Tuesday, October 18, 2016

CitySt.PaulTakingsROWvsSharonAndersonDonaldTrumpSupporter




















              Sharons Standing to Object www.sharons-courtrecords.blogspot.com
 
 
                   Mon.17OCT2016
           To the Above Named; Specificall Mayor Chris Coleman, his Canvass Board Designee Shari Moore City Clerk, City Attorney Samuel Clark, City Council Enbanc,Ramsey Co Board all others as their interests appear.
 
                Affiant is a Donald Trump Supporter, Trump4Truth is the only
    Business Man to set the Country on the Course of Fiscal Responsibility.
                           PURSUANT TO THE 5TH AMEND TAKING
                           CLAUSE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATIONS
                           CRIMINAL CODE 609.
609.51 SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.
 

                 PLEASE TAKE LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL NOTICE, that in the US Mails Sat.15Oct2016 Permit no 3844.
                                ISSUES
               1. Use of the US Mails to send the RightofWay Maintenance Assessment,  stating pymt due 15Nov2016 with 4.5%interest is Arbitrary,Confiscatory,Unconstitutional.
                    b.  Pymts rcvd after will be returned
                    c.' only owners who file signed,writted objedctions ' are eligible' to appeal
                    d. Notice must then be filed with District Court
                            i  Who will pay $500 fee to the Court
              AFFIANT WIDOW MRS. SHARON ANDERSON
             hereby gives Notice to challenge the Citys Unconstitutional Takings
 
 
Right of Way Hearing 10/17/2016 https://stpaul.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=IC&ID=510998&GUID=CA493DD3-C6EB-42A2-9749-B95BFF07254B 9:00 AM Room 330, City Hall Meeting details Agenda Agenda Not available Not available
Right of Way Hearing 10/14/2016 https://stpaul.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=IC&ID=509376&GUID=C338E07C-48B6-4EF1-8C77-4209ECDFDE1C 9:00 AM Room 330, City Hall Meeting details Agenda Agenda Not available N
 
 
 

St. Paul right-of-way fees are taxes, Minnesota high court rules

www.twincities.com/.../st-paul-minnesota-right-of-...
St. Paul Pioneer Press
Aug 24, 2016 - In the ruling, Justice David Lillehaug wrote for the court that the right-of-way ... StPaul City Attorney Samuel Clark, in a statement on the ruling, noted that it ... Accordingly, the City's R.O.W. assessment is a tax subject to ...


Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Sharon4St.PaulMayor vs. ChrisColemans_HighCrimesMisdemeanors

 To expose High Crimes,Misdemeanors of Chris Coleman, taking a Dive and Bribe to Case Fix in the Magner Case USSC 10-1032 http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DOJ-St-Paul.pdf Executive Summary * * * AsstAGThomas E.Perez made a secret deal behing closed doors with Chris Coleman Mayor outside counsel David Lillehaug ie: Now MN Justice with Throat Cancer, * * * to Recent advances continue to refine these statistical methods, such as a new system developed Separation Powers:Colemans Complicity www.lmc.org Cities Risk Management Insurance via League MN Cities, apparantly Federal Judge Joanne Ericksen involvement has put the State and Federal Judiciary "at risk"Township of Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action (filed May 17, 2013): In November 2011, the Court granted cert. in Magner v. Gallagher to decide two questions: first, whether disparate impact claims - that is, claims alleging that a practice has a discriminatory effect on a protected class, even if it not based on a discriminatory purpose - can be brought for a violation of the Fair Housing Act; and, second, what test courts should use to analyze such claims. However, before the Court could hear oral argument, the parties agreed
 
Name: Sharon Anderson
Office: Minnesota Attorney general
Party: Republican
Incumbent: No
City of residence: St Paul—Aitkin—Nashwauk
Website: http://www.sharon4anderson.org
Background:
Title 31 Whistleblower, re: Scarrella for Associate Justice 221NW2d562; 1994 Independent Republican nominee for attorney general; VA widow, political activist; ECF P165913; Pacer sa 1299; www.eastmetrovoterguide.com web sites educational, real estate entrepreneur; holdings St. Paul, Aitkin, Nashwauk, Gull Lake? Peterson Heritage, Mora, Minn.; Chergosky Heritage Minneapolis.
Endorsements:
Not seeking endorsements.
Essay:
Enforce Art. III Minnesota Constitution separation of powers, MS8.06; advocate high standards, ethics, morality, health care, access, eminent domain compensation. Prosecute violations of case fixing, election fraud, that has repealed the MS2.724. Case A061150. WaterEDemA06-1150. Integrity, public trust, eliminate unpublished opinions, 87 county attorneys, replace 10 district attorneys, enforcement MS8.32-3 Consumers Affairs, parens patriae, jury trials; www.judicialwatch.org; www.sharon4anderson.org
; prosecute white collar crime unabated by the monopoly of franchised lawyers ­— judges acting in concert with their franchise.


Sunday, October 6, 2013

Justice Watch: Previewing First Monday: Cases to watch in the Su...

Justice Watch: Previewing First Monday: Cases to watch in the Su...: Much of the government still may be shut down on Monday, but the Supreme Court will be open for business.  Every year, the first Monday in...

Friday, October 4, 2013

Previewing First Monday: Cases to watch in the Supreme Court’s coming term

Much of the government still may be shut down on Monday, but the Supreme Court will be open for business. Every year, the first Monday in October ushers in a new Supreme Court term, during which the nine justices of the Supreme Court will decide critical constitutional and statutory questions that will shape the future of our rights and our everyday lives.

Chief Justice John Roberts
Last term, the Roberts Court continued its trend of favoring corporate and other powerful interests over those of everyday Americans. The conservative bloc of five justices shielded generic-drug manufacturers from liability for harm caused by their drugs, curbed access to justice for consumers by making it more difficult to litigate against big business, and greatly restricted the ability of individuals facing workplace discrimination to bring claims against their employers.

This term the Court will be deciding issues affecting corporate accountability, abortion rights, racial discrimination, affirmative action, rights of criminal defendants, human rights, separation of powers, separation of church and state, and more. They will be answering questions like:

●How easily may the police search our homes or our cars?
● What are the rights of the indigent when it comes to effective counsel and fair sentencing?
● What recourse do consumers have when they are harmed by corporations?
● When can people who have been discriminated against seek redress in the courts?

Alliance for Justice will release our full report previewing the 2013-2014 Supreme Court term on Monday. Today, we highlight just a few of the cases we’re following.

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action: In 2006 the state of Michigan put affirmative action to a vote. As a result, voters passed Proposal 2, which amended the state constitution to prohibit race- and sex-based affirmative action in public-university admissions. The constitutional amendment went so far as to bar university admission officials from even considering whether to use race as a relevant factor in admission.

As a result, a student who wants her race to be considered in admission must seek an amendment to the state constitution, but a student who wants the university to consider something like the fact that her father and grandfather attended the same school may petition the regents directly. As the Sixth Circuit held, the voter-initiated ban violated equal protection because it “unconstitutionally alters Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities.” If the Supreme Court were to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision, it would severely limit backers of racial diversity seeking recourse through the political process.

Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action: In this case, the Supreme Court will consider whether individuals suing for discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) can sue based on a “disparate impact” theory—in which a policy that seems to be race-neutral has such a strong, negative effect on particular groups of minorities that the effect of the law constitutes discrimination—or whether they must prove that there was an intent to discriminate.

When the Court agreed to hear the case, 11 circuit courts had found that the FHA was meant to apply to discrimination based on disparate impact, despite a lack of explicit text to that effect. Not a single circuit court has found otherwise.

While the case was pending, the Department of Housing and Urban Development even promulgated a rule stating that the FHA is violated by disparate impact discrimination, and the Solicitor General advocated against the Supreme Court hearing the case.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court accepted the case. A decision striking down disparate impact theory under the FHA could have dire consequences for the enforcement of many civil rights statutes.

McCullen v. Coakley: This case, where the Supreme Court will revisit the constitutionality of buffer zone laws outside of clinics where abortions are performed, may have broad implications for women’s safety and access to reproductive services. In the 2000 case Hill v. Colorado, the Supreme Court upheld Colorado’s “buffer zone” law, which created a 100-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics that protesters cannot cross. The zones are needed to prevent patients and staff from being harassed and intimidated.

The buffer zone law in McCullen is even more modest: it mandates a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics in Massachusetts, and allows clinic employees and representatives, law enforcement officials, and passers-by to enter the buffer zone. Opponents urge the Court to strike the law down as a violation of the First Amendment, while supporters argue such laws are necessary to protect the safety of patients accessing clinics. Although this case is very similar to the decade-old precedent upholding a similar and more restrictive law, one thing has changed since 2000: the makeup of the Supreme Court.

Unite Here Local 335 v. Mulhall: In order to avoid the strife and recrimination that sometimes accompanies efforts to unionize a workplace, unions and employers often enter into “neutrality agreements.” These agreements set ground rules for organizing where both sides make promises and concessions.

Although such agreements are common and viewed as a useful tool by both labor and management, they are being challenged by anti-union forces.

Based on an obscure legal theory, the Eleventh Circuit held that neutrality agreements violate an anti-bribery statute from 1947 that forbids employers from paying any money or other valuables to labor unions. If the Supreme Court affirms the Eleventh Circuit and finds against neutrality agreements, it could mean the end to one of labor’s most powerful and successful organizing tools.

These cases represent just a few of the many cases the Court will hear this term that will have important consequences for all of us. In addition to these cases, the Court could:

• Provide police with a loophole to conduct a warrantless search of a defendant’s home despite his or her explicit objections;
• Severely impair criminal defendants’ ability to receive a fair trial and a just sentence;
• Make it easier for corporate interests to escape accountability for harming consumers;
• Drastically curb the president of authority to appoint officials to vital government positions;
• Weaken the constitutional wall between church and state; and

Eliminate limits on aggregate direct contributions to candidates and party committees.

Come back Monday for a link to our full report on all of the cases Alliance for Justice is following.