Wednesday, November 13, 2019

MrsSharonAndersonakaPetersonakaScarrellaCitingCitySt.PaulGovernmentMS609RICO2019

                                            Wed.13Nov2019
                   TO THE ABOVE NAMED;   MS.609.43 AND Civil/Criminal Laws 
» Minnesota Statutes > Chapter 609 > RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (RICO)LawServe


                              THANK GOD FOR BUSINESS MAN REAL ESTATE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP AND HONEST LAWYER TOM FITTEN OF JUDICIAL 
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev, 20 F. Supp. 3d 247 | CasetextWATCH
                   has not replaced the Dead persons Kramer or Rybin.
Minnesota Civil Rights Laws - FindLaw
                                   Affiants VA Widow,White,Whistleblower has Standing to file Civil/Criminal/Constitutional Complaints, using City Council Agenda's 6Nov2019 and today 13Nov2019 Objecting to Consent Agenda's failure to decend to particulars.

                                     QUESTIONS MS 609.43
                     1.  Has/Have City Government by Bogus DSI Inspectors created Charter Violations, without decending to particulars, in violations of Canons of Construction.
9-39.000 - Contempt Of Court | JM | Department of Justice

                     2.  Is the City St. Paul,MN IN Contempt of City Charter
Is City St.Paul in Contempt of City Charter - Google Search

                    3, Has Candidate VA Widow,White,Whistleblower Mrs. Sharon Scarrella Anderson for Decades IN her realestate been reduced to poverty, currently the Bizzare of City Billing Sharon $157.oo monthly at 4.5 interest compounded daily. since 2007 
Sharon4CouncilWard2: St.Paul Guilty FTC Consumer Fraud
                            a,  http://sharon4anderson.org    currenthttp://sharonsfreedomlawschool.blogspot.com
                                  i.  Magner by info and belief still employeed in City St. Paul,MN, BUT FOR lives and pays taxes in Stillwater.
                                    ii.   MUST be reopened for Damages
magner v. gallagher - Google Search
Defamed by the DFL Paryt along with USSC 10-1032 titled Magner vs. Gallagher. 
                            b,.  
The quid pro quo between the Department of Justice and the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, is largely the result of the machinations of one man: Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez. Yet the consequences of his actions will negatively affect not only Fredrick Newell and the lowincome residents of St. Paul who he championed. The effects of this quid pro quo will be felt by future whistleblowers who act courageously, and often at great personal risk, to fight fraud and identify waste on behalf of federal taxpayers. The effects of withdrawing Magner will be felt by the minority tenants in St. Paul who, due to the case’s challenge to the City’s housing code, continue to live with rampant rodent infestations and inadequate plumbing. The effects of sacrificing Newell’s case will cost American taxpayers the opportunity to recover up to $200 million and allow St. Paul’s misdeeds to go unpunished. Far more troubling, however, is the fundamental damage that this quid pro quo has done to the rule of law in the United States and to the reputation of the Department of Justice as a fair and impartial arbiter of justice.


RES 19-1917 The Right of Privacy in your own Home 
2001-0791.resp.pdf
           Ordinance obtained via Misleading Information, Isiah church must lose tax exempt status Title 26 501c3

City Council11/6/2019Export to iCalendar3:30 PMCouncil Chambers - 3rd Floor
Public Hearings at 3:30 and 5:30 p.m.		Meeting detailsAgenda AgendaNot availableVideo Video

RES 19-184819Excessive/Abatement Service June 24 to July 22, 2019
RES PH 19-359252Setting the 2020 Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer rate

Chicago, e
City Council11/13/2019Export to iCalendar3:30 PMCouncil Chambers - 3rd FloorMeeting detailsAgenda Agenda
t al v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.  This meeting is closed to the public.
Agenda
City Council11/6/2019Export to iCalendar3:30 PMCouncil Chambers - 3rd Floor
Public Hearings at 3:30 and 5:30 p.m.		Meeting detailsAgenda AgendaNot availableVideo Video


Minnesota Supreme Court Opinions

Docket: A19-0916
Opinion Date: October 16, 2019
Judge: Lorie Skjerven Gildea
Areas of Law: Election Law, Government Contracts
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court directing the City of Saint Paul to put a referendum question regarding the City's ordinance that established organized waste collection in the City on the ballot for the next municipal election, concluding that holding a referendum on the issue will not unconstitutionally impair the City's contract with haulers that provide organized waste collection. The City refused to put the referendum question on the ballot, concluding that the referendum was preempted by state statutes that govern solid waste collection, conflicts with state policy, and would by an unconstitutional interference with the City's contract with the haulers. Respondents with filed a petition challenging the City's refusal. The district court granted the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the City has not demonstrated that a substantial impairment of its contractual obligation will occur with the referendum vote, and therefore, the Court need not address the other two factors.

                              Tues 12Nov2019
                         Service Electronically
                                 Constitutional Questions,Consent Agenda,  Corrupt Practices Act, CRIMINAL RICO acts by Council enbanc,Lawyers,Government Officials. Marcia Mormond Legislative hearing Officer without Realestate or LAW License.
                                 Illegal Creation of Debt without Notice,Due Process.TaxTheMaxAbolishTaxesv2019
                     Sharon 'Aint Dead Yet' http://sharonsfreedomlawschool.blogspot.com
​
Upcoming EventsHelp?
NameDate  
Housing & Redevelopment Authority on 2019-11-13 2:00 PMNovember 13, 2019 - 02:00 PM  
City Council on 2019-11-13 3:30 PMNovember 13, 2019 - 03:30 PMAgenda
Fat lady not signing  Trying to consolidate Files Cases etc.
                     Currently going after the Law LICENSE OF Rachael Tierney council to City Council and Chris Tolbert Separation of Powers City Council,Dual Asst.Hennepin Co. Attorney, Mike Freeman should fire
City Attorneys-Cop Corruptionolbert.


                        so much out there Thanks to Google etc.
                     Pattern by Law
Sharons QuiTam_RICO62cv10-112_Manatronyers,Judges to deny Pro Se Persons Access to Due Process,





Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Eighth Circuit › 1979 › Dick Bullock et al., Appellants, v. State of Minnesota et al., Appellees
Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Enter your email.

Dick Bullock et al., Appellants, v. State of Minnesota et al., Appellees, 611 F.2d 258 (8th Cir. 1979)

Annotate this Case


U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - 611 F.2d 258 (8th Cir. 1979)Submitted Dec. 20, 1979. Decided Dec. 28, 1979
Rev. Dick Bullock, Rev. Sharon Scarrella, and Rev. Lyle V. Rambo, pro se.
Erica Jacobson, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Minn., for appellees.
Before HEANEY, ROSS and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their pro se civil rights suit against the State of Minnesota and several of its executive officers. Plaintiffs claim: (1) Minnesota Secretary of State Joan A. Growe's refusal to file nonattorney plaintiff Scarrella's papers for the office of Minnesota Supreme Court Justice pursuant to a Minnesota constitutional provision restricting candidacy to "individuals admitted or entitled to be admitted to the practice of law in Minnesota" violated Scarrella's civil rights, and (2) membership in the Minnesota legislature of lawyers violates the separation of powers clause of the Minnesota constitution.
The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Plaintiffs appealed, and defendants filed this motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Local Rule 9(b). Because we find that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we deny defendants' motion to dismiss.
We have carefully reviewed the record and find that the district court properly dismissed the separation of powers claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs' claim is based entirely upon the Minnesota constitution, and does not, therefore, present a federal question.
Although we do not agree with the district court that plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the candidacy restriction is barred by res judicata, we affirm the district court's dismissal for the reason that this argument is without merit.
The right to regulate elections and prescribe qualifications for statewide political offices is reserved to the states under the tenth amendment of the United States Constitution. See Antonio v. Kirkpatrick, 579 F.2d 1147, 1150 (8th Cir. 1978); See also Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 141, 92 S. Ct. 849, 31 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1972). States may not, however, regulate in a manner that violates equal protection. See Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 29, 89 S. Ct. 5, 21 L. Ed. 2d 24 (1968).
The Supreme Court has indicated that the standard of review in access to public office cases must be determined by weighing the interests involved and the nature of the barrier's impact upon voters. See Bullock v. Carter, supra, 405 U.S. at 143, 92 S. Ct. 849; Antonio v. Kirkpatrick, supra, 579 F.2d at 1149. We do not decide which level of scrutiny is appropriate in the instant case because we conclude that the provision withstands constitutional scrutiny under both the rationally related and strict scrutiny tests.
The equal protection clause does not prohibit a state legislature from adopting more rigorous standards for ensuring excellence in the judiciary than for other elective offices. See Trafelet v. Thompson, 594 F.2d 623, 627 (7th Cir. 1979). The requirement that candidates be eligible to practice law in Minnesota clearly advances the state's compelling need to obtain candidates who are qualified to understand and deal with the complexities of the law.
We conclude, therefore, that the restriction does not violate the equal protection clause.
We have also reviewed Judge Alsop's other rulings, including his refusal to recuse himself and find no error.
For the reasons stated above, the order dismissing this suit is affirmed.
xx

Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella Removal Dhs QuiTam Relator to State Court | United States Constitution | Federal Government Of The United States
Blogger: User Profile: Sharon4Anderson
Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.com
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, www.taxthemax.blogspot.com 
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
Ch.119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this "Message,"
including attachments, may contain the originator's
proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies
recipients Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based
actions. Authorized carriers of this message
shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients.  See: Quon
v. Arch









Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.com
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, www.taxthemax.blogspot.com 
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 
Ch.119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this "Message," 
including attachments, may contain the originator's
proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies
recipients Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based 
actions. Authorized carriers of this message 
shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients.  See: Quon 
v. Arch
In a message dated 11/12/2019 12:17:49 PM Central Standard Time, sharon4anderson@aol.com writes:

 Tues 12Nov2019
                         Service Electronically
                                 Constitutional Questions,Consent Agenda,  Corrupt Practices Act, CRIMINAL RICO acts by Council enbanc,Lawyers,Government Officials. Marcia Mormond Legislative hearing Officer without Realestate or LAW License.
                                 Illegal Creation of Debt without Notice,Due Process.TaxTheMaxAbolishTaxesv2019

 Current Candidate State Senate 64 Trump Republican
LEGAL NOTICE:

xx

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Minnesota Court Fraud-Treason

Minnesota Court Fraud-Treason
Forensic Evidence Jim & Sharon Anderson 20+Marriage