The undersigned Political ECF_Forensic Files_Advocate
Affiant Sharon Scarrella Anderson,Attorney Pro Se, Private AG_Alleges
the Sec.State MN_ Mark Ritchie has NOT USED the 2 million Fed.Grant
to implement ECF_PDF_ Voting
Thanks to www.minnpost.com ie: MinnPost - David Brauer: Big TV networks, AP sue state over new exit poll law http://www.minnpost.com/client_files/pdfs/ABCvsRitchie.pdf
"By the way, one plaintiff's attorney is John Borger, husband of MinnPost contributor Judy Borger. I received a copy of the complaint from someone unaffiliated with either side."
* * * * * * * *** * * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Affiant Sharon Scarrella Anderson states and alleges that
. Office Awarded $2 Million Federal Grant to Improve Election Data Collection
On June 11, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie announced that
In compliance with Realestate Electronic Recording and 2 mill grant Election Data
USE OF ELECTRONIC FILING FOR CHARGING DOCUMENTS
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
On May 3, 2008, representatives from CriMNet attended a meeting of the Advisory
Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure and demonstrated their eCharging project, which is
designed to allow law enforcement and prosecution ofices to electronically prepare and transmit
charging documents to the courts CriIvfNet also demonstrated technology to allow for execution
of electronic and/or biometric signatures in those instances where signatures are required by the
rules of procedure Following the presentation, CriMNet representatives informed the
committee that four pilot project counties - Carver, Kandiyohi, Olmsted, and St Louis @uluth)
- would be prepared to implement a full test of echarging and e-filing by winter 2008/2009, and
requested that the committee develop and recommend to the Court nlles of procedure to govern
the pilot project Following are the committee's recommendations
EXPLANTION OF THE PROPOSED RUU?
Subdivision 1 of the draft rule defines two key terms that will be used throughout the
rule: "charging document" and "e-filing." The definition of the term "charging document" is
purposefully broad. Though creation and filing of the complaint is the main focus of CriMNet's
pilot project, it is important to recognize that the courts are already receiving citations and tab
charges by e-filing in the larger counties. The committee wanted to be carefir1 not to draft a rule
that would imply that those activities were unauthorized. The draft rule as written recognizes
these activities and, if this rule becomes permanent, will incorporate them by reference.
The committee determined it was unnecessary to define CriMNet's eCharging Service in
the rule The purposes of the service appear to be to: (1) create the charging document in an
electronic form, (2) apply an electronic signature where necessary, and (3) transmit information
from law enhcement to the prosecutor and then to the courts Each of these steps could be
completed independent of the eCharging Service if the prosecutor and law enforcement agencies
were to invest in alternative technologies Therefore, the rule was written without specific reference to the eCharging Service
Subdivision 2 establishes authorization for e-filing The indictment is specifically
excluded from the authorization because it is not included in the echargingle-filing pilot project
Subdivision 3(a) provides that any signatures required under the rules must be executed
electronically if the charging document is e-filed The required signatures for a complaint can be
found in Rule 2 01 There are no required signatures for a citation or tab charge The proposed
rule makes clear that once a signature is executed electronically in compliance with the signature
standard set by the State Court Administrator, that electronic signature is a valid signature on any
printed copy of the document
Subdivision 3@) provides that the signature standard will be approved by the State Court
Administrator. For this pilot project, the work to develop the signature standard has been a
several-year project undertaken by C r M e t with input ffom all criminal justice partners,
Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure
Final Report - E-filing Auyst 29,2008
