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has repealed the MS2.724.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trust, eliminate unpublished opinions, 87 county attorneys, replace 10 district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. |
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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment