keywords "Kids for Cash Minnesota" court corruption ring enflaming Parental Alienation for Profits - "Contaminated" Judge Michael J. Mayer, Beth P. Harrington, DeAnne L. Dulas, Eagan police, chief Judge Edward Lynch, Brent Baumler, Mayer's clerk Richard Crabb
2007-06-05 court appointed expert says 'You're being set up ... by Contaminated Judge Mayer ... Abuse of Power ... Mayer's evaluator Harrington will do exactly as he wants.' audio>
2007-06-05 being setup by Contaminated Judge, Abuse of Power, Harrington will do exactly as he wants - expert appointed by Judge Michael Mayer, talking about Judge Mayer and Beth Harrington.mp3Contaminated Judge Michael Mayer has refused annual requests to remove himself from this case for over 15 years since 2006. He keeps total control of the case in order to cover up his human rights crimes and chief judges cover up too. Contaminated Judge Michael Mayer also uses his former employer the Eagan Police to commit his human rights crimes with immunity. The evil divorce industry is over $50 Billion a year for lawyers alone.
This site is maintained and posted by a third party. No content on this site may be used or copied without permission. Unfortunately, the courts repeatedly refuse to respect the privacy of families, but the courts keep the names of the violators - the judges and court workers completely secret by using code names - presiding judge, petitioner's attorney, etc.
Notice: The purpose of all these pages has always been to bring people to the knowledge of the truth - that those who claim to be Christians - J. Mayer and others - cannot receive salvation without true repentance and godly sorrow (2 Cor 7:10) for their actions in this case. True sorrow requires the visible fruits of reconciliation (Matt 5:23-24, Matt 3:7-8). The goal, if it isn't impossible for them to repent (Heb 6:4-6, Heb 10:26-27), is that these people repent and reconcile for their violations in abusing children in their abuses of power to willingly violate human rights, constitutional protections, natural liberties and Christ's commands and design. (These verses of God's Word are quoted at the page bottom) By their fruits you will know - Judge Michael Mayer, his evaluator Beth Harrington, divorce lawyer Deanne Dulas, the custodian and the custodian's father lawyer Roger are on the path to eternal punishment by God the Almighty Judge. Lawyers know that their chance of going to heaven is probably ten in a billion, but some practice as fake Christians anyway while demolishing families for very high profits.
The list of 17 state LAWS, U.S. Supreme Court orders, and Rules of Court BROKEN by Judge Michael Mayer starts one page below.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Preface
Judge Mayer has refused to allow anyone but himself decide on parenting issues for years of fury since 2006.
The purpose of this information is to show evidence of malicious behavior and bias and discrimination by Judge Michael Mayer so that he can be removed from this case of severe parental alienation by the custodian and Judge Mayer.
Judge Michael Mayer wrote on 10-13-2012, "the ability to remove me is terminated" (so he can continue breaking state laws, violating court rules, Supreme Court rulings, Constitutional rights, 'as long as he isn't caught') by the other judges and held responsible for bias (the Minnesota criteria) and "you have not made any showing of prejudice or bias on my part."
> So citizens of the world, How Many Actions of "Bias"? can you find in all this evidence that has been provided in "showings" to Judge Mayer and Chief Judge Edward Lynch since 2006 and to the appellate court in 2011 and 2012.
> Please comment on the Comments page (2.)
> The appearance of bias is also grounds for a judge to remove himself or be removed.
In Judge Michael Mayer's 10-10-2010 order he declared in his Findings of "Fact", as item 1, "The Court does not have any bias toward either party in this proceeding." ("The Court" is the code name for Judge Mayer.) So Judge Mayer has progressed in 2012 from his 2010 declaration that he "does not have any bias", to not denying bias, but simply declaring himself 'un-removable as long as he isn't caught' by a majority of fellow judges, who have refused so far to hold him accountable for his malicious actions.
When a judge and/or lawyers break the law, or conspire/agree to break the law, that doesn't justify breaking the state laws or continuing to break the state laws.
A best friend of the court, an abusive judge like Judge Mayer (MN Out of Control Judges - Horror Cases, Hell on Earth, Judge Lynch's 1st District 'biased' courts) can be the worst enemy to the reputations of all judges? can be the worst enemy to all judges if a judge is allowed to continue breaking state laws, rules of court and Supreme Court rulings without serious consequences?
>> I appeal the court to also confirm this legal argument:
1. Any 'expert or a judge who says sole physical custody' isn't a primary cause of parental alienation, 'they are crazy, the judge shouldn't be on the bench and the expert shouldn't be practicing in his or her field'? (the quoted parts are words of Judge Mayer).
Every judge should be required to read Dr. Amy Baker's book? "Adult Children of Parental Alienation - Breaking the Ties that Bind," and see that sole physical custody was the consistent factor that enflamed parental alienation in every divorce case, regardless of the gender of the parent
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
...
2. The list of the 17 state laws, Rules of Court and Supreme Court orders that Judge Michael Mayer continually breaks is cited under appeal #3 in 2012 Supplement to Statement of Case (removal of Judge Mayer) .
3. The full text of these laws, rules and orders, and the history of the district court proceeding relevant to this order is in the Statement of Case.
...
APPEAL #3. Removal of Judge Mayer from this case for breaking state Laws, Rules of Court, Supreme Court orders, and bias, prejudice and obstruction of justice.
...
>> District 1 Chief Judge Edward Lynch was repeatedly asked to take action to stop his judge(s) from breaking all of these laws, rules and orders. Judge Lynch repeatedly refused to 'interfere' (and ask his judges to stop breaking them). So what is the job of the chief judge? Judge Edward Lynch is an expert at cover-ups.
Evidence of most of these violations were cited in a 11/29/11 letter to Judge Mayer in the record (p6-7)
Judge Mayer continually violates all 16 of these State Laws, Rules of Court
and U.S. Supreme Court orders cited below: (details in the Statement of Case and Supplement)
1. MN Law Statute 484.702 support related motions
"must be conducted in the expedited process if the case is a IV-D case."
MN State Law Statute 484.702 Expedited Child Support Hearing Process.
“(b) All proceedings establishing, modifying, or enforcing support orders; and enforcing maintenance
orders, if combined with a support proceeding, must be conducted in the expedited process if the case is a IV-D case.”
“(c) 1. and result in timely and consistent issuance of orders;” which is 30 days per Rule 365.02 in the
Title IV-D Rules of Family Court Procedure.
>> Judge Michael Mayer knowingly and boldly breaks this state law by
a. Taking support only motions from the Expedited Process court into the General court.
b. Demanding hearings when there was no request for hearing addressed to the initiating party (Rule 372.05 Subd. 2)
c. Ruling in General Court, instead of in Expedited Process court, he is not a officer.
d. By taking Title IV-D Expedited Process support motions into General Court, Judge Mayer breaks other state laws and Rules of Court, regarding county attorney, charging interest, etc. (below)
Judge Mayer's 12/20/2011 hearing and his 1/10/2012 order are violations of this state law.
Judge Mayer's Oct 2009 hearing and order on support issues should also have been in the Expedited Process and no hearing request was addressed to the initiating party. When a judge, magistrates and attorneys work together and agree to break state laws, that isn't reason for continuing to break state laws, when the violations of state law are discovered by the father.
> Magistrate Davidson and county attorney Tina Isaac illegally delayed and then redirected the 3/10/2011 expedited process motion into General Court without any request addressed to the moving party for a hearing, which is optional in Expedited Process court. On 3/22/11, Judge Mayer ordered that it was appropriate for this abbreviated motion to be heard in Expedited Process. On 5/5/11 Magistrate Jan Davidson lied that she didn't have access to a copy of the motion, which was scanned into the court file (so how could she claim anything was out of scope when she denied access to the motion?) This is total corruption and law breaking by all court workers involved. Magistrate Davidson illegally pushed the motion into General Court in May 2011, again without providing a legitimate or any specific cause, but planting wild generalization lies in the record about being out of scope, but she refused repeatedly to indicate anything specific that she considered out of scope, because nothing was out of scope in the abbreviated motion. An appeal had been filed on previous General Court orders, so Magistrate Davidson's illegal action resulted in delaying this motion for more than 6 more months until after the appellate ruling which was completely unrelated to this Expedited Process motion.
>> After many delays, Judge Mayer illegally crushed the expedited process motion in General Court on 1/10/2012 and failed to rule on any General Court motions for which he had 2 hearings.
2. General Court Rule 303.03 (c) Motion Practice "no post-decree hearing can be held in General Court without an attempt for ADR/settlement." "The moving party shall certify to the court, before the time of the hearing, compliance with this rule or any reasons for not complying"
>> Judge Mayer held illegal hearings in this case on 4/17/2009, 10/12/2009, 1/8/2010, 5/6/2010, 11/15/2010. None of these hearings had a certification of an attempt at ADR/settlement and they were illegally held. Judge Mayer failed to provide phone access to the 1/8/2010, 5/6/2010, 11/15/2010 hearings. Judge Mayer ordered sole legal custody in the illegal 1/8/2010 hearing. The 12/20/2011 hearing had a certification that the custodian refused to cooperate with an ADR attempt in Dec-Jan 2011, but Judge Mayer ignored the custodian's failure to participate or cooperate. In his 10/8/10 letter, Judge Mayer planted lies and denied that ADR/settlement attempt or certification was mandatory. Because every one of his hearings was illegal and invalid without this attempt and certification which was mandatory - with no exclusions! And Judge Mayer's orders based on these illegal and invalid hearings are invalid - orders 10/15/09, 1/8/10, 5/6/10, 10/14/10, 11/22/10, 1/19/11 ignoring Children's Rights. 10/14/10, 11/22/10, 1/19/11 ignoring Children's Rights
The 1/10/2012 order is also invalid per this rule since Judge Mayer failed to require certification.
3. Family Court Rule 303(b) Failure to Comply:
“If responsive papers are not properly served and filed, the court may deem the initial motion or motion raising new issues unopposed and may issue an order without hearing.
No responsive papers or request for hearing have been properly served by the opposing parties regarding motions in 2010 or 2011. The motions are unopposed.
>> Judge Mayer demands that hearings are mandatory, but this rule proves that hearings aren't mandatory. And in fact Judge Mayer's hearings were illegal and invalid (and also his subsequent orders) without certification of ADR/settlement attempt.
4. MN State Law Statute 518.1705 Subd. 2 Plan elements
(a) A parenting plan must include the following: (3) a method of dispute resolution.
>> Judge Michael Mayer violates this law and denied all requests for a parenting consultant/coordinator.
>> Judge Michael Mayer has repeatedly broken the requirement of state law to provide a method of dispute resolution, outside of court or lawyers. Key components of a successful Dispute Resolution method are listed on pages 6-9 in the 2010-11-08 Suppl Affidavit for Children's Rights (motion),
Past Motions for Parenting Consultant/Coordinator were made on 9/18/06 p2, 2/26/07 p2, 4/9/07 p3, 9/28/07 p2, 11/11/08 p46,p95, 3/27/09, 4/28/09 p1 with detailed role description, 11/8/10 p1, 12/10/10 p2.
Judge Mayer has opposed Alternate Dispute Resolution, as cited under his Rule 303.03 (c) violations.
The custodian opposed all motions for dispute resolution outside of court, and yet the most malicious abusive Judge Michael Mayer fined the father to pay $28,000 of the millionaire custodian's lawyer fees.
5. MN state law statute 211C.01 Subd. 4. Serious Crime. Obstruction of Justice
>> Judge Michael Mayer is seriously guilty of denial of transcripts by allowing extreme extortion in pricing over $4400 for one hour of printing and mailing, had added months/years of delays to transcripts, and has directed the tampering of evidence file and transcripts, disposing of dozen of evidence documents and all audio evidence submitted.
6. MN Law Statute 14.60 Evidence Subd. 3. Right of cross-examination, submit rebuttal
7. General Rule 364.09 Right to "present evidence, rebuttal testimony, and argument"
8. MN Law Statute 14.15 "rebuttal period of five working days ... to respond in writing”
>> Judge Michael Mayer routinely breaks these laws and rule by allowing ambushes of false allegations in oral hearings - new allegations, often at the end of the hearing, and then cuts off the time for rebuttal, shuts down the file immediately and rejects the submittal of any rebuttal evidence. Judge Mayer especially caused serious consequences and financial damage in these hearings 10/12/2009 and 12/20/11 by denying rebuttal evidence. Judge Mayer refused to accept several rebuttal documents within 5 days of the 12/20/11 hearing, of evidence disproving Judge Mayer's multiple lies in the hearing. Prior to the hearing, Judge Mayer had mentioned in writing a 5 day rebuttal period, but Judge Mayer lost his temper and cut off the father before the father could present anything on his motions, and before the custodian made her arguments in secret. Then Judge Mayer shut down the file at the hearing and refused rebuttal evidence. Details are in the appeal documents and in several rebuttal documents of evidence filed in court in the 5 days after the hearing.
>> Judge Michael Mayer also broke these state laws and rule of court by failing to provide phone access to these hearings 1/8/10, 5/6/10 (sole legal custody), 11/15/10 and Judge Mayer cut off the father on 12/20/11 so that he couldn't hear a single word from the custodian or any support agents in the hearing. So not only was cross-examination and rebuttal denied in these hearings, but the father was denied from hearing any arguments and comments from the custodian or support agents or county attorneys, or following comments by Judge Mayer. Judge Mayer allowed extreme extortion in pricing of the 12/20/11 transcript, and he likely pressured Tracey Dougherty (as before) to refuse providing a partial transcript, so that the transcript was too high priced and was never obtained. In the first hearing, 10/5/2006 transcript p.4, Judge Michael Mayer maliciously boasted, “You can’t get rid of me” and warned of “fury that you will not overcome.” On 10/1/2008, Judge Michael Mayer maliciously boasted, “You won’t be able to appeal my decisions because the transcripts alone will cost a fortune.”
9. Family Court - Rule 360.01 "allowed by law, the county agency may, as a matter of right, intervene as a party in any matter conducted in the expedited process." NOT in other courts
>> Judge Michael Mayer violated this rule repeatedly by involving and copying the county attorney on everything in General Court in 2009,2010,2011,2012 even t after he and District 1 Chief Judge Edward Lynch were notified in writing of this repeated violation. Judge Mayer allowed the most malicious ass. county attorney Valisa McKinney to participate and cause severe financial sabotage by a last minute ambush in the 10/12/09 hearing in General Court, which resulted in secret charging of high amounts of interest. The appellate court also knowingly violated this rule and likely continues to violate in other cases - the county attorney has no statutory authority in family court matters except in the expedited process.
10. Family Court - Rule 360.02 (d) requires "statutory grounds authorizing the person to intervene."
>> Judge Mayer violated this rule by involving the county attorney in General Court in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 without "statutory grounds to intervene" in General Court. The most damage by the county attorney in General Court was the malicious ambush attack of ass. county attorney Valissa McKinney on 10/12/09, alleging no knowledge of full and timely payments, which resulted in an abusive and dishonorable Judge Mayer order on 10/15/09.
11. Rule 1400.7700 (Communication with Parties) violated by Tina Isaac who had inside secret communications with court to get the first hearing with Magistrate Davidson scheduled on the 3/10/11 motion, resulting in orders by Judge Mayer who was repeatedly reminded of the violations, but ignored them.
12. MN statute 548.091 subd 1a-e Interest on Support, Judge Mayer violated since Oct. 2009
It is illegal, a violation of state law to "impend, authorize or initiate interest charges" when the government is taking payments in full from paychecks via "Title IV-D" for 12 months or more.
>> Judge Michael Mayer broke this law when he allowed the most malicious ass. county attorney Valisa McKinney to participate without authority in General Court and cause severe financial sabotage by a last minute ambush in the 10/12/09 hearing in General Court, which resulted in secret charging of high amounts of interest, which was never credited and was also illegal in this Title IV-D case which had full and timely payment for all of more than 5 years. In a last minute ambush, though she refused to tell the father what she was going to say in the hearing, and she investigated salaries extensively, she maliciously alleged that she "didn't know" if payments {taken by force by the county} were full and timely. And Mayer just copied her malicious attack into his malicious order. See details of this wickedness in the appeal. {It is the responsibility of the opposing parties to prove any allegation of incomplete monthly payments before interest is added. But Judge Mayer in his false findings of 'facts' alleges the father must prove, even though no one alleged payments weren't full and timely, only a lie that they didn't know if the other fingers of the county were taking all the money they wanted.} After many months of the father requesting from Krista Sorensen in the support agency, Krista finally provided a 7/9/10 letter confirming full and timely payments 'for at least 12 months,' which they took directly from the father's employer for years. Support refused to document the full truth for all years. And no one in the court ever acknowledged this evidence of full and timely payments, which Judge Mayer certainly knew, because he ordered it from the beginning (big Federal incentive matching money in this Kids for Cash case). Judge Mayer, Magistrate Davidson, and Judge Lynch continued planting lies in the court record claiming not full and timely, to cover up their malicious and illegal actions. And the appellate court copied the same lies in 2011, when all of these court workers had a copy of the 7/9/10 letter.
13. Expedited Process Rule 372.05 Subd. 2 - no hearing if no request addressed to the initiating party
"Failure of the noninitiating party to request a hearing, to serve a responsive motion, or to appear at a scheduled hearing shall not preclude the matter from going forward...based upon the information in the file."
>> Judge Mayer violates this rule by demanding hearings for all motions, expedited process or general court, or he prevents motion matters from going forward. Judge Michael Mayer and Magistrate Jan Davidson violated this rule when they demanded a hearing for the 3/10/11 expedited process motion when no party addressed a request for hearing to the initiating party. The ass. county attorney Tina Isaac worked illegally inside the court violating Rule 1400.7700 (Communication with Parties), and never addressed a request to the initiating party. And Judge Mayer lied in the 12/10/11 hearing saying that the custodian made a request, but no request was made by the custodian, and there is no evidence to back up Judge Mayer's lie about this request, which also doesn't exist on the list of file documents. Tina Isaac was repeatedly notified of this rule, but it appears that she would too arrogant to address a request for hearing to the father. She had been successful at getting hearings by communicating directly to the court and in secret, so she felt no need to obey rule and address a hearing request to the father.
14. Supreme Court Plaskey v CIA, 953 F .2nd 25 - no secret reasons for dismissing motions
"Court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instructions of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings."
>> From the Sept. 2010 motions to the Dec. 20, 2011 hearing, Judge Mayer kept his reasons secret for dismissing motions by writing merely 'not proper' and giving no specific reasons for why he considered them 'not proper.' This is his habit, not a one-time occurrence - also Obstruction of Justice.
15. MN Statute 563.01 Subd. 7. Forma Pauperis (and statute 176.421). reasonable cost transcripts
>> Judge Mayer severely violates "reasonable" for in forma pauperis party, 563.01: "the court shall direct the payment of the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the transcript." $4400 for one hour of printing and mailing is miles from reasonable. On 10/1/2008, Judge Michael Mayer maliciously boasted, “You won’t be able to appeal my decisions because the transcripts alone will cost a fortune.” On 10/2/2006 transcript p.4, Judge Michael Mayer maliciously boasted, “You can’t get rid of me” and warned of “Fury that you will not overcome.”
16. MN state law statute 518.175 subd. 5. evidentiary hearing required when restricting parenting time
(2002 Matson v. Matson) "The district court may not restrict parenting time unless it first schedules an evidentiary hearing for the "earliest possible time," and then finds that (1) parenting time is likely to endanger the child's physical or emotional health or impair the child's emotional development; or (2) the noncustodial parent has chronically and unreasonably failed to comply with court-ordered parenting time." "If the moving party asserts sufficient facts, then an evidentiary hearing must be held to determine the truth of the allegations and to provide a basis for the necessary findings."
(Nice-Peterson, 310 N.W.2d at 472.) "These requirements apply to the modification of legal custody, as well as physical custody."
>> Judge Mayer broke this law repeatedly by severely restricting parenting time and refusing requests for evidentiary hearings. Judge Mayer also awarded sole legal custody in a secret motion hearing 5/26/2010.
Affirmed in the MN Oien case March 2011, "The district court abused its discretion by restricting parenting time without conducting an evidentiary hearing." This was months prior to the father's last appeal which was ignored, that discussed the denials of evidentiary hearings as evidence of bias and abuse. Severe restrictions and terminations occurred in this case 5 times from October 2006 to May 2008. No evidentiary hearing was allowed until almost 2 years later starting 7/29/2008 and the order from the hearing wasn't issued until 2/11/2009! 2.5 years! after the first severe restriction of parenting time. That's support and encouragement of Parental Alienation via restrictions and police tactics.
Per state law, it is the responsibility of the judge to hold an evidentiary hearing (with or without an evidentiary hearing motion) - each notable restriction without an evidentiary hearing is a violation of state law by the judge. Even if lawyer(s) and judge initially conspire together in secret to delay or deny an evidentiary hearing (to continue profits) or pressure the client to take action he doesn't want and isn't aware of the law, the judge is still required to obey the state laws and hold an evidentiary hearing for substantial restrictions of parenting time.
>> Judge Mayer broke this law in the May 2010 sole legal hearing which wasn't an evidentiary hearing as required by law. There were many other violations in that hearing.
------------------------------------
The rest of this document is a copy of argument from the 2012 Supplement to the Statement of Case, starting at page 22. #17 on the next page is the last of the violations by Judge Mayer in this list.
-----------------------------------------
The motion papers for the May 5, 2010 legal custody hearing were not served to the father and he didn't receive a copy or notice of hearing, but received the order afterward. {not in the Supplement - As Judge Mayer was told in writing on 5/17/10 after the hearing, of the custodian's violations that resulted in what should be declared an illegal hearing, including that on the date of the hearing 5/5/10, postmark envelope evidence provided to Judge Mayer, the custodian dropped dozens of pages of her arguments in the mail (not via 3rd party) to the father, documents which she had dated 4/19/10 and sent to the court weeks earlier). Judge Mayer knowingly ignores the fact that I have never been served court documents from a 3rd party as required for proper service. Her father doesn't live at her home address that is always on the envelope (sometimes no address is listed). Judge Mayer held the secret hearing in defiant violation of Rule 303.03 (c) which requires ADR/settlement attempts prior to a post-decree motion hearing. There were no findings that met the criteria of state law for change of legal custody. His only excuse was that the custodian wanted to get children's passports to leave the country. But she can obtain passports without sole legal custody by answering the questions on the application. The only thing a custodian can't do without sole legal is finalize the parental alienation by changing children's birth names to Break The Ties That Bind children with their father. Sole legal may also cut off the father's access to school and medical records. The custodian quickly changed the children's birth names to cement the alienation, though the older son opposed the name change. The children have not had a decent conversation with their father since the name change in mid 2010. Stripping their birth names was a major turning point - the nail in the coffin. The parenting time excuse is all lies and deception in the order. The custodian has blocked parenting time for 3 years because per court order, the reunification therapist must decide parenting time and the custodian has blocked the father from seeing his kids in therapy since Jan. 2007. And she failed to pay half to Dr. Reitman and failed to pay Dr. Powers anything so they both quit. Under the custodian's pressure, Brent Baumler and Dr. Powers refused to let the father see his kids in therapy (which meant no parenting time either). Judge Mayer aided and encouraged alienation by never having consequences for the custodian (extreme prejudice). The custodian continues to lie to police and threaten the father on the phone.
17. U.S. Supreme Court requires 'LEAST restrictive'! and 'only to prevent harm'!
U.S. Supreme Court orders require 'Least restrictive'! interference with 'compelling' need and 'only to prevent harm'! The courts greatly abuse equal treatment of children every day. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees Equal Protection to all. The U.S. Supreme Court orders confirm the right to custody of one's own children without interference by the state is a fundamental natural liberty (Santosky v Kramer). Interference of the state must be the 'least restrictive' (Boerne v. Flores) with 'compelling' need and 'only to prevent harm' (Troxel v. Granville).
>> All of Judge Mayer's parenting time orders violate these Supreme Court ruling and violate state law 518.175 which requires evidence of specific harm. Judge Mayer's police prosecutor mentality results in him using the "most restrictive" interference and at the same time denying evidentiary hearings. Not until 2.5 years after Oct. 2006, did Judge Mayer finally admit in the Feb. 2009 decree that there was no domestic abuse problem against the custodian or children. But 3 years of false hysteria by the custodian and her vicious lawyer Deanne Dulas with endless false allegations, tragically alienated the father from his children. Judge Mayer and his clerk Richard Crabb failed to read and acknowledge the evidence in numerous affidavits, and even ignored strong red light warnings from his court appointed experts Dr. Reitman and Eric Rehm. Judge Mayer denied evidentiary hearings for testimony from October 2006 to June 2008. Not until the July 2008 evidentiary trial hearing did Judge Mayer realize that the custodian was clearly lying. The custodian even claimed repeatedly under oath to be in financial distress and living penny-to-penny while she admitted her father was paying legal costs, she continued to make $130,000 a year working part-time, and by grand theft, Judge Mayer made the father a pauper and gave her over $460,000 in cash and tax benefits (since 2006), so that she became a millionaire. Who would like to live on those pennies? She also testified repeatedly that she never started an argument in 10 years of marriage. Judge Mayer acknowledged to the lawyers that the custodian was clearly lying. But in the decree, Judge Mayer gave the custodian nearly everything she wanted, even after realizing her compulsive and lying behaviors in testimony - which are also shown in her psych tests from 2 years - very high, in the middle of the Compulsive Personality Disorder range! and high in lying and histrionic (hysterical) behavior (cited in the 3/25/11 appeal brief).
Judge Mayer committed criminal Obstruction of Justice by repeatedly denying evidentiary hearings in this case, while creating more and more severe restrictions and increasing parental alienation with police tactics and use of detention centers, which resulted in sole custody (continuing). Changing parenting time would appear to admit that he made a mistake and Judge Mayer won't admit making a mistake, breaking laws, rules, orders or giving any such indication that he could make a mistake.
Judge Mayer appointed a most experienced parental alienation expert PhD Dr. Reitman who warned Judge Mayer in the 12/18/06 report p.3 not to use detention centers because of the alienation caused to children. In complete defiance of child expert red light warnings, Judge Mayer ordered the use of detention centers and wrote in his following order, "No negative connotations shall be drawn by the exchange location." That's like sending children into a prison and ordering them not to have negative thoughts about the prisoners (because that's what Judge Mayer's order says). His orders are bizarre. How can an order to have no negative connotations, override the feelings and observations of children??? Judge Mayer defiantly rejected the PhD child expert red light warnings regarding children's feelings. See the 2011 appeal for details. Judge Mayer continually added alienating restrictions and continually rejected requests for evidentiary hearings which are required by state law. Judge Mayer defiantly rejected Dr. Reitman and Dr. Gilbertson's red light warnings that Judge Mayer's continued actions/inactions in reunification and sole physical custody would continue to alienate the children. Judge Mayer stated in the 2/11/09 decree p.15 that sole legal custody would result in parental alienation and then he ordered sole legal custody in early 2010.
In fact the evidence shows that the mother is guilty of violations per state law 518.175 subd. 5. Dr. Reitman found in the 2/26/2007 addendum that the mother:
1. endangers the children's emotional development: Addendum last paragraph "denied a parental relationship"... "cannot serve their psychological development well", p.8 "2. ... it was quite clear that [mother] was communicating her anger towards [father] covertly and overtly to the children." p.8 " 3. ... Parental alienations is a serious syndrome that can destroy maternal and paternal relationships. I believe that [mother] has engaged in estranging the children from their father."
11/16/2006 email from Dr. Reitman, "[mother] is severely alienating the children"
2. has chronically and unreasonably failed to comply with court-ordered parenting time:
11/16/2006 email from Dr. Reitman "I am unable to get [mother] into a therapeutic dialogue and get her to do therapeutic, parental business such as sharing Thanksgiving."
addendum p.7 "denied telephone calls", "denied his parenting time", p.8 " 3. ... allowing phone calls, then stopping them, agreeing to visitation and changing the time" "1. The children and [father] must be in reunification therapy." p.7 "[father] to my knowledge is not having regular reunification sessions with the children's therapist." {because mother prevents it},
Evidence showed the mother in severe violation, but Judge Mayer went the opposite direction, restricting the father, and repeatedly denied an evidentiary hearing per state law 518.175. Judge Mayer ignored the evidence that showed the mother in violation.
Clearly in Judge Mayer's 4/12/07 letter, Judge Mayer bases his decisions completely on lies by the custodian's lawyer Deanne Dulas, and allows ONLY Dulas to bring a motion. There was a pending request for a hearing and evidentiary cross-examination, but Judge Mayer writes "no pending issues." Evidentiary hearing, rebuttal and cross-examination to Dulas' lies was completely denied to the father's lawyer Burns, "unless Ms. Dulas brings a motion"! Clearly this is one-sided prejudice in writing and actions. Deanne got every restriction and complete termination of parenting as she wanted (after one weekend), decision basically ex parte, without rebuttal, and without evidentiary hearing that was requested. It's bizarre for Judge Mayer to think Dulas would make a motion after getting what she wanted by lying to Judge Mayer repeatedly.
History of Judge Mayer's violations of state law 518.175, severely restricting parenting time and refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing:
10/5/2006 (severe restriction from Wed eve + alt. Fr-Mon to 'as arranged with therapist'), 1/27/2007 (substantial detention center exchange restriction which custodian used to wrongly terminate all contact for 4 weeks, then Dr. Reitman wrote the addendum because Judge Mayer and the custodian were defying his plan), 3/20/2007 (severe restriction allowing only 1 Wed. and 1 weekend, then terminated until 4/23 motion hearing in 1 month) Judge wrote 7. Respondent "will not receive a hearing unless there are completely contradictory versions" (which there were). 4/9/2007 affidavit p.3 in bold "An evidentiary hearing required by law has never been allowed regarding parenting time and other restrictions – not in 20 months." 4/12/2007 Judge Mayer writes, there are "no pending issues" though evidentiary hearing was needed and parenting was terminated. 5/29/2007 (severe restriction requiring a relative, knowingly terminated all Wed eve visits and many weekends for 7 months) evidentiary hearing denied. Judge wrote 6. if any rules are violated, "the party shall set the matter on for an evidentiary hearing". 8/14/2007 letter to judge, "As has been communicated several times before, the restrictions on parenting time that have occurred in this case and in many others are in violation of state law 518.175 subd 5, which requires an evidentiary hearing that has never been held" 9/28/2007 pro se motion for evidentiary hearing (5.), 11/16/2007 lawyer letter to Judge Mayer, p.6 "There is no basis for Dr. Harrington to be empowered to restrict parental access. That is solely within the province of the Court and only after notice and evidentiary hearing." 12/31/2007 (near termination to 2 hours per week in a detention center which quickly resulted in complete termination). Judge Mayer provided no state law 518.175 findings for demanding supervised parenting, it was just the feelings of his best friend accomplice Beth Harrington. Judge Mayer provided no findings specific to restricting parenting time. His only excuse was Beth Harrington's destructive parenting plan, "recommendations of the custody evaluator, be exercised in shorter periods so that there is better chance for the visitation to go well and be productive." Her plan defied all evidence that longer times were better, exchanges with custodian present were the worst, exchanges via school were the best. Her plan defied the evidence that the children repeatedly refused to go into detention centers. Alienation was multiplied again! It's abusive, bizarre and clearly in violation of state law 518.175. In the 12 page 12/31/07 order, Judge Mayer never mentioned the father's motion for an evidentiary hearing, but stated, "All other requests not specifically granted herein are denied." Judge Mayer is a malicious parental alienation machine, defying the evidence and every court experts' warnings except his best friend Beth Harrington who "does exactly as he wants" (to cover-up Judge Mayer's failures).
3/29/08 pro se motion for evidentiary hearing (7.). 5/13/2008 Order "2. Respondent's motion for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED."
The court expert findings on 2/26/07 (pages above) clearly showed severe violations of 518.175 by the mother, but Judge Mayer ignored the evidence. Yet without any findings of criteria from 518.175, and defiantly denying the required evidentiary hearings, he severely restricted parenting time several times and completely destroyed the father-child relationships by using detentions centers. Clearly this shows repeated bias toward the mother and against the father with denials of required evidentiary hearings.
518.175 is possibly the first state law in this case that Judge Mayer seriously violated starting with the first hearing in October 2006, and repeatedly violated, and his violations of this state law have resulted in the most serious tragic consequences of parental alienation of our children. Many false allegations by the custodian were allowed to continue without consequences for years, parenting time was severely restricted and terminated, and Judge Mayer continually refused lawyer Burns' requests to have an evidentiary hearing which is required by state law 518.175 when parenting time is restricted.
Parental alienation cases bring in the largest amounts of money to court workers. Evidence will show that families with fathers who have assets and credit lines to steal from and deplete are more likely to result in parental alienation enflaming, with endless delays by court workers in order to take everything from the fathers, while crushing children's relationships with their fathers. Aggressive alienation, "most restrictive," police tactics and delays are necessary to deplete all from these fathers and children.
It appears that Judge Mayer has continual defiance of State Laws, Rules of Court and the Supreme Court. He is a career police prosecutor and everyone has covered for him and he had no consequences. Two of Judge Mayer's cases are mentioned on a short list of 9 "MN Out of Control Judges and Lawyers." The lawyer John Burns-Judge Mayer permanently assigned-money extortion team is mentioned too, described as “HELL ON EARTH." The result was total separation from children since Oct 2007 to date for a neighbor of Judge Mayer's. It is rare that any parent should be totally separated for years, but Judge Mayer and his court friends appear to be very good at that kind of malicious revenge. Especially if one files evidence of violations by Judge Mayer! Judge Mayer has no limits to the crimes he commits. He ordered that parent to sign fraudulent tax forms of the other parent, just like he ordered the father in the 4/17/2009 hearing to sign the financial papers lawyer Deanne Dulas put in front of the father. The father wasn't even given a copy of the papers before his order. Judge Mayer also refused to answer questions about the papers requested - Judge Mayer didn't know - he just demanded the father do what Deanne Dulas demands. But Judge Mayer threatened this father and the other parent with contempt of court and prison if we failed to sign the financial documents that neither he nor his clerk Richard Crabb had read and which also violated his own orders. Then Dulas made another tragic lying story to provide cover. This proved that all these court workers had one goal and that was to steal as much money and children as possible, any way possible, even criminal.
Not long before being appointed as a judge, Judge Michael Mayer was sued in the appeals court (C2-97-302) for bad ethics, malicious behavior and abuses of court processes as police prosecutor for Eagan. Those behaviors of Judge Michael Mayer have only intensified since then and now he has immunity from prosecution.
Judge Mayer has broken at least 16 State Laws, Rules of Court, Supreme Court orders, and refused recusals and transcripts which helped him cover up, distort and dispose of the father's evidence.
Judge Michael Mayer also obstructed parenting time by:
a) refusing to allow anyone but himself decide on parenting issues for years of fury since 2006.
b) furiously refusing to admit a single mistake on his part and maliciously taking revenge for such evidence.
c) denying yearly motions for a Parenting Consultant with ADR powers. He continues to break state law 518.1705 Subd. 2 which requires (3) a method of dispute resolution.
c) rejecting and despising attempts to use Alternate Dispute Resolution with a PhD psychologist certified mediator. Efforts were made by Dr. Michelle Millenacker near the Apple Valley courthouse.
d) refusing to recuse himself during 6 years of "fury that you will not overcome" 10/05/06 transcript p.4
e) destroying father-child relationships with his malicious "most restrictive" police tactics
f) completely ignoring the older son's requests to see his father (9/16/2010 motion affidavit p1-2)
g) failing to take positive steps to have parenting in a positive environment
What judge with an unbiased mind would continually restrict parenting time for 2.5 years, deny evidentiary hearings, use the "most restrictive" detentions centers and then block and obstruct parenting time for 3 more years? when there was never a finding of domestic abuse, mental problems or substance abuse in the father. But a father who dares to provide evidence that Judge Mayer breaks laws and defies his own expert's warnings.
Much evidence was identified in the 3/25/2011 appeal brief that Judge Mayer's words and actions are opposite. He puts up a front with a few nice words, uses lies to sound unbiased. But his actions are malicious, severely one-sided and his warnings and consequences only apply to one side. On the 4/23/2007 transcript p.5, in our case, rookie Judge Mayer states his strongly worded bias 15 months before the evidentiary hearing, "if you can find an expert or a judge who says joint physical custody is going to work between the two of you, they are crazy, the judge shouldn't be on the bench, and the expert shouldn't be practicing in his or her field. The Court has to find the ability of the parents to get along with each other and make decisions together regarding the upbringing of the children." So Dr. James Gilbertson and Dr. Reitman, both of whom Judge Mayer appointed, who warned against sole physical custody and alienation, are crazy and shouldn't be practicing? It's interesting that on the MN out-of-control judges list by female complainants, that Judge Mayer issued joint physical custody (alternating weeks with parents) to non-cooperating parents in June 2010 (Atkins appellate case). Did Judge Mayer finally learn after 5 years! of issuing one-sided biased orders, that the simplest way to get sole custody is for a woman to simply refuse to cooperate? or is Judge Mayer "crazy .. shouldn't be on the bench"? (his words). People have long cited that Judge Michael Mayer violates court processes, is malicious (and unstable) - "HELL ON EARTH." Or to quote Judge Mayer's reference to hell, "fury that you will not overcome." (10-5-2006 transcript p.4)
Don't children deserve a better judge? a judge who isn't so maliciously revengeful? when a citizen files evidence of violations by Judge Mayer.
No one can honorably argue against the fact that sole physical custody is the very best condition for enflaming parental alienation. No one can honorably argue that equal parenting from day 1 is certainly the #1 solution for reducing or preventing parental alienation.
...
Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.
2 Cor 7:10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
Matthew 5:23-24 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
Matt 3:7-8 But when he saw many of the Pharisees {lawyers} and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance
Heb 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
Heb 10:26-27 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries
--
Matt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Luke 6:46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say?
John 15:14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.
John 8:31-32 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”