Sent: 6/24/2019 12:27:46 PM Central Standard Time
Subject: AffiantSharonObjects to OutsideCounsilMarkBradford,Fees,Justice for Rose: USSC property rights claims | PLF
Mon.24June2019
TO THE ABOVE NAMED, JOINTLY,SEVERALLY, OFFICIAL CAPACITYS AND PERSONAL.
This Doc. must be added to the Objection of Outside Counsels. Res. 19-1082
06/24/2019 -- Accelerated review (of City of St. Paul's appeal) is GRANTED.
08/20/2019, 11:00 AM -- Oral arguments MN Supreme Court. (Members of the public can attend in person at the State Capitol, or watch the video online.)
...See More
Affiant re Penalty of Perjury, also Victimized by Mayor Melvin Carter, DSI Inspector Ed Smith et al
Till Death do us Part must Expose the Ponzi Taxing Scheme of City St. Paul,MN
Citys Withdrawal of Ord 19-18 Penaltys.
Sharon Anderson presentations | SlideShareHUD Sued for Records of Obama Administration Involvement in Controversial St. Paul, MN, Housing Discrimination Case - Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch separately obtained documents under the Minnesota Data Practices Act, showing that St. Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing arranged a meeting between the chief of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, Tom Perez, and Mayor Chris Coleman a week before the city’s withdrawal from the case, captioned Magner v. Gallagher. Following Perez’s visit, the city withdrew its case and thanked DOJ and officials at HUD for their involvement.
When Private Lawyer David Lillhaug and former City Attorney Sara Grewing were appointed to Judships to further demise USSC 10-1032 titled Magner vs. Gallagher
complicit with now DFL Nat.Chair Tom Perez and now MNAG Keith Ellison and now Ken Martin Co DFL Chair with
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reformhis DFL Wife Orouke working in Ramsey Co.
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reformhis DFL Wife Orouke working in Ramsey Co.
In January 2012, Perez began leading negotiations with Lillehaug, offering him a “roadmap” to a global settlement. Once negotiations appeared to break down, Perez boarded a plane and flew to Minnesota to meet face-to-face with Mayor Coleman. At that early February meeting, Perez pleaded for the fate of disparate impact and reiterated the Justice Department’s willingness to strike a deal. His lobbying paid off when Lillehaug accepted the deal on Mayor
Cemetarys are Land Property Right
OPA140429-083115.pdfs,Ownership likened to HS Propertys.
OPA140429-083115.pdfs,Ownership likened to HS Propertys.
Trash Lawsuits if fee not paid, then added to Property taxes with 4.5 % interest.
| RES 19-1082 | 1 | 3 | Appointment of Bassford Remele as Special Counsel in matter of Bruce Clark, et al. v. City of Saint Paul | Resolution | Appointing the firm of Bassford Remele under the direction of Mark R. Bradford as special counsel representing the City of Saint Paul in the matter of Bruce Clark, et al. v. City of Saint Paul. |
| Appointing the firm of Bassford Remele under the direction of Mark R. Bradford as special counsel representing the City of Saint Paul in the matter of Bruce Clark, et al. v. City of Saint Paul. |
| Sponsors: | Amy Brendmoen |
| Attachments: |
1. Administrative Code 3.02, 2. Bassford Remele Engagement Letter, 3. Bassford Remele Signed Acknolwedgment, 4. Financial Analysis
HR Rate $400,Shareholder $400,AssAtt $175.Paralegal$125.00 plus Salarys of Meghan Hafner, Portia, At all times Material Affiant alleges Rachael Tierney Gunderson Ineffective Assistance of Council to Advise Amy Brendmoen aka Neske aka Hahn Council Enbanc to Contract Trash Hauling.
|
|
Please take legal Notice
Charles E. Lundberg, Mark R. Bradford, Christine E. Hinrichs, Bassford Remele, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association. Thomas D. Jensen, William L. Davidson, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Professional Liability Defense Federation
IN SUPREME COURT A14-0429 Court of Appeals Anderson, J. Concurring, Lillehaug and Page, JJ. Timothy Guzick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George J. Nyberg and as Trustee of the George Nyberg Trust, Respondent
From: sharon4anderson@aol.c
Sharon Anderson 2019 Candidate Ward 2 Council
Sharon Anderson Ward 2om
- St.Paul, United States
- Hobby_RealEstate Entreprenuer,Advocate/Activist
- www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com
- Sharon's Hobby is Politics,Blogging,Current Republican Candidate for MN Attorney General
Cc: CMartin@pacificlegal.org
Sent: 6/22/2019 8:05:41 AM Central Standard Time
Subject: Justice for Rose: Landmark Supreme Court decision opens federal courts to property rights claims | Pacific Legal Foundation
Sat.22ndJun2019
SASC1988Briefs9 http://lying-lawyers.blogspot.comAffiant Mrs. Sharon Scarrella Anderson QuiTam, Whistleblower has filed Numerous Legal Briefs, since 1976 suing Midwest Fed S&l Homestead at 1058 Summit ave St.Paul,MN None Abated by Government Officials, Heinous, repugnant Denial of Due Process, Over 100 Blogs with thousands of pic,pdf files,Forensic Files http://sharons-courtrecords.blogspot.comCopyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF or read online from ScribdNEVER GIVE UP OR GIVE IN ON THE GRAVES OF TENANTS IN COMMONwill challenge Bradford outside counsel fees etc using USSC 10-1032 titled Magner vs. Gallagher re Frank Steinhauser and Sharons cases http://lying-lawyers.blogspot.comTaking my home on Summit without just compensation etc. reducing to Poverty http://sharon4anderson.org
From: sharon4anderson@aol.com
To: sharon4anderson@aol.com
Sent: 6/22/2019 7:35:39 AM Central Standard Time
Subject: Check out Justice for Rose: Landmark Supreme Court decision opens federal courts to property rights claims | Pacific Legal Foundation
Justice for Rose: Landmark Supreme Court decision opens federal courts to property rights claims | Pacific Legal Foundation
Today, the Supreme Court gave property owners everywhere a major victory, overturning a 34-year precedent that has robbed countless individuals of their property rights. And you have an unassuming woman in rural Pennsylvania to thank.In a 5-4 opinion on Knick v. Township of Scott written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Justices held that the government violates the Constitution when it takes an individual’s private property without paying for it first. The Court ruled that “[f]idelity to the Takings Clause and our cases construing it requires overruling” [the Court’s 34-year-old decision] “and restoring takings claims to the full-fledged constitutional status the Framers envisioned when they included the Clause among the other protections in the Bill of Rights.”The assault on Rose Knick’s rights began in 2013 when officials from the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, walked on her farm without permission, and—based on the presence of a few loose, unmarked stones—declared part of Rose’s property a gravesite and demanded she open it to the public.Under a newly passed local ordinance, Rose would be forced to open her private property to strangers, and trim grass and prune shrubs regularly to keep the area as if it were really a public cemetery. If she failed to comply, she would face fines of $300 to $1,200 a day, and town officials refused to compensate Rose for any of these demands.After years of legal battles with the Township of Scott, and two Supreme Court oral arguments earlier this year, the Court has finally acknowledged that she has a right to defend her property rights in federal court.The Court’s decision opens up federal courthouse doors to Fifth Amendment property rights claims and overturns a 34-year-old Supreme Court decision called Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City that has ultimately robbed many landowners of their property rights. Today’s ruling means that property owners can file their constitutional property rights claims against local governments in federal court.The court recognized that Congress intended to open federal courthouses to sucBLOG > ISSUES > PROPERTY RIGHTS > JUSTICE FOR ROSE: LANDMARK SUPREME COURT DECISION OPENS FEDERAL COURTS TO PROPERTY RIGHTS CLAIMShttps://www.nationalbcc.org/images/stories/DOJ-St-Paul.pdfJustice for Rose: Landmark Supreme Court decision opens federal courts to property rights claims
Today, the Supreme Court gave property owners everywhere a major victory, overturning a 34-year precedent that has robbed countless individuals of their property rights. And you have an unassuming woman in rural Pennsylvania to thank.
In a 5-4 opinion on Knick v. Township of Scott written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Justices held that the government violates the Constitution when it takes an individual’s private property without paying for it first. The Court ruled that “[f]idelity to the Takings Clause and our cases construing it requires overruling” [the Court’s 34-year-old decision] “and restoring takings claims to the full-fledged constitutional status the Framers envisioned when they included the Clause among the other protections in the Bill of Rights.”
The assault on Rose Knick’s rights began in 2013 when officials from the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, walked on her farm without permission, and—based on the presence of a few loose, unmarked stones—declared part of Rose’s property a gravesite and demanded she open it to the public.
Under a newly passed local ordinance, Rose would be forced to open her private property to strangers, and trim grass and prune shrubs regularly to keep the area as if it were really a public cemetery. If she failed to comply, she would face fines of $300 to $1,200 a day, and town officials refused to compensate Rose for any of these demands.
After years of legal battles with the Township of Scott, and two Supreme Court oral arguments earlier this year, the Court has finally acknowledged that she has a right to defend her property rights in federal court.
The Court’s decision opens up federal courthouse doors to Fifth Amendment property rights claims and overturns a 34-year-old Supreme Court decision called Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City that has ultimately robbed many landowners of their property rights. Today’s ruling means that property owners can file their constitutional property rights claims against local governments in federal court.
The court recognized that Congress intended to open federal courthouses to such claims to ensure that constitutional rights are fully protected.
“Contrary to Williamson County, a property owner has a claim for a violation of the Takings Clause as soon as a government takes his property for public use without paying for it.” The Constitution allows government to take private property and make it public, like the Township did to Rose, but only if it pays “just compensation.” And the township refused to pay anything.
When Rose sued to enforce her constitutional property rights in state court, the state court claimed it could not hear her case until the town actually followed through with its threats. Having lost faith in the state court, she went to federal court to enforce her federal rights.
But the federal courts could not hear her claim either, because of the 1985 Williamson County Supreme Court decision. That decision held that constitutional property rights claims against local governments must be filed in state court, even though federal law explicitly allows such claims to be heard in federal court.
In other words, Rose would have to file her claim in state court—the same state court that had already turned her away.
For more than a decade, PLF has fought to get the Williamson County decision overturned. Senior Attorney Dave Breemer—who argued Rose Knick’s case before the Supreme Court— filed a dozen such petitions before the court finally granted review in Knick’s case. We have enjoyed many incremental wins and we have also lost many times. But PLF’s perseverance has finally paid off.
With their ruling on Rose’s case today, the Supreme Court recognized that Williamson County was wrongly decided. And as the Chief Justice explains in his decision, “Williamson County was not just wrong. Its reasoning was exceptionally ill founded and conflicted with much of our takings jurisprudence.”
Williamson County wrongly held that the government does not violate the constitutional right to be paid when government takes property, so long as a wronged property owner can later go to state court and win a lawsuit paying him for the property that was taken. The Chief Justice today explained, “A later payment of compensation may remedy the constitutional violation that occurred at the time of the taking, but that does not mean the violation never took place. The violation is the only reason compensation was owed in the first place. A bank robber might give the loot back, but he still robbed the bank.”
The court made clear that Williamson County has created needless hurdles for individuals seeking to enforce their rights. Chief Justice Roberts explained that Williamson County’s “state-litigation requirement relegates the Takings Clause ‘to the status of a poor relation’ among the provisions of the Bill of Rights.” Congress opened federal courts to such claims and the Supreme Court should never have closed that door.
Today’s decision is a win for Rose Knick and property owners everywhere, and for PLF and our supporters who have joined with us to defend property rights from government overreach. Today we restored some of those rights.In the Saint Paul City Council Agenda thurs,July5,2007 Items 35 Resolution Assessments 07-601“from May17 to June12 th ,2007 public hearing Aug.15 th ,07 (GS3041156) Notice to combine with Item 51 Res.Ratifying Assessments 07-609 from 12Apr to 27Apr07 (J0707A Notice to remove from Agenda refer To City or County Attorneys Notice of Damages over ½ Million Dollars State of Minnesota, County of Ramsey, City of St. Paul Owner- Taxpayer Co Dist.File#J0707AJ0708A:A
Anderson+Advocates,http://www.msnusers.com/AndersonAdvocatesssm.#8337 697 Surrey ID 32-29-22-41-0053Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.comAnderson+Advocates,http://www.msnusers.com/AndersonAdvocatesuly 5th2007Sharons another Default J
LEGAL 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's
proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies
recipients 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
