Sunday, November 4, 2012

LawlessAmerica_VictoriaAstriourAndersen+BillWindsor


Victoria Ástríður Andersen,
My co-fighter, Bill Windsor, means serious business. He and I are two peas in a pod. Please join my new group to help me in exposing respective corruption at: www.facebook.com/groups/GeorgiaPoliticsandLaw
1Like · ·

Victoria Ástríður Andersen

     
     
     Bill Windsor Co-Fighter  Please Assist
     
    In a message dated 11/4/2012 12:45:00 P.M. Central Standard Time, jon.roland@constitution.org writes:
    The entire practice of in rem asset forfeiture presents a constitutional problem of taking without due process.

    The case is
    United States of America v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts.

    Litigation Backgrounder

    Imagine you own a million-dollar piece of property free and clear, but then the federal government announces that it is going to take it from you, not compensate you one dime, and then pad the budgets of federal and local law enforcement agencies with the money they get from selling your land—all this even though you have never so much as been accused of a crime, let alone convicted of one.

    That is the nightmare Russ Caswell and his family is now facing in Tewksbury, Mass., where they stand to lose the family-operated motel they have owned for two generations.

    Seeking to circumvent state law and cash in on the profits, the Tewksbury Police Department is working with the U.S. Department of Justice to take and sell the Caswells property because a tiny fraction of people who have stayed at the Motel Caswell during the past 20 years have been arrested for crimes.  Keep in mind, the Caswells themselves have worked closely with law enforcement officials to prevent and report crime on their property.  And the arrests the government complains of represent less than .05 percent of the 125,000 rooms the Caswells have rented over that period of time.

    Despite all this, the Caswells stand to lose literally everything they have worked for because of this effort by federal and local law enforcement officials not to pursue justice, but rather to police for profit.

    How widespread is the problem of civil forfeiture abuse nationwide? In 1986, the year after the U.S. Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Fund was created—the fund that holds the forfeiture proceeds from properties forfeited under federal law and available to be paid out to law enforcement agencies—took in just $93.7 million. Today it holds more than $1.6 billion.

    The Institute for Justice, a national public interest law firm that fights civil forfeiture abuse nationwide, is now representing the Caswells in defense of their property and their constitutional rights


    Related links:
    Motel owner faces asset forfeiture despite innocence, Washington Post
    The Motel Caswell and the Red Carpet Inn, Americans for Forfeiture Reform
    The American Nightmare That Is Civil Asset Forfeiture, Future of Freedom Foundation
    Can your money commit a crime without your consent?, Larry Salzman
    Welcome to the Upside-Down World of Civil Forfeiture, Jacob Sullum, Reason.com
    Peculiarities Surrounding the Civil Forfeiture of the Motel Caswell, Deborah Brancic

    https://secure.piryx.com/donate/1peoDn6o/Constitution-Society/
    -- Jon
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
    2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322           twitter.com/lex_rex
    Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001  jon.roland@constitution.org
    ----------------------------------------------------------

               NEWS RELEASE 3RDNOV.2012
                                   http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/current/OPA120622-1031.pdf
    On the Graves of our Heritage Minnesota HomeGrownGal Pleads VOTE6THNOV12.
    https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWo8izqaeif54FJfUPikd86CvLPhVx0kuOBYbdhbt7XXlVX5L5YtK6YgcTwWRgeu4M649iCqY3g5XYoaVCdtjylsbGSxiKIiU4ORU6fqYKS595ZShIiisXqsmK_L98d7Ah_weGhwox7jyN/s1600/Bernice83.jpgSent: 11/3/2012 11:16:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time
    Subj: CandidateSharon4SeniorsMN64_Constitutionality204c.31County_State Canvass Boards                   Sharon is not a Liar or Lawyer Unreasonable 20 yrs later Tobacco Case Still in Court  THEREFORE DFL Lawyer,Commitment Lawyer Senator64 Dick Cohen MN CONST.ARTIII MUST GO:

    TThe Supreme Court concluded (1) the proposed tobacco appropriation bonds did not constitute public debt for which the state's full faith, credit, and taxing powers have been pledged under the plain language of Minn. Const. art. XI, 4; and (2) therefore, the restrictions imposed by Minn. Const. art. XI, 5 do not apply to the bondsSearch Results

    1. MPR: Minnesota's Tobacco Trial: A Summary

      news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/.../08_stawickie_histo...Cached - SimilarShare
      Shared on Google+. View the post.
      May 8, 1998 – At its heart, Minnesota's tobacco case was a fraud and anti-trust case. The state and Blue Cross and Blue Shield claimed tobacco companies Schowalter v. State
    Docket: A12-622
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Areas of Law: Constitutional Law
    Petitioner, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Management and Budget, validation tobacco appropriation bonds to be issued to refund, in advance of maturity, outstanding tobacco securit
    Opinion Date: October 31, 20
    http://j.st/X92 http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2012/a12-622.html
    View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar
    12
     
    SAT: 3NOV2012
    Please Vote Tues 6thNov2012 Forward,circulate,copy Vote YES Sharon4Seniors
    Minnesota4Mitt4Marriage
     
    https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGW9qL925zc0RYqqzmFWsUfmXp_F7RVkgVhPiWpJZ4_ns1iK-z6-FefVD6CQyJtGf4dS6cODBN-DtCu-vkPJW5cXS-lwW4iGk9muG1oW2JcAjL7rDqwvXqj4trDRg3zGLmcqiQ3pRqIa1w/s1600/RevParty.bmp
       Subject: Candidate SharonAndersonABOLISH SCAPCommittment PanelJudgesBadBehaviorRICO Wilful neglience to AbateSeeking Assistance  also www.lawlessamerica.com NOTICE OF GOOD FAITH INTENT TO CHALLENGE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF COUNTY AND STATE CANVASS BOARD MEMBERS, DEFENDANTS MARK OSWALD, SHARI MOORE CITY CLERK,JUDGE KAREN J. ASPHAUG MEMBER OF SCAP ET AL. MN CONSTITUTION ART. III SEPARATION OF POWERS. Ruling Case Law In re: Scarrella4Justice221NW2d562  www.sharon4judge.blogspot.com  www.lufsky.blogspot.com 
     
    ThereforeSharon4AG2014
    1.    Ramsey   County canvassing board:            Rafael Ortega, Ramsey County Commissioner
                                                                                    Jan Parker, Ramsey County Commissioner
                                                                                    Mark Oswald, Ramsey County Auditor
                                                                                    Lawrence Dease, Ramsey County Court Administrator
                                                                     Shari Moore, St Paul City Clerk – designee of Mayor Coleman
    ST. PAUL, Minn.—October 30, 2012—Secretary of State Mark Ritchie today announced the members of the State Canvassing Board whose responsibility it will be to canvass and certify the results of the State General Election held on November 6.

    Minnesota Statutes 204C.31 requires the Secretary of State to select the five members of state canvassing board. By law members of the board must be the secretary of state, two judges from the Minnesota Supreme Court and two judges of the district court.

    Members of the 2012 State General Election State Canvassing Board include:
    • The Honorable Mark Ritchie, Minnesota Secretary of State
    • The Honorable Paul H. Anderson, Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court
    • The Honorable Christopher J. Dietzen, Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court
    • The Honorable Edward I. Lynch,  Chief Judge, First Judicial District
    • The Honorable Karen J. Asphaug, District Court Judge, First Judicial District

    To avoid conflicts of interest, by law, no judges or justices who are members of the state canvassing board may be candidates at the election.  It is also important to note that unlike other election issues subject to administrative recounts, constitutional amendments are not subject to recounts administered by the state canvassing board, but are subject to court election contests.

    The State Canvassing Board will meet at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, November 27, 2012, in Room 10 of the State Office Building located at 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, Minnesota

    Thursday, May 31, 2012