Citizenery-MNCourts

SharonsAppeal A092031DenialDueProcess

2009-12-19T08:25:00.000-08:00

Pursuant to penalitys of perjury affiant has not been served with "Order"

Case Number:

A092031

Filing Date:

11/06/2009

Jurisdiction:

Court of Appeals

Status:

Pre-Briefing

Short Title:

In the Matter of Delinquent Real Property Taxes for Real Property Described, to wit: Lyman Dayton Addition to St. Paul, Lot 5, Blk 46, a/k/a 697 Surrey Avenue, PIN: 32.29.22.41.0053, Sharon Lee Anderson a/k/a Sharon Scarrella Anderson, record owner

Hearing Type:

Nonoral

Order Docket Entry
Status:	Final
Jurisdiction:
Docket Entry Type:	Order
Type of Filing:	Remedy Deficiencies
Thread to:
Document Description:	Order - Remedy Deficiencies; requirement for APL to file cc of 9/10/09 judgment is waived. By 12/21 APL to file a NOA and SCA containing original signatures; aff/serv for NOA & SCA; copy of district court's 9/18/09 IFP Order; 7 copies of APB with aff/serv (one must contain orig. signature)
Filing Date:	12/07/2009 10:01 AM
Docket Entry Date:

Sharons Budget Fight A09-2031

2009-12-02T11:15:00.000-08:00

From: sharon4anderson@aol.com
To: shari.moore@ci.stpaul.mn.us, ron.guilfoile@ci.stpaul.mn.us
CC: Julie.Kleinschmidt@co.ramsey.mn.us, bob.fletcher@co.ramsey.mn.us, rca@co.ramsey.mn.us, jean.stepan@co.ramsey.mn.us, john.edison@co.ramsey.mn.us, larry.dease@courts.state.mn.us, mark.oswald@co.ramsey.mn.us, fred.grittner@courts.state.mn.us, sue.dosal@courts.state.mn.us, eric.magnuson@courts.state.mn.us
Sent: 12/1/2009 12:20:38 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: Court Forms mnd.courts.gov,SharonvCitySt.Paul,CoRamsey BudgetChallenge

1Dec09
LEGAL NOTICE:
At all times Material the City of St. Paul has wilfully failed to Answer,
THEREFORE: DEFAULT IN THE MILLIONS IS HEREBY TAKEN.
Wed. 2Dec09 at the City Council Budget hearings below
CONSPIRACY THEORY WITH JESSE VENTURA on truTV JESSIE THE NEW STEVEN SEGAL.
He's been a soldier, wrestler, elected official and best-selling author. Learn more about the man called both The Body and The Mind. »
MN 62cv09-1163 « Sharon4anderson’s Weblog
Sharon's Shar1058 - Sharons Affidavit Service v. Mark Oswald 62cv09-1163
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY COUNTY COURT
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY FAX RULE 5.05 ELECTRONICALLY
FORM 133. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
(IN COURT OF APPEALS)
CASE TITLE: General,Civil,Criminal Eminent Domain,Taxes,Forfeiture,Constitutionality MS 429.061
COURT CASE NUMBER:62cv09-1163 (Vandenorth)Reporter(Martinez)
vs.
APPELLATE COURT CASE NUMBER: A09-2031 http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com/
http://www.sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/
TO Ramsey Co. District Court Clerk: Lynae.Olson Tel: 651-266-8255,FX:266-8263
Larry.Dease 2nd Judicial Administrator Tel:651-266-8266FX:266-8278
MN Ramsey County - Court Calendars Room 1700, 15 W. Kellogg Blvd, St. Paul, MN 55102
Phone: (651) 266-8300
Fred Grittner
State Court Administrator's Office
(651) 296-2474 (phone)
(651) 297-5636 (fax)
Sheriff Bob.Fletcher Tel: 651-266-9333 Fax 266-9301
Ramsey County Sheriff Law Enforcement Center
425 Grove Street St. Paul, MN 55101
RamseyCo.Attorney Susan Gaertner 651-266-3222 Fax:266-3010
Ramsey County Attorney 560 RCGC W. 50 W. Kellogg Blvd.St.Paul,MN 55102
Rule 24.04 State AG Lori Swanson Tel: 651-296-3353 Fax: 282-2155
Office of Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson Minnesota Attorney General's Office
1400 Bremer Tower 445 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (651) 296-3353
(800) 657-3787 TTY:(651) 297-7206 TTY:(800) 366-4812
Julie Kleindschmidt: Ramsey County Online Ramsey Co. Manager 651-266-8000 Fax 266-8039. Ramsey County Court House 15 W. Kellogg Blvd., Room 250 Saint Paul, MN 55102.
Mark Oswald Taxes/Elections Phone:
Ramsey County Elections Home 651-266-2171 651-266-2177 Fax90 West Plato Boulevard, St. Paul, MN Ramsey County Elections P.O. Box 64098 St. Paul, MN 55164-0098
Shari Moore St.Paul City Clerk: City of St. Paul, MN - Official Website - City Clerk Contact
Email 310 City Hall 15 Kellogg Blvd., West Saint Paul, MN 55102
Ph: (651) 266-8688 Fx: (651) 266-8574
At all times Material,Affiant Sharon Anderson aka Peterson-Chergosky-Scarrella, Attorney Pro Se,
Private Attorney General, and as Republican Candidate for State AG
did by Legal Notice perfect service on all of the above. Electronically,pdf format,Blogs,Fax
Affiants Affidavit (42) pgs re: 697 Surrey 32.29.22.41.0053_2008 $2,499.52 pg 53
www.review-news.com
APPEAL,STATEMENT OF CASE,2ND NOTICE APPEAL,3RD IFP
PETITION DISCRETIONARY REVIEW,CASE LAW'S, BALLOT, VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT
OF FACTS AND PROBABLE CAUSE,AND SERVICE: MON. 26OCT09 TO THURS 29OCT09.
Affiants Service by Fax on all of the Above pgs from 651-776-5835
/s/__________________________________________

From: Sharon4Anderson
To: fred.grittner@courts.state.mn.us, shari.moore@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Julie.Kleinschmidt@co.ramsey.mn.us
CC: dorrick@pioneerpress.com, bsalisbury@pioneerpress.com, ericwblack@gmail.com
Sent: 12/1/2009 7:33:39 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Court Forms mnd.courts.gov District of Minnesota,CitySt.Paul,CoRamsey BudgetLIEN
Click here: Court Forms United States District Court - District of Minnesota
Tues. 1Dec09
LEGAL NOTICE TO FRED GRITTNER CLERK,ADMINISTRATOR LARRY DEASE SUE DOSAL Media, Public at Large
AFFIDAVIT OF SHARON SCARRELLA ANDERSON AKA CHERGOSKY-PETERSON
FOR TITLE SEARCH'S
Why the State of MN has not kept up with Word or pdf filings of any all documents. re: http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/
LEGAL NOTICE TO CHALLENGE THE CITY ST.PAUL, CO.RAMSEY FINAL
BUDGET HEARINGS, via EF ie: Electronic Filings, Title 18 Case Fixing by Auditor Mark Oswald,complicity with Lynn Moser and Judge John Vandenorth. re: www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson complicit with the Ponzi Scheme by Student Lawyer
John Edison who wilfully failed to research that Taxes were paid re: 2008, Exemptions of the "taking" Homestead Credit, Exemption of Disabled, Senior, Death,Disability,Disparagment of Titles, Complicity County
Attorney DFL Susan Gaertner aka Mrs. John Wodele aka Mrs. James B. Froehle 5505 Porland White Bear Town, MN 55110 and the Gaertner Family (TRUST) 1179 Summit Ave. St. Paul MN 55104
Dm 1399 23 exploiting the Anderson Family to Death,Disability,Disparagment of Titles in a "Patterened Enterprise" in the Office of County Attorney.
Jr,Willy 8th Cir 1997
The Tax Payer pays for this re: Ramsey Dist. Crt. 62c09-1163 Appeal A09-2031 Any all Forensic Doc are Filed, Any all Jurisdiction has been met
with Answers Cross, since 1974 , current 1/2 million Default Judgment against the City St. Paul Published on File with Risk Manager Ron Guilfole
Sharon4Anderson v. City St.Paul, Ron Guilfoile MN - Google Search
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/900-2007-02-27T034409Z/WritProA06-1150_30Jun06.pdf
http://www.sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/ http://www.taxthemax.blogspot.com/ http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com/ with POA
http://www.sharonanderson.org/
Good Faith intent to Challenge the City of St.Paul and County of Ramsey's Budget, with Affiants Default Claims, Damages since 1974 In the Matter of Sharon Scarrella Associate Justice 221NW2nd562
when current Chief Justice Eric Magnuson was clerk for Decedant Justice Sheran.
City of St. Paul, MN - Official Website - Council
Sharon4Anderson v. Co. Ramsey Risk Management MN - Google Search
23. 2010 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy. (Public hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m.)

Public Hearing and Open House-Nov. 30th, 6:30 pm
Ramsey County invites you to attend its Public Hearing/Open House regarding its Proposed 2010 Budget and Levy, Monday, Nov. 30th, 6:30 p.m. in the Roseville Area High School Cafeteria, 1240 County Road B2, Roseville. (map)
Hear a presentation on the proposed 2010 budget and levy and how property taxes are determined, have a chance to address the County Board and visit the many informational booths on County programs.
For detailed information on the Ramsey County budget.
For more information on property taxes.
To view a video on property taxes.
At all times material: the Heinous, Repugnant Deprivation of Affiants 91 Chrysler, Answer CrossComplant
AffidavitPrejudice Kathleen Gearin Judge 62cv09-1163 « Sharon4anderson’s Weblog over 20 years is BIZZARE.
THEREFORE: PUNITATIVE,COMPENSATORY,TORT DAMAGES IN THE MILLIONS ARE TAKEN..........LIENED ON ALL CITY,COUNTY ASSETS.....

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 http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com/Blogger: User Profile: Sharon Anderson SharonsYahoo! iGoogle

Homestead Act of 1862 Twitter / Sharon4Anderson Shar1058's Buzz Activity Page - My Buzz Activity - Yahoo! Buzz neopopulism.org - Pro Se Dec Action Litigation Pack Sharon4Anderson Scribd Document's are based on SEC filings, Blogger: Dashboard Home
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of whistleblower protection issues, MY FindLaw SharonsWritProA06_1150_30Jun06_26
The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers
kare11.com_SA
Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption 3Apr0 http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPlawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm Sharon4Council: DLJ Management v. City St. Paul A06-2118,Money LaunderinNo direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937) g andFCC Complaints - http://sharons-copywrite.blogspot.com/knowledge gained as financial journalists , http://taxthemax.blogspot.com/ securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade Public domain recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting Google Search Times v. Sullvian Libel with malice - on that recommendations, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these or other Public Office documentsexpressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in Google Search BlogItBabe2007 Candidate profile Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs Sharon4And

REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE - 16TH AMENDMENT NOT RATIFIED Petition - Bill Benson Litigation

2009-11-30T11:37:00.000-08:00

REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE - 16TH AMENDMENT NOT RATIFIED Petition - Bill Benson Litigation

REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE - 16TH AMENDMENT NOT RATIFIED

The petition

IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS

In Re:

WE THE PEOPLE,

Petitioners,

v.

CONGRESS OF THE
UNITED STATES,

Respondents.

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was not Ratified in Accordance with the Provisions of U.S. Const. art. V, and is Null and Void

DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATIVE HEARING

DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION OF NULLIFICATION

Come now the below signatories, representing the People of the United States, who hereby Petition the Congress of the United States for redress of grievance, and demand Congress commence an investigation into the fraudulent ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and issue a resolution declaring the Sixteenth Amendment to be null and void, ab initio, in that less than the required number of States voted to ratify same, in violation of U.S. Const. art. V.

WHEREAS, U.S. Const. art. V requires proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States must be ratified by three-fourths of the States then in the Union; and

WHEREAS, the States are without jurisdiction to alter or amend the language of a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress (see Ames, The Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of The United States, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1886, at 294 (Vol. II, Gov. Printing Office (1897); Amending the Federal Constitution-Procedures of the General Services Administration and of the State Legislatures, Report No. 80-89 A 731/77 at 8, Congressional Research Service (April 18, 1980); Memo from the Office of the United States Solicitor to Secretary of State Knox (Feb. 15, 1913)(on file with the National Archives), and

WHEREAS, at all times relevant hereto, Revised Statute 205 imposed an administrative duty on Secretary of State Knox to review the "official notices" received at the Department of State to insure the proposed Sixteenth Amendment had been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution; and

WHEREAS, the States submitted their "official notice" of their respective action in the form of enrolled resolutions, duly signed by the appropriate officers of the houses of each State's Legislature; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has held that such duly enrolled resolutions constitute the official authentication of the action of the respective houses of legislative bodies, which are conclusive as a matter of law (see Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892); Lesser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922); and Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)); and

WHEREAS, the "official notices" received at the Department of State show on their face that what the States ratified is different from what Congress proposed; and

WHEREAS, Secretary of State Knox knew there were differences, and

WHEREAS, Secretary of State Knox obtained an opinion from the Solicitor of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Solicitor acknowledged States have no jurisdiction to alter the language proposed by Congress; and

WHEREAS, the Solicitor relied upon a presumption that the States did not intentionally modify the language of the proposed Sixteenth Amendment; and

WHEREAS, the Solicitor relied upon a presumption that the changes in the enrolled resolutions were merely typographical errors; and

WHEREAS, in 1984 William J. Benson went to the capitols of all forty-eight States then in the Union in 1913; and

WHEREAS, William J. Benson obtained certified copies of the Legislative Journals from all forty-eight States, and

WHEREAS William J. Benson also traveled to the Offices of the National Archives in Washington, D.C. and obtained certified copies of the State Department documents; and

WHEREAS, the certified documents conclusively establish that the presumptions relied upon by Secretary of State Knox and the Solicitor are false because States, in fact, intentionally amended the language of the amendment proposed by Congress; and

WHEREAS, subtracting those States from the official tally of the States that voted to ratify the proposed Sixteenth Amendment in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, less than the constitutionally required number of States ratified the proposed Sixteenth Amendment; and

WHEREAS, only four States voted to ratify the proposed Sixteenth Amendment according to the provisions of the Constitution, and;

WHEREAS, in numerous federal District Court and Court of Appeals cases the federal judiciary has refused to look at the certified documents contending the issue of the ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment is a "political question" for Congress; and

WHEREAS, in the absence of the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the federal income tax found at Title 26, United States Code, is a non-apportioned direct tax which violates the taxing provisions of the United States Constitution (see Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, aff. Reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895));

NOW THEREFORE, the People of the United States demand the United States Congress conduct an investigation into the above allegations, and thereafter, being satisfied the declaration of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment by Secretary of State Knox is fraudulent, and that less than thirty-six States voted to ratify the proposed Sixteenth Amendment according to the provisions of the Constitution, issue its resolution declaring the Sixteenth Amendment null and void ab initio.

Prepared this 23rd day of October, 2009 by:

JEFFREY A. DICKSTEIN
Attorney at Law
500 W. Bradley Rd., C-208
Fox Point, WI 53217
(414) 446-4264
jdlaw1@wi.rr.com

Sign the petition

(fields marked with * are required)

* Name
* Email
Comments
	Display my name as anonymous on the signatures list
	Yes, I want iPetitions to contact me on similar campaigns or petitions.

Petition sponsor

This Petition for Redress of Grievance was prepared by Jeffrey A. Dickstein, Attorney at Law, 500 W. Bradley Rd., C-208, Fox Point, WI 53217.
E-mail: jdlaw1 at wi.rr.com

Full details of the Benson litigation is available here: jeffdickstein.com

Links

To send e-mails to local and national newspapers, radio stations and TV stations, and to learn more about the Crisis in America, visit FightBackNow.us

The views expressed in this petition are solely those of the petition's sponsor and do not in any way reflect the views of iPetitions. iPetitions is solely a provider of technical services to the petition sponsor and cannot be held liable for any damages or injury or other harm arising from this petition. In the event no adequate sponsor is named, iPetitions will consider the individual account holder with which the petition was created as the lawful sponsor.

Reporter NancyLazaryan A09-1115_Line Drawn in Sand

2009-11-29T10:39:00.000-08:00

REPORTER NANCY LAZARYAN - CNN iReport

Sun.29Nov09

To Reporters Bill Salisbury and Eric Black et al

CBC News - British Columbia - U.S. journalist grilled at Canada border crossing

MINNESOTA MALICE

Affiant Sharon Anderson Attorney Pro Se, Candidate Municipal and Supreme Court Justice In re: Scarrella4AssocJustice 221NW2nd562

Sharon4Council

Blogger: Dashboard Growning old with you Guys: However in this High Tech Age, The Courts

have Blantantly Discriminated against any/all Attorney Pro Se's

By the Grace of God, Turbulence of Nature, On the Graves of Tenants in Common

Intestate Decedants , We the Citizenery must make the Courts Accountable that is why POA is online in the event of Deaths? http://www.sharonanderson.org/

Tax Crime Public Defender Bergeson Dead - You may now Scream Bloody Murder! - Lawmen Google Groups

With Great Respect for Nancy Lazaryan,and others , Affiant has tracked their Cases

as seen below Affiant as Whistleblower, Protected Class, Senior, are requesting

the Media to pick up on Accountability of the Courts,City,Counts.

AffidavitPrejudice Kathleen Gearin Judge as well as others: Henous Conflicts of Judges on the SCAP Panel

SCAP Panel MN - Google Search

62cv09-1163 « Sharon4anderson’s Weblog

Click here: C-Track - Public Site

Help

Case Search

Participant Search

Case Search
Case Number:	Case Title:		Case Group:
Jurisdiction:	Status:		Case Type:
Date From:	To:		Case SubType:
Exclude Closed/Archived:
Return to Current Case: A091115		Searching...

1 to 6 of 6 records are displayed.

Case Number	Jurisdiction	Short Title	Status	Type	SubType	Filing Date
Search Results
A091115	Court of Appeals	City of Maplewood, Respondent, vs. Evelyn C. Wallace, et al., Defendants, Nancy Marchetti (n/k/a Nancy Lazaryan), Appellant, and William M. Kayser, Third Party Plaintiff, vs. Woodhill, LLC, et al., Third Party Defendants	Briefing	Civil	Other	06/22/2009
A082091	Supreme Court	In re Nancy Lazaryan, Petitioner Nancy C. Lazaryan, Petitioner, Victoria C. Marchetti, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. City of St. Paul, et al., Respondents, ReMax Resources of Stillwater, MN, et al., Respondents, Wells Fargo Mortgage, Respondent	Closed	Writs	Prohibition/Mandamus	02/23/2009
A081823	Supreme Court	City of Maplewood, Respondent, vs. Evelyn C. Wallace, et al., Defendants, Victoria Marchetti, Appellant, Nancy Lazaryan, Petitioner, and William M. Kayser, Third Party Plaintiff, vs. Woodhill, LLC, et al., Third Party Defendants	Closed	Civil	Other	12/23/2008
A082091	Court of Appeals	In re Nancy Lazaryan, Petitioner Nancy C. Lazaryan, Petitioner, Victoria C. Marchetti, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. City of St. Paul, et al., Respondents, ReMax Resources of Stillwater, MN, et al., Respondents, Wells Fargo Mortgage, Respondent	Closed	Writs	Prohibition/Mandamus	12/01/2008
A081823	Court of Appeals	City of Maplewood, Respondent, vs. Evelyn C. Wallace, et al., Defendants, Victoria Marchetti, Appellant, Nancy Lazaryan, Appellant, and William M. Kayser, Third Party Plaintiff, vs. Woodhill, LLC, et al., Third Party Defendants	Closed	Civil	Other	10/21/2008
A050802	Court of Appeals	Ford Motor Credit Company, Respondent, vs. Nancy Lazaryan, f/k/a Nancy Johnson, Appellant, Aaron Johnson, Defendant	Closed	Civil	Other	04/25/2005

1 to 6 of 6 records are displayed.

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 http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com/Blogger: User Profile: Sharon Anderson SharonsYahoo! iGoogle

Homestead Act of 1862 Twitter / Sharon4Anderson Shar1058's Buzz Activity Page - My Buzz Activity - Yahoo! Buzz neopopulism.org - Pro Se Dec Action Litigation Pack Sharon4Anderson Scribd Document's are based on SEC filings, Blogger: Dashboard Home
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of whistleblower protection issues, MY FindLaw SharonsWritProA06_1150_30Jun06_26
The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers
kare11.com_SA
Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption 3Apr0 http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPlawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm Sharon4Council: DLJ Managment v. City St. Paul A06-2118,Money LaunderinNo direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937) g andFCC Complaints - http://sharons-copywrite.blogspot.com/knowledge gained as financial journalists , http://taxthemax.blogspot.com/ securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade Public domain recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting Google Search Times v. Sullvian Libel with malice - on that recommendations, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these or other Public Office documents expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in Google Search BlogItBabe2007 Candidate profile Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs Sharon4And

SharonsAppealA09-2031

2009-11-21T09:15:00.000-08:00

C-Track - Public Site

Help

Case View

ORCA Info

Case Information
Case Number:	A092031	Filing Date:	11/06/2009
Jurisdiction:	Court of Appeals	Status:	Pre-Briefing
ORCA:	Civil Division Ramsey County District Court	Hearing Type:	Nonoral
Classification:	Standard - Civil - Other
Short Title:	In the Matter of Delinquent Real Property Taxes for Real Property Described, to wit: Lyman Dayton Addition to St. Paul, Lot 5, Blk 46, a/k/a 697 Surrey Avenue, PIN: 32.29.22.41.0053, Sharon Lee Anderson a/k/a Sharon Scarrella Anderson, record owner
Full Title:	In the Matter of Delinquent Real Property Taxes for Real Property Described, to wit: Lyman Dayton Addition to St. Paul, Lot 5, Blk 46, a/k/a 697 Surrey Avenue, PIN: 32.29.22.41.0053, Sharon Lee Anderson a/k/a Sharon Scarrella Anderson, record owner
Summary:
Citation:

- Hide Party Information

MACS ID	Appellate Role	Party Name	Attorney(s)
Party Information
51332	Appellant	Sharon Anderson	Pro Se
10976	Respondent	Ramsey County	JEAN STEPAN

Docketing Filter View
Display:

Docket Information
Document Description	Jurisdiction	Filing Date	Docket Entry Type	Filing Type	Status
Transcript - Delivery Certificate - Patricia Martinez	Court of Appeals	11/19/2009	Transcript	Delivery Certificate	Final
Notice - Case Filing	Court of Appeals	11/12/2009	Notice	Case Filing	Final
Statement - Case - Appellant	Court of Appeals	11/06/2009	Statement	Case - Appellant	Final
Notice - Appeal - Case Filed	Court of Appeals	11/06/2009	Notice	Appeal - Case Filed	Final
Transcript - Initial Certificate - Patricia Martinez	Court of Appeals	10/15/2009	Transcript	Initial Certificate	Final

We the People Continental Congress 2009

2009-11-16T07:53:00.000-08:00

WEBCAST
ARCHIVES
including
Daily Highlights,
& Opening Ceremony
NOW
AVAILABLE!

LIVE WEBCAST AGENDA:
All times CENTRAL (U.S.), See Full Agenda, (webcast of proceedings continues throughout the day)

MONDAY, NOV. 16
8:00 AM - Violations of the Constitution's "General Welfare" clause (i.e., unlawful meddling w/ foreign nations)
1:30 PM - Violation of the "Faithfully Execute" clause (i.e., President's failure to enforce existing immigration laws)

TUESDAY, NOV. 17
8:00 AM - Violations of the "Sovereignty" clause (i.e., Sovereignty of the Republic, North American Union)
1:30 PM - Violations of the Constitution's Property Clauses (i.e., seizure of private property for private benefit.)

Please help fund our live, FREE webcast and the historic CC2009 event.
All donations to the 501(c)3 WTP Foundation are tax-deductible.
To learn more about the historic CC2009 initiative, Click Here

To watch the FREE
LIVE webcast,
click the "PLAY" button below.

To obtain the .999 pure silver CC2009 Commemorative
Medallion, click on this special WTP e-store link

We the People Continental Congress 2009

2009-11-16T07:52:00.000-08:00

Good morning Patriots!

I just wanted to remind you and to ask you to forward this to all
the patriots you know.

The Continental Congress 2009 is LIVE each day via internet stream
at this link:

http://www.givemeliberty.org/CC2009/default.htm or
www.freedom.tv/live.

Even if you are not going to watch you can still have the live

stream up and running to get the numbers up.

Yours In Liberty,

~Tammy Houle
CPMN Chair
WTP MN State Coordinator


Here is Mark's report for Day 3 and 4......................

Day 3:



We began the day with a couple of presentations having to do with
the Money Clauses. Tom DeWeese, founder of the American Policy Center
and delegate from the State of Virginia read three proposals written
by Edwin Vieira, Constitutional scholar and author from Virginia.
Unfortunately, Edwin Vieira was unable to attend in person.

The first two proposals were addressed to the federal and state
legislatures. Entitled "Reassertion of the Power of the Purse,"
they instructed that the legislators should establish Advisory
Commissions to study and recommend means by which Congress can
return to its legitimate authority to coin money and by which the
States can exercise their responsibility to make "gold and silver
coin a tender in payment of debts."

The third proposal by Mr. Vieira, read by Mr. DeWeese, was entitled,
"Declaration that all Unconstitutionally Incurred Alleged "Public
Debt" of the United States is Void, and Enforcement Thereof." This
proposal instructs Congress to appoint an Advisory Committee to
study the validity of the public debt of the United States. All of
these proposals include more detailed instructions for such a
committee and provide time limits within which Congress should
comply.

I probably should explain that one of the major purposes of CC2009
is to present "Remedial Instructions" to federal and state legislatures
for them to fix present violations of the Constitution. These proposals
by Mr. Vieira are written in the form of instructions for Congress
and the states to follow. The idea is that if these instructions
are not followed, the People of the country will need to decide
what must happen next. This is similar to the grievances that were
presen
ted by the First Continental Congress. The King's silence on
their petitions led to the Second Continental Congress which
declared independence.

During the morning presentations, we also heard from economist William
Bergman, who now works for Morningstar Investment Research, but used
to work for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. He was terminated
from the Federal Reserve Bank when he noticed that there was a spike
in the currency component of the M1 aggregate in August of 2001,
immediately prior to September 11 attacks. This raised questions
of whether there was government foreknowledge of the attacks and
cost Mr. Bergman his job. One of the delegates commented that this
was probably the best thing that could happen to him, but Bergman's
expression and demeanor showed that his honesty on this issue had
cost him and his family greatly.

But Mr. Bergman was not talking about 911 today. Rather he talked
about facts of economics and touched on the costs and moral hazard
of regulation. Also, Bob Schulz presented some of the legal action
taken by We The People Foundation to oppose the AIG bailout, which
is still pending.

After the presentations, the Continental Congress convened. The
delegates voted to rescind the decision that was made yesterday
regarding committees and go back to the previously agreed schedule.
This was to facilitate the morning and afternoon presentations
and to make sure that all delegates would be free to attend every
lecture.

After debating other issues, some of which I discuss below, the
Continental Congress succeeded in passing our first resolution so
far. It was a general resolution expressing support for the
Constitution without compromise. In actuality, the resolution
doesn't do much, but it did a lot for the morale of the delegates
to actually get something passed.

Before this resolution, we had been discussing issues regarding
the Money Clauses. It
 was moved that Edwin Vieira's proposals be
adopted. The proposals were sent to a committee, chaired by Kevin
Tebedo, which reported back before the end of the session. Fellow
Wisconsin delegate Rudy Eckert attended this committee meeting and
had the opportunity to address the committee. Later sent to the
committee was a Civic Action motion to encourage citizens to form
networks to voluntarily use gold and silver money instead of fiat
currency. When these items were reported back in the afternoon,
the Continental Congress adopted the committee report.

For the afternoon presentations, we watched two movies produced by
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership on the topic of the
Second Amendment. The second movie, called "No Guns For Negroes,"
presented a look at the civil rights aspects of infringements of
the right to keep and bear arms. It presented the case that gun
laws actually leave law-abiding, inner city blacks at the mercy
of criminals and drug dealers. This video was introduced by Ralph
Conner of the Heartland Institute and the Chicago Congress of
Racial Equality (CORE).

Also presented were two more proposals by Edwin Vieira, read by
Mr. DeWeese, to instruct Congress and the states regarding the
reestablishment of Constitutional state militias.

After passing the resolutions regarding money, the afternoon session
spiraled into pointlessness. At the end of the morning session, a
motion had been passed that substantially changed the scheduled
proceedings. It specifies that a committee must be appointed for
each agenda item. This part is fine. We're going to have to work
in smaller committees to get anything done.

However, it also specifies that no motions can be entertained on
an issue until the committee has had 24 hours to work on it. It
also specifies that before the committee can begin its work, there
must be a time of "discussion." So for instance, when we convened
again Mr. Roland of Texas moved adoption of the two proposals by
Edwin Vieira. This was ruled out of order by the chair, because
the rules now call for a time of discussion during which motions
cannot be made. So rather than passing Mr. Vieira's proposals and
moving on, we heard a procession of three minute speeches.

This is a complete departure from usual parliamentary procedure.
Usually, a delegate makes a motion, it can be debated, amended
and/or sent to a committee if so desired. Without such a motion,
discussion is not generally allowed under parliamentary procedure.
Someone has to move something, and then it can be discussed.

Now the intentions of the delegates in proposing these rule changes
were pure. The belief is that if everyone gets a chance to have
their say, then a committee can propose a resolution, and there
will not be a necessity for extended debate and amendment later
on. However, what the actual effect will be is to delay debate
for a day or two, and then we will still have to go through all
of the proper procedure to debate, amend and adopt the committee
report. There is no guarantee that this process will be made more
expeditious by the prior discussion.

So to recap the day, we passed a general resolution expressing
support for the Constitution and three motions of substance
instructing Congress and the states to reinstate Constitutional
money, and recommending that citizens begin to trade in real
silver and gold money. In addition, two committees are meeting
this evening to work on the issues of the Accountability Clause
and the Second Amendment. Not a bad start, but we'll need to pick
up the pace soon if we hope to get through all of the issues.

Day 4:



Because of the passed motion that changed the scheduled proceedings,
all that happened today was open discussion about the Income Tax
and Citizenship. There were also two presentations, one on the
I
ncome Tax and the other on Barrack Obama's citizenship. The
committees that were created yesterday did not have anything to
report at this time. New committees were created to draft
resolutions about the Income Tax and Citizenship.



Hopefully some of the committees will have something to report
tomorrow.



Your friend in liberty,



Mark Johnson

We The People Congress, Inc.
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, New York 12804
http://GiveMeLiberty.org/

JURIST - Paper Chase: Kansas may implement monthly court closures to ease budget deficit

2009-11-11T08:29:00.000-08:00

JURIST - Paper Chase: Kansas may implement monthly court closures to ease budget deficit Minnesota Courts also are priced out of business by $500.00 filing fees, False Orders,False Statements,Denial Due Process, Wilful neglience to read the Forensic Files 62cv09-1163 « Sharon4anderson’s Weblog AffidavitPrejudice Kathleen Gearin Judge
Definition of Quo Warranto; Lincoln and Taitz muse over Carter's dismissal of

2009-11-07T11:09:00.001-08:00

Sharons Appeal 62cv09-1163Title18v.Mark Oswald Auditor

2009-11-07T10:32:00.000-08:00

MJ_Duchene DogNoise19WS-CR-09-15734_Court Records_MN

2009-10-29T09:19:00.000-07:00

Click here: Minn. Dept. of Health cites psychiatric hospital - TwinCities.com MJ File at Thurs. 29Oct09 Put in proper sequence West St. Paul, Noise MaryJane Duchene 19WS-CR-09-15734 NOT GUILTY ,DOG NOISE

Criminal/Traffic/Petty Case Records Search Results

Logout Search Menu New Criminal/Traffic/Petty Search

Search Criteria: 19WS-cr-09-15734

Location : All MNCIS Sites - Case Search

Help

Case Number	Citation Number	Defendant Info	Filed/Location/Judicial Officer	Type/Status	Charge(s)

19WS-CR-09-15734	3441797	DUCHENE, MARY JANE 09/04/1947	08/06/2009 - Dakota-West St. Paul	Crim/Traf Mandatory Open	Animal Ordinance/Noisy Dog

Logout Search Menu New Criminal/Traffic/Petty Search Back

Location : All MNCIS Sites - Case Search

Help

Case No. 19WS-CR-09-15734

State of Minnesota vs MARY JANE DUCHENE

§
§
§
§
§

Case Type:	Crim/Traf Mandatory
Date Filed:	08/06/2009
Location:	- Dakota-West St. Paul

Party Information

			Lead Attorneys
Defendant	DUCHENE, MARY JANE WEST ST PAUL, MN 55118	Female 09/04/1947

Jurisdiction	State of Minnesota		WEST ST. PAUL CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Charge Information

Charges: DUCHENE, MARY JANE			Statute	Level	Date
1.	Animal Ordinance/Noisy Dog		905.13	Misdemeanor	07/24/2009

Events & Orders of the Court

OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS

08/12/2009

Formal Complaint Filed

09/02/2009

Motion to Dismiss

09/02/2009

Memorandum

09/03/2009

Arraignment (8:30 AM)

Result: Held

09/03/2009

Taken Under Advisement

In a message dated 10/29/2009 4:34:51 A.M. Central Daylight Time, DDAweb@comcast.net writes:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate6/2009dog/motiondismiss2009dog.pdf

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate6/2009dog/noticeremovela.pdf

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate6/2009dog/motionvacatereverse.pdf

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate6/2009dog/citationbmp.pdf

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate6/2009dog/expungeapp2.pdf

09/18/2009

Findings and Order

10/21/2009

Hearing (1:00 PM)

Result: Held

10/21/2009

Fail to Appear at a hearing

10/27/2009

Warrant Quashed

11/19/2009

Pre-trial (1:00 PM)

Judicial Conduct violations by Larry Cohen

2008-04-18T06:33:00.000-07:00

Judicial Conduct violations by Larry Cohen

Thurs. 17Apr08

To Larry Dease 2nd Judicial Court Admnistrator , mark.oswald Dir. Taxes/Elections,ron.guilfoile Risk Managment

In the Matter of Retired Judge Larry Cohen, working?MS 546.27 Order 90 dys Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct Judicial Canons mn - Google Search

QUESTION/ISSUES

Has the Senile Judge Larry Cohen been a thorn in Sharons Side for over 30 years? YES

Has Cohen by vicious libel,slander "taken" by Verbal Order under color of Authority the quiettitle to ALL Sharons Realestate,Drivers License, Car, Trailer, YES

Has Cohen for over 2 yrs wilfully failed to issue Court Order YES

THEREFORE IS SENILE/RETIRED JUDGE LARRY COHEN ILLEGALLY WORKING, GETTING A HUGE PAYCHECKPLUS HIS FULL COURT PAY, CONTRARY TO MS 546.27 YES

Published court settings indicates 16Wed08Apr. that Cohen apparantly is illegally holding office, drawing a paycheckto harm,injure the citizenery.

Apr. 4th2006 2 yrs ago Forensic Evidence of Not Guilty Plea, Docket Sheet: TCIS TO-05-011101 Ticket 905191492 alleging Illegal Right Turn, at a 4 way stopsign on Case & Payne

Legal Eagle SharonAnderson

Motion Vacate, Restraining Order Jesie Ventura

Thursday, March 09, 2006SharonScarrellaAnderson1 Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs scrool to end

FAX: 651-602-1464
E-Mail: data.center@metc.state.mn.us

Mailing address:
Metro politan Metropolitan Council - Contact Us - Council managers Council Demand is hereby made that the Cop Michael Campion appointed by the REpublican Governor reinstate Sharons Drivers License, further grant Sharon her Disability Card as used by Humnana pic's attached to Drive her Car, fully insured for over 20 years

This Senile DFL Judge Larry Cohen has put the State at Risk for Punatitive,Compensatory,Tort Damages over $75 thousand dollars for each and every occurrence, since the Covert Ticket was issued April 3rd,2006, by an unlicensed Cop, Cyr Abraham, posing as a cop with a gun, driving police car to intimidate,threaten the citizenery.

Said Rookie cop failed to appear or Answer at any time, futher the alleged City Attorney Judy Hanson Cohens clerk failed to approve the Ticket to prosecute......... to the end

PropertyTaxsPaid1977CourtFilesQuietTitles,EquitySkimming,FraudulentConveyances

All posts in Ruling on motions for Aaron Foster's murder trial: St. Paul Issues Forum: E-Democracy.Org Forums

DISTRICT COURT DAILY SCHEDULE CRIMINAL CALENDAR WEEK 1

Wed. 16Apr08Federal:E-Discovery Rule Wizard Step 1: Select a RuleECF_ P165913 Pacer sa1299 /s/ Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Scarrella
Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption 3Apr08

Sharon4AttorneyGeneral2009 DisciplinaryBradley C. RhodesAitkinCoAttorney, Sharon4Anderson@aol.com Title Search's http://sharon4council.blogspot.com Candidate http://sharon4staterep64a.blogspot.com http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPlawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm
No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)

Judicial Canons violations by Larry Cohen

2008-04-17T14:50:00.000-07:00

Judicial Conduct violations by Larry Cohen

2008-04-17T14:17:00.000-07:00

Federal:E-Discovery Rule Wizard Step 1: Select a Rule

ECF_ P165913 Pacer sa1299 /s/ Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Scarrella
Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption 3Apr08

Sharon4AttorneyGeneral2009 DisciplinaryBradley C. RhodesAitkinCoAttorney, Sharon4Anderson@aol.com Title Search's http://sharon4council.blogspot.com Candidate http://sharon4staterep64a.blogspot.com http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPlawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm
No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)

Attorney Discipline

2008-01-27T14:58:00.000-08:00

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:21:22 -0800
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell" gmail.com>
Subject: CA State Bar Act imposes DUTY of reporting of any INFORMATION charging a FELONY against the Bar member

Subject:
California State Bar Act imposes a DUTY of reporting of any INFORMATION
charging a FELONY against the Bar member

> http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/6068.htm

[begin excerpt]

(o) To report to the agency charged with attorney discipline, in writing,
within 30 days of the time the attorney has knowledge of any of the following: ...

(4) The bringing of an indictment or information charging a felony against the attorney.

[NB: This VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION
formally alleges multiple State and Federal felonies by all 200,000+
past and present members of The State Bar of California:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.4.htm
e.g. California Penal Code section 182; 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1962 ]
...
(10) This subdivision is only intended to provide that
the failure to report as required herein may serve as a basis of discipline.

[end excerpt]

p.s. There is much additional (and free) reading
at the links below my name here ...
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 25, 2008 2:05 PM
Subject: More Re: My Analysis of "9. Summary and Conclusions, Point 1."

> Those "duties" are itemized at CBPC section 6068:

> http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/6068.htm

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=06001-07000&file=6060-6069

6068. It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following:
(a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.
(b) To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.
(c) To counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a person charged with a public offense.
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.
(f) To advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he or she is charged.
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or interest.
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself or herself, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.
(i) To cooperate and participate in any disciplinary investigation or other regulatory or disciplinary proceeding pending against himself or herself. However, this subdivision shall not be construed to deprive an attorney of any privilege guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or any other constitutional or statutory privileges. This subdivision shall not be construed to require an attorney to cooperate with a request that requires him or her to waive any constitutional or statutory privilege or to comply with a request for information or other matters within an unreasonable period of time in light of the time constraints of the attorney's practice. Any exercise by an attorney of any constitutional or statutory privilege shall not be used against the attorney in a regulatory or disciplinary proceeding against him or her.
(j) To comply with the requirements of Section 6002.1.
(k) To comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary probation, including a probation imposed with the concurrence of the attorney.
(l) To keep all agreements made in lieu of disciplinary prosecution with the agency charged with attorney discipline.
(m) To respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of clients and to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments in matters with regard to which the attorney has agreed to provide legal services.
(n) To provide copies to the client of certain documents under time limits and as prescribed in a rule of professional conduct which the board shall adopt.
(o) To report to the agency charged with attorney discipline, in writing, within 30 days of the time the attorney has knowledge of any of the following:
(1) The filing of three or more lawsuits in a 12-month period against the attorney for malpractice or other wrongful conduct committed in a professional capacity.
(2) The entry of judgment against the attorney in any civil action for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, or gross negligence committed in a professional capacity.
(3) The imposition of any judicial sanctions against the attorney, except for sanctions for failure to make discovery or monetary sanctions of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(4) The bringing of an indictment or information charging a felony against the attorney.
(5) The conviction of the attorney, including any verdict of guilty, or plea of guilty or no contest, of any felony, or any misdemeanor committed in the course of the practice of law, or in any manner in which a client of the attorney was the victim, or a necessary element of which, as determined by the statutory or common law definition of the misdemeanor, involves improper conduct of an attorney, including dishonesty or other moral turpitude, or an attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a felony or any misdemeanor of that type.
(6) The imposition of discipline against the attorney by any professional or occupational disciplinary agency or licensing board, whether in California or elsewhere.
(7) Reversal of judgment in a proceeding based in whole or in part upon misconduct, grossly incompetent representation, or willful misrepresentation by an attorney.
(8) As used in this subdivision, "against the attorney" includes claims and proceedings against any firm of attorneys for the practice of law in which the attorney was a partner at the time of the conduct complained of and any law corporation in which the attorney was a shareholder at the time of the conduct complained of unless the matter has to the attorney's knowledge already been reported by the law firm or corporation.
(9) The State Bar may develop a prescribed form for the making of reports required by this section, usage of which it may require by rule or regulation.
(10) This subdivision is only intended to provide that the failure to report as required herein may serve as a basis of discipline.

[end excerpt]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 25, 2008 2:00 PM
Subject: My Analysis of "9. Summary and Conclusions, Point 1." (see .jpg file attached)

> 9. Summary and Conclusions
> Based on the foregoing analysis and legally admissible evidence,
> we can safely conclude the following:
> 1. There is no such thing legally defined anywhere in any
> enactment of any government that is specifically called a
> "license to practice law". [emphases added]
[end quote]

OBJECTION: section 6067 in the California Business and
Professions Code mandates very specific requirements
with which a "license" to practice law must comply, to wit:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/6067.htm

Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and
the Constitution of the State of California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law
to the best of his knowledge and ability. A certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license.

[end excerpt]

Repeating two detailed analyses that I have already written:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/statebar/refuse.aguirre.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/contest.ehlers.htm

Note well: as a matter of substance (not "form"), the required oath
must bind the Bar member to support two (2) Constitutions.

Those 2 Constitutions are rather significant bodies of fundamental Law!

And, in addition to supporting those 2 Constitutions,
the required oath also binds all Bar members to discharge
all "duties" of an attorney, to the best of their knowledge
and ability.

Those "duties" are itemized at CBPC section 6068:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/6068.htm

... one of which duties is to support all laws of this
(California) State: section 6067 is one of those laws!

Moreover, a "certificate" has a very specific meaning in law:
it necessitates a "writing" -- NOT a verbal certification.

There is no such thing as a "verbal certificate" in point of fact.

("Oh, Highway Patrol Officer, I don't need a physical driver's license:
I have VERBAL PERMISSION from the DMV to operate this motor vehicle!"
SOUNDS PRETTY STUPID, DOESN'T IT??)

And, "indorse" also has a very specific meaning in law,
as when one "indorses" a standard bank check.

"In dorso" in Latin means "on the back"
as the dorsal fin on a fish is "on the back" of that fish.

Thus, sections 6067 and 6068 together provide more than
enough stated requirements to determine conclusively if a member
of The State Bar of California has a valid "license to practice law"
in the State of California.

Of course, after giving that State Bar plenty of time to answer,
we have now determined that NOT ONE OF THE 200,000+
past and present members of The State Bar of California
has ever complied with sections 6067 and 6068. Hence,
this VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.4.htm

Conclusion: "Section 1." in "9. Summary and Conclusions"
above (and .jpg attached) is demonstrably incorrect.

p.s. There is much additional (and free) reading
at the links below my name here ...

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

Author Nancy Lazaryan

2008-01-25T12:47:00.000-08:00

Click here: Blogger: A Democracy - Post a Comment YOU GO GIRL Thanks I keep getting bumped of Wireless.....

Nancy Lazaryan said...

I had many, many emails with Bob J. before I decided to delete my comments from the blog.

I told Bob that I was very busy this week and that I would write an article that he could post. Instead, he started this topic.

Below is what I sent Bob, with a few minor edits:

Freedom of Speech
in a Non-Public Forum

In this fast changing internet world of information overload, an issue concerning “Free of Speech” on this blog was hotly debated between Bob Johnson and myself prior to my decision to delete my comments from the ADemocracy blog.

The ADemocracy blog is a non-public forum, a “new” media, as the newspaper, radio and television are medias. I have been an editor of a widely circulated magazine, have published my own newspaper and have had my articles published in various trade magazines.

I am fully aware and in support of Bob Johnson’s authority to censor the content of his blog. The ADemocracy blog is a PRIVATE enterprise, and controlling the comments that are placed upon his blog is his right.

Just as a person does not have the right to yell “Fire” in a theater, when there is no fire (an action of disruptive speech in a private enterprise), people, such as Bill Dahn, do not have the absolute right to disrupt the blog by posting off-topic, seditious comments.

However, I was unaware that any particular person had been specifically censored from posting any comments on the blog, when last week, Bill Dahn responded to a comment I had posted.

The comment Bill Dahn had made was thoughtful and on point. An anonymous poster then immediately responded with an inflammatory comment, making personal attacks upon Bill Dahn. I then commented on how the anonymous person was disrupting the blog. Bob J. deleted these three comments.

The blog now posts the topic: “The following people are banned permanently from using this forum to advance their agendas. Bill Dahn, Sharon Anderson and Nancy Lazaryan.”

Exactly what does this mean?

The comment of Bill Dahn that was deleted was not a comment that was “using the forum to advance his agenda”. I understand that Bill Dahn has used the blog, in the past to advance his own agenda.

When have I used the blog to “advance my agenda”?

I have written my opinions concerning the issues, and backed up my comments, with research and law.

“My agenda” is that the Citizens learn what their rights are, and find a way to work together to stop the abuses being perpetrated upon us by our employees, those who work for us in government.

We are at a very serious crisis in our country. Citizens need to wake up, fast, and put aside certain differences, or we will all be lost.

I do not have the time to argue over petty issues when, very soon, we may be loosing all of our secured rights.

Lawsuits are not the solution, as our courts fall to do their duty to uphold our constitutions.

There is a meeting being scheduled with the Governor, next week I am speaking before the Supreme Court Advisory Committee, many bills that "we" are working on will be introduced this legislative session (including one concerning the grand jury),
I will be traveling across the state for speaking engagements, and then there is the jury trial I need to prepare for because of my arresting Bob Humphrey, not to mention the civil actions that I am involved in.

Personally, I believe there are adult, civil ways that we can work with people like Bill Dahn and Sharon Anderson; not to mention George, Froggy and many anonymous posters that have posted bigoted, vile and foul language.

Regretfully, Bob Johnson and I disagree on this point. And, it is his blog.

I have no right to tell Bob how to manage his media, but I do have the ability to choose whether I will participate.

I choose to work with people that see the value in others, and strive towards working together.

It is my opinion that Bill Dahn and Sharon Anderson have value, and that we should find ways of working together, instead of using our energies to destroy each other.

Nancy Lazaryan

1:16 PM

.........Anything We can do to assist quietly Please let me know

Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.

2008-01-11T20:13:00.000-08:00

Legal Demand City Council mandate Laptop E-Commerce

2008-01-11T10:16:00.000-08:00

Fri. Jan.11th,2008 LEGAL NOTICE TO ST. PAUL CITY, EMPLOYEES, ELECTED OFFICIALS ET AL WE THE PEOPLE AFFIANTS SHARON PETERSON-SCARRELLA-ANDERSON www.sharonanderson.org and BILL DAHN www.billdahn.com herewith as Political Candidates, Consumer Activists, Whistleblowers and as Private Attorney Generals herewith DEMAND that to enforce e-commerce, that the council, and or City Attorneys at the TABLE have their Laptops for immediate e-commerce communications. If the council refuses/ or ignorance of e-commerce, is no excuse, then Resignations are herewith demanded,JURIST - Paper Chase: Federal magistrate orders White House to confirm e-mail

Click here: mary vaughan former nun st. paul MN - Google Search

Met this great Lady swimming at the Y..........Mary Vaughan still has her convictions

Really made my day to meet her Sharon has been in Jail but never Federal Prision

Mary had a heartache in Prision. God our country has become bizzare?

www.lesliedavis.org Your show on Money to China very interesting Leslie you may want to interview Mary Vaughan former Nun Mary sure is Feisty

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pdf/2008FacciolaOrder.pdf

Bobby of www.ademocracy.blogspot.com thanks for your forensic research

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 07-1577 (HHK/JMF)

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Expedited Discovery Requests and to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference ("Motion"), which was referred to me for resolution by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. on November 28, 2007.

a. Background

This case involves a claim by plaintiff, the National Security Archive ("the Archive"), that several million email messages have been improperly deleted from White House computer servers. Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Mandamus Relief ("Complaint") at 13-14. In its Complaint, filed on September 5, 2007, the Archive seeks "an order requiring the defendants to recover and restore certain electronic communications created and/or received within the White House." Id. at 1.

On October 18, 2007, the Archive requested a meeting with defendants pursuant to Rule 26(f)1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Memorandum in Support of

1 All references to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are to the version that became effective December 1, 2007.

Case 1:07-cv-01577-HHK-JMF Document 31 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 4

public service PS got this laptop trying to reconfigure wireless

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Expedited Discovery Requests and to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference ("NSA Mem.") at 4. That rule requires the parties to meet and confer "as soon as practicable" to:

consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information; and develop a proposed discovery plan.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1), (2). Six days later, the Archive filed the instant Motion seeking "an order expediting the commencement of discovery and compelling the parties to meet pursuant to Rule 26(f) as soon as possible." Motion at 1.

b. The Motion

The Archive is primarily focused on obtaining answers to "what back-ups of EOP emails still exist and how their preservation is ensured." NSA Mem. at 7. Judge Kennedy answered the latter question when, in a related case, he ordered defendants to preserve all back-ups in the "possess[ion of EOP] or under their custody or control." Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") v. Exec. Office of the President, Civil Action No. 07-1707, Order at 2 (Nov. 12, 2007). Pursuant to that order, defendants must "preserve the media under conditions that will permit their eventual use, if necessary, and shall not transfer said media out of their custody or control without leave of this court." Id.

As to the question of "what back-ups of EOP emails still exist," the Archive seeks to determine whether the back-ups now being preserved pursuant to Judge Kennedy’s order contain the several million email messages it alleges have been improperly deleted from White House computer servers. NSA Mem. at 7-9. If the back-ups do not contain this information, the Archive would likely seek to "recover the missing records from

2 This argument is not without merit, as evidenced by a recent decision in which Judge Richard J. Leon dismissed a similar case after holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to prevent the unlawful removal or destruction of records protected by the Federal Records Act. CREW v. U.S. Dep’t. of Homeland Sec., No. 06-883, Slip. Op. at 17-18 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 2007).

3 See United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 31, 46 n.7-8 (D. Conn. 2002) ("‘Slack space’ is the unused space at the logical end of an active file's data and the physical end of the cluster or clusters that are assigned to an active file. Deleted data, or remnants of deleted data can be found in the slack space . . . until it is overwritten by new data.").

to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaints other sources, including individual workstations, or through other forensic means." NSA Mem. at 9. That would not come without a fight, however. Defendants have vigorously challenged the standing of the Archive to seek, and the jurisdiction of this court to compel, restoration of electronic records.2 Defendants’ Consolidated Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motions For Leave To Conduct Expedited Discovery And Motion To Compel Rule 26(F) Conference ("Opp.") at 3 ("[w]hether and how restoration efforts will be undertaken is action committed to the administrative scheme"); Defendants’ Consolidated Motion ("Mot. to Dismiss") at 8-14.

c. Conclusion

To the extent that the missing emails are contained on the back-ups preserved pursuant to Judge Kennedy’s order, there is simply no convincing reason to expedite discovery – particularly where, as here, there is a pending motion to dismiss. If the missing emails are not on those back-ups, however, the relief likely to be requested by the Archive will be beyond the scope of the present Motion – and, indeed, beyond the scope of this referral. The request for that relief will also be time-sensitive: emails that might now be retrievable from email account folders or "slack space"3 on individual workstations are increasingly likely to be deleted or overwritten with the passage of time.

It is thus possible that a small amount of information not currently in the record may have a large affect on the resolution of this Motion and the direction of this lawsuit.

- 3 - Case 1:07-cv-01577-HHK-JMF Document 31 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 3 of 4

4 The answers are to be provided by counsel in a sworn declaration within the next five business days.

5 For purposes of these questions, the word "back-up" refers to media, no matter how described, presently in their possession or under their custody or control, that were created with the intention of preserving

data in the event of its inadvertent destruction, and that are being preserved in accordance with Judge Kennedy’s order.

6 See NSA Mem. at 2 ("The White House acknowledged in two April 2007 press conferences that as

many as 5 million emails may be missing."). Id. at 2 n.2 ("Press Release, White House Office of the Press Secretary, Press Gaggle by Dana Perino and Dr. Ali Al-Dabbagh, Spokesman for the Government of Iraq (April 13, 2007) (White House spokesperson quoted as saying, ‘I wouldn’t rule out that there were a potential 5 million emails lost’); Press Release, White House Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Dana Perino (April 16, 2007) (White House spokesperson quoted as saying, ‘we are aware that there could have been some emails that were not automatically archived because of a technical issue’).").

With that understanding, the court will order the defendants to provide answers4 to the following questions:

1. Are the back-ups5 catalogued, labeled or otherwise identified to indicate the period of time they cover?

2. Are the back-ups catalogued, labeled or otherwise identified to indicate the data contained therein?

3. Do the back-ups contain emails written and received between 2003-2005?

4. Do the back-ups contain the emails said to be missing6 that are the subject of this lawsuit?

I will proceed to resolve the Motion after receipt of the defendants’ answers.

SO ORDERED.

Date: January 8, 2008 /s/

JOHN M. FACCIOLA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

If the public thinks I'm crazy We have to be crazy to figure these codes?

http://sharon4council.blogspot.com

Will you help to have the city council laptop PC's online at the Table for Strict Scrunity or our Money OATH OF OFFICE CRIMINALLY VIOLATED??

Saint Paul City Council Inaugural Ceremony 2008
	The Saint Paul City Council Inaugural Ceremony was held on January 2, 2008 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in downtown Saint Paul. Former Mayor George Latimer was the MC for the event. Reverend Willie Hudson from the Saint Paul Police Department Chaplain Services offered a prayer before Judge Natalie E. Hudson of the Minnesota Court of Appeals administered the Oath of Office to the seven council members. Mayor Chris Coleman was also there for remarks.
	January 3, 2008	00h 30m	More Info	Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player
More Videos...

Cameras-Courts-Complicity

2007-09-17T11:27:00.000-07:00

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Jackson Field Division Department of Justice Press Release - Department of Justice

Chief Judge Henry T. Wingate sentenced attorney Paul S. Minor, 61, to eleven years incarceration, a $2.7 million fine, $1.5 million restitution (to be paid jointly with a co-defendant), and a $1,100 special assessment. Walter W. Teel, 56, former Mississippi state chancery court judge, was sentenced to five years and ten months incarceration, $1.5 million in restitution (to be paid jointly with Minor), and a $400 special assessment. John H. Whitfield, 44, former Mississippi state court circuit judge, was sentenced to nine years and two months incarceration, as well as a $125,000 fine and a $600 special assessment.

17Sept07

TO THE ABOVE NAMED: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE BY E-COMMERCE TO MICHAEL JOHNSON SR. LEGAL

Reporter david.herr@maslon.com , Shannon sprather@pioneerpress.com

http://www.mncourts.gov/

(1) Total Support for Camera's in the Courtroom

Public meeting 9am-12noon Fri G06

Comments by E Commerce-Blogs-pdf Files

TwinCities.com - Minnesota considers opening courts to cameras

(2) Legal Notice of City of St. Paul illegal Ratification of Assessments

by 1 motion- Constitutional Challenge of Consent Agenda's without decending

to particulars forensic evidence on Video's

(3) lEGAL Notice that City Council Certifying Election Results, mandated

1058SummitSharonLegalDomicile techinally certified Sharon Andersons Le gal Domicile

Culpability of Citys criminal violations of 42 USC 3631

AFFIDAVIT OF PRENNIAL CANDIDATES

SHARON ANDERSON AKA SCARRELLA

http://sharon4council.blogspot.com aka shewolfeagle@aol.com

BILL DAHN aka eagledahn1@aol.com

http://billdahn.blogspot.com

Bring back Rosenbaum at www.am1500.com even tho a lawyer

Not everyone is into Sports, unles it the Sport of Exposing the Courts

Right on www.ademocracy.blogspot.com

Video of Nancy Osterman, Grandmother, fighting for Family Rights

Housing Issues, overcoming unbearable emotional stress

WE LOVE YOU NANCY OSTERMAN, victimized by Indicted City Employees

Steve Magner, Marcia Moermond, City Council; enbanc and Mayors of St. Paul

Home

del.icio.usDiggRedditYahooMyWebGoogle

Print Email

Minnesota considers opening courts to cameras

Committee will hear media argument that much has changed since the O.J trial

BY SHANNON PRATHER
Pioneer Press

Article Last Updated: 09/17/2007 06:38:36 AM CDT

People huddled around televisions to watch Chai Soua Vang tell jurors how he gunned down eight hunters in the Wisconsin woods in a confrontation over a tree stand. Vang said he shot in self-defense, but jurors - and viewers - later heard him say one of his victims deserved to die, "because he was the one who confronted me and called me names, and that's who he is."

It was a pivotal point in the trial, and cameras in the courtroom let millions of people see it. Media groups say it's time for Minnesota to follow Wisconsin's lead and allow cameras in its courts.

Several media groups have filed a petition to change the rules governing cameras. The Wisconsin judge who presided over the trial that resulted in Chai Soua Vang's conviction has agreed to speak to the Minnesota Supreme Court on behalf of the media.

"It isn't 1900. It's 2007," Sawyer County Circuit Judge Norman Yackel said. "I've had cameras in the courtroom without any difficulty. There was no problem with letting cameras in for the Vang trial. I've even let private videotapers in the courtroom. That's certainly discretionary, though."

The Minnesota Supreme Court has set up an advisory committee that will take testimony and make a recommendation about changing the rule. That committee is holding a public hearing Friday and a second one in October. The seven justices of the state's high court will weigh that recommendation and decide whether the rules should change.

Right now, it's virtually

impossible for media members to bring television and digital cameras into Minnesota courtrooms, because the judge and all parties must consent. It's been 20 years since the Minnesota Supreme Court considered allowing cameras into the state's courtrooms.

Under the media's proposal, audio and video coverage would be presumptively allowed in most court proceedings. Judges could override that presumption for good cause.

Minnesota is one of 15 states that essentially ban cameras in courtrooms. The media groups petitioning for a new rule say a lot has changed since the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial - viewed by many judges as the ultimate example of why cameras don't belong in courtrooms.

"That sort of sent everyone back in their caves for a while," media attorney Mark Anfinson said.

The gavel-to-gavel coverage of the former NFL star's murder trial left many lawyers and judges balking at the circuslike atmosphere.

But a lot has changed since then.

Technology today is less clunky and intrusive. Fears that witnesses would be intimidated, attorneys would mug for the cameras and justice would be warped haven't materialized in other states that allow cameras into courtrooms.

Anfinson said the public's confidence in the judiciary increases when it can see the courts in action.

"It's very reassuring to see really bad people dealt with the way they are in the courtroom and justice being dispensed," Anfinson said. "It's an impressive process."

On the flip side, the public also will see that cases are not always as simple as good vs. evil.

"To get a sense of who these people caught up in the machine of the law, some of that can only be told by looking at their faces and watching them testify," Anfinson said.

Yackel said he's had cameras in the courtrooms for several cases. He watched the Simpson trial but said that worst-case scenario has never played out in his courtroom.

"My personal experience is that didn't happen," Yackel said. "Judges are concerned with losing control of their courtroom. I don't think you lose control of the courtroom."

Yackel said he watched some of the Court TV coverage of the Chai Soua Vang case rebroadcast after the trial. He said the cable channel made sure never to show the jurors, and he said the editing was fair and accurately portrayed the trial. Yackel said witnesses didn't seem intimidated by the taping.

"I thought the videotaping was good," Yackel said.

The only sticking point occurred when the defense attorneys in the Chai Soua Vang trial complained about the clicking from the cameras used by still photographers. The photographers would take more photographs during certain parts of the trial.

"Defense attorneys argued the jurors would think that testimony was more important than other testimony," Yackel explained. Camera-muffling devices took care of the problem, the judge said.

Minnesota judges seem split on the idea of allowing cameras.

Ramsey County Chief Judge Gregg Johnson said judges in his district at a recent meeting voted overwhelmingly to oppose allowing cameras in the courtroom.

But judges in Hennepin County want to learn more, Hennepin County Chief Judge Lucy Wieland said.

"In our district, I think that there are quite a few judges who are open-minded on the topic and want to be better educated about the implications of cameras in the courtroom in the justice system," Wieland said.

Wieland said new rules on cameras should set appropriate limits and address serious concerns, such as protecting jurors and sexual assault victims.

"How do you protect the integrity of the process?" Wieland said.

At the same time, Wieland agrees that cameras in the courtroom could help educate the public: "It demystifies the court experience and makes people realize it's not 'Judge Judy.' "

Shannon Prather can be reached at sprather@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5452.

IF YOU GO

A Minnesota Supreme Court advisory committee will meet twice to examine a proposal to allow cameras into Minnesota's trial courts. The committee will hear presentations from media groups requesting the change. The meetings are open to the public. Advisory committee meetings will be held at the Minnesota Judicial Center, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., in St. Paul.

First meeting:

9 a.m. to noon Friday; Room G06

Second meeting: 2 to 4 p.m. Oct. 24; Room G31

The public won't be allowed to speak at the meetings. Members of the public are asked to submit comments in writing by Oct. 18. Comments should be sent to:

Michael Johnson, Senior legal counsel, State Court Administration, 140-C Minnesota Judicial Center, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155; or michael.johnson@courts.state.mn.us

orDavid F. Herr, reporter, Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand LLP, 3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 S. Seventh St., Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140; or david.herr@maslon.com

Return to Top

Comments

The Pioneer Press is pleased to let readers post comments about an article at the end of the article. Please increase the credibility of your post by including your full name and city when commenting.

Please note: It may take several minutes before your comment appears.

Judicial Reform HF1261

2007-09-13T11:05:00.000-07:00

Please call your Representatives: Lend support for HF1261

Jud icial ReformS85/HF1261.0.pdf

as seen Tues at 7pm http://www.lesliedavis.org/

http://www.spnn.org/ 11Sept07

interview with Nancy Lazaryan, serious question to

St. Paul City Council, Has Nancy and other 's maligned

in E Commerce Realestate,

by Politically supporting HF1261?

Click here: Bill Number Search- Minnesota House of Representatives Nancy I deleted your site, now I wish I would not have, its to hard to reconstruct ,blog the bill otherwise have Bobbys Public Service blog do it

http://www.ademocracy.blogspot.com/

re: http://sharons-votingrights.blogspot.com/ No Statute on Fraud

Legislature Home Links to the World Help Advanced Search

Search Legislature: Search

House

Senate

Joint Departments and Commissions

Today is Thursday, September 13, 2007

Information on H. F. No. 12612007 - 2008
Regular Session
Short Description: Board of Judicial Standards composition, powers, and court rule provisions modified.

Status of Bill in the House

Status of Bill in the Senate

Recorded Roll Call Floor Votes

Text of bill all versions in HTML and PDF formats

Minnesota Department of Finance Fiscal Notes

House Fiscal Analysis Spreadsheets

House Research Bill Summary

Department of Revenue - Analyses

2007-08-29T18:52:00.000-07:00