(651) 296-2474 (phone) (651) 297-5636 (fax)
Send an email via our contact form Minnesota Judicial Center (MJC)
Suite #: 135_25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
FAX TRANSMITTAL INFORMAL BRIEF QUITAM_RELATOR
QuoWarranto A06 1150 30 Jun06
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
Page 53_697 SURREY AVE 188.8.131.52.0053$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
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
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
279 – DELINQUENT REAL ESTATE TAXES, 2008 Minnesota Statutes
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.
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
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.
Aesthetics and conformance with a governing body’s comprehensive plan may be considered as bases for zoning and Tax rulings.
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.
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
Amicus 20brief 9.
The district court is vested with broad discretion in supervising the course and scope of discovery.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
State law preemption of a particular field cannot be implied but must be expressed by a clear statement in the law.
There is a presumption that the legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation.
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.
In the absence of express preemption in a federal law, there is a strong presumption that Congress did not intend to displace state law.
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.
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Sharon4 Anderson – Google Profile Candidate AG2010 www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com Blogger: User Profile: Sharon Anderson
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.