Saturday, August 9, 2008

Rev Sharon Scarrella v. Midwest Fed.S&L_536F2d 1207_No75-1912

AFFIDAVIT OF SHARON ANDERSON AKA PETERSON-CHERGOSKY-SCARRELLA
Dtd.Sat.9Aug08 Forensic Evidence online, Blue Book for educational purposes
LEGAL NOTICE TO CHALLENGE THE 64A HOUSE ELECTION
(1)The "taking's" of Sharons ownership in FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE
paid for Homestead at 1058 Summit Ave. St. Paul,MN.55104-0384, acquired before coveture to 2nd Marriage, Cpl James R. Anderson
32 yrs ago, White Collar Crime _ City of St. Paul, acting in Concort with Corrupt Courts ie: former Asst. Ramsey
County Attorney, now Judge Kathleen Gearin? in a "Patterened Enterprise" RICO
must be addressed_ Compensation must be awarded.
ISSUE: Property taxes based on non-homestead, when Owner Sharon Scarrella with parents Tenants in Common, Sharon's 2nd Disabled Husband James R. Anderson were entitled to
FULL HOMESTEAD CREDITS:/ Disabled Property Tax Credits42 USC 3631
Documents pdf files Thank God,Gates and Google
This RICO Patterned is continuing today 609, Criminal Code by Illegal Assessments,
against your propetys, Ratified Unconstitutionally. reducing the citizenerty to poverty.
Realestate Quiet Titles must be reopened. No Statutes of Limitations on Fraud and or Murder.
Sharon and others are reduced to Poverty, Slaves to City Taxaction?
(2) Count II Minn. Constitution Art. III Separation of Powers
Normally when writing letters, cases used require a Summary
Learned that 30 yrs ago with Divorce Reform Inc. ie: http://richard-bullock.blogspot.com/
Scarrella v. Midwest Federal Sav. and Loan, 536 F.2d 1207 (C.A.8 (Minn.), 1976)

The following is a portion of the document you requested. Please subscribe to view the entire document.

Page 1207

536 F.2d 1207

Rev. Sharon L. SCARRELLA et al., Appellants,
v.
MIDWEST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN et al., Appellees.

No. 75-1912.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 27, 1976.
Decided June 8, 1976.

Page 1208

Rev. Sharon L. Scarrella, pro se.

Thomas E. Harms, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellees.

Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants in this action are the Reverend Sharon Scarrella, a self-ordained minister of the Church of Justice Reform, Inc., the Reverend Richard Bullock, and Albert Brisson. They appeal an interlocutory order of the district court 1 dismissing appellants Bullock and Brisson as plaintiffs in the action pending below. 2 Additionally,

Page 1209

appellants Scarrella and Bullock have filed a motion requesting all of the judges of this court to disqualify themselves.

We deny the motion for disqualification and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

I. Motion for Disqualification.

The grounds alleged by appellants for disqualification of the members of this court are (1) that the members of this court are involved with or are members of, the Minnesota State Bar Association and the American Bar Association, both of which were defendants in a separate class action suit brought by the appellants and (2) that the members of this court have a "unique relationship" with the members of the legal profession and the financial interests in the state of Minnesota and as such cannot render a fair and impartial decision. Such vague allegations of prejudice are insufficient to require disqualification of any member of this court. 28 U.S.C. § 455. See Wounded Knee Legal Defense/Offense Committee v. F.B.I., 507 F.2d 1281, 1285 (8th Cir. 1974).

II. Jurisdiction.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every pleading be signed by the party filing it, or by that party's attorney. Here the notice of appeal, which was purported to be on behalf of all appellants, was signed only by appellant Scarrella, who is not an attorney. Since appellants Bullock and Brisson did not sign the notice of appeal, their appeals must be dismissed. McKinney v. DeBord, 507 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1974); cf. Huffman v. Nebraska Bureau of Vital Statistics, 320 F.Supp. 154 (D.Neb. 1970). As the court in Huffman stated in applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 in an analogous situation

* * * one of the justifications * * * of Rule 11 is to make certain that the persons who are named as parties are actually in assent to the filing of an action on their behalf * * *.

Id. at 156.

...

How can I view the whole document? Why subscribe? What is Fastcase?

Member Login
username:
password:

Subscribe
$95: Monthly National Premium
$995: Annual National Premium
Purchase Document ...$4.99 (per document)
first name:
last name:
email: (this will be your username)
select a password:
credit card type:
credit card number:
expiration date:
credit card holder name:

Please do not click twice as it may result in your credit card being charged more than once.

This applys to Canons
One recurrent example involves federal statutes that lack an explicit limitation period within which to initiate legal
action. See North Star Steel v. Thomas, 515 U.S. 29, 33 (1995) (referring to numerous specific statutes). While
there may be rare instances in which this decis ion is conscious and deliberate (see note 2 infra), it generally reflects
simply insufficient attention to detail.
2 See, e.g., Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244, 262-63 (1994) (concluding, based on review of legislative
history, that supporters of 1991 Civil Rights Act “agreed to disagree about whether and to what extent the Act would
apply to preenactment conduct”). See generally Miriam R. Jorgensen & Kenneth A. Shepsle, A Comment on the
Positive Canons Project, 57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 43, 44-45 (Winter 1994); Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz,
Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation, 115 HARV. L. REV. 2085, 2155 (2002).
3 Congress also invites this gap-filling from executive branch agencies. See generally Edward Rubin, Dynamic
Statutory Interpretation in the Administrative State, www.bepress.com/ils/iss3/art.2 (2002).
4 See, e.g., Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001) (adjudicating tobacco industry’s right to engage in
certain forms of cigarette advertising); United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F. 3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (adjudicating
extent of government’s ability to regulate internet access). See generally John Ferejohn, Judicializing Politics,
Politicizing Law, 65 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 41, 64-65 (Summer 2002).›ÿ˜Š7&÷ó¦
IT PAYS TO KEEP RECORDS
Sharon4Anderson Scribd
Public Domain Candidate Profile FCC Complaints - http://sharons-copywrite.blogspot.com/
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: Document's are based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, press releases, andknowledge gained as financial journalists, Private Attorney Generals, Candidsecurities 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 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 MY FindLaw Office documents expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in Google Search BlogItBabe2007 Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs Sharon4Anderson St.Paul City Council Ward2 SA-Blogs2007 Blogger: Dashboard
SHARON-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
Posted by at