• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Quo warr gildea26jul10
 

Quo warr gildea26jul10

on

  • 781 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
781
Views on SlideShare
771
Embed Views
10

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 10

http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com 8
http://sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Quo warr gildea26jul10 Quo warr gildea26jul10 Document Transcript

    • Page 1 of 7 From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com To: fred.grittner@courts.state.mn.us, askdoj@usdoj.gov, askdrlaura@foxnews.com, tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us, attorney.general@state.mn.us, lorie.skjerven.gildea@courts.state.mn.us CC: DMashak@aol.com, harold@theminnesotawatchdog.com, nancylazaryan@yahoo.com, dane@growthandjustice.org, info@mnartists.org Sent: 7/26/2010 3:39:55 P.M. Central Daylight Time Subj: MN_JUDICIAL REFORM_QUO WARRANTO TO JUSTICE LORI GILDEA Mon 26Jul10 Orly Taitz files intervener motion to join health care lawsuit ... Apr 9, 2010 ... Orly Taitz files intervener motion to join health care lawsuit ... prejudiced by permitting Dr. Taitz's intervention in the instant action. ... www.thepostemail.com/.../orly-taitz-files-intervener-motion-to-join-health-care-lawsuit/ - Cached TO: Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea Court Enbanc.etal,Media_ Quo Warranto Relator Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Chergosky_Scarrella sharon4anderson@aol.com tel: 651-776-5835 www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com A writ of quo warranto is not a petition, but a notice of demand, issued by a demandant, to a respondant claiming some delegated power, and filed with a ... www.constitution.org/writ/quo_warranto.htm - Cached - Similar Legal Opinions Quo Warranto Filing A Quo Warranto Procedures for filing quo warranto applications and actions are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, sections 803-811 California Code of Regulations, title 11, sections 1-11 A quo warranto action is filed typically to remove a person from public office. The Attorney General must approve all quo warranto actions filed by private individuals. This protects public officers from frivolous lawsuits. Nature of Remedy. A quo warranto action may be brought against any person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any public office or franchise. A quo warranto action may also be brought against any corporation, either de jure or de facto, which usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any franchise within California. Monday, July 26, 2010 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
    • Page 2 of 7 The Opinion Unit reviews the written pleadings filed by the parties and issues an opinion either granting or denying the application to sue. If approval is given, the lawsuit is maintained under the direction of the Attorney General. The prerogative writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment, which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents. Here are a few writings on the subject. Revival of the writs must be combined with reviving standing for private prosecution of public rights, subverted by the "cases and controversies" doctrine and the decision in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), which is discussed in an article by Steve Winter, The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance. Quo warranto is intended to prevent a continuing exercise of an authority unlawfully asserted, and is not appropriate for moot or abstract questions. Where the alleged usurpation has terminated, quo warranto will be denied. (People v. City of Whittier (1933) 133 Cal.App. 316, 324; 25 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 223 (1955).) By the same token, because quo warranto serves to end a continuous usurpation, no statute of limitations applies to the action. (People v. Bailey (1916) 30 Cal.App. 581, 584-585.) http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/page/2/ Minnesota Judicial Center Phone: (651) 297-7650 RELATOR: Lorie skjerven gildea B.A. Degree, with distinction University of Minnesota Morris, 1983 J.D. Degree, magna cum laude, order of the coif Georgetown University Law Center, 1986 Appointed as Chief Justice on May 13, 2010. Term expires Jan. 2013. Appointed as Associated Justice on January 11, 2006 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT QuoWarranto_RICO A06-1150_82-1292-C8-84-24_A09-2031_62cv09-1163_62cv10-112 State of Minnesota by and thro DFL_AG Lori Swanson, SharonAndersonSharon Anderson, Title 31 Relator ECF P165913 Pacer sa1299 http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=38824 Candidate R_AG_10Aug2010 Primary to be filled 2Nov2010,John Doe,Mary Roe,all others similarily situated,to join with Dr. Orley Tazit,13+ AG's to repeal Obama Care HR3590 Monday, July 26, 2010 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
    • Page 3 of 7 Voters,Taxpayers, http://docs.google.com/gview? url=http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/032310healthcarelawsuit.pdf&chrome=true&pli=1 AttorneyProSe_Private AG_QuiTam Relators vs. Kathleen Sebelius Sec.HHH,MN. Sec.State Mark Ritchie,Tom Hanson Finances,Ward Einess Revenue,Michael Campanion DPS,Dr.Sanne Magnam Health,2ndharvest.org,All Licensed Lawyers_Judges,specifically Kathleen Gearin,Joanne Smith,Gregg Johnson,salvador rosas,John Vandenorth,Edward Toussaint, Ret. Lawrence Cohen,John Doe,Mary Roe, all others similarily situated: * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUMN Affidavit of Sharon Anderson aka In re: Scarrella for Associate Justice NW2d221page 562, the denial of the Elective Franchise of the tax supported Employment of Judge denied to all non-lawyer citizenry mandates Affidavit of Prejudices against all Judges to insure Access to the Seats of Government Accountability, Fair, Impartial Trials, with Constitutional Challenges of the Election and MS117 Eminent Domain Laws. www.sharon4judge.blogspot.com Sharon brings these matters to the Supreme Court via MS2.724 Chief Justice has full Supervisory, Fidicuary Control of the Courts,Lawyers Judicial Branch www.courts.state.mn.us Sharon mandates this to be a Test Case ISSUES: ELECTION_EMINENT DOMAIN ELECTRONIC FILINGS HEALTH_CARE _IMMIGRATION_ Republican Candidate for State Attorney General RELIEF SOUGHT This action is brought pursuant to jurisdictional authority stated in Minnesota Statutes ß2.724 Chief Justice. COUNT I MN Const. Art.III Separation Powers The Petitioner, requests Quo Warranto be heard, restraining from the Ballot all Lawyer_Judges that do not list their Residence,lawyers license and contact for Public Peview, or have a certified copy of exemption on fle with Sec. State's Office. The Public has the Right to know who they are voting for even unopposed> a. Affiant Sharon Anderson challenge's the Affidavit of Candidacy is defective on 2 Counts a. All Judges and Co. Attorneys "Licensed" "Learned in Law" never defined to mean Lawyer, contrary to MN Constitution Art. III Separation of Powers: County Attorneys Executive Branch,Judges Judicial Branch. B. Auditor,AttorneyGeneral ,SecState are left Monday, July 26, 2010 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
    • Page 4 of 7 Vote sharonmn ag_10aug10 1 month ago, 133 views Edit out on the Affidavit of Candidacy? Techinally any/all Affidavits are Null and Void in the 2010 Elections. SharonAndersonFiles MN A… 2 months ago, 260 views Edit COUNT II RED FLAG_RICO 18USC s1961-68 http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lit08.htm Over 20 years Sharon has accused apparent Judge Kathleen Gearin with Theft by Swindle over $120 thousand from Sharons HS at 1058 Summit Ave. St.Paul,MN, triggering the Murder of Cpl Jim Anderson who spent 1 year at Brainard State Hospital, Wrongful Death of Tenants in Common of Bill and Bernice A. Peterson www.crimes-against-humanity.blogspot.com Equity Skimming, Heinous violations Since most RICO complaints allege underlying acts of mail, wire, or securities fraud, which must be pleaded with particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), the complaint may be lengthy and complex. The Third Branch Sharon in Good Faith Must trigger this Legal Notice before the Primary10Aug10 COUNT III http://www.justice.gov/crt/crim/3631fin.php When Judges are involved in Theft by Swindle, Covert Coverup of Bank,Wire Fraud via Unpublished Opinions they must be indicted for their Ponzi Schemes 4 their Pecuniary Gain. acting in concort with Manatron Software www.mnccc.org www.manatron.com www.taxthemax.blogspot.com www.sharonanderson.wordpress.com www.sharon4anderson.org POA online in the event of DEATH COUNT IV SHARIA LAW Sharon s opposed to this Heinous Wrongs against Women, apparantly introduced now by President Obama. Further MN Courts are Cluttered with Hoarding Paper contrary to http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/PDFcases/sharoncases.pdf http://www.angelfire.com/planet/andersonadvocates/index.html Monday, July 26, 2010 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
    • Page 5 of 7 Files on E- HOME Democracy, St. Paul - April 06, 2006: Best regards from, Water Sharon Board, 2006 Download/Get: File Constitutionality State Laws 1 Download/Get: File Health Issues 2 Download/Get: File Eminent Domain Demolition 3 Download/Get: File Election Contest 4 Download/Get: File POA 4/17/2006 5 Download/Get: File Sharon's Federal Cases 1973 to 2006 6 Download/Get: File USDist.Crt.02-0332 (Rosenbaum) 7 Download/Get: File Eminent Domain Homeless 8 Andersons Download/Get: Index E Democcracy April 6, 2006 CASE NAME: State of Minnesota ex rel. Speaker of House of Representatives Hon. Steve Sviggum, et al., petitioners, Appellants, vs. Tom Hanson in his official capacity as Commissioner of Finance or his successor, et al., Respondents. Read the opinion in this case at A06-840 CITATION: 732 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007) Legal Issues in BRIEF OF APPELLANT'S/INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS AND APPENDIX: Do individual legislators as members of the Minnesota State Legislature have standing to bring an action to the court to challenge the executive branch of government for misappropriation of state funds in violation of the Minnesota Constitution and/or Minnesota Statutes? The District Court concluded that, at a minimum, state legislators had standing as citizen taxpayers to assert claims of misappropriation of state funds. Apposite Cases: Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1932) Raines v Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) Conant v Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP, 603 N.W.2d 143 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) Dolak v State Admin Bd, 441 Mich. 547,495 NW2d 539 (1993) Rukavian v Pawlenty, 684 N.W.2d 525 (Minn.. Ct. App. 2004) Silver v Pataki, 96 N.Y.2d. 532, 755 N.E.2d 842, 730 N.Y.S.2d 482,2001 Slip Op. 06138 (N.y. July 10, 2001). Whether the writ of quo warranto is an appropriate procedure to require the Minnesota Commissioner Monday, July 26, 2010 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
    • Page 6 of 7 of Finance to show by what authority that office could disburse funds without an appropriation by law? The District Court declined to issue a writ of quo warranto concluding it an improper procedure to contest past conduct of the Commissioner of Finance. Apposite Cases: Clayton v Kiffmeyer, 688 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 2004) Fletcher v Commonwealth of Kentucky, 163 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. May 19,2005) Jasper v Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 642 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. 2002) Kahn v Griffin, 701 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 2005) Rice v. Connolly, 488 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1992) State ex rel Mattson v. Kiedrowski, 391 N.W.2d 777 (Minn. 1986) State v. ex rel Palmer v Perpich, 182 N.W.2d 182 (1971) State ex rel Danielson v. Village of Mound, 48 N.W.2d 855 (1951) Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (1975) Did the Commissioner of Finance disburse state funds without an appropriation by law in contravention of Articles III, IV, and XI of the Minnesota Constitution? The District Court did not address this issue. Apposite Cases: Cinncinnati Soap Co v United States, 301 U.S. 308 (1937) Office of Personnel Management v Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990) In re Matter of Application of the Senate, 10 Minn. 78 (Minn 1865) Izaak Walton League of America Endowment, Inc. v State Dep't of Natural Res., 252 N.W.2d 852 (Minn. 1977) St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v Marzitelli, 258 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. 1977) State ex re Gardner v Holm, 62 N.W.2d 52 (Minn. 1954) Rice v Connolly, 488 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1992) Rukavina v Pawlenty, 684 N W.2d 525 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) Are the Appellants entitled to attorney fees and costs in responding to the Commissioner's motion for sanctions? The District Court denied the motion for attorney fees and costs. Apposite Cases: Kirk Capital Corporation v Bailey, 16 F. 3d 1485,28 Fed. R. Serv.3d 88 (8th Cir. 1994) Gibson v. Coldwell Banker Burnet, 659 N.W.2d 782 (Minn. Ct App 2003) Wagner v Minneapolis Public Schools, 581 N W.2d 49 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998) Legal Issues in RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX: Is Appellants' Petition for a writ of quo warranto a proper procedure by which to challenge the purely past conduct of a State public official that is not continuing? The district court held in the negative. Most apposite authorities: Rice v. Connolly, 488 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1992) State ex rel. Mattson v. Kiedrowski, 391 N.W.2d 777 (Minn. 1986) State ex rel. Grozbach v. Common Sch. Dist. 65, 54 N.W.2d 130 (Minn. 1952) Lommen v. Gravlin, 295 N.W. 654 (Minn. 1941) Does Appellant's Petition requesting an advisory legal opinion regarding a purely hypothetical future set of facts present a ripe case or controversy? The district court held in the negative. Most apposite authorities: Kennedy v. Carlson, 544 N.W.2d I (Minn. 1996) St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Marzitelli, 258 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. 1977) Izaak Walton League of America Endorsement, Inc. v. State Dept. of Nat. Res., 252 N.W.2d 852 (Minn. 1977) Do conclusion of proceedings in the district court temporary shutdown proceeding and legislative ratification of actions taken there under render Appellant's Petition moot? The district court held in the affirmative. Most apposite authorities: Kahn v. Griffin, 701 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 2005) In re Schmidt, 443 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 1989) Chaney v. Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency, 641 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002), rev. denied (Minn. May 28, 2002) Does the doctrine of laches preclude Appellants from challenging the district court's approval of the expenditures at issue when Appellants refused to participate in, or object to, the district court's proceeding and then subsequently ratified the very expenditures they now challenge? The district court held in the affirmative. Most apposite authorities: Apple Valley Square v. City of Apple Valley, 472 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. Ct. App. 1981) Fetch v. Holm, 52 N.W.2d 113 (Minn. 1952) Aronovich v. Levy, 56 N.W.2d 570 (Minn. 1953) Do Appellants have standing to as individual members of the Legislature, or as taxpayers, to challenge the expenditures which they expressly ratified. The district court held that Appellants had standing in their capacity as taxpayers and did not decide whether Appellants had standing as legislators. Most apposite authorities: McKee v. Likins, 261 N.W.2d 566 (Minn. 1977) Rukavina v. Pawlenty, 684 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) Conant v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP, 603 N.W.2d 143 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). Does Minn. Const. art. XI, § 1 override judicial authority and responsibility to order State spending where such expenditures are required to maintain critical government functions? The district court held in the negative. Most apposite authorities: Coalition for Basic Human Needs v. King, 654 F.2d 838 (1st Cir. 1981) Mattson v. Kiedroenski, 391 N.W.2d 777 (Minn. 1986) Sharood v. Hatfield, 210 N.W.2d 275 (Minn. 1973) Fletcher v. Commonwealth of Ky., 163 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. 2005) Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Appellants' sanctions motion based on Respondents' premature filing of their own sanctions motion? The district court by definition held in the negative. Most apposite authorities: Olson v. Babler, No. A05:, 395, 2006 WL 851798 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) Gibson v. Coldwell Banker Burnett, 659 N.W.2d 782 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) Burnett, 659 N.W.2d 782 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) Muhammad v. State, Nos. Civ. A-99-3742/99-2694, 2000 WL 1876 (E.D. La. 2000). Also Filed - REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS/INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS Also Filed - BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE EIGHTY-FOURTH MINNESOTA SENATE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS Return to Home Page Monday, July 26, 2010 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
    • Page 7 of 7 MEMORANDUMN http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/03/orly-taitz-files-motion-to-have-her- quo.html http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=quo+warranto+MN+Briefs&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=quo+warranto+MN+Briefs&gs_rf ) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY E-COMMERCE_ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION AT 3:37PM MON26Jul2010 Click here: MINNESOTA JUDICIAL REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY: Our Minnesota "Justice" System and the Gildea Article http://donmashakjudicialreformaccountability.blogspot.com/2010/07/our-justice-system-and-gildea- article.html LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Candidate AG2010 www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com Blogger: http://www.the912project.us/profiles/blogs/digitalcourtericmagnusona1064a-1 Homestead Act of 1862 Twitter / Sharon4Anderson Shar1058's Buzz Activity Page - My Buzz Activity - Yahoo! Buzz neopopulism.org - Pro Se Dec Action Litigation Pack Sharon4Anderson | Scribd Document's are based on SEC filings, Blogger: Dashboard Home | FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of whistleblower protection issues, MY FindLaw SharonsWritProA06_1150_30Jun06_26 The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers kare11.com_SA Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption 3Apr0http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPlawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm Sharon4Council: DLJ Management v. City St. Paul A06- 2118,Money LaunderinNo direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937) g andFCC Complaints - http://sharons-copywrite.blogspot.comknowledge gained as financial journalists , http://taxthemax.blogspot.com securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade Public domain 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 Office documents expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in Google Search BlogItBabe2007 Candidate profile Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs Sharon4And Monday, July 26, 2010 AOL: Sharon4Anderson