Wed 20Feb2019
To the Above Named specifically City Council President Amy Brendmoen aka
Neske aka Hahn
Attached Served Affiant VA Widow Candidate is duly Concerned that Muslin MNAG Ellison who received major funding for his Campaign from George Soros.
Has overreached his Authority/Jurisdiction without proper complaints of Citizenery to join with the Cal Gover Newsom Nephew of Nancy Pelosi.
Magner vs. Gallagher
Further the Wording of the Calif vs. Trump Border Wall is used vs. City St. Paul,MN in their Ponzi use of Excessive Inspections aka Consumption to Steal Realestate. re Separation of Powers.
1. The States of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Attorney General Dana Nessel on behalf of the People of Michigan (collectively, “Plaintiff States”), bring this action to protect their residents, natural resources, and economic interests from President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution.
PLAINTIFF STATE OF MINNESOTA 72. The State of Minnesota, represented by and through its Attorney General, is a sovereign state of the United States of America
. 73. Attorney General Keith Ellison is the chief legal officer of the State of Minnesota and his powers and duties include acting in federal court in matters of State concern and to protect Minnesota residents. Minn. Stat. § 8.01.
This action is brought to protect Minnesota’s sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and proprietary interests.
74. Governor Tim Walz is the chief executive officer of the State of Minnesota, custodian of state property and federal funds made available to the State, and the Commander-inChief of the state military. Minn. Const., art. V, § 3; Minn. Stat. §§ 4.01 & .07. As the chief executive officer and Commander-in-Chief of the State of Minnesota, Governor Walz leads executive branch agencies injured by the actions described in this Complaint.
75. The Minnesota National Guard has over 13,000 soldiers and airmen, employs more than 2,000 people on a full-time basis, and operates over 60 facilities in the state. The Minnesota National Guard receives more than 96% of its funding from the federal government. It performs missions training and prepares citizen soldiers and airmen to respond to, among other things, the Governor of Minnesota for state emergency response, military support, and protection of local communities. Loss of funding negatively impacts this vital service for the State of Minnesota.
76. For example, diverting federal funding for the Minnesota National Guard’s counterdrug programs and domestic drug interdiction activities to construct a wall along the United States-Mexico border would harm Minnesota’s law enforcement agencies and Case 3:19-cv-00872 Document 1 Filed 02/18/19 Page 14 of 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief compromise the health and safety of Minnesota residents.
77. In addition, diverting federal funding from necessary military construction projects in Minnesota, including National Guard projects, to construct a wall along the United StatesMexico border would also harm Minnesota, its economy, and its residents.
Unfortunately, as we explained in our
amicus brief, despite the historical protection, many state governments today impose outrageous fines, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars, for small offenses—with the burden frequently falling on citizens who can least afford to pay. Consider the following examples:
- One Missouri city fined a homeowner $180,000 for choosing to plant flowers instead of grass.
- A Florida homeowner faced municipal fines of $58,000 for failing to register a burglar alarm with a local bureaucrat.
- PLF clients faced fines of $100 per day—exceeding $10,000 in just a short time—for their home’s Van Gogh style mural
- In California, PLF clients Henny and Warren Lent face over $4 million in fines for blocking an unusable public access easement.
Today’s Supreme Court decision is an important step toward ending the kind of fines presently imposed for even non-criminal offenses by many states. All Americans, especially our friends at Institute for Justice who fought this battle, should be proud.
