United States District Court
District of Minnesota
MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND
LAW SUPPORTING APPELLANT’S
City of St. Paul, St. Paul Water Board;et al )-Relatees-Respondents
v. NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Mrs. Sharon Anderson; Relator-Removant REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT
AND PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE,
TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
BARRING TRIAL VIA
Appellant ) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
Tickets,Warrants,Bills of Lading, RICO Pattern609.903, Minnesota Statutes 2006
Administrative Court: no file Jurisdiction/Authority Challenge
St. Paul City Council Ratifications date,time,due process
Federal Court File:___________
--------------http://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com/---------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW
EXTENDED HISTORY OF MOTIVATION FOR HARASSMENT, CHRONOLOGY
LONG TERM HISTORY OF DEFAMATION AND HARASSMENT
The Appellant has been a political candidate in St. Paul and Minnesota for over twenty years. Appellant has also been involved in several instances of litigation which resulted in loss of Appellant’s real property, owned in St. Paul,Aitkin,Itasca and Crow-Wing, Minnesota. This agency is motivated to harass Affiant because Affiant has been critical of St. Paul government and a whistleblower in the past.
HISTORY OF THIS CASE FOR REMOVAL
This action began by the St. Paul water board threatening to disconnect Appellant’s water services, possibly because the exterior meter is apparently not working, and the said agency refuses to replace/repair that meter from the outside.
Appellant has no outstanding water bills and has phoned in a current water meter reading from the inside meter, which works, to the Water Board, and sent has digital photos of the water meter to verify, see:
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/water.html
http://www.sharonanderson.org/ http://www.sharon4anderson.org/
This action by said agency has to be speculated upon because the agency refuses to give adequate or clear statement of their reasons for the purposes of an appealed scheduled for 4/18/2003, and in doing so denies Appellant the appearance of due process, and is abusing it’s authority to violate Appellant’s privacy rights, wantonly.
ISSUES OF FACT
There is no know fault inside Appellant’s home which would justify that agency’s coming into Appellant’s home, and the agency refuses to give adequate or believable grounds fro such a entry.
The agency’s powers are subordinate to the Minnesota and US constitution and Minnesota law defines; for legal purposes in determinations of fact and law; acceptable interpretations of words in statutes:
Minnesota Statutes, ß645.08, Canons of Construction: In construing the statutes of this state, the following canons of interpretations are to govern, unless their observance would involve a construction inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature, or repugnant to the context of the statute:
(1) words and phrases are construed according to ... their common and approved usage; but technical words and phrases and others as have acquired a special meaning; or are defined in this chapter, are construed according to such special meaning or their definition;...
(2) General words are construed to be restricted to their meanings by proceeding particular words;...
Therefore, clearly the basic, long standing cannons of law and state statutory definitions would have to be reviled and violated in order to proceed to trial to invoke the claim that a code violation of some form has been committed. City ordinances would have to stand apart from the rest of the law and a new and foreign standard of law and common understanding of language would have to be created for the criminal charges at issue in the above entitled action to survive and for this case to proceed to trial. There clearly are no genuine issues of fact to be determined, at a hearing, as the agency refuses to state these issues in an appeal summary before hearing.
ISSUES OF LAW PERTINENT TO CASE BEING REMOVED
LAWS PERTINENT TO WASTE MANAGEMENT AND COMPOSTING, 4/22/99
This case was charged under unknown laws and rules. The agency appears to believe it has rights to enter at will in violation of Appellant’s rights to privacy.
There is the obvious presumption that the City Attorney and various other St. Paul employees knows full well that the charges/positions are frivolous and illegal and that these can only achieve the result of harassment of a disabled, senior woman.
CONCLUSION
There is a pressing need to relieve the Appellant in this action of further official harassment by issuing an injunction that bars further action by the agency against Appellee be stayed until the agency state in an appeals summary exactly what issues it has with Appellant’s property. Appellant reasonably believes that Respondent’s vague position and refusal to state any specific facts, is indicative that the actions of the respondents are for the purpose of violating Appellant’s rights of privacy and to harass and retaliate against the Appellant.
April 18, 2006 _/s/ ECF-P165913 sa1299__________________________
Mrs. Sharon Anderson, Appellant-Relator-Removant
697 Surrey, St. Paul, MM V: 651 776 5835 sharon4anderson@aol.com
United States District Court
District of Minnesota
_____________________________________
City of St. Paul; ) NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND
Respondent ) REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT
v. ) AND PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE,
) TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Mrs. Sharon Anderson; ) BARRING TRIAL IN STATE COURT
Appellant )
) State Court File: T7-99-021661
)
) Federal Court File:___________
-----------------------------------------------------
TO: 1. St. Paul Water Board, Pres. Pat.harris@ci.stpaul.mn.us , mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us
Christopher B. Coleman http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/
2. St. Paul City Attorney lisa.vieth@ci.stpaul.mn.us
3. United States District Court, 316 South Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant, removes the above cited criminal proceeding against the Appellant in Ramsey County District Court, citing federal jurisdiction for this removal under authority of Article 1, Section 1, of the United States Constitution, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 42, U.S.C., ß1983, Title 18. U.S.C., and pursuant to authority of Lewellyn . Raff, 843 F.2d, 1103 and other related cases in the same disposition; and moves this court to issue temporary injunctive relief barring further litigation and trial in state court and further illegal police searches, at the earliest date by the courts motion or as soon as may be assigned for hearing. So moved:
1) because the agency have filed absurd and ambiguous administrative charges in administration of wayter utilites, unlawfully; with the sole intention of harassing Appellant and retaliating against Appellant for exercising Appellant’s constitutional rights under Amendments I, IV, V and VI of the Constitution of the United States, generally over the past twelve years, and in successful defense of other similar criminal charges filed expressly to harass Appellant and retaliate against Appellant.
2) because the agency have filed the charges, and refused to give the appear of due process by filing an appeals summary;; with the sole purpose and intent of the agency is the harassing of Appellant and retaliating against Appellant for exercising Appellant’s constitutional rights under Amendments I, IV, V and VI of the Constitution of the United States, generally over the past twenty years, and which may relate to:
a) Specificity of a criminal accusation;- United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 at 558 (1876), quoted and reaffirmed in Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 at 763 (1962) and State v. Gross, 387 N.W. 2d 182 (Minn. App. 1986)
b) Right to advocates or counsel at all stages of the proceeding
3) because the various individuals working for the City of St. Paul, are acting with the exclusive purpose of:
a) selectively and vindictively requiring the Appellant to allow wanton access to her home, violating her rights to prvacy, whejn this is not being done to other residents
b) attempted to terrorize the Appellant, ignoring her protected status as a senior and someone with a disability, subject the Appellant to discriminatory and cruel treatment because of Appellant’s disability,
The Appellant requests that she be granted relief in the form of:
1) an injunction temporarily restraining further criminal proceedings and trial in Ramsey County District Court to prevent; irreparable harm to the Appellant, who suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder pursuant to years of harassment and threat by the various individuals working for the City of St. Paul, and which medical condition the said agency is aware of.
2) an injunction restraining the various individuals working for the City of St. Paul from coming onto Appellant’s property without demonstrable probable cause.
3) a order granting the Appellant attorneys fees and costs for defending the specious and retaliatory actions in state and federal court.
That the Appellant relies upon the entire record in this matter.
April 18, 2006
___________________________
Mrs. Sharon Anderson, Appellant/Appellant
Mrs. Sharon Anderson
697 Surrey, St. Paul, MN
V: 651 776 5835 or 651 457 4376/United States District Court
District of Minnesota
) APPELLANT’S MOTION
) REQUESTING LEAVE TO PROCEED
City of St. Paul, St. Paul Water Board; ) IN FORMA PAUPERIS REGARDING
Plaintiffs, Respondent ) APPELLANT’S NOTICE
v. ) OF REMOVAL AND
) REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT
Mrs. Sharon Anderson; )
Appellant, Appellant )
) Administrative Court: no file
)
) Federal Court File:___________
-----------------------------------------------------
The undersigned, Mrs. Sharon Anderson, requests leave to proceed in Forma Pauperis, because of indigence as per the attached affidavit and specifically request
1. Assistance with filing fees and the cost of a transcript for the any hearings in this case.
2. Assistance with the copies made to date for this actions and all copies made of future motions and documentation in this action, via an account with a photocopy supply store.
3. Assistance with the costs of subpoenas and other expenses for witnesses.
4. Assistance with all other costs that might arise, and are appropriately paid.
April 18, 2006
___________________________ Mrs. Sharon Anderson,
Appellant/Appellant
Mrs. Sharon Anderson
697 Surrey, St. Paul, MN
V: 651 776 5835 or 651 457 4376/776 5835
United States District Court
District of Minnesota
------------------------------------------------ ) APPELLANT’S AFFIDAVIT RE:
) MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE
) TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
) REGARDING APPELLANT’S
City of St. Paul; ) NOTICE OF REMOVAL AND
Plaintiffs, Respondent ) REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT
v. ) AND PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE,
) TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Mrs. Sharon Anderson; ) BARRING TRIAL IN STATE COURT
Appellant, Appellant ) )
) Administrative Court File: none
)
) Federal Court File:___________
-----------------------------------------------------
State of Minnesota )SS
County of Ramsey )SS
Affiant, Mrs. Sharon Anderson, having been duly sworn upon oath, deposes and says:
That Affiant has been reduced to poverty contrary to 42 USC 3631 indigent and in receipt of SSDI for disability.Statutes Enforced
Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241. Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful
Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing, 42 U.S.C. § 3631. Section 3631 of Title 42 makes it unlawful for an individual to use force or threaten to use force to injure, intimidate, or interfere
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242. This provision makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected
Peonage, 18 U.S.C. § 1581. Section 1581 of Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in "debt servitude," or peonage, which
Involuntary Servitude, 18 U.S.C. § 1584. Section 1584 of Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in a condition of slavery, that
Original in Court Files
Subscribed to and sworn before me
this _______ day of April, 2006. ____________________
Mrs. Sharon Anderson
______________
Notary Public
United States District Court
District of Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------
City of St. Paul; )
Respondent )
v. ) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
)
Mrs. Sharon Anderson; )
Appellant )
) Administrative Court File:
)
) Federal Court File: ___________
-----------------------------------------------------
State of Minnesota )SS
County of Ramsey )SS
Affiant, , having been duly sworn upon oath, deposes and days that Affiant did serve; on the _____ day of ___________________, 2 ; the Notice of Removal and Removal from_______________________________________________; on the following parties by personal service, in duplicate:
and also by personal service served the original and three copies and the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with Supporting Affidavit by Mrs. Sharon Anderson on the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, Federal Building, South Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101.
AND FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
Subscribed to and sworn before me
this _____day of _______________, 1999 ______________________________
, Affiant
MEMORANDUMN
April 16, 06 Water Shut Off http://www.sharonanderson.org/
April 19th07 Kathy Lantry, Police Stalking Sharon causing broken ankle
Apr24th, Sharons Car stolen stolen out of her Private Property to date
no tickets, warrants, whereabouts of http://sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com/
May 16th 2007, agains Sharons Trailer, Camping Equipment "taken"
re RICO Statutes, without Charges, heinous harm injury
