MINNESOTA JUDICIAL REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY: May 2009

The Minnesota Legislature Unconstitutionally delegated its
responsiblity to oversee the Judicial Branch to the Judicial Branch.

Instead of the Checks and Balances between the 3 branches of the
Goverment Required by the Constitution as we were all taught in High School Civics class, the Minnesota Legislature abdicated its
Constitutitional duty. As a result, the Minnesota Judiciary has done
such things as allowed judges to accept tips, made a rule that says MN
Judges do not have to follow the rules or Minnesota Statutes and created an impotent Judicial Review Board which gives unsatisfactory
redress on matters involving deliberate misdeeds, graft and Corruption by Minnesota Judges.

The purpose of this blog is to publicise and promote passage of the Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability, language of which is contained further down in this blog. This bill was known as MN HR 1632 in the 2009 Minnesota Legislative Session.

In case you are not aware of the degree to which our Courts have became
Tyranical, read the "Judge Our Courts" and "R-kids"Links. If you want a
real eye opener, read the first post of the blog;

Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Discussing Aid for AIPAC Defendants

Here a Democrat House Member offers spies to kill an investigation into them in return for help becoming the Chair of the US House Intelligence Committee. And then, Republican Attorney General Gonzalez kills the investigation into the Democrat Rep. in exchange for help for Republican President George Bush in then upcoming warrantless wiretap hearings"??!!! Who is looking out for the interest of the USA in all of this?

Minnesota Looks to Oust Bad Judges
Legislators say they’ll impeach, remove questionable judges

Judge Our Courts This Website Outlines Specific Examples of Judge Wrong-doing and
Real Life Examples.

R-Kids - Judicial Issues Page

This Page of this website Deals with Judicial Issues Regarding

Child Custody Issues and has several instances of the Judicial System

Failing the Obvious needs of the Children and Families Involved.

New board is proposed to oversee state judges

Citizens should retake oversight of judges from a judiciary that tyrannizes the people, a group says.

Back to the topic at hand. We want to start documenting all the instances of
Judicial Tyranny... Refusing to set hearings, altering transcripts,
Ruling with out findings of fact or indicating applicable rules of law,
etc. If not for you, for your children. Unchecked, the Tyranny of the
Self-Supervised Minnesota Judiciary will only further erode the
liberties of future generations of average American Citizens.

We welcome all comments, Good, bad or indifferent.

And especially if you recieved poor, unethical or illegal treatment at the hands of any
judge, administrator or clerk in any Minnesota Judicial District. Feel free to post your information(without leaving your name if you choose) or contact me via my email so i can point you to other resources.

When time permits we will provide links to your individiual Minnesota Judicial Districts and your Judges. Look soon for these various links to appear in the left column. in the meantime, ask your judges why they support the Quie Bill and want to take away your right to vote for judges. (They would rather be appointed than see the light of day of an election.)

Get your Minnesota State Representatives contact information by clicking =here= Please contact them and tell them you support MN HR 1632 - Judicial Reform and Accountability. Tell them you think the Founding Fathers when they created a System of Checks and Balances between the 3 Branches of Government. Demand they restore the Minnesota Constitution to its original Intent of having the Legislature Discipline Dishonest, Corrupt, biased and/or Incompetent Judges.

If not for yourself, do it to protect your children and future generations of Americans from the increasing Tyranny of the Minnesota Judicial Branch.

Your Fellow Citizen and Tax Payer,

Don Mashak
In Propia Persona
DMashak@aol.com
The Cyncial Patriot t9sj4a6g28

HF 1632 (amended per author Rep. Dan Severson)

Pursuant to Article Six Section Nine of the Minnesota Constitution, which states in part, “The legislature may also provide for the retirement, removal or other discipline of any judge who is disabled, incompetent or guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice”, it is hereby enacted….

Section 1. Definitions. As used in this act, the words and terms listed below mean:

Subdivision 1. “Appellate Court Judge” means a justice of the Supreme Court of Minnesota or a judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Subd. 2. “District Court Judge” means a judge of a Minnesota district court.

Subd. 3. “Irresponsible Act” means a decision, order, or act of a judge

or judicial official defined as including but nit limited to: using the

influence of said office for personal gain or injury, under the color

of law, of any person that appears in any proceeding.

Subd. 4. “Board of Judicial Standards” means the commission established

by Section 2, Subdivision 1 of this chapter.

Subd. 5. “Judge” means a justice or judge of the Supreme Court of

Minnesota, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, or a Minnesota district

court.

Subd. 6. “Judicial Official” means a referee, commissioner, master, or

employee whose duties include making decisions in conciliation court,

child support, or other court proceedings, preparing and submitting

reports, evaluations or recommendations to judges, and persons who

prepare and submit a report, evaluation or recommendation to a judge

pursuant to an order, directive, or request of a judge. “Judicial

Official” includes child protection workers, court services personnel,

and guardians ad litem.

Subd. 7. “Oversight Board” means the Minnesota Judicial Oversight Board

established by Section 3, Subdivision 1 of this chapter.

Section 2. Board of Judicial Standards; establishment; composition.

Subdivision 1. Establishment. The Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards

is established pursuant to Article Six Section Nine of the Minnesota

constitution.

Subd. 2. Board of Judicial Standards; composition; appointment. The

Board on Judicial Standards consists of seven commissioners.

Four members are appointed by:
The Majority Leader of the House of Representatives
The Minority Leader of the House of Representatives
The Majority Leader of the Senate
The Minority Leader of the Senate

Three members are selected by application as follows:
A person who is a resident and citizen of the state and nation may

apply to the secretary of state to be a citizen member of the board.

The secretary of state must conduct a random selection of three members

of the Board from qualified citizen applicants.

Subd. 3. Board of Judicial Standards; names of Seats. The seven seats

of the Board on Judicial Standards are:

The Majority Leader of the House of Seat
The Minority Leader of the House Seat
The Majority Leader of the Senate Seat
The Minority Leader of the Senate Seat
Citizen Applicant Seats

Subd. 4 Board of Judicial Standards; appointment of successors.

Successors to the initial commissioners will be appointed by the

official designated in the name of the seat, and in the manner

established for the Citizen Applicant Seats.

Subd. 5. Board of Judicial Standards; commissioners; eligibility;

restrictions. A Commissioner may not hold any other public office while

serving as a Commissioner and may not be employed by any entity

supervised or managed by the Judicial Commission. The following

individuals are not eligible to become a commissioner:

An attorney who is engaged in the practice of law
A current federal, state or local government employee
A current public official who was elected to office
A current judge or judicial official
A retired judge that has served in any judicial or advisory capacity

within the previous year.

Subd. 6. Board of Judicial Standards; chair. The commission will elect

its chair. A commissioner shall not serve as chair of the commission

for more than four years.

Subd. 7. Board of Judicial Standards; terms of commissioners. The

initial terms of Commissioners of the Minnesota Board on Judicial

Standards are:

Four (4) years - Commissioners appointed by Majority Leader of the

Senate, the Minority Leader of the Senate
Three (3) years - Commissioners appointed by the Majority Leader of the

House, the Minority Leader of the House
Two (2) years - Citizen Applicant Commissioners.

The term of Commissioners appointed or selected after the initial

commissioners is four years. No person shall occupy the office of

Commissioner for more than eight years.

Subd. 8. Board of Judicial Standards; compensation. The compensation of

commissioners and its employees shall be recommended by the Minnesota

Compensation Council and set by vote of the Legislature in the same

manner as for public officials whose compensation is established by the

legislature.

Subd. 9. Board of Judicial Standards; structure.

(a) The organizational structure of the Board on Judicial Standards is:

Administrator’s Office
Judicial Oversight Board

Subd. 10. Board of Judicial Standards; duties. The Board on Judicial

Standards shall supervise and manage the entities named in Subdivision

9(a) of this section. The Board on Judicial Standards shall promulgate

policies, procedures and rules for each of the entities it supervises

and manages.

Subd. 11. Board of Judicial Standards; appeals from Oversight Board.

The Board on Judicial Standards will hear and decide appeals from

decisions of the Oversight Board. Decisions of the Board on Judicial

Standards on appeals of the Oversight Board are final. Such decisions

are not within the jurisdiction of or reviewable by the Supreme Court

of Minnesota or any other Minnesota court. However, an appeal of any

decision of the Board on Judicial Standards is appealable to the

appropriate judiciary committee at the Minnesota Senate, and said

committee must allow a hearing if appeal is demanded. If said committee

determines the appeal has merit, the full Senate will vote to either

affirm or reverse the decision of the Judicial Commission.

Subd. 12. Board of Judicial Standards; operations. The Board on

Judicial Standards shall employ an administrator for itself and each of

the entities it manages, and shall prepare a plan of operation and

budget for approval by the Legislature. The Commission may hire

attorneys, managers, support staff, and others as authorized by law.

The Commission may expend funds as authorized by law. The Commission

shall appoint persons to as members of the Judicial Oversight Board.

Section 3. Oversight Board; establishment.

Subdivision 1. Oversight Board; establishment; The Minnesota Judicial

Oversight Board is established as an entity of the Minnesota Board on

Judicial Standards.

Subd. 2. Oversight Board; structure. The organizational structure of

Oversight Board is:
Administrator Division
Complaint Screening Division
Investigation and Prosecution Division

Subd. 3. Oversight Board; management and staff. The administrator,

managers, attorneys, any other personnel or officials and support staff

of the Oversight Board will be selected and appointed by the Judicial

Commission. Persons that are active or practicing judges or lawyers are

specifically excluded from serving on the Oversight Board. Membership

terminates if a member ceases to hold the position that qualified the

member for appointment. Oversight Board members that have appeared

before a judge that is being investigated by the Board must recuse

him/herself from said investigation and or evaluation.

Subd. 4. Oversight Board; duties; jurisdiction; powers, The Oversight

Board shall provide oversight of judges and judicial officers of

Minnesota’s judicial branch of government with the authority as

specified herein to sanction any judge or judicial official found after

hearing or by stipulation to be guilty of an act of incompetence or an

act prejudicial to the administration of justice within the meaning of

Minnesota’s Constitution, Article VI, Section 9. The Board is empowered

to censure, warn or remove a judge for an action or inaction that may

constitute persistent failure to perform the judge's duties, violations

of the Minnesota and/or federal Constitutions, violations of Minnesota

Statutes, incompetence in performing the judge's duties, habitual

intemperance, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice

that brings the judicial office into disrepute.

(b) The Board shall review all complaints made by the Citizens

concerning judicial misconduct. The complaints made by the Citizens

must state in clear and concise language the facts and events that

support the complaint.

(c) The Board may require from the complainant certified court records

and transcripts. If the Board finds the complaint is sufficient to

remove the judge, the judge will reimburse the Citizen the costs of the

certified court records and transcripts.

(d) If it is proven by the evidence in the complaint and the

determination of the Board that the Citizen or counsel for the Citizen

made a public record in the court noticing the judge that the judge was

violating the Constitutions or the statutes, and the Board finds that

the judge did said violation, the Board will permanently remove the

judge from office.

(e) If the Citizen or counsel for the Citizen failed to make a public

record in the court noticing the judge that the judge was violating the

constitutions or the statutes, the Board is authorized only to issue a

warning to the judge. After three warnings from the Board to a single

judge, said judge is automatically removed from office.

(f) The state government, political subdivisions and corporations do

not have the same rights as Citizens. The remedies available for these

entities are in the appellate courts.

(g) The Board will respond to all complaints made by the Citizens. Upon

making a complaint to the Board, the time limits for making an appeal

in the courts is suspended until the Board makes a decision on the

complaint.

(h) Upon receipt of a complaint, the Board will, within 3 working days,

notice the judge of the complaint and include a complete copy of the

complaint. The judge may respond to the complaint and submit any

evidence and argument, within 20 days of receiving notice of the

complaint.

(i) The Board will make an initial response to the complainant within

two weeks of the Board receiving the complaint, and at said time will

inform the complainant what, if any evidence is necessary for the Board

to review the complaint. If further evidence is necessary, such as

certified court records and transcripts, the complainant will have 30

days from the response of the Board to produce the necessary evidence.

(j) The Board, upon receiving the additional evidence required of the

complainant, will respond to the complaint within 45 days.

(k) The complainant, if needing transcripts, will bring the response

letter from the Board to the court reporter for the judge. The court

reporter will produce the necessary transcripts within 10 days, at no

cost to the complainant. If the court reporter fails to produce the

transcript(s) within 10 days, the court reporter will be suspended from

employment, without pay until such time that the requested transcript

(s) are given to the complainant. In this event, the Board will grant

an extension of time for the complainant, until the transcript(s) are

produced by the court reporter.

(l) If the original complaint is sufficient when submitted to the

Board, within 2 weeks of receipt of the complaint, the Board will send

a response letter to the complainant stating that the complaint is

sufficient. The Board will then make a final determination of the

complaint within 45 days of sending the response letter to the

complainant.

(m) The Office of the Attorney General will respond to any questions

set forth by the Board, within 10 days of receiving said question(s).

(n) The Board has the authority to immediately remove a judge if it

determines the judge violated constitutional or statutorial law, and if

the Citizen or counsel for the Citizen made a record in the court of

said violation(s). In this event, the decision of the Board will be

binding and the ruling(s) made by the judge will have no effect of law.

(o) In the event the Citizen or counsel for the Citizen failed to make

a record in the court of constitutional or statutorial violations, and

in all other complaints that refer to misconduct that did not violate

constitutional or statutorial violations, the Board is authorized only

to issue a warning to the judge. In all cases whereby the Board has

issued a warning to a judge, the Citizen reserves the right to appeal

the decision of the judge. In these cases, the warning issued by the

Board stands as notice to the appellate court(s) that the Citizens have

determined a constitutional or statutorial violation occurred in the

lower court. When the Board has made such determination, the Board’s

decision may be included in the Citizen’s appeal and the appellate

court must remedy the Citizen with reversal, instructions and remand,

when the Board’s determination has been violations of constitutional or

statutorial law. If the Citizen demands that the case be remanded to a

different judge, the clerk of courts will assign another judge.

(p) Any judge removed by the Board has the right to appeal the decision

of the Board to the Judicial Commission. And decision by the Board on

Judicial Standards is appealable to the Minnesota Senate as provided by

Section 2 Subd.11. During the appeal, the judge will be suspended with

pay.

(q) All records concerning the Board are deemed public record. Once a

year, the Board will give all records to the legislative branch. Said

branch will then publish the complaints, response of the judges and

decisions of the Board, including posting said information on the state

website.

(r) A judge removed by the Board is ineligible for any future service

in a judicial office.

(s) Any judge removed by the Board is ineligible to receive any state

funded pension.

Section 4. Judicial conduct; performance standards; violations,

sanctions.

Subdivision 1. Judicial Conduct; judicial performance standards. A

judge shall comply with the Judicial Performance Standards established

by statute. The Judicial Performance Standards consist of Judicial

Performance Obligations and Judicial Performance Prohibitions.

Subd. 2. Judicial conduct; performance obligations. A judge or judicial

officer shall:

(a) Make all decisions, orders, rulings, reports and recommendations in

strict compliance with the United States Constitution and the

Constitution of Minnesota.

(b) Make all decisions, orders, rulings, reports and recommendations in

strict compliance with the statutes of Minnesota, unless a statute has

been challenged as unconstitutional.

(c) Faithfully comply with and enforce the Minnesota Rules of Court,

except at those times that the Court Rules conflict with statutes, and

at that time the statutes supercede the Court Rules.

(d) Grant all hearings on motions.

(e) Answer all oral and written arguments in writing with findings if

fact and conclusions of law.

(f) Upon evidence of probable cause of perjury, shall issue an arrest

warrant.

(g) Upon written or oral challenge to the jurisdiction of the court,

suspend all
matters, hear arguments from both sides and issue written findings of

fact and conclusions of law on the jurisdictional challenge before

proceeding.

Subd. 3. Judicial conduct; Judicial performance prohibitions. A judge

shall not:

(a) Violate the performance obligations of subdivision 2 of this

section.

(b) Violate the prohibitions of this subdivision 3.

(c) Punish or penalize any person that publicly or otherwise criticizes

a judge, judges, a court, courts, judicial officer, the Minnesota

judicial system, or any other court or judicial system.

(d) Retaliate against any lawyer, legislator, or other person because

said person exposed or reported corruption, a crime, or an illegal act,

or criticized a judge, court, or the judicial system, or acted to

change the legal system, or filed a complaint against a judge or

judicial official except that a judge or judicial official may bring a

suit against a person for libel or slander.

(e) Alter or order alteration or allow alteration or suppression of or

deletion from any transcript of testimony in a district court or

appellate court proceeding.

(f) Except as provided in Subd.3(g) below, sentence any person to jail

or confinement in a civil proceeding prior to a trial to a jury. The

option of a jury trial must be specifically offered to the person and

the person must make a decision upon the record. Additionally, said

trial by jury will be held before a different judge than the judge

presiding in the original civil case

(g) Notwithstanding Subd.3(f) above, a judge may immediately place a

person in protective confinement if there is probable cause upon the

record that the person is a danger to himself or others. Said

confinement shall not exceed 72 hours unless clear and convincing

evidence, including a medical examine conducted within 24 hours of

confinement, by a licensed physician of the choice of the person, is

upon the record, that the person is a danger to himself or others. If

the physician chosen by the person is unavailable to examine the

person, the person shall choose an alternate, until a physician is

engaged to complete the exam. If the person is unable or unwilling to

choose a physician for the exam, the family members of the person will

chose the physician. If the family members are unwilling or unable to

choose a physician, then the state authority will choose the physician.

If the medical exam is not conducted within 48 hours, the person will

be released. If the person is confined for over 72 hours, said person

shall be afforded the option of a jury trial as afforded by Subd.3(f),

and the matter will be set on the court calendar for expedited trial.

If the person is indigent, the person qualifies for a public defender

to represent his or her interests in all proceedings.

(h) Subdivision Subd.3(f) and Subd.3(g) does not apply to criminal

proceedings.

Subd. 4. Judicial Conduct; violations. A violation of the judicial

performance obligations enumerated in Subdivision 1 of this section or

the prohibitions enumerated in subdivision 3 of this section is conduct

that is incompetent or prejudicial to the administration of justice

within the meaning of Minnesota’s Constitution Article VI, Section 9. A

violation of these obligations or prohibitions by a judge or judicial

official of the Minnesota Judicial Branch of Government is sanctionable

to the extent specified in Subdivision 5 of this section. Sanctions may

be assessed by the Oversight Board after a hearing before the Oversight

Board panel or by stipulation subject to an appeal to the Judicial

Commission. Any finding decision, order or action of the Judicial

Oversight Board appealed to the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards

may be heard by a three-member panel of that entity or en banc as

determined by the Commission.

Subd. 5. Judicial Conduct; sanctions; relief for complainant. The

Oversight Board shall assess the following sanctions or order for

relief subject to an appeal to the Judicial Commission:

(a) A public reprimand

(b) Suspension without pay or compensation for up to one year

(c) A civil fine of up to five thousand dollars

(d) Removal from office

(e) An order for redress to the chief judge of a judicial district that

(1) a judgment, decision, or order issued in that district shall be

reconsidered de novo notwithstanding any statute of limitations or time

limit for an appeal, and (2) reconsideration shall be by a judge other

than the judge who issued the judgment, decision or order considered by

the Oversight Board.

(f) Referral to a special state Grand Jury that will be convened for

the purpose of
reviewing the report of the Board. The Minnesota Attorney General will

present the evidence of the report to the Grand Jury.

Up to three sanctions can be assessed for each offense found by the

Judicial Oversight Board.

Section 5. Complaints Against Judges and Judicial Officials;

processing.

Subd. 1. Complaints; submission, time limits. Any person may submit a

complaint to the Oversight Board concerning any decision, order, ruling

or act of a judge, or any recommendation, report, analysis, or other

document submitted in writing by a judicial official to a judge, or any

action of a judge or judicial official or the conduct of a judge or

judicial official. The complaint must be in writing and sent by mail to

the Oversight Board. A complaint must be brought within one year after

the date of the act complained of except that the period of time for

bring a complaint is extended by (a) the period of time the complainant

was incarcerated because of the act complained of, or (b) the period of

time the complainant was a minor after the act complained of, or (c)

the complaint asserts violations of rights secured under the

Constitutions, or (d) circumstances that the Oversight Board determines

justify consideration of the complaint.

Subd. 2. Complaints; acknowledgment of receipt. The Oversight Board

will acknowledge receipt of every complaint against a judge or judicial

official but will not provide any comment on any complaint to the

person who submitted the complaint or anyone else until and if a

hearing panel rules that the judge or judicial official who is the

subject of the complaint is guilty of a violation of the judicial

performance standards enumerated in subdivisions 1 and 3 of section 4

of this chapter.

Subd. 3. Complaints; initial evaluation. Each complaint received by the

Oversight Board will be referred to the Complaint Screening Division

for initial evaluation. The Complaint Screening Division will determine

whether or not the complaint has a reasonable basis. If the Complaint

Screening Division determines that a complaint has or may have a

reasonable basis, it will refer the complaint to the Investigation and

Prosecution Division. If the Complaint Screening Division determines

that a complaint lacks a reasonable basis, it will without any comment

so inform the person who submitted the complaint and the judge or

judicial official who is the subject of the complaint that the

complaint was found to lack merit. The Complaint Screening Division

will not provide any information about the complaint to anyone else.

The Complainant may appeal that finding that a complaint lacks merit to

the Board on Judicial Standards.

Subd. 4. Complaints; request for documentation and information. The

Complaint Screening Division may ask the person who submitted the

complaint for documentation and information concerning a complaint. The

Complaint Screening Division may ask the judge or judicial official who

is the subject of the complaint for such information or documentation

as the Complaint Screening Division deems relevant. The documentation

and information obtained by the Complaint Screening Division will be

provided to the Complaint Investigation and Prosecution Division if the

Complaint Screening Division determines that the complaint has or may

have a reasonable basis. All information and documentation received by

the Complaint Screening Division shall be confidential and shall not be

disclosed to anyone except as specifically provided in this

subdivision.

Subd. 5. Complaints; investigation and prosecution. The Investigation

and Prosecution Division will investigate each complaint referred to it

by the Complaint Screening Division. In conducting this investigation,

the Investigation and Prosecution Division is authorized to serve

interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for

admissions and other discovery on the person who submitted the

complaint and the judge or judicial official who is the subject of the

complaint, take the deposition of anyone who may have information or

documents relevant to the complaint, and may subpoena documents from

anyone. If the Investigation and Prosecution Division determines that

the judge or judicial official who is the subject of the complaint has

violated one or more of the Judicial Performance Obligations enumerated

is Subdivision 1 of Section 4 of this chapter, or prohibitions

enumerated in subdivision 3 of Section 4 of this chapter, or has

committed an irresponsible act, it shall prepare a Judicial Indictment

that states the allegations of such violation or violations. If the

Investigation and Prosecution Division prepares a Judicial Indictment,

it shall inform the Board on Judicial Standards that a judge or

judicial official has been charged with a violation of the Judicial

Performance Obligations or prohibitions, or charged with committing an

irresponsible act, whichever is the case, but will not disclose the

name of the judge or judicial official charged or provide a copy of the

Judicial Indictment to the commission or to anyone else until after the

Board on Judicial Standards appoints a person or panel to conduct a

trial as provided next.

Subd. 6. Complaints; hearing. The Board on Judicial Standards will

appoint a panel of three individuals to an oversight panel and to

conduct a hearing of a judge or judicial official who has been charged

by the Investigation and Prosecution Division with a violation of the

Judicial Performance Obligations or Prohibitions. The Board on Judicial

Standards will appoint one individual to be chair of an oversight

hearing and conduct hearing of a judge or judicial official who has

been charged with committing an irresponsible act. The rules applicable

to hearing shall be determined and published by the Judicial

Commission. The oversight panel will decide if the judge or judicial

official who is the subject of the hearing is or is not guilty of the

charges alleged in the Judicial Indictment and issue written findings

of fact and judgment. The decision of the oversight panel may be

appealed to the Judicial Commission.

Subd. 7. Complaints; assessment of sanctions, If a judge or judicial

official is found to be guilty of a violation of the Judicial

Performance Obligations or Prohibitions, the panel that made the

judgment shall assess sanctions as authorized in this chapter as they

determine appropriate. An assessment of sanctions may be appealed to

the Judicial Commission. If a judge or judicial official is found to

have committed an irresponsible act, the panel that made the judgment

shall order that a description of the irresponsible act shall be

published.

Subd. 8. Complaints; negotiated settlement. The Investigation and

Prosecution Division is authorized to negotiate resolution of charges

set forth in a Judicial Indictment and agree on the sanctions that will

be assessed against the judge or judicial official who is the subject

of the complaint. If a negotiated resolution of charges and sanctions

is agreed on, it shall be set forth in a stipulated judgment signed by

the judge or judicial official it concerns and by a representative of

the Investigation and Prosecution Division and filed with the Judicial

Commission. A copy of the stipulated judgment will be published..

Subd. 9. Complaints; representation. Neither the Attorney General of

the State of Minnesota nor any other state or governmental entity will

provide representation of or funds for defense of any judge or judicial

official who has been charged with a violation of the Judicial

Performance Obligations or an irresponsible act, except that a judge or

judicial official may be represented by a public defender if he meets

the qualifications of in forma pauperis. If a judge or judicial

official is found not guilty of any violation of the Judicial

Performance Obligations or of any irresponsible act, the state will

reimburse the judge or judicial official for reasonable attorney fees

and costs of his defense.

Section 6. Rule of Judicial Immunity

Subdivision 1. Judicial Immunity abrogated. The rule of judicial

immunity and any statute that grants any immunity to a judge or

judicial official are inapplicable and are repealed.

Section 7. Judge pay cutoff.

Subdivision 1. Disbursing officers; funds release. Disbursing officers

are not authorized to release funds for payment to judges whose pay has

been suspended by decision of the Judge Oversight Board.

Subd. 2. Disbursing officers; failure to withhold. A disbursing officer

is personally liable for any funds paid or released to any judge, or

any entity that pays a judge, if the judge refuses to submit to the

jurisdiction and comply with the decisions and actions of the Judge

Oversight Board.

Repealer:
M.S. Sec. 490A.01
M.S. Sec. 490A.02
M.S. Sec. 480.056
M.S. Sec. 480.59 sub 7
M.S. Sec. 645.17(4) and
M.S. sec. 480.0591 sub 6
are hereby repealed