Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Ed.Toussaint'sCovert OrderTitle18s1951


Published on

MN Appellate Court Chief Judge Ed.Toussaint a Black Man, by manulipating,Case Fixing A09-2031 to coverup Bank,Wire Fraud,Due Process's the Right to be notified Abridged,A06-1150 removed to Federal Court That 'WATER SHUTOFF, Forensic Files, Court Publishing "Order" and not the entire Case,
must trigger QuoWarranto similar to Orly Taitz challenging Obama's 39 Social Security No's etc. Ramsey Dist. Crt. 62cv09-1163 Complicity with Auditor Mark Oswald, Complicit with Judge John Vandenorth, with Student John Edison, Jean Stepan,DFL County Attorney Susan Gaertner aka Mrs. xxx,Father of her Girls,aka Mrs. John Wodele former Comunications Jessie Ventura. A09-2031, False Affidavits, of Auditor Mark Oswald, as Taxes paid, Denial Rule 24.04 as Affiant is Republican Candidate AG, Sexiest,Reverse Discrimination on the Senior,Disabled,Poverty Striken, The Court must be ASHAMED of its Actions. THEREFORE: THIS ORDER IS CHALLENGED QUO WARRANTO Affiant reserved the Right to Remove to Federal Court, in the Similar Issue of
the State, City,County's RICO ACTION In their "Patterened Enterprise" of Judicial Malpractice againt the citizenery, re: Burger v. St. Paul 238 Minn.285 Title 42USC 3631 proof 2008 Taxes Paid

  • Hi there! Get Your Professional Job-Winning Resume Here - Check our website!
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Ed.Toussaint'sCovert OrderTitle18s1951

  1. 1. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS ____________________________________ In the Matter of Delinquent Real Property Taxes for Real Property Described, to wit: ORDER Lyman Dayton Addition to St. Paul, Lot 5, Blk 46, a/k/a 697 Surrey Avenue, A09-2031 PIN:, Sharon Lee Anderson a/k/a Sharon Scarrella Anderson, record owner. ____________________________________ BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE: 1. This appeal was filed by mail on November 4, 2009. Appellant, pro se, seeks review of a judgment entered on September 10, 2009. 2. Appellant filed photocopies of the notice of appeal and statement of the case, rather than documents containing appellant’s original signature. Appellant did not file a proper affidavit of service for the appeal papers showing service by United States mail or personal delivery. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 125.03 (stating that service may be personal or by United States mail). Appellant did not pay the $550 filing fee for the appeal. 3. By notice of case filing dated November 12, 2009, the clerk of the appellate courts, pursuant to this court’s direction, notified appellant of the above deficiencies and directed that they be remedied within ten days. 4. Appellant has not complied with this directive.
  2. 2. 5. On November 18, appellant notified the office of the clerk of the appellate courts that an order granting in form apauperis relief was filed with the appeal papers. 6. We note that appellant filed numerous documents with the appeal papers. Our review of appellant’s filing shows that appellant filed a copy of a March 31, 2009 order granting appellant leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court proceeding. Appellant did not file a copy of a district court order granting appellant leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 109.02 (stating that a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be made to the district court). 7. The district court administrator’s register of actions shows that on September 18, 2009, the district court issued a supplemental in forma pauperis order. The September 18 order contains a finding that appellant’s claim is not frivolous, and that appellant is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. The September 18, 2009 order authorizes payment of expenses incurred in obtaining a transcript of an August 20, 2009 hearing. 8. As directed below, appellant shall file a copy of the district court’s September 18, 2009 in forma pauperis order. 9. We will afford appellant a final opportunity to correct the other filing deficiencies. 10. Appellant’s brief on the merits is due on December 21, 2009, which is 33 days after the transcript was delivered by mail on November 18. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 131.01, subd. 1. 2
  3. 3. 11. In the statement of the case, appellant requests oral argument. Because appellant is without counsel, the case will be submitted on the briefs and record, without oral argument by any party. See Minn. App. Spec. R. Pract. 2. 12. Appellant filed an uncertified copy of the September 10 judgment from which the appeal is taken. Because appellant is proceeding in forma pauperis, we will accept the uncertified copy of the judgment. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The requirement for appellant to file a certified copy of the September 10, 2009 judgment from which the appeal is taken is waived. 2. On or before December 21, 2009, appellant shall file: (a) A notice of appeal and statement of the case containing appellant’s original signature; (b) A notarized affidavit showing the date and method of service of the notice of appeal and statement of the case on respondent’s counsel; (c) A copy of the district court’s September 18, 2009 in forma pauperis order; and (d) Seven copies of appellant’s brief on the merits, with a notarized affidavit showing the date and method of service of the brief on respondent’s counsel. One of the brief filed with the clerk of the appellate courts shall contain appellant’s original signature. 3. Appellant may file an informal brief, in compliance with Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 128.01, subd. 1. 4. Appellant’s failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the appeal. 3
  4. 4. 5. Upon completion of briefing, this matter shall be scheduled for nonoral consideration. Dated: December 7, 2009 BY THE COURT /s/_______________________________ Chief Judge 4