"The facts alleged by the (so-called) victim do not rise to the level of criminal conduct ... " St. Paul City Attorney's Office. No surprise, right? What was the frivolous and malicious false police report about? The imaginary crime was posting public information on Lion News, wasn't it?
Bukstein/Raths repeatedly lies about her true identity, doesn't she?
Case No. 62-F7-02-000792 In Re The Marriage of: Otto Nicholas Raths and Kimberley Suzanne Smith Raths Respondent Bukstein, Kimberly Formerly Known As Raths, Kimberley Suzanne Smith Female DOB: 06/23/1961 Pro Se ST. PAUL, MN 55103
Case No. 27-VB-10-1108011121 State of Minnesota vs. KIMBERLEY SMITH RATHS RATHS, KIMBERLEY SMITH DOB: 06/23/1961 SAINT PAUL, MN 55103 09/15/2010 Plea 1. Parked over 1 hour in congested area 8AM - 6PM Guilty
Case No. 27-VB-11-211150257 State of Minnesota vs. KIMBERLEY SMITH RATHS RATHS, KIMBERLEY SMITH DOB: 06/23/1961 SAINT PAUL, MN 55103 01/28/2011 Plea 1. Passing parked emergency vehicle - more than 2 lanes in one direction Guilty
FYI: Name or Address Change If you change your name or address before your license expires, you must apply for a duplicate (replacement) license within 30 days. If you need a replacement instruction permit, you must renew your permit. MINNESOTA DRIVER’S MANUAL Minnesota Department of Public Safety Driver and Vehicle Services Division dvs.dps.mn.gov
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/dvs/forms-documents/Documents/Minnesota_Drivers_Manual.pdf
Bukstein/Raths admits to having mental problems, doesn't she?
http://bluenc.com/content/legal-abuse-syndrome%E2%80%9D-las-or-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd
Legal Abuse Syndrome” LAS) Or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Submitted by Lance on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 23:18 Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 07:30:42 -0500 Subject: A Matter of Pubic Awareness From: mncitizensala@gmail.com To: rachelforjustice@hotmail.com Rachel Lea Hunter for Supreme Court Suite 332 | NW 1251 Maynard Road | Cary , North Carolina 27513 Ph. 877-893-3713 | Fax 877-893-3713 Dear Madam Justice, I'm sending you this even though you are in North Carolina and I am here Minnesota, this is an issue that impacts all citizens everywhere not just here. I'd like you to review, use it and post it however you see fit. There is a serious problem and public health risk in the courts we the people depend on to protect us. My case is not unique,I just happen to be the first Minnesota citizen to have a diagnosed injury PTSD (LAS) as the result of fraud abusive legal proceedings,and corruption in connection to a family court. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), sub category specifically from abusive legal proceedings generically coined “Legal Abuse Syndrome” LAS) My case closed over a year ago but the wound still remains and its no different than PTSD Combat Trauma or PTSD in Victims of Torture - in fact diagnosed on the same MMPI sub scale. Let me stress (no pun intended) that PTSD is an inflicted injury - not a mental illness. Its an assault behind the judicial curtain were no one hears you - let alone the judge. We who have been exposed to that need to affirm and empower each other, do what we can. Call the it by name and make it known. Strangely enough after reaching the point where they had burned my rights to the ground leaving no the court or hope of a fair hearing remedy and redress all denied and out of reach....I do not despair...instead I have reached the point of empowerment,and have found my voice as a revolutionary, That's what happens under tyranny,look at history. You are courageous and hold fast to the values set forth in Rule 11-candor, honesty and good faith, that takes courage in today's world and I admire that dear Lady. Never bow to abuse, lies cannot stand against the truth......No more than judicial immunity can stand against the constitution. You are indeed Madam Justice Respectfully Submitted, . Kimberley Bukstein
Know-it-all-know-nothing Bukstein/Raths has been caught in the act of pretending to be a lawyer, hasn't she?
https://cases.justia.com/ohio/supreme-court-of-ohio/2014-2013-1334.pdf?ts=1399468458
Sanction {¶ 21} Having found that Bukstein engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, we accept the board’s recommendation that we issue an injunction prohibiting her from giving legal advice to others, preparing or assisting in the preparation of legal documents for others, sending communications making legal arguments or demanding discovery on behalf of others, sending correspondence threatening to file disciplinary complaints or legal actions on behalf of others, and engaging in all other acts constituting the practice of law. 1 The board also found that Bukstein had identified herself as a “pro se attorney of record” and had stated that opposing counsel in the Tibbitts matter had a duty to respond to her as “opposing counsel.” The record shows, however, that Bukstein had identified Christine Tibbitts as pro se attorney of record and had stated that attorney Geary had a duty to respond to Ms. Tibbitts as opposing counsel. {¶ 22} We also accept the board’s recommendation that we impose a civil penalty. Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) provides that “[t]he Board may recommend and the Supreme Court may impose civil penalties in an amount up to ten thousand dollars per offense.” Gov.Bar R. VII(19)(D)(1)(c) authorizes this court to impose a civil penalty “for an amount greater or less than the amount recommended by the Board, but not to exceed ten thousand dollars per offense.” The board recommends that we impose a $20,000 civil penalty—the maximum penalty of $10,000 for each of the matters in which Bukstein engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Having independently weighed the misconduct here, the relevant factors in Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B), and our precedent, however, we conclude that the appropriate civil penalty is $5,000 for each matter—$10,000 total—for Bukstein’s unauthorized practice of law. {¶ 23} Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) sets forth five factors to consider in imposing a civil penalty. {¶ 24} (1) Degree of cooperation. Bukstein initially cooperated with relator’s investigation. She corresponded with relator and the panel before her hearing and attempted to answer relator’s pleadings. She has never admitted that her actions constituted the unauthorized practice of law nor has she agreed to be enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. {¶ 25} The board found that Bukstein repeatedly disregarded its instructions regarding filing and communication with the panel, sent harassing and potentially threatening e-mails to individual members of the panel, and made threats to file numerous complaints with various government agencies against the individual panel members and disciplinary counsel. {¶ 26} Just before the start of the initially scheduled panel hearing, Buckstein’s husband requested and received a continuance of the final hearing in this matter based on her reported hospitalization. Bukstein received by certified mail a final amended scheduling order stating the date, time, and location of the new hearing date, which advised the parties that no further continuances would be granted. Nonetheless, her husband sought another continuance two days before the hearing date, which the panel denied, and the hearing proceeded in her absence. {¶ 27} (2) The number of occasions that the unauthorized practice of law was committed. Bukstein engaged in multiple acts of the unauthorized practice of law in each of the two counts charged in this case. The board also found that there was evidence of persistent, systematic, and continuing occurrences in which Bukstein held herself out to others as a civil-rights advocate with a special knowledge of the domestic-relations-court system and ethics laws regarding attorneys and judges. But the board cites no specific evidence in support of these conclusions. And while we acknowledge that Bukstein’s filings and correspondence at issue in this case claimed that she possessed specialized knowledge in ethics issues arising in litigation and government agencies and that she worked in cases all over the nation, we find no evidence that that she solicited any additional “clients” or held herself out as an expert in legal ethics in any other matters within this state. {¶ 28} (3) and (4) Flagrancy of the violations and harm to third parties. Bukstein offered legal advice to Polen and Ms. Tibbetts but refused to acknowledge it as such. The board emphasized that Buckstein’s conduct harmed these two women, who relied on her advice to their detriment, harmed other parties in the litigation (including Polen’s child) who were distressed and inconvenienced by her actions, and undermined public confidence in the judicial system. But from the record before us, it is unclear whether anyone suffered any lasting harm as a result of Bukstein’s involvement in these matters. Indeed, neither of the women she attempted to assist has participated in this proceeding. {¶ 29} (5) Other relevant factors. The board’s regulations list additional aggravating and mitigating factors that may be considered as part of this final catchall factor of Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B). UPL Reg. 400(F). In aggravation, the board found that (1) both Judge Capper and attorney Geary had separately notified Bukstein that her actions may constitute the unauthorized practice of law, (2) she assisted parties in the preparation of legal instruments and filings and prepared a motion that was filed with the court in the Polen matter, and (3) by referring to herself as a “civil rights advocate,” and by citing statutes, attempting to interpret legal authority, and contacting opposing counsel, opposing parties, and the court in a representative fashion, she has allowed others to mistakenly believe that she was admitted to practice law in this state. See UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(c) (whether the respondent has been informed prior to engaging in the unauthorized practice of law that the conduct at issue may constitute an act of the unauthorized practice of law), (f) (whether respondent’s conduct included the preparation of a legal instrument for filing with a court or other governmental entity), and (g) (whether the respondent has held herself out as being admitted to the practice of law in the state of Ohio or whether she has allowed others to mistakenly believe that she was admitted to practice in this state). The only mitigating factor that the board found applicable was that Bukstein’s conduct appears to have resulted from motives other than dishonesty or personal benefit. See UPL Reg. 400(F)(4)(e). {¶ 30} Having weighed these factors, the board recommends that we impose the maximum civil penalty of $10,000 for each of the two counts in which Bukstein has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Because Bukstein’s conduct is not on par with the most egregious acts that we have found to constitute the unauthorized practice of law, however, we conclude that a lesser civil penalty is warranted. See, e.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. McGinnis, 137 Ohio St.3d 166, 2013-Ohio-4581, 998 N.E.2d 474, ¶ 14-15. Based on Bukstein’s multiple acts of unauthorized practice of law in the Polen and Tibbitts matters, we find that the appropriate civil penalty is $5,000 for each case in which she engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, for a total of $10,000. {¶ 31} Accordingly, we enjoin Kimberley Bukstein from engaging in any further acts that constitute the unauthorized practice of law, and we impose a civil penalty of $10,000. {¶ 32} Costs are taxed to Bukstein. Judgment accordingly. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur. Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Kimberley Bukstein, pro se. SLIP OPINION NO.2014-OHIO-1884 DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v.BUKSTEIN. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bukstein,Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1884.] Unauthorized Practice of Law—Providing legal advice, preparing documents for filing in court, and sending communications making legal arguments on behalf of another—Injunction issued and civil penalty imposed. (No. 2013-1334—Submitted October 9, 2013—Decided May 7, 2014.) ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 12-03.
http://supremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=732395.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/#/search
Case: 2013-1334: Disciplinary Counsel v. Kimberley Bukstein
Unauthorized Practice of Law Case/On Report of Board
Filed: 08/19/2013
Status: Case is Disposed
Court documents indicate that Bukstein/Raths aids and abets in the filing of false police reports, don't they?
At some point preceding or shortly following commencement of the paternity action, Defendants engaged in a serious of activities designed to defame Mr. Vandassor, negatively influence his ability to engage in employment, and thereby impugn his ability to seek and obtain custody in the paternity action. Defendants in some cases separately and in others in unison, filed at least two reports with Mr. Vandassor’s employer accusing him of maltreatment of a vulnerable adult. They have filed at least four false child protection complaints in various metro counties. A minimum of seven false police reports have been filed accusing Mr. Vandassor of criminal wrongdoing, namely violation of an Order for Protection. One of those police reports even resulted in criminal misdemeanor charges against Mr. Vandassor for violation of an Order for Protection; however that case was dismissed after Mr. Vandassor’s discovery efforts produced exculpatory evidence directly contradicting Defendant Bachmeier’s allegations leading to his arrest and charging. Complaint. Signed September 26, 2017 Shawn C. Reinke, MN #396676 Case No. 62-CV-17-7264 Savonte Kemp Vandassor, Darliza Howse vs Katrin Bachmeier, Kimberley Bukstein, Advocates for Civil Liberty, Linda Underdall, Home Care Watchdog.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.505
609.505 FALSELY REPORTING CRIME. § Subdivision 1.False reporting. Whoever informs a law enforcement officer that a crime has been committed or otherwise provides information to an on-duty peace officer, knowing that the person is a peace officer, regarding the conduct of others, knowing that it is false and intending that the officer shall act in reliance upon it, is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who is convicted a second or subsequent time under this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Bukstein/Raths and hubby both have a well-documented history of giving false information to the proper authorites, don't they?
Case No. 27-VB-08-107587497 State of Minnesota vs. JAY MORRIE BUKSTEIN Charges: BUKSTEIN, JAY MORRIE 1. Improper address or name on drivers license Statute 171.11 04/01/2008 Plea 1. Improper address or name on drivers license Guilty
Bukstein/Raths would rather file false police reports against Nemmers instead of dealing with the reality of the public record, wouldn't she?
Name and address of Defendant: Kimberly Bukstein 1039 Barrett St Saint Paul MN 55108. Offense: I M- Harassing Phone Call, Offense Code(s): I 5309, Offense in violation of G.S. I 14-196(A)(3). To the defendant : I, the undersigned, find that there is probable cause to believe that on or about the date of offense shown and in the county named above you unlawfully and willfully did telephone Danielle M
Hatcher repeatedly for the purpose of annoying, threatening and harassing Danielle M Hatcher at the called number. Criminal Summons 17CR053454 signed L.S. Russell, Moore County Magistrate, Carthage NC.
Did you know that according to Bukstein/Raths, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki co-defendant Dede Evavold had Bukstein/Raths communicating with Dede's attorney?
Just more evidence that supporters of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki are petty, stupid, gutless haters of justice, right? And, it also shows that supporters of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki aren't smart enough to know just how stupid they really are, doesn't it?
https://mn.gov/admin/assets/Model%20Access%20Pol%20Subject%202018_tcm36-309297_tcm36-309297.docx
When Your Data are Inaccurate or Incomplete You have the right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of public and private data about you. You also have the right to appeal our decision. If you are a minor, your parent or guardian has the right to challenge data about you. Data Practices Policy: Requests for Data About You and Your Rights as a Data Subject Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.025 and 13.03 require this policy.
FYI: I couldn't stop laughing when I read the retarded mumbo-jumbo that Kim tried and failed to pass off as a legitimate criminal complaint, could I?
More to come . . .
Related links:
Communities Digital News Senior Editor Jacquie “The Hack” Kubin Removes "Lion News" From Fake News Entitled: "Illegal Leaks Of Jail House Conversations In Grazzini-Rucki Divorce"? Jacquie “The Hack” Kubin Tries To Smear Nemmers With False Accusations In Recorded Call? Hack Kubin Was Aiding & Abetting In Michael "The Hack" Volpe's & Sandra Grazzini-Rucki's Smear Campaign Against Nemmers, Wasn't She?
Corrupt Lakeville Police Jeff Long Retaliates Against Nemmers For Showing That Damning Evidence For High-Profile Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Case & Dede Evavold Case Is Being Deleted From Computer System? Jeffy Mad At Nemmers For Exposing Illegal Osceola Leaks Of Confidential Attorney-Client SGR Jail Calls To Corrupt Lakeville PD, Isn't He? All Sorts Of Florida LEO Mad At Nemmers, Aren't They? Jeffy Having A Hissy Fit That Nemmers Recorded Conversation With Sun This Week Stenographer/Editor Tad Johnson & Corrupt Lakeville City Attorney Andrea McDowell Poehler?
Lion News: Nemmers Exposes Michael “Hack” Volpe’s & Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s Smear Campaign? Sandra Grazzini-Rucki And The World's Last Custody Trial Co-Authors MacDonald & "Hack" Volpe Sabotaging Evavold's High-Profile Case 19HA-CR-15-4227?
Police & Jail Procedure Expert Lichten Says Dakota County Personnel's Actions Were "Unreasonable, Unnecessary, And Below The Professional Standard Of Care Expected Of Professionally Trained, Reasonable" Staff? Lichten Says That Attorney Michelle "One Foot In The Shit" MacDonald Should Have Been Cited & Released But Not Jailed?
Corrupt Lakeville Police Chief Jeff Long Forced To Admit Samantha & Gianna Rucki Denied An Attorney? Detective Dronen & Detective Coughlin Magically & Mysteriously Couldn't Fall Back Onto Their Training?
What Happened When Nemmers Requested The Transcript Of Tammy Love's April 19, 2013 911 Call For Missing Gianna & Samantha Rucki? Nemmers Found Out 911 Call Never Requested By Lakeville Police? FYI: Dede Evavold Didn't Get Tammy's Love's Formal Statement (Preliminary Audio Statement) Nor The Squad Audio/Video Either, Did She? She Didn't, Did She? Obstruction Of Justice By Lakeville To Cover Up A Farce Investigation?
