Wednesday, October 2, 2013

MINNESOTA COURT RULES

Judge Profile:

Judge M. Michael Baxter


Le Sueur County

Appointed/Elected:

Appointed Nov. 10, 2008, by Governor Tim Pawlenty.  Elected 2010.  Term expires Jan. 2017.

Education:

J.D., magna cum laude, William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, 1991
B.A., College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, 1987

Employment:

Attorney and shareholder; Baxter Engen, Ltd. in Burnsville; 2003-2008
Adjunct professor, William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, 1995-2008
Solo practitioner in Apple Valley, 2000-2003
Associate attorney; Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi in Minneapolis; 1991-2000
Associate attorney, Robbin & Thompson in Wayzata, 1991
General sales manager, United Products Corporation, 1987-1989
Sales representative and regional manager, Genstar Roofing Products Company, 1976-1987

PROFESSIONAL RULES

Code of Judicial Conduct

CANON 1

A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

Rule 1.1Compliance with the Law

A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.

violation

 -ORDERS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED ON: Baxter's exact words

 "" ALLOT OF ALLEGATIONS FLYING AROUND"". 

""THE HEARING WILL AIR THINGS OUT"". 


NO CLEAR CONCISE EVIDENCE HE ORDERS ON ONE SIDED HEARSAY FROM HIS CLOSE PERSONAL FRIENDS.

THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND DEFENDANT ARE NOT CLEAR EXACTLY WHAT THE FLYING ALLEGATIONS ARE.  IT IS PRESUMED THERE ARE FLYING ALLEGATIONS  COMING FROM  COUNTY OFFICIALS, WHOM THE JUDGE HAS CLOSE FRIENDSHIPS WITH. THIS ALSO EXPLAINS WHY CARIE KRENIK IS CALLING PEOPLE AUGUST 5TH TELLING PEOPLE MOTHER'S RIGHTS WERE TERMINATED. WHEN THE HEARING HAD YET TO TAKE PLACE. 

violation

COURT ORDERED SIGNATURE ON CASE PLAN OVER REACH OF AUTHORITY. MOTHER HAS A RIGHT UNDER REASONABLE EFFORT TO HELP CREATE HER CASE PLAN. IF SHE IS NOT ALLOWED THAT OPPORTUNITY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE PLAN WILL FAIL.  THE JUDGE DENIED THE MOTHER THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE AND COURT ORDERED HER TO SIGN THE CASE PLAN.

violation 

UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 

260.012 DUTY TO ENSURE PLACEMENT PREVENTION AND FAMILY REUNIFICATION; REASONABLE EFFORTS.


A REASONABLE EFFORT MUST BE MADE TO PROVE THAT SERVICES WERE OFFERED TO CORRECT THE CONDITIONS BEFORE THE CHILD CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE HOME....
THE COUNTY MUST PROVIDE PROOF OF SERVICES THEY OFFERED PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF CHILDREN WHO WERE NOT IN IMMINENT DANGER. according to Minnesota maltreatment screening guidelines imminent danger would be present if children were unattended in a bathtub or near a pool or by a fire. 

Minnesota STATE guidelines suggest SERVICES TO BE  OFFERED BEFORE REMOVAL SHOULD BE.....
family therapy, 
parenting classes, 
drug and alcohol abuse treatment, 
respite care, 
parent support groups, 
home visiting program, 
transportation, 
free phone service



violation 

A JUDGE SO INTENT ON REMOVING A MOTHER SO HE CAN GIFT HER CHILDREN TO A CREEPY CHILDLESS COUPLE WHO ARE SO CRUDE THEY PLACED AN ORDER WITH BAXTER ASKING HIM TO GIVE THEM THE CHILDREN. BAXTER ACTUALLY LIED IN DOCUMENTATION TO COMPLETE THE COUPLES ORDER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CHILDREN.

MINNESOTA STATUTES 2009 192A.585
192A.585 PERJURY.
ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS CODE WHO  DELIBERATELY, AND WILLFULLY GIVES FALSE, MISLEADING OR INCOMPLETE TESTIMONY UNDER OATH OR IN BREACH OF A PROMISE DURING THE COURSE OF A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, MATERIAL TO ISSUE OR MATTER OF INQUIRY SHALL BE PUNISHED AS A COURT-MARTIAL MAY DIRECT.
judge M Michael BAXTER PERJURED THE FINDING OF FACTS THAT HE MAILED OUT SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 AFTER CARIE KRENIK THE CHILD PROTECTION WORKER INFORMED EVERY ONE ON AUGUST 5 2013 THAT THE JUDGE TERMINATED THE MOTHERS RIGHTS BEFORE THE LAST HEARING EVEN TOOK PLACE. 


violation Rule 1.2Constitution of the State of MinnesotaArticle 1, § 10

CRYING CHILD HAS BEEN RULED NOT TO BE PROBABLE CAUSE, NOR DOES IT MEET THE DEFINITION OF  EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. THAT BEING SAID THEIR WAS ALSO NO WARRANT OR CONSENT FOR THE UNLAWFUL ENTRANCE AND INTERVIEW OF THE FOUR YEAR OLD CHILD. ANY INTERVIEW OF A CHILD ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IS PART OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCESS AND REQUIRES  PROBABLE CAUSE, EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE, CONSENT OR A WARRANT.   


Taking away mothers parental rights for not signing over full access to medical records to the county. no probable cause in relationship to finding of facts and not limited in scale. General searches are prohibited by law




taking away mothers parental rights for not being able to do a general search on mothers brain  no probable cause to do a large scale search in relationship of to finding of facts. General searches are prohibited by law.



violation Rule 1.2Constitution of the State of MinnesotaArticle 1, § 10


This law applies to situations where a person, who has been given authority by the law, deprives another person in the United States of rights or privileges that the second person has been given by the US Constitution or by federal or state law. The person who believes that s/he has been harmed in this way may sue in court. 



violation refused to acknowledge Minnesota Law and the definition of 

family. Defi.nition.of.Relative.in.Minnesota

Family members are the first placement consideration for children who are not able to live with their parents or guardians. Relative, as defined in
Minnesota Statutes, section 260C.007, subdivision 27, is a person related to the child by blood, marriage, or adoption, or an individual who is an important friend with whom the child has resided or had significant contact.
The majority of children placed in family foster care or pre-adoptive families in Minnesota are not living with adults to whom they are related, or with whom the child had a significant relationship with prior to entering foster care.

Judge M Michael Baxter told defense attorney he would not accept a Minnesota back ground for human services and if Anita Bracken was not related by blood she is not family, despite acting as a grandmother to the children for a year prior to the chips case.

SUBD. 14.CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
(a) A potential conflict of interest related to assisting in an assessment under this section resulting in a direct or shared financial interest with a child abuse and neglect treatment provider or resulting from a personal or family relationship with a party in the investigation must be considered by the local welfare agency in an effort to prevent unethical relationships.
(b) A person who conducts an assessment under this section or section 626.5561 may not have:
(1) any direct or shared financial interest or referral relationship resulting in a direct shared financial gain with a child abuse and neglect treatment provider; or
(2) a personal or family relationship with a party in the investigation.
If an independent assessor is not available, the person responsible for making the determination under this section may use the services of an assessor with a financial interest, referral, or personal or family relationship.
SUBD. 15.AUDITING.

The commissioner of human services shall regularly audit for accuracy the data reported by counties on maltreatment of minors. The commissioner Susan Rynda is in on it.

Judge M Michael Baxter is aware of the conflict of interest with Melisa and Tony Dobmeier who placed the order yet proceeds with hearings. 

THE CHILDREN WERE ILLEGALLY REMOVED IN VIOLATION OF MS HARRIS'S RIGHTS BY THE JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER WE ARE NOT SURE IF THESE CHILDREN WERE SPECIFICALLY HAND PICKED BY COUNTY OFFICIALS RELATIVES. NEXT NONE OF THE RULES LISTED BELOW GIVE THE COUNTY ANY LEGAL RIGHT TO HOLD THE CHILDREN IN FORSTER CARE. 

Minnesota Child Maltreatment 
Screening Guidelines

IMMINENT DANGER IS DESCRIBED AS NEAR A POOL UNATTENDED
 IN A FULL BATH TUB UNATTENDED. NEAR FIRE UNATTENDED 

I AM GUESSING CLEAN BABY PROOF ROOM AND PEOPLE RIGHT UPSTAIRS IF THE BOYS NEEDED TO GET SISTER OUT OF HER CHAIR. THEN  THE FACTS ARE  MOM WAS ONLY ABSENT FOR A MATTER OF MINUTES AND WOULD HAVE LIKELY BEEN AVAILABLE IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY. AFTER ALL SHE DID WALK IN ON A SOCIAL WORKER WHO ILLEGALLY ENTERED HER HOME TO ABDUCT CHILDREN WITH NO PROBABLE CAUSE, EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES  CONSENT OR A WARRANT WHERE SHE ADMITS TO THE UNLAWFUL ENTRY TO STICK HER HEAD IN AND INTERVIEW A CHILD WITH OUT PROBABLE CAUSE, EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES  CONSENT OR A WARRANT 

Quite often, the role of poverty
is not understood at the time a report is made, and is established later during the assessment or investigation phase. When it is determined that reports of neglect are based solely on conditions due to poverty, a finding of maltreatment should not be made.

LE SUEUR COUNTY OFFICIALS SEE POVERTY AS MALTREATMENT !!!

Screeners and persons who conduct assessments or investigations
shall take into account accepted child-rearing practices of the culture in which a child
participates that are not injurious to a child’s health, welfare and safety. [M.S. 626.556,
subd. 2 (o)]

BABY PROOF ROOM FOR 15 MINUTES  WHILE OTHER PEOPLE ARE IN THE SAME HOUSE RIGHT UP THE STEPS..... MOTHER WAS DETAINED BY POLICE OFFICER FOR 5 EXTRA MINUTES OUTSIDE. HAD THERE NOT BEEN AN ILLEGAL ENTRY AND AN OFFICER THAT DETAINED HER OUTSIDE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER 15 MINUTES.

3 SICK KIDS AND NO PHONE SHE NEEDS TO CALL SCHOOL TO LET THEM KNOW THE KIDS ARE SICK. POVERTY AND SINGLE PARENT SHE DOES NOT WANT TO DRAG ALL THREE KIDS OUT OR EXPOSE THE SICK KIDS TO HER NEIGHBORS CHILDREN.

I. Failure to Provide Necessary Supervision or Child Care Arrangements [M.S. 626.556,
subd. 2 (f) (3)]
Failure to provide for necessary supervision or child care arrangements occurs when a
child is unable to provide for their own basic needs or safety, or the basic needs or
safety of another child in their care. [M.S. 626.556, subd. 2 (3)]

1. Modifying factors affecting screening decisions include: 

 A child’s age, mental ability and maturity level.
 The accessibility of the parent/guardian/or designated caretaker to a child
by phone and/or in person.
 The presence of intellectual deficits, psychological problems, or mental health
concerns; the existence of physical problems or disabilities.
 The behavioral history of a child, including suicidal thoughts or actions, fire
setting, delinquency, vandalism or assault.
 A child’s age, if using the kitchen stove, an iron or other appliance.
 The establishment of a well understood escape plan that has been worked out
by the parent(s), or fire drill practice that has been rehearsed with a child. The
presence of a working fire/smoke detector in the home.
 The presence of unusual hazards in the home. 17
 A child feeling confident and safe when left alone.
___________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY REMOVES CHILDREN UNDER THE FOLLOWING RULES WHICH ACCORDING TO MINNESOTA MALTREATMENT SCREENING THERE WAS NO MALTREATMENT 

SUBD. 6.CHILD IN NEED OF PROTECTION OR SERVICES.


"Child in need of protection or services" means a child who is in need of protection or services because the child:

3) is without necessary food, clothing, shelter, education, or other required care for the child's physical or mental health or morals because the child's parent, guardian, or custodian is unable or unwilling to provide that care;
(9) is one whose behavior, condition, or environment is such as to be injurious or dangerous to the child or others. An injurious or dangerous environment may include, but is not limited to, the exposure of a child to cri
 minal activity in the child's home;
__________________________________________________________________

15 MINUTES IN A BABY PROOF ROOM OTHER PEOPLE UPSTAIRS IN THE SAME HOUSE
NO IMMINENT DANGER WHEN MALTREATMENT IS MEASURED. 
Parents who are unaware of the developmental and cognitive abilities of children at different ages may have unrealistic expectations and be more likely to UNINTENTIONALLY  neglect their children. For example, a parent might expect that a 4-year old child can be left alone for the evening because of unrealistic expectations of the child's abilities. 

IMMINENT DANGER ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE MALTREATMENT SCREENING IS LEAVING A FOUR YEAR OLD HOME FOR HOURS. MOM WAS ABSENT FOR MINUTES. 

IF THE ROLE OF POVERTY PLAYED ANY ROLE THEN MALTREATMENT SHALL NOT BE FOUND. 
Quite often, the role of poverty
is not understood at the time a report is made, and is established later during the assessment or investigation phase. When it is determined that reports of neglect are based solely on conditions due to poverty, a finding of maltreatment should not be made.

JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER IS GUILTY OF CHILD ABUSE 


2012 Minnesota Statutes

SUBD. 15.EMOTIONAL MALTREATMENT.


"Emotional maltreatment" means the consistent, deliberate infliction of mental harm on a child by a person responsible for the child's care, that has an observable, sustained, and adverse effect on the child's physical, mental, or emotional development. "Emotional maltreatment" 


Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary

A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Comment
[1] Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.

IT IS ULTIMATELY  REVEALED RIGHT BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS HEARINGS THE JUDGE HAS A PERSONAL INTEREST IN THESE HEARINGS WHICH MAY BE WHY HE IS UNABLE TO RULE ON WHAT THE STATE SAID IS AN EASY 6 MONTH EXTENSION. THE JUDGE REALIZED EVERY TIME HE THREW AN UNFAIR BLOW AT THE MOTHER WHO WAS TORTURED IN CAPTIVITY ALL HER CHILDHOOD, MOTHER  STARTED TO BREAK FROM THE STRESS. SHE STOPPED SLEEPING FOR 2-3 DAYS AT A TIME OVER THE LOSS OF HER CHILDREN CAUSING HER TO EXPERIENCE UNSTABLE EMOTIONS AS A RESULT OF THE INSOMNIA. (ANITA BRACKEN'S JOURNAL)


 MOTHER IS NOT CRAZY. THE EVIDENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE CAME THROUGH LOUD AND CLEAR.
WHILE ANOTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE HELD COMPLETE RESPECT FROM THE JUDGE. 

EVIDENCE IN RULINGS OF DISCRIMINATION 
THE JUDGE  DENIED MOTHER THE 6 MONTH EXTENSION SEPTEMBER 5 2013 THAT WAS FIRST REQUESTED FEB 2013. IT TOOK 8 MONTHS TO RULE AND REJECT THE REQUEST.  DESPITE THE FACT THAT MOTHER MET ALL THREE CRITERIA LISTED  IN THE MINNESOTA JUDICIAL  BENCH BOOK. THE JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS MOTHER WILL NOT GET ONE BASED ON HER QUALIFICATIONS. DURING THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS HEARINGS THE JUDGE RECEIVES TESTIMONY THAT THE COUNTY IGNORED RECOMMENDATIONS AND THAT IT WAS NEVER POSSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE CASE PLAN IN 6 MONTHS. 

BASED ON EVIDENCE ONE WOULD ASSUME THAT IF SOMEONE QUALIFIED FOR AN EXTENSION;  WOULDN'T A FAIR AND HONEST JUDGE HAVE A READY EXPLANATION WHY THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT GOING TO APPLY TO THIS MOTHER SPECIFICALLY?  

TAKING 8 MONTHS TO RULE ON WHAT HEAD OF CHILD PROTECTION FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SAID WAS AN "EASY 6 MONTH EXTENSION"
BAXTER ULTIMATELY TERMINATES MOTHERS RIGHTS FOR GETTING KICKED OUT OF A HALFWAY HOUSE FOR SHOWING EMOTIONAL DIS-REGULATION WHICH IS A SYMPTOM OF C-PTSD. MOTHER CANNOT HELP THAT IT HAPPENS BECAUSE IT IS A SYMPTOM OF THE TORTURE IN CAPTIVITY SHE ENDURED AS A CHILD OVER A PROLONGED PERIOD OF TIME. THE SECOND ONE SHE WAS FORCED TO GO TO SHE WAS ASKED TO LEAVE BECAUSE SHE MISSED TO MANY DAYS FOR THE COURT HEARINGS AS A RESULT OF THE JUDGE TAKING 8 MONTHS TO RULE ON AND RUSHING INTO A TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS BECAUSE HIS CLOSE PERSONAL FRIENDS WERE MAKING ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE FLYING AROUND HE SAID. SHE ALSO LOST HER RIGHTS FOR SEEKING MEDICAL CARE FOR AN INFECTION IN HER MOUTH AND A PULLED TOOTH.  NOT USING THE TOY BOX 

 YET ON THE OTHER SIDE HE WILL TERMINATE SERVICES FROM THE COUNTY TO CEASE ALL REUNIFICATION EFFORTS ON THE SPOT WITH NO QUESTIONS.  ALL MEGAN GAUDETTE NEED DO IS ASK AND IT WAS GRANTED. IN FACT THE JUDGE ASKED GAUDETTE IF MS BRACKEN COULD TAKE THE CHILDREN AND NO EXPLANATION IS REQUIRED WHEN SHE SAYS NO. THIS MAY HAVE TO DO WITH HER NEW BOSS BEING RELATED TO THE PEOPLE WHO PLACED AN ORDER WITH THE JUDGE TO KEEP THE CHILDREN. THE JUDGE WAS PRETTY EXCITED TO SEE HIS FORMER EMPLOYEE IN COURT AS WELL.

HOW MANY PEOPLE THINK WE HAVE A FAIR, UNBIAS, HONEST JUDGE?  



[2] A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code.
[3] Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Because it is not practicable to list all such conduct, the Rule is necessarily cast in general terms.

PERSONAL TREATMENT

EXAMPLE; A REQUEST BY DEFENSE IS MADE; THAT MS BRACKEN WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE CHILDREN OR PROVIDE SUPERVISION DURING VISITS.   SALLY SCHROER YELLS OUT I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM HER FOR 6 MONTHS. MS BRACKEN SAID MY BROTHER WENT IN TO A COMA IN OCTOBER AND I AM THE ONLY ADULT FAMILY HE HAS.  MS BRACKEN WAS TOLD HE WOULD NOT SURVIVE. SHE DID NOT WANT HIM TO DIE ALONE AND SHE NEEDED TO TEND TO BILLS AND KEEPING OUT OF STATE FAMILY INFORMED OF HIS CONDITION. MS BRACKEN TRIES TO EXPLAIN HER ABSENCE TO THE JUDGE BY TELLING HIM HER BROTHER WENT IN TO A COMA AND SHE HAD TO BE THERE.  

THE JUDGE YELLS I DON'T CARE WHAT 
HAPPENED TO YOU!!

HE DENIES MS BRACKEN TO BE ALLOWED TO TAKE THE CHILDREN HOME, TO KEEP THE FAMILY TOGETHER. HE DENIES MS. BRACKEN TO SUPERVISE VISITS AND HE DENIES TO ALLOW MS BRACKEN TO VISIT HER GRANDCHILDREN AT ALL WITH NO REASON OF SAFETY BEHIND IT TO SEVER HER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN. DESPITE THE FACT SHE MEETS THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY UNDER MINNESOTA LAW. 

THE JUDGE INSISTS ALL VISITS MUST BE ISOLATED AND MOTHER SHOULD NOT BE ON THE PHONE TALKING TO FAMILY OR ALLOW HER FAMILY TO TALK TO HER CHILDREN.WHILE THE CHILDREN ARE WITH HER IN A VISIT TO ENSURE COMPLETE ISOLATION AND NO OUTSIDE WITNESSES.



 ONLY THE COUNTY WORKER IS ABLE TO BE PRESENT. THERE IS PROOF THAT THAT WORKER FALSELY ACCUSED MS BRACKEN OF SABOTAGING A SUNDAY VISIT AT THE TREATMENT CENTER; MS BRACKEN DOCUMENTS EVERYTHING AS WELL ONCE SHE REALIZED THESE PEOPLE LIE TO TRAFFIC CHILDREN. MS BRACKEN TOOK HER VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED AND IRENE CHRISTENSON'S VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED AND ASKED JUDY TO SIGN OFF ON THE MOST TRUE AND ACCURATE ACCOUNT. THE EMPLOYEE SIGNED OFF ON MS BRACKEN'S ACCOUNT OF WHAT TOOK PLACE WHEN SHE STEPPED OFF THE ELEVATOR. 

IRENE CHRISTENSON'S DOCUMENTATION GOES LIKE THIS 

4/14/13
Anita and Chris Bracken stepped off the elevator and I immediately went up to Judy and told her it is my understanding they cannot be here when the children are here the judge wants the children isolated from their family. Judy asks everyone to go in the office and talks to Chris and Anita about releases and states she has been told that they cannot be visiting at the same time as the children. Irene says that is my understanding. 





Eugenie Harris (eugenieharris@outlook.com)
5/16/13


To: sschroer@co.le-sueur.mn.us, lfreeman@co.le-sueur.mn.us


4/14/13 
Anita and Chris Bracken arrived about 2pm. After getting off the elevator Anita and Chris are surprised to see the kids are here.  Anita said I asked you before we left if they were going to be here because we are not suppose to be here if the kids are here. Judy interrupts before Genie can answer and asks everyone to step into her office. Judy starts discussing visits and releases. Anita said I talked to Genie yesterday and she said that she did not think the kids were going to be coming, because Irene Christensen did not know if she felt like driving all that way. Anita then stated which is ridiculous because there should be no reason for Genie's one day a week visit to ever be cancelled! Sally Schroer made the decision to NOT send her children to the treatment center that allows the children to join the mother.  So there should be no excuse or  guessing if kids are coming or not, regardless of how inconvenient Sally has made it for someone else to do their job.  Anita looks at Irene who shrugs her shoulders  as if to say " I don't know"

 Anita looked at Genie I talked to you before I came you said the kids would not be here and thats why we came. Genie says I did not know until they were here. Anita asked Judy if she knew the kids were coming Judy said no. Anita says  why would you not know until they are here? Chris says thats all right mom, we had to bring bathroom stuff anyway. Anita looks at irene and asks why is the mother not being informed when and if her kids are coming. Irene shrugs her shoulders as if to say " I don't know" a 2nd time. 




ACCOUNTS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE OFFICE AND THE FOUNTAIN CENTERS EMPLOYEE SIGNED OFF ON MS BRACKEN'S ACCOUNT AS TRUE WHICH REVEALED NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE COUNTY AND POOR TREATMENT TO THE MOTHER.


 MS BRACKEN IS STUDYING TO GET HER HUMAN SERVICE DEGREE AND HAD A BACKGROUND CHECK DONE BY THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.  BAXTER REFUSES TO ALLOW IT! IT IS THE SAME BACK GROUND CHECK SALLY SCHROER HAD DONE. BAXTER SAYS NO...SALLY SCHROER WHO HAS BEEN PARTICIPATING IN ABUSING THE CHILDREN IS PERMITTED TO BE AROUND THE CHILDREN EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS BEEN ABUSING THEM.  

THEN BAXTER  BLAMES MS BRACKEN FOR NOT HAVING A COPY OF THE BACKGROUND CHECK SHE SIGNED IN SALLY SCHROER'S OFFICE OCTOBER 5TH 2012 AND HAS WITNESSES TO SALLY SCHROER TELLING ANITA BRACKEN HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO GET RESULTS. ANITA BRACKEN WAS NOT AROUND BECAUSE HER YOUNGER BROTHER IS ON HIS DEATH BED. SO SHE DOES NOT HAVE TIME TO DO THE COUNTY'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THE KIDS ARE WITH FAMILY... CARIE KRENIK PERJURRED HERSELF AND LOOKED FOR A LOOP HOLE WHICH MAKES IT EASY FOR MOM TO SUE HER TO


SALLY SCHROER NEVER SENT THE SIGNED RELEASE IN. IT NEVER  CROSSES THE JUDGES MIND TO SHOW A LITTLE DISRESPECT TO THE COUNTY WORKER WHO NEVER SENT THE BACKGROUND CHECK. HE CONTINUES WITH OUT REASON TO MAKE SURE THE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN A GRANDMOTHER TO THESE KIDS FOR A YEAR NEVER SEES THEM AGAIN. 




6/03/13


To: lfreeman@co.le-sueur.mn.us



Lowell I am scared to do the relative placement through your county based on documented proof of bad paper work. then the number of people who want the county attorney's sister to adopt Genies Kids. can I do it through rice. according to guidelines now that reunification is done they can be moved I checked laws and as long as I will keep them forever they can be moved which I will do. What ever they need I will do. someone needs to direct the Dobmeiers to an adoption agency that might be a much better place then breaking down families that don't want to be torn apart.  

Minnesota state guidelines and Federal and state Laws. I am also the same religion as the boys and according to the law the mother can select a placement with the same religious beliefs . I have a great husband and I miss them so much 


THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER IS BROKE HE CANT WORK BECAUSE HE WAS IN A SERIOUS CAR ACCIDENT BREAKING BOTH HIS LEGS. DAD HAD TO BORROW 5 DOLLARS TO PAY FOR A NOTARY SIGNATURE IN NEVADA. IN AN ATTEMPT TO NOT LOSE HIS CHILDREN FROM FILLING AN ORDER , IN THE HOPES THEY WOULD ALSO NOT LOSE THEIR MOTHER BECAUSE OF THE UNDISCLOSED CONNECTION THE JUDGE HAD WITH THE PEOPLE TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER WHO PLACED THE ORDERS TO KEEP EUGENIE'SS CHILDREN. 
DAD SIGNED HIS RIGHTS OVER TO MS BRACKEN FOR A YEAR. JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER TEARS IT UP AND SAYS ITS GARBAGE JUST LIKE THE BACK GROUND CHECK.THE FATHER IS NOW HELPLESS TO STOP THE JUDGE FROM GIFTING HIS CHILDREN OUT TO HIS FRIENDS. DAD IS OUT OF STATE RECOVERING FROM AN AUTO ACCIDENT AND CANNOT WORK. 

JUDGE STRIPS HIM OF THE ONLY WAY HE CAN DEAL WITH THIS BY PUTTING SOMEONE HERE TO REPRESENT HIM AND THE JUDGE THROWS IT OUT BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE THE FATHER WHO IS OUT OF STATE AND BROKE RECOVERING FROM TO BROKEN LEGS HELPLESS TO STOP THE JUDGE FROM PILLAGING HIS CHILDREN. 

COULD YOU BE ANY MORE SICK AND VILE OF A HUMAN BEING THAN JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER HOW DOES A PREDATOR COME TO BE A JUDGE? HE TORMENTS A MOTHER WHO WAS TORTURED IN CAPTIVITY AND STRIPS A FATHER HELPLESS IN CIRCUMSTANCE TO DISASSEMBLE A FAMILY TO GIFT CHILDREN TO RELATIVES OF CLOSE FRIENDS...... 

CHILDREN WHO WILL BE DAMAGED AT THE LOSS OF THEIR MOTHER BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER ABUSED OR NEGLECTED ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND 99.9% OF THE PARENTS WHO HAVE DONE THE SAME THING  


EVERYONE SEES THAT THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST SITTING IN THE COURT ROOM BASED ON HOW THE JUDGE DEHUMANIZES ANYONE TRYING TO HELP THE FAMILY STAY TOGETHER. ONE SIDE CAN SHOUT OUT DEGRADING COMMENTS AT THE MOTHER LIKE THE CHILD PROTECTION WORKER. AND LIE ON THE STAND. WHILE THE OTHER SIDE CAN NOT EVEN SPEAK.. 

THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE JUDGE TREATS GOOD PEOPLE WHO DEPEND ON HIM TO BE FAIR AND UN BIAS. 

NOW THIS IS HOW HE TREATS THE OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE

 JUDGE ACCEPTS AN ORDER FOR CHILDREN APRIL 10 2013 BY THE CREEPY PEOPLE TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER TO KEEP EUGENIE HARRIS'S CHILDREN.

APRIL 10 2013 JUDGE TELLS ANITA BRACKEN SHE CANT TAKE THE KIDS BECAUSE THEN HE WOULD HAVE TO GET THEM BACK??????

THIS WAS RECORDED THIS GUY COULD NOT CHANGE HIS TRANSCRIPT EVEN IF HE WANTED TO BECAUSE IT WAS RECORDED.

TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER  ARE SEATED IN COURT WITH ALL THE COUNTY OFFICIALS AND GET TO SIT IN ON AND PARTICIPATE IN OFF THE RECORD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE JUDGE, THAT MOTHER DOES NOT GET TO SIT IN ON.

SHE IS SITTING OUT IN THE HALL ON A BENCH. PEOPLE TESTIFYING HAVE TO SIT IN THE HALL ON THE BENCH BUT NOT TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER. WHO SHOW UP TO EVERY HEARING BECAUSE THE CREEPY PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE IN A CUSTODY BATTLE.

 WHAT IS INTERESTING I NOTICED WHILE READING THE TRANSCRIPTS NOT ONLY DO TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER RECEIVE SPECIAL WAITING AREAS AND SEATING AND GET TO SIT IN ON OFF THE RECORD CONVERSATIONS THAT THE JUDGE HOLDS BEFORE COURT, AND THE CHILDREN ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO SEE THE DOBMEIER'S EXTENDED FAMILY FOR EXAMPLE THEIR AUNT, MELISSA DOBMEIER'S SISTER WHO TOLD THE 4 YEAR OLD HIS MOMMY WAS A CRACKHEAD. SHE DRIVES CALOB TO SCHOOL EVERY MORNING. 

THE KIDS SPEND WEEKENDS AT BRENT CHRISTIAN'S HOME ALSO RELATED TO MELISSA DOBMEIER. BRENT IS THE LE SUEUR COUNTY ATTORNEY WHO'S OFFICE IS TERMINATING THE MOTHERS RIGHTS.  THEY ARE ALSO ALLOWED TO BE AROUND CREEPY PEOPLE WHO PLACE ORDERS TO KEEP OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN WITH THE JUDGE MELISSA AND TONY DOBMEIER. 

 SO THE KIDS CAN SEE THE EXTENDED FAMILY OF TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER. JUST NOT THEIR MOTHERS FAMILY OR SPEAK TO THEIR MOTHERS FAMILY ON THE ON THE PHONE. 


WHEN MOTHER WANTS TO SPEND A BIRTHDAY WITH HER CHILDREN OR EVEN A HOLIDAY MINNESOTA STATE GUIDELINES SAY THE MOTHER'S PLANS MUST BE A PRIORITY OVER THE PLANS OF THE FOSTER CARE GIVER. 

YET FROM APRIL ON THE TRANSCRIPTS HAVE THE JUDGE GIVING THE FOSTER CARE GIVERS PRIORITY. THE JUDGE DOES NOT WANT THE MOTHER IMPOSING ON THE DOBMEIER'S FAMILY TIME. SOMEONE ACTUALLY GASPS IN SHOCK WHEN BAXTER  DOES THIS!
SOCIAL WORKER KNOWS BEFORE HEARING THAT MOTHERS RIGHTS ARE TERMINATED 


CARIE KRENIK IS CALLING FAMILY ON AUGUST 5TH TELLING PEOPLE THE JUDGE TERMINATED MOTHERS RIGHTS. THE COURT HEARING HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE YET INDICATING THE JUDGE HAD TOLD HER BEFORE SEPTEMBER 5TH 2013

JUDGE IS ACCEPTING AND FILLS ORDERS FOR CHILDREN FROM FRIENDS FAMILY MEMBERS 

THE JUDGE KNEW ALL ALONG THAT THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST YET CONTINUES.

 AS STATED BEFORE EVERYONE KNEW THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAS A TEAM OF GOOD GUYS AND PERCEIVED BAD GUYS. BAXTER BEATS UP ON ANYONE SITTING BEHIND THE MOTHER WHO ARE SHOWING HIM RESPECT. BAXTER SEEMS TO PRAISE THOSE WHO ARE NOT SHOWING RESPECT IN THE COURT ROOM. FOR EXAMPLE THE ASSIGNED CASE MANAGER MAKING JUVENILE COMMENTS ATTACKING MOTHER IN THE JUDGES COURT ROOM.  WHEN THE CASE FILE IS ORDERED TO DEFENSE. THE DOTS GET CONNECTED FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE UNJUSTLY DEHUMANIZED BY JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER. 


CONFLICTS-
JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER- PRESIDING JUDGE OVER EUGENIE HARRIS'S FALSIFIED MALTREATMENT HEARINGS FORMER EMPLOYER OF MEGAN GAUDETTE. ACCEPTING ORDERS FOR CHILDREN FROM MELISSA AND TONY DOBMEIER, THE DOBMEIER'S SPECIFICALLY PLACE AN ORDER FOR THE CHILDREN OF EUGENIE HARRIS. 

       MEGAN GAUDETTE -ASSISTANT LE SUEUR COUNTY ATTORNEY -FRIEND OF SALLY SCHROER THE COUNTY WORKER OVER EUGENIE HARRIS'S CASE. FORMER EMPLOYEE OF JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER- CURRENT EMPLOYEE OF BRENT CHRISTIAN THE LE SUEUR COUNTY ATTORNEY.

SALLY SCHROER- FRIEND OF MEGAN GAUDETTE ABUSER OF EUGENIE HARRIS'S CHILDREN CHILD PROTECTION WORKER WHO ACCEPTS ORDERS FOR CHILDREN FORM FOSTER CARE PEOPLE 

IRENE CHRISTENSON - VISITATION SUPERVISOR-FORMER SCHOOL TEACHER OF SALLY SCHROER AND GOOD FRIEND.

BRENT CHRISTIAN- LE SUEUR COUNTY ATTORNEY, FRIEND OF JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER,  WEEKEND BABYSITTER FOR THE CHILDREN OF EUGENIE HARRIS, HIS OFFICE IS TERMINATING RIGHTS OF EUGENIE HARRIS, RELATED TO TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER WHO ARE DOING FOSTER CARE FOR THE CHILDREN OF EUGENIE HARRIS, THE SAME FOSTER CARE GIVERS WHO PLACED ORDERS WITH COUNTY WORKER AND JUDGE TO GET RID OF THE CHILDREN'S MOTHER SO THEY COULD KEEP HER CHILDREN. BRENT IS ALSO THE CURRENT EMPLOYER OF MEGAN GAUDETTE 


TONY DOBMEIER - FOSTER CARE PERSON OF EUGENIE HARRIS'S CHILDREN, RELATED TO BRENT CHRISTIAN LE SUEUR COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS PLACED ORDERS WITH SEVERAL COUNTY OFFICIALS TO PERMANENTLY KEEP THE CHILDREN OF EUGENIE HARRIS, REQUESTING THE COUNTY TO GET RID OF THE MOTHER

MELISA DOBMEIER-FOSTER CARE PERSON OF EUGENIE HARRIS'S CHILDREN, RELATED TO BRENT CHRISTIAN LE SUEUR COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS PLACED ORDERS WITH SEVERAL COUNTY OFFICIALS TO PERMANENTLY KEEP THE CHILDREN OF EUGENIE HARRIS , REQUESTING THE COUNTY TO GET RID OF THE MOTHER

SUSAN RYNDA HEAD OF HUMAN SERVICE WHO ATTACKED ANITA BRACKEN FOR POINTING OUT HER EMPLOYEES CONDUCT AND PERJURY WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ALSO AWARE OF CONFLICT AND SUPPORTED HIDING IT

ROSE VALDEZ FRIENDS WITH COUNTY WORKERS COMMITTED PERJURY MULTIPLE TIMES AND MADE STATEMENTS LIKE I SUPPORT SOCIAL SERVICES. 



[4] Judges should participate in activities that promote ethical conduct among judges and lawyers, support professionalism within the judiciary and the legal profession, and promote access to justice for all.

JUDGE ALLOWS COUNTY TO TURN TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TRIAL  IN TO A PARENT OFF COMPETITION OF WHO IS THE BETTER PARENT, MOM OR CHILDLESS COUPLE TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER,  WHO PLACED ORDER TO KEEP MOTHERS CHILDREN WITH JUDGE AND ARE RELATIVES OF COUNTY OFFICIALS WHO ARE GOOD FRIENDS OF THE JUDGE. 


[5] Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules, or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge's honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
------------------------------------------------------------

[6] A judge should initiate and participate in community outreach activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice. In conducting such activities, the judge must act in a manner consistent with this Code.
GIFTING CHILDREN  out to his friends
ACCEPTING ORDERS FOR CHILDREN
TURNING HEARINGS IN TO PARENT OFF COMPETITIONS 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROFESSIONAL RULES

Code of Judicial Conduct

CANON 2

A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.

Rule 2.1Giving Precedence to the Duties of Judicial Office

The duties of judicial office, as prescribed by law, shall take precedence over all of a judge's personal and extrajudicial activities.
Comment
[1] To ensure that judges are available to fulfill their judicial duties, judges must conduct their personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflicts that would result in frequent disqualification. See Canon 3.

IT WAS POINTED OUT ABOVE THAT THERE WAS IMMEDIATE KNOWLEDGE OF WHO THIS JUDGE HAD RELATIONSHIPS WITH AND WHO HE DID NOT. 
[2] Although it is not a duty of judicial office unless prescribed by law, judges are encouraged to participate in activities that promote public understanding of and confidence in the justice system.

Rule 2.2Impartiality and Fairness

A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
Comment
[1] To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded.
[2] Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question.
[3] When applying and interpreting the law, a judge sometimes may make good-faith errors of fact or law. Errors of this kind do not violate this Rule.
[4] It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard.

Rule 2.3Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment

(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.
(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.
(C) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice, or engaging in harassment, against parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others based upon attributes including but not limited to race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation.
(D) The restrictions of paragraphs (B) and (C) do not preclude judges or lawyers from making legitimate reference to the listed factors, or similar factors, when they are relevant to an issue in a proceeding.
Comment
[1] A judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute.
[2] Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include but are not limited to epithets; slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping; attempted humor based upon stereotypes; threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; suggestions of connections between race, ethnicity, or nationality and crime; and irrelevant references to personal characteristics. Even facial expressions and body language can convey to parties and lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media, and others an appearance of bias or prejudice. A judge must avoid conduct that may reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or biased.
[3] Harassment, as referred to in paragraphs (B) and (C), is verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward a person on bases such as race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation.
[4] Sexual harassment includes but is not limited to sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is unwelcome.

Rule 2.4External Influences on Judicial Conduct

(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.
JUDGE ORDERS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ON A LOT OF ACCUSATIONS FLYING AROUND AND THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS WILL AIR THINGS OUT. RATHER THAN WHAT THE JUDGES BENCH BOOK OFFERS AS THE ONLY  CIRCUMSTANCES THAT A TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS HEARING CAN BE ORDERED UNDER IS CLEAR CONCISE EVIDENCE.

THE DEFENCE HAS NO CLUE WHAT ALLEGATIONS ARE FLYING AROUND IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ALLEGATIONS ARE COMING FROM HIS FRIENDS WHO WORK FOR THE COUNTY AND ARE WORKING FOR OR RELATED TO OR ARE CLOSE FRIENDS WITH THE DOBMEIER'S WHO PLACED AN ORDER WITH THE JUDGE TO KEEP EUGENIE HARRIS'S CHILDREN  
(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.
Comment
[1] An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with the public, the media, government officials, or the judge's friends or family. Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.

Rule 2.5Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation

(A) A judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently.
(B) A judge shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business.
Comment
[1] Competence in the performance of judicial duties requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to perform a judge's responsibilities of judicial office.
[2] A judge should seek the necessary docket time, court staff, expertise, and resources to discharge all adjudicative and administrative responsibilities.
[3] Prompt disposition of the court's business requires a judge to devote adequate time to judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to take reasonable measures to ensure that court officials, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end.
[4] In disposing of matters promptly and efficiently, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A judge should monitor and supervise cases in ways that reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.

Rule 2.6Ensuring the Right to Be Heard

(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.
(B) A judge may encourage parties to a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters in dispute but shall not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement.
Comment
[1] The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and impartial system of justice. Substantive rights of litigants can be protected only if procedures protecting the right to be heard are observed.
[2] The judge plays an important role in overseeing the settlement of disputes, but should be careful that efforts to further settlement do not undermine any party's right to be heard according to law. The judge should keep in mind the effect that the judge's participation in settlement discussions may have, not only on the judge's own views of the case, but also on the perceptions of the lawyers and the parties if the case remains with the judge after settlement efforts are unsuccessful. Among the factors that a judge should consider when deciding upon an appropriate settlement practice for a case are (1) whether the parties have requested or voluntarily consented to a certain level of participation by the judge in settlement discussions, (2) whether the parties and their counsel are relatively sophisticated in legal matters, (3) whether the case will be tried by the judge or a jury, (4) whether the parties participate with their counsel in settlement discussions, (5) whether any parties are unrepresented by counsel, and (6) whether the matter is civil or criminal.
[3] Judges must be mindful of the effect settlement discussions can have, not only on their objectivity and impartiality, but also on the appearance of their objectivity and impartiality. Despite a judge's best efforts, there may be instances when information obtained during settlement discussions could influence a judge's decision making during trial, and, in such instances, the judge should consider whether disqualification may be appropriate. See Rule 2.11(A)(1).

Rule 2.7Responsibility to Decide

A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when disqualification is required by Rule 2.11 or other law.
Comment
[1] Judges must be available to decide the matters that come before the court. Although there are times when disqualification is necessary to protect the rights of litigants and preserve public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, judges must be available to decide matters that come before the courts. Unwarranted disqualification may bring public disfavor to the court and to the judge personally. The dignity of the court, the judge's respect for fulfillment of judicial duties, and a proper concern for the burdens that may be imposed upon the judge's colleagues requires that a judge not use disqualification to avoid cases that present difficult, controversial, or unpopular issues.

Rule 2.8Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication with Jurors

(A) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the court.
(B) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control.
(C) A judge shall not commend or criticize jurors for their verdict other than in a court order or opinion in a proceeding.
Comment
[1] The duty to hear all proceedings with patience and courtesy is not inconsistent with the duty imposed in Rule 2.5 to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Judges can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.
[2] Commending or criticizing jurors for their verdict may imply a judicial expectation in future cases and may impair a juror's ability to be fair and impartial in a subsequent case.
[3] A judge who is not otherwise prohibited by law from doing so may meet with jurors who choose to remain after trial but should be careful not to discuss the merits of the case.

Rule 2.9Ex Parte Communications

A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending or impending matter, except as follows:
(1) When circumstances require it, ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes, which does not address substantive matters, is permitted, provided:
(a) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication;
(b) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication, and gives the parties an opportunity to respond.
(2) A judge may obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before the judge if the judge gives advance notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice to be solicited, and affords the parties a reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the advice received.
(3) A judge may consult with court staff and court officials whose functions are to aid the judge in carrying out the judge's adjudicative responsibilities, or with other judges, provided the judge makes reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not part of the record, and does not abrogate the responsibility personally to decide the matter.
(4) A judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their lawyers in an effort to settle matters pending before the judge.
(5) A judge may initiate, permit, or consider any ex parte communication when expressly authorized by law to do so.
(B) If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the communication should be noted as received and returned to the sender without review by the judge. If a judge inadvertently reviews an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision to notify the parties promptly of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.
(C) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.
(D) A judge shall make reasonable efforts, including providing appropriate supervision, to ensure that this Rule is not violated by court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control.
Comment
[1] To the extent reasonably possible, all parties or their lawyers shall be included in communications with a judge.
[2] Whenever the presence of a party or notice to a party is required by this Rule, it is the party's lawyer, or if the party is unrepresented, the party, who is to be present or to whom notice is to be given.
[3] The proscription against communications concerning a proceeding includes communications with lawyers, law teachers, and other persons who are not participants in the proceeding, except to the limited extent permitted by this Rule.
[4] A judge may initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications expressly authorized by law, such as when serving on therapeutic or problem-solving courts, mental health courts, or drug courts. In this capacity, judges may assume a more interactive role with parties, treatment providers, probation officers, social workers, and others.
[5] A judge may consult with other judges on pending matters, but must avoid ex parte discussions of a case with judges who have previously been disqualified from hearing the matter, and with judges who have appellate jurisdiction over the matter.
[6] The prohibition against a judge investigating the facts in a matter extends to information available in all mediums, including electronic.
[7] A judge may consult ethics advisory committees, outside counsel, or legal experts concerning the judge's compliance with this Code. Such consultations are not subject to the restrictions of paragraph (A)(2).

Rule 2.10Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases

(A) A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.

DURING APRIL 10 COURT HEARING BAXTER SAYS THE CHILDREN'S GRANDMOTHER CANNOT HAVE THE CHILDREN BECAUSE THEN HE WOULD HAVE TO GET THEM BACK AND HE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. PROOF OF A CRUEL MAN.

CARIE KRENIK CALLED PEOPLE AUGUST 5 2013 TELLING THEM THE JUDGE IS TERMINATING THE RIGHTS OF THE MOTHER AND THAT GRANDPARENTS WILL NEVER SEE THEM AGAIN. NOR CAN THEY SPEAK WITH THEM ON THE PHONE TO SAY GOODBYE. CARIE KRENIK IS DANGEROUS TO CHILDREN.
(B) A judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.
CARIE KRENIK CALLED PEOPLE AUGUST 5 2013 TELLING THEM THE JUDGE IS TERMINATING THE RIGHTS OF THE MOTHER AND THAT GRANDPARENTS WILL NEVER SEE THEM AGAIN. NOR CAN THEY SPEAK WITH THEM ON THE PHONE TO SAY GOODBYE.

 TELLING ANITA BRACKEN HE WILL HAVE TO TAKE KIDS BACK IF MOTHER FAILS. THE ONLY REASON THIS GUY WOULD NOT LET A FAMILY MEMBER HAVE THESE CHILDREN AND HE WOULD NEED TO TAKE THEM BACK IS BECAUSE HE HAD PLANNED ON TORTURING MOM FORCING HER TO FAIL OR BREAK AND THEN BROKER MOMS CHILDREN OUT TO CREEPY PEOPLE WHO PLACE ORDERS FOR CHILDREN.



(C) A judge shall require court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control to refrain from making statements that the judge would be prohibited from making by paragraphs (A) and (B).

CARIE KRENIK IS MAKING ANNOUNCEMENT OF TERMINATION A MONTH EARLIER
(D) Notwithstanding the restrictions in paragraph (A), a judge may make public statements in the course of official duties, may explain court procedures, and may comment on any proceeding in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity.
(E) Subject to the requirements of paragraph (A), a judge may respond directly or through a third party to allegations in the media or elsewhere concerning the judge's conduct in a matter.
Comment
[1] This Rule's restrictions on judicial speech are essential to the maintenance of the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.
[2] This Rule does not prohibit a judge from commenting on proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity. In cases in which the judge is a litigant in an official capacity, such as a writ of mandamus, the judge must not comment publicly.
[3] Depending upon the circumstances, the judge should consider whether it may be preferable for a third party, rather than the judge, to respond or issue statements in connection with allegations concerning the judge's conduct in a matter.

Rule 2.11Disqualification

(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:
(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.
(2) The judge knows that the judge, the judge's spouse, a person with whom the judge has an intimate relationship, a member of the judge's household, or a person within the third degree of relationship to any of them, or the spouse or person in an intimate relationship with such a person is:
(a) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, general partner, managing member, or trustee or a party;
(b) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(c) a person who has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; or
(d) likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(3) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse, parent, child, or any other member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household, a person with whom the judge has an intimate relationship, or any other member of the judge's household, has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding.
(4) The judge, while a judge or a judicial candidate, has made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision, or opinion, that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result or rule in a particular way in the proceeding or controversy.
(5) The judge:
(a) served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or was associated with a lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer in the matter during such association;
(b) served in governmental employment, and in such capacity participated personally and substantially as a lawyer or public official concerning the proceeding, or has publicly expressed in such capacity an opinion concerning the merits of the particular matter in controversy;
(c) was a material witness concerning the matter; or
(d) previously presided as a judge over the matter in another court.
(B) A judge shall keep informed about the judge's personal and fiduciary economic interests, and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal economic interests of the judge's spouse, a person with whom the judge has an intimate relationship, and any member of the judge's household.
(C) A judge subject to disqualification under this Rule, other than for bias or prejudice under paragraph (A)(1), may disclose on the record the basis of the judge's disqualification and may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, outside the presence of the judge and court personnel, whether to waive disqualification. If, following the disclosure, the parties and lawyers agree, without participation by the judge or court personnel, that the judge should not be disqualified, the judge may participate in the proceeding. The agreement shall be incorporated into the record of the proceeding.
Comment
[1] Under this Rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific provisions of paragraphs (A)(1) through (5) apply. In many jurisdictions, the term "recusal" is used interchangeably with the term "disqualification."
[2] A judge's obligation not to hear or decide matters in which disqualification is required applies regardless of whether a motion to disqualify is filed.
[3] The rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification. For example, a judge might be required to participate in judicial review of a judicial salary statute, or might be the only judge available in a matter requiring immediate judicial action, such as a hearing on probable cause or a temporary restraining order. In matters that require immediate action, the judge must disclose on the record the basis for possible disqualification and make reasonable efforts to transfer the matter to another judge as soon as practicable.
[4] The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a relative of the judge is affiliated does not itself disqualify the judge. If, however, the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned under paragraph (A), or the relative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be substantially affected by the proceeding under paragraph (A)(2)(c), the judge's disqualification is required.
[5] A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification.
[6] "Economic interest," as set forth in the Terminology section, means ownership of more than a de minimis legal or equitable interest. Except for situations in which a judge participates in the management of such a legal or equitable interest, or the interest could be substantially affected by the outcome of a proceeding before a judge, it does not include:
(1) an interest in the individual holdings within a mutual or common investment fund;
(2) an interest in securities held by an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization in which the judge or the judge's spouse, parent, child, a member of the judge's household, or a person with whom the judge has an intimate relationship serves as a director, officer, advisor, or other participant;
(3) a deposit in a financial institution or deposits or proprietary interests the judge may maintain as a member of a mutual savings association or credit union, or similar proprietary interests; or
(4) an interest in the issuer of government securities held by the judge.

Rule 2.12Supervisory Duties

(A) A judge shall require court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control to act in a manner consistent with the judge's obligations under this Code.
(B) A judge with supervisory authority for the performance of other judges shall take reasonable measures to ensure that those judges properly discharge their judicial responsibilities, including the prompt disposition of matters before them.
Comment
[1] A judge is responsible for his or her own conduct and for the conduct of others, such as staff, when those persons are acting at the judge's direction or control. A judge may not direct court personnel to engage in conduct on the judge's behalf or as the judge's representative when such conduct would violate the Code if undertaken by the judge.
[2] Public confidence in the judicial system depends upon timely justice. To promote the efficient administration of justice, a judge with supervisory authority must take the steps needed to ensure that judges under his or her supervision administer their workloads promptly.

Rule 2.13Administrative Appointments

(A) In making administrative appointments, a judge:
(1) shall exercise the power of appointment impartially and on the basis of merit; and
(2) shall avoid nepotism, favoritism, and unnecessary appointments.
(B) A judge shall not approve compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services rendered.
Comment
[1] Appointees of a judge include assigned counsel, officials such as referees, commissioners, special masters, receivers, and guardians, and personnel such as clerks, secretaries, and bailiffs. Consent by the parties to an appointment or an award of compensation does not relieve the judge of the obligation prescribed by paragraph (A).
[2] Unless otherwise defined by law, nepotism is the appointment or hiring of any relative within the third degree of relationship of the judge, the judge's spouse, a person in an intimate relationship with the judge, a member of the judge's household, or the spouse or person in an intimate relationship with such person.

Rule 2.14Disability and Impairment

A judge having a reasonable belief that the performance of a lawyer or another judge is impaired by drugs or alcohol, or by a mental, emotional, or physical condition, shall take appropriate action, which may include a confidential referral to a lawyer or judicial assistance program.
Comment
[1] "Appropriate action" means action intended and reasonably likely to help the judge or lawyer in question address the problem and prevent harm to the justice system. Depending upon the circumstances, appropriate action may include but is not limited to speaking directly to the impaired person, notifying an individual with supervisory responsibility over the impaired person, or making a referral to an assistance program.
[2] Taking or initiating corrective action by way of referral to an assistance program may satisfy a judge's responsibility under this Rule. Assistance programs have many approaches for offering help to impaired judges and lawyers, such as intervention, counseling, or referral to appropriate health care professionals. Depending upon the gravity of the conduct that has come to the judge's attention, however, the judge may be required to take other action, such as reporting the impaired judge or lawyer to the appropriate authority, agency, or body. See Rule 2.15.

Rule 2.15Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct

(A) A judge having knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question regarding the judge's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.
(B) A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.
(C) A judge who receives credible information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action.
(D) A judge who receives credible information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action.
Comment
[1] Taking action to address known misconduct is a judge's obligation. Paragraphs (A) and (B) impose an obligation on the judge to report to the appropriate disciplinary authority the known misconduct of another judge or a lawyer that raises a substantial question regarding the honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness of that judge or lawyer. Ignoring or denying known misconduct among one's judicial colleagues or members of the legal profession undermines a judge's responsibility to participate in efforts to ensure public respect for the justice system. This Rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that an independent judiciary must vigorously endeavor to prevent.
[2] A judge who does not have actual knowledge that another judge or a lawyer may have committed misconduct, but receives credible information indicating a substantial likelihood of such misconduct, is required to take appropriate action under paragraphs (C) and (D). Appropriate action may include, but is not limited to, communicating directly with the judge who may have violated this Code, communicating with a supervising judge, or reporting the suspected violation to the appropriate authority or other agency or body. Similarly, actions to be taken in response to credible information indicating that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct may include, but are not limited to, communicating directly with the lawyer who may have committed the violation, or reporting the suspected violation to the appropriate authority or other agency or body.

Rule 2.16Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities

(A) A judge shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies.
(B) A judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a judge or a lawyer.
Comment
[1] Cooperation with investigations and proceedings of judicial and lawyer discipline agencies, as required in paragraph (A), instills confidence in judges' commitment to the integrity of the judicial system and the protection of the public.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANON 3

A JUDGE SHALL CONDUCT THE JUDGE'S PERSONAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF JUDICIAL OFFICE.

Rule 3.1Extrajudicial Activities in General

A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, except as prohibited by law or this Code. However, when engaging in extrajudicial activities, a judge shall not:
(A) participate in activities that will interfere with the proper performance of the judge's judicial duties;
(B) participate in activities that will lead to frequent disqualification of the judge;
(C) participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge's independence, integrity, or impartiality;
(D) engage in conduct that would appear to a reasonable person to be coercive; or
(E) make use of court premises, staff, stationery, equipment, or other resources, except for incidental use for activities that concern the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, or unless such additional use is permitted by law or Judicial Branch policy.