Law Enforcement in North Dakota is taking steps to make sure that North Dakota is the most corrupt, backward, dishonest, and lawless state. Instead of Law Enforcement taking pride in, defending, and upholding the Constitution, they are subverting it, and disregarding it. Instead of protecting citizens’ Civil Rights, they are violating citizens’ Civil Rights. Instead of enforcing laws, they are breaking laws, disregarding laws, and becoming the worst and most notorious criminals in North Dakota.
I will cite two recent Law Enforcement operations in North Dakota, that are almost identical to what the KGB used to do to political dissidents in Russia, East Germany, Cuba, and what corrupt dictators did in the Middle East, Africa, and South America to political opponents. It is appalling and reprehensible that Law Enforcement in North Dakota would try to carry out the same type of barbarity.
Recently, in Dickinson and in Fargo, North Dakota, Law Enforcement created an advertisement for an escort or prostitute, and placed this advertisement on internet websites. This was a fake advertisement, created by Law Enforcement to entice men to contact their fake escort or prostitute. In the advertisement, there was nothing mentioned about the escort being under the age of 18 years.
In Fargo, 42 year old business owner Dan Durr responded to the fake advertisement for a prostitute, and he made arrangements to meet at a location. When Dan Durr got to the location to meet the prostitute, he was then informed that the prostitute was under 18 years, and he drove away.
Law Enforcement knew that when they placed an advertisement for a prostitute, they would attract the attention of men who were desperate to have sex with a woman. They did not mention in the advertisement that the prostitute was under 18. When the men arrived to meet the prostitute and were informed that she was under 18 years, they thought that the men would be so desperate, that they wouldn’t care.
Dan Durr from Fargo thought that he was meeting an adult to have sex, and when he was informed that the prostitute was under 18 years, he drove away. The Fargo Police arrested him anyway, and they charged him with Patronizing a Minor for Commercial Sex Activity, a Class A felony punishable by 20 years in prison.
But remember, Dan Durr responded to a fake advertisement for a prostitute created by Law Enforcement, where it did not say that the prostitute was under 18. Law Enforcement lured men to meet who they thought was an adult prostitute. When the men arrived, they were informed that the prostitute was under 18 years. However, at no time was a minor ever involved whatsoever, the Police just made the statement that the prostitute was under 18 years when the men arrived.
Dan Durr’s case went to trial recently, and he was found guilty of hiring an individual to engage in sexual activity, a Class B misdemeanor. Dan Durr was found not guilty of the Class A felony charge of Patronizing a Minor for Commercial Sexual Activity.
I will give credit to the Cass County District Court Judge Susan Bailey, who was asked by Dan Durr’s defense attorney to allow the jury to consider not just the felony charge, but also the misdemeanor charge, and she allowed the jury to consider both charges. I wish that the judge would have taken the opportunity to admonish the prosecuting attorney and Law Enforcement for tactics that go beyond entrapment, and violate citizens Constitutional and Civil Rights, in attempt to make criminals out of ordinary citizens.
In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby Law Enforcement induces a person to commit a criminal offence that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit. But this case goes much further than entrapment. Law Enforcement not only lured a citizen into committing a crime by placing an advertisement for a prostitute, which he might not have done if it were not for the advertisement, but then Law Enforcement started to create fictitious non-existent circumstances to enhance this crime that they lured this citizen into in the first place. Trying to make what would have been a Class B misdemeanor into a Class A felony punishable by 20 years in prison, by adding phony fictitious circumstances. Dan Durr never sought to meet a minor for sexual activity, nor was a minor ever present or involved in any way.
Additionally, and this is a very important point, when Dan Durr was informed that the prostitute was under 18 years, he drove away. Why did Law Enforcement try to charge Dan Durr with Patronizing a Minor for Commercial Sex Activity, a Class A felony, when he absolutely did not try to do this, and he immediately left when he was informed that the prostitute was under 18 years? Why did Law Enforcement seek to arrest and prosecute someone for a crime that they did not commit? Could anything be more corrupt than this?
The second case that I will cite, is almost identical to the one that I just described above. Manish M., 29 of Dickinson, has been charged with Patronizing a Minor for Commercial Sexual Activity, a Class A felony.
Here is an excerpt from an October 23, 2017 Dickinson Press article written by Sydney Mook:
“…M appeared in court with his attorney Robert Bolinske.
Stark County assistant state’s attorney, Amanda Engelstad, called Travis Leintz, a detective with the Dickinson Police Department, to testify during the hearing. Leintz said an ad was placed on Backpage.com with the help of an officer from Minnesota who specializes in human trafficking.
Manish allegedly responded to the ad via text message then allegedly exchanged messages with the officers who were acting as a 15-year-old girl. When the defendant asked for the girl’s age, the officers responded by saying “almost 16.” Manish allegedly responded multiple times that he would not have sex with someone who was under the age of 18 and said he did not want to get into trouble. However, he later agreed to meet the girl at the Motel 6 in Dickinson, Leintz said.
Manish later moved across the street to the McDonald’s parking lot where he was later arrested by officers.
Bolinske questioned Leintz about the original ad on Backpage.com, which stated the poster was 18 and said his client had originally said no to someone that was under the age of 18. Leintz said in order to post on Backpage.com, the poster must list 18 as their age.
Southwest Judge James Gion found there to be enough probable cause to move forward with the case.
Manish entered a not guilty plea to all charges.”
What is very troubling to me, is that the advertisement for the girl wanting to have sex, said that she was 18 years of age. When Manish asked the girl about her age, and she replied that she was almost 16, Manish responded that he would never have sex with someone under the age of 18.
It appears to me to be entrapment by Law Enforcement, to place an advertisement where the poster is listed as 18 years of age in order to lure Manish into communication, to then inform him that he is communicating with a minor, and to continue communicating with Manish and arrange a meeting with him, even after he has repeatedly said that he would never have sex with a minor because he does not want to get into trouble.
In other words, had Law Enforcement not placed a fake advertisement for an 18 year old girl wanting to hook up, then made up the story that she was under 18 years, then ignored Manish’s statements that he would not have sex with a minor, and continued to contact him anyway, caused Manish to be drawn into a possible meeting with a minor. At no time did Manish actually meet with a minor, because at no time was a minor involved. If Manish did actually ever meet with this minor, he might have continued to insist that he would never have sex with a minor.
Why are the Dickinson Police trying to charge Manish with Patronizing a Minor for Commercial Sex Activity? The fake advertisement that the Dickinson Police placed, said that the poster was 18 years old. The Dickinson Police drew Manish into this, even though he said that he did not want to have sex with a minor. Manish never did meet with a minor and agree to have sex. Why are they still charging him?
I think that the Dickinson Police have made a criminal out of someone who never intended to engage in criminal activity. The charges that Manish now faces, could lead to 20 years in prison. As far as criminal activity in Dickinson, I would much rather have my truck stolen or my apartment broken into, than have the Dickinson Police try to entrap me in one of their schemes like this one. Who is worse in Dickinson, the police or the criminals?
I received an e-mail from Manish’s sister today, explaining that this court case has been resolved. She asked if there was anything that I could do, to not damage his name and reputation any further. I decided to remove his last name from my blog posts, because I believed that Manish was unjustly entrapped to begin with. However, I want these blog posts to remain on the internet, because I do not want this same thing to happen to anyone else.