The facts set forth herein are substantiated by excerpts from the court record establishing an undeniable collusion in the parties from the judicial record in Pondera Cause No. 8509 wherein our farm, worth several million was stolen under the color of law and/or authority.
Montana Case Law provides:
Randall Swanberg gave a clear explanation of how the whole conspiracy worked when he was invited as counsel for Farmers State Bank to discuss setting aside the Bouma land exchange contract with Larry C. Iverson, Inc. Swanberg asked:
Q. “Do you want to own Ralph Bouma’s farm?”
Swanberg was asked:
Q. “What legal basis is there to set aside Ralph Bouma’s contract with Larry C. Iverson, Inc.”
A. “Candidly there is none, however, if you want his land I will get it for you.’
A. “We will liken it unto a game of chess. We will just out-maneuver him. If you want his land I can get it for you.”
COLLUSION IN THE PARTIES
The Honorable Robert S. Keller as presiding judge over Pondera County Causes 8221 – 8073 Consolidated was clearly in collusion with Earl M. Berthelson, President of Farmers State Bank by and through his counsel, Randall Swanberg, and Cresap S. McCracken, counsel for the United Bank of Pueblo to take the Bouma’s farm without any chance to defend as is evident on pages 12-16 in Exhibit “A”.
a). Ralph Bouma was advised that Berthelson boasted that his Counsel Randall Swanberg, had found a law whereby they could take Ralph Bouma’s farm without Bouma ever seeing a day in court. Bouma was advised that Moor’s Federal Practice provides that:
“If a person attends trial throughout they can be considered as having their day in court.”
This was accomplished by:
(b). Sandy McCracken, counsel for United Bank of Pueblo caused a subpoena to be served upon Ralph Bouma to appear at the courtroom in the Pondera County courthouse at 10:00 October 5, 1970 to testify in behalf of his client. Exhibit “A” at APP-145.
c). Judge Keller ordered that day that:
“any witnesses who have been subpoenaed for today [who was Ralph Bouma only] the subpoena shall continue in existence until the trial is concluded.” Exhibit “A” at APP – 148.
Judge Keller reinforced this order upon a continuance of trial with:
“Let the record show that we have reconvened in open court, and the reason for reconvening is to simply inform all witnesses [Ralph Bouma being the only witness present] who have been subpoenaed in this matter that their subpoena will continue in full force and effect . . . and your presence will be required at that date and each continuing date until you have been excused, or trial concludes. Transcript page – 149.
(d). At the taking of Judge Keller’s deposition he clearly applied Berthelson’s boast that “If a person attends trial throughout they can be considered as having their day in court.” Where he testified with regard to Ralph Bouma being able to have his day in court. As a witness under Subpoena there was no standing to be heard, and request to intervene by counsel were denied twice. Yet Judge Keller testified:
I’m satisfied that in your collaboration with Treadaway and Krull that there was nothing that was missed from a factual point. From a theoretical legal point, I suppose there are things that you could have brought up, but factually, no. You were there the whole time.” Transcript pages 150-153
(e). Treadaway and Krull as the defendants were denied any semblance of a defense themselves during trial by not being able to cross-examining witnesses on several instances, a few of which are quoted on pages 12-13 in Exhibit “A” page 12.
f). At the conclusion of trial Treadaway and Krull were asked how much time they needed to put on their defense. Their answer was: : [page 13 – 15 with pertinent APP in exhibit “A”
Well you gave the Plaintiffs two and a half weeks to put on their case, and I will need about the same amount of time to put on a defense.”
Judge Keller’s response was:
“Now look. It’s 2pm. And I’ve checked out of my motel, and I’m going back to Kalispell at 5pm. If you want to be sitting here for two and one half weeks, you may, but I won’t be here.” Exhibit “A” Pages 13-15
JUDGE KELLER ADAMANTLY DENIED THESE FACTS AT THE TAKING OF HIS DEPOSITION,
UNTIL UPON FURTHER EXAMINATION ON PAGES 594-596 THE FOLLOWING OCCURRED.
“Now, if Bill May, the court reporter, was in court and would testify that he heard it, would you deny it?”
“Well, then I would have to take another look at my whole card.”
“Well, what if Sandy McCracken, counsel for United [Colorado] Bank, was in court and would testify that it happened, would you deny it?”
“Well now, I remember John C. Treadaway saying that, but I also remember the big smile on his face and that it was just in jest.”
If there was any joke it was certainly between Judge Keller and his co-conspirators. This was a most solemn event to witness the sitting judge in collusion with a plaintiff to deprive the defendants of their right to defend themselves. They were denied a right to cross-examine witnesses—being constantly assured that they would have plenty time at the end of trial to present their defense— and they were totally deprived of a right to present any defense at all at the end of trial.
However, when Judge Keller wrote his Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law at the end of the case, he made special note that “the defendants had brought no defense,” even though he did not say it was because he had denied them that right. Therefore, all of the plaintiff’s case was taken to be true and correct.
Another thing brought out in the deposition of Judge Keller that I want to mention is that Judge Keller admitted all the evidence was admittedly brought in out of context. On almost every one of the court’s findings I showed the judge the facts, which were opposite from his findings. So, I asked Keller:
“Didn’t you realize that all the evidence was out of context?”
“Now then, didn’t you feel it was your duty to ask that the evidence be brought into context?”
“No. That’s for the attorney on the other side to do it.”
See how Judge Keller was speaking with a forked tongue by saying about Krull and Treadaway:
“Now they might not object but my patience is growing extremely thin on that. You are going to have lots of time to tell us why you put those entries there.”
Thereby, Judge Keller denied them the right to place the truth back into context by denying them their right to cross-examine the witnesses. Where was this “lots of time” they were going to have to bring the truth back into context when Judge Keller denied any right to defend themselves at the end of trial?
Judge Keller Further Denied Any Right To Defend Through The Use Extortion By A Threat Of Criminal Prosecution For Ordering A Transcript Of Proceedings To Prevent Any Possibility Of Appeal!
a). ordering the Receiver to confer with the county attorney about prosecuting the corporate officers and Ralph Bouma for fraudulent conveyances 94-2101 R.C.M. and larceny 94-2701, M.R.C.M.. “in the event a transcript of these proceedings is made, for any reason” [including any attempt to appeal]. [See page16 in exhibit “A”.
(b). by preventing the corporate officers from exercising their right to appeal without being exposed to criminal prosecution for ordering a transcript, and holding Ralph Bouma bound by his Judgment in Pondera Cause 8221 – 8073 consolidated on the basis that Bouma had attended all the proceedings –
Judge Keller granted full credence to Randall Swanberg’s GAME OF CHESS, and Earl Berthelson’s boast that he “had found a law whereby they could take the farm from Ralph Bouma without Bouma ever seeing a day in court.” This was attempted to be done by Keller’s finding that Bouma’s Land Exchange Contract with Larry C. Iverson, Inc. was “Improvidently entered into and an ultra vies act of Larry C. Iverson, Inc” without Bouma being a party or having any chance to defend.
Judge Keller Further Denied A Right To Defend By:
Ordering Ralph Bouma, and the Receiver, George Campanella, to Show Cause why the Receiver should not take immediate possession of Ralph Bouma’s land. Seeing the Receiver was also ordered to Show Cause why he should not take immediate possession based upon his findings in 8221 even though I was not a Party to the action.
Seeing the Receiver was also ordered to show cause why he should not take immediate possession it would be incumbent upon him to disclose the fact that he had ratified the Land Exchange Contract by giving Ralph Bouma “official notice under the terms of the Contract that Bouma was in default” upon the request of Counsel for both banks.
TALK ABOUT “COLLUSION IN THE PARTIES”
The corporation had come into default with their loan payment with Federal Land Bank, which had started to foreclose on the farm. The Corporate managers Treadaway and Krull agreed that if I would raise the money to stop the foreclosure (prevent additional lawsuits) that my advance would be credited against my land payment due in escrow at the Central Bank in Great Falls, Montana, on November 1, 1970.
However, between the time that I paid the Federal Land Bank’s delinquent payment for the corporation, and November 1, when my land payment became due, the court appointed George Campanella as receiver over the corporation. Now his approval was needed to get the amount of this advance I made in behalf of the corporation credited as an offset against my fall contract payment.
Emmons, attorney at Law, advised me that we could try to make demand of the receiver to make this offset, but it did not relieve me of my obligation to make my fall payment without court approval. So, Emmons made the demand on my behalf. Both Farmers State Bank and the Colorado bank would need to reply to the receiver’s notice of my demands, and state if they would have any objections to my offset.
After several days I went to see if Emmons had heard anything yet from the receiver. At this point I thought Emmons acted strange. He told me:
“You must understand that if I’m going to represent you, then you must not hold anything from me! I need to know, if the receiver does not give you that offset are you able to make your land payment?”
I immediately became suspicious of the pretended intimacy in which he approached me. Therefore, I truthfully told him that I had sold all my grain to make that Federal Land Bank payment.
I told him that I had less than $5,000 in the bank. I also explained to him how the banks had destroyed my name in the credit community, and that no bank would loan me any money because of possible pending litigation.
His response was:
“In other words, if the receiver demanded payment, you would not be able to meet that payment?”
To this I concurred, feeling most assured he would betray me by conveying that information to the receiver and counsel of the banks.
Two days later, as I expected, I received a formal notice of default under the terms of my contract, from the receiver demanding payment and full performance under the contract. Without delay, I went to Campanella, the newly appointed receiver over the affairs of Larry C.
After much discussion, Campanella insisted he had been requested by counsel for both banks to give that default notice. Therefore, I asked for and received a copy of the letters from McCracken for the Colorado Bank, and from Ray Koby (a law partner of Swanberg) for Farmers State Bank instructing him to give notice of default.
“You Used Me!”
Therefore, I appeared in court in person, where the court was meeting in chambers in the first part of December 1970. I pointed out to Judge Robert S. Keller that the banks were asking to void my contract on one hand, and asking for full performance on the other. Keller roared with laughter as he said:
“That seems like ratification [of the contract] to me!”
Upon conclusion of this meeting in chambers, Judge Keller went to the bench and dictated into the record that demand had been made for payment under the terms of the contract, and that if I failed to perform I would lose the farm by default. Counsel for both banks being present found no reason to object, knowing the judge had just said that in doing so would constitute ratification of the contract.
The next morning my father loaned me the money and I made my land payment. When I returned to Emmons I showed him the receiver’s notice of default, and the following dialogue took place:
“What does this mean to you?”
“Well it means you are notified that you are in default, and if you don’t make your payment within 90 days you have lost your farm.”
I laid the receipt of payment from the escrow 92 in the Central Bank (the escrow where my contract payments were to be made) on top of the notice of default as evidence of the payment I made that morning.
Then I asked Emmons:
“Now what do you see—don’t you see ratification?”
Emmons turned white in the face when I explained how they had ratified my contract by demanding and receiving performance under the contract. Emmons became furious, slamming his fist on his desk he exclaimed,
“You used me!”
AT THE SHOW CAUSE HEARING KELLER Admitted
“Our Short Cut Didn’t Work”
This aforementioned shortcut was aborted by an affidavit of disqualification for Judge Keller filed by Ralph Bouma. Bouma asked how he could be made a party to 8221-8073 after trial was over, judgment was entered, and he had not been a party to the action.
At This Point Judge Keller Reluctantly Conceded
a).“the court is without jurisdiction over Ralph Bouma”
b).“Ralph Bouma has objected, having never been made a party to this proceeding, and the objection is upheld and he ought not have been cited in, not being a party to the action.
JUDGE KELLER THEREBY RENDERED HIS FINDING LEGALLY MOOT
Ralph Bouma being a party to the Contract, Judge Keller’s finding in 8221-8073 consolidated that the Land Contract between Ralph Bouma and Larry C. Iverson, Inc. was “Improvidently entered into and an ultra vies act of Larry C. Iverson, Inc” was rendered moot by finding himself without jurisdiction over Ralph Bouma in 8221-8073.
Therefore, the Receiver, (George Campanella) was ordered to sue Ralph Bouma in a separate action.
The Receiver’s Frivolous Complaint In Pondera Cause 8509
As a result of Judge Keller’s order for the receiver to sue the Bouma’s in a separate action, the Receiver filed PONDERA CAUSE No. 8509, the action of the receiver against Ralph Bouma and His wife Cornelia.
Ralph Bouma presented William May, (the Court Reporter) an order and paid for a transcript of proceedings in the original cause 8221-8073 consolidated to prepare his defenses in this new cause of action (8509) by the Receiver, Campanella.
The court reporter’s part in the conspiracy immediately became evident by his refusal to furnish the transcript asking:
“What do you need it for? What are you trying to prove?”
Bouma was forced to file an Order to Show Cause why he should not perform, seeing he had accepted payment in full from Ralph Bouma.
Disqualification Of The Honorable R.D. McPhillips As Judge
When it became obvious that Judge McPhillips [the Judge of original jurisdiction] was determined to deny Bouma any right to defend, or build his defense against the claims of the receiver in cause 8509, Bouma filed an Affidavit of Disqualification that would disqualify McPhillips as judge in 8509. When Bouma came to the courthouse to file the affidavit he found Judge McPhillips in the judges chambers and served him the affidavit of disqualification.
At that time Dale Keil, (Counsel for Mrs. Ralph Bouma) was in the Judges chambers doing some research in the case at hand. Afterward Keil attest in his Affidavit that when the judge had finished reading the notice of disqualification Judge McPhillips said:
that he thought he would appoint District Judge Keller, the same judge that presided over Pondera County Cause number 8221, 8073 consolidated, which action resulted in appointment of the receiver and direction to commence action against Ralph Bouma.
Judge McPhillips further elaborated that he thought that Ralph Bouma would not settle for Judge Keller and that upon Mr. Bouma’s disqualification of Judge Keller he would appoint District Judge Paul G. Hatfield. This would result in Bouma being stuck with Judge Hatfield.
Judge McPhillips stated that Judge Hatfield would have no sympathy for Ralph Bouma, as Judge Hatfield would associate Bouma with John C. Treadaway and J Milton Krull. In making this comment, Judge McPhillips referred to a prior case that arose involving the Flood District proposal and the Country Club Towers. [EXHIBIT “A” – APP 123-124].
Krull and Treadaway, [the people Bouma bought from] managers of LCI, had successfully defeated Judge Hatfield,
(a) in a court case involving the Country Club Towers wherein Hatfield thought he had a personal interest in excess of one million dollars.
(b)Judge Hatfield was at the head of a publicly organized attempt to form a flood control district in the Great Falls area, which was also defeated under the direction of the same Krull and Treadaway.
Robert P. Kropp, a stockholder, and Director in the Farmers State Bank.
Robert Paul Kropp being a director in the bank that was suing me was very upset with the whole approach seeing there were no bases for any legal action against me.
Having exhausted every honorable means to prevent the ongoing conspiracy as set forth above, Kropp knowing of my pending appeal before the Montana Supreme Court, approached me about an arrangement he had made with Justice Castle for a favorable ruling. Then Kropp confronted me with:
“Well what is it worth to win this appeal? $20,000 or $30,000?”
When I hesitated Kropp plainly explained:
“Now you know you can’t come before the Supreme Court without money. All the attorney is going to do is handle the money … he will forward it to Justice Castle for a favorable ruling. This attorney has all the arrangements made with Justice Wesley Castles for a favorable ruling.”
Kropp made it clear from his own experience, and as a director of FSB, he knew it was not the facts or the law that you need to succeed before the Montana Supreme Court, but money. Therefore, Kropp offered to advance the money, and I could pay him back if and when I was able.
I tried to pacify him by convincing him I did not believe this was the right solution, and if we were to do it, this appeal would not be the right one.
Kropp was not easily put off. He became desperate for my approval. Kropp said:
He must call Mr. Acker before Keil got there, because if I approved the deal, Keil would be informed to leave a check with Mr. Acker for $30,000 and come home. Kropp would cover Keil’s check when he got back to Conrad.
I finally had to tell Kropp point blank that I felt the end did not justify the means—that this approach was fundamentally wrong—and that therefore, I could not consent. This left Kropp upset,
and he cautioned me I had not yet left his house alive, and unless I swore not to tell a soul I would not leave alive!
The Montana Supreme court was not slow at revealing their vendetta against Ralph Bouma. As a direct result of the exposure of the Montana Supreme Court’s tactics and my refusal to participate in their crimes, the appeal was dismissed forthwith, and without a hearing. I was also fined $1,000 for filing the appeal. Kropp was murdered to silence him.
My First Appearance before Judge Hatfield In Chambers
Judge McPhillips had certainly covered all his bases with regard to Hatfield’s attitude toward the Bouma’s, and his million-dollar loss on the Country Club towers where Hatfield said:
The Boumas, being in possession of a valuable farm, should strongly consider settlement with the Plaintiff Receiver, George Campanella, [emphasizing] if Boumas come before this court they stand to loose a million dollars, and they are not very popular with the Montana Supreme Court, [an obvious reference to his knowledge my refusal to go along with their bribe.]
The Receiver George Campanella Again Joined The Conspiracy
To Deny Boumas A Right To Defend
(a). after the result of 13 years of extensive discovery, including the taking of the deposition of Judge Keller wherein he finally admitted his denial of any right to defend by Ralph Bouma, or the defendants in Pondera Cause 8221-8073 consolidated. Transcript pages 594-596.
(b). how the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in 8221-8073 consolidated prevented any chance to defend by preventing any appeal from his findings by making criminal prosecution contingent upon ordering a transcript of the proceedings in 8221-8073 consolidated,
(c) At this point the Receiver again denied the Boumas any right to defend or be heard when he returned to the court in 8221-8073 with his ADMINISTRATIVE PETITION for consent to abandon Pondera Cause 8509:
For an order requiring that the aforesaid show cause hearing be held in camera with appearances limited to the receiver and said stockholders only” – forbidding the Bouma’s to be represented.
At this meeting it was latter established that the Receiver judicially admitted “the corporation was not provably worse off because of Bouma’s actions” as his basis for seeking “consent to abandon Pondera Cause 8509.
Judge Leonard H. Langen Resorts Back To 8221-8073
To Enter Summary Judgment Against The Bouma’s
When the then presiding judge in 8509, Judge Leonard H. Langen saw the light that the Receiver’s action against the Boumas, Pondera Cause 8509 was frivolous and without merit on its face for a lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, i.e., due to a lack of “injury in Fact cause by the Defendant” – in a desperate attempt to save the two banks, their attorneys, the Receiver etc. from exposure to an action for Malicious Prosecution, rendered all Bouma’s defenses moot, and entered SUMMARY JUDGMENT against the Bouma’s.
Judge Langen granted counsel’s application for Summery Judgment in Pondera 8509 based upon Judge Keller’s Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Order in 8221-8073 consolidated, wherein Judge Keller admitted Ralph Bouma was not a party, and that the court had no jurisdiction over Ralph Bouma, and the receiver denied the presence of the Boumas at his ADMINISTRATIVE PETITION referred to above because they were not parties to that action. Judge Langen’s Summery Judgment against the Bouma’s stated in pertinentpart:
“This application has been made pursuant to Order dated February 8, 1978, in combined Civil No. 8221 and 8073 pending in above entitled Court. This Court in this cause takes judicial notice of the said Order dated February 8, 1978.”
Montana Supreme Court revealed it’s final vendetta against the Boumas
by Affirming the Summary Judgment In 8509
Ralph Bouma not being a party to 8221-8073 consolidated, the District Court had no jurisdiction therein. Judge Keller ruled therein that:
a). “the court is without jurisdiction over Ralph Bouma”
b). “Ralph Bouma has objected, having never been made a party to this proceeding, and the objection is upheld and he aught not have been cited in, not being a party to the action.
Yet the ruling of the Montana Supreme Court, in affirming the void Summary Judgment in Pondera Cause No. 8509 in Mont., 639 P.2d 47 at 54 relied exclusively upon Judge Keller’s corrupt Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Order in 8221-8073 consolidated, wherein Keller had denied any semblance of a defense, and prevented appeal by making criminal prosecution contingent on ordering a transcript of proceedings. [See page 15 – 16 in exhibit “A”.
The Montana Supreme Court based its entire ruling upon that Judgment of Judge Keller in 8221-8073 consolidated that is void on its face by reason of collusion in the parties Sec 26-3-105 M.C.A. Impeachment of a judicial record, Supra:
The District Court’s ruling was based upon only one narrow issue. This issue was the basis for granting of the corporation’s summery judgment motion. After reviewing the Affidavits, depositions, documents, court decrees, orders and findings of facts and conclusions of law from consolidated 8221/8073, the district court found that the contract was void from the start. Mont., 639 P.2d 47 at 54.
Appellate Jurisdiction Is Derivative!
Whereas the District Court Judge recognized the fatal flaw in its own jurisdiction in Pondera Cause No. 8509 by Judicial Admission of the Plaintiff therein that the corporation was not provably worse off because of Bouma’s actions, he granted the application of the bank stockholders to resort back to the Findings of Facts in 8221/8073 to grant the void SUMMERY JUDGMENT in Pondera cause 8509.
Seeing the District court was without jurisdiction over Ralph Bouma in either Pondera Cause 8509 by judicial admission of the Plaintiff Receiver therein, and 8221/8073 by concession of Judge Keller therein [Exhibit “ D-2 line 23-29 and D-5 line 7-10] the Montana Supreme Court’s jurisdiction being derivative, was none existent to affirm the Void Summery Judgment in Pondera Cause No. 8509. [See facts and legal argument in the Supporting Memorandum in Bouma’s Rule 60 (b) (4) Petition herein on pages 24 line 20 through page 33 –[which will be supplied upon request].
The United States Supreme Court has held:
“the type of fraud that defiles the court itself involves more than injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institution set up to protect and safeguard the public …The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud.” Hazel-atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. 322 U.S. 238, 64 S. Ct 997, 1001, 88l. ED 1250 (1944).xxx”
In Chambers v. B & O Railroad Co. 307 U.S. 142 the United States Supreme Court stated:
The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship.” [Emphases added]
This highest right was denied Ralph Bouma by Judge Langen rendering all Bouma’s defenses moot because he had ruled in the Plaintiff’s favor, and by Judge Keller denying any semblance of a defense in 8221/8073 consolidated as set forth above.
These few instances of the travesty of justice the Boumas have suffered from for the last 40 years are but a tip of the iceberg of the full picture. Three separate U.S. Attorneys pleaded for permission to indict all the felons in this case, but were refused by the United States Department of Justice because there were dignitaries involved.
Judge Langen, Enforced His Judgment
With A Threat Of Criminal Contempt
After the Montana Supreme Court affirmed Judge Langen’s Judgment in 8509 based upon Keller’s Findings of Fact, and Order in 8821, Judge Langen threatened the Bouma’s against any further attempts to claim their land by any means whatsoever, including further court proceedings by a threat of criminal contempt. In his April 15, 1982 order in cause no. 8509 Judge Langen ordered:
That defendant Ralph Bouma, and Mrs. Ralph Bouma, their agents, attorneys or persons in concert with them, be and are hereby permanently enjoined from any acts or conduct of any sort or nature, direct or indirect, proximate or remote in any way disparaging the title of plaintiff Larry C. Iverson, Inc., its successors or assigns, in and to the real property and buildings thereon involved in this action or interfering with quiet and peaceful possession and enjoyment of said lands by any means, direct or indirect, proximate or remote. Any violation of this injunctive order may be punished as a contempt of this court and for this purpose each day such conduct continues shall be considered a separate and distinct offence against the dignity of this court. APP 406 to Exhibit “A”
This Threat Included
Any attempt to Defend By legal Process
Two years after Judge Langen had been voted out of office, Ralph Bouma Filed an Independent Action under Rule 60 (B) (4) [Pondera County Cause No. DV-9101] seeking relief from the afore mentioned conspiracy before Judge McPhillips, the judge of original jurisdiction.
After the Clerk of Court had entered Default she said she received a phone call from former Judge Langen [two years after he had been voted out of office] that if I tried to file one more document I would be cited in contempt. This threat of contempt has deprived me any right to the legal process of law for the last 30 years
Respectfully submitted this 9th day of January, 2013.
Ralph Bouma Attorney Pro Se
Time does not affirm a void judgment, neither is there ever a statute of limitation on a homicide.
Lest I should over burden this with a flood of exhibits I will submit only exhibits “A” and “B” to give you a sample of the court file in support of my case.
I have the full investigative report of Walter Hammereister who was Pondera County Sheriff for 20 years, and a Private Investigator until his disease. This investigation was done at the request of Chris Christensen, former Pondera County Attorney that establishes beyond a doubt that Robert P. Kropp was murdered to silence him from revealing the truth during an FBI investigation of the afore mentioned arrangement to bribe the Montana Supreme Court.