http://www.fbi.gov/page2/april10/records_042610.html

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/april10/records_042610.html

TEXTAREA_ID

The Institute for Liberty Official Web Site.

The Institute for Liberty Offici

Print Page Send to a Friend Home > Media Center

Stop a Washington takeover of the Internet

The Federal Communications Commission is moving ahead with proposed "Open Internet" rules, which would give federal regulators vast new powers, and ultimately lead to government control of the Internet. In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet. GN Docket No, 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52. You can read the complete proposal here: (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf). In a nutshell, “Open Internet” is the left’s latest marketing language for what they used to call “net neutrality.” It is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney, the Free Press founder who explained his goal to SocialistProject.ca: “What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility.” “Open Internet” or “net neutrality” sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way – until you realize that modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn't been invented yet) get priority may be necessary to make the Internet work, but the government is considering regulations that will make it illegal to prioritize traffic. In their initial comments, Free Press told the FCC that Internet providers must prove that there will never be a problem with Internet service, or submit to regulation. This is backward, and frankly un-American. The burden of proof should properly lie with the far left proponents of regulation like Free Press, which for a decade has been predicting a disaster for the Internet if the government did not regulate it. We need to remind the FCC that regulatory burdens should not be placed on Internet providers and users unless and until an actual problem emerges. Free Press is arguing that the Internet – one of the most competitive, innovative, productive, and exciting industries in the country – should be regulated as if they were 1930’s-style government-protected monopolies. This backward-looking “Franklin D. Roosevelt” approach to the modern Internet would be hideously destructive, and must be stopped. Heavy-handed regulation could destroy private investment in the Internet, in turn forcing taxpayers to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to keep the Internet functioning, bringing government ownership and control. Please fill out the form below to submit an official comment to the FCC docket on this proposed rulemaking.

al Web Site.

MaryJaneDuchene_YouTube_MurderbyDiabetes

http://www.murderbydiabetes.org/

Georgina Demars Pt. 1

Georgina Demars Pt. 2

Apologies for poor quality on the Demars videos. We are working to upgrade this.

SEE: Videos at YouTube - CLICK

Murder of Jane Duchene Pt. 1

Murder of Jane Duchene Pt. 2

Murder of Jane Duchene Pt. 3

MaryJane Duchene DogNoise_cit.344179Judge Perkins

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate6/2009dog/wspnoise.html

	Search: The Web Angelfire		Report Abuse « Previous Top 100 Next »
			share: del.icio.us digg reddit furl facebook

DISCLAIMER: Mary Jane Duchene's Scientific Evidence of Noise cannot be refuted
Notice to all Bloggers,Dog Lovers et al, Fight Back West St.Paul,MN City Hall
run by www.levander.com Law Firm Attorney Kori Land.

appears to be simulating legal process without Long Form Complaint https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.51
http://www.wspwatchdogs.com/ Similar Situated Citizenery Noel Kalinoski
www.alicekrengel.blogspot.com

West St. Paul, Minnesota, RE: Alleged Noise Violations City of West St. Paul v. Mary Jane Duchene, 2009/2010

The Long Form Complaint contains only a statement of probable casue, and does not contain the required separate statement and detail of specific accusation that justifies charges being filed, failing which the cse must be dismissed. Click on images below to read full Long Form Complaint

Application for Public Defender: http://www.mncourts.gov/ruledocs/criminal/forms/RCRPform47.pdf FORM http://www.mncourts.gov/documents/0/Public/Rules/Crim_Rules__APPENDIX_OF_FORMS_eff_10-1-06.htm
Citation, 7/24/2009:	LINK
Demand Long Form Complaint	LINK
Long Form Complaint 7/31/2009	LINK
Initial Motion to Dismiss, inclusive long form complaint provided	LINK
Motion to Vacate and Reverse	LINK
WARRANT	LINK
Continuance	LINK
MOTION TO DISMISS, November 25, 2009	LINK
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, PREJUDICE, December 09, 2009	LINK
MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, December 16, 2009	LINK
Memorandum Support Motion to Dismiss of 11/25/2009, January 13, 2010	LINK
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING DECEMBER 16, 2009 MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, January 14, 2010	LINK
MOTION FOR SUMMARY ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, January 17, 2010	LINK
COURT ORDER, received January 18, 2010	LINK
REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT, JANUARY 11, 2010 Mary Jane Duchene Plaintiff: City of West St Paul Defendant: Mary Jane Duchene Case Number: 0:2010cr00012 Filed: January 13, 2010 Court: Minnesota District Court Office: DMN Office [ Court Info ] Notice of Electronic Filing 1/20/2010 LINK REMAND: 2/19/2010	LINK
MOTION TO VACATE AND REVERSE OR FOR AMENDED LONG FORM COMPLAINT, INCLUSIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE, March 16, 2010	LINK

MaryJane Duchene Public Policy Dog site,cit.3441797 JudgePerkins

West St. Paul, Alledged Noise Violations

Disclaimer: Republished for Public Policy and to force Dakota Co. to implement pdf Forensic Files the Matter with Mary Jane Duchene should have been dismissed .

Classic Case of Prosecutor Misconduct by the West St.Paul City Attorney Kori Land of the http://www.levander.com/ Law Firm

Go to http://www.mncourts.gov/ to check the file under citation 3441797

PLEASE HELP MAKE THE COURTS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

	Search: The Web Angelfire		Report Abuse « Previous Top 100 Next »
			share: del.icio.us digg reddit furl facebook

West St. Paul, Minnesota, RE: Alleged Noise Violations City of West St. Paul v. Mary Jane Duchene, 2009/2010
The Long Form Complaint contains only a statement of probable casue, and does not contain the required separate statement and detail of specific accusation that justifies charges being filed, failing which the cse must be dismissed. Click on images below to read full Long Form Complaint
MINNESOTA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - COMPLAINTS: By Rule 2.01 the complaint shall consist of a written signed statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. This language is taken from F.R.Crim.P. 3. (Present Minnesota statutory law (Minn. Stat. §§ 629.42, 633.03 (1971)) simply provides for the complaint of an offense to be reduced to writing, but does not specify what the complaint shall contain.) The complaint shall otherwise conform to the provisions of Rules 17.02, 17.03. Minn. Stat. §§ 487.25, subd. 3; 488A.10, subd. 3, and 488A.27, subd. 3 govern the procedure for the issuance of complaints in the County Courts, Hennepin County Municipal Court and St. Paul Municipal Court, respectively, but also do not specify what the complaint shall contain. Rule 17.02 Nature and Contents Subd. 1. Complaint. A complaint shall be substantially in the form prescribed by Rule 2. Subd. 2. Indictment. An indictment shall contain a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall be signed by the foreperson of the grand jury. Subd. 3. Indictment and Complaint. The indictment or complaint shall state for each count the citation of the statute, rule, regulation or other provision of law which the defendant is alleged to have violated. Error in the citation or its omission shall not be ground for dismissal or for reversal of a conviction if the error or omission did not prejudice the defendant. Each count may charge only one offense. Allegations made in one count may be incorporated by reference in another count. An indictment or complaint may, but need not, contain counts for the different degrees of the same offense, or for any of such degrees, or counts for lesser or other included offenses, or for any of such offenses. The same indictment or complaint may contain counts for murder, and also for manslaughter, or different degrees of manslaughter. When the offense may have been committed by the use of different means, the indictment or complaint may allege in one count the means of committing the offense in the alternative or that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown. Subd. 4. Bill of Particulars. The bill of particulars is abolished. Subd. 5. Indictment and Complaint Forms--Felony and Gross Misdemeanors. For all indictments and complaints charging a felony or gross misdemeanor offense the prosecuting attorney or such judge or judicial officer authorized by law to issue process pursuant to Rule 2.02 shall use an appropriate form authorized and supplied by the State Court Administrator or a word processor-produced complaint or indictment form in compliance with the supplied form and approved by Information Systems Office, State Court Administration. If for any reason such form is unavailable, failure to comply with this rule shall constitute harmless error under Rule 31.01. Rule 17.06 Motions Attacking Indictment, Complaint or Tab Charge Subd. 1. Defects in Form. No indictment, complaint or tab charge shall be dismissed nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be affected by reason of a defect or imperfection in matters of form which does not tend to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant. Subd. 2. Motion to Dismiss or for Appropriate Relief. All objections to an indictment, complaint or tab charge shall be made by motion as provided by Rule 10.01 and may be based on the following grounds without limitation: (1) Indictment. (a) The evidence admissible before the grand jury was not sufficient as required by these rules to establish the offense charged or any lesser or other included offense or any offense of a lesser degree; (b) The grand jury was illegally constituted; (c) The grand jury proceeding was conducted before fewer than 16 grand jurors; (d) Fewer than 12 grand jurors concurred in the finding of the indictment; (e) The indictment was not found or returned as required by law; (f) An unauthorized person was in the grand jury room during the presentation of evidence upon the charge contained in the indictment or during the deliberations or voting of the grand jury upon the charge. (2) Indictment, Complaint or Tab Charge. In the case of an indictment, complaint or tab charge: (a) The indictment, complaint or tab charge does not substantially comply with the requirements prescribed by law to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant; (b) The court lacks jurisdiction of the offense charged; (c) The law defining the offense charged is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid; (d) In the case of an indictment or complaint, that the facts stated do not constitute an offense; (e) The prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations; (f) The defendant has been denied a speedy trial; (g) There exists some other jurisdictional or legal impediment to prosecution or conviction of the defendant for the offense charged, except as provided by Rule 10.02; (h) Double jeopardy, collateral estoppel, or that prosecution is barred by Minn. Stat. § 609.035. Subd. 3. Time for Motion. A motion to dismiss the indictment, complaint or tab charge shall be made within the time prescribed by Rule 10.04, subd. 1 except that an objection to the jurisdiction of the court over the offense or that the indictment, complaint or tab charge fails to charge an offense may be made at any time during the pendency of the proceeding. Subd. 4. Effect of Determination of Motion to Dismiss. (1) Motion Denied. If a motion to dismiss the indictment, complaint or tab charge is determined adversely to the defendant, the defendant shall be permitted to plead if the defendant has not previously pleaded. A plea previously entered shall stand. The defendant in a misdemeanor case may continue to raise the issues on appeal if convicted following a trial. (2) Grounds for Dismissal. When a motion to dismiss an indictment, complaint or tab charge is granted for a defect in the institution of prosecution or in the indictment, complaint or tab charge, the court shall specify the grounds upon which the motion is granted. (3) Dismissal for Curable Defect. If the dismissal is for failure to file a timely complaint as required by Rule 4.02, subd. 5(3), or for a defect that could be cured or avoided by an amended or new indictment, or complaint, further prosecution for the same offense shall not be barred, and the court shall on motion of the prosecuting attorney, made within seven (7) days after notice of the entry of the order granting the motion to dismiss, order that defendant's bail or the other conditions of his release be continued or modified for a specified reasonable time pending an amended or new indictment or complaint. In misdemeanor cases, if the defendant is unable to post any bail that might be required under Rule 6.02, subd. 1, then the defendant must be released subject to such non-monetary conditions as the court deems appropriate under that rule. The specified time for such amended or new indictment or complaint shall not exceed sixty (60) days for filing a new indictment or seven (7) days for amending an indictment or complaint or for filing a new complaint. During the seven-day period for making the motion and during the time specified by the order, if such motion is made, dismissal of the indictment or complaint shall be stayed. If the prosecution does not make the motion within the seven-day period or if the indictment or complaint is not amended or if a new indictment or complaint is not filed within the time specified by the order, the defendant shall be discharged and further prosecution for the same offense shall be barred unless the prosecution has appealed as provided by law, or unless the defendant is charged with murder and the court has granted a motion to dismiss on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury. In misdemeanor cases and also in designated gross misdemeanor cases as defined in Rule 1.04(b) dismissed for failure to file a timely complaint within the time limits as provided by Rule 4.02 subd. 5(3), further prosecution shall not be barred unless additionally a judge or judicial officer of the court has so ordered. Rule 11.09. Trial Date (a) If the defendant enters a plea other than guilty, a trial date must be set. (b) A defendant must be tried as soon as possible after entry of a plea other than guilty. On demand of any party the trial must start within 60 days of the demand unless the court finds good cause for a later trial date. The time period begins on the date of the plea other than guilty. Unless exigent circumstances exist, if trial does not start within 120 days from the date the plea other than guilty is entered and the demand is made, the defendant must be released under any nonmonetary conditions the court orders under Rule 6.01, subd. 1. For good cause the trial may be postponed beyond the 60-day time limit upon request of the prosecutor or the defendant or upon the court’s initiative. Good cause for the delay does not include court calendar congestion unless exceptional circumstances exist. See McIntosh v. Davis, 441 N.W.2d 115, 120 (Minn. 1989). Even if good cause exists for postponing the trial beyond the 60-day time limit,the defendant, except in exigent circumstances, must be released, subject to such nonmonetary release conditions as may be required by the court under Rule 6.02, subd. 1, if trial has not yet commenced within 120 days after the demand is made and the not guilty plea entered. Other sanctions for violation of these speedy trial provisions are left to case law. See State v. Kasper, 411 N.W.2d 182 (Minn. 1987) and State lov. Friberg, 435 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. 1989). MINNESOTA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE http://www.mncourts.gov/rules/criminal/RCRP.htm On Criminal Long Form Complaints A Guide to Minnesota Criminal Procedures - Bass Law Firm "If you are charged with a misdemeanor by a ticket, citation, or tab charge, you can request a formal complaint (a written document detailing the charges) at your arraignment. If you are in custody, the prosecution has 48 hours from the time of your demand to file a complaint. If you are not in custody, the prosecution has 30 days from the date of your demand to file a complaint. If no complaint is filed within these timeframes, the charges against you are dismissed."
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Sr. Arthur Conan Doyle
*Click here for: Calculator for determining amount sound diminishes with distance:* *http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-distance.htm*.
Image of web page containing calculator:
*SECOND ONLINE CALCULATOR, LINK* *Related Watts/decibels Calculator*
LINK TO EXPERT REPORT, CLICK HERE Print quality version of Exhibit C below: "Sound and noise is a very subjective topic with people. Sounds that are soothing to one person may drive another crazy. One person’s playful puppy may be a yapping mutt to the next-door neighbor. Fortunately, noise is measurable in relation to the background sounds in our environment. Therefore, zoning boards can choose to deal with the noise issue and neighbor concerns objectively, and not just make a decision based on pressure exerted by a concerned but uninformed or misinformed neighbor. ... People often compare various sound situations for their own perspective. The average background noise in a house is about 50 dB(A), while a car driving down a street will be measured at 60 dB(A) at a distance of 300 feet. A “quiet” vacuum cleaner will emanate sound at 70 dB(A), about the same noise level that is attributed to an expressway when standing 100 feet away from it. Nearby trees on a breezy day will measure about 55 to 60 dB(A) on a decibel meter. ... Sound decreases with the distance from its source by the square of that distance. That is, a noise at 200 feet will have only one-fourth of the intensity as that same sound heard from 100 feet away. Therefore, any sound emitted from a wind turbine will quickly blend into the background noise with increasing distance from the tower."
Application for Public Defender: http://www.mncourts.gov/ruledocs/criminal/forms/RCRPform47.pdf FORM http://www.mncourts.gov/documents/0/Public/Rules/Crim_Rules__APPENDIX_OF_FORMS_eff_10-1-06.htm
Citation, 7/24/2009:	LINK
Demand Long Form Complaint	LINK
Long Form Complaint 7/31/2009	LINK
Initial Motion to Dismiss, inclusive long form complaint provided	LINK
Motion to Vacate and Reverse	LINK
WARRANT	LINK
Continuance	LINK
MOTION TO DISMISS, November 25, 2009	LINK
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, PREJUDICE, December 09, 2009	LINK
MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, December 16, 2009	LINK
Memorandum Support Motion to Dismiss of 11/25/2009, January 13, 2010	LINK
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING DECEMBER 16, 2009 MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, January 14, 2010	LINK
MOTION FOR SUMMARY ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, January 17, 2010	LINK
COURT ORDER, received January 18, 2010	LINK
REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT, JANUARY 11, 2010 Mary Jane Duchene Plaintiff: City of West St Paul Defendant: Mary Jane Duchene Case Number: 0:2010cr00012 Filed: January 13, 2010 Court: Minnesota District Court Office: DMN Office [ Court Info ] Notice of Electronic Filing 1/20/2010 LINK REMAND: 2/19/2010	LINK
MOTION TO VACATE AND REVERSE OR FOR AMENDED LONG FORM COMPLAINT, INCLUSIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE, March 16, 2010	LINK
CLICK on image below to print CLICK on image below to print map Animal Abuse Case, Dakota County
Front Row (left to right): Police Officer John Reynold, Officer Jennifer Hobbs, Sgt. Margaret Schult, Sgt. Audra Rawlings, Officer Elizabeth Schult, Officer Joey McCollum, Officer Don Weber, Police Sergeant Tom Fangel.
http://www.ci.west-saint-paul.mn.us/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC={5AB2A4C2-6052-4911-A F1B-3C51575DB80A}#{F9B67795-70B5-4335-B2BE-77C50FD85B54} "Lost/Found Pets If a pet has been found, and the pet has a license tag, call the West St. Paul Municipal Center at 651-552-4100. The City has a record of all licenses and owners. You can also inquire about lost or found pets by calling the petline at 651-322-2323."
Alice Krengel v. City WSP, case won, in Minnesota Supreme Court, one week before July 24, 2009 Supreme Court Decision 7/16/2009
http://www.murderbydiabetes.org/
Precedent, Due Process and Long Form Complaint: 1997 - Dakota County Judge Harvis ruled that prosecution must amend the long form complaint to include both a statement of probable cause and statement of case, or facts showing basis and justification for the criminal charges. The prosecution failed to amend the long form complaint and the case was dismissed. Dakota County Court file T2-97-24334 John Remington Graham U.S. Supreme Court, U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), 92 U.S. 542 COLE V. ARKANSAS, 338 U. S. 345 (1949) FARETTA V. CALIFORNIA, 422 U. S. 806 (1975) Page 422 U. S. 818 III This consensus is soundly premised. The right of self-representation finds support in the structure of the Sixth Amendment, as well as in the English and colonial jurisprudence from which the Amendment emerged. A The Sixth Amendment includes a compact statement of the rights necessary to a full defense: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Because these rights are basic to our adversary system of criminal justice, they are part of the "due process of law" that is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to defendants in the criminal courts of the States. [Footnote 14] The rights to notice, confrontation, and compulsory process, when taken together, guarantee that a criminal charge may be answered in a manner now considered fundamental to the fair administration of American justice -- through the calling and interrogation of favorable witnesses, the cross-examination of adverse witnesses, and the orderly introduction of evidence. In short, the Amendment constitutionalizes the right in an adversary criminal trial to make a defense as we know it. See California v. Green, 399 U. S. 149, 399 U. S. 176 (Harlan, J., concurring). Contact DDA
Dog for Sale
905.13. Noisy Animals. A person must not keep, harbor, or maintain at any place within the City, any animal that by its barking, howling, whining, or other noises, unreasonably disturbs the peace and quiet of any person in the vicinity. The phrase "unreasonably disturbs the peace and quiet" will include, but is not limited to, the creation of any noise by the animals, that can be heard by any person, including a law enforcement officer or animal control officer, from a location outside of the building or premises where the animal is being kept and that animal noise occurs repeatedly over at least a five-minute period of time with one minute or less lapse of time between each animal noise during the five minute period. http://weststpaul.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={E1BEABEF-F6F6-4A 49-AD84-26C0AD909FE9}&DE={339E4B70-4A5F-47C2-9EE1-910401C66B7B}#905.13

Site Sponsors

Search:
The Web
Angelfire
Report Abuse « Previous Top 100 Next »


share: del.icio.us digg reddit furl facebook

West St. Paul, Minnesota, RE: Alledged Noise Violations

Citation:
LINK

Long Form Complaint
LINK

Initial Motion to Dismiss
LINK

Motion to Vacate and Reverse
LINK

WARRANT
LINK

Contiuance
LINK

MOTION TO DISMISS, November 25, 2009
LINK

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, PREJUDICE, December 09, 2009
LINK

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF EXCUPATORY EVIDENCE, December 16, 2009
LINK

REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT, JANUARY 11, 2010
LINK

Front Row (left to right): Police Officer John Reynold, Officer Jennifer Hobbs, Sgt. Margaret Schult, Sgt. Audra Rawlings, Officer Elizabeth Schult, Officer Joey McCollum, Officer Don Weber, Police Sergeant Tom Fangel.
http://www.ci.west-saint-paul.mn.us/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC=%7B5AB2A4C2-6052-4911-AF1B-3C51575DB80A%7D#%7BF9B67795-70B5-4335-B2BE-77C50FD85B54%7D"Lost/Found PetsIf a pet has been found, and the pet has a license tag, call the West St. Paul Municipal Center at 651-552-4100. The City has a record of all licenses and owners. You can also inquire about lost or found pets by calling the petline at 651-322-2323."

Site Sponsors



In a message dated 1/11/2010 4:20:21 P.M. Central Standard Time, DDAweb@comcast.net writes:
http://ddaexchange.org/1144OttawaAvenue/noticeremoveFC.pdf

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate6/2009dog/wspnoise.html

-- Diabetics/Disabled Anonymous, Non Profit Support Group and Alliance.1144 Ottawa AvenueWest St. Paul, MN USA 55118-2008Fax and Phone: 651 457 4376 DDAweb@comcast.net DDAvolunteers@comcast.net
http://www.ddasanctuary.org/

alternate link: http://www.ddaexchange.org/medcenter/medcenter.html