YET ANOTHER ORDER THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW THE LAW as Miller ignored the law in his first 2 ORDERS.

SDCL26-7A-37. Persons authorized to inspect records of court proceedings. Records of court proceedings, including reports of the Department of Social Services, records and reports of court services officers, clinical studies, and evaluation reports, under this chapter and chapters 26-8A, 26- 8B, and 26-8C shall be open to inspection by the child's parents, guardian, or custodian and by other respondent parties involved in the proceedings, their attorneys, the child's attorney and by any department or agency having custody of the child.  Lyngtad was jailed but kept custody.

Duties of Court Services here. McCabe covered up her probation violations, namely federal identity theft, domestic violence as shown by her extensive record.here . Now Miller wants to re-write the laws.Where is Amendment E? Miller will use 'his' law to frame Wagner and put him in jail on made up charges that Wagner has no right to free speech and violated his law. Amy Lyngstad broke probation 100s of times in contempt of court orders.

'Acting' Judge Miller and Chief Justice Gilbertson refuse to acknowledge Motions for recusal when it is evident that Judge Miller is in violation of the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").

There is no proof that the children are embarrassed by what is on the internet. The children have had lice while in school, smelled like urine and feces, wore second hand clothes while mom was partying. The have been subject to physical abuse with the mother's 2 convictions as the court record shows. Mother was in jail and goes to 24/7 program even though it was shown the program is a joke.

Amy Lyngstad is a child abuser with special immunity from prosecution having been on probation 5 of the last 10 years.

SDCL 15-15A-7.   Court records excluded from public access. The following information in a court record is not accessible to the public: (b)  Abuse and neglect files and records (closed, with statutory exceptions);

§ 26-8A-13 Every member of the public has the same access to court records as provided in this rule, except as provided otherwise by statute or rule and except as provided in § 15-15A-7."Public," does not include: (7) The parties to a case or their lawyers regarding access to the court record in their case, which may be defined by statute or rule.  

OF COURSE HER CLIENT DOES NOT WANT THE CHILD ABUSE SHE HAS DONE EXPOSED.

SDCL 26-7A-37. Persons authorized to inspect records of court proceedings is grossly violated by this order.
         Judge asks if they object to the law that would allow access to child abuse reports by the parent.




SDCL 26-7A-37. Persons authorized to inspect records of court proceedings. Records of court proceedings, including reports of the Department of Social Services, records and reports of court services officers, clinical studies, and evaluation reports, under this chapter and chapters 26-8A, 26- 8B, and 26-8C shall be open to inspection by the child's parents, guardian, or custodian and by other respondent parties involved in the proceedings, their attorneys, the child's attorney and by any department or agency having custody of the child.

SD rules of evidence link.


 Millers words are echos of Judge Rusch's words in the divorce decree 10 years ago. She just got off federal probation where she was supposed to have gotten treatment for alcoholism. Went to KeyStone in the spring of 1998, then got a dui in fall of 1998. Rusch ordered alcohol counseling in 2000 then she had 2 convictions for domestic violence.She knows how to manipulate counselors and the Court.In addition the Court being corrupt. She was jailed but kept custody which is illegal.


There were no digital pictures and but she testifies there was. Child Protection worker testified they were not real pictures, she perjured herself and falsified evidence that there were digital pictures. State would not prosecute. Pictures with watermarking on link above. Never trust child protection link case laws here


"Proceedings cloaked in secrecy foster mistrust and, potentially, misuse of power," Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the opinion. In the landmark decision, the justices ruled that court records in civil lawsuits are open unless there are compelling reasons for closing them. Seattle times story  "There are very narrow circumstances under which a judge can seal her own orders," such as matters of national security or protecting trade secrets, said Floyd Abrams, a First amendment lawyer in New York. " Does not say anything about protecting child abusing custodial felons.

Amy Lyngstad was jailed so what is the number of days in jail before Social Services assumes custody or the other parent given custody?  The father has never been found to be an unfit parent, just the State Court hates him for standing up too them.

  The United States Supreme Court has stated: "There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children's best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents' ability to make the best decisions regarding their children. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304.  The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

FBI has in the past ignored its own laws and Yankton law enforcement made up laws and does not prosecute State workers that violate someone's rights. FBI Link


Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice investigation include:

• Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions;
• Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force;
• Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and
• Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries.

False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person's civil rights may occur.

Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.

The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.

Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.

South Dakota government, whether it be social services, the courts or law enforcement allow child abuse, fabricate evidence, commit perjury, deny civil rights any time they please.

The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985).


The law is he can not seal the record against a party bringing the action. Miller did not seek to find the least restrictive method but the most restrictive. Lyngstad again does not have to obey any court order.

§ 15-15A-7. "Public," does not include: 7) The parties to a case or their lawyers regarding access to the court record in their case, which may be defined by statute or rule.  http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2004/sesslaws/ch333.htm

HOW DID SHE GET ABRASIONS ON HER FOOT WHILE WEARING SOCKS AND SHOES BEING PUSHED DOWN 6 STAIRS?  AFFIDAVIT AND MEDICAL LINK

SDCL 15-15A-7.   Court records excluded from public access. The following information in a court record is not accessible to the public: (b)      Abuse and neglect files and records (closed, with statutory exceptions); SDCL § 26-8A-13)

Mr. Wagner is both the parent and his own attorney so this Judge and Social Services ignore written law and his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law.
 

SDCL 15-15A-5.   General access rule.. (3)  An individual circuit or a local court may not adopt a more restrictive access policy or otherwise restrict access beyond that provided by statute or in this rule, nor provide greater access than that provided for by statute or in this rule.The law is already in place.

SDCL 26-8A-13Any person who knowingly violates the confidential nature of the records, files, or information is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.