Severson Ltr Lazaryan09 03

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

Severson Ltr Lazaryan09 03

View more documents from Sharon Anderson. (tags: seversonnancy mnlegislaturedan)

Bill Dahn_Constitution_MNHS_Archives_FoodShelf Video's

For public education, I Bill Dahn Homegrown guy age 50 + will keep trying to help others with Housing, as My Home Illegally "taken" without compensation,Health Concerns, Voluntering at Food Shelf and History Records.

KSTP-TV Archive : MNHS.ORG

U.S. Constitution 4th Amendment is Dead in America

and to My Mentor,Minister, Pastor Peter

Paster Peter Rodenwald Robbd Thanksgiving Day

Paster Peter Rodenwald's Church Robbed Thanksgiving Day

JESUS Delivers

kare11.com Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN Video Player

Paster Peter Rodewald mn - Google Search

Bail All of us Out? Thank You for Visiting

256 Morton Lis Pendens 9

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

256 Morton Lis Pendens 9

View more documents from Sharon Anderson.

NancyLazaryan_Grand Jury_Wild v.Otis

Putting MN Legislators On Notice To Obey Their Oath of Office Part 1

Putting MN Legislato... 55:18 -

Secretary-Of-State-0... 15:29 -

St-Paul-Council-Meet... 12:54 -

Sunday, February 15, 2009

MEMORANDUM ON THE GRAND JURY

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

Nancy Lazaryan said...

MEMORANDUM ON THE GRAND JURY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 2009
by Nancy Lazaryan


To: Justice Paul Anderson, Judge Debra Hedlund, Judge James Dehn, Judge Jack Nordby
cc: David Orrick of the Pioneer Press, Representative Dan Severson

Greetings,

To the members of the Minnesota Judicial Branch, I have been in contact with you on the telephone about my concern over the restricted access to our Grand Jury.

The following is my research on the subject, as well as the case law that sets forth the right and duty of a judge to convene a Grand Jury open or special venire.

Introduction

Citizens from across the state of Minnesota have repeatedly attempted to bring evidence of corruption of public officials directly to their Grand Juries. Members of the Minnesota Judicial Branch have consistently blocked access by the Citizens to the Grand Jury. The names of the Grand Jury forepersons have been withheld from the Citizens.

In November of 2007, an indictment from the Grand Jury in Ramsey County came down that contained the signature of the Grand Jury foreperson.

Christina Becher, foreperson for the Ramsey County grand jury was sent a Criminal Complaint concerning crimes done against a Citizen that is on active military duty. Christina Becher gave the Complaint to Charles Balck of the Ramsey County attorney’s office. Instead of properly handling the matter, by contacting the office of the Minnesota Attorney General, Mr. Balck gave the Complaint to Chief Judge Gregg Johnson of the Ramsey County district court.

Evidence of felonies being committed by certain judges in the Ramsey county district court were contained in the package sent to the Jury foreperson. Then Chief Judge Gregg Johnson buried the Complaint.

Mr. Balck, by his actions of giving the Complaint to the Chief Judge of the Ramsey County district court, compromised any secrecy the Grand Jury would have in investigating the public officials of Ramsey County for their alleged criminal activity.

The Complaint sent to Christina Becher is one of MANY complaints that the Citizens have, supported by evidence, of corruption of public officials in every branch of government.


The Minnesota Constitution

In my telephone discussions with the above named judicial officers, I addressed the issue of whether the Grand Judy is a constitutional right the People secured unto themselves, or a civil right granted by government. I also indicated to you that the Minnesota constitution was unlawfully amended to remove the Grand Jury as a constitutionally secured right.

The distinction between a constitutional right and a civil right is pivotal. A right secured by our constitution is a right that a constitutional officer has the duty to defend, pursuant to his or her oath of office. A civil right is one “granted” by the government and controlled by the government and is akin to a privilege.

The People of Minnesota set forth in our original constitution that the Grand Jury was a right that we secured unto ourselves.

In 1868 a bill was passed to amend the constitution to remove the Grand Jury. The language of the bill is as follows:

“No person for the same offense shall be put twice in jeopardy of punishment, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties except for capital offenses where the proof is evident or the presumption great; and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.”

“The ballots used at said election by those voting in favor of said amendment shall have written or printed thereon the following words, “against the grand jury;” and the ballots used at said election by those voting against the amendment shall have written or printed thereon the following words, “for the grand jury.”

When brought to the People in 1868, the amendment to the constitution was overwhelming defeated with two-thirds of those voting on the amendment declaring the Grand Jury would remain in the constitution.

A commentary on the amendments to the state constitution speaks to the failure of this amendment to pass in 1868, stating, “As early as 1868 an amendment was made to abolish the requirement of an indictment or presentment of a grand jury as a condition precedent to a trial for felony. The peculiar form in which the question was presented to the voters probably had much to do with the defeat of the amendment.”

In 1903 another bill to amend the state constitution was passed. The language of the bill is as follows:

“No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law, and no person for the same offense shall be put twice in jeopardy of punishment, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. All persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great; and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require.”

“The ballots used at said elections on said amendment shall have printed on them “Amendment to Section Seven (7) of Article One (1) of the Constitution providing for criminal prosecutions and the rights of the accused.” “Yes—No,” and each elector voting on said amendment shall place a cross mark thus (X) in a space left opposite either the word “Yes” or the word “No” and shall be counted for or against the proposition in accordance with the expressed will of the elector as provided by the election laws of the state.”


Proper Notice to Amend the Constitution

In my research I repeatedly attempted to find the actual ballots for constitutional amendments that were sent to the People. Accordingly, I submitted a written request under M.S. Chap. 13 for the ballots to the Minnesota Secretary of State’s office. Said state office wrote back and told me they were only required to keep records for TWO YEARS, and that any other records had been sent to the Minnesota Historical Society.

I repeatedly attempted to find the ballots at the Minnesota Historical Society and was told each time, that the documents had not been sent to them. I am unable to find authorization within the statutes for the Minnesota Historical Society to maintain the records of the Secretary of State.
Currently, the secretary of state, with approval of the attorney general, prepares a short title to identify each amendment on the ballot. The ballot question specified by the legislature appears under the title. The text of the constitution as it would appear if amended is not printed on the ballot.

It is unclear as to WHAT the People actually voted on in 1903, as the ballots (ballots spanning over the course of 100 years) are mysteriously missing from the public record. It is clear that in 1868, when the People were noticed that the amendment would eliminate the Grand Jury from our constitution, the amendment was overwhelmingly defeated.

Valid argument can be made that the People in 1903 were frauded by the legislature to vote on an amendment to remove the Grand Jury from our constitution, as the amendment failed in 1868 when the People where noticed that the amendment would remove the Grand Jury. In 1903 the legislature specifically excluded this notice to the People.

Equally, argument can be raised that ALL ballots brought to the People that do not contain the original constitution and the proposed amendment to the constitution are null and void on their face as proper notice was not given to the People.


Denial of Access to The Grand Jury

For years I have been working with a group of state Citizens that have been attempting to bring evidence of the corruption of state officials before the Grand Jury. Members of the Minnesota Judicial Branch throughout the state, have blocked every attempt.

M.S. Sec. 628.61 (3) states: “The grand jury shall inquire into the willful and corrupt misconduct in office of all public officers in the county.”

The Minnesota Supreme Court case of Wild v. Otis proclaims the Citizen had the authority to “go around” the county attorney and present evidence directly to the Grand Jury.

Wild v. Otis was written in the same time period that a runaway Grand Jury brought indictments against corrupt public officials in Minneapolis. Curiously, it was in this same timeframe that the “purported” amendment to remove the Grand Jury from the constitution was “passed”.

With the purported removal of the Grand Jury from the state constitution, the Grand Jury was then enacted as a statutorial “right”, as such, a “civil” right granted (and controlled) by government.

Our government then put into place additional restraints to prevent access to the Grand Jury.
The legislature enacted M.S Sec. 480.056, 480.0591 and 480.59 that give the power to supercede statutes to the judicial branch. (Including the statutes concerning the Grand Jury.) The judicial branch wrote the rules concerning the Grand Jury. And, the judicial branch promulgated the Minnesota General Rules of Practice. Rule 1.02 of the M.R.G.P. states: “A judge may modify the application of these rules in any case to prevent manifest injustice.”

There has been a deliberate and methodical process set into place to keep the People from bringing evidence directly before their Grand Jury. Our republican form of government has been wrenched from us by an oligarchy that protects itself by denying the Citizens their Grand Jury and thereby the restraining our ability to expose and prosecute corruption within our government.


The intent of the People concerning the Grand Jury


To those members of our Judicial Branch, I direct you to the following Minnesota and federal court opinions:

The grand jury is not appointed for the prosecutor or for the court; it is appointed for the government and for the people; and both the government and the people are surely concerned, on the one hand, that all crimes, whether given or not given in charge to the grand jury and whether described or not described with professional skill, should receive the punishment which the law denounces, and on the other hand, that innocence, however strongly assailed by accusations drawn up in regular form, and by accusers marshaled in legal array, should, on full investigation, be securely protected. Hale v Henkel, 201 US 43, 50 L ed 652, 26 S Ct 370, disapproved on other grounds Murphy v Waterfront Com. of New York Harbor, 378 US 52, 12 L ed 2d 678, 84 S Ct 1594, motion to retax costs den 379 US 898, 13 L ed 2d 174, 85 S Ct 183.

The power and duty of the grand jury to investigate is original and complete, susceptible of being exercised upon its own motion and upon such knowledge as it may derive from any source which it may deem proper, and is not therefore dependent for its exertion upon the approval or disapproval of the court. People v Polk, 21 Ill 2d 594, 174 NE2d 393; State v Iosue, 220 Minn 283, 19 NW2d 735 citing United States v. Thompson, 251 U.S. 414, 40 S. Ct. 292, 64 L. ed. 342.

The duty of the grand jury is to inquire diligently into all offenses which come to its knowledge, whether from the court, the prosecuting officer, its own members, or from any source. People v Polk, 21 Ill 2d 594, 174 NE2d 393; State v Iosue, 220 Minn 283, 19 NW2d 735.

Provisions within the statutes for the grand jury are intended to secure the same protection that was provided by the common law, through the same kind of grand jury, which was traditional at common law, functioning substantially in the same way. Re Opinion to Governor, 62 RI 200, 4 A2d 487, 121 ALR 806.


Authority to summon Grand Jury open venire or special venire


Courts have taken the view that the authorization of a special grand jury may exist or function contemporaneously with the regular grand jury, and does not violate constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right to presentment or indictment by a grand jury for infamous crimes and felonies. People ex rel. Ferrill v Graydon, 333 Ill 429, 164 NE 832; State ex rel. Doerfler v Price, 101 Ohio St 50, 128 NE 173.

At common law the grand jurors could be summoned by open venire. Rogers v. People, 104 Colo 594, 94 P2d 453.

M. S. Sec. 628.41
Subd. 2.Venue.
If subject matter of the grand jury inquiry concerns activity, events, or other matters in more than one county, a grand jury may be selected, in reasonable proportion, from the counties in which the activity, events, or other matters occurred. A judge of the district court from any judicial district which includes one of the counties involved in an inquiry may convene a multicounty grand jury, without regard to judicial district boundaries, and may designate which county attorney or county attorneys shall attend upon the grand jury. The judge shall designate where a grand jury drawn from more than one county shall sit.

M.S. Sec 554.05 RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER LAW.
Nothing in this chapter limits or precludes any rights the moving party or responding party may have under any other constitutional, statutory, case, or common law, or rule.

M.S. Sec.599.04 COURTS TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE.
Every court of this state shall take judicial notice of the common law and statutes of every state, territory, and other jurisdiction of the United States.

M.S. Sec.609.015 SCOPE AND EFFECT.
Subdivision 1.Common law crimes abolished.
Common law crimes are abolished and no act or omission is a crime unless made so by this chapter or by other applicable statute, but this does not prevent the use of common law rules in the construction or interpretation of the provisions of this chapter or other statute. Crimes committed prior to September 1, 1963, are not affected thereby.
Subd. 2.Applicability.
Unless expressly stated otherwise, or the context otherwise requires, the provisions of this chapter also apply to crimes created by statute other than in this chapter.

M.S. Sec.611A.85 OTHER REMEDIES PRESERVED.
Sections 611A.80 to 611A.88 do not affect the right of any person to bring an action or use any remedy available under other law, including common law, to recover damages arising out of the use of the individual in prostitution or the coercion incident to the individual being used in prostitution; nor do sections 611A.80 to 611A.88 limit or restrict the liability of any person under other law.

“Under the provisions of section 7, page 186, Session Laws of 1891, the judge of the district court may order a grand jury to be drawn as provided by law for any county of his district. It is not necessary that such order be made by the court. Under the provisions of section 3961 of the Revised Statutes, the court or judge may order an open venire to issue for such number of persons as may be required to appear for service at any term of court in his district. State, v. Charles H. Barber 13, Idaho 65; 88 P. 418; 1907 Ida. LEXIS 14

We are unable to interpret the statutes as limiting the power of the court in calling a grand jury to the [***4] one mode provided in said paragraph. At common law, a court possesses the power of directing the summoning of a grand jury upon an open venire whenever, in the discretion of the court, it be found necessary. The statutes ought not, therefore, unless the legislative intention appears otherwise, to be so construed as to deprive the court of this power. Territory Of Arizona, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John Chartz, Supreme Court Of Arizona, 4 Ariz. 4; 32 P. 166; 1893 Ariz. LEXIS 2 citing Mackey v. People, 2 Colo. 13; Levy v. Wilson, 69 Cal. 105, 10 P. 272; Wilson v. State, 32 Tex. 112; White v. People, 81 Ill. 333; State v. Marsh, 13 Kan. 596

"Courts shall have power to procure juries by an open venire, according to the ancient practice, whenever it may happen that one is not in attendance for the trial of causes under the procedure prescribed by the act." See, also, Babcock v. People, 13 Colo. 515; Beery v. U.S., 2 Colo. 186; Mackey v. People, 2 Colo. 13; Wilson v. People, 3 Colo. 325.

It will be observed that the foregoing is only applicable "in case a grand jury is required," and that it is then selected from "the first panel." In counties like Las Animas the calling of a grand jury [***7] is discretionary with the judge. It often happens that when the first panel is drawn (as was the case here), or when the term opens, no grand jury [**456] has been ordered or decided upon. Hence we have held such acts directory only, and that grand jurors can nevertheless be summoned by open venire as under the common law. Rogers v. The People, Supreme Court of Colorado, 104 Colo. 594; 94 P.2d 453; 1939 Colo. LEXIS 317 citing Imboden v. People, 40 Colo. 142, 151, 90 Pac. 608.
CONCLUSION


Whether by the constitution or the statutes, it is the intent of the People that our Grand Jury investigates the misconduct of public officials.

It is my argument that the amendment to the state constitution that removed the Grand Jury was not validly passed. Accordingly, my assertion is the Grand Jury remains a remedy and right that the People in this state secured unto Ourselves.

Even if my argument fails, the enactment of the Grand Jury within our statutes should be construed as codification of the common law.

Under common law, a judge may summon a Grand Jury open or special venire, and appoint a separate county attorney to attend to the Grand Jury.

The constitutional officers that are reading this memorandum have the power to summon a Grand Jury to hear the evidence of corruption. As well, said officers are bound by their oaths to uphold the rights the People secured in our constitutions. The right of redress is one of these secured rights and presenting evidence of corruption to our Grand Jury is the remedy the People have set forth for redress of corruption.


PETITION


I, Nancy Lazaryan, in propria persona, in sumo jure, as a member of the Sovereign People of the state of Minnesota, under common law and the constitutions of the state of Minnesota and these united States and M. S. Sec. 628.41 Subd. 2 do hereby PETITION the constitutional judicial officers named in the afore attached Memorandum to:

1. Summon a Grand Jury, either open or special venire to hear the evidence of corruption of public officials in various counties within the state (including but not limited to the county said judge presides in), and


2. Appoint a special county attorney to attend said Grand Jury.



See attached Memorandum in support of Petition.

I hereby swear under oath that the information set forth in the afore Memorandum is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Further affiant sayeth not.


Date:__________________________


__________________________________
Nancy Lazaryan, in propria persona, in sumo jure
10734 West Lake Road
Rice, MN 56367


Notarized by:________________________________

7:42 PM

Please note Dr. Wild was a cancer researcher, 1974, 35 years denial "due process"

by corrupt courts, city and county attorneys http://www.ag.state.mn.us/

Wild v.Otis said...

God Bless you Nancy et al, Billdahn legally tried to convene Grand Jury, when his Home at 256 W. Morton was Illegally sold by Sheriff Fletcher,"taken 9/11, No money transferred, to Bank of America, sold by Lesbian Sheriff Lori Kratzke (FIAFEA&FIRREA)Dahn

Darwin Lookingbill covered up the Issues.
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/billdahn/wvotis.html
Webmaster for Dahn is Dynamite with evidence.

5:43 AM

Share this site:

SEE:
257 NW.2d, 361
State of Minnesota ex rel. J. J. WILD, M. D., Ph. D., Appellant,
v.
James C. OTIS, Esquire, Respondent.

State of Minnesota ex rel. J. J. WILD, M. D., Ph.D., Appellant,
v.
Oscar R KNUTSON, Esq., et al., Respondents.

Nos. 4689S, 46882.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Aug. 12, 1977.


Wild v. Otis, Remedies Proscutorial Inaction

William Paul Dahn
Homestead 256 Morton St. W
St. Paul, Mn.55107
Tel: (651) 453-1992
E-mail: eagledahn1@aol.com
Personal web page: http://hometown.aol.com/eagledahn/myhomepage/index.html

back to HOME page

257 NW.2d, 361 State of Minnesota ex rel. J. J. WILD, M. D., Ph. D., Appellant, v. James C. OTIS, Esquire, Respondent. State of Minnesota ex rel. J. J. WILD, M. D., Ph. D., Appellant, v. Oscar R KNUTSON, Esq., et al., Respondents. Nos. 4689S, 46882. Supreme Court of Minnesota. Aug. 12, 1977. Private citizen filed complaint against defendants alleging violation of criminal laws against conspiracy to commit a crime, corruptly influencing a legislator and violation of criminal law against perjury. The District Court, Hennepin and Ramsey Counties, Allen Oleisky, and Sidney P. Abramson, JJ., dismissed complaints, and private citizen appealed. The Supreme Court Sheran, C. J., hold that private citizen could not commence and maintain private prosecution for alleged violations of criminal law. Affirmed. 1. Indictment and Information Private citizen may not commence and maintain private prosecutions for alleged violation of the criminal law. 2. Judges Appellate judges must decide for themselves whether recusal be required in case in which party claims bias. 3. Judges In action wherein private citizen sought to commence and maintain private prosecutions for alleged violations of criminal law, judges determined that affidavit of prejudice filed by plaintiff against them it was without justification. M.S.A. §§ 609.176, subd. 2, 609.426, 609.48. 4. Grand Jury While citizen does not have a right to appear before a grand jury and persuade it to indict, he is free to attempt to get grand jury to take action and grand jury can permit aggrieved citizen to appear as witness for this pun~e. Rules Crim.Pros.; - Rules 2.02, 18.01, 18.03, 18.04, 27A M.S.A.; M.S.A. § 388.12. 5. Attorney General, District and Prosecuting Attorney and Mandamus Remedies available to an aggrieved citizen when prosecutor refuses to commence a prosecution include petitioning district court to appoint special prosecutor, appealing to the governor who then might order Attorney General to commence prosecution or seeking mandamus. Rules Crim.Pros.; - rules 2.02, 18.01, 18.03, 18.04, 27A M.S.A. M.S.A. § 8.01, 388.12. 6. Mandamus Problem with mandamus from standpoint of aggrieved citizen seeking to force prosecutor to commence a prosecution is that decision whether to initiate a particular prosecution is discretionary and therefore normally beyond The scope of mandamus. 7. District and Prosecuting Attorneys - Grand Jury Approach to prosecutions taken in Minnesota is to give grand jury and county attorney the authority to commence prosecutions and to provide safety-valve alternative for use in extreme cases of prosecutorial inaction. Rules Crim.Pros., rules 2.02, 18.01, 18.03, 18.04, 27A M.S.A.; M.S.A §§ 8.01, 388.12. 8. Indictment and Information To permit prosecutions by private citizens would entail grave danger of vindictive use of process of criminal law and could well lead to chaos in administration of criminal justice. Syllabus by the Court 1. Appellant judges must decide for themselves whether recusal is required in case in which party claims bias. 2. A private citizen has no authority to commence and maintain private prosecutions for alleged violations of criminal law. J. J. Wild, pro se. Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Richard B. Allyn, Sol. Gen., Thomas Jensen, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Briggs & Morgan and l Leonard J. Keyes, St. Paul, for respondents. Considered and decided by SHERAN, C.J., and YETKA, SCOTT, WINTON, and PREECE, JJ., without oral argument. SIIERAN, Chief Justice. [1] These consolidated appeals raise the issue of whether a private citizen may commence and maintain private prosecutions for alleged violations of the criminal law. We hold that he may not. In commencing the present action, plaintiff, J. J. Wild, required the county attorneys of Ramsey and Hennepin Counties to approve criminal complaints which he had prepared against defendants' but the respective county attorneys refused to prosecute. Plaintiff then tried unsuccessfully to persuade the grand juries of the two counties to issue indictments. Finally plaintiff filed complaints himself in an attempt as a private citizen to prosecute defendants. The complaint against defendants filed in Ramsey County alleged a violation of the criminal laws against conspiracy to commit a crime, Minn.St. §609.175, subd. 2, and corruptly influencing a legislator, §609.425. The complaint against defendant Mr. Justice James C. Olia in Hennepin County alleged a violation of the criminal law against perjury, §609.48. The complaints requested that the named defendant be convicted and sentenced according to law. The respective complaints were dismissed by the district courts of Ramsey and Hennepin Counties, and these appeals from judgments followed. [2] 1. A preliminary issue is presented by the affidavits of prejudice which plaintiff had filed against the special panel of justices considering this appeal. In Section 3.42, and the commentary here, of the A. B. A. Standards of Judicial Administration, Standards Relating to Appellate Court~ (Approved Draft, 1977), state the appropriate standards and procedures to be followed in the case of challenges such as this: "3.42 Disqualification of Judges. "A judge of an appellate court must be subject to disqualification ~ in the rules set forth in the Code of Judicial Conduct recommended by the American Bar Association, and in any case in which the judgment under review is one by a court in whose decision he participated as judge in a lower court "Commentary "An appellate judge should be subject to challenge for cause on the same premise as a trial judge, and also. when an appeal involves a review of his own decision. The most difficult problem concerns the procedure to he employed. As in the challenge of a trial judge, if the challenge is sufficient on its face and any reasonable doubt of the judge's disinterestedness is suggested, the judge may be expected to disqualify himself. If he does not do so, in the case of a trial judge the actual issues relating to disqualification should properly he determined by another judge. See 5 2.32, Standards Relating to Trial Courts. In the case of an appellate judge, however, that procedure would subject the judge to decision of his disinterestedness by judicial peers with whom he may continue to serve in a collegial capacity in deciding the case. Moreover, because an appellate court decides questions of law rather than fact, the question of an appellate judge's bias' is often practically indistinguishable from the question of his views on the law, which are not properly subject to disputation through the recusal procedure. Given these complications, it is better that the question of recusal be decided by the judge himself. It he is a judge of an intermediate appellate court, there remains the remedy of appeal from a decision in which he participates; if he is judge of a supreme court, reliance must be placed on his recognition that a court should not only be disinterested but that it should appear to be so. "In some jurisdictions, provision for peremptory challenge of a trial judge is permitted. See Commentary to §232 (b), Standards Relating to Trial Courts. This procedure is inappropriate in in the case of an appellate judge. In the collegial decision-making of an appellate court an individual judges purely personal views are of less significance than they would be in a trial court and he is subject to, collegial restraint should he be inclined to act on them; an appellate judge has few occasions for exercising the broad discretion in reposing in a trial judge; and in appellate litigation there is no occasion for the ~ intense personal interaction between the judge and the lawyers and litigants that may occur in a trial court. Moreover, an appellate judge's established views on law and justice, at least up to a point, are a proper element of t-he contribution he makes to the function of an appellate court, particularly in the development of the law. A peremptory challenge might easily be abused to exclude a judge solely because a litigant disagreed with his views. [3] The three justices of the appellate court and the two district court judges assigned to the hearing of this matter pursuant to Minn.Const. art. 6, 5 2, and Minn.St. 2.724, subd. 2, have applied these standards for recusal and have determined that the affidavit of prejudice filed by plaintiff against them is without justification. District Court Judge Warren A. Saetre, originally assigned to consider this case, has recused for personal reasons. 2. As staled earlier, the issue which plaintiff raises in his appeal is whether a private citizen may commence and maintain private prosecutions for alleged violations of the criminal law. In answering this question, we start with Rule 17.01, Rules of Criminal Procedure. This rule contemplates that felonies are to be prosecuted by either indictment or complaint. The rule does not mention or allude to any right of private citizens to commence and maintain criminal prosecutions privately. Rule 2.02, Rules of Criminal Procedure, governing prosecution by complaint, provides as follows: "A complaint shall not be filed or protest issued thereon without the written ~ approval, endorsed on the complaint, of the prosecuting attorney authorized to prosecute the offense charged, unless such judge or judicial officer as may be authorized by law to issue process upon the offense certifies on the complaint that the prosecuting attorney is unavailable and the filing of the complaint and issuance of process thereon should not be delayed." This rule is in accord with A. B. A. Standards for Criminal Judicial, Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function and the Defense Function (Approved Draft, 1971), 5 2.1, which provides: "The prosecution function should be performed by a public prosecutor who is a lawyer subject to the standards of professional conduct and discipline." [4] The comment to Rule 2.02, Rules of Criminal Procedure, states that "Rule 2.02 leaves to other laws the question of the available remedy when a local prosecutor refuses to approve a complaint " One obvious available remedy is for the aggrieved citizen to try to appear before the grand jury and persuade it to indict. While a citizen does not have a right to appear before the grand jury, he is free to attempt to gel the grand jury to lake action, and under Rule 18.04, Rules of Criminal Procedure, the grand jury can permit an aggrieved citizen to appear as a witness for this purpose. The grand jury under Rules 18.01 and 18.03 consists of 16 to 23 members, randomly selected from a cross section of the county. Permitting citizens to lake complaints directly to this body serves as a kind of "safely valve" and has much to commend it. See, commentary to §2.1 of the A. B. A. Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function.' [5] There are other remedies available to an aggrieved citizen when a prosecutor refuses to commence a prosecution: (a) Minn.St. 388.12 provides: "The judge of any district court may by order entered in the minutes al any term of court appoint an attorney of such court to act as, or in the place of, or to assist, the county attorney at such term, either before the court or grand jury. The person so appointed shall take the; oath required by law of county attorneys and thereupon may perform all his duties at such term of court, but shall receive no compensation where the county attorney is present al such term, except by his consent, and to be paid from his salary." Arguably, a private citizen could petition the district court for action pursuant to this statute and the court could appoint a special prosecutor if it decided that this was necessary. See, Comment, 65 Yale L.J. 209 i 215. See, also, the discussion in the commentary to 2.1 of the A. H. A. Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function. There may be constitutional objections to this statute, but that is not an issue which we need to decide. We merely cite this statute as one of the possible alternatives is available in the case of allegedly unjustified prosecutorial inaction. (b) Another possible remedy provided by Minn.St. §8.01, which reads as follows: "The attorney general shall appear for the state in all cases in the supreme and federal courts wherein the state is directly interested; also in all civil cases of i like nature in all other courts of the slate whenever, in his opinion, the interests of the state require it Upon request of the i county attorney he shall appear in court in such criminal cases as he shall deem; proper. Whenever the governor shall so request, in writing, he shall prosecute any person charged with an indictable offense; and in all such cases he may attend upon the grand jury and exercise ~ the powers of a county attorney." Under this statute a citizen could appeal to the governor, who then might order the attorney general to commence prosecution. [6] (c) A third potential remedy is mandamus. The problem with mandamus from the standpoint of an aggrieved citizen is that the decision whether to initiate a particular prosecution is discretionary and is therefore normally beyond the scope of mandamus. For a full discussion, see, Nole, 13 Am.Crim.L.Rev, 668, 585. [7] In mentioning these alternatives we do not mean to recommend them to plaintiff. Rather, we cite them merely to demonstrate that the approach taken in Minnesota is to (a) give the grand jury and the county attorney the authority to commence prosecutions (with each theoretically acting as a check on the unjustified inaction of the other), and (b) to provide safety valve alternatives for use in extreme cases of prosecutorial inaction. In arguing that a private citizen has a right to commence and maintain a criminal prosecution, plaintiff makes many of the arguments that are made in the leading law review article on the subject. What plaintiff neglects to mention is that the authors of the comment concluded that legislative authority was needed for a system permitting private prosecution. Comment, 65 Yale L.J. 209, 233. Further, the model statute provided by the authors of the comment, like Minn.St. 388.12, authorizes appointment by the court of a substitute attorney and does not permit the aggrieved private citizen to prosecute the action himself. [8] Plaintiff has not cited and we have not found any authority justifying the instant actions. This is not surprising because to permit such prosecutions would entail grave danger of vindictive use the processes of the criminal law and could well lead to chaos in the administration of criminal justice. We are satisfied that the district courts acted properly in dismissing the attempted prosecutions. Affirmed. Mr. Justices OTIS, ROGOSHESKE, PETERSON, KELLY, TODD, MacLAUGHLIN, and KNUTSON took no part in the consideration or decision in this case.

HF57_ID's Failed_Rep.Bill Hilty_aka PoliceChief_PERA_John Lesch Attorney Conflicts?

Affiant Bill Dahn attended this meeting, Phyllis Kahn came in late

without hearings had her mind already made up to Vote No.

My Concern as DL or ID's have a Residence, for Voting, Property Rights etc.

PERA mn - Google Search

How many Public Officials, ie DFL Rep. Bill Hilty also a Police Chief drawing Pensions from 2 branch's of Government, contrary to MN Const. Art. III Separation of Powers, and Pensioned out and or City Attorney's,double dipping such as
Our St.Paul City budget is so over inflated by these double dipping officials
State Rep. John Lesch making over $100,000 a yr. as St.Paul City Attorney, and as state Rep. making $80,000 plus medical - plus - plus - plus.
Over the years of battling with St.Paul and their Democratic ruled Government, City Attorney John Lesch attempted to prosecute me for my effort of addressing discrimination by St.Paul and its Police Force to deny me free speech, or freedom of expression.
President Obama said, We have to make a change in our government.
Lets start with some of these people that have jobs in city and state government like
MN. State Rep. John Lesch (DFL) making laws that he as a St.Paul City Attorney refuses to enforce.
We do not need these double dippers that are drawing pay from two jobs and can't in reality do one job.

Bill Dahn
651-453-1992
http://www.billdahn.com/
http://www.billdahn.blogspot.com/

John Lesch mn - Google Search St. Paul City Attorney, Rep.66A DFL

who may not even live in the Area? MS609.43 US CODE: Title 18,1595. Civil remedy

Issuing Warrants for arrests that are Bogus,Invalid to harm,injure, myself and the General Population.609.455 FalseClaims

PLEASE FORWARD TO YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS Yesterday Democrats in the House Government Operations Committee killed the Photo ID bill (HF57). This common sense measure would have required the presentation of a government-issued photographic identification when voting. It included a provision to provide a free identification card to any eligible voter who does not currently have a photo ID. It would have resulted in bringing greater integrity and public confidence in our election system. Although polls show this bill has 80% public support, these so-called "representatives" killed the bill in committee. They claim that the law would have "disenfranchised" the poor and the elderly. But numerous studies from states that have implemented similar laws prove this is not the case. Over the past several months, Minnesota Majority has uncovered mountains of evidence suggesting problems in our current election system. However, these "representatives" have chosen to simply "look the other way". It seems they want to perpetuate a system that invites error and abuse because they believe it to be to their political advantage. The real people being "disenfranchised" in our elections are legitimate voters whose votes are being undermined by errors and abuse. TAKE ACTION Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper expressing your opinion about this outlandish vote using our letter writing tool: http://capwiz.com/mnmajority/issues/alert/?alertid=11287611&type=me Contact the committee members that voted against the measure to let them know how you feel about their vote: Rep. Jeremy Kalin (DFL, 17B) rep.jeremy.kalin@house.mn 651-296-5377 Rep. Terry Morrow (DFL, 23A) rep.terry.morrow@house.mn 651-296-8634 Rep. Jeanne Poppe (DFL, 27B) rep.jeanne.poppe@house.mn 651-296-4193 Rep. Gene Pelowski (DFL, 31A) rep.gene.pelowski@house.mn 651-296-8637 Rep. Steve Simon (DFL, 44A) rep.steve.simor@house.mn 651-296-9889 Rep. Ryan Winkler (DFL, 44B) rep.ryan.winkler@house.mn 651-296-7026 Rep. Michael Nelson (DFL, 46A) rep.michael.nelson@house.mn 651-296-3751 Rep. Phyllis Kahn (DFL, 59B) rep.phyllis.kahn@house.mn 651-296-4257 Rep. Frank Hornstein (DFL, 60B) rep.frank.hornstein@house.mn 651-296-9281 Rep. Bill Hilty (DFL, 08A) rep.bill.hilty@house.mn 651-296-4308 Rep. Paul Marquart (DFL, 09B) rep.paul.marquart@house.mn 651-296-6829 Consider making a small contribution to help us continue our investigation: http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Donate/tabid/55/Default.aspx Additional Resources: Dan Conry Show highlights of the hearing on the Photo ID bill: http://www.danconry.com/apps/podcastgen1.1/download.php?filename=2009-02-13_dan_conry_2009_02_13_02.mp3 Facts sheet about the Voter ID bill: http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Portals/0/documents/PhotoIDFlyer.pdf Evidence of Election Integrity Issues: http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Portals/0/documents/EvidenceFlyer.pdf Systemic Failures to Uphold Election Law: http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Portals/0/documents/ViolationsFlyer.pdf Wall Street Journal - Photo ID Was a Success in November: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327839569631609.html

Proposed St. Paul budget cuts 'devastating,' mayor says - TwinCities.com Say goodbye to St. Paul city government as you know it. Cops, firefighters, prosecutors and inspectors: laid off, resulting in perhaps 400 fewer jobs. Hamline Library: closed. Other libraries: hours reduced heavily. Half the street lights: turned off. Plowing of side streets during snow emergencies: only at 4 inches. Eight recreation centers: closed or with barely a city presence. These are among the proposed cuts — nothing's final yet — recommended by Mayor Chris Coleman's top staffers, including those in charge of police, fire, public works, libraries, and parks and recreation. "These are devastating," Coleman said Thursday, shortly after the city released the recommendations, which aim to fill a gaping budget hole over the next two years

Andy Dick 664 Wells v.City St.Paul

East Side Review News

Scott Nichols/Review North Street resident Andy Dick and the house at 664 Wells St.

North Street resident Andy Dick didn't break any city laws when he bought 664 Wells St.

Or so he thought.

But it turns out the once-grand home he purchased for little more than $40,000 was supposed to be on its last legs, in the city's pipeline for demolition as a vacant, decrepit monstrosity too costly to fix.

City of St. Paul, MN - Official Website Help fight the Budget

News Flash - Selected

City Employee Salary Notification

Minnesota state law - Chapter 156 of the Session Laws of 2005 - requires that "a city or county with a population of more than 15,000 must annually notify its residents of the positions and base salaries of its three highest paid employees. For the City of Saint Paul, titles and salaries as of February 1, 2009 are: Chief of Police - $131,772, City Attorney - $129,062, and Deputy City Attorney - $126,832.

Date of Publication: February 1, 2009

In the midst of a long winter cold spell, it is easy to remember that we don’t necessarily live in Minnesota for the weather. Rather, our love for this place is based on the knowledge that we have a quality of life second to none. [more...]

Budget Overview:

• PowerPoint presentation in PDF format (44.0 KB)

Upcoming Community Meetings:

• Feb. 17 from 5:30 to 7 p.m. [more meetings and locations...]

Bill Dahn Free Speech at MN Legislature

Welcome to the Minnesota House of Representatives and Senate

http://www.house.mn/ Minnesota Senate
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. * Saint Paul, MN 55155
Ph: 651-296-2146 or 800-657-3550 toll free (voice);
or the Minnesota Relay service at 711 or 800-627-3529 (TTY)

State Budget Suggestions Contribute your ideas on the state budget.

New Town Hall Meetings Sign up to speak at your local meeting.

Subj: "FREE SPEACH" and the right to "PROTEST" the "Government" to "Change"! Date: 2/12/2009 1:03:03 A.M. Central Standard Time From: Bill4Dahn To: thauser@kstp.com, sen.sandra.pappas@senate.mn, sen.satveer.chaudhary@senate.mn, sen.scott.dibble@senate.mn, sen.sharon.erickson.ropes@senate.mn, sen.steve.dille@senate.mn, sen.steve.murphy@senate.mn, sen.tarryl.clark@senate.mn, sen.tom.saxhaug@senate.mn, sen.warren.limmer@senate.mn, sen.yvonne.prettner.solon@senate.mn, secretary.state@state.mn.us, sen.amy.koch@senate.mn, sen.ann.lynch@senate.mn, sen.ann.rest@senate.mn, sen.betsy.wergin@senate.mn, sen.bill.ingebrigtsen@senate.mn, sen.chris.gerlach@senate.mn, sen.chuck.wiger@senate.mn, sen.claire.robling@senate.mn, sen.dan.larson@senate.mn, sen.dan.skogen@senate.mn, sen.daniel.sparks@senate.mn, sen.david.senjem@senate.mn, sen.david.tomassoni@senate.mn, sen.debbie.johnson@senate.mn, sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn, sen.dick.day@senate.mn, sen.don.betzold@senate.mn, sen.ellen.anderson@senate.mn, sen.gary.kubly@senate.mn, sen.gen.olson@senate.mn, sen.geoff.michel@senate.mn, sen.jim.carlson@senate.mn, sen.jim.metzen@senate.mn, sen.joe.gimse@senate.mn, sen.john.doll@senate.mn, sen.john.marty@senate.mn, sen.julie.rosen@senate.mn, sen.kathy.saltzman@senate.mn, sen.kathy.sheran@senate.mn, sen.katie.sieben@senate.mn, sen.keith.langseth@senate.mn, sen.lawrence.pogemiller@senate.mn, sen.leo.foley@senate.mn, sen.leroy.stumpf@senate.mn, sen.linda.berglin@senate.mn, sen.linda.higgins@senate.mn, sen.mary.olson@senate.mn, sen.mee.moua@senate.mn, sen.michelle.fischbach@senate.mn, sen.mike.jungbauer@senate.mn, sen.pat.pariseau@senate.mn, sen.patricia.torres.ray@senate.mn, sen.paul.koering@senate.mn, sen.ray.vandeveer@senate.mn, sen.richard.cohen@senate.mn, sen.rick.olseen@senate.mn, sen.rod.skoe@senate.mn, sen.ron.latz@senate.mn, Sharon4Anderson, rep.aaron.peterson@house.mn, rep.al.doty@house.mn, rep.al.juhnke@house.mn, rep.alice.hausman@house.mn, rep.andy.welti@house.mn, rep.ann.lenczewski@house.mn, rep.augustine.dominguez@house.mn, rep.bernie.lieder@house.mn, rep.bev.scalze@house.mn, rep.bill.hilty@house.mn, rep.bob.dettmer@house.mn, rep.bob.gunther@house.mn, rep.brita.sailer@house.mn, rep.bruce.anderson@house.mn, rep.bud.heidgerken@house.mn, rep.bud.nornes@house.mn, rep.carlos.mariani@house.mn, rep.carol.mcfarlane@house.mn, rep.carolyn.laine@house.mn, rep.chris.delaforest@house.mn, rep.connie.ruth@house.mn, rep.cy.thao@house.mn, rep.dan.severson@house.mn, rep.dave.olin@house.mn, rep.david.bly@house.mn, rep.david.dill@house.mn, rep.dean.simpson@house.mn, rep.dean.urdahl@house.mn, rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn, rep.denise.dittrich@house.mn, rep.dennis.ozment@house.mn, rep.diane.loeffler@house.mn, rep.doug.magnus@house.mn, rep.erik.paulsen@house.mn, rep.erin.murphy@house.mn, rep.frank.moe@house.mn, rep.frank.hornstein@house.mn, rep.gene.pelowski@house.mn, rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn, rep.jeanne.poppe@house.mn, rep.jeremy.kalin@house.mn, rep.jim.abeler@house.mn, rep.jim.davnie@house.mn, rep.joe.atkins@house.mn, rep.joe.hoppe@house.mn, rep.joe.mullery@house.mn, rep.john.benson@house.mn, rep.john.berns@house.mn, rep.john.lesch@house.mn, rep.john.ward@house.mn, rep.joyce.peppin@house.mn, rep.julie.bunn@house.mn, rep.karen.clark@house.mn, rep.karla.bigham@house.mn, rep.kate.knuth@house.mn, rep.kathy.brynaert@house.mn, rep.kathy.tingelstad@house.mn, rep.ken.tschumper@house.mn, rep.kent.eken@house.mn, rep.kim.norton@house.mn, rep.kurt.zellers@house.mn, rep.larry.haws@house.mn, rep.larry.hosch@house.mn, rep.larry.howes@house.mn, rep.laura.brod@house.mn, rep.leon.lillie@house.mn, rep.linda.slocum@house.mn, rep.loren.solberg@house.mn, rep.lyle.koenen@house.mn, rep.lyndon.carlson@house.mn, rep.margaret.kelliher@house.mn, rep.maria.ruud@house.mn, rep.mark.buesgens@house.mn, rep.mark.olson@house.mn, rep.marsha.swails@house.mn, rep.marty.seifert@house.mn, rep.mary.murphy@house.mn, rep.maryellen.otremba@house.mn, rep.maryliz.holberg@house.mn, rep.matt.dean@house.mn, rep.melissa.hortman@house.mn, rep.michael.nelson@house.mn, rep.michael.paymar@house.mn, rep.mike.beard@house.mn, rep.mike.jaros@house.mn, rep.mindy.greiling@house.mn, rep.morrie.lanning@house.mn, rep.neil.peterson@house.mn, rep.neva.walker@house.mn, rep.nora.slawik@house.mn, rep.pat.garofalo@house.mn, rep.patti.fritz@house.mn, rep.paul.gardner@house.mn, rep.paul.kohls@house.mn, rep.paul.marquart@house.mn, rep.paul.thissen@house.mn, rep.phyllis.kahn@house.mn, rep.randy.demmer@house.mn, rep.rick.hansen@house.mn, rep.rob.eastlund@house.mn, rep.robin.brown@house.mn, rep.ron.erhardt@house.mn, rep.rod.hamilton@house.mn, rep.ryan.winkler@house.mn, rep.sandra.masin@house.mn, rep.sandra.peterson@house.mn, rep.sandy.wollschlager@house.mn, rep.sarah.anderson@house.mn, rep.scott.kranz@house.mn, rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn, rep.shelley.madore@house.mn, rep.sondra.erickson@house.mn, rep.steve.drazkowski@house.mn, rep.steve.simon@house.mn, rep.steve.smith@house.mn, rep.terry.morrow@house.mn, rep.thomas.huntley@house.mn, rep.tim.faust@house.mn, rep.tim.mahoney@house.mn, rep.tina.liebling@house.mn, rep.tom.anzelc@house.mn, rep.tom.emmer@house.mn, rep.tom.hackbarth@house.mn, rep.tom.rukavina@house.mn, rep.tom.tillberry@house.mn, rep.tony.cornish@house.mn, rep.tony.sertich@house.mn, rep.torrey.westrom@house.mn, rep.will.morgan@house.mnBill4Dahn, BillDahn4, rbljohnson@yahoo.com, ghansen@usfamily.net, EEskola, dan@am1500.com, Chuckrepke, attorney.general@state.mn.us, ahart@kare11.com, tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us

To The "Crooks" in Minnesota Government !

I Bill Dahn, feel this state is so crooked.

I was the one that Jesse Ventura "Bribed" to switch political parties in 1998 for Minnesota Governors Race, that Dean Barkley was cameraman and he was there at my home with Jesse Ventura on July 19,1998 as a co-conspirator.

Watch the two minute video on my web site of Jesse Ventura and Dean Barkley Bribing Bill Dahn and

James Kane to switch from the Reform Party to the Republican Party >> http://www.billdahn.com/ <<

We in Minnesota need honest government, if not - we do not need a government that lies, steal, and try to shut up the people that would be corrupt. I speaks out for the rights of the people.

"ALL" in the Minnesota Government knows my name, and has a fear of my ability to screw up this government by being a Native American - German that learned the law and the cheating ways that all politicians in this state go by.

I will be at the State capital for the rally Thursday Feb. 12, 2009 at 8 am to give you zzzzzz zzzz, a notice of my attentions, that I as one Disabled Minnesotan will stand up for my right of "FREE SPEACH" and the right to "PROTEST" the "Government" to "Change" their dishonest ways !

Bill Dahn

651-453-1992

Bill4Dahn@aol.com

http://www.billdahn.com/