www.lawlessamerica.com www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
CitySt.Paul_TrainleftStationUSSC:10-1032 ie: Magner
- Sharon Anderson · St. Paul CentralWhy pull out when its ongoing since 2004 unabated by the State AG Lori Swanson, the Meter is ticking, www.sharon4anderson.blogsp
ot.com City must lose in Federal Court, USA is bankrupt , where will the federal funds continue for Central Corridor, Penfield, Schmidt Brewery Housing. Such a DEAL http:// forums.e-democracy.org/ groups/stpaul-issues/files/ f/1679-2007-07-08T193758Z/ 5Jul07RatAssLegal_22.pdf.
Civil rights groups applaud St. Paul’s Supreme Court pull-out, Wall Street Journal blows a raspberry
- 14 February, 2012 //
- City Hall Scoop //
- Tags : landlords, Magner vs. Gallagher, U.S. Supreme Court
The case, which involves a dozen landlords suing the city for strict housing code enforcement, would have been heard by a conservative-leaning Supreme Court on Feb. 29. The landlords basically argued that coming down hard on them decreased affordable housing for the city’s minorities — a “disparate impact” on black residents and a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act.
The Supreme Court justices would have probably sided with St. Paul, creating precedent to undermine key Civil Rights protections for minorities in the federal Fair Housing Act. Among other things, “disparate impact” is an important part of discrimination lawsuits against predatory lenders, such as the recent class action suit with Countrywide Mortgage.
St. Paul would have won, but at huge moral costs, say some. Among those some is the NAACP, the ACLU, and the aforementioned civil and human rights coalition. Read their press release here:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 13, 2012
Civil and Human Rights Coalition Applauds Saint Paul for its Withdrawal of the Magner Petition from Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, DC – The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights issued the following statement in response to the city of Saint Paul’s thoughtful decision to withdraw its petition to the Supreme Court in Magner v. Gallagher. The Leadership Conference joined the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law in filing a brief arguing that disparate impact analysis is appropriate under the Fair Housing Act (FHA):
“We applaud the decision by Mayor Christopher Coleman and the city of Saint Paul to withdraw its petition to the Supreme Court in Magner v. Gallagher. By taking this action, the city is protecting its legitimate responsibility for code enforcement and preserving the disparate impact doctrine under federal fair housing law, which is essential to protecting low-income and minority tenants.
Every federal court of appeals that has considered the issue has concluded that disparate impact exists under the Fair Housing Act. This doctrine is a powerful tool to combat redlining, housing discrimination, and predatory lending. This standard will soon be further bolstered when the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issues a final regulation codifying disparate impact later this year.
By returning the case to federal district court, Saint Paul has protected its ability, as well as the authority of municipalities across the country, to enforce housing standards for all citizens.
It’s imperative that this established legal framework be preserved. By taking this course of action, the city of Saint Paul protects its own citizens as well as communities across the country.”
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the rights of all persons in the United States. The Leadership Conference works toward an America as good as its ideals. For more information on The Leadership Conference and its 200-plus member organizations, visit http://www.civilrights.org/.
Monday, February 6, 2012
USSC_10-1032 PetitionersCitySt.Paul,Magner_vs_LandLords,Gallagher
Magner v. Gallagher
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10-1032 | 8th Cir. | Feb 29, 2012 | TBD | TBD | TBD | OT 2011 |
Issue: (1) Whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act; and, if so (2) what test should be used to analyze them.
Plain English Issue: (1) Whether a lawsuit can be brought for a violation of the Fair Housing Act based on a practice that is not discriminatory on its own, but has a discriminatory effect; and, if so, (2) how should courts determine whether a practice has a discriminatory effect and violates the Act?
SCOTUSblog Coverage
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs for the PetitionersAmicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners
- Brief of the International Municipal Lawyers Association et al.
- Brief of the Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey
- Brief of the Pacific Legal Foundation et al.
- Brief of the Independent Community Bankers of America et al.
- Brief of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
- Brief of the American Bankers Association et al.
Merits Briefs for the Respondents
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents
- Brief of the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund
- Brief of the Lawyer's Committee on Civil Rights et al.
- Brief of the Housing Advocates, Inc., and Buckeye Community Hope Foundation
- Brief of the National Fair Housing Alliance et al.
- Brief of the Opportunity Agenda et al.
- Brief of the ACLU
- Brief of Massachusetts et al.
- Brief of Henry G. Cisneros
- Brief of AARP and Mount Holly Gardens Citizens In Action
Certiorari-stage documents
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
USSC 10-1032 CitySt.Paul,Magner et al Hearing 29Feb2012
Wed. 1Feb2012
LEGAL NOTICE LETTER DOCUMENT RE: PENALITYS OF PERJURY
AFFIDAVIT OF SHARON4ANDERSON re: USSC:10-1032 title CitySt.Paul,Magner vs. LandLords Gallagher et al.
http://stpaul.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
City Council 2/1/2012 3:30 PM Council Chambers - 3rd Floor Meeting details Agenda
Affiant Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Chergosky aka 1st Husband Scarrella, re: Scarrella4Justice221NW2nd562 www.sharon4judge.blogspot.com
published without Royalitys and Sharons Permission.
Hereby request that the City St.Paul estopp "terrorizing" the Citizenery and until final disposition of the above entitled case, that any all Condemnations be stayed.
FUTHER: http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profile/SharonScarrellaAnderson
Until the Homestead of the Disabled and Decedants are made WHOLE 1058 Summit
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file8.pdf
http://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com/ Water Shutoff to harm,injure Sharon 2004
Sharon's 97 Blogs with thousand's of forensic evidence "takings" Car's,Trailers triggering Forclosure without due process.
http://www2.blogger.com/home
Taking Drivers License, Car,Trailer etc. terrorizing Sharon a Senior, Disabled, Candidate for Public Office.
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file1.pdf
THEREFORE: CitySt.Paul cannot go further until all the Respondants briefs are read and analyzed.
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com AttorneyProSe_Private AG, ECF:165913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel: 651-776-5835
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:38:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: USSC:10-1032 CitySt.Paul,Magner et al vs. LandLords,Gallagher et al 29Feb2012
To: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
CC: a9696b@msn.com, kaardal@mklaw.com, jrgraham@oricom.ca, rcbarden@mac.com,
nancylazaryan@yahoo.com, mami2fine2004@yahoo.com
Why Jones is still less of a pro-privacy decision than most thought (Conclusion slightly revised Jan. 31) – Tom Goldstein
Opinion analysis: An exercise in statutory construction – Steven Schwinn
Jones confounds the press – Tom Goldstein
Magner v. Gallagher
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
10-1032 8th Cir. Feb 29, 2012
TBD TBD TBD OT 2011
Disclaimer: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. serves as counsel to the respondents in this case.
Issue: (1) Whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act; and, if so (2) what test should be used to analyze them.
Plain English Issue: (1) Whether a lawsuit can be brought for a violation of the Fair Housing Act based on a practice that is not discriminatory on its own, but has a discriminatory effect; and, if so, (2) how should courts determine whether a practice has a discriminatory effect and violates the Act?
SCOTUSblog Coverage
Petition of the day
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs for the Petitioners
Brief for Steve Magner et al.
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners
Brief of the International Municipal Lawyers Association et al.
Brief of the Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey
Brief of the Pacific Legal Foundation et al.
Brief of the Independent Community Bankers of America et al.
Brief of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
Brief of the American Bankers Association et al.
Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither Party
Brief of the United States
Merits Briefs for the Respondents
Brief of Thomas Gallagher et al.
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents
Brief of the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund
Brief of the Lawyer's Committee on Civil Rights et al.
Brief of the Housing Advocates, Inc., and Buckeye Community Hope Foundation
Brief of the National Fair Housing Alliance et al.
Brief of the Opportunity Agenda et al.
Brief of the ACLU
Brief of Massachusetts et al.
Brief of Henry G. Cisneros
Brief of AARP and Mount Holly Gardens Citizens In Action
Certiorari-stage documents
Opinion below (8th Cir.)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition of respondents Thomas J. Gallagher et al.
Petitioners' reply
Most Recent Posts
Petition of the day 4:36pm on 1/31
SCOTUSblog internships 10:12am on 1/31
Tuesday round-up 9:23am on 1/31
Petition of the day 5:30pm on 1/30
Relist (and hold) watch 4:03pm on 1/30
Calendar: February 2012
Full Calendar Submit Event
Feb. 2012
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1
Mock moot of health care case 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10
Pro bono panel 11
12 13 14 15 16 17
Conference 18
19 20
Holiday 21
Freeman v. Quicken Loans (10-1042)
Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan (10-1472)
Orders 22
United States v. Alvarez (11-210)
Blueford v. Arkansas (11-1320) 23 24
Conference 25
26 27
Elgin v. U.S. Treasury Dept. (11-45)
Wood v. Milyard (10-9995)
Orders 28
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (10-1491)
Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority (11-88) 29
Magner v . Gallagher (10-1032)
Armour v. City of Indianapolis (11-161)
Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences
Events
Holidays
Multiple
Sponsored by Bloomberg Law
Recently Decided Cases
National Meat Association v. Harris Preemption by Federal Meat Inspection Act
Perry v. Perez Texas redistricting
Reynolds v. United States Standing to challenge sex offender rule
United States v. Jones Constitutionality of use of GPS tracking device
Community Discusssions
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s Legacy
The lasting impact of a key Justice.
FCC v. Fox
Constitutionality of indecency ban in broadcast media
The Texas redistricting cases
Texas's new, legislatively enacted district maps, court-ordered interim maps, and the Voting Rights Act
Christmas and the Court
The Court's traditions and holdings regarding church and state.
Sackett v. EPA
Governmental enforcement of federal environmental laws against private property owners
Recent Community Comments
REVISED REPLY- I apologize for the typos in the first version. There aren’t plaintiffs in these cases in no small part because...
Rick Nagel on 1/23 at 5:38 pm
Rick Nagel – 1 Promoted Comment There aren’t, no doubt, because those displaced by racial preferences lack either the courage,...
Rick Nagel on 1/23 at 5:33 pm
There aren't, no doubt, because those displaced by racial preferences lack either courage,conviction or,perhaps, both. In Parents...
Rick Nagel on 1/23 at 3:59 pm
I wish there were more of these cases, too, Mr. Nagel -- but the point is that there aren't, even though the underlying discrimination...
Roger Clegg on 1/23 at 10:43 am
I thank the staff at Scotusblog for permitting this exchange to continue and moving Roger Clegg's surrebuttal to the right spot. What...
roxanne friedman on 1/21 at 11:02 am
This Week at the Court
The Court is on winter recess until the Justices reconvene for the Conference of February 17. Our “Petitions to watch” for that Conference will be available soon.
The February sitting begins February 21.
See allUpcoming Oral Arguments
2/21Freeman v. Quicken Loans Inc. Unearned fees in real estate
2/21Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. Losing party’s duty to pay winner’s costs of translating foreign-language documents for use at trial.
2/22United States v. Alvarez Stolen Valor Act
See allUpcoming Petitions
Conference of February 17
Bogan v. City of Chicago Warrantless searches of residences
Cannella v. Florida Use of defendant’s pre-arrest silence
E.R.G. v. E.H.G. Grandparent visitation
Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories Patent written description
Peninsula School District v. D.P. IDEA exhaustion
Term Snapshot
Cases argued 47
Cases decided 16
Summary reversals 5
Merits cases granted to date 76
FollowTwitter Feed
SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog
JoanBiskupic Lucky in Supreme Court jobs, even luckier with colleagues: I’ve been fortunate as a reporter to have had three t... http://t.co/pmidMKH2 yesterday · reply · retweet · favorite
SCOTUSblog Tom: I've tripled down on my view of the Jones GPS decision: http://t.co/b3rhcWN4 yesterday · reply · retweet · favorite
Join the conversation
ABA Silver Gavel Award Winner
Awarded for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
Special Features
Blog Archives
By Month Jan 2012 Dec 2011 Nov 2011 Oct 2011 Sept 2011 Aug 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 Apr 2011 Mar 2011 Feb 2011 Jan 2011 Dec 2010 Nov 2010 Oct 2010 Sept 2010 Aug 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 Apr 2010 Mar 2010 Feb 2010 Jan 2010 Dec 2009 Nov 2009 Oct 2009 Sept 2009 Aug 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 Apr 2009 Mar 2009 Feb 2009 Jan 2009 Dec 2008 Nov 2008 Oct 2008 Sept 2008 Aug 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 Apr 2008 Mar 2008 Feb 2008 Jan 2008 Dec 2007 Nov 2007 Oct 2007 Sept 2007 Aug 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 Apr 2007 Mar 2007 Feb 2007 Jan 2007 Dec 2006 Nov 2006 Oct 2006 Sept 2006 Aug 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 Apr 2006 Mar 2006 Feb 2006 Jan 2006 Dec 2005 Nov 2005 Oct 2005 Sept 2005 Aug 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 Apr 2005 Mar 2005 Feb 2005 or By Category Academic Round-up Analysis Book Reviews Cases in the Pipeline Community Corrections Detainee Litigation Everything Else Featured Headline Live Merits Cases Plain English Round-upSpecial Features SCOTUS for law students This Week at the Court What’s Happening Now
Open Links in New Windows
Check to activate on this page
© 2012 SCOTUSblog (click for license) This work by SCOTUSblog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Switch to our mobile site
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com AttorneyProSe_Private AG, ECF:165913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel: 651-776-5835 http://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com/2007/03/foia-06cv-permission-to.html
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Magner_Respondents_Brief_Jan23-Final-To-Print.pdf
http://mpls.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/profiles/26222.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/planet/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file4.pdfhttp://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file6.pdfwww.sharon4anderson.org http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/900-2007-02-27T034409Z/WritProA06-1150_30Jun06.pdfhttp://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/google-lawmen-cases-mn-62cv09-1163/POA http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/PDFcorr/SADPA4172006.pdfhttp://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profile/SharonScarrellaAnderson www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson www.taxthemax.blogspot.com www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson
LEGAL NOTICE LETTER DOCUMENT RE: PENALITYS OF PERJURY
AFFIDAVIT OF SHARON4ANDERSON re: USSC:10-1032 title CitySt.Paul,Magner vs. LandLords Gallagher et al.
http://stpaul.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
City Council 2/1/2012 3:30 PM Council Chambers - 3rd Floor Meeting details Agenda
Affiant Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Chergosky aka 1st Husband Scarrella, re: Scarrella4Justice221NW2nd562 www.sharon4judge.blogspot.com
published without Royalitys and Sharons Permission.
Hereby request that the City St.Paul estopp "terrorizing" the Citizenery and until final disposition of the above entitled case, that any all Condemnations be stayed.
FUTHER: http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profile/SharonScarrellaAnderson
Until the Homestead of the Disabled and Decedants are made WHOLE 1058 Summit
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file8.pdf
http://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com/ Water Shutoff to harm,injure Sharon 2004
Sharon's 97 Blogs with thousand's of forensic evidence "takings" Car's,Trailers triggering Forclosure without due process.
http://www2.blogger.com/home
Taking Drivers License, Car,Trailer etc. terrorizing Sharon a Senior, Disabled, Candidate for Public Office.
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file1.pdf
THEREFORE: CitySt.Paul cannot go further until all the Respondants briefs are read and analyzed.
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com AttorneyProSe_Private AG, ECF:165913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel: 651-776-5835
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:38:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: USSC:10-1032 CitySt.Paul,Magner et al vs. LandLords,Gallagher et al 29Feb2012
To: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
CC: a9696b@msn.com, kaardal@mklaw.com, jrgraham@oricom.ca, rcbarden@mac.com,
nancylazaryan@yahoo.com, mami2fine2004@yahoo.com
Why Jones is still less of a pro-privacy decision than most thought (Conclusion slightly revised Jan. 31) – Tom Goldstein
Opinion analysis: An exercise in statutory construction – Steven Schwinn
Jones confounds the press – Tom Goldstein
Magner v. Gallagher
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
10-1032 8th Cir. Feb 29, 2012
TBD TBD TBD OT 2011
Disclaimer: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. serves as counsel to the respondents in this case.
Issue: (1) Whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act; and, if so (2) what test should be used to analyze them.
Plain English Issue: (1) Whether a lawsuit can be brought for a violation of the Fair Housing Act based on a practice that is not discriminatory on its own, but has a discriminatory effect; and, if so, (2) how should courts determine whether a practice has a discriminatory effect and violates the Act?
SCOTUSblog Coverage
Petition of the day
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs for the Petitioners
Brief for Steve Magner et al.
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners
Brief of the International Municipal Lawyers Association et al.
Brief of the Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey
Brief of the Pacific Legal Foundation et al.
Brief of the Independent Community Bankers of America et al.
Brief of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
Brief of the American Bankers Association et al.
Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither Party
Brief of the United States
Merits Briefs for the Respondents
Brief of Thomas Gallagher et al.
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents
Brief of the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund
Brief of the Lawyer's Committee on Civil Rights et al.
Brief of the Housing Advocates, Inc., and Buckeye Community Hope Foundation
Brief of the National Fair Housing Alliance et al.
Brief of the Opportunity Agenda et al.
Brief of the ACLU
Brief of Massachusetts et al.
Brief of Henry G. Cisneros
Brief of AARP and Mount Holly Gardens Citizens In Action
Certiorari-stage documents
Opinion below (8th Cir.)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition of respondents Thomas J. Gallagher et al.
Petitioners' reply
Most Recent Posts
Petition of the day 4:36pm on 1/31
SCOTUSblog internships 10:12am on 1/31
Tuesday round-up 9:23am on 1/31
Petition of the day 5:30pm on 1/30
Relist (and hold) watch 4:03pm on 1/30
Calendar: February 2012
Full Calendar Submit Event
Feb. 2012
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1
Mock moot of health care case 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10
Pro bono panel 11
12 13 14 15 16 17
Conference 18
19 20
Holiday 21
Freeman v. Quicken Loans (10-1042)
Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan (10-1472)
Orders 22
United States v. Alvarez (11-210)
Blueford v. Arkansas (11-1320) 23 24
Conference 25
26 27
Elgin v. U.S. Treasury Dept. (11-45)
Wood v. Milyard (10-9995)
Orders 28
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (10-1491)
Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority (11-88) 29
Magner v . Gallagher (10-1032)
Armour v. City of Indianapolis (11-161)
Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences
Events
Holidays
Multiple
Sponsored by Bloomberg Law
Recently Decided Cases
National Meat Association v. Harris Preemption by Federal Meat Inspection Act
Perry v. Perez Texas redistricting
Reynolds v. United States Standing to challenge sex offender rule
United States v. Jones Constitutionality of use of GPS tracking device
Community Discusssions
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s Legacy
The lasting impact of a key Justice.
FCC v. Fox
Constitutionality of indecency ban in broadcast media
The Texas redistricting cases
Texas's new, legislatively enacted district maps, court-ordered interim maps, and the Voting Rights Act
Christmas and the Court
The Court's traditions and holdings regarding church and state.
Sackett v. EPA
Governmental enforcement of federal environmental laws against private property owners
Recent Community Comments
REVISED REPLY- I apologize for the typos in the first version. There aren’t plaintiffs in these cases in no small part because...
Rick Nagel on 1/23 at 5:38 pm
Rick Nagel – 1 Promoted Comment There aren’t, no doubt, because those displaced by racial preferences lack either the courage,...
Rick Nagel on 1/23 at 5:33 pm
There aren't, no doubt, because those displaced by racial preferences lack either courage,conviction or,perhaps, both. In Parents...
Rick Nagel on 1/23 at 3:59 pm
I wish there were more of these cases, too, Mr. Nagel -- but the point is that there aren't, even though the underlying discrimination...
Roger Clegg on 1/23 at 10:43 am
I thank the staff at Scotusblog for permitting this exchange to continue and moving Roger Clegg's surrebuttal to the right spot. What...
roxanne friedman on 1/21 at 11:02 am
This Week at the Court
The Court is on winter recess until the Justices reconvene for the Conference of February 17. Our “Petitions to watch” for that Conference will be available soon.
The February sitting begins February 21.
See allUpcoming Oral Arguments
2/21Freeman v. Quicken Loans Inc. Unearned fees in real estate
2/21Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. Losing party’s duty to pay winner’s costs of translating foreign-language documents for use at trial.
2/22United States v. Alvarez Stolen Valor Act
See allUpcoming Petitions
Conference of February 17
Bogan v. City of Chicago Warrantless searches of residences
Cannella v. Florida Use of defendant’s pre-arrest silence
E.R.G. v. E.H.G. Grandparent visitation
Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories Patent written description
Peninsula School District v. D.P. IDEA exhaustion
Term Snapshot
Cases argued 47
Cases decided 16
Summary reversals 5
Merits cases granted to date 76
FollowTwitter Feed
SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog
JoanBiskupic Lucky in Supreme Court jobs, even luckier with colleagues: I’ve been fortunate as a reporter to have had three t... http://t.co/pmidMKH2 yesterday · reply · retweet · favorite
SCOTUSblog Tom: I've tripled down on my view of the Jones GPS decision: http://t.co/b3rhcWN4 yesterday · reply · retweet · favorite
Join the conversation
ABA Silver Gavel Award Winner
Awarded for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
Special Features
Blog Archives
By Month Jan 2012 Dec 2011 Nov 2011 Oct 2011 Sept 2011 Aug 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 Apr 2011 Mar 2011 Feb 2011 Jan 2011 Dec 2010 Nov 2010 Oct 2010 Sept 2010 Aug 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 Apr 2010 Mar 2010 Feb 2010 Jan 2010 Dec 2009 Nov 2009 Oct 2009 Sept 2009 Aug 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 Apr 2009 Mar 2009 Feb 2009 Jan 2009 Dec 2008 Nov 2008 Oct 2008 Sept 2008 Aug 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 Apr 2008 Mar 2008 Feb 2008 Jan 2008 Dec 2007 Nov 2007 Oct 2007 Sept 2007 Aug 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 Apr 2007 Mar 2007 Feb 2007 Jan 2007 Dec 2006 Nov 2006 Oct 2006 Sept 2006 Aug 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 Apr 2006 Mar 2006 Feb 2006 Jan 2006 Dec 2005 Nov 2005 Oct 2005 Sept 2005 Aug 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 Apr 2005 Mar 2005 Feb 2005 or By Category Academic Round-up Analysis Book Reviews Cases in the Pipeline Community Corrections Detainee Litigation Everything Else Featured Headline Live Merits Cases Plain English Round-upSpecial Features SCOTUS for law students This Week at the Court What’s Happening Now
Open Links in New Windows
Check to activate on this page
© 2012 SCOTUSblog (click for license) This work by SCOTUSblog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Switch to our mobile site
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com AttorneyProSe_Private AG, ECF:165913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel: 651-776-5835 http://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com/2007/03/foia-06cv-permission-to.html
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Magner_Respondents_Brief_Jan23-Final-To-Print.pdf
http://mpls.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/profiles/26222.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/planet/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file4.pdfhttp://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file6.pdfwww.sharon4anderson.org http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/900-2007-02-27T034409Z/WritProA06-1150_30Jun06.pdfhttp://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/google-lawmen-cases-mn-62cv09-1163/POA http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/PDFcorr/SADPA4172006.pdfhttp://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profile/SharonScarrellaAnderson www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson www.taxthemax.blogspot.com www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson
Sunday, January 29, 2012
USSC: 10-1032 CitySt.Paul_Magner vs.Gallagher's Merit Brief
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Magner_Respondents_Brief_Jan23-Final-To-Print.pdf
LandLords Merit Brief USSC:10-1032 City St.Paul Lawyers misleading US Supreme Court track http://www.scotusblog.com/
type in Magner
LandLords Merit Brief USSC:10-1032 City St.Paul Lawyers misleading US Supreme Court track http://www.scotusblog.com/
type in Magner
Saturday, October 29, 2011
ElectSharon4Seniors Ward2_CitySt.Paul_MN
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=429 Sharon mustChallenge Constitutionality of City St.Paul's Ponzi Scheme to Assessments to Steal your Property's
Sharon Anderson · St. Paul Central
Feed RSS Subscribe Feed
Sharon Anderson · St. Paul Central
Shame on Schanno , who Affiant VA Widow Sharon Scarrella Anderson aka Peterson_Chergosky alleges Ms Schanno is making FALSE Statement to Ruin Sharons Credit and to malign Sharons Reputation etc. File no 495722 1988 When the Lesbian Judge KIathleen Gearin "kicked out the Disabled Anderson" Silver StarMarine suffering from Major PSTD and then trying to force $110,000.00 hundred and ten thousand dollars to cover up Major RealEstate Ponzi Schemes by the City St.Paul, County Ramsey. Sharon alleges that Ms. Schanno who has a Daughter apparantly never Married?
request that Ms Schanno disclose if Schanno ever Married. Sharon verily alleges that Ms. Schanno has never Voted in St.Paul Has never attended a Council Hearing and is a Mole_Wringer for the REpublican Party. Currently Sharon4Seniors is duly concerned for Property Homeowners... and must Challenge certain Statutes as Unconstitutionally Vague, Arbitrary re: Canvass Board and Assessments https://www.revisor.mn.gov
request that Ms Schanno disclose if Schanno ever Married. Sharon verily alleges that Ms. Schanno has never Voted in St.Paul Has never attended a Council Hearing and is a Mole_Wringer for the REpublican Party. Currently Sharon4Seniors is duly concerned for Property Homeowners... and must Challenge certain Statutes as Unconstitutionally Vague, Arbitrary re: Canvass Board and Assessments https://www.revisor.mn.gov
that the St.Paul City Council has illegally for years used to Condemn and "take" our propertys Ms. Schanno put your 400 hundred thousand Condo at 256 Spring St. purschased from Rottlund Inc (sp) and your JC Aviation in the Flood Plaine Downtown St.Paul, and legally file your Distorted Ramblings now published re: Times vs. Sullivan to Force a Grand Jury to investigate. Sharon is challanging Constitutionality to force the State Attorney General to defend the Law's www.barden4ag.com
Cynthia Schanno · SubscribeSubscribed · Top Commenter · Saint Paul, Minnesota
In your never ending effort to distort or should I say misinterpreted the facts...
The statute reads a city council candidate must live within the ward. It is common knowledge Ms. Anderson (a perpetual candidate) DOES NOT. The shame here is when you talk with county and/or city officials “they” state it is not their responsibility to verify or enforce the rules. My question then was “Well who is responsible?”.
The irony here is it is up to a challenging candidate and/or citizen to file a formal complaint, meaning the burden once again falls to the tax payers and/or a candidate who must to incur the time and cost to bring forward a formal complaint. This seems utterly asinine and frankly it is outrageous to me and I am simply pointing out the facts so the public is aware.
Our city council representatives state it is important to hold a fair race. Mr. Thune knows Sharon does not live in the ward, most everyone knows that… allowing Sharon to stay on the ballot makes a mockery of our system and our “new” electoral process, which “everyone” voted for but nobody knows how it works.
You are questioning my motive rather than bring light to the facts… If you had bothered to pick up the phone and ask me direct the motive behind the press release maybe then you would have write the story or communicated the effort correctly. Sorry Pioneer Press you did it again. Now, I dare ask, who is playing politics?
The statute reads a city council candidate must live within the ward. It is common knowledge Ms. Anderson (a perpetual candidate) DOES NOT. The shame here is when you talk with county and/or city officials “they” state it is not their responsibility to verify or enforce the rules. My question then was “Well who is responsible?”.
The irony here is it is up to a challenging candidate and/or citizen to file a formal complaint, meaning the burden once again falls to the tax payers and/or a candidate who must to incur the time and cost to bring forward a formal complaint. This seems utterly asinine and frankly it is outrageous to me and I am simply pointing out the facts so the public is aware.
Our city council representatives state it is important to hold a fair race. Mr. Thune knows Sharon does not live in the ward, most everyone knows that… allowing Sharon to stay on the ballot makes a mockery of our system and our “new” electoral process, which “everyone” voted for but nobody knows how it works.
You are questioning my motive rather than bring light to the facts… If you had bothered to pick up the phone and ask me direct the motive behind the press release maybe then you would have write the story or communicated the effort correctly. Sorry Pioneer Press you did it again. Now, I dare ask, who is playing politics?
-
Sharon Anderson · St. Paul CentralPut your Money where your Mouth is and if your such a concern citizen file with the OAH or Ramsey Co. Attorney re: Criminal Charges mandate Grand Jury Proceeings. www.sharon4Council.blogspot.com Ms Schanno your wilful neglience to investigate re: www.sharon4anderson.org exploiting Seniors, Disabled,Vunerable Adults is pervase/fatal
Feed RSS Subscribe Feed SEARCH THIS BLOG RECENT POSTS
- Schanno wants Sharon Anderson off the ballot
- Bostrom challenges Xiong take on Payne-Maryland project
- Minnesota Rising hosts UnConference in Lowertown
- With Hosko on the attack, Dave Thune pulls out the big guns: Mom
- Eve Stein wants her stolen lawn signs back
ARCHIVES
MOST VIEWED STORIES
- Some of Leslie Frazier's decisions have played a part in Vikings' 1-6 start
- No charges in shooting of Mpls robbery suspect
- In Eagan, jobs lost, but a lot more gained
- School, drug speaker clash over ties to teen
- After city-ordered cleanup, Little Canada father tells his children to stay out
- St. Paul slaying victim stabbed in neck with scissors, police say; suspect charged with second-degree murder
- Shooter Now: Vikings stadium issue in flux, insiders say
Schanno wants Sharon Anderson off the ballot
- 28 October, 2011 //
- City Hall Scoop //
- Tags :
Now is when things get rough, tough and … and … (dare we say it? yes we dare) … even snippy in St. Paul City Council races. And by rough, tough and snippy, the Scoop doesn’t just mean, “Don’t vote for my competitor.”
The Scoop means… “don’t allow my competitor on the ballot.”
That’s the tactic in the downtown / West End corner known as Ward 2, where one candidate is trying to get a second candidate booted out of the election even before Election Day, and blaming a third candidate — the incumbent city council member — that she’s even made it this far.
Confused? Here’s how it works:
Perennial candidate Sharon Anderson is running for election to the City Council in Ward 2, which would lead one to surmise that she actually lives in or around downtown or somewhere near West Seventh Street. Wrong, says fellow Ward 2 candidate Cynthia Schanno.
Anderson uses both her Summit Avenue address and a P.O. Box in her election filings, notes Schanno, even though Anderson lost her home in a tax dispute in 1988. Anderson apparently lives on the East Side, or did so when she videotaped this YouTube message in 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgDuL6Vf6Rw
Of the video, Anderson said: “That doesn’t prove anything. I’ve got 13 pieces of property.”
“My legal residence is 1058 Summit Avenue,” Anderson told the Scoop on Friday. “She’s trying to make a name for herself. She emailed me. She has published this on her website saying I’m not a viable candidate. Well, then make a complaint. If she’s going to be publishing false statements, the election law is you have to file a complaint with the office of administrative hearings. … Why doesn’t she sue me? Why doesn’t she file a legal complaint?”
The Scoop asked Anderson: “Where do you live, Sharon?”
To which Anderson responded: “It doesn’t matter. I have properties up in Itasca, I have properties up in Aitkin … ”
To which the Scoop interrupted: “Do you have property in Ward 2?”
To which Anderson responded: “I own 1058 Summit Avenue, with my dead tenants in common. … I’m not going to let a house go. The house was paid for. … Until she’s filed a valid complaint, I’m going to ignore her. … I could be living in my car, for all she knows.”
Anderson, who maintains she has been “reduced to poverty,” previously told the Scoop that she has to ask for rides from friends to the Dorothy Day Center in downtown St. Paul for meals. It stands to reason she might not rest her head at night in downtown proper. But could she really live… outside the ward? (Cue suspenseful music here…)
So, if Schanno’s allegations are true, who’s fault is it that Anderson’s name remains on the ballot? Clearly, it’s Council Member’s Dave Thune’s fault.
Wait. Hold up. Remind the tape. What?!
Schanno writes on her website, referring to herself in the third person: “Schanno alleged that incumbent Dave Thune knows Anderson is not eligible to be on the ballot but has said and done nothing because the situation benefits him.”
How could that be? Schanno’s press release doesn’t explain that point in detail, but hey, the Scoop surmises, it could be like this: Schanno and Anderson are the only women on the Ward 2 ballot. Together, they’d split the female vote faster than you can say “Bachmann vs. Palin.”
Furthermore, Anderson is a self-described Republican (though judging by previous GOP attempts to get her booted from previous elections, the party has no deep affection for her.) Schanno is at least a bit right of center, so the two appear to share some political space, at least on paper.
Schanno writes: “Anderson can siphon off a few hundred votes when voters mistake her for a more well known woman by the same name.”
Well, well. Let the battle be unjoined!
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)