Thursday, December 6, 2007
MINNESOTA RULES
OF
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
AMENDED
Effective October 1, 2005
Amended July 1, 2007
www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/05mrpc
INDEX
- Preamble: A Lawyer's Responsibilities
- Scope
- Terminology
- CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP
- 1.1 Competence
- 1.2 Scope of Representation
- 1.3 Diligence
- 1.4 Communication
- 1.5 Fees
- 1.6 Confidentiality of Information
- 1.7 Conflict of Interest: General Rule
- 1.8 Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions
- 1.9 Conflict of Interest: Former Client
- 1.10 Imputed Disqualification: General Rule
- 1.11 Successive Government and Private Employment
- 1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, or Law Clerk
- 1.13 Organization as Client
- 1.14 Client Under a Disability
- 1.15 Safekeeping Property
- 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation
- 1.17 Sale of a Law Practice
- COUNSELOR
- ADVOCATE
- 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions
- 3.2 Expediting Litigation
- 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal
- 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel
- 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal
- 3.6 Trial Publicity
- 3.7 Lawyer as Witness
- 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
- 3.9 Advocate in Nonadjudicative Proceedings
- TRANSACTIONS WITH PERSONS OTHER THAN CLIENTS
- 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others
- 4.2 Communication With Person Represented by Counsel
- 4.3 Dealing With Unrepresented Person
- 4.4 Respect for Rights of Third Persons
- LAW FIRM AND ASSOCIATIONS
- 5.1 Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer
- 5.2 Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer
- 5.3 Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants
- 5.4 Professional Independence of a Lawyer
- 5.5 Unauthorized Practice of Law
- 5.6 Restrictions on Right to Practice
- 5.7 Employment of Disbarred, Suspended, or Involuntarily Inactive Lawyers
- PUBLIC SERVICE
- 6.1 Voluntary Pro Bono Publico Service
- 6.2 Accepting Appointments
- 6.3 Membership in Legal Services Organization
- 6.4 Law Reform Activities Affecting Client Interests
- INFORMATION ABOUT LEGAL SERVICES
- 7.1 Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services
- 7.2 Advertising and Written Communication
- 7.3 In-Person and Telephone Contact With Prospective Clients
- 7.4 Communication of Fields of Practice
- 7.5 Firm names and Letterheads
- MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROFESSION
http://www.massoutrage.com/dssfalseallegations.htm
I. THE SOURCE OF DSS POWER IS THIS: JUDGES CAN'T TELL DSS WHAT TO DO! THE DSS TELLS JUDGES WHAT IT WILL DO!
DSS is completely in control. Even judges can't reign them in.
This is one of the dirtiest and least known secrets of how DSS is able to destroy so many families, and the source of their power: DSS is in control, not the courts.
Ever since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided two cases back in 1995, Care and Protection of Isaac, 419 Mass. 602 (1995) and Care and Protection of Jeremy, 419 Mass. 616 (1995), the DSS has had almost complete control of all children in its custody. A judge will only interfere if DSS is committing what is ridiculously called an "abuse of discretion."
When does DSS abuse its "discretion" enough for a court to step in and stop them?
Generally, never. The Courts have become rubber stamps for DSS. Death, torture, broken bones, bruises, wounds, medical neglect, and other 'minor' problems caused by DSS do not seem to bother courts very much. However, if the parents pray, spank, or yell at the child, then they will authorize the DSS to take your children and give them to a family who cannot be told not to abuse them. Foster parents and DSS approved programs and institutions can usually abuse children at will, often with no consequences whatsoever. As long as it's their guy doing the abusing, nothing will happen.
Not only will a court refuse to stop DSS caretakers from abusing children, it will usually not mind if DSS is falsifying records, committing perjury, taking children on false pretenses, illegally stretching out a case for years, or demanding that a wife commit perjury by getting a false restraining order against the husband.
In other words, DSS is accountable to no one, and no one can stop them, unless the state legislature or a higher court steps in and changes the state of the law.
Well, can't I sue them?
As with all things in the strange world of "child protection", the DSS has been given a gift of protection from lawsuits, called "qualified immunity". That is a fancy name for being lawsuit-proof in most cases. Right now, until someone succeeds in getting a court to change the situation, DSS agents are immune from suits for all "discretionary" decisions.
"Discretion" is when they decide to do just about anything they want: to kidnap your child from you, to keep your child, to adopt your child out, to hurt your child, to emotionally manipulate your child, to stop your child from hugging you at visits, or just about anything else. Only when they violate a "clearly established" constitutional right can they be sued. That is almost never.
It is ridiculous, but the courts have continually protected foolish and biased social workers from any liability for wrongdoing. We are going to try to change this. See the section about our DSS lawsuit.
What are "clearly established" constitutional rights?
Technically, they are rights specifically listed as being protected in the Massachusetts or federal constitutions, such as the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms.
Parental rights are not specifically listed in the either the state or federal constitutions. However, parental rights are "reserved powers", which means that any power not specifically given to the government by the constitution belongs to the people. All powers, including parental rights, which are not mentioned in the Constitution, are kept by the people under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Because most courts now operate more by a political agenda than by law, they will often only protect 'enumerated', or listed rights. However, the constitution is not supposed to work that way. All rights are yours by natural divine law. The constitution does not create rights, but only binds down the government from interfering with them. The Massachusetts and Federal constitutions list several rights as examples in the Bill of Rights, and then basically say that if we forgot any others, they are protected, too.
However, most judges now believe that government creates and grants rights, rather than preserves existing rights that are bestowed by our creator, and which cannot be taken away. Thus, they will ignore your parental rights if it suits them.
Judges often merely explain rights away if they do not favor them politically, as they have done with gun rights, for example. They treat the rights protected under the constitution like an accordion - they expand certain ones that are in political favor, and contract others that are not politically correct.
Do parents have ANY rights?
Not really. The problem is that our founders never dreamed that anyone would ever think of intruding into families, so they did not write specific protections into our state and federal constitutions. They assumed family government would exist peacefully alongside state and church government. Now, when the rights of parents to raise children are being challenged, there is little protection available from courts against the savage predators in the DSS.
A parents' right to direct the upbringing of their children was never questioned until recently. Now, the state sees itself as the parent, and they let you have temporary custody of your own child, unless and until you do something the state doesn't like - then the child goes back to its true parent - the state. There is even a Latin lawyer term for this: Parens Patriae, which means, "father of his country". The Real Life Dictionary of the Law defines parens patriae as: "the doctrine that the government is the ultimate guardian of all people under a disability, especially children, whose care is only entrusted to their parents."
Are you getting this? The state now owns your children, and entrusts you with them, until you do something politically incorrect, like home school them, spank them, pray with them, or otherwise try to keep them out of the hands of those who want to make them into obedient world citizens.
You have told me all that I CAN'T do. Is there anything I CAN do?
Yes, but there are no easy answers. Read on.
II. THE GRIZZLY BEAR (Adapted from material written by Mike Humiston at NationalOutrage.org)
A grizzly is a dangerous creature. They are arbitrary, vicious, and they are not afraid of you. Sound familiar? If you encounter one in the wild, you must be very careful. . .
Should I throw sticks and rocks and scream at him?
Only if you want him to kill you.
Then I should turn and run, real fast . . .
Only if you can run very, very fast.
Then what should I do?
Stand firm, don't show any signs of fear or anger, then carefully, quietly, back away.
The grizzly is the child welfare system . . .
But I thought somebody else's government was the Great Bear . . .
Indeed. Always be polite when dealing with caseworkers and the police. Always, always!
Why?
Because the police carry guns, for crying out loud! And because you are dealing with terrorists, and they have your children. If you argue with the caseworker or the judge, you will only antagonize them. Nothing you say is going to change their minds or make them quit twisting your words. So don't try. Don't give them words to twist. There's no use throwing sticks and stones at the grizzly.
What about running away?
If you can do so legally, then do so. If the state has legal custody of your children, it is illegal to take them and leave. If you're going to break the law, then as with the grizzly, you better be able to run pretty far pretty fast. There are people sitting in prison at this moment for "kidnapping" their own children.
Are you telling me to give up?
Absolutely not! We're telling you to be smart. Know your rights and control the flow of information, but do it with a smile on your face and with total graciousness. "I'm sure this treatment plan is okay, but I'd just like to have my attorney go over it before I sign it. I believe you when you tell me they're just routine, so I'm sure you don't mind if he just has a look before I sign." Remember, the guy who tells you don't need an attorney is the guy who has something to hide. Just because their forms are "routine" does not make them right.
III. WHAT A PARENT CAN DO TO FIGHT FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE.
Unfortunately, you cannot do as much as you would really like to do to fight DSS yourself, except to AVOID doing the wrong things. You can learn about many of those wrong things, and about DSS dirty tricks, on this MassOutrage web site, and the linked sites. However, even if you learned it all, that is only the beginning.
Knowing the things you can learn here, simply doesn't give you the whole scope of the process. Courts and lawyers have made it so complicated (probably to keep a lot of their buddies employed) that very few people even inside the system completely understand the process and all its legal requirements.
In sum, fighting DSS is so hard, so technical, and there are so many pitfalls, that you are better off to work with a good lawyer rather than try it yourself. There is just so much to fighting one of these cases, that it is about like doing brain surgery on yourself to try it alone.
So. . . .
1. Get a good lawyer.
The single biggest ingredient in fighting the DSS menace is to get a good lawyer. What is a good lawyer? Here is the list of qualities I would look for:
- Hates the DSS;
- Committed to parental rights over government power;
- Knows the DSS law, regulations and policies;
- Will stand up to DSS social workers and judges, not collaborate with them;
- Is YOUR lawyer only, and is not being paid by the state;
- Will work with, not against, your spouse's lawyer to get your kids back, if appropriate;
- Respects you;
- Respects the Constitution and other founding documents;
- Does not think lawyers are God, and will work WITH you, not talk down to you;
- You trust him and he trusts you. You are both going to take a blindfolded walk down the plank in the dark, so you better trust each other.
2. Work with your lawyer.
The most important thing you can do to get your children back, in addition to avoiding falling into any of the DSS dirty tricks, is work with your lawyer to help him or her get your kids back. How?
You can help review the DSS record, which is very tedious, to look for any evidence you can use against DSS. You can make a chronology, or a time line of all the major events so far, so that the lawyer can get a clear overview of your case. You can pay the poor guy, so he can endure the endless days and nights of attention to your case. You can be patient with the delays, knowing that it is not your lawyer, but DSS and the Court, who have caused them.
You can do everything he tells you in the way of counseling or drug testing or parenting classes, so that he can go back to DSS and report that you have been a good little boy or girl. You can clean up your act, if it isn't: Straighten up your house, your heart, and your life.
You can attend every visitation that your child's kidnappers allow, without fail, even though they will cancel the visits any time they feel like it for any selfish reason. (Irony - they often cancel to care for their own child). You can smile (though gritted teeth) at your child's captors, and work with them. Never, never show your anger, even though the social worker may deserve to fry in the lowest part of Hell.
Listen to your lawyer. Trust your lawyer. If you can't, get a new one. Even if you have a state appointed lawyer, due to lack of finances, fire him if he does not work for you. If he is laughing it up with DSS, fire him. Most lawyers who do this work actually like DSS because they get a lot of work from it. Me - I'd be very happy to be put out of the DSS business tomorrow, if they were abolished.
IV. ANY MORE ADVICE?
What about the Government School? Can they get my children there?
They sure can. In fact, it is the preferred method. No pesky parents. Only sympathetic statists who embrace big brother and believe that the government has the best interest of the child at heart, as opposed to the parents. Government school, you say? Is that a PUBLIC school? Yes, and it is financed by, supported by, and run by the same government who wants to steal your children.
If they have any suspicions about your home whatsoever, the DSS agents will come to your child's government school, all smiles, and take your children aside. They will use suggestive and coercive techniques, and get "disclosures" about what goes on in your home: things like spanking or other discipline, prayer in the home (that is now 'abuse'), yelling or arguments between parents (that is now 'domestic violence'). Since this is done alone, no one will be able to fight the DSS agent's lying version of the "abuse" that they will coerce out of the child.
If I can't trust the government school, who can I trust?
No one but your own private lawyer, as stated above. The government has a snitch network of so-called "Mandated Reporters" everywhere a child is likely to be. Nurses, doctors, school counselors, police, dentists, therapists, teachers, day care workers, and many others MUST report anything they think is suspicious, or risk a big fine.
They have manipulated these former helping professionals into becoming snoops for the "Central Party Committee". These people used to be able to help folks in trouble. Now, if you go to them, they will turn you into the DSS. The authorities have beat them into submission, and most of them now have the attitude of : When in doubt, report.
At this point in our history, only your lawyer can keep your secrets, by law. Everyone else is a snitch. Tell them to no one else.
What should I do, then?
GET YOUR CHILDREN OUT of the government school, and do it now. That is the major pipeline through which the DSS steals children from families. If you are taking government aid of any sort, get rid of it, if you can.
If you decide to compromise your family by keeping your children in danger there, then at least teach them that if some DSS agent comes to talk to them, that they demand to have their parents present before answering any questions.
Teach your children the sanctity of the family. The schools are teaching your children to rat on you. Teach your children the other side, the danger to which they expose your whole family by reporting you to the authorities. Teach your children that dozens of children have committed suicide while in foster care. Hundreds have died. Thousands have been tortured and abused.
Teach them that they have the right to remain silent, and if they choose not to remain silent, each and every word they say will be used against their mommy and daddy. Love them, love them, love them.
Teach your children this: "Kids, this is our family attorney, Mr. Smith. He is our family's only attorney. He is the only attorney that we talk to. If somebody else comes to you and says he is your own attorney (e.g. the DSS agent, or guardian ad litem) anything you say to him will be used against our family."
One of the best things you can do is buy and read Suzanne Shell's book, Profane Justice. It can be ordered for $15.00 by calling 1-800-447-3081, ext. 7794, or write to: Sage Wisdom Press, P.O. Box 75863, Colorado Springs, CO 80970. Forewarned is forearmed.
What about real child abuse?
Real child abusers should go to prison. And the traditional due process protections of criminal law are more than enough to separate the true abusers from the falsely accused. Just because O.J. was acquitted of murder does not mean we should dispose of all due process. Likewise, just because some abusers will get away does not mean we should take away all children.
[Compiled from numerous sources.]
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Minnesota Statutes 2007
Chapter 383D. Dakota County
Copyright © 2007 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.
| 383D.05 | Commissioners' expense. |
| 383D.09 | May merge treasurer and auditor, make recorder APPOINTIVE. |
| 383D.095 | County administrator serves as clerk of county board. |
| 383D.15 | Inactive. |
| 383D.153 | Extension committee members. |
| 383D.17 | Road and bridge aids. |
| 383D.21 | Resolution to create personnel system, appeals board. |
| 383D.22 | Definitions. |
| 383D.23 | Jurisdiction: positions of listed appointers; exclusions. |
| 383D.24 | Employee relations director appointment. |
| 383D.25 | Duties and powers of the director. |
| 383D.26 | Payrolls approved by director. |
| 383D.27 | Civil service and merit system relationships. |
| 383D.28 | Veterans to be given preference. |
| 383D.29 | County board binds county on labor agreements. |
| 383D.30 | County board appoints personnel board of appeals. |
| 383D.31 | Duties of board of appeals. |
| 383D.32 | Judicial review. |
| 383D.33 | Appropriation by county board. |
| 383D.34 | Inactive. |
| 383D.35 | Protection of rights under state and federal laws. |
| 383D.41 | Housing and redevelopment authority. |
| 383D.45 | Historical society. |
| 383D.46 | Campground operators. |
| 383D.47 | Morgue costs. |
| 383D.48 | Minnesota inter-county association. |
| 383D.49 | Agricultural society. |
| 383D.61 | Comprehensive plan. |
| 383D.63 | Planning advisory commission. |
| 383D.65 | Approval of plats; fee; survey filing. |
| 383D.67 | Inactive. |
| 383D.71 | Resource recovery. |
| 383D.73 | Assessment review. |
| 383D.74 | Inactive. |
United States Supreme Court
Parental Rights Caselaw
In the early 1920s, the United States Supreme Court first reviewed the rights, liberties and obligations of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. Two important decisions, Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, established a legacy which was followed by a series of decisions holding that parenting is a fundamental constitutional right, and among "the basic civil rights of man."
Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among those rights the Court has ranked as "of basic importance in our society," and as sheltered by the 14th Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.
Assembled here are a majority of those cases defining or reaffirming these fundamental rights. Links are provided to each case on the FindLaw Internet Legal Resources service. Each is in hypertext format, with links to related opinions of the court contained in the ruling.
M. L. B. v. S. L. J.
___ US ___, 117 S. Ct. 555 (1996)
- Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as "of basic importance in our society," rights sheltered by the 14th Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect. This case, involving the State's authority to sever permanently a parent-child bond, demanded the close consideration the Court has long required when a family association so undeniably important was at stake.
455 US 745 (1982)
- The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child is protected by the 14th Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.
452 US 18 (1981)
- The Court's decisions have by now made plain that a parent's desire for and right to "the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children" is an important interest that "undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." A parent's interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision to terminate his or her parental status is, therefore, a commanding one.
434 US 246 (1978)
- We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended "if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children's best interest." Whatever might be required in other situations, we cannot say that the State was required in this situation to find anything more than that the adoption, and denial of legitimation, were in the "best interests of the child."
431 US 816 (1977)
- In this action, individual foster parents and a foster parents organization, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against New York State and New York City officials, alleging that the statutory and regulatory procedures for removal of foster children from foster homes violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The ruling contains an analysis of the rights of natural parents as balanced against the rights of foster parents, as well as a comprehensive discussion of foster care conditions.
431 US 494 (1977)
- The Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A host of cases, tracing their lineage to Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters have consistently acknowledged a "private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced.
414 US 632 (1974)
- The Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is a right "to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."
405 US 645 (1972)
- The private interest here, that of a man in the children he has sired and raised, undeniably warrants deference and protection. The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the 9th Amendment.
406 US 205 (1972)
- In this case involving the rights of Amish parents to provide for private schooling of their children, the Court held: "The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition."
388 US 1 (1967)
- In this case involving interracial marriage, the Court reaffirmed the principles set forth in Pierce and Meyers, finding that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
381 US 479 (1965)
- The 4th and 5th Amendments were described as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." The Court referred to the 4th Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people." Reaffirming the principles set forth in Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyers v Nebraska.
321 US 158 (1944)
- It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.
316 US 535 (1942)
- "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
268 US 510 (1925)
- The liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children was abridged by a proposed statute to compell public education. "The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
262 US 390 (1923)
- "No state ... shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Home Page
FindLaw is a trademark of Findlaw Internet Legal Resources.