Sun . 9Dec07
Messrs. Thomas Vennum, of Minneapolis, Minn., and Harry S. Silverstein, of Denver, Colo., for petitioner.
Mr. A. D. Quaintance, of Denver, Colo., amicus curiae by special leave of Court.
By order of the District Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota, petitioner was appointed receiver of the Diamond Motor Parts Company, a Minne-
* Rehearing denied 298 U.S. 1 , 56 S.Ct. 746, 80 L.Ed. --. [297 U.S. 609, 610] sota corporation. In the same suit, on the receiver's application, the court ordered an assessment of 100 per cent. upon the shares of stock of the corporation, in order to enforce the provisions of the Minnesota Constitution and laws relating to the double liability of stockholders. Minn.Const. art. 10, 3; Mason's Minn.St.1927, 8025, 8026; and 8027, 8028, as amended by Laws Minn.1931, c. 205, 1, 2. The order was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Saetre v. Chandler, 57 F.(2d) 951.
The receiver brought the present suit in the state court of Colorado against respondent John Peketz, a resident of that state and alleged to be a stockholder in the corporation. Respondent demurred to the complaint upon the ground that the action of the District Court in Minnesota was not binding upon him. The demurrer was sustained, the suit was dismissed, and the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Colorado against the contention of the receiver that full faith and credit had been denied to the order of assessment. Compare Hancock National Bank v. Farnum, 176 U.S. 640, 645 , 20 S.Ct. 506. The state court held that since respondent was not served with process in Minnesota, the court ordering the assessment acquired no jurisdiction over his person, and that the procedure provided by the laws of Minnesota in the interest of nonresident stockholders had not been followed. This Court granted certiorari. 296 U.S. 571 , 56 S.Ct. 369.
The legislation of Minnesota with respect to the liability of stockholders has been reviewed and its constitutional validity has been sustained by this Court. Bernheimer v. Converse, 206 U.S. 516 , 27 S.Ct. 755; Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U.S. 243 , 32 S.Ct. 415, Ann.Cas.1913D, 1292; Selig v. Hamilton, 234 U.S. 652, 660 , 34 S. Ct. 926, Ann.Cas.1917A, 104; Marin v. Augedahl, 247 U.S. 142 , 38 S.Ct. 452. We have had held that the Minnesota provisions constituted a reasonable regulation for enforcing the liability assumed by those who became stockholders in corporations organized under the laws of that state; that the order levying the assessment is made conclusive as to all matters relating to the amount and [297 U.S. 609, 611] propriety thereof, and the necessity therefor; that it is thus conclusive, although the stockholder may not have been a party to the suit in which it was made or notified that an assessment was contemplated, as the order is not in the nature of a personal judgment against him and he must be deemed, by virtue of his relation to the corporation and the obligation assumed with respect to its debts, to be represented by it in the proceeding; and, further, that one against whom the order of assessment is sought to be enforced is not precluded from showing that he is not a stockholder, or is not the holder of as many shares as is alleged, or has a claim against the corporation which in law or in equity he is entitled to set off against the assessment, or has any other defense personal to himself.
This is one of the most important tools to fight documented criminal activities in government, discovered corruption in government offices that is immunized by the mob mentality of the system. The federal crime reporting statute requires anyone knowing of a federal crime to promptly report it to a federal court (or other federal officer), and requires federal judges to receive that information and any evidence, as part of his administrative duties. (He has no immunity for misconduct related to this administrative requirement).
Sharon Anderson said...
Blogger: A Democracy - Post a Comment Point of Information All things relative City Attorney Louise Seeba should be disbarred, wilful neglience to usurp Federal RICO laws, wilful failure to provide the records in a timely fashion, eventually a Federal Grand Jury or FBI intervention. The Taxpayers will suffer for this city attorney making over $100,000.00 yrly for her pecuniary gain, wilful failure to zealously represent the city-taxpayers. Thanks Bobby for posting also
re:Scheduling for Aaron Foster at http://sharon-stateofminnesota.blogspot.com
and for www.givemeliberty.org and
December 7, 2007
Update: WTP v. U.S.
Supreme Court Schedule Set
In the last Update, we reported the Supreme Court of the United States assigned Docket Numbers to our Petition for Writ of Certiorari (07-680 for the Petition by attorney Mark Lane, and 07-681 for the Petition by Bob Schulz).
We also reported the Government then had the choice of filing a Response to our Petition or a waiver of its right to file a Response.
This week, the Government filed a WAIVER, surrendering its right to file a Response to the Petitions.
305 Minnesota Judicial Center
25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: (651) 296-2581 - 297-5529 Fax: 297-4149
Email the Clerk of Appellate Court
TO: Executive Branch:Saint Paul Mayor Chris Coleman390 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Blvd., Saint Paul, MN 55102
651-266-8510 • fax 651-266-8513
firstname.lastname@example.org www.ci.stpaul.mn.us 2007 Budget Address
- The Saint Paul City Council enbanc
Council President Lee Helgen, Kathy Lantry, Dan Bostrom, Pat Harris, Jay Benanav, Debbie Montgomery, DaveThune
Ward 7, Room 320-C City Hall, Saint Paul, MN 55102
651-266-8670; fax 651-266-8574
Ellen Biales, Legislative Aide; Jean Birkholz , Secretary; or email@example.com
6 Q. What became of the write-up of Ms. Rodriguez? Did you
7 get the write-up on Mr. Dawkins' desk the next day?
8 A. No.
9 Q. What happened?
10 A. Same day.
11 Q. Same day. Good.
12 A. Then it went downtown.
13 Q. To who?
14 A. The Mayor of St. Paul.
15 Q. What was the next contact you had about that 785
16 Butternut property?
17 A. It went back on re-inspection.
18 Q. What happened then? Did Ms. Rodriguez fix the property?
19 A. No.
20 Q. What happened after that?21 A. She died"
Candidate profile Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs Sharon4Anderson St.Paul City Council Ward2 SA-Blogs2007 Blogger: Dashboard
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: Document's are based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, press releases, and knowledge gained as financial journalists, Private Attorney Generals, Candidates for Public Office documents expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting on that recommendations, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on theseSHARON-MN-ECF: Judges-Greylord-Libby-Guilty LUFSKY Scap129FAnokaP2697(1976) Cpl James R. Anderson USMC 11022885 Bio for Sharon Anderson , TAKING DL_AOL Journal Legal Eagle SharonAnderson 1 Journalism Ethics Blogger: 1986 Petition Jane Duchene MN Bull SharonScarrellaAndersonUSBriefs - Buzznet Sharon'sFedCases1973to2006_13pdf Anderson + Advocates www.sharonanderson.org www.sharon4anderson.org