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:
- 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.
- An Affidavit of Personal Service was created and signed by a third party that proves the evaluation was sent to Ms. Wince.
- 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 name 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:
- The immediate elimination of spousal support
- <Spring's - real name removed> income be imputed to be in line with the vocational evaluation that was preformed on her.
- <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.
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