Judge M Michael Baxter Has Been Found Guilty of Child Trafficking, a Hate Crime, Perjury, Maltreatment of a Child,

PREAMBLE

The Role of the judiciary is central to American  concepts of justice and the rule of law. This code of judicial conduct establishes standards for the ethical  conduct of the judges to reflect the responsibilities of the judicial office as a public trust and to promote confidence in our legal system. The code and its individual cannons are designed to provide guidance to judges and candidates for judicial office to provide the framework for the regulation of conduct through the board of judicial standards. At the same time, the text embodies standards of Judicial and personal conduct intended to be binding on judges and candidates for judicial office (effective January 1, 1996)

Criminals come in all shapes and sizes and can be found in any profession. This criminal a judge; his victim a former child abuse victim who was tortured in captivity with no means of escape over a prolonged period of time.  His other victims were a baby age one, a child age four, and another child age six. 

Canon 1

A Judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.  A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct, and personally observe those standards in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary. The provisions of this code should be construed and applied to further that objective. (effective January 1, 1996)

+

Canon 2

A Judge shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judges Activities. 

A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and the impartiality of the judiciary.


JUDGE BAXTER IGNORED THIS MOTHERS RIGHTS AND ACCEPTED  THE LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT A CHILD WAS IN NEAR DEATH CONDITIONS THAT WOULD PROVIDE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES TO   ALLOW A SOCIAL WORKER AND A POLICE OFFICER TO CONDUCT A  WARRANTLESS SEARCH.

B. A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgement. A judge shall not lend the prestige of the office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

CANON 3

A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of the Office Impartially and Diligently

The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities. Judicial duties include all the duties of the judge's office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply:
A. Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge shall hear and decide promptly, efficiently and fairly matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required.
(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. He or she shall be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.
(3) A judge shall require order and decorum in all proceedings before the judge.
(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others dealt with in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers and of court personnel and others subject to the judge's direction and control.
(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit court personnel and others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.

(7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding, except that:

(a) Where circumstances require, ex parte communications for scheduling, administrative purposes or emergencies that do not deal with substantive matters or issues on the merits are authorized; provided:

(i) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication, and
(ii) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication and allows an opportunity to respond.
(8) A judge shall not, while a proceeding is pending or impending in any court, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness or make any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. The judge shall require similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control. This subsection does not prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining for public information the procedures of the court. This subsection does not apply to proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity.
(9) A judge shall not, with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges or promises that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the office.
B. Administrative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge shall diligently discharge the judge's administrative responsibilities without bias or prejudice and maintain professional competence in judicial administration and shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business.
(2) A judge shall require court personnel and others subject to the judge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge, and to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of their official duties.
(3) A judge with supervisory authority for the judicial performance of other judges shall take reasonable measures to assure the prompt disposition of matters before them and the proper performance of their other judicial responsibilites.
(4) A judge shall not make unnecessary appointments of personnel. A judge shall exercise the power of appointment impartially and on the basis of merit, avoiding nepotism and favoritism. A judge shall not approve compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services rendered.
C. Disciplinary Responsibilities.
(1) A judge shall take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against a judge or lawyer for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become aware.
(2) Acts of a judge, in the discharge of disciplinary responsibilities, required or permitted by Section 3C(1) are part of the judge's judicial duties.
D. Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b) the judge served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(c) the judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse, significant other, parent or child wherever residing, or any other member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household, has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or is a party to the proceeding, or has any other interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding;
(d) the judge or the judge's spouse or significant other or a person within the third degree of relationship to any of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(iii) is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding;
(iv) is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

The Fourth Amendment's Impact on Child Abuse Investigations

Michael P. Farris

President, Patrick Henry College

Chairman, Home School Legal Defense Association

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it best, "The government's interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also protecting children's interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents." Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (1999).

This statement came in a case which held that social workers who, in pursuit of a child abuse investigation, invaded a family home without a warrant violate the Fourth Amendment rights of both children and parents. Upon remand for the damages phase of the trial, the social workers, the police officers, and the governments that employed them settled this civil rights case for $150,000.

Probable Cause & Exigent Circumstances

The Fourth Amendment does not put a barrier in the way of a social worker who has reliable evidence that a child is in imminent danger. 

Judge M Michael Baxter has taken an oath.

Canon 2. A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities

A judge should respect and comply with the law

and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Social worker Sally Schroer entered the home of Eugenie Harris on September 21, 2012 when she claimed she heard a baby crying inside the home. Based on the time line if a baby was crying it was only for a couple of minutes. Sally Schroer claims hearing the cry of a child gave her a reason to open the door and enter the home.

 Once inside she calls for mother and the four year old responded that his mother is not home. Ms Schroer claims she went back outside and called her supervisor who gave her consent to request an officer to go in and take the children.  The officer arrived in under a minute and enters the home based on a conversation with Sally Schroer. Officer Tracey Hanna does not indicate that he entered the home based on evidence that led him to believe a child was about to die. The officer entered the home based on a conversation with Sally Schroer.  according to the law an officer may not enter the home unless he has consent. this officer did not have consent. 

Consent.

 If a police officer says, "If you don't let us in your home we will break down your door"�a parent who then opens the door has not given free and voluntary consent. If a social worker says, "If you don't let me in the home I will take your children away"�a parent who then opens the door has not given free and voluntary consent. Threats to go get a "pick up order" negate consent. Any type of communication which conveys the idea to the parent that they have no realistic alternative but to allow entry negates any claim that the entry was lawfully gained through the channel of consent.

It should be remembered that consent is only one of the three valid ways to gain entry: (warrant, consent, or probable cause and exigent circumstances.) There is nothing improper about saying, "We have a warrant you must let us in" or "We have solid evidence that your child is in extreme danger, you must let us in." Such statements indicate that the social worker is relying on some theory other than consent to gain lawful entry. Of course, the social worker must indeed have a warrant if such a claim is made. And, in similar fashion, if a claim is made that the entry is being made upon probable cause of exigent circumstances, then that must also be independently true.

How many people think a child only cries when they are about to die. 

  I am willing to admit that my experience in parenting is my own and may differ from others. however in my experience as a father the one thing I am sure of is my children never cried when they were about to die, but always cried when they were hungry, tired, had a dirty diaper, when they were arguing with siblings, when they were sick, when they were mad, and wanted to be held. 

 What I am certain of based on my personal experience as a parent and what causes my child to cry, it would really piss me off if this bitch walked in to my home with that analogy.  

  

Mother is home. She is poor and cannot afford a phone. She is at home alone tending to three sick kids and still needs to call the boys in to school.  She has a neighbor who will let her use the phone but the neighbor has three small children and Genie is worried it will not benefit the children to take them out and they could get her neighbors children sick. Genie was absent for 15 minutes totaling twenty as a result of the officer arguing with her outside upon her return for 5 minutes. 

WHAT IS THE LAW THAT JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER SHOULD UPHOLD?

Social workers are not exempt from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment when they act alone. They are not exempt from its rules if they are accompanied by a police officer. And police officers are not exempt from the requirement even if all they do is get the front door open for the social worker.

What are the requirements of the Fourth Amendment?

The general rule is that unreasonable searches and seizures are banned. But the second part of the rule is the most important in this context. All warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable. 

There are two and only two recognized exceptions to the requirement of having a warrant for the conduct of a child abuse investigation:

1. The adult in charge of the premises gives the social worker his/her free and voluntary consent to enter the home.
2. The social worker possesses evidence that meets two standards:

   (a) it satisfies the legal standard of establishing probable cause; and 

   (b) the evidence demonstrates that there are exigent circumstances relative to the health of the children.

The children were unattended for 15 minutes. The officer detained mother for another 5 minutes. Both the officer and the social worker had been in the apartment and Sally Schroer is going through drawers while the officer detains the mother outside. There are other adults upstairs in the house.

  

Now lets think about this folks, the  baby would have only been crying for a matter of minutes, if she was crying? Judge M Michael Baxter of Le Center just granted a social worker clemency to enter someones home and perform a warrantless search and conduct an interview of a child because Schroer claims she heard a child cry.  

So I hope every one in Le Center completely understands what your rights are if this lady comes to your home and claims she heard a baby crying. If Judge M Michael Baxter is presiding you have no rights. Hell this worker does not even have to provide proof  that a baby was crying which made her believe the child was either probably going to die or most likely going experience severe bodily disfigurement. 

People who have rights, would know the judge will require proof the children were close to death or sever bodily disfigurement 

  I live in Le Center and I am so not down with this bitch having that kind of authority in my or my child's life.  My children are not safe if this is what this Judge does. 

That means no one in Le Center safe from this. The ones who are paying the biggest price for this judge allowing this kind of brutality to happen are these three.

Judge M Michael Baxter Broke allot of laws to hurt our mommy so he could sell us to be gifted  out to the County attorney's childless family members Tony and Melissa Dobmeier. They placed an order asking the judge to hurt our mommy and us, so the Dobmeier's could keep us.  Their family is telling us our mommy is a crackhead so we cant go home.  

 Now I am seriously disturbed that a mere claim of a baby crying for 3 minutes gives this bitch a free walk in to my home....  Then when you add the fact that she is also not required to present proof that a child was ever crying. All she has to do is say a child was crying. Who the hell does this judge think he is..... Yes that is all she has to do! Judge M Michael Baxter granted her clemency with no evidence to invade this persons life, home, and terrorize her family. Again it was done over a mere claim that a child was crying for three minutes. 

After going over transcripts of Officer Tracey Hanna's testimony something was not right about it. The officer makes zero mention of a baby crying. He describes a calm 1 year old baby sitting in a high chair.  I decided to conduct my own investigation.  I was told by three people that both boys in the same room with their sister had said their sissy was not crying. The house is a single dwelling and the rooms are sectioned off in to apartments. I interviewed the neighbors that Sally Schroer said were home. They said they have never had a problem hearing the baby cry before so its strange we did not here her cry that time but they didn't.  If she had been crying for any length of time they assured me they would have gone and checked to see if mom needed any help. That being said even if a child crying for three minutes was enough reason to assume children were in a near death or probable bodily disfigurement situation; my investigation seems to show a child was never crying. 

Judge Michael Baxter has told Sally Schroer she can violate your state and federal rights to privacy and your family any time she claims she heard a baby crying for 3 minutes. She is not required to prove it. 

Imminent danger will not be found so that should prevent officer Tracey Hanna and Sally Schroer from taking the children out of the home. 

Sally Schroer and officer Tracey said the home was clean, and baby proofed appropriately. The children were clean and happy. She asked the children, are you scared? they said no. Sally also testifies there are people right up the steps if the children need help in the few minutes mom is absent. Mother was absent for 15 minutes. She had 3 sick kids and had to call the school to tell them the children will not be at school before 10 or they will get an unexcused. The neighbor's who's phone she has to use is 18 feet away and her neighbor also has three small children. Genie does not want to take the children out sick and she does not want to expose the three small children of her her neighbors to what is making her kids sick.  She is gone no more than 15 minutes the officer detained her for an extra five minutes outside. 

The children had access to the neighbors in a clean baby proof room. No Imminent Danger in this situation that will allow the children to be removed!

Judge Michael Baxter has decided that the law that says imminent danger must be present to remove children from a home is not necessary. Not for this Baxter has now allowed Schroer to enter in to your home go through drawers and closets interrogate your children and remove your children from your home even if they are not in danger???? REALLY???

I live in Le Center and I have a huge problem with this!!!!!!!!

I  have also heard local social worker Cari Krenik  tell someone concerned that the social worker is exploiting someone with  a disability, to get a lawyer if she don't like it. 

How many of you feel safe with Judge M Michael Baxter and Sally M Schroer and Cari Krenik in positions to keep vulnerable citizens safe? 

I PERSONALLY DO NOT!