Sharon4CouncilWard2: Sharon Andersons Writ of Prohibition 2006

Monday, February 18, 2008

Sharon Andersons Writ of Prohibition 2006

Proof of Trash Hauler City Council Meeting

Image:WritPro06 26.pdf - Wikimedia Commons

God Bless America Gates-Google and now Wikimedia Commons

for the common person to upload forensic files

Click here: Let's Reverse This Rasmussen Poll - Political Machine#c10522063#c10522063 Politics makes strange bedfellows

SharonvsJusticeGildeaQuidProQuo

Sun20Oct2019 TO THE ABOVE NAMED;SERVICE ELECTRONICALLY,EMAIL,SOCIAL MEDIA AND BLOGS CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS RICO RE QUID PRO QUO NO FILING FEE4WHISTLEBLOWER ATTORNEY PRO SE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE QUITAM STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A19-0916Minnesota Judicial Branch - BioChief Justice Lorie Skjerven GildeaSupreme CourtSend an email via our contact formState Court Administrator's Office(651) 296-2474 (phone)(651) 297-5636 (fax)Minnesota Judicial Center (MJC) Suite #: 13525 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.St. Paul, MN 55155 Sharon Anderson Ward 2 QuiTam Relator White,Widow,WhistleblowerName: Sharon AndersonPublic Office Sought: Saint Paul City Council Email: Sharon4Anderson@aol.comPhone: 651-776-5835Website: sharon4council.blogspot.comTwitter Handle: @sharon4andersonFacebook: Sharon Anderson2019 Saint paul Voter Guide City St.Paul QuidProQuo unabated by Chief Justice Lorie Gildea QUESTIONS 1. Citys Trash/Garbarge Contract 11Nov2017 techinally must be voided, basedon Asst. City Attorney Rachael Tierney, Sarah Grewing, then and today giving legal Advise to past and present Council to Malign, usurp City Charter, triggeHouse Committee on Oversight and Government Reformrs Ineffective Assistance of City Council's Resolutions Ord 18-39 further Quid Pro Quo. VoteNo Save our Charter. 2. Has Chief Justice Lorie S.Gildea Covertly by Published Order indirectly,directlOPA190916-101619.pd pg 3 further over 6,000 signed signatures mandates Investigations over and above the 5Nov2019 Ballot and Elections. a. City Attorneys simulating legal process's for Citys Pecuniary Gain.? Cash Cow 4 Lawyers.Quid Pro QuoAlmanac - Twin Cities PBS .ATTY GENERAL ELLISON, ST PAUL TRASH FIGHT, DAYTON’S PORTRAITMN Attorney General Ellison, Hazelden’s Mark Mishek, Former Gov Dayton portrait More 3. Legal Notice re Separation of Powers, the Landlord Case and now Trash Casewithout MN Attorney General Mike Hatch,Lory Swanson and now Current MNAG Keith Ellison, intervention to Protect the State Laws, Constitution State and Federal as mentioned, 4. Has Justice Lorie Gildea in her Official Capacity looked the other way on other Lawsuits vs. City St. Paul, specifically USSC10-1032 Titled Magner vs. GallagherHouse Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 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 5, Has Chief Justice Lorie Gildea overreached her Personal and Official Duties, re; Committment Panel is Cap knowing appointment of members ie Knutson,Gearin,Smith,Metzen,Asphaug, etal knowing Public Distaste,Distrust of these Judges b. 59 yr Restraining Orders, Restraint of Free Speech, by Gearin Ordering Web Sites taken down or Criminal Charges. BIZZARE. see Memorandum below. re Dede Evavald, Sharon Anderson re Concern Darlene Winters Trust Acct. Sandra Grazzini et alOpinions-Unpublished?Archives https://opinions-unpublished.blogspot.com/2013/Sharons-CourtRecords: In the Matter Darlene WinterPO62-14-696_HS1113StPaulAveElmer MackSocWorker postconviction court’s factual findings, not only does the majority depart from our precedent, but it also places Minnesota out of step with courts across the country. See, e.g., Bennett v. United States, 663 F.3d 71, 85 (2d Cir. 2011) (explaining that its deference to the findings made by district court in the course of deciding an ineffectiveness claim reflected “the superiority of the trial judge’s position to make determinations of credibility since only the trial judge can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding of and belief in what is said” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marked omitted)); Ahmed v. Redman, 782 F.2d 409, 412 (3d Cir. 1986) (explaining that the statutory presumption of correctness attaches to the subsidiary findings of historical fact that are relevant to the resolution of mixed questions of fact and law raised by a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); United States v. Auerbach, 745 F.2d 1157, 1161 (8th Cir. 1984) (explaining that, “[w]e will affirm a district court’s finding that a habeas petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel where the district court’s findings of fact which support the conclusion of law are not clearly erroneous”); Gaines v. Comm’r of Corr., 51 A.3d 948, 959-60, 966 (Conn. 2012) (explaining that the postconviction Complaints vs. Justice Lorie Gildea Lorie Skjerven Gildea - Wikipedia Because of Gildea's discrimination to favor women, the men have been left homeless, destroyed livelihoods, forced into squalor, and, most importantly, damaged their families. Gildea has condoned these smear campaigns that are OPA091641-0531.pdfused to prevent the men from speaking. postconviction court’s factual findings, not only does the majority depart from our precedent, but it also places Minnesota out of step with courts across the country. See, e.g., Bennett v. United States, 663 F.3d 71, 85 (2d Cir. 2011) (explaining that its deference to the findings made by district court in the course of deciding an ineffectiveness claim reflected “the superiority of the trial judge’s position to make determinations of credibility since only the trial judge can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding of and belief in what is said” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marked omitted)); Ahmed v. Redman, 782 F.2d 409, 412 (3d Cir. 1986) (explaining that the statutory presumption of correctness attaches to the subsidiary findings of historical fact that are relevant to the resolution of mixed questions of fact and law raised by a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); United States v. Auerbach, 745 F.2d 1157, 1161 (8th Cir. 1984) (explaining that, “[w]e will affirm a district court’s finding that a habeas petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel where the district court’s findings of fact which support the conclusion of law are not clearly erroneous”); Gaines v. Comm’r of Corr., 51 A.3d 948, 959-60, 966 (Conn. 2012) (explaining that the postconviction OPINIONS OF THESUPREME COURTFILED WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2019NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.A19-0916 Bruce Clark, et al., Respondents, vs. City of Saint Paul, et al., Appellants. Ramsey County. 1. A referendum on a Saint Paul ordinance that establishes organized waste collection services does not conflict with the requirements in Minn. Stat. §§ 115A.94–.941 (2018), that municipalities ensure that residents have waste collection services including through appropriate local controls, because ordinances that are not subject to the referendum fulfill those requirements and the Legislature intended that municipalities have broad authority in the process for establishing organized waste collection. 2. A referendum on an ordinance that establishes organized waste collection services in the City does not impair the City’s contract obligations under the Contract Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. Affirmed. Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea.OPA190916-101619.pdfA18-0121 Ambree Getz, Respondent, vs. Eila Kaarina Peace, et al., Appellants. Court of Appeals.Email Please note: your email will become part of the public record. Phone: 651-266-8560Fax: 651-266-8574Dai Thao, Ward 1 | Jane L. Prince, Ward 7 | Chris Tolbert, Ward 3 | Amy Brendmoen, Ward 5 and Council President | Kassim Busuri, Ward 6| Mitra Jalali Nelson, Ward 4 | Rebecca Noecker, Ward 2Coordinated Collection | Saint Paul, Minnesota City Attorney | Saint Paul, MinnesotaCoordinated Collection | Saint Paul, MinnesotaThis contract provides a solid base to transition the city to Coordinated Collection and meets the priorities that the Council laid out for the negotiating team. See Final Contract, Final Contract Exhibits, and First Amendment.52 Organizer Ramac Franklin OrganizePageRight-click here to select Foth Office Search | Saint Paul, Minnesota| Code of Ordinances | St. Paul, MN | Municode LibrarySec. 14.01. - Power to levy assessments.Sec. 14.01.1. - Preliminary assessment.Sec. 14.01.2. - Charge for services.Sec. 14.01.3. - Reassessment.Sec. 14.01.4. - Appeal.Sec. 14.01.5. - Trial.Sec. 14.01.6. - Collection.Sec. 14.02. - Special assessment—Alternative procedure.City of Saint Paul - Meeting of City Council on 10/23/2019 at 3:30 PMRES 19-186417Authorizing the City of Saint Paul to enter into an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Revenue for the collection of Local Sales, Use Tax, and a Lodging Tax.ResolutionAuthorizing the City of Saint Paul to enter into an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Revenue for the collection of Local Sales, Use Tax, and a Lodging Tax.Ord 19-67117OrdinanceAmending section 220.05 of the Legislative Code to set rates for base level garbage service to be effective January 1, 2020.Businesses | Minnesota Department of RevenueAlcoholic Beverage TaxCigarette and Tobacco TaxesCorporation Franchise TaxEnergy Production TaxesEnvironmental Taxes and FeesEstate TaxFiduciary TaxGambling TaxesInsurance TaxesMining and Mineral Taxes MinnesotaCare TaxesMortgage Registry and Deed TaxPartnership TaxPetroleum TaxProperty TaxesS Corporation TaxSales and Use TaxUnrelated Business Income TaxWithholding Taxxx DetailsReportsFile #:Ord 19-67 Version: 1Name:Type:OrdinanceStatus:Second ReadingIn control:City CouncilFinal action:Title:Amending section 220.05 of the Legislative Code to set rates for base level garbage service to be effective January 1, 2020.Sponsors:Amy BrendmoenHistory (1)TextPublic Comments (2) Add New Comment2 recordsGroupExportDate NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction10/17/2019 6:51 PMCandidateSharonAndersonAgainstPlease read http://sharons-fraudupdate.blogspot.comForensic Files http://sharon4anderson.orgViolation of Charter,Ballot Vote No now Rate Setting Ponzi Taxing Scheme10/17/2019 10:24 AMCandidateSharonAndersonAgainstFor years Council has set Rates for NonProfit District Heating, now setting Rates for Trash a for Profit Business creates Contract Impairment, contrary to Private Citizens to do Business http://taxthemax.blogspot.comtherefore creating a Monoply,AntiTrustxxIN RE: Vanessa Yolanda REW | FindLaw Thomas A. Gilligan, Jr., Murnane Brandt, Saint Paul, MN, for respondent. James Allen Bergstrom, Roseville, MN, pro se. Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Alan I. Gilbert, Solicitor General, Michael Everson, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota Attorney General MEMORANDUM JUSTICE LORIE GILDEA'S50yrRestraining Orders 2019 - The Provocateurhttp://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2019/theeprovocateur.blogspot.com › ...The Minnesota Supreme Court, led by Judge Lorie Gildea, has to twist itself into ..... granted David Rucki a fifty (50) year restraining order against Dede Evavold. Now What Sharons latest http://sharonvcitystpaul.blogspot.com and http://citizenery-mncourts.blogspot.com651) 291-5297 (CAP) is defined by Minn. Stat. § 253B.19. Panel One - Judge AsphaugPanel Two - Judge RancourtPanel Three – Judge TilsenMinnesota Judicial Branch - Clerk of Appellate Courts Fri.18Oct2019 Tracking Opinions via Justice Lori GildeaMinnesota Judicial Branch - Clerk of Appellate CourtsBlogItBabeSandraGrazzini-Rucki,Pauper,ChildSupportviaJusticeLorieGildeahttps://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2019/09/sandra-grazzini-rucki-pauper-who-should.ht Just a Note re Kathleen Gearin Tolbert served as a law clerk for Ramsey County Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin, and then became an assistant attorney for Hennepin County. Other experience includes serving on the League of Minnesota Cities Board ofhttps://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/affidavit-prejudicejudge-kathleen-gearinhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4417581-19AVCV171950Order03212018.html re Dede EvavaldThursday, September 26, 2019Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, A Pauper Who Should Pay Child SupportThe Provocateur: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, A Pauper Who Should Pay Child Supporthttps://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2019/09/sandra-grazzini-rucki-pauper-who-should.html?fbclid=IwAR2jTKIsegFHNzLh-mS5anl14m5aNneGU2cgYPTpZREsNTcVSqxZhDF52pcSharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.comhttp://blogitbabe.blogspot.com http://sharon4council.blogspot.comLEGAL 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'sproprietary information. The originator hereby notifiesrecipients 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