Sunday, August 17, 2008
Print
Share
Citizens Water Petition_End Fluoride
|
Water Petition
PROFESSIONALS' STATEMENT CALLING FOR AN END TO WATER FLUORIDA
| SIGN THE STATEMENT! LIST of SIGNERS: US signers Editorial: Professionals mobilize to end water fluoridation worldwide |
PROFESSIONALS' STATEMENT CALLING FOR AN END TO WATER FLUORIDATION
TION .
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Water Alert_Fluoride -Sharon_64a_MN House
Fluoride Action Network
NEW FAN VIDEO! SCIENCE As your constituent, I support the over 1,750 medical, dental, scientific, and environmental professionals calling for an end to fluoridation and a new Congressional Hearing on Fluoridation. See link to "Professionals' Statement" at the Fluoride Action Network home page: http://FluorideAction.net/ The professionals cite the landmark 2006 National Research Council (NRC) report on fluoride in water that identified many adverse health effects associated with exposure to fluoride. Based on the concentration levels reported to be harmful, there is clearly no adequate margin of safety to protect against these adverse effects for the 170 million Americans drinking fluoridated water. Especially at risk are infants and small children, the elderly or frail, and those with above average water consumption, inadequate nutrition, diabetes, and poor thyroid or kidney function. Ignoring all risks in the NRC report, the US CDC still spends millions of tax dollars aggressively promoting fluoridation and, after more than one year, the US EPA has failed to do the fluoride Risk Assessment called for in the NRC report. We need a new Congressional Hearing requiring CDC and EPA officials to provide, under oath, valid evidence that fluoridation is safe for ALL |
Monday, August 11, 2008
Sharons 64a Answers_MN Family Council
Great Web site www.mfc.org Thanks faxed also
In a message dated 8/11/2008 12:20:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time, family@mfc.org writes:
August 11, 2008
Dear House Candidate,
I am contacting you to follow a previous letter I sent you about answering
our Minnesota Family Institute’s 2008 Voter’s Guide. MFI is the educational
subsidiary of the Minnesota Family Council. This is an excellent
opportunity for you to share your views with voters in your district.
As you may know, the MFI is Minnesota’s largest non-partisan, pro-family
organization, and our nonpartisan Voter’s Guide will be distributed to
families throughout your district.
Attached you will find a questionnaire asking your position on a wide range
of issues.
Please fill out the questionnaire, sign it, and return it to MFI as soon as
possible. You can also fax your signed questionnaire to 612.789.8858 to
expedite the process. Any questions not responded to will be listed as “No
Response” in the Voter’s Guide.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (612) 600-3136.
Thank you for your participation.
Sincerely,
Tom Prichard, President
Minnesota Family Institute
Click here: Sharon4Council file4[1]Shar_thune_22.pdf - Google Docs
Disclaimer on Site'sThe Electronic Communications Privacy Act MY FindLaw (ECPA) sets out the provisions for access, use, disclosure, interception and privacy protections of electronic communications. Sharon4Anderson Scribd pdf files. The law was enacted in 1986 and covers various forms of wire and electronic communications. According to the U.S. Code, electronic communications "means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce." ECPA prohibits unlawful access and certain disclosures of communication contents. Additionally, the law prevents government entities from requiring disclosure of electronic communications from a provider without proper procedure. The Legal Institute provides Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which encompasses ECPA. Blogger: Dashboard AndersonAdvocates/ddaweborg.msnw
NOTICE: This communication is not encrypted. This e-mail (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and Electronic Communications Privacy Act The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers
Disclaimer on Site'sThe Electronic Communications Privacy Act MY FindLaw (ECPA) sets out the provisions for access, use, disclosure, interception and privacy protections of electronic communications. Sharon4Anderson Scribd pdf files. The law was enacted in 1986 and covers various forms of wire and electronic communications. According to the U.S. Code, electronic communications "means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce." ECPA prohibits unlawful access and certain disclosures of communication contents. Additionally, the law prevents government entities from requiring disclosure of electronic communications from a provider without proper procedure. The Legal Institute provides Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which encompasses ECPA. Blogger: Dashboard AndersonAdvocates/ddaweborg.msnw
NOTICE: This communication is not encrypted. This e-mail (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and Electronic Communications Privacy Act The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Rev.SharonScarrella _Anderson v. Midwest Fed S&L_FastCase-536F2d1207_No.75_1912
Click here: http://law.usc.edu/academics/centers/cslp/papers/cslp-wp-028.pdf
Normally when writing letters, cases used require a Summary
Learned that 30 yrs ago with Divorce Reform Inc. ie: http://richard-bullock.blogspot.com/
Fastcase
This applys to Canons
http://law.usc.edu/academics/centers/cslp/papers/cslp-wp-028.pdf
One recurrent example involves federal statutes that lack an explicit limitation period within which to initiate legal
action. See North Star Steel v. Thomas, 515 U.S. 29, 33 (1995) (referring to numerous specific statutes). While
there may be rare instances in which this decis ion is conscious and deliberate (see note 2 infra), it generally reflects
simply insufficient attention to detail.
2 See, e.g., Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244, 262-63 (1994) (concluding, based on review of legislative
history, that supporters of 1991 Civil Rights Act “agreed to disagree about whether and to what extent the Act would
apply to preenactment conduct”). See generally Miriam R. Jorgensen & Kenneth A. Shepsle, A Comment on the
Positive Canons Project, 57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 43, 44-45 (Winter 1994); Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz,
Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation, 115 HARV. L. REV. 2085, 2155 (2002).
3 Congress also invites this gap-filling from executive branch agencies. See generally Edward Rubin, Dynamic
Statutory Interpretation in the Administrative State, www.bepress.com/ils/iss3/art.2 (2002).
4 See, e.g., Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001) (adjudicating tobacco industry’s right to engage in
certain forms of cigarette advertising); United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F. 3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (adjudicating
extent of government’s ability to regulate internet access). See generally John Ferejohn, Judicializing Politics,
Politicizing Law, 65 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 41, 64-65 (Summer 2002).›ÿ˜Š7&÷ó¦
IT PAYS TO KEEP RECORDS
Sharon4Anderson Scribd
Public Domain Candidate Profile FCC Complaints - http://sharons-copywrite.blogspot.com/
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: Document's are based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, press releases, andknowledge gained as financial journalists, Private Attorney Generals, Candidsecurities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting Google Search Times v. Sullvian Libel with malice - on that recommendations, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these or other Public MY FindLaw Office documents expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in Google Search BlogItBabe2007 Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs Sharon4Anderson St.Paul City Council Ward2 SA-Blogs2007 Blogger: Dashboard
SHARON-MN-ECF: Judges-Greylord-Libby-Guilty LUFSKY Scap129FAnokaP2697(1976) Cpl James R. Anderson USMC 11022885 Bio for Sharon Anderson , TAKING DL_AOL Journal Legal Eagle SharonAnderson 1 Journalism Ethics Blogger: 1986 Petition Jane Duchene MN Bull SharonScarrellaAndersonUSBriefs - Buzznet Sharon'sFedCases1973to2006_13pdf Anderson
Normally when writing letters, cases used require a Summary
Learned that 30 yrs ago with Divorce Reform Inc. ie: http://richard-bullock.blogspot.com/
  | How can I view the whole document? Why subscribe? What is Fastcase? |
| |
| |
| |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fastcase
This applys to Canons
http://law.usc.edu/academics/centers/cslp/papers/cslp-wp-028.pdf
One recurrent example involves federal statutes that lack an explicit limitation period within which to initiate legal
action. See North Star Steel v. Thomas, 515 U.S. 29, 33 (1995) (referring to numerous specific statutes). While
there may be rare instances in which this decis ion is conscious and deliberate (see note 2 infra), it generally reflects
simply insufficient attention to detail.
2 See, e.g., Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244, 262-63 (1994) (concluding, based on review of legislative
history, that supporters of 1991 Civil Rights Act “agreed to disagree about whether and to what extent the Act would
apply to preenactment conduct”). See generally Miriam R. Jorgensen & Kenneth A. Shepsle, A Comment on the
Positive Canons Project, 57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 43, 44-45 (Winter 1994); Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz,
Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation, 115 HARV. L. REV. 2085, 2155 (2002).
3 Congress also invites this gap-filling from executive branch agencies. See generally Edward Rubin, Dynamic
Statutory Interpretation in the Administrative State, www.bepress.com/ils/iss3/art.2 (2002).
4 See, e.g., Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001) (adjudicating tobacco industry’s right to engage in
certain forms of cigarette advertising); United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F. 3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (adjudicating
extent of government’s ability to regulate internet access). See generally John Ferejohn, Judicializing Politics,
Politicizing Law, 65 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 41, 64-65 (Summer 2002).›ÿ˜Š7&÷ó¦
IT PAYS TO KEEP RECORDS
Sharon4Anderson ScribdPublic Domain Candidate Profile FCC Complaints - http://sharons-copywrite.blogspot.com/
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: Document's are based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, press releases, andknowledge gained as financial journalists, Private Attorney Generals, Candidsecurities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting Google Search Times v. Sullvian Libel with malice - on that recommendations, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these or other Public MY FindLaw Office documents expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in Google Search BlogItBabe2007 Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs Sharon4Anderson St.Paul City Council Ward2 SA-Blogs2007 Blogger: Dashboard
SHARON-MN-ECF: Judges-Greylord-Libby-Guilty LUFSKY Scap129FAnokaP2697(1976) Cpl James R. Anderson USMC 11022885 Bio for Sharon Anderson , TAKING DL_AOL Journal Legal Eagle SharonAnderson 1 Journalism Ethics Blogger: 1986 Petition Jane Duchene MN Bull SharonScarrellaAndersonUSBriefs - Buzznet Sharon'sFedCases1973to2006_13pdf Anderson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
