Sharon Anderson

Sharon Anderson

Friday, August 7, 2015


To the Above Named

Sheri Moore is to place on the Agenda Electronically as soon as possible. FOIA REQUEST re State, Federal,CitySt.Paul Contract hiring Outside Counsel ie Dorsey via Skip Durocher et al Case US04-2632,05-0461 Apparantly Retired Fed Judge Michael Davis et al.

Where is the Contract as the City St. Paul via Risk Management re, We the Taxpayers must have input re Fiscal Responsibility.
Affiant Mrs. Sharon Anderson VA Widow, Whistleblower, Candidate has Standing as Candidate,Resi325 No. Wilder 6 unit_2194 Marshall_Duplex_09 09 dent St. Paul and Victim of the Takings of Car,Water,Trailers, 697 Surrey_09697 Surrey Illegal Assessments_09 other

448 Desnoyer_Duplex_09 1058 Summit Sharons HS"taken"_09 325 No. Wilder 6 unit Fraud

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ________________________________________________________________________ Case No. 04-2632 (MJD/SER) Frank J. Steinhauser, III, Mark E. Meysembourg, and Kelly G. Brisson, Plaintiffs vs. City of Saint Paul defendants Case No. 05-0461 (MJD/SER) Sandra Harrilal, Bee Vue, Lamena Vue, and Steven R. Johnson, d/b/a Market Group and Properties, Plaintiffs vs. City of Saint Paul defendants

Sharon Anderson

Name: Sharon Anderson
Public Office Sought: St.Paul Council Ward 2
Phone: 651-776-5835
Address: Legal Domicile 1058 Summit Ave,Mail 697 Surrey St. Paul,MN 55104-0384
Campaign ForensicFiles 100 Blogs
Twitter handle:
Facebook Page:

Andrew M. LugerAndrew M. Luger was formally nominated to be the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota on November 21, 2013, unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on February 12, 2014, and sworn in on February 14, 2014.

For media inquiries, contact Ben Petok, Director of Communications, at (612) 664-5703 or Tasha Terry, Public Affairs Specialist, at (612) 664-5743.
Samuel J. Clark
City Attorney
400 City Hall and Courthouse
15 Kellogg Blvd., West
Saint Paul, MN 55102

Ph: (651) 266-8710
Fx: (651) 298-5619
aint Paul Blueprint for Safety:In partnership with the Saint Paul Police Department, Saint Paul Domestic Intervention Project, ISAIAH and other public agencies, the City Attorney's Office participated in the creation of the "Saint Paul Blueprint for Safety." The Blueprint is intended to establish a system wide best practice in dealing with domestic abuse in our communities and to prevent homicides. Read more about it here and here.


Sent: 8/7/2015 10:22:39 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Freedom-4YouSteinhauseretalvsCitySt.PAULFed.
Click here: Freedom-4You NOTE TO CITY ST.PAUL,All Candidates,Media, et al
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ________________________________________________________________________ Case No. 04-2632 (MJD/SER) Frank J. Steinhauser, III, Mark E. Meysembourg, and Kelly G. Brisson, Plaintiffs vs. City of Saint Paul defendants Case No. 05-0461 (MJD/SER) Sandra Harrilal, Bee Vue, Lamena Vue, and Steven R. Johnson, d/b/a Market Group and Properties, Plaintiffs vs. City of Saint Paul defendants ________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs Frank J. Steinhauser, Mark E. Meysembourg, Kelly G. Brisson, Sandra Harrilal, and Steve Johnson, through their undersigned counsel submit this status Brief pursuant to the Court’s July 6, 2015 Order.
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs filed suit May 5, 2004 after Defendant through its officials and inspectors during 2002 through 2005 targeted their low-income rental properties with illegally heightened housing standards and illegal code enforcement tactics and methods and other retaliatory tactics, including repeated false claims of code violations, illegal condemnations of homes and removal of “grandfathering” protections through forced renovations to present code under City “Code Compliance Certifications” in violation of the Minnesota State Building Code, all resulting in displacement of and injuries to “protected class” tenants, removal of habitable housing units, and economic losses to Plaintiffs. During 2005 through 2008, Plaintiffs participated in extensive discovery and motion practice including unsuccessfully seeking sanctions against the City for its admitted destruction following commencement of the first lawsuit in 2004 of electronic communications of Defendant officials and inspectors and thousands of relevant City
City of Saint Paul's attempt to cover up the illegal housing activities,


At the inception of this dispute, sixteen plaintiffs filed three cases, collectively asserting thirty-two causes of action against eighteen defendants, which included the City of St. Paul (the “City”) and a host of City officials and employees. Today, five plaintiffs, one defendant, and one cause of action remain: Plaintiffs assert the City violated the Fair Housing Act based on a disparate impact theory. The remaining plaintiffs are landlords or former landlords, and paradoxically, they claim the City’s enforcement of its housing code against their dilapidated properties created a disparate impact on minorities and disabled tenants by decreasing the availability of low-income housing.
Earlier this year, the Court stayed this action pending issuance of a decision in a case pending before the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued that decision on June 25, 2015. Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015) (“Texas”). The Court has asked the parties to brief the status of the case in light of this ruling. Doc. No. 348.
The impact of the Texas decision on this case is clear: Plaintiffs’ sole claim against the City must be dismissed. To be sure, the Supreme Court in Texas acknowledged that disparate impact claims may be asserted under the Fair Housing Act. But it is equally clear that in doing so, the Court imposed cautionary requirements that must be met before a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case. In the present case—which the Supreme Court specifically identified by name in its decision—Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements identified in Texas. Specifically, Plaintiffs have failed to establish the existence of an actual City policy that resulted in discrimination, and have similarly failed to establish the necessary robust causal connection between a City policy and its purported discriminatory effects. Both elements are mandatory. Even if Plaintiffs had complied with the Supreme Court’s prima facie requirements, Plaintiffs’ claim still fails post-Texas because all parties agree that the City had a legitimate governmental objective, and the Supreme Court opined that legitimate objectives cannot give rise to disparate imp
Citys Answer
Freedom-4YouLANDLORDvsCitySt.PAULFed.ContractDorseyWhitneyUS04-2632,05-0461DAVIS Date: 8/7/2015 1:25:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time From: Send IM to: AttorneyProSe_Private AG, ECF 65913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel: 651-776-5835 HEALTH CARE Candidate 2014 MNAG Senate64

No comments: