Nov 18, 2010 Event: Panel Discussion - The State of Judicial Elections in America!

!

There will be Panel Discussion on the topic of Judicial Elections in Minnesota, Wednesday, November 18, 2010.  The Panel will discuss Organizing, Judges, Money and Politics in Minnesota in the context of recent Supreme Court Decisions won by Minnesota Attorney Greg Wersal.  Announcements purport discuss Judicial elections in Minnesota, assess the risk of partisan elections, and whether reform is justified.

The Organizer and Moderator of the event is Professor Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute. [map - parking] The event will be held at the Humphrey Institute on November 18, 2010. The panel discussion will run from 4:00 – 5:30 p.m. and be followed by a reception.  

The panelists are Attorney Greg Wersal, Eric Magnuson, former Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, Gary Borgendale, Local Ministry Director for AM980 KKMS radio and Sarah Walker, Chief Operating Officer at 180 Degrees, Inc. 

AUTHOR'S COMMENTARY

Essentially, this is the the next installment in a campaign to take away the Minnesota Citizens Constitutional Right to Vote for Judges in Contested Elections.  This is intended as a conduit with the political objective
of replacing our right to vote for judges in contested elections with what is Known as Merit Retention Elections. Under this Political Crony Hierarchy System - A group of appointed bureaucrats will select Candidates based only like things like do they show up on time and shower regularly, etc.  This pool of Candidates will then be presented to the Governor and the Governor can pick one. "Am I the only only that can see that "merit" might become rewarding political hacks for subverting the will of the people in favor of the desires of the tyrants?"

OUR MINNESOTA JUDICIARY IS JUST DISGUSTING. They are are following in the Propaganda footsteps of  Progressive Edward Bernays:

"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it"

The Facts relevant to the Minnesota Judiciary and proposed election changes are these:

1) The Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards and Minnesota Lawyers' Professional Responsibility Board do not perform there functions of holding Judges and Lawyers accountable.  Instead they serve as Cover up operations and a Public Relations firm for the Minnesota Judiciary.  Both Boards are just black holes for complaints about their respective charges of Judges and Lawyers.  Therefore, there is no credible, documented Government Source to ascertain the extent of Corruption in Minnesota. 

2) This will be the 6th year (Legislative Session) that the Minnesota Senate and House Judiciary Committees refused to hear testimony from Citizens Regarding Corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. This in violation of each Citizen's 1st Amendment right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


3) This Group of Citizens in the last Minnesota Legislative Biennium introduced what was then known as MN HR 1632 - Minnesota Judicial REFORM and Accountability.

4)Somehow, during that same approximate time frame, A group called the "Quie Commission" came out with a finding that there was little or no corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

5) I leave to the reader to determine how the Quie Commission could not find Several Hundred Citizens demanding a hearing to present evidence of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary over the course of 6 years. In Response to be refused the opportunity to petition the Government with there grievance, the aggrieved Citizens of the State of Minnesota held an Adhoc Meeting on Minnesota Corruption was held - See Video Here and Here.

6) And now, the Minnesota Judiciary is trying to usurp the use of the word "REFORM" from the group of aggrieved Citizens that the Government refused to allow to present evidence of Corruption. Clearly is not the Government to Reform the Judiciary when they refuse to hear evidence of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

So in a nutshell here is the Minnesota Judiciary's Progressive tactic Propaganda Pitch known as Merit Selection Retention Elections.

1) There is no Corruption in Minnesota (because we, the Minnesota Judiciary, refuse to hear it)

2) Recent US Supreme Court Rulings allowing Judicial Candidates Free Speech, the ability to raise campaign funds and to be endorsed by political parties threatens our current Minnesota Judicial hierarchy (falsely premised on the Quie Commission's erroneous findings that there is little or no corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary)

3) Free Speech, the ability of challengers to compete fairly for campaign contributions and the endorsement of judges by political parties will lead to corruption so we must do something to prevent this. (again, presumes the Minnesota Judiciary is not already corrupt)

4) Therefore, instead of allowing Voters to vote for Judges in contested elections, we must allow the Governor to select Candidates from a pool of Candidates provided to him by a new Governmental Group. (otherwise known as taking away the Citizens right to vote so that the Governor can choose a political crony from a pool provided by some unaccountable Government Bureaucracy)

AUTHOR'S RESPONSE OF BEHALF OF THE INFORMED CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

1) Any Voter who is not qualified to vote for a judge is not qualified for vote for the persons who would select judges;

2) Allowing Citizens to Vote in fully Contested Elections is the best way to hold Judges Accountable. 


3) The Quie Commission's Finding that there is presently little or no corruption in Minnesota is in error.


4) The premise of replacing the Citizen's Right to Vote for Judges with Merit Retention Elections on the pretext that little or no corruption exists in the State of Minnesota is a fraud perpetrated on the Citizens of Minnesota;

5) Any Citizen can see from the Minnesota Government's refusal to allow citizens to present evidence of Judicial Corruption to Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees, that the Judiciary is not interested in true reform;

6) Merit Selection Election is merely a way for the Minnesota Judicial System to Formalize the Corrupt system they have already established in a piecemeal manner.  In Minnesota, the Governor can replace Judges that Resign before their term expires.  If a Judge retires within a year of the next election, the judge gets a free pass on the next election.  A tradition has evolved whereby judges retire a few months before their next election so the Governor can appoint their replacement and give the replacement a free pass on the next election.  One of the arguments Merit Selection RETENTION Election Proponents is that it just formalizes the process.  BUT AGAIN THAT WHOLE PREMISE IS BASED ON THE FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION THAT THERE IS LITTLE OR NO CORRUPTION IN THE CURRENT MINNESOTA JUDICIARY. Why do we want to formalize a corrupt Judicial Process?


7) The reason we don't have fully contested Judicial Elections with incumbents is 2 fold:

       a) The law provides for the word "incumbent" to be placed on the election ballot next to the name of the incumbent judge and this gives them an unfair advantage against challengers;

       B) Judicial Code Red - There is an unwritten rule that says that if lawyers run against incumbent Judges there will be retaliation if the challenger does not win.


8) Any proposed change of law born out of refusing a Citizen's 1st Amendment Right to petition the Government for the redress of grievances must be tyrannical and not in the best interests of the Citizens.

9) The author of this article has personally asked for interview opportunities with, and submitted questions via letter to former Minnesota Chief Judge Eric Magnuson while Mr. Magnuson was still Chief Judge. Chief Magnuson never agreed to an interview nor answered any question. We do not need to formalize a system allows our Judges to be so arrogant as refuse to answer questions involving the issues Citizens would like redressed. True to tradition, Eric Magnuson's resignation allowed the Governor to appoint the new Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Judge Gildea and therefore, she is against hearing evidence of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary and furthermore, she is against any legitimate reform of the Minnesota Judiciary.  And she has already advised that she is in support of the Merit Selection Retention Elections.  (In light of the facts exposed in this article, may i suggest all Minnesotan's make a note to say no to tryanny and vote against Justice Gildea's reelection in 2012.)

 IN SUMMARY: 


Just say no to MSRA (Acronym pronounced appropriately "misery") 

Merit Selection Retention Elections take away the Citizens Right to Vote for Judges in Contested Elections.


Merit Selection Retention Elections reduce the Accountability of Judges to the Citizens and this invites greater levels of Corruption

Merit Selection Retention Elections are premised on the untrue position that little or no corruption exists in the Minnesota Judiciary.


Merit Selection Retention Elections is not reform, the Minnesota Judiciary refuses to hear or acknowledge evidence of Judicial Corruption.

The issues of the current system of electing and holding Judges Accountable in Minnesota are the result of tyrannical written and unwritten laws and rules.

The Best way to reform the system is for the Minnesota Senate and House Judiciary Committees to hear evidence of Judicial Corruption and act address the laws and rules that enable the corruption to occur.

The best way to reform the method of Selection by Election of Minnesota Judges is to change the written and unwritten rules that prevent fully contested elections, NOT TO FORMALIZE THEM VIA THE MERIT SELECTION RETENTION ELECTION system.


In closing, please contact Lea Chittenden and Larry Jacobs and request that the point I have raised be addressed at their panel discussion.

If their intent is education of the Public and not dissemination of Propaganda, they should have no problem with that request.

You may contact them at:

Lea Chittenden

Center for the Study of Politics and Governance
Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
301 - 19th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55455
University of Minnesota

612-625-2530

chit0018@umn.edu

Those were my thoughts.

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak
Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability
Justice in Minnesota
Minneapolis MN Federal Reserve Bank - Video: Quantitative Easing Explained


TellMyPolitician


!