AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY E-COMMERCE AND FAX:
and all others as their interest appear.
FAX VIA OUTGOING: SHARON CANNOT RECEIVE FAXES
IN COURT APPEALS STATE OF MINNESOTA
A09-2031(Toussaint)-A06-1150(Russell Anderson)-C6-88-859(Huspenie) etal 62CV09-11693(Gearin) Ramsey Dist Crt. Example
Appellant-QuiTam-Relator Sharon4Anderson’s
Informal Brief pdf Format
STATE OF MINNESOTA,ALL AGENCIES, REVENUE,Ward Einess COMMERCE, Glenn Wilson,PUBLIC SAFETY,Michael Campion,CITY ST.PAUL,Kathy Lantry,COUNTY RAMSEY,AUDITOR MARK OSWALD, Elections/Taxes Supervisor, Canvass Board,
State of Minnesota, Rule 24.04 by and thro State Attorney General Lori
Swanson www.ag.state.mn.us, Michael Campion, Public Safety,Larry Dease,Court Administrator,St.Paul
Mayor Chris B. Coleman,City Clerk Shari Moore,Council President Kathy Lantry et al,
www.ci.stpaul.mn.us, Janice Rettman res: No 2009-012,Toni Carter Canvass Board
and County Commissioners, www.co.ramsey.mn.us DSI Bob Kessler,Joel Essling John Harrington Chief Police,his agents , Kathy Wuorinen,Don Luna,Tanya Hunter, Aaron Foster, Police Impound Lot, Rapid Towing et al in
their Official Capacitys, Individually,Severally, acting in concort with John Doe
and Mary Roe. SCAP,Judges Kathleen Gearin,Joanne Smith,Gregg
Johnson,Salvador Rosas,Larry Cohen et al, unk at this time 1988 Files 495722 499129 Default 66
Million Dollars. In re Scarrella4 Assoc. Justice 221NW 2nd 562 Plaintiffs
V.
Page 53_697 SURREY AVE 32.29.22.41.0053$2,499.43
St.Paul,MN.55106 ,Intestate Decedant James R. Anderson et al,
www.cpljimanderson.blogspot.com ,VA Widow,Senior,Disabled Political Activist
Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Chergosky_Scarrella
www.sharon4staterep64a.blogspot.com http://sharon4council.blogspot.com
http://sharon4privateattorneygeneral.blogspot.com + 101 Blogs
www.sharon4anderson.org , et al as their interest appear , Defendants and
3rd Party Plaintiffs,Intestate Decedants Tenant in Common Wm.O and Bernice
A.Peterson. Title to Sharons Cars,Trailers,Peterbilt,Realestate in Fee Simple AbsoluteNotice: Ins.Claim Stolen 91 Chrysler V-1C4GY54R5MX597169 Defendants: 3rd Party Plaintiffs www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1.
Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and an appellate court’s review is unlimited. Accordingly when determining a question of law, the appellate court is not bound by the trial court’s interpretation of a statute. or Denial of MN Const.Art.X and Separation of Powers Art. III
Affiants Answer/Cross 4 1/2 Million Dollars, overlooked,misapplied by Judge John Vandenorth
in a “Patterned Enterprise” of Judicial Fraud upon the Citizenery
2.
When construing a statute, a court should give words in common usage their natural and ordinary meaning. MS429.061
429.061, 2009 Minnesota Statutes Theft,Trespass,Treason is NOT IMPROVEMENT.
3.
The fundamental rule to which all other rules are subordinate is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. When language is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to statutory construction. An appellate court merely interprets the language as it appears; it is not free to speculate and cannot read into the statute language not readily found there.
4.
If a city or county governing body has a two-thirds majority vote of its membership, it may modify a recommendation from its planning commission without first returning the proposal to the commission.
or in MN Issues of MS609.43 Misconduct of Public Officials to exploit the Seniors,Elderly,Vunerable Homeowners
in their Bizzare Taxing Methods of Illegal Fees/Assessments by Theft,Trespass,Treason? in this RICO Case for over 25 years…..re: C6-88-859 (Doris Huspeni) with Clerk Chris Coleman, now City St.Paul Mayor.
5.
Under the facts of this case, the Board of County Commissioners’ alleged Administrative Hearing without “due process” or Civil/Criminal S&C triggering Constitutional Challenge of Jurisdiction/Authority of Judge John Vandenorth File 62cv09-1163,amendment’s published 2008 Tax Delinquency’s was a legislative action.
Quitam Relator Sharon4Anderson is the only homeowner to challenge out of 3 thousand propertys?
giving rise to Major Corruption in the State of Minnesota,City of St.Paul and County of Ramsey
6.
Aesthetics and conformance with a governing body’s comprehensive plan may be considered as bases for zoning and Tax rulings.
42 USC 3631
7.
Zoning is not to be based upon a plebiscite of the neighbors; neighborhood objections alone are not legally sufficient to support land use regulation. Nevertheless, their views remain a consideration in a governing body’s ultimate decision.
8.
A county-wide “takings” “Condemnations” by Water,Electric Shutoff , Stalking causing Fractured Ankle, taking 91 Chrysler, Trailer, Contents, Porta Potty by Theft, Trespass,Treason since 1988 Ramsey Dist. File 495722 and 66 Million Default Judgment File no 499129 giving rise to AFFIDAVITS OF PREJUDICE AGAINST NOW CHIEFAffidavitPrejudice Kathleen Gearin Judge
JUDGE KATHLEEN GEARINSCAP
IN her capacity-conflict as Commitment Judge, triggering DEATH,DISABILITY,DISPARAGMENT OF TITLES AND
on all citizens in a “protected class” of Social Security Receipants, Disability, in the instant case is unreasonable per se and therefore improper. Summary Judgment taken without
Evidentary Hearings, List of Witness’s
62CV-09-11693
Amicus 20brief 9.
The district court is vested with broad discretion in supervising the course and scope of discovery.
10.
In actions to review the final zoning decision of a governing body, the admission of evidence not presented to the governing body is subject to the district court’s discretion.
11.
Although strongly encouraged, a governing body is not required to make formal findings of fact concerning its decisions regulating land use. It is more important that there exists a record of what the governing body considered before making its decision so that the reviewing court is not left in a quandary as to why the decision was made.
12.
The test for determining whether a state law violates the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution is: (1) whether the state law has, in fact, operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship; (2) whether there is a significant
and legitimate public purpose behind the legislation; and (3) whether the adjustment of the contracting parties’ rights and responsibilities is based upon reasonable conditions and is of a character appropriate to the public purpose justifying the legislation’s adoption.
13.
Despite a court finding of substantial impairment of a contractual relationship, legislation may still be upheld under an analysis of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution if there is a significant and legitimate public purpose behind the legislation and if the adjustments to the contracting parties’ rights and responsibilities are based upon reasonable conditions and are of a character appropriate to the public purpose justifying the legislation’s adoption.
14.
For the threshold issue in an analysis of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution—whether the regulation has, in fact, operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship—a court must consider whether the industry the complaining party has entered has been regulated in the past. This consideration is required because one whose rights, such as they are, are subject to state restriction, cannot remove them from the power of the State by making a contract about them.
15.
In an analysis of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution, whether the adjustment of rights and responsibilities of contracting parties is based upon reasonable conditions and is of a character appropriate to the public purpose justifying the legislation’s adoption, the courts properly defer to legislative judgment as to the necessity and reasonableness of a particular measure when the State is not a contracting party.
16.
An appellate court review of whether a board of county commissioners’ resolution is preempted by statute is, like interpretation of statutes and ordinances, a question of law. The standard of review is therefore unlimited.
17.
State law preemption of a particular field cannot be implied but must be expressed by a clear statement in the law.
18.
There is a presumption that the legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation.
19.
Absent an express statement by Congress that state law is preempted, federal preemption occurs where (1) there is an actual conflict between federal and state law; (2) where compliance with both federal and state law is, in effect, physically impossible; (3) where Congress has occupied the entire field of regulation and leaves no room for states to supplement federal law; or (4) when the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full objectives of Congress.
20.
In the absence of express preemption in a federal law, there is a strong presumption that Congress did not intend to displace state law.
APPELLANT_QUITAM_RELATOR SHARED ISSUES:
1. Did the district court err in determining that the City Council and Ramsey Co. Board’s decision “takings” by Theft,Trespass,Treason without Improvements on Homestead, Disabled Property Owners, amending the taxing regulations by Illegal Fees/Assessment, Summary Abatements without “due process” was lawful, i.e., that it did violate the
2. Did the district court err with Libel with Malice in determining that the Full Taxes of Homestead Property at 697 Surrey, 2008 were paid and that Title is in the name of Decedant James R. Anderson et al and
decision amending the online banking statement of regulations was reasonable?
Property taxes paid $949.86 Property taxes paid
No.4. Did the district court err in dismissing the claim alleging that the property taxes for 697 Surrey 2008 were paid in full? Judge John Vandenorty complicity with Auditor Mark Oswald to violate the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution? YES.
ISSUES:
5. Did the district court CRIMINALLY err by having a Student Attorney who failed to research the Case in its entirety alleging preemption of the Bank and Wire Fraud regulation’s amendment by Fraud unpon the Court and Fraud on the United States of America on a Protected Class of Citizens. Techinally Repealing State Laws thus Treason YES.
6. Did the district court err in dismissing Attorney Pro Se’s pdf. Forensic Files to expose Major Corruption of the Judgescomplicit with Auditor, and DFL Gubnatorial Cadidate, Ramsey Co Attorney Susan Gaertner who is claiming alleging preemption of the Banking laws and regulation amendments by federal law? YES
Memorandumn
Concurrent with the release of A09-2031 Order (toussaint) court has ordered Affiant to submit Informal brief on certain questions raised in the issues originally presented on appeal by both Plaintiff State of Minnesota and Respondant.
Those original issues are: whether the district court erred in Summary Judgment dismissing the claims alleging that the taxing decision’s amending the regulations violated the Takings Clause and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. YES.
Minnesota’s Strike Force “taking” our Cars for Profit, involving Aaron Foster, Manager of
St.Paul Police Impound Lot, without Public Improvements, taxing to forclosure
without Tickets,Warrants,Approval to Prosecute
Bill Dahn: Bud Shaver Stole Bill’sCampaign Bus?
Our order requiring supplemental briefing on takings necessarily stays our resolution of the following issues originally presented on appeal by Intervenors: whether the district court erred in dismissing their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and inverse condemnation.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT AT THIS TIME
EXCEPT ACCESS TO THE COURTS MUST BE IN PDF FORMAT, FORENSIC FILES FOR PUBLIC
SCRUNITY.
These Criminal Charges against the State do not have to have Filing Fees,
Read Full Post »
Disclaimer Affiant demand pdf Forensic Files 62cv09-1163(Vandenorth)AppealA09-2031(Toussaint) www.taxthemax.blogspot.com
Sharon4anderson's Weblog 