Sharon's Favorites


Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Republican Primary_TonySutton_Sharon4MNAG

Republicans have their own primary, says Chairman Tony Sutton
Posted by Tim Budig, August 3, 2010 Comments(0)
Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Tony Sutton dismissed the idea that Republican voters primary election day — Tuesday, Aug. 10 — would go to the polls with the idea of getting rid of Independence Party (IP)-endorsed gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner by voting for another IP candidate.

“We’ve got our own primary,” said Sutton, noting the challenge by frequent candidate Sharon Anderson of St. Paul against Republican-endorsed attorney general candidate Chris Barden.

There’s “absolutely no buzz,” said Sutton when asked, among Republicans about surgically removing Horner by voting for IP gubernatorial candidate Rob Hahn.

Hahn is a publisher and author from St. Paul.

Indeed, Sutton argued that an IP gubernatorial candidacy will draw more votes away from the DFL gubernatorial candidate than Republican-endorsed gubernatorial candidate Rep. Tom Emmer of Delano.

The talk of Republicans crossing over to eliminate Horner, Sutton argued, could be early spin by Horner to fallback on if he loses the primary.

Beyond this, who even knows which voters will show up primary day? Sutton asked.

“It’s a crap shoot,” he said of guessing.

Horner has suggested that Republicans could be trying to prevent him from reaching the November ballot.

“Republicans from the day I started floating a trial balloon (about running for governor) have been very, very worried about my candidacy,” Horner recently said.

Horner argues that Emmer is too far to the Right, which gives him an opening as a candidate.

Horner expressed concern about Hahn.

“We’re taking him (Hahn) very seriously,” said Horner.

“Not so much because of his candidacy, but because his candidacy presents a vehicle for Republicans to cross over and create mischief,” said Horner.

“Rob Hahn is a threat because of the willingness of Republicans and the willingness of Hahn to become a vehicle,” said Horner.

Hahn, who recently announced a limited cable television commercial buy, in a recent press release said his campaign would gladly accept donations from Republicans, as well as from Democrats and Independents.

“The fact that one of my IP opponents continues to suggest that Republicans might be backing my campaign and might cross over to vote for me in the primary indicates he might already be trying to spin defeat, failing to recognize I continue to run a strong campaign based on specific issues and details,” said Hahn.

During a recent appearance on Minnesota Public Radio, Horner and Hahn had spirited exchanges, Horner suggesting Hahn lacked an understanding of the issues — he deemed Hahn’s riverboat gambling proposal ludicrous — while Hahn accused Horner of being condescending in a comment he made about casino workers.

Sutton argues that the media is “kind” in its coverage of the IP, saying the party doesn’t compare at all to either the Republican or Democratic parties in terms of following and organization.

SharonScarrella Anderson on August 4th, 2010
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Sure is Strange that you only mention the AG’s Race ie Sharon Anderson 4 Judicial Reform,Separation of Powers,FreeSpeeh_Press,Constitutional Guarantees
Sharon is calling for the Resignation of any “Lawyers” from the Executive,Legislative Branch’s ,violating the Separation of Powers ie: In re: Scarrella4Justice221NW2d then the Trial Lawyer “Emmers” acting in concort with “Obama” simulating Legal Process via “Oaths of Office.
Judicial Reforms Needed by JOn Roland NonLawyer for Texas AG
In response to requests to summarize the most important judicial reforms needed, here is a list of some of the most important, with links to further discussion.

Select judges into a pool of judges by sortition, or at random, not by election or appointment, but with some filtering for knowledge and skills.
Assign judges to courts for short terms by sortition. Even members of the Supreme Court would be drawn at random from the general pool of judges.
Have multiple judges assigned to each court, and assign them to cases by sortition.
Expand supreme and other appellate courts to 28 members, and hear cases initially by randomly selected panels of three, appealable to randomly selected panels of nine, and appealable from there to randomly selected panels of 27 (with one spare).
Require that decisions of multi-judge panels be unanimous to sustain a claimed power of government against a claim by a citizen that the government lacks such power.
Mandate reversal of any judgment that does not presume nonauthority for any official act and require strict proof of such authority.

Mandate reversal of any judgment for the prosecution in a trial with mixed issues of law and fact, including all criminal trials, in which parties have been impeded from arguing all issues of law before the jury, except those issues that may not be argued without disclosing evidence properly excluded.
Forbid motions in limine to the prosecution in criminal trials.
Mandate reversal of the conviction in any criminal trial in which the jury has not been instructed to determine whether the charge is authorized by applicable statutes and constitutions, or they have not been provided with copies of such statutes and constitutions, and of legal pleadings on the arguments in the case.
Mandate the suspension, without pay, on the first offense, for one month, of any judge who, having jurisdiction, fails to schedule a hearing on a prerogative writ of quo warranto, habeas corpus, procedendo, mandamus, prohibito, scire facias, or certiorari, within 3 days of it being filed and served on respondant, or to hold a hearing thereon within 20 days, in which the burden of proof shall be on the respondant, failing which judgment shall be rendered in favor of the demandant. The suspension shall be doubled for each subsequent failure.
Mandate the convening of a grand jury of 23 by random selection from each jurisdiction having a population of no more than 3000 persons (village).
Mandate that no more than half the time of the grand jury be spent hearing bills of indictment, and that they shall have at least 4 hours to consider each bill, unless they shall choose otherwise.
Authorize grand juries to issue subpoenas directly rather than only through their courts.
Authorize and direct grand juries to decide the jurisdiction, or lack thereof, or the immunity of any official, for any complaint brought before them.
Authorize grand juries to order the removal of any impediments to access to them by members of the public
Authorize grand juries to issue to any complainant or his designee, not just to public prosecutors, an indictment authorizing criminal prosecution.
Authorize grand juries to investigate any public or private enterprise whose activities may adversely impact the public, and to report their findings.
Mandate that trial and grand juries be convened under the supervision of prior grand juries to insure there is no stacking.
Mandate the reversal of any court decision which treats a recent precedent as binding, and for constitutional issues does not return to the original text and historical evidence of its meaning.
Mandate reversal of any denial of standing of a party to privately prosecute a public right for injunctive or declaratory relief, or on a writ of quo warranto.
Mandate reversal of any disablement or deprivation of life, limb, liberty for more than 24 hours, property, or parental rights without a trial by a jury of 12, including for contempt of court.
Mandate reversal of any restriction on the practice of law without a jury trial.
Mandate reversal of any court decision in which the public was not allowed to record the proceedings, other than to conceal the identities of the jury.
Mandate reversal of any court decision in which the judges do not justify and publish their decision, clearly separating it from summary, findings, and dicta.

This list is subject to revision, so check back from time to time for the latest.

Many of these reforms would now require a constitutional amendment to overcome long chains of precedent. Such amendments are to be found here.

Unless you work in law enforcement
Radley Balko | August 2, 2010

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That’s the standard line motorists hear when they say they weren’t aware of the speed limit, or gun owners hear when they say didn’t know about the gun laws in the jurisdiction they happened to get arrested in. Yet that ignorance is pretty understandable in an America where just about everything is being criminalized. At the federal level alone there are now more than 4,500 separate crimes, and that’s not counting the massive regulatory code, violations of which also can sometimes be punished with criminal charges.
Posting your comment.
Leave a reply
name (required)