|GO TO HOME PAGE||VIDEOS||CONSULTATION||BOOKS|
|Nourishing Traditions Seminar||Sample Pleadings for Sale||9 Live ERSOL Seminars|
|Training Videos You Can Use||Our Legal System Doesn't Work||Law and Legalism|
|Overturning Your Conviction||Self-Study Law Course||Bible as Law / Odds and Ends|
|ERSOL Videos||Suing a Lawyer for Malpractice||Consultation Services & Misc.|
|Criminal Law Seminars||"The Whole Enchilada"|
Dear Voter: Vote Out
Were you treated fairly the last time you went to court? Were you robbed by the system? Is someone you care about innocent and in prison?
The State Representative we are asking you to throw out in the coming election is directly responsible for the chaos and confusion in the cesspool we call a court system in Minnesota.
This individual sits on the Minnesota State Judiciary Policy Committee. We have written this individual concerning the corruption in Minnesota’s court system. This individual has IGNORED everything we have sent.
When you are a PUBLIC SERVANT, you are not supposed to IGNORE the problems you are SUPPOSED to be there to SOLVE that are destroying the people you SERVE.
Let us give you a typical example.
Thomas Daniel Rhodes was convicted of murdering his wife by pushing her overboard at night into a lake. It was a boating accident.
Here is the prosecutor’s version of the events: Thomas Daniel Rhodes nearly got away with murdering his wife—and probably would have, but for the discovery of her body in a place where it should not have been, at a time when it should not yet have resurfaced.
The problem with the prosecutor’s statement is that it assumes “facts” that do not exist. Where a body is supposed to surface in Green Lake, where Thomas Daniel Rhodes’ “crime” took place, is totally unpredictable.
See text of Tracy Swartz, Star Tribune article of July 6 2004, attached hereto.
Further, two witnesses came forward two weeks after Thomas Daniel Rhodes’ trial and contradicted the State’s key witness, which should have resulted in a new trial, as this information on the lake’s current should.
It won’t happen, at least until the politicians responsible for IGNORING the corruption in the Minnesota court system are THROWN OUT.
What WILL happen is that, when Thomas Daniel Rhodes does put in a Motion for New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence is that:
1. The judges involved will not READ what is put in front of them.
2. The judges involved will not ADDRESS the ISSUES RAISED.
3. The judges involved will not APPLY the PROPER LEGAL STANDARDS.
If you have experienced this type of treatment in the Minnesota legal system, join the club. You are not alone.
What SHOULD this irresponsible state representative have been doing? The procedures are right there, in the Minnesota Constitution, that this individual took a solemn oath to uphold.
Section 1. IMPEACHMENT POWERS. The house of representatives has the sole power of impeachment through a concurrence of a majority of all its members. All impeachments shall be tried by the senate. When sitting for that purpose, senators shall be upon oath or affirmation to do justice according to law and evidence. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the senators present.
Section 2. OFFICERS SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT; GROUNDS; JUDGMENT. The governor, secretary of state, auditor, attorney general and the judges of the supreme court, court of appeals and district courts may be impeached for corrupt conduct in office or for crimes and misdemeanors; but judgment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit in this state. The party convicted shall also be subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law. [Amended, November 2, 1982; November 3, 1998]
Article VI, JUDICIARY
Section 9. RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE. The legislature may provide by law for retirement of all judges and for the extension of the term of any judge who becomes eligible for retirement within three years after expiration of the term for which he is selected. The legislature may also provide for the retirement, removal or other discipline of any judge who is disabled, incompetent or guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
You would think that treating the public as the enemy would be “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
Ultimately, the guarantee of [our] rights is no stronger than the integrity and fairness of the judge to whom the trial is entrusted.
Bracy v. Gramley, 81 F.3d 684, 703 (7th Cir. 1996) (dissent), reversed, 520 U. S. 899, 117 S.Ct. 1793 (1997).
Under this yardstick, we have NO rights unless and until this member of the Minnesota State Judiciary Policy Committee is THROWN OUT. Please make copies of this flyer and give it to your fellow voters. Once the incumbent is THROWN OUT and his successor sees the CONSEQUENCES of IGNORING the grievances of the voters in his (or her) district, the next State Representative WILL pay attention.
Thank you for your help.