Informed-consent-breach-of-fiduciary-duty

Questions Presented 1) The Minnesota Lower Court's Disregard for Informed Consent and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Eroded the Petitioner's Rights and the Integrity of the Legal System. 2) The Minnesota Lower Court's Unlawful Admission of an Improperly Signed Stipulation into the Record. 3) The Minnesota Lower Court's Abuse of Discretion in Denying the Petitioner's Motion to . Vacate the Stipulation by Failing to Adequately Consider the Petitioner's Alleged Cognitive Impairments. 4) The Minnesota Lower Court's Failure to Provide Petitioner with a Translator Deprived Her of the Opportunity to Participate Meaningfully in the Proceedings, in Violation of Her Due Process Rights. 5) The GAL Breached Her Fiduciary Duty to the Petitioner by Repeatedly Acting Against 4 the Petitioner's Will and Best Interests, Including by Signing the Parties' Stipulation Without the Petitioner's Consent. 6) Pétitioner's Attorneys andthe GAL Violated the Law by Helping the Respondent Evade His Spousal Support Obligations When the New Federal Alimony Tax Law Took Effect. : 7) The Minnesota Lower Court’s Misuse of Guardian ad Litem Assignments and the Erosion of Due Process. 8) The Opposing Counsel's Coercion of the GAL and Circumvention of the Petitioner's Right to Challenge the Stipulation Constitute a Violation of Due Process and an Undermining of the Legal System. "=" 9) The Minnesota Supreme Court Erred in ‘Affirming the Trial Court's Order Because It Failed to Give Sufficient Weight to the Lower Court's Numerous and Egregious Violations of the Law, Minnesota Rules of Practice, and Ethical Standards. 10) The New Federal Alimony Tax Law's Implication for Spousal Support Obligations: Should the Law Be Revised to Address Potential Abuse? 11) Guidelines for GAL Assignment and Referee Decisions: Ensuring Fairness and Due Process . ;