Click
here: (1) Facebook AFFIDAVIT NEWS
RELEASE
STATE OF
MINNESOTA
RAMSEY COUNTY
ELECTIONS
90 PLATO BLVD W #160
ST.PAUL,MN 55107
IN THE MATTER OF MAYORAL CANDIDATE MRS. SHARON
ANDERSON
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY HANDING TO
AND SENDING
IN THE US POSTOFFICE IN ST. PAUL,
PRIORITY MAIL
STAMPED USPS TRACKING 9114 9999 4423
8000 3291 05
MON.31JUL2017
SUMMARY Sent: 7/28/2017 11:22:58 A.M.
Central Daylight Time
City St. Paul is Sanctuary, Sharon
alleges that Police Chief, City Attorney be Elected, All Citizens must arm
themselves with Camera, Mace etc.
Expose the Ponzi Taxing Schemes,
Abolish DSI as Duplication.
Enforce MN Const. Art.III Separation
of Powers
a. If only Lawyers can be
Judges, then We the People must
expell Lawyers in the Executive and
Legislative Branchs. MS 211b.07 undue influence on Voters, Taxpayers, Homeowners
et al
Forensic Files www.sharon4anderson.org
EX1 AFFIDAVIT OF CANDIDACY $500FilingFee24420139345
CampaignReport https://www.slideshare.net/SharonAnderson4/edit_my_uploads 47pgs.
EX 1a Petition www.judicialwatch.org
Ex 2 House Committee Reform http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DOJ-St-Paul.pdf
Quid ProQuo involving Case Fixing of Lawyer David Lillhaug complicit with Mayor
Chris Coleman Tom Perez Justice current DFL Chair re https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/10-1032
b. triggering Steinhauser letter
below Excessive Lawyers Case Fixing, Bribery or City Officials Fees re Fair
Housing must be exposed. $200 Million at Issue.
Ex. 4 First Baptist Church
Row-Lillhaug http://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/2016/OPA150015-082416.pdf
c. http://www.twincities.com/2017/02/16/st-paul-poised-to-settle-long-running-legal-dispute-with-downtown-churches-mpr/
Lawyer Hoeschler $93,218.oo File 62cv11-8862 Judge Wm Leary III Jan.23rd
2017.
d. Reporter Fred Melo
apparantly has numerous Files.
Ex.5 Lenny Anderson Carol Berg 8th
Cir 16-1661 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1850910.html 1Mar2017
should have won QUESTION Did their lawyer Fritz Knaak induldge in Case Fixing to
lose?
Ex 6. MN Supreme Court ADM 09-8003
Commitment Panel will discuss Members Affiant intends to Abolish for Bad
Behavior, Judicial Malpractice https://www.scribd.com/document/353671196/Administrative-Order-Membership-3
Ex7. 8 Bogus City Assessments without
Valid Complaints DSI MUST BE ABOLISHED for Fraud.
Ex9 Letter 2007 stating Abandoned
Vehicle, when Affiant had Disabled Plates, https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwQ0-d-m8HZ0qn8b50BufzMCMGS2csjdbBDfKqhgXsxFNG5o3ecTPVmhzELG6ZySO-Pq4Raljyd51mantpz_UxIVonNZAaLKCRhYrHodhqzckW4owycP3B-eMLEOGw97KJWsqlx997oW09/s1600-h/LIEP+FileEssling.jpg
2007 Answer Cross http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/1679-2007-07-08T193758Z/5Jul07RatAssLegal_22.pdf
Ex10 Trust Trilogy Case Fixing Acting US
Attorney Lillehaug
Ex 11 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 Court Doc
Affiant Denied Due Process
Ex. 20 Corruption re Humphrey Affiant ran
for AG again with this Booklet
May have to scann in the Ex 20 lost
Ex.21,22,23 Trust Misplaced by Roy Spannaus brother
of AG Warren Spannus
Ex. 25,26,27 Leslie Davis Author Always
Cheat www.billdahn.blogspot.com
Got so many files even i cannot
find
In a message dated 7/28/2017 6:54:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com writes:
www.sharon4mayor2018.blogspot.com
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Candidate AG2010 www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com Blogger: www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson Homestead Act of 1862 neopopulism.org - Pro Se Dec Action Litigation Pack Sharon4Anderson | Scribd Document's are based on SEC filings, Blogger: Dashboard Home | www.slideshare.com/sharonanderson www.taxthemax.blogspot.com www.sharon4anderson.org FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are makinknowledge gained as financial journalists , securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting 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 g such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of whistleblower protection issues, MY FindLaw Sharons
www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com
www.taxthemax.blogspot.com
_
http://www.blogger.com/profile/17187848282847569592
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
Ch.119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this "Message,"
including attachments, may contain the originator's
proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies
recipients Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based
actions. Authorized carriers of this message
shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients. See:
Quon
v. Arch.
AFFIANT will show a Rico Pattern vs.
City over 20 years.
8uth Cir.File 16-1661 Filed
1Mar2017
based on the State Court Settlement First Baptist
Church62-cv-11-8862
Judge Wm Leary III 93,218Hoeschler Trust Acct filed
8Feb2017
Mon24Jul/2017
QUESTIONS4MAYORALCANDIDATES
WHAT,WHERE IS THE 200
MILLION?
Just sick re MN Courts Lawyers Fees vs. Public
Policy Fair Housing Act
Frank Steinhauser letter
Thanks4Response Its depressing however i
scratched together the $500 fee to run for Mayor
If i live long enough would assist
where i can
The Covert Coverup of David Lillehaug now Justice http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DOJ-St-Paul.pdf
In a message dated 7/22/2017 11:07:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time, .com
writes:
We did not settle Sharon.......we walked away with nothing st all.
We did not settle Sharon.......we walked away with nothing st all.
Back in 2008 when we won our appeal at the 8th Circuit we were supposed to come back here and get a jury trial. Instead of that the Judge let the other side make a motion for Summary Judgment again which is against the court rules. What they wanted was for the individual inspectors to be out of the lawsuit. Rather than incur legal fees we agreed to it because we thought it would get us to trial faster. Then instead of trial the Judge ordered us to go to mediation and that went no where but it did cost us Attorney fees for a day of time. The the Judge delayed the case until the outcome of "Inclusive Communities was decided. When that got decided (which helped us) the Judge then ordered us to go to mediation with a retired Judge. This time it cost us $500.00 an hour plus our Attorney fees for the day. We didn't settle then either so the Judge just put us on hold again till last month and then he said he was going to let the city have another shot at Summary Judgment again. No matter who won that it would have went back to the 8th circuit for an appeal and if the city lost they then would have went back to the Supreme Court again. We didn't have enough money to finish this thing so we just walked away to be able to keep what money we had left. They would have just kept going with one thing or another with their bought and paid for courts and judges till we were broke and we would be in the same place we are now. They did not want a trial because they knew we would win.
Frnak
Back in 2008 when we won our appeal at the 8th Circuit we were supposed to come back here and get a jury trial. Instead of that the Judge let the other side make a motion for Summary Judgment again which is against the court rules. What they wanted was for the individual inspectors to be out of the lawsuit. Rather than incur legal fees we agreed to it because we thought it would get us to trial faster. Then instead of trial the Judge ordered us to go to mediation and that went no where but it did cost us Attorney fees for a day of time. The the Judge delayed the case until the outcome of "Inclusive Communities was decided. When that got decided (which helped us) the Judge then ordered us to go to mediation with a retired Judge. This time it cost us $500.00 an hour plus our Attorney fees for the day. We didn't settle then either so the Judge just put us on hold again till last month and then he said he was going to let the city have another shot at Summary Judgment again. No matter who won that it would have went back to the 8th circuit for an appeal and if the city lost they then would have went back to the Supreme Court again. We didn't have enough money to finish this thing so we just walked away to be able to keep what money we had left. They would have just kept going with one thing or another with their bought and paid for courts and judges till we were broke and we would be in the same place we are now. They did not want a trial because they knew we would win.
Frnak
From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
<Sharon4Anderson@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 8:55 AM
To: GRIM_63@MSN.COM
Cc: sharon4anderson@aol.com
Subject: Check out Landlords of low-income renters withdraw suits against St. Paul – T
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 8:55 AM
To: GRIM_63@MSN.COM
Cc: sharon4anderson@aol.com
Subject: Check out Landlords of low-income renters withdraw suits against St. Paul – T
http://citystpaul-ponzi-principal.blogspot.com/
www.sharon4mayor2018.blogspot.com
Mon24Jul/2017
Back in 2008 when we won our appeal at the 8th Circuit we were supposed to come back here and get a jury trial. Instead of that the Judge let the other side make a motion for Summary Judgment again which is against the court rules. What they wanted was for the individual inspectors to be out of the lawsuit. Rather than incur legal fees we agreed to it because we thought it would get us to trial faster. Then instead of trial the Judge ordered us to go to mediation and that went no where but it did cost us Attorney fees for a day of time. The the Judge delayed the case until the outcome of "Inclusive Communities was decided. When that got decided (which helped us) the Judge then ordered us to go to mediation with a retired Judge. This time it cost us $500.00 an hour plus our Attorney fees for the day. We didn't settle then either so the Judge just put us on hold again till last month and then he said he was going to let the city have another shot at Summary Judgment again. No matter who won that it would have went back to the 8th circuit for an appeal and if the city lost they then would have went back to the Supreme Court again. We didn't have enough money to finish this thing so we just walked away to be able to keep what money we had left. They would have just kept going with one thing or another with their bought and paid for courts and judges till we were broke and we would be in the same place we are now. They did not want a trial because they knew we would win.
Frnak
www.sharon4mayor2018.blogspot.com
Mon24Jul/2017
QUESTIONS4MAYORALCANDIDATES
WHAT,WHERE IS THE 200
MILLION?
Just sick re MN Courts Lawyers Fees vs. Public
Policy Fair Housing Act
Frank Steinhauser letter
Thanks4Response Its depressing however i
scratched together the $500 fee to run for Mayor
If i live long enough would assist
where i can
The Covert Coverup of David Lillehaug now Justice http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DOJ-St-Paul.pdf
In a message dated 7/22/2017 11:07:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time, .com
writes:
We did not settle Sharon.......we walked away with nothing st all.
Back in 2008 when we won our appeal at the 8th Circuit we were supposed to come back here and get a jury trial. Instead of that the Judge let the other side make a motion for Summary Judgment again which is against the court rules. What they wanted was for the individual inspectors to be out of the lawsuit. Rather than incur legal fees we agreed to it because we thought it would get us to trial faster. Then instead of trial the Judge ordered us to go to mediation and that went no where but it did cost us Attorney fees for a day of time. The the Judge delayed the case until the outcome of "Inclusive Communities was decided. When that got decided (which helped us) the Judge then ordered us to go to mediation with a retired Judge. This time it cost us $500.00 an hour plus our Attorney fees for the day. We didn't settle then either so the Judge just put us on hold again till last month and then he said he was going to let the city have another shot at Summary Judgment again. No matter who won that it would have went back to the 8th circuit for an appeal and if the city lost they then would have went back to the Supreme Court again. We didn't have enough money to finish this thing so we just walked away to be able to keep what money we had left. They would have just kept going with one thing or another with their bought and paid for courts and judges till we were broke and we would be in the same place we are now. They did not want a trial because they knew we would win.
Frnak
From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
<Sharon4Anderson@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 8:55 AM
Cc: sharon4anderson@aol.com
Subject: Check out Landlords of low-income renters withdraw suits against St. Paul – T
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 8:55 AM
Cc: sharon4anderson@aol.com
Subject: Check out Landlords of low-income renters withdraw suits against St. Paul – T
http://citystpaul-ponzi-principal.blogspot.com/
www.sharon4mayor2018.blogspot.com
https://plus.google.com/101357611930702934024NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. This E-mail is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it.
www.sharon4mayor2018.blogspot.com
https://plus.google.com/101357611930702934024NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. This E-mail is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it.
