A writ of quo warranto is not a petition, but a notice of demand, issued by a demandant, to a respondant claiming some delegated power, and filed with a ... www.constitution.org/writ/quo_warranto.htm - Cached - Similar
Legal Opinions Quo Warranto Filing A Quo Warranto Procedures for filing quo warranto applications and actions are governed by the
Code of Civil Procedure, sections 803-811 California Code of Regulations, title 11, sections 1-11
A quo warranto action is filed typically to remove a person from public office. The Attorney General must approve all quo warranto actions filed by private individuals. This protects public officers from frivolous lawsuits. Nature of Remedy.
A quo warranto action may be brought against any person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any public office or franchise.
A quo warranto action may also be brought against any corporation, either de jure or de facto, which usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any franchise within California.
The Opinion Unit reviews the written pleadings filed by the parties and issues an opinion either granting or denying the application to sue. If approval is given, the lawsuit is maintained under the direction of the Attorney General.
The prerogative writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment, which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents. Here are a few writings on the subject. Revival of the writs must be combined with reviving standing for private prosecution of public rights, subverted by the "cases and controversies" doctrine and the decision in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), which is discussed in an article by Steve Winter, The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance.
Minnesota Judicial Center Phone: (651) 297-7650
Lorie skjerven gildea B.A. Degree, with distinction University of Minnesota Morris, 1983 J.D. Degree, magna cum laude, order of the coif Georgetown University Law Center, 1986
Appointed as Chief Justice on May 13, 2010. Term expires Jan. 2013. Appointed as Associated Justice on January 11, 2006
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
QuoWarranto_RICO
A06-1150_82-1292-C8-84-24_A09-2031_62cv09-1163_62cv10-112
State of Minnesota by and thro DFL_AG Lori Swanson, SharonAndersonSharon Anderson, Title 31 Relator ECF P165913 Pacer sa1299 http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=38824
Candidate R_AG_10Aug2010 Primary to be filled 2Nov2010,John Doe,Mary Roe,all others similarily situated,to join with Dr. Orley Tazit,13+ AG's to repeal Obama Care HR3590 Voters,Taxpayers, http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/032310healthcarelawsuit.pdf&chrome=true&pli=1 AttorneyProSe_Private AG_QuiTam Relators
vs.
Kathleen Sebelius Sec.HHH,MN. Sec.State Mark Ritchie,Tom Hanson Finances,Ward Einess Revenue,Michael Campanion DPS,Dr.Sanne Magnam Health,2ndharvest.org,All Licensed Lawyers_Judges,specifically Kathleen Gearin,Joanne Smith,Gregg Johnson,salvador rosas,John Vandenorth,Edward Toussaint, Ret. Lawrence Cohen,John Doe,Mary Roe, all others similarily situated:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MEMORANDUMN Affidavit of Sharon Anderson aka In re: Scarrella for Associate Justice NW2d221page 562, the denial of the Elective Franchise of the tax supported Employment of Judge denied to all non-lawyer citizenry mandates Affidavit of Prejudices against all Judges to insure Access to the Seats of Government Accountability, Fair, Impartial Trials, with Constitutional Challenges of the Election and MS117 Eminent Domain Laws. http://www.sharon4judge.blogspot.com/ Sharon brings these matters to the Supreme Court via MS2.724 Chief Justice has full Supervisory, Fidicuary Control of the Courts,Lawyers Judicial Branch www.courts.state.mn.us Sharon mandates this to be a Test Case ISSUES: ELECTION_EMINENT DOMAIN ELECTRONIC FILINGS HEALTH_CARE _IMMIGRATION_ Republican Candidate for State Attorney General RELIEF SOUGHT This action is brought pursuant to jurisdictional authority stated in Minnesota Statutes ß2.724 Chief Justice.
COUNT I MN Const. Art.III Separation Powers
The Petitioner, requests Quo Warranto be heard, restraining from the Ballot all Lawyer_Judges that do not list their Residence,lawyers license and contact for Public Peview, or have a certified copy of exemption on fle with Sec. State's Office. The Public has the Right to know who they are voting for even unopposed>
a. Affiant Sharon Anderson challenge's the Affidavit of Candidacy is defective on 2 Counts a. All Judges and Co. Attorneys "Licensed" "Learned in Law" never defined to mean Lawyer, contrary to MN Constitution Art. III Separation of Powers: County Attorneys Executive Branch,Judges Judicial Branch. B. Auditor,AttorneyGeneral ,SecState are left
COUNT II RED FLAG_RICO 18USC s1961-68
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lit08.htm
Over 20 years Sharon has accused apparent Judge Kathleen Gearin with Theft by Swindle over $120 thousand from Sharons HS at 1058 Summit Ave. St.Paul,MN, triggering the Murder of Cpl Jim Anderson who spent 1 year at Brainard State Hospital, Wrongful Death of Tenants in Common of Bill and Bernice A. Peterson http://www.crimes-against-humanity.blogspot.com/ Equity Skimming, Heinous violations
Since most RICO complaints allege underlying acts of mail, wire, or securities fraud, which must be pleaded with particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), the complaint may be lengthy and complex.
The Third Branch Sharon in Good Faith Must trigger this Legal Notice before the Primary10Aug10
COUNT III http://www.justice.gov/crt/crim/3631fin.php
When Judges are involved in Theft by Swindle, Covert Coverup of Bank,Wire Fraud via Unpublished Opinions they must be indicted for their Ponzi Schemes 4 their Pecuniary Gain. acting in concort with Manatron Software http://www.mnccc.org/ http://www.manatron.com/ http://www.taxthemax.blogspot.com/ http://www.sharonanderson.wordpress.com/ http://www.sharon4anderson.org/ POA online in the event of DEATH
COUNT IV SHARIA LAW
Sharon s opposed to this Heinous Wrongs against Women, apparantly introduced now by President Obama. Further MN Courts are Cluttered with Hoarding Paper contrary to
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/PDFcases/sharoncases.pdf
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/andersonadvocates/index.html
CASE NAME: State of Minnesota ex rel. Speaker of House of Representatives Hon. Steve Sviggum, et al., petitioners, Appellants, vs. Tom Hanson in his official capacity as Commissioner of Finance or his successor, et al., Respondents. Read the opinion in this case at A06-840 CITATION: 732 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
Legal Issues in BRIEF OF APPELLANT'S/INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS AND APPENDIX:Legal Issues in RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
- Do individual legislators as members of the Minnesota State Legislature have standing to bring an action to the court to challenge the executive branch of government for misappropriation of state funds in violation of the Minnesota Constitution and/or Minnesota Statutes? The District Court concluded that, at a minimum, state legislators had standing as citizen taxpayers to assert claims of misappropriation of state funds. Apposite Cases: Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1932) Raines v Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) Conant v Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP, 603 N.W.2d 143 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) Dolak v State Admin Bd, 441 Mich. 547,495 NW2d 539 (1993) Rukavian v Pawlenty, 684 N.W.2d 525 (Minn.. Ct. App. 2004) Silver v Pataki, 96 N.Y.2d. 532, 755 N.E.2d 842, 730 N.Y.S.2d 482,2001 Slip Op. 06138 (N.y. July 10, 2001).
- Whether the writ of quo warranto is an appropriate procedure to require the Minnesota Commissioner of Finance to show by what authority that office could disburse funds without an appropriation by law? The District Court declined to issue a writ of quo warranto concluding it an improper procedure to contest past conduct of the Commissioner of Finance. Apposite Cases: Clayton v Kiffmeyer, 688 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 2004) Fletcher v Commonwealth of Kentucky, 163 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. May 19,2005) Jasper v Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 642 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. 2002) Kahn v Griffin, 701 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 2005) Rice v. Connolly, 488 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1992) State ex rel Mattson v. Kiedrowski, 391 N.W.2d 777 (Minn. 1986) State v. ex rel Palmer v Perpich, 182 N.W.2d 182 (1971) State ex rel Danielson v. Village of Mound, 48 N.W.2d 855 (1951) Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (1975)
- Did the Commissioner of Finance disburse state funds without an appropriation by law in contravention of Articles III, IV, and XI of the Minnesota Constitution? The District Court did not address this issue. Apposite Cases: Cinncinnati Soap Co v United States, 301 U.S. 308 (1937) Office of Personnel Management v Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990) In re Matter of Application of the Senate, 10 Minn. 78 (Minn 1865) Izaak Walton League of America Endowment, Inc. v State Dep't of Natural Res., 252 N.W.2d 852 (Minn. 1977) St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v Marzitelli, 258 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. 1977) State ex re Gardner v Holm, 62 N.W.2d 52 (Minn. 1954) Rice v Connolly, 488 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1992) Rukavina v Pawlenty, 684 N W.2d 525 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)
- Are the Appellants entitled to attorney fees and costs in responding to the Commissioner's motion for sanctions? The District Court denied the motion for attorney fees and costs. Apposite Cases: Kirk Capital Corporation v Bailey, 16 F. 3d 1485,28 Fed. R. Serv.3d 88 (8th Cir. 1994) Gibson v. Coldwell Banker Burnet, 659 N.W.2d 782 (Minn. Ct App 2003) Wagner v Minneapolis Public Schools, 581 N W.2d 49 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998)
Also Filed - REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS/INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS Also Filed - BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE EIGHTY-FOURTH MINNESOTA SENATE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS
- Is Appellants' Petition for a writ of quo warranto a proper procedure by which to challenge the purely past conduct of a State public official that is not continuing? The district court held in the negative. Most apposite authorities: Rice v. Connolly, 488 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1992) State ex rel. Mattson v. Kiedrowski, 391 N.W.2d 777 (Minn. 1986) State ex rel. Grozbach v. Common Sch. Dist. 65, 54 N.W.2d 130 (Minn. 1952) Lommen v. Gravlin, 295 N.W. 654 (Minn. 1941)
- Does Appellant's Petition requesting an advisory legal opinion regarding a purely hypothetical future set of facts present a ripe case or controversy? The district court held in the negative. Most apposite authorities: Kennedy v. Carlson, 544 N.W.2d I (Minn. 1996) St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Marzitelli, 258 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. 1977) Izaak Walton League of America Endorsement, Inc. v. State Dept. of Nat. Res., 252 N.W.2d 852 (Minn. 1977)
- Do conclusion of proceedings in the district court temporary shutdown proceeding and legislative ratification of actions taken there under render Appellant's Petition moot? The district court held in the affirmative. Most apposite authorities: Kahn v. Griffin, 701 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 2005) In re Schmidt, 443 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 1989) Chaney v. Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency, 641 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002), rev. denied (Minn. May 28, 2002)
- Does the doctrine of laches preclude Appellants from challenging the district court's approval of the expenditures at issue when Appellants refused to participate in, or object to, the district court's proceeding and then subsequently ratified the very expenditures they now challenge? The district court held in the affirmative. Most apposite authorities: Apple Valley Square v. City of Apple Valley, 472 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. Ct. App. 1981) Fetch v. Holm, 52 N.W.2d 113 (Minn. 1952) Aronovich v. Levy, 56 N.W.2d 570 (Minn. 1953)
- Do Appellants have standing to as individual members of the Legislature, or as taxpayers, to challenge the expenditures which they expressly ratified. The district court held that Appellants had standing in their capacity as taxpayers and did not decide whether Appellants had standing as legislators. Most apposite authorities: McKee v. Likins, 261 N.W.2d 566 (Minn. 1977) Rukavina v. Pawlenty, 684 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) Conant v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP, 603 N.W.2d 143 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
- Does Minn. Const. art. XI, § 1 override judicial authority and responsibility to order State spending where such expenditures are required to maintain critical government functions? The district court held in the negative. Most apposite authorities: Coalition for Basic Human Needs v. King, 654 F.2d 838 (1st Cir. 1981) Mattson v. Kiedroenski, 391 N.W.2d 777 (Minn. 1986) Sharood v. Hatfield, 210 N.W.2d 275 (Minn. 1973) Fletcher v. Commonwealth of Ky., 163 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. 2005)
- Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Appellants' sanctions motion based on Respondents' premature filing of their own sanctions motion? The district court by definition held in the negative. Most apposite authorities: Olson v. Babler, No. A05:, 395, 2006 WL 851798 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) Gibson v. Coldwell Banker Burnett, 659 N.W.2d 782 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) Burnett, 659 N.W.2d 782 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) Muhammad v. State, Nos. Civ. A-99-3742/99-2694, 2000 WL 1876 (E.D. La. 2000).
Return to Home Page
MEMORANDUMN
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/03/orly-taitz-files-motion-to-have-her-quo.html
