Another MN Rep signs onto our bill

I received this email from Nancy Lazaryan from MN who is charging forward against a corrupt Judiciary along with her like-minded compatriots. I find it very interesting and the sort of thing that needs to be supported and that should be used to encourage others to do in their States and communities.

UR

After spending ALL week at the state capital filming our giving notices to the legislators, governor and attorney general...and asking for meetings...

We finished the week by having "pink slips" delivered to all the members of the House and the Senate....8 1/2" x 11" red cards that Noticed the Legislators of their violation of their oaths of office... by failing to uphold the state and federal constitutions in their actions of failing to support H.F. 1261 and S.F. 2079.

We also served the Minnesota Supreme court with a Petition for Writ of Mandamus directed to the chief judges of the district court, ordering that we have access to our grand juries.

ALL WEEK LONG, the police were ALL over us when we were filming, telling us to stop, grabbing the microphone and blocking the camera.

WE KEPT FILMING.  The videos from the week are currently being loaded onto the web...We'll get the link to you.

At one point on Friday, while being harassed by the police, the crew and I went into the newsroom of the Pioneer Press newspaper (in the basement of the capital).  Interesting, how the harassment "settled down" when the reporter asked to see all of our film footage.

Today, one of the Justices of the MN Supreme Court left me a voice mail. He had previously agreed to come on our TV program, but felt that it was necessary that all the "issues" surrounding the Board on Judicial Standards "play out" before he comes on the program. 

H.F.1261 and S.F. 2079 demand that the "Judicial Board" be under control of the PEOPLE, not the Supreme Court.

...the judge wants this to "play out"...we're not playing.

THE GOOD NEWS is that one of the Citizens that "went petitioning" with us just got an email from his state representative. 

His rep. signed unto the bill.

More heat coming this week....

Nancy

 

Organized Crime in the Minnesota Judiciary

We are publishing an expose about corruption in the Minnesota courts, and among the collaborating legislature. We are going to discuss specific incidents of this corruption and offer direction to the solution as well. In the process, we are going to make specific claims that some have been wrongly convicted and incarcerated (or censured, fined and otherwise vilified).

The first case we address is a claim of racism (and conniving corruption) against the sitting Chief Judge in Hennepin County Minnesota, Lucy Weiland. You may read it at http://www.uncleraisin.com/UR/MN/MN01.asp. We feel it necessary to clearly, and up front, make our position known regarding racism. First, we are not racists. We do not recognize that color, nationality or creed plays any part in a person's true guilt. If there is a just law and a person violates it, they are guilty, period. If they have not, they are innocent, period.

At the root of racism is the concept of evolution. Evolution, in basic terms, affords the basis of thought that the races come from different evolutionary processes. It is the fundamental belief at UncleRaisin.com that all races descend from a common ancestral origin - Adam and Eve in particular - and were created by divine action. From that premise, we conclude that all people, regardless of ancestral heritage, are brethren and will answer to the same Judge of the universe - Jehovah God.

Please visit and read at http://www.uncleraisin.com/UR/MN/MN01.asp

Best Regards, Uncle Raisin Editor

Why Should We Trust The Police?

Minnesota

My mother's father-in-law was a Minneapolis cop in the 40s through the 60s and, after he retired, spoke to her of a code between policemen. This code required one policeman to help shield another policeman from consequences for wrong actions. Policing the public has become an "us vs. them" proposition, which has bred defensiveness on both sides.

In Bolingbrook, IL there is now a question whether or not the police are (or were) covering for Drew Peterson, who is a suspect in the disappearance (and presumed murder) of his 4^th wife. According to AP writer Don Babwin, "Eighteen times in two years, Bolingbrook police were called to fellow officer Drew Peterson's home because of trouble between husband and wife. But Peterson's wife could never get authorities to arrest him. In fact, she was the only one ever charged." http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071130/D8T7PDKO1.html

Does any thinking person not find it believable that there is "a wink and nod" from one policeman to another? This fraternity of people who face danger and the potential for harm every day; those who must interpose among the most dangerous gangs of our area, and who must be in a heightened state of awareness for every traffic stop, have a bond that few can understand or appreciate. They are brethren; and we all know that their blood is thicker than water as if they were born of the same womb. We are not their brethren, so the tendency is that we become the necessary element to their existence, and not the focus and purpose for it.

I don't want to vilify all cops - certainly not! In fact, it is really only a few, who garner the negative headlines and notoriety, which bring this sense of distrust from the people at large. That notwithstanding, it is and always will be "us vs. them" and, as a consequence, will foster distrust that comes with the authority and power of having a badge and a gun.

Considering the police are the front end of the prosecution of crime, could it be this "us vs. them" attitude spills into the Prosecutor's office and then into the courts? Ideally and in original intent, there is suppose to be a presumption of innocence and neutrality among law enforcement, from police to courts; but is this presumption and neutrality there? That is the question we are fundamentally asking in this series of articles. Is it really unreasonable to suggest the possibility that the police frustration with plea deals, slaps on the wrist punishment, and outright (inexplicable) acquittals, that there is a joining of the ranks of the "us" among prosecutors and judges? Perhaps that takes an accurate peek into the psychology of the situation, but is it relevant? Not really. We expect those sworn to uphold the law to do just that - uphold the law, not make laws to suit their own purposes. The only solution is to be clear and forceful with a call to do what is right, and what is LAWFUL. Until the public makes that clear call, there will be nothing more than what we've come to know - us vs. them.