Opinion ID: 1579148
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: CHIPS Proceeding

Text: Nathan represented the mother of four children in a CHIPS proceeding in which Ramsey County sought to terminate the mother's parental rights to the two youngest children. The referee found that Nathan engaged in a pattern of harassing and frivolous litigation, violated and threatened to violate court orders and confidentiality statutes and rules, made baseless derogatory statements about judges, and made false statements. The pervasive nature of the harassing and frivolous litigation and the threats to violate and violations of court orders and confidentiality statutes and rules in this matter are closely linked. Nathan sent a letter to the psychologist hired by the county demanding that she provide a written response to 31 questions. Nathan wrote: If you do not provide satisfactory bases for your allegations, I will publish your letter on my website. Nathan also harassed the social worker in the case. In a memorandum to the court Nathan wrote: What is happening in this case is madness. It is uncivilized. [The mother] is being denied custody of her children    by an out-of-control power crazed social worker on the basis of a report by a psychologist   . The person who is crazy is [the psychologist]. Nathan also repeatedly called the social worker a racist, including a statement in a memorandum to the court of appeals. Nathan continued with a similar course of conduct toward all involved in the case. For example, Nathan asked the court to order the foster parent of one of the children to send the child to the school of the mother's choice and threatened to sue the foster parent if the court did not grant his request. As a result of Nathan's conduct and threats to disclose information, the judge issued a protective order restraining Nathan from making public any part of the juvenile protection case record in this case without first obtaining a court order. The judge also ordered Nathan to pay $1,500 in sanctions and restrained him from further harassing any witnesses or parties. After the judge issued this order Nathan sent him a letter threatening to publish an article about the case regardless of the consequences to me. Nathan then published an article on his website describing the case entitled The Young Sex Perverts and placed an ad in the newspaper directing individuals to the article. Nathan also sent letters to the assistant county attorney and others threatening to violate the protective order. In a memorandum responding to a contempt motion that followed, Nathan admitted that he published materials in violation of the court order because [o]ccasionally, it is necessary to violate a court order or even a law in order to correct serious injustices. The court found Nathan in contempt for violating the protective order and ordered him to remove all information regarding the case from his website, fined him $500, and again restrained him from publishing any information regarding the case. Two days later Nathan sent the judge a letter stating that if the judge did not schedule a hearing and provide 10 items of relief he was requesting, he would publish an article in area newspapers. Enclosed was an article entitled The Young Sex Perverts with the judge's name prominently displayed below the title. Nathan published the article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press as a paid advertisement on November 3, 2000, shortly before election day. The final piece of harassing and frivolous conduct in this matter is a federal lawsuit Nathan filed against the social worker, judge, assistant county attorney, psychologist, and one of the foster parents, among others, alleging their actions violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the federal district judge granted the motion and awarded the psychologist $2,607.09 in attorney fees. In addition to the article Nathan published, he made other baseless and derogatory statements about judges in this matter. One of the other statements Nathan made was in a brief to the court of appeals. In that brief, Nathan called the judge an extremely bad judge and stated I am aware that this Court is determined to support trial court judges in whatever action they take in order to preserve the almost unlimited power of judges to do what they wish. The referee found that Nathan made false statements in two separate instances in this matter. First on October 3, 2000, Nathan requested permission from the judge to order a transcript of two witnesses' testimony. The request stated: I will use the transcripts only for the purpose of preparing for cross-examination. (Emphasis added.) Then in a November 8 letter requesting the transcript for a different purpose, Nathan wrote: As I thought I made clear, my purpose in obtaining this transcript is not to prepare for cross-examination. (Emphasis added.) After the judge pointed out these discrepancies Nathan sent another letter to the judge stating: [O]ne of my purposes of ordering the    transcript was to prepare for cross-examination. Although not stated in that letter, a second purpose was to provide a copy of the    transcript to [the] psychologist. The second false statement occurred when Nathan filed a motion seeking permission to provide information about the case to an organization performing research on juvenile crime. In that motion Nathan wrote that the research director requested information on the CHIPS case and that the research director [of the organization] believes there may be major problems in the work of the Ramsey County Juvenile Court. The referee found that Nathan made this statement with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth because a research assistant from the organization contacted Nathan for general information only and did not ask for any material relating to a specific case. Finally, the referee found that Nathan violated the rules of professional conduct by failing to pay or arrange to pay the $1,500 and $500 sanctions imposed in the CHIPS matter, and the $2,607.09 in attorney fees imposed in the federal lawsuit. At the time of the referee's decision in November of 2002, Nathan had not paid any of the sanctions owed Ramsey County. In his reply brief, Nathan claims that he has paid the sanctions; however, there is no evidence in the record that indicates payment.