• Safe and secure

  • Quick and easy

  • web-based solution

  • 24/7 Customer Service

Rate form

4.8 Statisfied

849 votes

Must-do's in Signing the State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes on Mobile

Utilize CocoSign's wealth of templates and tailor-make your own State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes following the guide below, reducing turnaround time massively and streamlining your workflow like no other.

Enter the data needed in the blank area

Draw or add your professional signature

Press "Done" to keep the modifications.

  1. in the beginning, select on the wide collection of forms available at CocoSign for the desired file.
  2. Then browse the chosen form to get a clear idea which parts are to be filled.
  3. Next, enter the the data needed in the blank fillable fields.
  4. Examine the form again making sure you haven't missed anything.
  5. When you have affirmed that everything is correct, you can sign it by clicking the "Sign" instruction.
  6. Customize the form by appending your digital signature.
  7. Save the document by pressing the button "Done".
  8. You are free to print, save, download the document or send it to other recipients.
  9. In case of any query, reach out to contact our support team.

CocoSign presents you smart E-Sign solution to edit, sign and share documents remotely. Enhance your professionalism and producitivity with CocoSign.

Thousands of companies love CocoSign

Create this form in 5 minutes or less
Fill & Sign the Form

Notes on filling the State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes

youtube video

Get Your State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes Signed In One Minute

morning please be seated.the two women this morning in addition.to disciplinary action against Michele.Dunne and Curtis versus the state of.Minnesota take the discipline case first.record five justices local cops and.intruders are accused and justice season.is here to participate in this case this.requirement may it please the court.counsel miss McDonald my name is Susan.Humiston and I am the director of the.office of lawyers Professional.Responsibility this matter presents two.issues the first of which is whether the.referee clearly erred when she found and.concluded that respondent violated seven.ethics rules over the course of two.family law matters and whether a 60-day.suspension with two years of probation.with the mental health evaluation is the.appropriate discipline for this.misconduct now the referee made 139.findings eight conclusions of law.conducted a two day at hearing on this.matter and reviewed 93 separate and.extremely voluminous exhibits each of.the findings and conclusions are well.supported in the record the referee did.not however when taking into.consideration the discipline that she.was recommending to this court take into.consideration three rule violations that.of the that's the conduct that led to.the sanctions and the Grazyna rucky.matter and the failure to perfect.appeals in both the Grazyna rookie and.decosta matter because the referee.having clearly found grewal violations.but did not consider them in making a.recommendation.the director believes that a 90-day.suspension is warranted by the facts of.this case now respondent yeah so before.you go up off of that.does the referee have the discretion to.not apply miss Conder are not.disciplined for those rule violations.that you just mentioned in other words.it seems to me that you're arguing that.there were the rule violations related.to the subpoena the failure to appeal.that the referee didn't consider in.determining the amount of the discipline.didn't the referee have that discretion.the referee does have discretion in.determining what the appropriate.discipline would be I would suggest that.and this Court gives great weight to.that recommended discipline I would.suggest though that the referee gave.insufficient consideration to the.committed nature of the violations by.failing to take into account the harm.that was caused by those two by those.three rule violations which suggest that.this court might want to Accord such.great consideration great weight to the.referees recommendation it's a factor.that the court.I suggest should consider when.determining whether or not great weight.should be accorded counsel can I ask a.question in regards to it's my.understanding that in reviewing the.referees findings that there was.originally a citation for contempt of.court which was subsequently dismissed.in the criminal proceeding and there was.also a citation for obstruction also in.the process which was also subsequently.dismissed but am I correct to say that.that was never petitioned as a rule.violation regardless of the outcome of.the criminal case and I would also ask.about the events from you get the right.date from the April 2013 events in.Rosemont where miss McDonough will.also charged with obstruction and that.of which he was found guilty and was.affirmed at the court of appeals is it.my am I correct to say that that has not.been a part of any of the disciplinary.actions and that's and if so why not so.you are correct the two misdemeanor.charges that were subsequently dismissed.did not form a basis of any petition by.this court or by the office on.discipline nor is the other matter that.you referenced the director considered.those issues but chose not to given this.Court's prior considerations of.misdemeanor act misdemeanor charges that.have not been where there has not been a.conviction but there was a conviction in.the and I'm not familiar with that.actually sorry I now have the light on.so April 2013 miss McDonald was arrested.and charged and convicted of obstruction.of justice and are you telling me that.the director's office is not familiar.with that no I'm sorry the director has.not reviewed that matter thank you I.think in this matter respondent takes.issues with three aspects of the.referees order the referee in.respondents view erred by not blaming.judge Knutson for respondents continued.to rest in detention on the second day.of the rozina excuse me counsel what's.your what's the director's office.position about whether this court can.consider the criminal conviction for.obstruction I would say that would not.be appropriate because respondent has.not received notice that that is the.basis of a rule violation nor was there.an evidentiary hearing on that matter.the second error that respondent alleges.is that the First Amendment.and her subjective belief allowed her to.make false statements questioning the.integrity of judge Knutson and that the.referee accorded accorded insufficient.weight to respondents pro bono service.now as it relates to the arrest each.court who has looked at this matter.including the referee who viewed the.videotape and heard the testimony around.this concluded that respondent was.responsible for her arrest and her.continued detention during the second.day of trial that all she needed to do.was provide her legal name which is.different from the name under which she.practices her address and her date of.birth she would have been issued the tab.citation and she would have been able to.go on about her day representing miss.Cruz any rookie in the second day of.trial respondent chose not to and.instead as the referee found considered.what evidence she could that she took.advantage of the situation in order to.create an issue on appeal garner a.mistrial and ad counts to her federal.lawsuit instead again of thinking of her.ethical duty to represent her client who.was in the midst of a contested custody.hearing counsel you mentioned the First.Amendment defense and I want to know.what the directors best response is to.that in particular with respect to the.allegations made against judge Knutson.but in general anything any any any sort.of response you have on the First.Amendment defense so this court in 1990.and the Graham matter looked at rule.eight point two a and concluded that.disciplining.attorneys for making false statements.that are knowingly false when made or.are false and made with reckless.disregard for the truth is consistent.with First Amendment of the US.Constitution that is an accord with New.York Times versus Sullivan matter but.the court modified that.to make it clear that the test is really.one of a reasonable attorney it's an.objective not a subjective test and that.has been applied this Court has applied.that since 1990 and a number of matters.and every state who has similar rule.point rule eight point to a which is.based upon the model ABA rule has.consistently applied that rule to.discipline attorneys who make false.statements that is not within your.purview although we respect the First.Amendment we allow people to challenge.the people who are in positions of.authority you cannot make false.statements you cannot make false.statements with reckless disregard for.the truth or that are knowingly false I.think that it's important to focus on.the specific facts statements that were.made these were not statements of.opinion and I think the respondent.doesn't even actually say that they are.not in fact false she submits that it.was her subjective belief that they were.true and again this court applies very.clearly in every case that had has.looked at an objective standard but what.she said is that judge Knutson among a.number of things he was biased against.respondent since day one respondents.clients since day one that he conducted.a pretend trial that he signed orders he.knew were false that he used.professionals to gather information that.he knew was false that he compromised.mensis the state's court docket inc.system and he usurped case files in.concert with opposing counsel these.findings are reflected in the referees.findings at paragraphs 40 to 48 and 102.respondent acknowledged during the.disciplinary hearing that these are very.specific and very serious charges that.directly implicate.the integrity of a judicial officer in.this state now respondent when pressed.for what was the basis for each one of.these she explained her theories and as.the referee found in paragraph 106 that.no reasonable attorney would make these.false statements on so little evidence.and in fact the evidence was to the.contrary in many different situations.and again I believe respondent doesn't.even argue that there was a objective.basis for any of the statements that's.not what the the disciplinary hearing.was about she really argued that she was.a lot uh most of these claims were made.in the federal lawsuit and her client.verified them she was real able to rely.upon what her client said to her and.because she did that she had a belief.that that information was supported now.we believe that it is true that counsel.why isn't that enough I mean you're.supposed to represent your client and so.why isn't it enough that that she.asserted at least under the First.Amendment asserted claims that her.client apparently verified were were.true and there are many circumstances.under which you can rely upon.information that is provided to you by.your client and that would apply to I.think the very first constitutional.challenge that miss McDonald made in the.Grazyna recce matter she came in she.filed a there but when you are.confronted with significant evidence to.the contrary but in fact disputes what.you and your client believed to be true.you have an obligation to review that.information and you cannot then just.rely on information that your client is.telling you that is contradicted I think.the most telling instance of that is.something that was seen even at the.disciplinary hearing where we were going.through a transcript of a hearing that.occurred on the September 7th 2012.custody order which is really the basis.of miss McDonald's and her clients.believe that there was a huge wrong that.occurred in the Grazyna rookie matter.and miss McDonald believed that that.hearing had occurred without any it.wasn't on the record that it the order.had been written by the opposing parties.counsel that her client had never said.she did not want custody of her children.we're reviewing the transcript where.each of those matters are refuted it was.an on-the-record hearing that was.conducted by Judge Knutson with miss.Cruz any rocky's counsel of record.present who both parties the judge and.her counsel recollected that Miss.Grazyna rucky had said she did not want.custody of her children all of these.things are being refuted by the.transcript of the hearing and when I'm.asking her about that at the.disciplinary hearing.she said well do you want to know what.happened my client told me what happened.who wasn't there who didn't again she's.still persisting in the fact that the.facts are different than disclosed in a.transcript that recorded an actual.hearing that had taken place so your key.your key at least on the first amendment.is the Graham standard which is when a.or how we've subsequently interpreted.the Graham standard which is that when a.reason when an attorney is confronted.with with with overwhelming evidence.that contrary that it's unreasonable to.persist in continuing to claim the same.thing right false statements definition.in my view of reckless disregard for the.truth or the falsity of what you are.saying counsel having that in mind I'm.I'm very concerned about one other.portion of the referees findings and.that is the aggravating factors and it.seems to me that finding 134 135 and 137.directly bear on.this rule violation and it seems to me.that the referee is double counting in.other words it's taking the referees.taking a a rule violation and making it.also an aggravating factor what why am I.wrong about that I think that in general.it is true that the findings that she.continued to blame others for her own.misconduct was considered an aggravating.factor by the referee that her failure.to have insight into how her actions.affect others was considered to be an.aggravating factor and that her.inability to continue to acknowledge.facts by the court was considered an.aggravating factor and while there is.some overlap with the reckless disregard.piece the referees findings go to all of.the misconduct in this matter at the.time of the hearing miss McDonald would.say and she testified to things like.whatever I did wrong I'm sorry that's.not relating just to the rule eight.point to a violations but it goes to all.of the misconduct here that was alleged.so I would suggest that it's not double.counting but is in fact taking into.consideration deeply troubling aspects.of her failure to understand her ethical.obligations to her clients and to.understand how her conduct caused harm.to others well I'm it seems like I know.that we have said before that when a.rule violation is found that you can't.take that same rule violation and use.that as an aggravating factor I don't.know whether we have said whether you.could have three aggravating factors.that are the same and that that's a.problem but it seems to me we have two.issues here one is the rule violation.versus the aggravating factors and then.second issue we have is three.aggravating factors that sound to me.almost the same and if those are being.separately counted to determine that.they're that the discipline should be in.this case 60 days it seems like there's.double counting well I guess I would.disagree with the court in that that the.blaming others for her misconduct is not.reflected in the rule a point to a.violation that was something that would.goes to her arrest which is the rule 1.1.and 3.5 H disrupting the court charges.and I think again it related to a lot of.it but it didn't play into the rule a.point to a violation again her lack of.insight of how it affect her conduct.affected others is not an element of.rule 8.2 a again that's just an.objective test of whether or not she.made false statements with reckless.disregard for the truth or falsity of.those facts there is some overlap in 137.the continued inability to acknowledge.facts that are found by the court that.is why we were able to prove her lack.the the reckless disregard in that.matter so I see the courts perspective.from that but I think it's broader than.just the rule 8.2 there in every.instance where we talked about.impression and again respondent would.say to me during the disciplinary.hearing.when questioned I we she kept saying.that she was being disciplined for.challenging the constitutionality of.rule 518 that was not part of any of the.charges it was a context that were there.but it wasn't part of the basis of the.charges she would not acknowledge that.the.had considered each of those.constitutional claims in in the matters.and had addressed them she just wouldn't.acknowledge facts I think there are many.that are outside that that was needed to.prove eight point two which suggests.that the referee appropriately.considered that as an aggravating factor.so I'm gonna follow up on justice.Stevens question you know between those.three three conclusions or findings I.see I think maybe two separate.aggravating factors and that is there.seems to be a lack of insight as is sort.of the theme of one of those and then.also a lack of remorse which kind of.goes to the blaming of others etc etc.can those to be separate I mean can.every recognize lack of insight and lack.of remorse as separate aggravating.factors in our cases in the past lack of.insight and lack every more seemed to.overwhelm those are essentially very.much saying the same thing if you cannot.acknowledge the rule violation you can't.recognize remorse and so when she says.I'm sorry for whatever I did.that is not remorse because you're not.acknowledging that the what is is the.discipline that you're being charged.with on top of continuing to assert that.there was there was never that all of.these things happened right again I.think it is important I mean I I do.understand justice Deaton's comments.about 137 but to me that's also the most.troubles and troubling aspect of this.case when we're having a hearing going.through these things to continue to.failed to acknowledge contrary facts or.that even though there's a contrary.perspective shows a lack of judgment and.a concern that I believe is appropriate.to aggravate counsel before your time.expires could you speak to the mental.health evaluation what was a referee's.basis for ordering that and what is the.director's position about that now the.referee did recommend that.Vontae and that it included mental.health evaluation and that any follow up.be considered the referee did not.specifically set forth her reasons for.that basis although I can say as a.person who attended that trial I.understand the perspective of the.referee and the director does support.that requirement as within this Court's.rule 15 rules on lawyers professional.responsibilities ability to order it I.think that the transcript shows again a.attorney who when confronted with.specific information that is contrary to.her belief or a position that she has.taken she would not acknowledge those.specific pieces of information or that.it even you know maybe we can agree to.disagree.there was just no acknowledgement of.that information the lack of.understanding the continually shifting.and blame there was also some troubling.instances in the record where she kept.saying she was strip-searched during the.her detention when the video shows she.clearly was not it was a pat-down a very.perform a pat-down in the holding area I.think as a person who was at that trial.and reviewing the record I I said I.suspect that that is where the referee.was coming from and the director.believes that that does present a.potential issue that should look in I'm.obviously not a psychologist nor is the.referee but I do think it's a matter.that should be evaluated by a.professional the directors the.director's office is asking us to impose.that as a condition I am asking you to.affirm that recommendation.yes well counsel I want to I want to ask.you about that according to my review of.the case law you're right we do have the.power to impose that there's no question.about that under the rules but my.concern is is for my research I only saw.two times in history where we've imposed.that as it can.we're the respondents meant that the.attorneys mental health was not an issue.that the last time we did it was 16.years ago in a case called n ray fuller.and the other time was in 1989 in ray.levenshtein and I'm wondering I guess.I'm concerned for two reasons one we.don't do it very often I'm wondering.whether why this case might be similar.in the directors view to that case but.secondly given the lack of reasons in.the referees report that also concerns.me and I'm wondering with the directors.responses to that you're correct in your.research that's what ours turned up as.well and and the fuller matter is the.most recent in 2005 where that happened.mr. fuller did not put his mental health.an issue as mitigation he had agreed in.those circumstances to a voluntarily a.voluntary psychological evaluation where.he was diagnosed with a delusional.personality disorder which was then.actually the court used to against his.wishes mitigate some of his conduct in.the fuller matter I do think it is.unusual it was not requested by the.referee all I can say is I believe that.it is well supported in a review of the.transcript of this matter.it is in the authority with this court.it should be used sparingly.because I do think respondents should be.able to put that issue that that matter.an issue if they choose and to choose.not to but I also think because of this.Court's plenary authority to supervise.and regulate those that hold attorneys.licenses it's an appropriate exercise of.this Court's Authority in rare.circumstances to me that we would have.to make some findings along the lines.you suggested where you know some of her.some of her statements of the hearing.and is that a problem for us to be.making the findings that the referee may.be should have made on the first.in the first instance I think that.because it's an element of discipline.that this Court has the sole they're the.sole arbiter and that they can from the.record determine for themselves that it.supports that that determination I think.that the the last thing I want to focus.on with my time is that to the harm of.these rule violations I think on the one.hand it's easy to minimize the harm.caused by respondents misconduct.particularly criticizing the courts.people think you should be able to.criticize the court where zealous.advocates I believe that's true and I.don't want to be seen as infringing on.people's ability to have to be critical.of the courts but whereas here you have.two clients has that evidence submitted.at the hearing demonstrated they.themselves already had contempt for the.judicial process each of them were.extremely angry and we're not.participating in the proceedings that.were before the court in those two.matters when you have in clients like.that the additional harm caused by a.lawyer who makes false statements about.the integrity of the judicial officer.who is handling that custody matter who.demonstrates them self contempt for that.court by continually interrupting the.court and not according it the respect.that their clients should be according.in and fails herself to follow rules.that really emboldened clients and I.think causes significant harm makes a.very difficult situation worse and.counsel what about the fact that the.conduct also delayed the proceedings.it's significantly I mean this was a.custody in the Grazyna rookie matter.that had been pending since 2011 she.miss McDonald was not hired until 2013.but it was very hard to get to the.merits and justice Knutson testified a.number of times at the hearing he just.wanted to get.the merits of the case and brings some.normality to those children's lives.again the respondent violated seven.rules across two matters I think that.the direct the the director requests.that the referee affirm that this Court.affirmed the referees findings as it.relates to the mental health condition.the office would request some.specificity if the court is to adopt.that term of probation namely that a.date by which then evaluation should.occur.who will pay and that the director must.approve of that choice of health care.professional I think everyone would be.served by specificity around that.condition if it is imposed by the court.thank you Thank You counsel you have.five minutes for rebuttal mr. Ang's it.please the court.Pauling on behalf and counsel Pauling on.behalf of Michele McDonald she's a.30-year lawyer with extensive pro bono.efforts in her community and the former.part-time referee in Hennepin County and.this is the first time she's been before.the court on a disciplinary matter she.raises in my view four issues rather.than the two that my colleague has.suggested the first one concerns the.efficacy of her arrest in how it was.evaluated in the court below and by the.referee below the second relates to that.and whether or not she has a First.Amendment privilege to complain about.her handcuffing during a trial in the.Dakota County District Court which was.unnecessary in egregious and most unfair.and which gave the other side an unfair.advantage she has that right to complain.and file an ethics complaint no matter.how it turns out but we have an.obligation.a first amendment obligation.interpretation to allow lawyers to file.complaints because how do you respond to.the referees findings that the result of.her being handcuffed was due to her own.conduct why I completely disagree the.the referees finding is an error the the.finding the central finding is in.paragraph 69 and that says that that.it's her fault that she was arrested and.the reason she was arrested is that she.refused to give her name to the deputies.who asked for it in the holding cell and.that's all on exhibit 15 that's an error.she was arrested according to the.transcripts we presented the moment she.was led away from a public courtroom.during a break that's when the arrest.happened that wasn't her fault that was.the conduct of the deputies who were in.the courtroom she was arrested formally.because her freedom was restricted by.two or three rather substantial deputies.and she it's not her fault that she was.arrested for taking a picture of an.empty courtroom when the judge wasn't.even there.and the record is very clear and I would.like to read a couple snippets to you.for emphasis of when the rest happened.the transcript of the sergeant Moulton.was introduced to exhibit nine for us.and it was also exhibit and exhibit for.the directors case quotes during a break.I asked miss McDonald to come back with.me to the hallway she said she wanted.everything on the record she was not.going with me I told her she was under.arrest at that point in time that's the.testimony and then the testimony is also.from the cross of judge Knudsen that.this was completely needless the.she need not have been arrested they.could have gotten her name the name was.on the pleadings of the case it was in.the court record there was absolutely no.need for her to be taken back away into.the catacombs of the Dakota County.Courthouse to find out what her name is.when I already knew it.and in case their record is is it's not.ambiguous page 67 of the same officers.testimony and so there's no dispute at.that point in time you use the word.arrest so it was clear and we can stay.for the record that she was not free to.leave at that point in time is that.correct correct so we have this is an.outrageous situation here we have a.lawyer arrested during a trial and it's.a it's a it this is a bigger case than.miss MacDonald's case there is a.symbiotic relationship between the bench.and the bar the bench rightly so demands.respect and courtesy and the in the bar.rightly so does not expect to be.humiliated by the bench right and in.this case the testimony of this deep.this deputy is quite clear that the.judge knew very well she was taken back.there for in order of the district court.that she never saw that said you can.take a picture any time in the courtroom.and then the deputy told the judge isn't.it the obligation of a practicing.attorney to know what the rules are of.the court I mean every Court has has.standing rules by the chief judge of the.court for certain activities that can.and cannot happen in the courthouse I.agree with you on the other hand that in.what the referee didn't address but.there was a conflict between the rules.there was a more stringent rule by this.District Court in Dakota County and then.there was the general rule 4.1.which he was familiar with in the.testimony of the the deputy here is that.she was not shown that rule and she.interpreted the rule to say that while.the court was not in session she could.take a picture in any event stepping.back from this why should someone be.arrested.why should a lawyer be arrested for.taking a picture there are lots of.remedies that could have been there are.lots of remedies that could have been.why do we what we're they'll make if if.there are certain problems with with the.arrest or the detention I mean the.problem I guess I'm having with your.argument is I'm trying to figure out how.it fits and it's not a criminal case.this is not a criminal case and so part.of what the referees findings were about.were essentially her response to all of.this her response to and and that those.things were inappropriate I got to say.if even if I were illegally arrested I'm.not so sure I would have taken the same.tie in fact I wouldn't have taken the.same tact I would have tried to.cooperate and so I'm just trying to.figure out what what all of this means.and why you're making this argument here.well it relates to the the part of the.discipline is that she writes these.letters essentially the discipline is.the lawsuit against the judge judge.Knutson as a private party and she's.disciplined for writing letters to the.board of judicial standards and we're.claiming as to those letters which are.not separated out in her discipline but.are referenced our First Amendment.protected because it's true I mean I I.would like to quote her letters which.are based upon fact which I just told.you about the judge knew in fact the.judge was aware she was in handcuffs.the judge was aware she was in a.wheelchair and the judge was aware that.she was in a diminished state when she.came back okay and she has a First.Amendment right to complain about that.no no lawyer should be treated that way.I don't care if you're Michele McDonald.or somebody else you can be obstreperous.you can be everything you ought not be.put in wheelchairs.and handcuffs and rolled back into the.court it shouldn't happen wasn't she.control girl chair though because she.wouldn't stand up I'm sorry wasn't she.put in the wheelchair because she.wouldn't stand up yeah but and they were.trying to bring her back to the.courtroom but she wouldn't stand up.right and so she was disabled I mean.it's really a horrific video to watch in.my view of someone the lawyer you know.taking off your jewelry take off your.glasses put yourself in a wheelchair put.a thing around your waist and be brought.back I mean on the one hand you can say.sure I would have just told my name.maybe so but she didn't and the uncaused.cause of this the aristotelian problem.is the arrest for a non-event.but the real problem here is that well.there are two problems is that she filed.complaints that she's been sanctioned.for with the broader judicial standard.and she has a right to complain I'm so.is it your view that the First Amendment.gave your client the right to tell to.tell lies no but what is your view of.the First Amendment in this context my.view of the First Amendment that you.have it you have a right to engage in a.good-faith complaint against a judge the.good faith is evaluated subjectively or.objectively well this is the great.conundrum here now we have because it.isn't a conundrum I mean haven't we said.it's an objective test yes but but we're.talking about two different violations.we're talking about 8.2 and 8.4 the.defense to 8.4 is is a subjective good.faith defense and there's no defense to.8.2 and in the Disciplinary.recommendation both are cited in the.same paragraph so it is a bit confusing.but she has a defense to she has a.defense to 8.4 but just to follow up.with that what do we do with the fact.that the federal judge the referee and I.think that might be it but they all said.variations the word frivolous without a.basis in fact etc those are very unusual.words I think.for federal judges especially to use in.a case like like this one so I'm.wondering what we do with with.essentially factual findings by multiple.judicial officers that essentially say.there was no basis in fact.well I've I've given you the basis in.fact by reading the transcript here and.the reason the federal lawsuit was.dismissed is that the the immunity.judicial immunity is very hard to.overcome and so I mean she hit I want to.stay with this right to complain though.I mean if she writes a letter to the.board this is very important for not.just for her but for going forward here.I mean can you write a letter.complaining about a judge who arrests.you and she says in her letter of April.12th which is in the voluminous exhibits.here that judge Knutson absolutely knew.of my condition before d ordered them to.return me to continue to trial she.complained about that I mean and then in.another letter of December 26 which was.the first letter she says judge Knutson.claims he had nothing to do with it the.deputies arrested me they brought me.back to the courtroom in cuffs in a.wheelchair with no eyeglasses hairpiece.shoes and I was made to continue my.participation in this debilitated.humiliated states it's a true statement.it's a true statement for her why isn't.that protected it's a public forum it's.a matter of public concern and yet she's.disciplined for this and now he hadn't.since Graham the first amend the law has.been evolving so I I'm I confess I'm a.bit confused so you said earlier that.there was a defense to the eight point.four D right yeah for making faults or.statements in reckless disregard eight.point and there's also the eight point.to a right that's a right and so let's.focus on eight point four D what is the.defense to.the finding or the conclusion that it is.professional misconduct for a lawyer to.engage in conduct that is prejudicial to.the administration of justice that's the.that's is the rule right.right okay why well is making false.statements or statements in reckless.disregard not a violation of eight 4d.well technically it is but there's a.good-faith provision now if you look at.Gentilly the vs. Nevada case they talk.about the lawyers good faith in the face.of a provision much like this and then.you you have the well if I drill down.are you essentially saying that you're.you're asking us to overrule our prior.precedent that this is an objective.rather than a subjective standard no I'm.saying that you should look at your.20-year cases in light of the more.recent Supreme Court law and also in.light of yang Minh which affirms the.lawyers right to render an opinion that.maybe subjectively based but an opinion.nonetheless I mean that's a terrific.case for the defense bar because he said.all sorts of horrible things far worse.than miss McDonald ever considered yeah.I just I'm just trying to drill down to.make sure I understand what your what.your argument is and so you are you.asking us to overturn our precedent that.this is an objective standard no I'm.think you should read it in light of the.developing law but no I'm not I didn't.brief that that's quite a high mountain.to climb.so one of the issues that runs through.these proceedings has to do with you.know the duty of the lawyer and I'm.wondering what your position is on the.duty of the lawyer to either consult.with prior counsel about specific events.or to review files and other written.materials that were in the possession of.prior lawyers as I understand it neither.of those events occurred here and I'm.wondering what your view is on that.well my view is governed by three point.one which holds that you can as a lawyer.engage in a good faith belief in the.clients assertions to you and the rule.does not say you have to consult with.other lawyers it may be a good idea but.in this particular case miss McDonald.was the fourth lawyer.the other three lawyer said it had.rather enormous feet leans on the file.which would only enlarge if she talked.to them and we have a client here who.thought that she was being mistreated in.the courts pursue that for a moment I'm.wondering given the pretty I mean I'm.trying let's say the pretty strong.statements that that the attorney here.made given the fact there have been.multiple lawyers involved in this case.if we assume our standard here is.objective doesn't a reasonable lawyer.take a look at that file or take a look.at those files or consult with a prior.lawyer before making the kinds of.allegations that were made here well she.did look at the file there was testimony.that she spent a fair amount of time in.Dakota County in doing this so she took.care of that prong of your question.whether she had to as a matter of law I.talked to the lawyers I don't think.there's a requirement that she do so.because the court file or was that the.file that the lawyers had which would.have obviously more information it was.not the lawyers filed it was the court.file right I mean my question what I'm.trying to get at here you know I mean I.I do think it makes a difference what.the allegations are and allegations here.are awfully serious that she makes and.it seems to me that objectively a lawyer.would want more assurance perhaps than.simply a client who has had some.disputes with prior counsel am i right.or wrong about that from another.standpoint well you're right but the.test is in hindsight the test isn't what.you and I would do or someone else would.do I mean the test is.when faced with a client who's perhaps.difficult I mean the children left here.and were gone for several years and.makes these allegations and there's been.a complete breakdown with the lawyers.and the and the client tells you the.lawyer that she was unaware of the.hearing where certain findings were made.and certain decisions were made and.never talked to her lawyer about the.hearing.you can either believe the client or you.can believe the lawyer you could do one.of the two so let's say arguendo going.further in your question let's say she.does talk to the other lawyers and they.said well mr. Mazzini rocky is difficult.the representation she's making - you're.not consistent with my memory of the.case the lawyer he still has the choice.it seems to me under three one siding.with with the client I mean this happens.all the time in the practice but my.point is and you know correct me if I'm.wrong but the director says some of.these things could have been determined.by reviewing the record and determined.that in fact they didn't occur in the.way in which the client asserts that.they did and so my question is given an.objective requirement that a lawyer.reasonably investigate in some fashion.isn't that a problem here well she I'm.the flip side of that you know what a.lot of lawyers doing what she did is.make the client verify the complaint.okay so one of her defenses is look.we're gonna file this federal complaint.we're gonna try to puncture the immunity.we're gonna sue the judge individually.all these things are very difficult to.do concededly rightly so but you still.have a right to try if you want to bend.the law in 3 1 says you can try to bend.the law you can change the law I mean.this is what lawyers do it just happens.to being a judge in this case which.makes it extremely sensitive counsel to.take it a step further how do you.respond on this point to the directors.argument on page 24 of their.memoranda where they say okay even.assuming the initial acceptance of her.the clients version of the events was a.sufficient basis once judge Knudsen.issued his April 2013 letter detailing.the procedural history which was at odds.with the facts she argued subsequent.continued reliance is unsupportable.what's your response to that argument.well maybe you can help me with what is.you're talking about an order from the.court are you talking about a letter.which one.refresh my memory and what talking about.well what the argument is she's rector's.responding to the argument in which.respondent argues she was entitled to.believe her client right and that she.had no basis to disagree okay.and so the director argues that in two.steps one is the step the the duty to.inform of the lawyer to inform him.herself of the client's positions which.you were talking to or discussing with.justice Anderson and now I'm asking you.about her duty after she gets this April.2013 order that says no this these are.the facts.well her duty at that point is to inform.the client of the remedies available.which include an appeal if you want one.and if you persist in your position.that's contrary the courts will appeal.in persistent that's that that's your.habla mean they you know there's no.lawyer never takes sides here judge I.mean the the lawyer says to the client.here here's your remedy we lost if you.want to appeal I'll appeal for you.provided we make arrangements and.whatever but you can still be persistent.and she is persistent by any standard.even in the face of an order I mean this.is the nature of litigation the.or disagrees with you you asked for a.review and that's what that's the remedy.I believe counsel I have the Nevada case.that you referenced in front of me.genteel versus the State Bar of Nevada.and I'm just wondering if you could.point to me specific language in the.opinion that you think helps your.clients cause the judge cuffed the.public defender and she complained that.she couldn't advocate for her client in.the cuff state she was obnoxious to the.court and likely disrespectful but he.says he waives his right to the.allegations which are set forth here and.that's page four he agrees to consent to.public censure and he agrees on page.four to not serve in a judicial position.and so the allegations are set forth.that he Countians.he had her arrested and cuffed and he.there's an agreement it seems to me as I.read this is that you know he violated.the code of judicial ethics in Nevada.agreed to censure and agreed to.retirement maybe I'm missing your.question but that's how I read the.opinion it's really hard to find.opinions where the the lawyer is cuffed.well maybe I misunderstood your argument.I thought you were suggesting that that.the United States Supreme Court in.genteel versus the state bar of Nevada.has somehow modified what we said in.Graham about the test being objective I.thought that's what your argument was.perhaps I misunderstood you well I think.they modified it for a lawyer who gives.a press conference in defense of his.client has been indicted and he gives an.opinion that the law-enforcement people.are lying that's protected conduct.that's genteel so that that changes the.I mean he had a good-faith basis to say.that it was.objective it was not objective it was.based upon what his client said so I.thought you think that genteel stands.for the proposition that the test is.subjective not objective I think it.changes them I think it adds a good.faith basis to it which I'm trying to.I'm trying to nudge the law here a.little bit to good faith on the lawyer.but clearly the lawyer in Nevada was.acting in good faith and couldn't be.disciplined for what he did and that was.a groundbreaking decision because before.that happened you couldn't say a word.the other the other concern here I'm.running out of time I had a couple.points if let's say for the sake of.argument that mr. McDonald runs against.judge Knudsen and under the Republican.Party versus white which is the Supreme.Court case she is allowed to take.positions on certain issues okay and if.she were to run against him could she.say and I think she could that this.arrest was bogus that I was treated.unfairly that the rulings were unfair.that he engaged in unethical conduct and.the question that I raised with you is.whether that would be protected speech.under that decision let me ask you a.factual question you started out the.argument by talking about lengthy.service by miss McDonald and the fact.that she has extensive pro bono work and.I'm just I want to ask you and there.seems to be some suggestion that that.should have been a mitigating factor in.your brief and in is is that still your.argument today absolutely I mean where.it's the third there are some cases from.the court that the law that a great deal.of experience doesn't matter because you.should know better yeah and so my.question is is there's a finding by the.referee that she still holds an attorney.lean in the Grazyna rocky matter of a.hundred and ninety three thousand one.hundred ninety five dollar one hundred.ninety dollars and five sets does that.undermine your argument for using pro.bono as a mitigating factor and I.apologize for going over time there not.really because I'm never be collected.it's symbolic I mean I I think it's.symbolic compared to the.I mean I think it shows she worked a lot.her and the other lawyers did who charge.a lot didn't even get to trial so I.think it's a symbolic act Thank You.counsel your time is expired ms Humiston.you have five minutes for rebuttal as it.relates to rule 4.1 I think there is no.conflict between the standing order and.the rule and the facts at issue here I.think the referee correctly found that.she violated the rule by taking pictures.during a proceeding the court had gone.on the record at that time it was during.a recess I think that there is no you.know I have some trouble with this.counsel we have a general published rule.for that that she didn't violate and.then we've got this local rule that she.apparently did violate and it strikes me.that holding a I mean it strikes me that.that's a problem and maybe it may be the.fact you violated the rule is of is of.some significance but boy it strikes me.as pretty de minimis tell me why I'm.wrong about that the rule violation.itself is de minimis I would suggest.that's right that she in in the sense.that it's not the worst thing an.attorney has ever done by taking.pictures and a courtroom and violating.the rule but I do disagree that there is.a disconnect between the standing rule.and rule 4.1 because I think that it is.during a hearing I don't know that that.just means when the court is on the.bench the stated purpose for taking.those pictures was to create a record of.the proceeding which is in direct.contrast to the purpose of the rule is.that the you know the official record is.of the transcript you know I was going.as you were arguing this I was going.just flipping through the general rules.and maybe I just have too much history.here but part of the reason for the.general rules of practice was to deal.with conflicting local rules and I.frankly think it's a problem that we.have a local rule that conflicts with.the general rule and I I think this I.think this is an issue here.in terms of what we do with it well I.think she'd violated the rule itself I.think it we can clearly say as the.referee said it was during a hearing and.that is not limited to just when the.judge is on the bench it includes when.the matter has commenced that day and.that is what happened under the facts of.this case I also think the arrest.everyone who has looked at it found.probable cause for the arrest including.the federal court in her civil rights.action that was recently dismissed as.well I also would like to say that.nowhere in the petition or the hearing.or the findings is miss McDonald being.disciplined for complaining about the.fact that she was arrested that's not.the basis of the false statements that.was not the basis of anything she can.complain about being arrested and she.has that does not form the basis of any.of the rule violations finally I think.that justice Dietzen hit the nail on the.head when in this matter all miss.McDonald needed to do was read the.courts April order as to the facts and.do a diligent inquiry after that the.April 2013 order explained how all of.her factual underpinnings that supported.her argument that she had argued was.based on what her client had said were.contrary to what actually had happened.in that case prior to her coming on if.she had reviewed that and connected with.others but instead she persisted in.claiming all the way through when she.was writing that was better that again.that September 7th order was not the.result of an ex parte communication it.wasn't the judge just signing something.put in front of him by the opposing.parties lawyer it was the result of an.on-the-record hearing where all parties.agreed to the conduct and that the order.that the court signed was drafted by mr..zeny rockies own attorney.those are big facts that were explained.in.April of 2013 and we're ignored.throughout the remainder of the matter I.would ask that this court affirm the.findings and conclusions of the referee.as well documented in the record and.impose a 90 day suspension followed by.two years of probation with a mental.health component thank you.Thank You counsel thanks to both counsel.for the help that you provided to the.court in this matter this case is.submitted will issue an opinion in due.course we're going to step off the bench.not briefly and reconstitute the court.for the next case so we'll be back in a.few minutes.you.

How to generate an electronic signature for the State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes online

You must into a adaptable solution to electronic signatures for State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes . CocoSign will provide you with what you have been Finding, a single online app that does not need any other installation.

You just need to have a high quality internet connection and your preferred device to work with. Follow this instructions to e-sign State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes easily:

  1. Click the document you want to sign. You can also simply choose the required document into this section.
  2. Choose the category 'My Signature'.
  3. Select the types of signatures you need to place. It can be drawn, typed, or uploaded signatures.
  4. Once you have selected the type, choose 'Ok' and 'Done'.
  5. Download the form after signing.
  6. You can also fax it.
  7. Once you are done, save it. You can also fax it with other people.

CocoSign makes electronic signatures on your State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes more adaptable by providing multiple ways of merging two documents, adding additional fields, invitation to sign by others, etc.

Due to our convenient features, CocoSign's eSignature tool can help users to eSign the document online well on all the electronic devices like mobile android or iOS, laptop, computer, or any other relevant operating system.

How to create an electronic signature for the State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes in Chrome

Chrome has been more and more popular as a convenient browser due to its comprehensive features, useful tools, and extensions. In this way, you can keep all your tools on your home screen in front of you. You just need to choose the form that fulfill your need without searching for it in a long time.

Using this useful extension feature offered by Chrome, you can add CocoSign extension to your browser and use it whenever you need to write eSignatures in your documents. With CocoSign extension, you will also get other features like merge PDFs, add multiple eSignatures, share your document, etc.

Here are the basic key elements you need to follow:

  1. Note the CocoSign extension on Chrome Webstore and choose the option 'Add'.
  2. Log in to your account if registered before, otherwise choose signup and register with us.
  3. On your State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes , right-click on it and go to open with option. From there, choose CocoSign reader to open the document.
  4. Choose 'My Signature' and write your own signatures.
  5. Place it on the page where you require it.
  6. Choose 'Done'.
  7. Once you are done, save it. You can also fax it with other people.

How to create an electronic signature for the State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes in Gmail?

Mailing documents is so useful that majority of businesses have gone paperless. Therefore, it will be a great selection if one can esign form online from Gmail in a straight line. You can do it by adding a CocoSign extension on your Chrome. Here is what you need to do:

  1. Add the CocoSign extension to your browser from the Chrome Webstore.
  2. Log in to your pre-registered account or quickly 'Sign up'.
  3. Open the email with the document you need to sign.
  4. From the sidebar, choose 'Sign'.
  5. Draw your electronic signatures.
  6. Generate them in the document where you need to.
  7. Choose 'Done'.

The signed file is in the draft folder. You can easily share it to your required mailing address.

Working with electronic signatures in Gmail is such a quick and cheap tool. It is specifically designed for people who work from anywhere. By CocoSign, and you will surely be among our hundreds of happy users.

How to create an e-signature for the State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes straight from your smartphone?

mobiles are the most useful electronic devices used nowadays. You must be interested in using e-signature from this most used electronic device.

What's more, with eSignature capability on your mobile phone, you can e-sign your document anytime, anywhere, away from your laptop or desktop. You can work with CocoSign electronic signature on your mobile phones by following these key elements:

  1. Direct to the CocoSign website from your mobile browser. Login to your CocoSign account or sign up with us if you don't have registered before.
  2. Click the document you need to e-sign from your mobile folder.
  3. Open the document and choose the page where you want to put the electronic signatures.
  4. Choose 'My Signatures'.
  5. Write your electronic signature and insert it to the page.
  6. Choose 'Done'.
  7. Print the document or directly share through email.

That's it. You will be done signing your State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes on your mobile phones within minutes. With CocoSign's remote signature tool, you no longer need to worry about the usage of your electronic signatures and use our app of your choice.

How to create an e-signature for the State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes on iOS?

Many apps have a more complex setup when you start using them on an iOS device like the iPhone or iPad. However, you can esign form online safely with CocoSign, either using the iOS or Android operating system.

Below instructions will help you to e-sign your State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes from your iPad or iPhone:

  1. Add the CocoSign app on your iOS device.
  2. Write your CocoSign account or login if you have a previous one.
  3. You can also sign in through Google and Facebook.
  4. From your internal storage, click the document you need to e-sign.
  5. Open the document and choose the space you want to place your signatures.
  6. Write your electronic signatures and save them in your desired folder.
  7. Save the changes and send your State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes .
  8. You can also share it to other people or upload it to the cloud for future use.

Select CocoSign electronic signature solutions and enjoy effectively working on your iOS devices.

How to create an electronic signature for the State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes on Android?

These days, Android gadgets are commonly used. Therefore, to assist its customers, CocoSign has developed the app for Android users. You can use the following intstructions to e-sign your State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes from Android:

  1. Add the CocoSign app from Google Play Store.
  2. Login to your CocoSign account from your device or signup if you have not been pre-registered.
  3. Choose on the '+' option and add the document in which you want to place your electronic signatures.
  4. Select the area you want to put your signatures.
  5. Generate your e-signature in another pop-up window.
  6. Place it on the page and choose '✓'.
  7. Save changes and send the file.
  8. You can also share this signed State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes with other people or upload it on the cloud.

CocoSign helps you to write lots of electronic signatures at anytime. Connect with us now to automate your document signing.

State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes FAQs

Note answers to listed questions about State Of Minnesota In Supreme Court A10 64 Revisor Of Statutes . View the most useful topics and more.

Need help? Contact support

Does the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage also mean that polygamy must be an individual right?

Oh my, another 'slippery slope' question. The religious right seems to be quite worried about slippery slopes violating their religous norms. One could ask where in the Constitution do you find any text that allows religions to impose their beliefs on the non-religious citizens of America. The Constitution expressly forbids any-religious requirements for running for a federal elected office. There is text that expressly states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " While the terms separation of church and state do Continue Reading

How can I bring a Harrassment order back in to court for it to be reviewed for false statements against me in the state of Minnesota?

Find a lawyer. If you can't afford one, then see if you qualify for legal aid. If you don't know how to find one, call the bar association or look them up on line. Don't settle on the first lawyer you meet. Shop for the right person who makes you feel like they understand you and who can make themselves understood to you. Give that person all the facts you have. Follow his or her advice. Good luck.

SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Same Sex Marriage (June 2015): How is the Supreme Court able to override state laws?

The Supreme Court (actually, any court) can do so due to the Supremacy Clause , which says that Federal law always trumps laws made on a more local level. Since the Fourteenth Amendment bars states from discriminating against its citizens with regard to rights and since Loving v. Virginia establishes that the United States considers marriage to be a basic human right to be protected, those state bans on same-sex marriage have always been unconstitutional. The easiest way to think of the Obergefell case isn't that the Supreme Court "overrode" any law, but rather that it pointed out that those la Continue Reading

If the Supreme Court of the United States finds a violation of Amendment X in ruling on King v. Burwell, should or could SCOTUS adopt a similar practice to that of the Supreme Court of Canada and give the U.S. Congress a year to amend the statute in order to make it consistent with the U.S. Constitution?

Considering how ill-defined the Supreme Court's role is in the Constitution, I don't see why not other than its being unprecedented. SCOTUS granted itself the power of judicial review in Marbury v Madison; it could certainly grant itself this additional power.

What is the difference between a dissolution and divorce?

As such no difference, dissolution of marriage is always by decree of divorce issued by the competent Family court of the district where the petition for it is presented by the party or parties to marriage.

How does a dissolution work?

Like most academics, I shy away from monocausals, so let me offer a few causes: 1. Economics. Khrushchev's Kennedy-era attempts to reform the Soviet economy and encourage enthusiasm and personal initiative ended with the debacle of the Virgin Lands Program. He was replaced by a more conservative, less ideological, leadership under Brezhnev. For a time in the 1970s this seemed to work. High oil prices boosted the Soviet Economy, while the United States suffered through the end of the Vietnam War and the energy crisis. However, the underlying economic trend for the Soviet Union was downward from Continue Reading

What is a disillusionment?

The clue is in the prefix ‘dis-‘. Illusion / disillusionment. Example:- To be labouring under an illusion of being a good artist because a couple of people have praised your work. You will soon suffer a reverse feeling (you will soon be disillusioned) when others criticise your work, saying the pieces display no recognisable artistic ability whatever. A closely connected word is delusions (deluded, delusional) as in, “He suffers from delusions of grandeur.”

Easier, Quicker, Safer eSignature Solution for SMBs and Professionals

No credit card required14 days free