quowarr_gildea26jul10

8/9/2019 QuoWarr_Gildea26Jul10

1/7

From: [email protected]: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected]: 7/26/2010 3:39:55 P.M. Central Daylight TimeSubj: MN_JUDICIAL REFORM_QUO WARRANTO TO JUSTICE LORI GILDEA

Mon 26Jul10

Orly Taitz files intervenermotion to join health care lawsuit ...

Apr 9, 2010 ... Orly Taitz files intervener motion to join health care lawsuit ... prejudiced bypermitting Dr. Taitz's intervention in the instant action. ...

www.thepostemail.com/.../orly-taitz-files-intervener-motion-to-join-health-care-lawsuit/ - Cached

TO: Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea Court Enbanc.etal,Media_Quo Warranto Relator Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Chergosky_Scarrella [email protected] tel:

651-776-5835 www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com

A writ of quo warranto is not a petition, but a notice of demand, issued by a demandant, to arespondant claiming some delegated power, and filed with a ...www.constitution.org/writ/quo_warranto.htm - Cached - Similar

Legal Opinions Quo Warranto Filing A Quo Warranto Procedures for filing quo warrantoapplications and actions are governed by the

Code of Civil Procedure, sections 803-811 California Code of Regulations, title 11, sections 1-11

A quo warranto action is filed typically to remove a person from public office. The AttorneyGeneral must approve all quo warranto actions filed by private individuals. This protects public

officers from frivolous lawsuits. Nature of Remedy.

A quo warranto action may be brought against any person who usurps, intrudes into, orunlawfully holds or exercises any public office or franchise.

A quo warranto action may also be brought against any corporation, either de jure or de facto,which usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any franchise within California.

Page 1 of 7

Monday, July 26, 2010 AOL: Sharon4Anderson


2/7

The Opinion Unit reviews the written pleadings filed by the parties and issues an opinion eithergranting or denying the application to sue. If approval is given, the lawsuit is maintained under

the direction of the Attorney General.

The prerogative writ of quo warrantohas been suppressed at the federal level in the UnitedStates, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment,which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicialremedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents. Here are a few writingson the subject. Revival of the writs must be combined with reviving standing for privateprosecution of public rights, subverted by the "cases and controversies" doctrine and thedecision in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), which is discussed in an article bySteve Winter, The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance.Quo warranto is intended to prevent a continuing exercise of an authority unlawfully asserted,and is not appropriate for moot or abstract questions. Where the alleged usurpation hasterminated, quo warranto will be denied. (People v. City of Whittier (1933) 133 Cal.App. 316, 324;25 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 223 (1955).) By the same token, because quo warranto serves to end acontinuous usurpation, no statute of limitations applies to the action. (People v. Bailey (1916)30 Cal.App. 581, 584-585.) http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/page/2/

Minnesota Judicial Center

Phone: (651) 297-7650

RELATOR:

Lorie skjerven gildea B.A. Degree, with distinctionUniversity of Minnesota Morris, 1983 J.D. Degree, magna cum laude, order of the coifGeorgetown University Law Center, 1986

Appointed as Chief Justice on May 13, 2010. Term expires Jan. 2013. Appointed as Associated Justice on January 11, 2006

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

QuoWarranto_RICO

A06-1150_82-1292-C8-84-24_A09-2031_62cv09-1163_62cv10-112

State of Minnesota by and thro DFL_AG Lori Swanson,SharonAndersonSharon Anderson, Title 31 Relator

ECF P165913 Pacer sa1299 http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=38824

Candidate R_AG_10Aug2010 Primary to be filled 2Nov2010,JohnDoe,Mary Roe,all others similarily situated,to join with Dr. Orley

Tazit,13+ AG's to repeal Obama Care HR3590

Page 2 of 7



3/7

Voters,Taxpayers, http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/032310healthcarelawsuit .pdf&chrome=true&pli=1 AttorneyProSe_Pri

AG_QuiTam Relators

vs.

Kathleen Sebelius Sec.HHH,MN. Sec.State Mark Ritchie,Tom HansonFinances,Ward Einess Revenue,Michael Campanion DPS,Dr.Sanne

Magnam Health,2ndharvest.org,All LicensedLawyers_Judges,specifically Kathleen Gearin,Joanne Smith,GreggJohnson,salvador rosas,John Vandenorth,Edward Toussaint, Ret.Lawrence Cohen,John Doe,Mary Roe, all others similarily situated:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MEMORANDUMNAffidavit of Sharon Anderson aka In re: Scarrella for Associate Justice

NW2d221page 562, the denial of the Elective Franchise of the tax supportedEmployment of Judge denied to all non-lawyer citizenry mandates Affidavit of

Prejudices against all Judges to insure Access to the Seats of GovernmentAccountability, Fair, Impartial Trials, with Constitutional Challenges of the Election and

MS117 Eminent Domain Laws. www.sharon4judge.blogspot.comSharon brings these mattersto the Supreme Court via MS2.724

Chief Justice has full Supervisory, Fidicuary Control of the Courts,LawyersJudicial Branch www.courts.state.mn.usSharon mandates this to be a Test Case

ISSUES: ELECTION_EMINENT DOMAIN ELECTRONIC FILINGS HEALTH_CARE_IMMIGRATION_ Republican Candidate for State Attorney General

RELIEF SOUGHTThis action is brought pursuant to jurisdictional authority stated in Minnesota

Statutes 2.724 Chief Justice.

COUNT I MN Const. Art.III Separation Powers

The Petitioner, requests Quo Warranto be heard, restraining from the Ballot all Lawyer_Judgesthat do not list their Residence,lawyers license and contact for Public Peview, or have a

certified copy of exemption on fle with Sec. State's Office. The Public has the Right to knowwho they are voting for even unopposed>

a. Affiant Sharon Anderson challenge's the Affidavit of Candidacy is defective on 2 Counts a.All Judges and Co. Attorneys "Licensed" "Learned in Law" never defined to mean Lawyer,

contrary to MN Constitution Art. III Separation of Powers: County Attorneys Executive

Branch,Judges Judicial Branch. B. Auditor,AttorneyGeneral ,SecState are left

Page 3 of 7



4/7

Vote sharonmn ag_10aug10 1 month ago, 133 views Editout on the Affidavit of Candidacy? Techinally any/all Affidavits are Null and Void in the 2010

Elections. SharonAndersonFiles MN A 2 months ago, 260 views Edit

COUNT II RED FLAG_RICO 18USC s1961-68

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lit08.htm

Over 20 years Sharon has accused apparent Judge Kathleen Gearin with Theft by Swindle over$120 thousand from Sharons HS at 1058 Summit Ave. St.Paul,MN, triggering the Murder of Cpl

Jim Anderson who spent 1 year at Brainard State Hospital, Wrongful Death of Tenants inCommon of Bill and Bernice A. Peterson www.crimes-against-humanity.blogspot.com Equity

Skimming, Heinous violations

Since most RICO complaints allege underlying acts of mail, wire, or securities fraud, which must bepleaded with particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), the complaint may be lengthy and complex.

The Third Branch Sharon in Good Faith Must trigger this Legal Notice before the Primary10Aug10

COUNT III http://www.justice.gov/crt/crim/3631fin.php

When Judges are involved in Theft by Swindle, Covert Coverup of Bank,WireFraud via Unpublished Opinions they must be indicted for their Ponzi Schemes

4 their Pecuniary Gain. acting in concort with Manatron Softwarewww.mnccc.orgwww.manatron.com www.taxthemax.blogspot.com

www.sharonanderson.wordpress.com www.sharon4anderson.org POA onlinein the event of DEATH

COUNT IV SHARIA LAW

Sharon s opposed to this Heinous Wrongs against Women, apparantlyintroduced now by President Obama. Further MN Courts are Cluttered with

Hoarding Paper contrary to

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/PDFcases/sharoncases.pdf

http://www.angelfire.com/planet/andersonadvocates/index.html

Page 4 of 7



5/7

CASE NAME:State of Minnesota ex rel. Speaker of House of Representatives Hon. Steve Sviggum, et al., petitioners,Appellants, vs. Tom Hanson in his official capacity as Commissioner of Finance or his successor, et al., Respondents.

Read the opinion in this case at A06-840CITATION: 732 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)

Legal Issues in BRIEF OF APPELLANT'S/INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS AND APPENDIX:

Do individual legislators as members of the Minnesota State Legislature have standing to bring anaction to the court to challenge the executive branch of government for misappropriation of statefunds in violation of the Minnesota Constitution and/or Minnesota Statutes? The District Courtconcluded that, at a minimum, state legislators had standing as citizen taxpayers to assert claims ofmisappropriation of state funds. Apposite Cases: Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1932) Raines vByrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) Conant v Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP, 603 N.W.2d 143 (Minn. Ct.App. 1999) Dolak v State Admin Bd, 441 Mich. 547,495 NW2d 539 (1993) Rukavian v Pawlenty, 684N.W.2d 525 (Minn.. Ct. App. 2004) Silver v Pataki, 96 N.Y.2d. 532, 755 N.E.2d 842, 730 N.Y.S.2d482,2001 Slip Op. 06138 (N.y. July 10, 2001).

Whether the writ of quo warranto is an appropriate procedure to require the Minnesota Commissioner

Files on E-Democracy, St.Paul - April 06,

2006:

Best regards from,Sharon

HOME

WaterBoard, 2006

Download/Get: File1

Constitutionality State Laws

Download/Get: File2

Health Issues

Download/Get: File

3

Eminent Domain Demolition

Download/Get: File4

Election Contest

Download/Get: File5

POA 4/17/2006

Download/Get: File6

Sharon's Federal Cases 1973 to 2006

Download/Get: File

7

USDist.Crt.02-0332 (Rosenbaum)

Download/Get: File8

Eminent Domain HomelessAndersons

Download/Get: Index E Democcracy April 6, 2006

Page 5 of 7



6/7

of Finance to show by what authority that office could disburse funds without an appropriation bylaw? The District Court declined to issue a writ of quo warranto concluding it an improper procedureto contest past conduct of the Commissioner of Finance. Apposite Cases: Clayton v Kiffmeyer, 688N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 2004) Fletcher v Commonwealth of Kentucky, 163 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. May 19,2005)Jasper v Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 642 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. 2002) Kahn v Griffin, 701 N.W.2d 815 (Minn.2005) Rice v. Connolly, 488 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1992) State ex rel Mattson v. Kiedrowski, 391 N.W.2d777 (Minn. 1986) State v. ex rel Palmer v Perpich, 182 N.W.2d 182 (1971) State ex rel Danielson v.Village of Mound, 48 N.W.2d 855 (1951) Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (1975)

Did the Commissioner of Finance disburse state funds without an appropriation by law incontravention of Articles III, IV, and XI of the Minnesota Constitution? The District Court did not

address this issue. Apposite Cases: Cinncinnati Soap Co v United States, 301 U.S. 308 (1937) Officeof Personnel Management v Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990) In re Matter of Application of the Senate,10 Minn. 78 (Minn 1865) Izaak Walton League of America Endowment, Inc. v State Dep't of NaturalRes., 252 N.W.2d 852 (Minn. 1977) St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v Marzitelli, 258 N.W.2d 585(Minn. 1977) State ex re Gardner v Holm, 62 N.W.2d 52 (Minn. 1954) Rice v Connolly, 488 N.W.2d 241(Minn. 1992) Rukavina v Pawlenty, 684 N W.2d 525 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)

Are the Appellants entitled to attorney fees and costs in responding to the Commissioner's motion forsanctions? The District Court denied the motion for attorney fees and costs. Apposite Cases: KirkCapital Corporation v Bailey, 16 F. 3d 1485,28 Fed. R. Serv.3d 88 (8th Cir. 1994) Gibson v. ColdwellBanker Burnet, 659 N.W.2d 782 (Minn. Ct App 2003) Wagner v Minneapolis Public Schools, 581 NW.2d 49 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998)

Legal Issues in RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:

Is Appellants' Petition for a writ of quo warranto a proper procedure by which to challenge the purelypast conduct of a State public official that is not continuing? The district court held in the negative.

Most apposite authorities: Rice v. Connolly, 488 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1992) State ex rel. Mattson v.Kiedrowski, 391 N.W.2d 777 (Minn. 1986) State ex rel. Grozbach v. Common Sch. Dist. 65, 54 N.W.2d130 (Minn. 1952) Lommen v. Gravlin, 295 N.W. 654 (Minn. 1941)

Does Appellant's Petition requesting an advisory legal opinion regarding a purely hypothetical futureset of facts present a ripe case or controversy? The district court held in the negative. Most appositeauthorities:Kennedy v. Carlson, 544 N.W.2d I (Minn. 1996) St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v.Marzitelli, 258 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. 1977) Izaak Walton League of America Endorsement, Inc. v. StateDept. of Nat. Res., 252 N.W.2d 852 (Minn. 1977)

Do conclusion of proceedings in the district court temporary shutdown proceeding and legislativeratification of actions taken there under render Appellant's Petition moot? The district court held inthe affirmative. Most apposite authorities: Kahn v. Griffin, 701 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 2005) In re Schmidt,443 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 1989) Chaney v. Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency, 641 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. Ct.App. 2002), rev. denied(Minn. May 28, 2002)

Does the doctrine of laches preclude Appellants from challenging the district court's approval of theexpenditures at issue when Appellants refused to participate in, or object to, the district court'sproceeding and then subsequently ratified the very expenditures they now challenge? The districtcourt held in the affirmative. Most apposite authorities: Apple Valley Square v. City of Apple Valley,472 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. Ct. App. 1981) Fetch v. Holm, 52 N.W.2d 113 (Minn. 1952) Aronovich v. Levy, 56N.W.2d 570 (Minn. 1953)

Do Appellants have standing to as individual members of the Legislature, or as taxpayers, tochallenge the expenditures which they expressly ratified. The district court held that Appellants hadstanding in their capacity as taxpayers and did not decide whether Appellants had standing aslegislators. Most apposite authorities: McKee v. Likins, 261 N.W.2d 566 (Minn. 1977) Rukavina v.Pawlenty, 684 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) Conant v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP, 603N.W.2d 143 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).

Does Minn. Const. art. XI, 1 override judicial authority and responsibility to order State spendingwhere such expenditures are required to maintain critical government functions? The district courtheld in the negative. Most apposite authorities: Coalition for Basic Human Needs v. King, 654 F.2d838 (1st Cir. 1981) Mattson v. Kiedroenski, 391 N.W.2d 777 (Minn. 1986) Sharood v. Hatfield, 210N.W.2d 275 (Minn. 1973) Fletcher v. Commonwealth of Ky., 163 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. 2005)

Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Appellants' sanctions motion based onRespondents' premature filing of their own sanctions motion? The district court by definition held inthe negative. Most apposite authorities: Olson v. Babler, No. A05:, 395, 2006 WL 851798 (Minn. Ct.App. 2006) Gibson v. Coldwell Banker Burnett, 659 N.W.2d 782 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) Burnett, 659N.W.2d 782 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) Muhammad v. State, Nos. Civ. A-99-3742/99-2694, 2000 WL 1876

(E.D. La. 2000).

Also Filed - REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS/INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS

Also Filed - BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE EIGHTY-FOURTH MINNESOTA SENATE IN SUPPORT OFAPPELLANTS

Return to Home Page

Page 6 of 7



7/7

MEMORANDUMN

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/03/orly-taitz-files-motion-to-have-her-quo.html

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=quo+warranto+MN+Briefs&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=quo+warranto+MN+

)

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY E-COMMERCE_ELECTRONICTRANSMISSION AT 3:37PM MON26Jul2010

Click here: MINNESOTA JUDICIAL REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY: Our Minnesota "Justice"System and the Gildea Article

http://donmashakjudicialreformaccountability.blogspot.com/2010/07/our-justice-system-and-gildea-article.html

LEGAL NOTICE: /s/[email protected] ECF_P165913Pacersa1299telfx: 651-776-5835:Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Candidate AG2010www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com Blogger:http://www.the912project.us/profiles/blogs/digitalcourtericmagnusona1064a-1

Homestead Act of 1862 Twitter / Sharon4Anderson Shar1058's Buzz Activity Page - My Buzz Activity - Yahoo! Buzzneopopulism.org - Pro Se Dec Action Litigation PackSharon4Anderson | 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 copyrightowner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of whistleblower protection issues, MY FindLawSharonsWritProA06_1150_30Jun06_26The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers kare11.com_SASharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption3Apr0http://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)gandFCC Complaints - http://sharons-copywrite.blogspot.comknowledge gained asfinancial journalists , http://taxthemax.blogspot.com securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, andagents an initial tradePublic domainrecommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, beforeactingGoogle Search Times v. Sullvian Libel with malice -on that recommendations, and may contain errors. Investmentdecisions should not be based solely on these or other Public Office documents expressly forbids its writers from havingfinancial interests inGoogle Search BlogItBabe2007 Candidate profile Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs Sharon4And

Page 7 of 7

quowarr_gildea26jul10

Documents