Wince - real name removed>: Could the court tell me what

21 else was filed with <my – name removed> affidavit?

22 THE COURT: Well, you can take a look

23 in the file.

24 : I did not receive any of

25 that. The only thing I received was his pay stubs as

1 part of an exhibit, so that is why our affidavit does

2 not address the vocational evaluation. Because we

3 did not know that he had filed it with his motion,

4 otherwise I certainly would have done that, Your

5 Honor.

6 THE COURT: Okay.

7 <Ms. Wince - real name removed>: And I'm really disturbed by

8 the fact that I didn't receive a complete copy of the

9 submissions.

<Ms. Wince's - real name removed> multiple statements (pg 23 lines 15-17, pg 24 lines 3-4, lines 12-14, lines 20-21, pg 24 line 24 – page 25 line 5, page 25 lines 7-9) that the vocational evaluation was not part of the packet was knowingly false and made to deceive the court. The packet for the court as well as the one <Ms. Wince - real name removed> received were in fact copied and stapled by the self-help center official in the courthouse. The Affidavit of Service clearly states that it was included. Furthermore the Supplemental Affidavit in Support of Motion to Modify Child Support and Spousal Maintenance filed by me and also received by <Ms. Wince - real name removed> specifically mentions the employment evaluation

From the Affidavit of Personal Service submitted by dated 28 February 2011:
I served the attached documents, namely Notice of Motion and Motion to Modify Child Support/Spousal Maintenance, Affidavit in Support of Motion to Modify Child Support/Spousal Support, Supplemental Affidavit in Support of Motion to Modify Child Support/Spousal Support, Financial Affidavit for Child Support, Pay stubs for for the periods June 2010 and December 2010, and Vocational Assessment of <Spring - real name removed> performed by ame removed
>. “

From the Supplemental Affidavit in Support of Motion to Modify Child Support and Spousal Maintenance:
I am requesting a hearing to eliminate spousal support, have <Spring's - real name removed> income imputed to be in line with the employment evaluation and other items listed below. “

and
An employment evaluation was done by <name removed> in <month removed> of 2009 which states that <Spring - real name removed> within a few years of trying should be able to have an income of $80,000.”

Specific Complaint 2
<Ms. Wince - real name removed>'s assertion to the court that she did not receive an offer from me date <date removed>, 2011 was knowingly false and was made to deceive the court.

From Transcript:
Page 19

14 quote, offer, end of quote, that made to me

15 on <date removed> of 2011, Your Honor, I did not

16 consider that an offer, whatsoever, and Rule 408 does

17 not allow me to tell the court what that letter said

18 to me, but I can tell you that we did not respond

19 because we did not consider that an offer, as

20 <me – name removed> has alluded to the court here.


As far as I can tell rule 409 has no bearing on the matter as it relates to liability or invalidity. <Ms. Wince - real name removed> did, in fact, receive an offer from me. was denying that she received the offer in order to deceive the court on why she did not reply to it.

Minnesota Rules of Evidence
Effective July 1, 1977
With amendments effective through September 1, 2006
Rule 408. Compromise and Offers to Compromise
Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to
accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations. This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

Except form Letter to <date removed> -by detailing the proposal:
Before I file the motion, I am willing to negotiate a settlement. My proposal is:
  1. The immediate elimination of spousal support
  2. <Spring's - real name removed> income be imputed to be in line with the vocational evaluation that was preformed on her.
  3. <Spring – real name removed> be required to pay for one third of high school tuition for the children at Cretin-Derham Hall. She can easily accomplish this through Cretin-Derham Hall concession work if desired.

This proposal is substantially less than I will ask for in a motion. I am willing to settle for it now only to avoid going through what would be an extremely painful court process for both parties as well as the children.

I await your reply. If a prompt reply is not received, I will proceed with filing the motion.”

Specific Complaint 3
<Ms. Wince's - real name removed> statement that hotel/motel management “are clearly” not part of <Spring – real name removed> areas of expertise was knowingly false and was made to deceive the court.

From Transcript:
page 23
10 <Ms. Wince - real name removed>: If you look at her

11 Exhibit 5, which is quite extensive, Your Honor, that

12 is not her only area of expertise. Right now she's

13 in communications and web site, which is what she's

14 been doing for a number of years, that's really where

15 her criteria lies. As far as I know, the vocational

16 evaluation that the Respondent continues to refer to

17 is, number one, not part of the court file. This was

18 done as part of the divorce proceeding, and all of

19 those facts were known before we settled the issue of

20 spousal maintenance and those are clearly not her

21 areas of expertise.

The vocation evaluation clearly states that <Spring's - real name removed> most marketable skills are in Hotel/Motel management.

vocational evaluation (/2009)
performed by
Considering her skills, educational accomplishments, and background qualifications, <Spring – real name removed> has several occupational directions she could pursue. She would qualify for employment as a Hotel/Motel Assistant Manager with earnings in the $40,000 to $45,000/year range. With several years of work experience, <Spring – real name removed> would qualify for a Hotel/Motel General Manager position which offers earnings in the $60,000 to $80,00/year range.”

Specific Complaint 4
<Ms. Wince's - real name removed> statement that spousal support was settled was knowingly false and was made to deceive the court.

From Transcript:
page 23
17 is, number one, not part of the court file. This was

18 done as part of the divorce proceeding, and all of

19 those facts were known before we settled the issue of

20 spousal maintenance and those are clearly not her

21 areas of expertise.

The J and D clearly states that the issue of spousal support is not resolved.

J and D filed 2010, finding of fact #6
The issue of the amount of spousal maintenance and whether spousal maintenance will be temporary or permanent will be addressed at a review hearing to be scheduled no later than December 31, 2011.”

Summary

Although I am not a lawyer and am not currently represented by legal counsel, it is eminently, even obviously, clear that <Ms. Wince - real name removed> has violated both her ethical oath to be truthful as well as committed the more serious criminal acts of fraud on the court. For the latter, the effect on court was clear as <Ms. Wince - real name removed>, in effect, accused me of fraud in court which caused the judge to discount my testimony on all matters. The evidence is incontrovertible and clear. It is difficult to imagine any reasonable person concluding otherwise.

In my experience <Ms. Wince's - real name removed> modus operandi has been to willfully and knowingly break her ethical oath to be truthful but to do so in a way where it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. She uses the excuse of advocacy to operate unethically. However she has now gone too far As the above evidence makes clear, the proof of her malfeasance at the <date removed>th hearing is overwhelming and clear. I ask the board to simply look at the facts relating to the specific complaints I have made above.

I would like to point out the egregiousness of <Ms. Wince's - real name removed> actions. This is not a minor billing or paperwork issue that might result in a private rebuke. Nor are her acts of fraud on the court ones of omission where she knowingly allowed false statements to be made by her client without informing the court they were false. (although she certainly has done that as well) These are active, calculated efforts to deceive the court.

In the case of her claiming that the employment evaluation was not sent to her as part of the motion packet, is it inconceivable that somehow <Ms. Wince's - real name removed> office “lost” the document. It was clearly listed in Affidavit of Service and mentioned in my affidavit. Note that <Ms. Wince – real name removed> stated to the court, “And I'm really disturbed by the fact that I didn't receive a complete copy of the submissions.” Clearly this false accusation is an attempt to deceive the judge.

I do now know how common <Ms. Wince's - real name removed> actions are within the legal profession. But I do know they are unethical and illegal. I ask the ethical board to take the strongest possible action against <Ms. Wince - real name removed>. The facts are clear. As there is no reason to believe <Ms. Wince - real name removed> has behaved differently in my case than other cases she has been involved with, failure to take strong action against <Ms. Wince - real name removed> will send a message to all lawyers who have worked with her, opposed her, or been present in the court when she has appeared that breaking the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct is not only tolerated but condoned. Furthermore it will have the chilling effect of encouraging lawyers to commit acts of fraud on the court.

I have listed the statements of fact that are most obviously fraudulent. However, there are numerous others that I assume will be brought to light in a full investigation. In addition, <Ms. Wince - real name removed> along with <Spring – real name removed> has willfully and fraudulently committed several Misrepresentations of Asset Values. Again I assume that these will be brought to light in a full investigation.

Although the ethical complaint process is somewhat opaque, I am assuming that board has full access to court records for this case. If desired, I can provide full copies of any document mentioned in this submission.

I do realize it is somewhat unusual for the ethical board to discipline an opposing lawyer especially without a court ruling. Indeed, I believe <Ms. Wince - real name removed> is relying on the fact that it is difficult to bring ethical action against an opposing attorney to shield her from punishment. However, in this case <Ms. Wince's - real name removed> actions are so flagrant and the evidence is so incontrovertible that that strong action by the board is not only warranted but required by the rules. I ask the board to carefully review the facts I have presented. You will find that they so clearly break the Minnesota rules for Professional Conduct that strong action is necessary.

On a final note, I would like to state that I have been disappointed and amazed at the unethical and fraudulent behavior that I have seen during these legal proceedings. I have been completely truthful and honest in all aspects only to be confronted by lies, unwarranted personal attracts, and fraud. To be frank, it is disillusioning. I only hope that what I have seen is an aberration from normal and not simply the way the system works.

<me - name removed>
<date removed>, 2011


MINNESOTA RULES
OF
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Effective October 1, 2005,
with amendments through July 1, 2010

RULE 4.1: TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS

Misrepresentation
[1] A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally
has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if
the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false.
Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the
equivalent of affirmative false statements. For dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false
statement or for misrepresentations by a lawyer other than in the course of representing a client, see
Rule 8.4.
Statements of Fact
[2] This rule refers to statements of fact. Whether a particular statement should be regarded as
one of fact can depend on the circumstances. Under generally accepted conventions in negotiation,
certain types of statements ordinarily are not taken as statements of material fact. Estimates of price or
value placed on the subject of a transaction and a party’s intentions as to an acceptable settlement of a
claim are ordinarily in this category, and so is the existence of an undisclosed principal except where
nondisclosure of the principal would constitute fraud. Lawyers should be mindful of their obligations
under applicable law to avoid criminal and tortious misrepresentation.

RULE 8.4: MISCONDUCT
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
111
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly
assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or
official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or
other law;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of
applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law;
(g) harass a person on the basis of sex, race, age, creed, religion, color, national
origin, disability, sexual orientation, or marital status in connection with a lawyer’s
professional activities;
(h) commit a discriminatory act prohibited by federal, state, or local statute or
ordinance that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer. Whether a
discriminatory act reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer shall be
determined after consideration of all the circumstances, including:
(1) the seriousness of the act,
(2) whether the lawyer knew that the act was prohibited by statute or
ordinance,
(3) whether the act was part of a pattern of prohibited conduct, and
(4) whether the act was committed in connection with the lawyer’s
professional activities; or
(i) refuse to honor a final and binding fee arbitration award after agreeing to f
arbitrate a fee dispute.

No comments:

Post a Comment