Sharon4Judge

2012-02-01T15:08:00.001-08:00

Click here: Magner v. Gallagher : SCOTUSblog#.TymrZmp8V6J.blogger

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/magner-v-gallagher/#.TymrZmp8V6J.blogger

Magner v. Gallagher

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term

10-1032 8th Cir. Feb 29, 2012

TBD TBD TBD OT 2011

Disclaimer: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. serves as counsel to the respondents in this case.

Issue: (1) Whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act; and, if so (2) what test should be used to analyze them.

Plain English Issue: (1) Whether a lawsuit can be brought for a violation of the Fair Housing Act based on a practice that is not discriminatory on its own, but has a discriminatory effect; and, if so, (2) how should courts determine whether a practice has a discriminatory effect and violates the Act?

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Petition of the day

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs for the Petitioners

Brief for Steve Magner et al.

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners

Brief of the International Municipal Lawyers Association et al.

Brief of the Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey

Brief of the Pacific Legal Foundation et al.

Brief of the Independent Community Bankers of America et al.

Brief of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc.

Brief of the American Bankers Association et al.

Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither Party

Brief of the United States

Merits Briefs for the Respondents

Brief of Thomas Gallagher et al.

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents

Brief of the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund

Brief of the Lawyer's Committee on Civil Rights et al.

Brief of the Housing Advocates, Inc., and Buckeye Community Hope Foundation

Brief of the National Fair Housing Alliance et al.

Brief of the Opportunity Agenda et al.

Brief of the ACLU

Brief of Massachusetts et al.

Brief of Henry G. Cisneros

Brief of AARP and Mount Holly Gardens Citizens In Action

Certiorari-stage documents

Opinion below (8th Cir.)

Petition for certiorari

Brief in opposition of respondents Thomas J. Gallagher et al.

Petitioners' reply

LEGAL NOTICE: /s/S,haron4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Candidate AG2010 www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com Blogger: www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson Homestead Act of 1862 neopopulism.org - Pro Se Dec Action Litigation Pack Sharon4Anders on
Scribd Document's are based on SEC filings, Blogger: Dashboard Home
www.slideshare.com/sharonanderson www.taxthemax.blogspot.com www.sharon4anderson.org FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are makinknowledge gained as financial journalists , securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employeesand agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting on that recommendations, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these or other Public Office documents expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in g such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of whistleblower protection issues, MY FindLaw SharonsWritProA06_1150_30Jun06_26 The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption 3Apr0http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPlawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm Sharon4Council: DLJ Management v. City St. Paul A06-2118,Money LaunderinNo direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937) g andFCC Complaints - http://sharons-copywrite.blogspot.com

LawLessAmerica re: William Windsor

2012-01-19T09:21:00.001-08:00

When judges blunder, the remedy is impeachment

2012-01-01T08:30:00.000-08:00

When judges blunder, the remedy is impeachment

Custom Search

Web

Web

View Case

Cited Cases

Citing Cases

Comment (0)

^{Follow Leagle on Twitter}

IN RE CANDIDACIES OF SCARRELLA

221 N.W.2d 562 (1974)

In re Candidacies of Sharon L. SCARRELLA, et al., for Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court.

No. 45250.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

August 6, 1974.

Richard Bullock, pro se.

David Dotlich, pro se.

Michael Mullin, pro se.

Sharon Scarrella, pro se.

Frank Bilotta, pro se.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Peter Sipkins, Sol. Gen., Thomas Jensen, Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding under Minn.St. 203.38, subd. 1, to determine the eligibility of five individuals to have their names appear on the ballots for the primary and general elections to be held September 10, 1974, and November 5, 1974, as candidates for the office of associate justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. Although each of the persons named as candidates filed with the secretary of state an affidavit of candidacy stating, "I am learned in the law as defined by * * * law * * *" (Italics supplied.), none has been or is entitled to be admitted to practice as an attorney at law in this state.

The case is controlled by In re Candidacy of Daly, 294 Minn. 351, 200 N.W.2d 913, certiorari denied, sub nom. Daly v. McCarthy, 409 U.S. 1041, 93 S.Ct. 528, 34 L.Ed.2d 491 (1972). There it is held that to be "learned in the law" within the meaning of Minn. Const. art. 6, § 7, fixing the qualifications for judges of the supreme court, means to be admitted or entitled to be admitted to practice as an attorney at law in the state of Minnesota. It follows that Sharon L. Scarrella, Richard W. Bullock, David Dotlich Frank D. Bilotta, and Michael Paul Mullin, none of whom is admitted or entitled to be admitted to practice law in the state of Minnesota, must be omitted from the ballots to be used at the primary election to be held on September 10, 1974, and the general election to be held on November 5, 1974.

It is further ordered that inasmuch as these filings were improperly accepted, the filing fee of each of the individuals affected should be returned. Amendment of the form of affidavit to be subscribed by persons seeking judicial office, specifying that to be "learned in the law" is to be admitted to practice in the courts of the State of Minnesota as a lawyer, should make resort to the courts in cases so clearly controlled by precedent as this one unnecessary.

OTIS, TODD, MacLAUGHLIN, YETKA and SCOTT, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Next>>

Click here for unpaginated view

•	BOELLNER v. CLINICAL STUDY CENTERS

•	PATEL v. ABC UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST.

•	TEXAS CO. OF MEXICO, S. A. v. ROOS

•	IN RE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE WAGE AND HOUR CASES

•	CAMMARATA v. BRIGHT IMPERIAL LIMITED

•	EX PARTE NORTHWEST ALABAMA MENTAL HEALTH CENTER v. NORTHWEST ALABAMA MENTAL HEALTH CENTER ET AL.

•	CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. WU

•	LEE v. CITY OF COLUMBUS

•	ANGELOTTI v. WALT DISNEY COMPANY

•	CASTRO v. COLLECTO, INC.

•	GOMES v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.

•	ARTUSO v. VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

•	IN THE MATTER OF UAL CORPORATION

•	COMRIE v. IPSCO INCORPORATED

•	U.S. v. CUEBAS

•	U.S. v. CALVERT

•	CIES BISKER, LLC v. 3M COMPANY

•	U.S. v. WARDEN

•	IN RE SKYLINE WOODS COUNTRY CLUB

•	LIN v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Your Search Results

JudicialReform_Windsor_LawlessAmerica

2011-11-25T10:46:00.000-08:00

Black Fri. 25Nov201

Affidavit of Sharon Anderson to enforce Judicial Reform Minnesota_USA

CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE OF LAWYERS TO ENFORCE

JUDICIAL REFORM.

Is the State Bar's in the USA complicity in the "BadBehavior"

of Corrupt Judges.

Latest News

Lawless America Launches New Online TV Channel
25.11.11

http://www.livestream.com/lawlessamerica

To Citizenery of the State of Minnesota

Undetermined Death and or Murder of Sharon's 2nd Husband Cpl Jm Anderson 21Sept2000_________et al. Please forward,circulate, Bloggers unite.

Minnesota Lawyer
News Update: Time to shake up judicial elections?

Time to shake up judicial elections?

Lawmaker calls system ‘fox guarding the henhouse.’

Source: Minnesota Lawyer

Published: 2011-11-23 22:04:27 GMT

From: williamwindsor@bellsouth.net
To: williamwindsor@bellsouth.net
Sent: 11/24/2011 10:56:59 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Lawless America has MOVED -- Please Read and Act

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!

Lawless America has moved from Shovio.com to Livestream.com....at least for now. I have been evaluating several online broadcasting options, and I hope Livestream proves to be a good choice -- still a lot to learn.

Livestream does not work the same way as Shovio.

Please go to http://www.livestream.com and click on "Sign Up." Enter your information (or your alias fake information). Then reply to this email or email me at Bill@LawlessAmerica.com with your username and the email address that you used. These will allow me to enter you as a member of the Lawless America Team. This will give you special rights, including the ability to broadcast on your own on Livestream's Lawless America Channel, should you choose to do so. Every guest who appears on camera or by audio only will need to be set up as a team member, so please do this.

For more information on viewing the show Sundays from 5-7 pm ET, here's the basic FAQ -- http://www.livestream.com/support/faq

Please do me a favor. Login to your Facebook account, and then go to http://www.livestream.com/lawlessamerica and click on the "LIKE" button. We need to build up the number of supporters to build our importance on Livestream.

Note on the "About this Channel" section of the http://www.livestream.com/lawlessamerica page that I have a short list of website links. These are websites that have www.LawlessAmerica.com listed as a link on their HOME page. If you have a website that you would like to have linked here and on the home page of www.LawlessAmerica.com and www.GetAGripAmerica.us, simple add those links to your home page and email me with your website url, and I will add it immediately. This will get ALL OF US more website traffic.

The LawlessAmerica Channel on Livestream will be broadcasting 24-hours-a-day. If you have videos that you want to have added, just send me the urls. I will add everything relevant to our cause, and they will appear multiple times each day. I have about three hours of videos on now, so each one runs 8 times a day. I will also be adding a section where viewers can see any video on demand by selecting from a list.

I'll be trying Livestream this Sunday, so please SIGN UP and tune in to help us get the bugs out.

All the best,

Bill
Bill@LawlessAmerica.com
770-578-1094

http://d.scribd.com/docs/733glitr3pqvwpwgjzs.pdf

LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Candidate AG2010 www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com Blogger: www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson Homestead Act of 1862 neopopulism.org - Pro Se Dec Action Litigation Pack Sharon4Anderson Scribd Document's are based on SEC filings, Blogger: Dashboard Home www.slideshare.com/sharonanderson www.taxthemax.blogspot.com www.sharon4anderson.org
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are makinknowledge gained as financial journalists , securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting on that recommendations, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these or other Public Office documents expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in g such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of whistleblower protection issues, MY FindLaw SharonsWritProA06_1150_30Jun06_26
The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers
Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption 3Apr0 http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPlawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm Sharon4Council: DLJ Managment v. City St. Paul A06-2118,Money LaunderinNo direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937) g andFCC Complaints - http://sharons-copywrite.blogspot.com

Judge Guilty Of DUI Takes Breath Tests Before Work « CBS Baltimore

2011-01-27T06:03:00.000-08:00

Judge Guilty Of DUI Takes Breath Tests Before Work « CBS Baltimore

MNCourtVideo's 2010

2011-01-02T11:29:00.000-08:00

Return to Minnesota Supreme Court
Return to Minnesota Judicial Branch Home

Sign up to receive updates

Minnesota Supreme Court Oral Arguments - Videos
The Webcasts are not live. Videos are generally posted by 5 p.m. the same day of the arguments.
Technical issues occasionally may cause a delay in posting.

The following oral arguments are provided in Windows Media format.
You will need the Windows Media Player plugin to view them.

Search for an Oral Argument Video:
Use Case Name, Date (M/D/YYYY format - no leading zeros for month and day) or Case Number to find an archived argument.
Video archiving began September 2005.

Select from the following results:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DECEMBER 2010 | NOVEMBER 2010 | OCTOBER 2010 | SEPTEMBER 2010 (4 most recent months posted for browsing)

December 2010
Case Name &
Oral Argument Video Date Case Number Opinion Links
State v. Kuhlmann
12/7/2010 A090915

State v. Gaiovnik, a/k/a Gaiounik
12/7/2010 A090190

Fredrick Farms, Inc. v. County of Olmsted
12/6/2010 A101089

Western National Insurance Company v. Thompson, et al.
12/6/2010 A091506

State v. Ortega
12/2/2010 A100507

Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud
12/2/2010 A091335

In re the Estate of: Patrick W. Butler, Deceased
12/1/2010 A091208

State v. Ferguson
12/1/2010 A100499

November 2010
Case Name &
Oral Argument Video Date Case Number Opinion Links
In re Petition regarding 2010 Gubernatorial Election 11/22/2010 A102022
Taylor v. LSI Corporation 11/10/2010 A091410
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corporation, et al.
11/9/2010 A090935

State v. Koppi
11/9/2010 A090136

State v. Johnson *
Welfare of: M.L.M *
*Consolidated for argument
11/8/2010 A090247
A090875

In re Discipline of LeTourneau
11/4/2010 A100247

State v. Cox
11/4/2010 A091861

State v. Gatson
11/3/2010 A100247

United Prairie Bank - Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC
11/3/2010 A090607

State v. Nissalke
11/2/2010 A091829

DeCook v. Rochester International Airport Joint Zoning Board
11/2/2010 A090969

Crossroads Church of Prior Lake v. County of Dakota
11/1/2010 A100859

State v. Borg
11/1/2010 A090243

October 2010
Case Name &
Oral Argument Video Date Case Number Opinion Links

State v. Bauer
10/13/2010 A081698

City of Cohasset v. Minnesota Power
10/13/2010 A090572

State v. Martinez-Mendosa
10/12/2010 A092151

Latterell v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company, and AIG Insurance Company
10/11/2010 A091138

Vickla v. State
10/11/2010 A090830

In re Discipline of Garcia
10/6/2010 A090877

Tucker v. State
10/5/2010 A090666

Marriage: Angell v. Angell
10/5/2010 A090349

Martin v. Morrison Trucking, Inc., and Travelers Insurance Company
10/4/2010 A100446

State v. Hill
10/4/2010 A091947

September 2010
Case Name &
Oral Argument Video Date Case Number Opinion Links

Harlan Clark v. Tomas Reddick, et al.
9/13/2010 A101527

In re Discipline of Fett
9/2/2010 A091862

Graff v. Robert M. Swendra Agency, Inc.
9/1/2010 A090173

Miller v. Lankow, et al.
9/1/2010 A090244

Video Oral Argument pages and videos produced in partnership with Twin Cities Public Television.

If you have questions, comments or suggestions regarding this web site, please contact the webmaster.

2010-10-31T14:14:00.001-07:00

Election ballots2010

View more documents from Sharon Anderson.

MINNESOTA JUDICIAL REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY: Our Minnesota "Justice" System and the Gildea Article

2010-08-11T14:36:00.000-07:00

MINNESOTA JUDICIAL REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY: Our Minnesota "Justice" System and the Gildea Article

Republican Primary_TonySutton_Sharon4MNAG

2010-08-04T05:30:00.000-07:00

http://www.hometownsource.com/blogs/index.php/2010/08/03/republicans-have-their-own-primary-says-chairman-tony-sutton/

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 http://www.sharon4judge.blogspot.com 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 http://www.constitution.org
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)

email

Mashak Commentary_MN Justice Gildea

2010-07-19T10:12:00.000-07:00

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Our Minnesota "Justice" System and the Gildea Article

Commentary

This Commentary in Response to

New Minnesota chief justice says court funding is concern

Chief Justice Gildea says she is concerned about more funding for the judiciary - primarily to pay judges - and about judge elections. She does not mention making justice affordable for Minnesotans. It costs over $400 just to file a lawsuit, or defend one, plus $100 for each motion or answer to a motion. Depositions cost thousands of dollars. The cost of litigation is out-of-sight - only a very few can afford a lawsuit. Lawyers are outrageously expensive. Over half the people in court represent themselves, they cannot afford a lawyer. They are bewildered and confused by complex rules. They do not get justice, they are railroaded by arrogant and insensitive judges, accountable to no one, and skillful lawyers and prosecutors whose only goals are to "win", and to make money. "Experts" chosen by judges earn huge fees for advice on how to parent kids and who gets to see them. Public defenders are not available except to the very poor who prove they are indigent, and then only for an average of 15 minutes per client - barely enough time to arrange for a plea bargain, guilty or not. Under a rule they issued, for their benefit only, Minnesota’s judges can take $150 tips ("gifts") from lawyers, special interests, anyone. They take these "gifts" in secret, without telling anyone. They can take as many of these gifts as they want - there is no limit. You can see this rule for yourself - it’s on the internet. Enter "Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct" and click on "Read the full Code of Judicial Conduct." Scroll to Canon 4. Then go to paragraph D(5). Paragraph (5) states what a judge cannot accept, and then says: "except for" and refers to subparagraph (h). It should be illegal for judges to take tips as it is for all other government people .

But Chief Justice Gildea is not concerned about the cost of justice, or making it affordable. She did not even mention the ASD plan, a judge-created plan that judges say will save millions of dollars each year and bring our justice system into the 21^st century. Rather, her primary concern is to keep judges under the control of the power elite and out of the control of the people.

WE THE PEOPLE should help all candidates in contested judge elections. Specifically, there are 110 judge elections scheduled for this November of which 15 are contested (listed in footnote 1 below). You should contact each of them and ask them if they share our positions, and promote or detract from them as appropriate.

Footnote 1

Candidates Search Results

State Offices
	ASSOCIATE JUSTICE - SUPREME COURT 2
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		HELEN MEYER	Nonpartisan	www.helenmeyer.org	5/18/2010
		GREG WERSAL	Nonpartisan	Wersalforjustice.com	5/27/2010


	ASSOCIATE JUSTICE - SUPREME COURT 5
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		CHRISTOPHER DIETZEN	Nonpartisan	www.justicedietzen.org	5/18/2010


	ASSOCIATE JUSTICE - SUPREME COURT 6
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		ALAN C. PAGE	Nonpartisan	alanpageforjustice.org	5/18/2010
		TIM TINGELSTAD	Nonpartisan	highesthill.com	5/21/2010


	JUDGE - COURT OF APPEALS 2
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		NATALIE E. HUDSON	Nonpartisan	www.judgenataliehudson.org	5/18/2010


	JUDGE - COURT OF APPEALS 3
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		DAVID MINGE	Nonpartisan	www.minge.org	5/18/2010


	JUDGE - COURT OF APPEALS 4
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		WILHELMINA (MIMI) WRIGHT	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE - COURT OF APPEALS 5
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		LOUISE DOVRE BJORKMAN	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE - COURT OF APPEALS 11
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		MICHELLE A. LARKIN	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE - COURT OF APPEALS 13
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		ROXANN KLUGMAN	Nonpartisan		6/1/2010
		RANDOLPH W. PETERSON	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE - COURT OF APPEALS 14
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		DAN GRIFFITH	Nonpartisan	www.griffithforjudge.com	5/21/2010
		LARRY STAUBER JR.	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE - COURT OF APPEALS 17
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		MATTHEW E. JOHNSON	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE - COURT OF APPEALS 18
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		HEIDI SCHELLHAS	Nonpartisan	www.judgeheidischellhas.com	5/18/2010


	JUDGE - COURT OF APPEALS 19
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		FRANCIS CONNOLLY	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -1ST DISTRICT COURT 3
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		THOMAS POCH	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -1ST DISTRICT COURT 4
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		MICHAEL BAXTER	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -1ST DISTRICT COURT 7
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		TIMOTHY J. MCMANUS	Nonpartisan		5/19/2010


	JUDGE -1ST DISTRICT COURT 8
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		STEPHEN ALLAN BAKER	Nonpartisan	bakerforjudge2010.com	5/19/2010
		TIMOTHY L. BLAKELY	Nonpartisan	JudgeBlakely.com	5/18/2010
		LARRY CLARK	Nonpartisan	www.electlarryclark.org	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -1ST DISTRICT COURT 9
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		MARTHA M. SIMONETT	Nonpartisan		5/20/2010


	JUDGE -1ST DISTRICT COURT 11
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		REX D. STACEY	Nonpartisan		5/21/2010


	JUDGE -1ST DISTRICT COURT 12
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		PHILIP KANNING	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -1ST DISTRICT COURT 23
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		RICHARD G. SPICER	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -1ST DISTRICT COURT 24
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		PATRICE K SUTHERLAND	Nonpartisan		5/19/2010


	JUDGE -1ST DISTRICT COURT 25
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		CAROLINE H. LENNON	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -1ST DISTRICT COURT 33
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		KEVIN F MARK	Nonpartisan		5/20/2010


	JUDGE -1ST DISTRICT COURT 34
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JANET CAIN	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -1ST DISTRICT COURT 35
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JEROME B. ABRAMS	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -1ST DISTRICT COURT 36
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		TIM D. WERMAGER	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -2ND DISTRICT COURT 1
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		EDWARD J. CLEARY	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -2ND DISTRICT COURT 3
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		GEORGE T. STEPHENSON	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -2ND DISTRICT COURT 4
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		ROSANNE NATHANSON	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -2ND DISTRICT COURT 8
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		STEVEN D. WHEELER	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -2ND DISTRICT COURT 9
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		PAULETTE KANE FLYNN	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -2ND DISTRICT COURT 10
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		KATHLEEN GEARIN	Nonpartisan		5/19/2010


	JUDGE -2ND DISTRICT COURT 13
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		MARYBETH DORN	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -2ND DISTRICT COURT 16
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		GLORIA E. BOGEN	Nonpartisan	GloriaBogen4Judge.com	5/25/2010
		JOHN G. DILLON	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010
		GREG M. GAFFANEY	Nonpartisan		5/28/2010
		MARK IRELAND	Nonpartisan	www.voteireland.com	5/18/2010
		STEPHEN C. KELLY	Nonpartisan		6/1/2010
		ED MATTHEWS	Nonpartisan	www.edforjudge.com	5/21/2010
		TREVOR STEWART OLIVER	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010
		TOM PLUNKETT	Nonpartisan	www.tomplunkett.com	6/1/2010
		MATTHEW LAWSON THORNTON	Nonpartisan	http://thorntonforjudge.com	6/1/2010


	JUDGE -2ND DISTRICT COURT 18
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		DAVID C. HIGGS	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -2ND DISTRICT COURT 20
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		SALVADOR M. ROSAS	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -2ND DISTRICT COURT 23
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JOANNE M. SMITH	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -2ND DISTRICT COURT 25
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JUDITH M. TILSEN	Nonpartisan		5/19/2010


	JUDGE -2ND DISTRICT COURT 26
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JOHN GUTHMANN	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -2ND DISTRICT COURT 27
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		CONNIE S. IVERSEN	Nonpartisan	www.connieiversenforjudge.com	6/1/2010
		WILLIAM H. LEARY	Nonpartisan		5/19/2010


	JUDGE -3RD DISTRICT COURT 3
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		STEVEN R. SCHWAB	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -3RD DISTRICT COURT 5
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JOHN CHESTERMAN	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -3RD DISTRICT COURT 6
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		CASEY J. CHRISTIAN	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -3RD DISTRICT COURT 11
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		NANCY L. BOSTRACK	Nonpartisan		5/19/2010


	JUDGE -3RD DISTRICT COURT 17
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		TERRENCE M. WALTERS	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -3RD DISTRICT COURT 22
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		THOMAS M. NEUVILLE	Nonpartisan		5/19/2010


	JUDGE -3RD DISTRICT COURT 23
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JOSEPH A. BUELTEL	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 3
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		THOMAS M. SIPKINS	Nonpartisan	retainjudgetomsipkins.com	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 7
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		TAMARA GARCIA	Nonpartisan	judgetamaragarcia.com	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 8
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		KEVIN S. BURKE	Nonpartisan		5/19/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 12
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		ANNE K. MCKEIG	Nonpartisan		5/19/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 13
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		REGINA CHU	Nonpartisan	http://judgereginachu	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 18
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		SUSAN N. BURKE	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 21
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		MEL DICKSTEIN	Nonpartisan	judgemeldickstein.com	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 23
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		WILLIAM R. HOWARD	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 24
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		MARILYN JUSTMAN KAMAN	Nonpartisan	www.judgemarilynkaman.com	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 26
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JOSEPH KLEIN	Nonpartisan	www.judgejosephklein.com	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 29
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		GARY R LARSON	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 34
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		KAREN JANISCH	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 39
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		LAURIE MILLER	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 41
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		MARK WERNICK	Nonpartisan	judgemarkwernick.com	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 49
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JOHN J. SOMMERVILLE	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 52
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		FRED KARASOV	Nonpartisan	judgefredkarasov.com	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -4TH DISTRICT COURT 54
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		LUCY A. WIELAND	Nonpartisan	judgelucywieland.org	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -5TH DISTRICT COURT 1
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		GREGORY ANDERSON	Nonpartisan		5/20/2010


	JUDGE -5TH DISTRICT COURT 3
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		ALLISON L KREHBIEL	Nonpartisan		5/24/2010


	JUDGE -5TH DISTRICT COURT 4
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JEFFREY L. FLYNN	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -5TH DISTRICT COURT 6
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		MICHELLE DIETRICH	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -5TH DISTRICT COURT 9
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		LEE BUSH	Nonpartisan		5/25/2010


	JUDGE -5TH DISTRICT COURT 10
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		KURT D. JOHNSON	Nonpartisan		5/25/2010


	JUDGE -5TH DISTRICT COURT 12
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		DAVID W PETERSON	Nonpartisan		5/20/2010


	JUDGE -5TH DISTRICT COURT 16
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		LINDA S. TITUS	Nonpartisan		5/20/2010


	JUDGE -6TH DISTRICT COURT 2
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		TERRENCE M. ARONSON	Nonpartisan		5/20/2010


	JUDGE -6TH DISTRICT COURT 11
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		RUSS CONROW	Nonpartisan		6/1/2010
		TIMOTHY A. COSTLEY	Nonpartisan		5/26/2010
		MIKE CUZZO	Nonpartisan	cuzzoforjudge.com	5/27/2010
		JUHL HALVORSON	Nonpartisan		6/1/2010
		JOHN STEVEN LIND	Nonpartisan		5/27/2010
		TIM LITTLE	Nonpartisan		6/1/2010
		JAMES ROSS	Nonpartisan		6/1/2010
		LAWRENCE W. ULANOWSKI	Nonpartisan	www.larryulaw.com	6/1/2010


	JUDGE -6TH DISTRICT COURT 13
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		HEATHER L. SWEETLAND	Nonpartisan		5/24/2010


	JUDGE -6TH DISTRICT COURT 14
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		MARK MUNGER	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -6TH DISTRICT COURT 16
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JOHN E. DESANTO	Nonpartisan		5/21/2010


	JUDGE -7TH DISTRICT COURT 9
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		MICHAEL KIRK	Nonpartisan		5/19/2010


	JUDGE -7TH DISTRICT COURT 14
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		SKIPPER J PEARSON	Nonpartisan		5/20/2010


	JUDGE -7TH DISTRICT COURT 16
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JOSEPH A. EVANS	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -7TH DISTRICT COURT 21
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JAMES HOOLIHAN	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -7TH DISTRICT COURT 22
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		SALLY IRELAND ROBERTSON	Nonpartisan	JudgeSally.com	5/24/2010


	JUDGE -7TH DISTRICT COURT 25
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JOHN H. SCHERER	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -7TH DISTRICT COURT 28
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		DOUGLAS P. ANDERSON	Nonpartisan		5/20/2010


	JUDGE -8TH DISTRICT COURT 1
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		GLEN M (JAKE) JACOBSEN	Nonpartisan	www.glenjacobsen.com	5/28/2010
		KATHRYN SMITH	Nonpartisan	www.judgekathryn-kit-smith.org	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -8TH DISTRICT COURT 10
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		PAUL A. NELSON	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -9TH DISTRICT COURT 2
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		EARL E. MAUS	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -9TH DISTRICT COURT 5
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JOHN HAWKINSON	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -9TH DISTRICT COURT 9
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JON A. MATURI	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -9TH DISTRICT COURT 16
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		PAUL T. BENSHOOF	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010
		DARRELL CARTER	Nonpartisan	darrellcarterlaw.com	6/1/2010


	JUDGE -9TH DISTRICT COURT 17
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		TERRANCE C. HOLTER	Nonpartisan		5/24/2010
		PAUL E. RASMUSSEN	Nonpartisan		5/20/2010


	JUDGE -9TH DISTRICT COURT 19
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JOHN P. SMITH	Nonpartisan		5/19/2010


	JUDGE -9TH DISTRICT COURT 20
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		DONNA K. DIXON	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -9TH DISTRICT COURT 23
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		KRISTINE R. DEMAY	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 3
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		LAURETTE S. ARNOLD	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		HELEN R. BROSNAHAN	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		PATRICIA (ZENNER) BURCHILL	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		BRIDGID E. DOWDAL	Nonpartisan	www.votedowdal.com	6/10/2010
		PORTIA HAMPTON-FLOWERS	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		DAVID L. HANSON	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		MIMI HASSELBALCH	Nonpartisan	www.mimiforjudge.com	6/9/2010
		SHERIDAN KEITH HAWLEY	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		JOHN E. (JACK) HENNEN	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		DAWN R. HENNESSY	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		TAD JUDE	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		BRIAN LECLAIR	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		PETE MARKER	Nonpartisan	www.votemarker.com	6/9/2010
		CATHERINE ANN MCENROE	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		CATHERINE (KATE) MCPHERSON	Nonpartisan	www.kateforjudge.com	6/10/2010
		KELLEY MALONE O'NEILL	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		WM. CHRISTOPHER PENWELL	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		JENNIFER SANTORO BOVITZ	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		MARY E. SMITS	Nonpartisan	www.marysmits.com	6/10/2010
		RICHARD STEBBINS	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		ROBERT "BOB" STEIGAUF	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		F. JOSEPH TAYLOR	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		YAMY VANG	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010
		LINDY T. YOKANOVICH	Nonpartisan		6/10/2010


	JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 8
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JOHN MCBRIDE	Nonpartisan	www.judgejohnmcbride.com	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 18
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		MICHELE A. DAVIS	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 19
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JAMES A. CUNNINGHAM, JR	Nonpartisan	jamescunningham.org	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 20
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		STEVE HALSEY	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 27
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JOHN DEHEN	Nonpartisan		5/28/2010
		MICHAEL ROITH	Nonpartisan	www.reelectjudgemichaelroith.com	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 28
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		GARY R. SCHURRER	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 29
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		KRISTA K. MARTIN	Nonpartisan	KRISTAMARTINFORJUDGE.COM	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 30
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JENNY WALKER JASPER	Nonpartisan	judgejennywalkerjasper.com	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 31
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		JOHN C. HOFFMAN	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 40
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		ROBERT RANCOURT	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 41
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		MARY E. HANNON	Nonpartisan		5/18/2010


	JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 42
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		GEOFFREY TENNEY	Nonpartisan	www.judgegeoffreytenney.com	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 44
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		THOMAS M. FITZPATRICK	Nonpartisan	electjudgethomasfitzpatrick.law.officelive.com	5/18/2010


	JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 45
		Candidate Name	Party	Website	File Date
		KRISTIN C. LARSON	Nonpartisan	electjudgelarson.law.officelive.com	5/18/2010

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE - SUPREME COURT 2

HELEN MEYER
GREG WERSAL\

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE - SUPREME COURT 6

ALAN C. PAGE
TIM TINGELSTAD

JUDGE - COURT OF APPEALS 2

ROXANN KLUGMAN
RANDOLPH W. PETERSON

,JUDGE - COURT OF APPEALS 14

DAN GRIFFITH
LARRY STAUBER JR

JUDGE -1ST DISTRICT COURT 8

STEPHEN ALLAN BAKER
LARRY CLARK

JUDGE -2ND DISTRICT COURT 16

GLORIA E. BOGEN
JOHN G. DILLON
GREG M. GAFFANEY
MARK IRELAND
STEPHEN C. KELLY
ED MATTHEWS
TREVOR STEWART OLIVER
TOM PLUNKETT ,Nonpartisan
MATTHEW LAWSON THORNTON

JUDGE -6TH DISTRICT COURT 11

RUSS CONROW
TIMOTHY A. COSTLEY
MIKE CUZZO ,Nonpartisan
JUHL HALVORSON
JOHN STEVEN LIND
TIM LITTLE
JAMES ROSS
LAWRENCE W. ULANOWSKI

JUDGE -8TH DISTRICT COURT 1

GLEN M (JAKE) JACOBSEN
KATHRYN SMITH

JUDGE -9TH DISTRICT COURT 16

PAUL T. BENSHOOF
DARRELL CARTER

JUDGE -9TH DISTRICT COURT 17

TERRANCE C. HOLTER
PAUL E. RASMUSSEN

JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 3

LAURETTE S. ARNOLD
HELEN R. BROSNAHAN
PATRICIA (ZENNER) BURCHILL
BRIDGID E. DOWDAL
PORTIA HAMPTON-FLOWERS
DAVID L. HANSON
MIMI HASSELBALCH
SHERIDAN KEITH HAWLEY
JOHN E. (JACK) HENNEN
DAWN R. HENNESSY
TAD JUDE ,Nonpartisan
BRIAN LECLAIR
PETE MARKER
CATHERINE ANN MCENROE
CATHERINE (KATE) MCPHERSON
KELLEY MALONE O'NEILL
WM. CHRISTOPHER PENWELL
JENNIFER SANTORO BOVITZ
MARY E. SMITS
RICHARD STEBBINS
ROBERT "BOB" STEIGAUF
F. JOSEPH TAYLOR
YAMY VANG
LINDY T. YOKANOVICH

JUDGE -10TH DISTRICT COURT 27

JOHN DEHEN
MICHAEL ROITH

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot

TellMyPolitician

SharonAnderson,BernicePeterson82-1292TaxFight

2010-07-11T11:33:00.001-07:00

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

SharonAnderson,BernicePeterson82-1292TaxFight

View more documents from Sharon Anderson.

Challenged! Court using 'feelings' as case decider

2010-07-11T05:55:00.000-07:00

Challenged! Court using 'feelings' as case decider

FAITH UNDER FIRE
Challenged! Court using 'feelings' as case decider
Supremes never adopted 'offense' as sufficient standing for claim
Posted: July 10, 201010:25 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2010 WorldNetDaily

U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb

The arguments from the ACLJ came in an appeal pending before the 7th Circuit of a decision by U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb of Wisconsin, who decided the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.

Crabb's decision came in a case filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based atheist and agnostic group that challenged the constitutionality of a 1988 federal law.

The law gives the president the authority to designate the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer.

Crabb, appointed to the court in 1979 by President Carter, determined the statute violates the First Amendment's establishment clause, which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

A district judge's decision that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional is being challenged on the argument, submitted in friend-of-the-court briefs to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that never before has any court decided that "hurt feelings" are grounds for making a claim.
"The district court in this case embraced an entirely novel – and improper – basis for standing: hurt feelings," said the brief submitted by the American Center for Law and Justice. "Never has the Supreme Court endorsed anything like such a wide-open concept of access to federal adjudication.
"Indeed, to the extent the Supreme Court has addressed the issue at all, it has firmly repudiated such limitless theories of Article III standing," the brief continued.
U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb
The arguments from the ACLJ came in an appeal pending before the 7th Circuit of a decision by U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb of Wisconsin, who decided the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.
Crabb's decision came in a case filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based atheist and agnostic group that challenged the constitutionality of a 1988 federal law.
The law gives the president the authority to designate the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer.
Crabb, appointed to the court in 1979 by President Carter, determined the statute violates the First Amendment's establishment clause, which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Get the new edition of a 100-year-old treasure that documents the nation's true religious heritage
In her opinion, Crabb wrote that in her view of case law, "government involvement in prayer may be consistent with the establishment clause when the government's conduct serves a significant secular purpose and is not a 'call for religious action on the part of citizens.'"
But she wrote that the National Day

Tryanny of the Bench unabated 30 yrs

2010-07-10T06:44:00.000-07:00

http://digg.com/d31VjFh?t

30 yrs later Judicial Tryanny alive

The Tyranny of the Bench

Murray N. Rothbard

04/1978

One of the fatal flaws in the concept of “limited” government is the judiciary. Endowed with the compulsory monopoly of the vital power of deciding disputes, of ultimately deciding who can wield force and how much can be wielded, the government judiciary sits as an unchecked and unlimited tyrant. Pledged to [...]

The Tyranny of the Bench

July 10, 2010

by Harold

Murray N. Rothbard

04/1978

Pledged to preside over the rule of law, law that is supposed to apply to everyman, the judges themselves are yet above the law and free from its sanctions and limitations. When clothed in the robes of his office, the judge can do no legal wrong and is therefore immune from the law itself.

There is a crucial catch-22 in this grisly situation. For if anyone would like to argue against this arrangement, he can do so – in our archist system – only before judges who themselves are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. It is up to government judges to rule on whether government judges are immune from the law. How do you think they would decide? Well, how do you think a group of economists would decide on the question of whether economists should be immune? Or any other group or profession?

The rest of the story …..

Justice in Minnesota Conference Call Featuring Judicial Candidates

2010-06-30T03:26:00.000-07:00

Justice in Minnesota Conference Call Featuring Judicial Candidates

Host Name:
Minnesota Tea Party Patriots
Show Name:
Justice in Minnesota Conference Call Featuring Judicial Candidates
Date / Length:
6/27/2010 7:00 PM - 2 hrs 1 min
Length:
2 hrs 1 min
Description:h:112443 s:1120653
http://www.justiceinmn.com/Greg Wersal, Tim Tinglestad, & Dan Griffith, & guests 6:55 PM: Pre-Conf. Call Greetings & Announcements. Pre-Conf. Moderator: Dorothy Fleming 7:05 PM: Start. Moderator: George Wu, SD41, CD3 Co-Moderator: Candace Oathout, SD45 Chair, CD's 3 & 51. Greg Wersal, endorsed GOP, CPMN, & LP Judicial Candidate for 2nd seat, MN Supreme Court 2. Tim Tinglestad, endorsed GOP & CPMN Judicial Candidate for 6th seat, MN Supreme Court 3. Dan Griffith, endorsed GOP & CPMN Judicial Candidate for 14th seat, Court of Appeals 4. Judicial Reform & Accountability update: Dale Nathan. 5. Q & A: Callers and Judicial Candidates: 30 seconds, please. Weekly Conf. Calls ongoing: Sunday nites: 7 - 8 pm: Countdown Clock: 19 weekends left to Election Day, Nov. 2, 2010. 7. Next Conf. Call announcement: Note: No Conf Call, Sun., July 4th. Happy 4th of July, Folks! Hence, July 11th.... 8:00 pm: 8. Adjournment. 8:01 pm: 9. Post Conf. Call forum/discussion/Q & A. Moderator: Joe Salmon, SD56 Chair, Woodbury, MN Co-Moderator: Steve Ellenwood, SD56. 10: No time restraints, no time limits during Post Conf. Call forum for Callers and Judicial Candidates. Notes: 1. Suggestion: multi-task during Conf. Call. Ie: text, email, click on websites, research, schedule/plan activities. 2. Honor System:a) *6 Mute; *6 Unmute. Be courteous to all other callers; background noises from your phone is TOTALLY unnecessary and prevents other callers from enjoying the Conf. Call. b) If you wish to talk, announce yourself: Name and location, please. georgewu@comcast.net: email me new names and addresses for CC invitations. C: 612-387-9399 or Text me. Call the conference directly: Dial-in Number: 1-270-696-2525 (East Coast) Access Code: 501618
expand

Abolish Judicial Immunity

2010-06-27T10:24:00.000-07:00

Sharon4Anderson http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj7n2/cj7n2-13.pdf?utm_source=sendible&utm_medium=feed
http://p2tre.emv3.com/HSM?a=E9X7Cqk-fKTv8SA9MKJN7rDnGHxMLqs 'Finest video ever produced' about the USA 7 minutes ago via web from Northwestern Precinct, St. Paul

Delete

June 25th: Happy Birthday TAC! – Tenth Amendment Center

2010-06-25T04:59:00.000-07:00

June 25th: Happy Birthday TAC! – Tenth Amendment Center

2009-03-07 TrilogyImpeach1992

2010-06-17T09:37:00.000-07:00

BlogTalkRadio Share Show Widget

2010-06-13T06:22:00.001-07:00

2010-05-30T09:26:00.001-07:00

Fraud by an officer of the court judges

View more documents from Sharon Anderson.

USA Country or Corporation?

2010-05-27T08:00:00.000-07:00

The United States Isn't a Country
— It's a Corporation!
by Lisa Guliani

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
— Preamble of the original "organic" Constitution
"We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
— Excerpted from the Declaration of Independence of the original thirteen united states of America, July 4, 1776
Fourth of July 2002 has come and gone, and Americans honored the holiday with a renewed patriotic fervor that reminded me of the Bicentennial celebrations of 1976. As is customary, traditional fireworks displays took center stage and scores of people turned out to witness the dazzling show in the summer sky. With mixed feelings, I sat with friends on a crowded Pennsylvania sidewalk beneath a glittering, mesmerizing explosion of color, pondering the keen sense of sadness and betrayal that overwhelmed my spirit. Looking around at the huge crowds gathered for the annual events, I thought silently, "We are not free." In truth, we have not been a free people for a very long time.
We celebrate this day in honor of our "independence". We call ourselves a free people in a land of liberty. Our anthems proudly sing the praises of this nation, and we raise our voices, wave our flags and join in song — but how many Americans realize they are not free? This is a myth perpetuated by the powers-that-be in order to avoid any major civil unrest, and to keep us all living under the thumb of a militaristic corporate Big Brother within the illusions that have been created for us. The truth of the matter is this: what freedom has not been stolen from us, we have surrendered willingly through our silence and ignorance. As Americans, most of us have no idea how our freedoms are maintained — or lost. Apparently, our ancestors didn't have a good grasp of this either. It is sad, but it is also very true.
Don't point to that beloved parchment, the Constitution, as a symbol of your enduring freedom. It is representative of a form of government which seemingly no longer exists in this country today. The Constitution has been thrown out the window, the Republic shoved aside and replaced with a democracy. The thing is; most people in this country remain unaware that this is so because they simply do not know the truth — what lies beyond the myths. Your so-called government is not going to tell you, either.
To even begin to understand what has happened to the Republic, we must look backward in time to the period following the Civil War. We must go back to the year 1871, which was the beginning of the decline of the Republic. When we examine what happened during that time in our history, we begin to piece together this troubling, perplexing puzzle that is "America" — only then should we answer as to whether we are indeed a "free" people or not.
So, let's roll backward into the past for a moment. It is time we learned what they didn't teach us in school. It is far more interesting than what they DID tell us. I think you'll stay awake for this lesson.

The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.
What??? How could they do that? Moreover, WHY would they do that? To explain, let's look at the circumstances of those days. The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated "front" for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.
The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.
In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:
"The Constitution for the united states of America".
The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.
Capitalization — an insignificant change? Not when one is referring to the context of a legal document, it isn't. Such minor alterations have had major impacts on each subsequent generation born in this country. What the Congress did with the passage of the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia. The kind of government THEY created was a corporation. The new, altered Constitution serves as the constitution of the corporation, and not that of America. Think about that for a moment.
Incidentally, this corporate constitution does not benefit the Republic. It serves only to benefit the corporation. It does nothing good for you or me — and it operates outside of the original Constitution. Instead of absolute rights guaranteed under the "organic" Constitution, we now have "relative" rights or privileges. One example of this is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has been transformed under corporate government policy into a "privilege" which we must be licensed to engage in. This operates outside of the original Constitution.
So, Congress committed TREASON against the People, who were considered Sovereign under the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. When we consider the word "Sovereign," we must think about what the word means.
According to Webster's Dictionary, "sovereign" is defined as: 1. chief or highest; supreme. 2. Supreme in power, superior in position to all others. 3. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other, possessing or entitled to, original and independent authority or jurisdiction.
In other words, our government was created by and for "sovereigns" — the free citizens who were deemed the highest authority. Only the People can be sovereign — remember that. Government cannot be sovereign. We can also look to the Declaration of Independence, where we read: "government is subject to the consent of the governed" — that's supposed to be us, the sovereigns. Do you feel like a sovereign nowadays? I don't.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a constitutional historian to figure out that this is not what is happening in our country today. Government in these times is NOT subject to the consent of the governed. Rather, the governed are subject to the whim and greed of the corporation, which has stretched its tentacles beyond the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia — encroaching into every state of the Republic. Mind you, the corporation has NO jurisdiction outside of the District of Columbia. THEY just want you to think it does.
You see, you are presumed to know the law. This is ironic because as a people, we are taught basically nothing about the law in school. We are made to memorize obscure factoids and paragraphs here and there, such as the Preamble, and they gloss over the Bill of Rights. But we are not told about the law. Nor do our corporate government schools delve into the Constitution in any great depth. After all, they were put into place to indoctrinate and dumb down the masses — not to teach us anything. We were not told that we were sold-out to foreign interests and made beneficiaries of the debt incurred by Congress to the international bankers. For generations, American citizens have had the bulk of their earnings confiscated to pay on a massive debt that they, as a People, did not incur. There are many, many things the People have not been told. How do you feel about being made a beneficiary of somebody else's massive debt without your knowledge or consent? Are we gonna keep going along with this??
When you hear some individuals say that the Constitution is null and void, think about how our government has transformed over time from a municipal or service-oriented entity to a corporate or profit-oriented entity. We are living under the myth that this is lawful, but it is not. We are being ruled by a "de facto," or unlawful, form of government — the corporate body of the death-mongers — The Controllers.
With the passage of the Act of 1871, a series of subtle and overt deceptions were set in motion — all in conjunction and collusion with the Congress, who knowingly and deliberately sold the People down the river. Did they tell you this in government school? I doubt it. They were too busy drumming the fictional version of history into your brain — and mine. By failing to disclose what THEY did to the American People, the people became ignorant of what was happening. Over time, the Republic took it on the chin to the point of a knockdown. With the surrender of their gold in 1933, the People essentially surrendered their law. I don't suppose you were taught THAT in school either. That's because our REAL history is hidden from us. This is the way Roman Civil Law works — and our form of governance today is based upon Roman Civil Law and Admiralty/Maritime Law — better known as the "Divine Right of Kings" and "Law of the Seas", respectively. This explains a lot. Roman Civil Law was fully established in the original colonies even before our nation began and is also known as private international law.
The government which was created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 operates under Private International Law, and not Common Law, which was the law of the Constitutional Republic. This is very important to note since it impacts all Americans in concrete ways. You must recognize that private international law is only applicable within the District of Columbia and NOT in the other states of the Union. The various arms of the corporation are known as "departments" such as the Judiciary, Justice and Treasury. You recognize those names? Yes, you do! But they are not what you assume them to be. These "departments" all belong to the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. They do NOT belong to you and me under the corporate constitution and its various amendments that operate outside of the Constitutional Republic.
I refer you to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation. Realize, too, that the corporation is not a separate and distinct entity from the government. It IS the government. YOUR government. This is extremely important. I refer to this as the "corporate empire of the UNITED STATES," which operates under Roman Civil Law outside of the Constitution. How do you like being ruled by a cheesy, sleazy corporation? You'll ask your Congressperson about this, you say? HA!!
Congress is fully aware of this deception. You must be made aware that the members of Congress do NOT work for you and me. Rather, they work for the Corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Is this really any surprise to you? This is why we can't get them to do anything on our behalf or to answer to us — as in the case with the illegal income tax — among many other things. Contrary to popular belief, they are NOT our civil servants. They do NOT work for us. They are the servants of the corporate government and carry out its bidding. Period.
The great number of committees and sub-committees that the Congress has created all work together like a multi-headed monster to oversee the various corporate "departments." And, you should know that every single one of these that operates outside the District of Columbia is in violation of the law. The corporate government of the UNITED STATES has no jurisdiction or authority in ANY state of the Republic beyond the District of Columbia. Let this sink into your brain for a minute. Ask yourself, "Could this deception REALLY have occurred without the full knowledge and complicity of the Congress?" Do you think it happened by accident? You are deceiving yourself if you do. There are no accidents or coincidences. It is time to confront the truth and awaken from ignorance.
Your legislators will not apprise you of this information. You are presumed to know the law. THEY know you don't know the law, or your history for that matter, because this information has not been taught to you. No concerted effort has been made to inform you. As a Sovereign, you are entitled to full disclosure of the facts. As a slave, you are entitled to nothing other than what the corporation decides to "give" you — at a price. Be wary of accepting so-called "benefits" of the corporation of the UNITED STATES. Aren't you enslaved enough already?
I said (above) that you are presumed to know the law. Still, it matters not if you don't in the eyes of the corporation. Ignorance of the law is not considered an excuse. It is your responsibility and your obligation as an American to learn about the law and how it applies to you. THEY count on the fact that most people are too uninterested or distracted or lazy to do so. The People have been mentally conditioned to allow the alleged government to do their thinking for them. We need to turn that around if we are to save our Republic before it is too late.
The UNITED STATES government is basically a corporate instrument of the international bankers. This means YOU are owned by the corporation from birth to death. The corporate UNITED STATES also holds ownership of all your assets, your property, and even your children. Does this sound untrue? Think long and hard about all those bills you pay, all those various taxes and fines and licenses you must pay for. Yes, they've got you by the pockets. Actually, they've had you by the ass for as long as you've been alive. In your heart, you know it's true. Don't believe any of this? Read up on the 14th Amendment. Check out how "free" you really are.
With the Act of 1871 and subsequent legislation such as the purportedly ratified 14th Amendment, our once-great nation of Sovereigns has been subverted from a Republic to a democracy. As is the case under Roman Civil Law, our ignorance of the facts has led to our silence. Our silence has been construed as our consent to become beneficiaries of a debt we did not incur. The Sovereign People have been deceived for hundreds of years into thinking they remain free and independent, when in actuality we continue to be slaves and servants of the corporation.
Treason was committed against the People in 1871 by the Congress. This could have been corrected through the decades by some honest men (assuming there were some), but it was not, mainly due to lust for money and power. Nothing new there. Are we to forgive and justify this crime against the People? You have lost more freedom than you may realize due to corporate infiltration of the so-called government. We will lose more unless we turn away from a democracy that is the direct road to disaster — and restore our Constitutional Republic.
In an upcoming article, we'll take a closer look at the purportedly ratified 14th Amendment and how we became "property" of the corporation and enslaved by our silence.
I am saddened to think about the brave men and women who were killed in all the wars and conflicts instigated by the Controllers. These courageous souls fought for the preservation of ideals they believed to be true — not for the likes of a corporation. Do you believe that any one of the individuals who have been killed as a result of war would have willingly fought if they knew the full truth? Do you think one person would have laid down his life for a corporation? I think not. If the People had known long ago to what extent their trust had been betrayed, I wonder how long it would have taken for another Revolution. What we need is a Revolution in THOUGHT. We change our thinking and we change our world.

Will we ever restore the Republic? That is a question I cannot answer yet. I hope, and most of all — pray — that WE, the Sovereign People, will work together in a spirit of cooperation to make it happen in this lifetime. I know I will give it my best shot — come what may. Our children deserve their rightful legacy — the liberty our ancestors fought so hard to give to us. Will we remain silent telling ourselves we are free, and perpetuate the MYTH? Or, do we stand as One Sovereign People, and take back what has been stolen from the house of our Republic?
Something to think about — it's called freedom.

My heartfelt thanks goes out to the following people for their gracious and generous assistance in researching this subject: Ken S. of American Revolution II Online News, Paul Walker of RMN News, Bob Taft, Stanooch, and Willy Whitten — true Patriots, one and all.

Further reading:
US CODE: Title 28,3002. Definitions
(15) "United States" means —
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
Thomas J. DiLorenzo: Truth About the 14th Amendment
Kirwan: FEMA — The Plan to Kill America
Control of Government
Ed Lewis: Who's the boss in America?
TREASON — A NOTICE TO PUBLIC SERVANTS

If we are stupid enough to surrender our freedom to a bunch of lousy international bankers, then we deserve to live in bondage. — Lisa Guliani

A copy of the Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM. Details here.
Liberty and Democracy Serendipity Home Page

Sen.Ann Rest SF70_Disenfranchise_MN Voters_Judges

2010-04-27T08:49:00.000-07:00

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

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,

NCSL Executive Committee Task Force

Senator Ann H. Rest -- State Senate District 45: Crystal, Golden ...

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

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=MN+Senate+Rules+Committee&btnG=Google+Search&fp=5b57491c5d325d73

Click here: Judicial retention election bill is dropped StarTribune.com

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/92148114.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUsr

Judicial retention election bill is dropped

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

By PAT DOYLE, Star Tribune

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

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

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

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

Judicial Retention Cancelled HF224_Simon Says

2010-04-26T04:22:00.000-07:00

The Minnesota House of Representatives provides live, unedited webcast television coverage of all floor sessions, as well as select committee hearings and press conferences. All programming is also archived. Minnesota House television webcast schedules and links to the live webcasts can be found at: www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/schedule.asp

******************************

Monday, April 26

MEETING CANCELED *
9:30 a.m. - (live) House Civil Justice Committee
Agenda: HF224 (Simon) Retention elections for judges established, judicial performance commission created, and constitutional amendment proposed; HF2060 (Sterner) Contract cancellations regulated and insurance claims for residential roofing goods and services regulated; HF3786 (Kulick Jackson) Private transfer fees prohibited.
* At the request of the author of HF224, the hearing of the House Committee on Civil Justice has been canceled and the provisions of HF224 will not be taken up by any committee or body of the legislature this session.

12 p.m. - (live) House floor session

30 minutes after the House floor session or 1 p.m., whichever is later - (live) House Health Care and Human Services Finance Division
Agenda: HF2614 (Huntley) Intensive care management program established for medical assistance enrollees, funding reduced for the medical assistance program, request for proposals required, report required, and money appropriated. Nonpartisan walk-through of House supplemental health and human services budget bill.

******************************

Minnesota House audio and video archives can be found at: www.house.leg.state.mn.us/audio/default.asp

__._,_.___

Reply to sender Reply to group Reply via web post Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (2)

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group

MN-POLITICS-ANNOUNCE is sponsored by http://E-Democracy.Org
To receive similar messages, e-mail: mn-politics-announce-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To submit announcements: mn-politics-announce@yahoogroups.com
To discuss: mn-politics-discuss@yahoogroups.com

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

__,_._,___

Sharon4Judge

LawLessAmerica re: William Windsor

When judges blunder, the remedy is impeachment

IN RE CANDIDACIES OF SCARRELLA

221 N.W.2d 562 (1974)

In re Candidacies of Sharon L. SCARRELLA, et al., for Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court.

No. 45250.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

August 6, 1974.

JudicialReform_Windsor_LawlessAmerica

Latest News

Minnesota LawyerNews Update: Time to shake up judicial elections?

Judge Guilty Of DUI Takes Breath Tests Before Work « CBS Baltimore

MNCourtVideo's 2010

MINNESOTA JUDICIAL REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY: Our Minnesota "Justice" System and the Gildea Article

Republican Primary_TonySutton_Sharon4MNAG

Mashak Commentary_MN Justice Gildea

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Our Minnesota "Justice" System and the Gildea Article

New Minnesota chief justice says court funding is concern

SharonAnderson,BernicePeterson82-1292TaxFight

Challenged! Court using 'feelings' as case decider

Tryanny of the Bench unabated 30 yrs

The Tyranny of the Bench

Justice in Minnesota Conference Call Featuring Judicial Candidates

Abolish Judicial Immunity

June 25th: Happy Birthday TAC! – Tenth Amendment Center

2009-03-07 TrilogyImpeach1992

BlogTalkRadio Share Show Widget

USA Country or Corporation?

Sen.Ann Rest SF70_Disenfranchise_MN Voters_Judges

Judicial retention election bill is dropped

It is not over until the fat lady sings

UNACCOUNTABLE IS UNACCEPTABLE

Sharon4Anderson

Judicial Retention Cancelled HF224_Simon Says

Minnesota Lawyer
News Update: Time to shake up judicial elections?