SharonsSlideShare

SharonsFacebook

www.facebook.com

Sharon's Favorites

Loading...

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Sen.Ann Rest SF70_Disenfranchise_MN Voters_Judges

Tues 27Apr10 SF70
Taking our Vote 5th Amend. Taking Clause
Disenfranching Voter by Covert Tactic's by Elected Officials v. Voters Voting Rights Act.
MN Const. Art. III Separation of Powers, MN Const. Art.X Taxes levied
Denying Public Testimony However published Today http://www.startribune.com/
article by Reporter Pat Doyle
Thanks to Hon. Citizen Nancy Lazaryan to bring to Public Scrunity.
State Senate District 45: Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, Plymouth, Robbinsdale

http://www.rest.formn.com/vertical/Sites/{16A0D99B-FFB8-4AEB-9FD2-C0E97E681822}/uploads/{2E624058-6028-4D96-A5B2-D05769F8B509}.JPG
Senator Ann H. Rest

Ann H. Rest

Chair, Committee on State and Local Government Operations and Oversight

Chair, Subdivision on Airways, Railways and Waterways (Transportation Policy)

Member: Transportation Policy Committee and Budget Division; Transit Subdivision; Taxes Committee, State Government Budget Division

Commissions: Chair, Legislative Audit Commission (for reports from the Legislative Auditor's Office, click here)

National Conference of State Legislatures Committees: Law and Criminal Justice , Budgets and Revenue, Redistricting and Elections

Member,

http://www.rest.formn.com/vertical/Sites/{16A0D99B-FFB8-4AEB-9FD2-C0E97E681822}/uploads/{0F7E9FC0-71AF-4CEF-8EED-0299D0AD2A91}.JPG
NCSL Executive Committee Task Force

Ann H. Rest. Chair, Committee on State and Local Government Operations and Oversight ... Sen. Rest teams up with Minnesota firefighters ...
NEWS FLASH: SEN.ANN REST, ACCOUNTANT SF.70 DISENFRANCHING MN VOTERS TO VOTE FOR AND HOLD ELECTIVE OFFICE OF JUDGE.
MN CONST. ART. III SEPARATION OF POWERS "BUT FOR"
WE THE VOTERS/TAXPAYERS MUST PAY FOR THE SALARYS OF JUDICIAL
OFFICERS, CONTRARY TO MN CONST. ART.X EQUITABLE TAXES.

Judicial retention election bill is dropped WOPULAR
Apr 26, 2010 ... SF 70 - Senator Ann Rest / HF 224 - Representative Steve Simon. This bill proposes an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution to change the ... The proposal would revamp the rules about when and how charter schools can ...
www.wopular.com/judicial-retention-election-bill-dropped - 11 hours ago
Minnesota Senate Committees
Procedural Rules Rules of the Senate · Joint Rules. Appointments ... 2009-2010 Senate Committee Structure with chair, vice chair and staff (PDF Document) ... Subscribe to Email List, Minnesota Senate E-Mailing List Subscription Form ...
www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/committees/ - Cached - Similar

Judicial retention election bill is dropped

The bill was pulled by its sponsor amid a backlash from anti-abortion groups and other interests.

Last update: April 26, 2010 - 10:46 PM

A proposal to replace contested judicial elections with a system allowing voters to reject judges has been dropped amid opposition from groups against abortion and other interests.

Rep. Steve Simon, DFL-

posted by gerimya on Apr 26, 10 at 10:48 pm
2 of 8 people liked this comment. Do you?

It is not over until the fat lady sings

The bill is still alive in the Senate with a hearing scheduled for Tuesday afternoon in the Rules committee. It is my understanding if the Senate passes their version of the bill it will be brought over to House floor for a vote, thereby eliminating the need for any committee hearing in the House.I was scheduled to testify at the HOUSE committee hearing that Rep. Mullery chairs, at 9:30AM on Monday. On Sunday, at 7:10PM, I received an email from Patrick Baldwin that stated the bill had been removed from the Monday hearing.This was the THIRD time in one week that the House bill had been scheduled in committee and then removed.On Monday, notice was sent out that the Senate bill was "live" and scheduled to be heard in committee on Tuesday.I think it is outrageous that this newspaper characterized the reason the bill was pulled in the House was because of pressure from "anti-abortion groups".This bill began as the "Quie Commission Bill", promoted by former Gov. Quie, who apparently loved appointing judges. Quie actually testified in the MN Senate that is was "too difficult" for voters to decide who to vote for, and this bill made things easier for them.Rumor is there has been over $1 million spent to promote this bill.And the opponents have had NO MONEY behind us, only our voice.Our voice is clear:NEVER GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.This election will be great! There are some challengers to the MN Court of Appeals and Supreme Court that understand the government serves the people, and the supreme LAW in this state is our constitutions.We will hear from these challengers WHY we should vote from them and HOW the incumbent judges violated our rights.NEVER, EVER GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE

posted by nanlazaryan on Apr 27, 10 at 2:12 am
2 of 5 people liked this comment. Do you?

UNACCOUNTABLE IS UNACCEPTABLE

I spoke against the proposed constitutional amendment at numerous legislative hearings because it would create a judiciary that is unaccountable to the public. Unaccountability in public officials is unacceptable; and in the judiciary, it is dangerous. Even the District Court Judges Association was opposed the proposed constitutional amendment, because it contained no check on the power of the Governor to appoint. As Judge Susan Miles, the Association's representative, testified at the last legislative hearing, an appointee who was poorly qualified "could do a lot of damage." The damage she was talking about was damage to the public caused by a judge's bad decisions -- as well as, damage to the image of the judiciary.The proposed constitutional amendment is a bad idea that does not serve the interests of the public; its serves only the interests of incumbent judges who do not want to face the public in an election. We need to keep fighting and make sure the bill in the Minnesota Senate never becomes law.Greg Wersal, Candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court

posted by gregwersal on Apr 27, 10 at 9:15 am
2 of 2 people liked this comment. Do you?

Sharon4Anderson

As Denied Candidate In re: ScarrellaforAssoc.Judtice 221NW2nd 562, Sharon Scarrella is Not a Liar or Lawyer, The Right to Vote for and Hold any Elecive Office is paramount.Learned in Law has never been defied to mean Licensed Lawyer, Separation of Powers, Sharon will be on the Ballot again for State AG, Constitutional Offices must not be Tampered with by Judge made Case Law. Perpetual "Appointments" are not Constitutionally Valid www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com

posted by sharia4law on Apr 27, 10 at 9:56 am

/s/ Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913_sa1299 Attorney Pro Se_InFact,Private Attorney General Sharon4 Anderson - Google Profile ,Candidate 2010 iGoogle http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com/ Homestead Act of 1862 Blogger: User Profile: Sharon Anderson SharonsYahoo!
Shar1058's Buzz Activity Page - My Buzz Activity - Yahoo! Buzz
political ?(Sharon4Anderson?)
Sharon Anderson's Blog Click here: Sharon4Council file4[1]Shar_thune_22.pdf - Google Docs
Disclaimer on Site'sThe Electronic Communications Privacy Act
MY FindLaw (ECPA) sets out the provisions for access, use, disclosure, interception and privacy protections of electronic communications. Sharon4Anderson Scribd pdf files. The law was enacted in 1986 and covers various forms of wire and electronic communications. According to the U.S. Code, electronic communications "means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce." ECPA prohibits unlawful access and certain disclosures of communication contents. Additionally, the law prevents government entities from requiring disclosure of electronic communications from a provider without proper procedure. The Legal Institute provides Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which encompasses ECPA. Blogger: Dashboard

NOTICE: This communication is not encrypted. This e-mail (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and Electronic Communications Privacy Act The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers

Sharon4Judge