Sharon4PrivateAG

Wersal_Weasal4Justice_8thCir_JudicialReformMN

2010-07-30T06:22:00.000-07:00

Fri 30Jul10 Please Post FreedomLawSchool and CourtWatcher

Click here: MinnLawyer Blog » Blog Archive » 8th Circuit strikes down judicial campaign restrictions

Wersal won 8th Cir http://minnlawyer.com/wp-files/blog-folder/wersal.pdf VOTE GREG WERSAL FOR MN JUSTICE 2NOV10

Vote Sharon Anderson4 MN_AttorneyGeneral 10Aug10 JUDICIAL REFORM,RESTORETHECONSTITUTION,FREEDOM4PRESS_SPEECH,DUEPROCESS ACCESS TO SEATS OF GOVERNMENT http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com/ Quo Warranto http://www.taxthemax.blogspot.com/ http://www.sharon4anderson.org/ POA in the event of Death.

Feed on: Posts; Comments

« Mood lighting

Longtime Legal Aid leader Jerry Lane to retire in 2011 »

8th Circuit strikes down judicial campaign restrictions

Jul 29th, 2010 by Mark Cohen

A big day for judicial candidate Greg Wersal

A split three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this morning issued an opinion sweeping away a couple of the state’s remaining restrictions on judicial campaigns.

The federal appellate court struck down rules barring judicial candidates from endorsing candidates for political offices and from personally soliciting contributions from small groups and individuals.

“[W]e think the Constitution favors strict recusal standards and fewer speech restrictions,” wrote Clarence Arlen Beam for the two-judge majority.

In his dissent, Judge Kermit E. Bye, said, “[W]here a state has crafted its restrictions carefully to maintain a fair and impartial judiciary, in both practice and appearance, as Minnesota has done here, the First Amendment must yield.”

The 54-page decision is Wersal v. Sexton, et al.

The ruling is a huge victory for attorney Greg Wersal, currently running for a seat on the Minnesota Supreme Court against Justice Helen Meyer. Wersal has been on a more than a decade-long quest to end the restrictions Minnesota has placed on judicial campaigns that has taken him on several tips to the 8th Circuit and all the way to U.S. Supreme Court. His challenges have eviscerated the framework for the vast majority of the restrictions.

In a release sent shortly after the ruling was announced, Wersal trumpeted, “This is a major victory toward the goal of holding judges accountable through free, open and competitive elections. I now hope to raise the money necessary to tell the people of Minnesota that the judges, including my opponent in this race, want a constitutional amendment that would strip the public of their right to vote for judges. I will do everything I can to protect the right to vote.”

Proponents of the restrictions had argued that they were necessary to preserve the appearance of an unbiased and unbeholden judiciary.

We will post a fuller story on our main site later today.

Posted in Uncategorized

One Response to “8th Circuit strikes down judicial campaign restrictions”

on 29 Jul 2010 at 6:51 pm1Levi Swank

So the only remaining restriction is that elections must be non-partisan? Or are there other restrictions left intact?
on 30 Jul 2010 at 9:20 am2Sharon Scarrella Anderson
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

http://minnlawyer.com/wp-files/blog-folder/wersal.pdf
Mucho Thanks to Greg Wersal is not fighting alone
In re:Scarrella4Justice 221NW2d562 Published by Judicial Tryanny without Royalitys to circumvent MN Const. Art. III Separation of Powers, Voting Rights Act Eligible to Vote then and therefore Eligible for ANY OFFICE.
Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Chergosky_1st Husband Scarrella for Quiet Titles Search is the only Certified Sane Candidate for MN Attorney General
http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com on the Graves of Tenants in Common and Murder of 2nd Husband http://www.cpljimanderson.blogspot.com Sharons Quo Warranto at http://www.taxthemax.blogspot.com We must have Decency,Morality,Judicial Reform 4 Accountability in Government Sharon opposes ShariaLaw_We must Repeal ObamaCare and or “If it aint broke don’t fix it” Medicare does not include Dental_Glasses,Hearin Aids_ Stand with AZ v. the Feds Immigration Reform.
WERSAL THE WEASAL4JUSTICE WE LOVE YOU WE THE COMMAN PERSONS.

Comments RSS

Pinal Co., AZ Sheriff Receives Death Threats From Mexican Mafia

2010-07-07T14:42:00.000-07:00

JURIST - Paper Chase: DOJ files lawsuit against controversial Arizona immigration law

2010-07-07T01:00:00.000-07:00

JURIST - Paper Chase: DOJ files lawsuit against controversial Arizona immigration law

Feds sue AZ_Immigration_Sharon MN_AG Disagree's

2010-07-06T16:00:00.000-07:00

http://digg.com/d31VjFh?t Sharon 4 MN_AG disagree with the Feds "taking-over" State Laws

Justice Department Sues Arizona

The federal government has filed its lawsuit asking a federal judge to strike down most of Arizona's new immigration law, declaring that federal law preempts the action by state lawmakers.

July 06, 2010

Justice Department Sues Arizona

The federal government has filed its lawsuit asking a federal judge to strike down most of Arizona's new immigration law, declaring that federal law preempts the action by state lawmakers.

“In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress,” reads the introduction to the 25-page complaint (PDF).

Lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice filed the complaint today in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The lawsuit names as defendants the state of Arizona and Gov. Janice Brewer (R), in her official capacity.

Brewer has repeatedly defended the law as a necessary response to the federal government’s failure to control illegal immigration from Mexico, and she continued to draw support from allies nationwide, including in Washington, as the lawsuit was filed.

The lawsuit makes sweeping claims about the federal government’s power to develop immigration policy. It cites the federal government’s power under the Constitution to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization” — translating, it says, to the regulation of aliens within U.S. boundaries and to the terms and conditions for entry and continued presence.

With the State Department joining as a plaintiff, the lawsuit also cites the president’s authority over foreign affairs. “Immigration law, policy, and enforcement priorities are affected by and have impacts on U.S. foreign policy, and are themselves the subject of diplomatic arrangements,” it says.

Together with the complaint, the department is filing a 58-page motion (PDF) for a preliminary injunction. The law is scheduled to go into effect July 29.

In a news release, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. focused on two concerns: the impact the law could have on immigrants’ willingness to cooperate with local police in criminal investigations, and the police resources that could be diverted from other investigations.

“Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility,” Holder said. “Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.”

In response to the lawsuit, a group of 20 Republicans from the U.S. House of Representatives sent Holder a letter protesting that the Arizona law “is harmonious” with federal immigration law.

“Not only does this lawsuit reveal the Obama Administration’s contempt for immigration laws and the people of Arizona, it reveals contempt for the majority of the American people who support Arizona’s efforts to reduce human smuggling, drug trafficking and illegal immigration,” reads the letter (PDF).

The DOJ lawsuit does not seek to invalidate the entire Arizona immigration law, known as S.B. 1070. It targets sections 1 through 6 of the law (PDF), leaving alone sections about employment and the impounding of vehicles. By contrast, the complaint (PDF) filed by in May by the ACLU and others asks to have the law struck down in its entirety.

Still, those civil rights groups and civil libertarians welcomed the Justice Department's action. Munger, Tolles & Olson is representing the coalition pro bono, and the coalition includes the ACLU, the NAACP, and the National Immigration Law Center.

“States planning to follow in Arizona’s misguided footsteps should take note: the United States cannot and should not allow immigrants and communities of color to be targets of hateful racial profiling legislation that puts their civil liberties on the line,” NILC General Counsel Linton Joaquin said in a statement.

To defend the state, Brewer has hired John Bouma, chairman of Snell & Wilmer in Phoeniz, because Arizona’s attorney general, Terry Goddard III (D), has removed himself.

Five DOJ lawyers have their names on the complaint: Assistant Attorney General Tony West, who heads the Civil Division; U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke; Arthur Goldberg, an assistant director in the Federal Programs Branch; and trial attorneys Varu Chilakamarri and Joshua Wilkenfeld.

Updated at 4:23 p.m.

Posted by David Ingram on July 06, 2010 at 02:30 PM in Justice Department , Other Courts, Politics and Government Permalink

2010-02-24T10:53:00.001-08:00

MaryJaneDucheneRemand Judge AnnMontgomeryA10-12

View more documents from Sharon Anderson.

MaryJane Duchene_Ann Montgomery Remand A10-12

2010-02-24T10:05:00.000-08:00

WED.24Feb10 MJ Duchene US Dist. crim 10-12(ADM)

PLEA4JUSTICE: LOCAL ORDINANCE'S USED TO CRIMINALLY VIOLATE,PROTECTED PERSONS

To whom it may concern: US Attorney 4 MN Hon. B.Todd Jones et al
State of Minnesota District CourtCounty of Dakota First Judicial DistrictNotice of Motion and Motion to Vacate andCity of West St. Paul, Plaintiff, Reverse the Order of September 03, 2009Refusing to Dismissvs.Citation no. 3-441797Mary Jane Duchene, Defendant Court file: 19WS-CR-09-15734

When State and Federal Judges Publish "Orders" contrary to Law, then the US Attorney must
intervene.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/14.html
who as an Honorable Black US Attorney must protect also the Right,
Priviledges of All Person , also trigger Inquiry into the Federal Bench specifically Ann Montgomery in the US re: 1866 Civil Rights Act.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=480

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

We the undersigned: are duly concerned for The
Safety,Health,Welfare of Litigant MaryJane Duchene Beautiful White Woman who in Protected Class of Citizens, mandated by State and Federal Laws.

Good Faith request must trigger Enforcement of our Laws for All Citizens, not only "racially" removals.

The Violence against Ms. Duchene by Public Officials and Persons unk is pervase. we allege that the "Good Will" Compassion to Advocate for others ie: Alice Krengel
and to educate the Public on the Tech of the Web has triggered the Bogus Criminal
Noisy Dog Ordinance alleged violations.
STATE & FEDERAL QUESTIONS;
Please review the now Published "Order" by Federal Judge Ann Montgomery, Mary Jane DuchenePlaintiff: City of West St PaulDefendant: Mary Jane Duchene Case Number: 0:2010cr00012Filed: January 13, 2010 Court: Minnesota District CourtOffice: DMN Office [ Court Info ] Notice of Electronic Filing 1/20/2010 LINK

REMAND: 2/19/2010
U.S. Constitution: Article III
JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT AND INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS
Cases Arising Under the Constitution, Laws, and Treaties of the United States
Cases arising under the Constitution are cases that require an interpretation of the Constitution for their correct decision. 648 They arise when a litigant claims an actual or threatened invasion of his constitutional rights by the enforcement of some act of public authority, usually an act of Congress or of a state legislature, and asks for judicial relief. The clause furnishes the principal textual basis for the implied power of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation and other official acts.
Development of Federal Question Jurisdiction .--Almost from the beginning, the Convention demonstrated an intent to create ''federal question'' jurisdiction in the federal courts with regard to federal laws; 649 such cases involving the Constitution and treaties were added fairly late in the Convention as floor amendments. 650 But when Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of 1789, it did not confer general federal question jurisdiction on the inferior federal courts but left litigants to remedies in state courts with appeals to the United States Supreme Court if judgment went against federal constitutional claims. 651 Although there were a few juris dictional provisions enacted in the early years, 652 it was not until the period following the Civil War that Congress, in order to protect newly created federal civil rights and in the flush of nationalist sentiment, first created federal jurisdiction in civil rights cases 653 and then in 1875 conferred general federal question jurisdiction on the lower federal courts. 654 Since that time, the trend generally has been toward conferral of ever-increasing grants of jurisdiction to enforce the guarantees recognized and enacted by Congress. 655
When a Case Arises Under .--The 1875

By information and belief: the most recent Published "Order" by Federal Judge Ann Montgomery, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=28+U.S.C.+%A7+1446%28c%29%284%29.&btnG=Google+Search Has apparantly alleged only Blacks can remove cases:

d) "A civil action in any State court arising under section 40302 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 may not be removed to any district court of the United States. "

Click here: http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate6/2009dog/10112986035.pdf

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate6/2009dog/10112986035.pdf

Do you have tim Kinley's Fed. Case with Ann Montgomery?
FURTHER:

Montgomery LOCKED the Federal Door acting in concort with US Attorney Lonie Brant(sp) 1997 when Sharon sued the Dr. Mckay and the Sec.VA to save husbands life, Montgomery was obstructing legal process as She knew Sharons Husband was at Brainard State Hospital........ Sharons witness at that time was Dick Bullock and John Richardson, both deceased, Bullock prosecuted "Denied" Removals to Ann Montgomery.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Sharon+Anderson+v.+Ann+Montgomery+Fed.+Judge

Sharon4Anderson - 8 visits - 12/23/09
Political Activist check Lufsky File: current Judge Leslie Metzen ... to deny online voting is misappropriation of Federal Grants of HAVA moneys. ..... VA Widow Sharon Anderson has been reduced to Poverty contrary to Title 18 sec. .... the make up of the Board Water Commissioners Harris,Thune,Montgomery I can live ...sharon4anderson.blogspot.com/ - Cached
Sharon4Anderson 's Popular Documents Scribd - 2 visits - 9/14/09
NON FICTION:Heinous Behavior by Fed.Judge Ann Montgomery who locked the Courtroom, ... Answer CrossComplaint Sharon Anderson v. City St. Paul ...www.scribd.com/people/documents/2054990-sharon-anderson?...1 - Cached
Sa 8th Cir Rose Tulane
Sharon Anderson seeks recusal of the Honorable Judge James Rosenbaum, and, ... See also Hall v. Small Business Administration, 695 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. ... with former US Attorney Robert Small complicit with Federal Judge Ann Montgomery, ...www.slideshare.net/guest90299f9/sa-8th-cir-rose-tulane-presentation - Cached
TimKinley62F1-96-000163(Cleary)
+ · Sharon Anderson, 45 minutes ago ... Crt. 62F1-96-00013, Appealled xxx(Toussaint) Removed to Federal Court Ann Montgomery,14 years the Courts have manulipated ... Sharon v. Judge Edward Toussaint A… Sharons Petition Enbanc A09-2031 ...www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/timkinley62f16000163cleary - Cached

[PDF]
FURTHER: KNOWING BOB BEALE A CHRISTEN WOULD NEVER THREATEN A FED. JUDGE VIA PHONE. BEALE IS NOT THAT STUPID
APPARANTLY THE FEDERAL JUDGE ANN MONTGOMERY IS IN A PATTERENED OF JUDICIAL ORDERS, CONTRARY TO CIVIL RIGHTS CODE http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Bob+Beale+v.+Ann+Montgomery+MN&btnG=Google+Search

Defendant: God 'wants me to get rid of' the judge StarTribune.com
Apr 21, 2008 ... The trial of millionaire tax protester Robert Beale turned ... "Once I take down Ann Montgomery, no judge in the whole court will have ... But he fled Minnesota before his trial could be held and was ... Beale also told Pelton that "God needs us to be like Gideon against the [Midianites] -- 300 vs. ...www.startribune.com/17984759.html - Cached
Up to

Karen S. Runyon Forensic Document Examiner
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTMLJudge Ann D. Montgomery. David McGlaughlin, Assistant United States Attorney. April 26, 1999 ... Sharon Langeslag v. KYMN, Inc., et al. Rice County, MN. Court File No. C1-99-892, Judge Gerald Wolf ... Theresa K. Anderson-Chapman v. Perry Eugene Carpentier .... Minneapolis Federal Courthouse, Judge Michael Davis ...www.forensicexpertise.com/uploads/expert.../runyon_cv.pdf - Similar

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 documents expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in Google Search BlogItBabe2007 Candidate profile Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs Sharon4And

/s/ Bill Dahn 42 USC 3631 Homestead at 256 Morton St. W.St.Paul,MN ECF:#P1291866Ojj_Sioux #408B1911 http://www.billdahn.com/ http://www.billdahn.blogspot.com/http://www.mklaw.com/documents/20090226105116227.pdf Homestead Act of 1862

http://sharon4privateattorneygeneral.blogspot.com

2009-04-02T12:27:00.001-07:00

Sa 62cv09 1163 1 Apr09

View more documents from Sharon Anderson.

Sharon Anderson Answer/Cross MN 62cv09-1163

2009-04-02T12:19:00.000-07:00

Ramsey Dist.Court File no: 62cv09-1163

Some responses for legall stuff

USSC_Wersal_01-521 Blogger: Dashboard SA YouTube

Answer/Cross/1/2MillionClaim v.CitySt.Paulscrid

Subj:	RE: ReadyTalk Webinar Oswald v.Anderson et al Ramsey Dist. 62cv09-1163
Date:	4/2/2009 1:43:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From:	kathy.gammon@metc.state.mn.us
To:	Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)

From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com [mailto:Sharon4Anderson@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:23 PM
To: larry.dease@courts.state.mn.us; lynae.olson@courts.state.mn.us; rca@co.ramsey.mn.us; fred.grittner@courts.state.mn.us; eric.magnuson@courts.state.mn.us; askdoj@usdoj.gov; frank.magill@usdoj.gov; james.lackner@usdoj.gov; attorney.general@state.mn.us; tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us; bob.fletcher@co.ramsey.mn.us; shari.moore@ci.stpaul.mn.us; john.harrington@ci.stpaul.mn.us; mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us
Cc: webmaster@am1500.com; dorrick@pioneerpress.com; DOR.taxpayeradvocate@state.mn.us; ward.einess@state; mark.oswald@co.hennepin.mn.us; michael.campion@state.mn.us; kathleen.gearin@courts.state.mn.us; gregg.johnson@courts.state.mn.us
Subject: ReadyTalk Webinar Oswald v.Anderson et al Ramsey Dist. 62cv09-1163

Click here: ReadyTalk Web Conferencing, Webinars, and Audio Conferencing - Web Seminar Series

Thurs. 2ndApr09 file no. 62cv09-1163

To: 2nd Judicial Court Administrator larry.dease@courts.mn.us

Court Clerk: lynae.olson@courts.state.mn.us

Ramsey Co. Court House, RM 15_17 St.Paul,MN 55102

651-266-8255 Fax: 266-8263 and 651-266-8266 Fax 266-8278

Pursuant to my call today to your office approx. 11:05am wit the Following Requests:

1. To insure that the word and pdf. format e-commerced,e-mailed yesterday 1Apr09, would be filed, with IFP. http://sharon4council.blogspot.com/ Ex: http://sharon4privateattorneygeneral.blogspot.com/

TaxProf Blog: Tax Cases in the Supreme Court's New Term

2. It also has been brought to my attention the E-Democracy uses Webinar, request that the Court, City Council, County Board must have laptop computers to avoid these Fraudulent Asessments, Fees by

Statute of Fraud and Murder, by theft of Cars,trailers,personal property,trespass on private property by Joel Essling et al, without Long Form Complaint,Tickets,Warrants, or probable cause etc. and Treason to deny/repeal State Law.

Citizen Media and Online Engagement Webinar - E-Democracy.Org

3. AFFIDAVITS OF PREJUDICE AGAINST VARIOUS JUDGES, Specifically Kathleen Gearin,Joanne Smith,Gregg Johnson entire SCAP Panel Impeachments are found at http://sharon4privateattorneygeneral.blogspot.com/

4. Constitutional Challenge of Canvass Board of which

Larry Dease,Mark Oswald, Shari Moore,Janice Rettman, Toni Carter are members.

a. As Sharon Anderson did vote, http://sharon4staterep64a.blogspot.com/

THEREFORE: Thank You for answering the phone to talk live, with these requests, Please familiarize http://www.slideshare.com/ encompassing Webinar.

update your court system to get with the times.

Citizen Media and Online Engagement Webinar - E-Democracy.Org

/s/Sharon Anderson Attorney Pro Se, Private AG, Candidate 2010 AG, In Fact

To be notified by E-Commerce of any all updates,answers,etc.

sharon4anderson@aol.com 651-76-5835

LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower,Candidate AG2010 http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com/

Homestead Act of 1862 Twitter / Sharon4Anderson AllMN Sharon Anderson's Blog 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 Sharon4Anderson St.Paul City Council Ward2 SA-Blogs2007 Blogger: Dashboard http://sharons-copywrite.blogspot.com/

http://taxthemax.blogspot.com

2009-03-30T07:31:00.001-07:00

Sa Tax Del62cv09 1163 18

View more documents from Sharon Anderson.

Wm Greene Private Attorneys General's

2009-03-29T15:31:00.000-07:00

If you have trouble opening and/or editing this "Private Attorneys General document you can use http://www.openoffice.org/ for free.

All you have to do is have it notarized but make sure they use the Seal as well as the stamp. Then you would submit it in connection with our case if the 2nd Circuit Remands our case back to the District Court again. They did it once and the USDC ignored the USCA the last time, so I expect the USCA to remand it back again with prejudice against the USDC.

You can also submit it in connection with your own case if you have one or any other case you decide to become a part of.

The point, of course, is once it is filed in connection with any case you are from that point on "Private Attorneys General" (de jure) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and the object, of course, is for those who sue or sign onto a suit to guarantee one’s protection pursuant to Article 1 Section 8:10-11 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1510, 18 U.S.C. 1512 and by virtue of Article No. 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 September 24, 1789. 1 Stat. 73 Pursuant to and in accordance with your reservation of rights as established in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Now please understand, I’m not the origin of this document and to my knowledge it has undergone a number of edits towards perfection so no one person can take credit, but to understand the importance of said protections see http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01729.htm

References for further study include www.greenes.us/index.html, as well as www.greenes.us/aboutus.html, www.greenes.us/notanagency.html, www.greenes.us/truckdrivers.html, www.greenes.us/karenspage.html, www.greenes.us/karensmessage.html, www.greenes.us/Billspage.html, www.greenes.us/services.html, www.greenes.us/contactus.html, www.greenes.us/truth_attack.html, www.greenes.us/civildocket.html, www.greenes.us/Donate.html.

Blessings,

Bill

--- On Sun, 3/29/09, Sharon4Anderson@aol.com wrote:

From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
Subject: Check out Sharon4PrivateAttorneyGeneral
To: wm@greenes.us
Cc: a_democracy@yahoo.com, nancylazaryan@yahoo.com, jon.roland@constitution.org, leslie@lesliedavis.org, BillDahn4@aol.com, AngelsAdvocates@aol.com
Date: Sunday, March 29, 2009, 1:07 PM

Click here: Sharon4PrivateAttorneyGeneral I download the Declaration, but cannot edit ?

LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower,Candidate AG2010 http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com/ Homestead Act of 1862 Twitter / Sharon4Anderson AllMN Sharon Anderson's Blog 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 Sharon4Anderson St.Paul City Council Ward2 SA-Blogs2007 Blogger: Dashboard http://sharons-copywrite.blogspot.co

http://sharon4privateattorneygeneral.blogspot.com

2009-03-29T12:48:00.001-07:00

USA Private Attorney General Oo

View more documents from Sharon Anderson.

Private Attorney General 42USC1988_WmGreene NY

2009-03-29T08:06:00.000-07:00

"Private Attorneys General" (de jure)

Posted by: "William Moral Greene" wm@greenes.us wmgreenesr

Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:47 am (PDT)

If you are interested in being individual litigants in our suit or
another and you plan on acting as "Private Attorneys General
<http://www.greenes.us/files/USA_Private_Attorney_General_3_.doc> " (de
jure) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 please download and save the file.

It will save in Microsoft Word and you can edit out the Yellow Wording
to insert Your Name, where reference to you is in terms of a Man or
Woman, his or her, and Your State.

By doing this you will also reserve your rights as "Qualified Criminal
Investigators" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1510 and "Federal Witnesses"
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1512, as well as "Next Friends" to
"The People of Your state" (or any other state in which you
reside or seek to represent) and "To The People of the several
states" by virtue of Article No. 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789
September 24, 1789. 1 Stat. 73 Pursuant to and in accordance with your
reservation of rights as established in the 9th and 10th Amendments to
the United States Constitution.

Of course, We (and you) cannot sit idly by while the IRS violates our
constitution-guaranteed rights. Violations that go unremedied signal
wrongdoers that they can continue to infringe upon the rights of others
with impunity. As a result the very first Exhibit in our case involved
the pleadings in the matter of: DIVERSIFIED METAL PRODUCTS, INC. v.
T-BOW COMPANY TRUST, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AND STEVE MORGAN, Civil
No. 93-405-E-EJL in the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho shows that in its ANSWER AND CLAIM by United States Attorney Betty
H. Richardson and Trial Attorney, Tax Division, U.S. Department of
Justice Richard R. Ward, Attorneys for the United States of America, the
Government stated under oath: "4. Denies that the Internal Revenue
Service is an agency of the United States Government...."

In our case, as set forth at http://www.greenes.us/civildocket.html
<http://www.greenes.us/civildocket.html> , we identified the Trust
listed at 31 USC § 1321(a)(2)
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/1321.html> simply because (1) it
preexisted the similar Trust (Internal Revenue) listed at 31 USC §
1321(a)(62) <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/1321.html> and (2),
the Trust (Internal Revenue) listed at 31 USC § 1321(a)(62)
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/1321.html> simply extended the
same Taxing Powers to Puerto Rico as another of the United States'
possessions since 1898, becoming a commonwealth in 1952, and because 50
USC § 1801(o)
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----\
000-.html> defines the term "State" so as to have meanings
which include any "State of the United States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, and any territory or possession of the United
States" and because, (3) the Act of July 1, 1862 was repealed by the
adoption of the Revised Statutes of 1873, and (4) that means in the
context of the various sections of US Code including 31 USC §
3801(6)
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=31&sec=3801>
and 26 USC § 7701(a)(1)
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7701.html> the Trust itself is a
"person" liable for the acts of a Commissioner and/or Internal
Revenue Officers in which operations exist outside of the Trust's
geographical application (i.e., in this case even when the word
"State" its' meaning is such that it is limited in terms of
the nation's federal district(s) including District of Columbia relative
to insular possessions of the United States) and finally, (5) given that
(a) the Act of July 1, 1862 was repealed by the adoption of the Revised
Statutes of 1873, (b) the taxing authority authorized pursuant to
Article 4 § 3(2) involves a jurisdiction of the Trust listed at 31
USC § 1321(a)(2) <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/1321.html>
which is limited in terms of the insular possessions of the United
States and/or the District of Columbia (i.e., the nation's federal
district(s)) as evidenced by the fact that (c), there are no
implementing regulations <http://www.tax-freedom.com/pubnotic.htm> for
26 USC 7621
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=7621>
which authorizes the President to establish revenue districts within the
States of the Union whereby pursuant to 4 U.S.C. § 72
<http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/BriefRegardingS\
ecretary-4usc72.pdf> one might thereafter understand, under United
States Code
<http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/MeadorDan/Articles/Tax_IR\
STable.htm> , such revenue districts within the 50 States of the Union,
and as such, qui tam Plaintiffs submit that cases like Norton v. Shelby
County, 118 U.S. 425
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vo\
l=118&page=425> , 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886) are a testimony to qui tam
Plaintiffs' assertions that when Congress has never authorized the
Named Accused "Government Contractor (31 USC § 1321(a)(2)
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/1321.html> ) to operate or
encroach into 50 States of the Union. Under this definition it is
clear that the IRS is operating in an ancillary or other secondary
capacity under contract, memorandum or agreement or some comparable
device to provide services under original authority delegated to the
Treasury Financial Management Service or some other bureau of the
Department of the Treasury; that is, the IRS is a Government Contractor
which is contracted or otherwise authorized to provide services that are
limited in terms of the nation's federal district(s) including District
of Columbia relative to insular possessions of the United States and
extend only to government employees and employers, as defined at 26
U.S.C. §§ 3401(c) & (d), and is therefore the IRS is liable for the
acts of a Commissioner and/or Internal Revenue Officers which wrongfully
extend to private sector enterprise in States of the Union or otherwise
in which operations exist outside of the Trust's geographical
application (i.e., limited in terms of the nation's federal district(s)
including the District of Columbia relative to insular possessions of
the United States) which violate the fundamental rights of the People
for which there is protection in the Federal Constitution (see Chas. C.
Steward Mach. Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vo\
l=301&page=548> , 581-582 (1937)).

Now, assuming that the 2nd Circuit will agree with what we put forth in
our Appeal <http://www.greenes.us/files/Appeal_Brief_08-6284.pdf> Brief
<http://www.greenes.us/files/Appeal_Brief_08-6284.pdf> and Remands our
case back to the District Court for a Second Time, you will have the
opportunity to sign onto our case. Whether you decide to sign on or
not, if you are interested in being individual litigants in our suit or
another similar suit and you plan on acting as "Private Attorneys
General
<http://www.greenes.us/files/USA_Private_Attorney_General_3_.doc> " (de
jure) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 we encourage you to download and save
the file, and then you can edit out the Yellow Wording to insert Your
Name, where reference to you is in terms of a Man or Woman, his or her,
and Your State. By doing this you will also reserve your rights as
"Qualified Criminal Investigators" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1510 and
"Federal Witnesses" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1512, as well as "Next
Friends" to "The People of Your state" (or any other state
in which you reside or seek to represent) and "To The People of the
several states" by virtue of Article No. 35 of the Judiciary Act of
1789 September 24, 1789. 1 Stat. 73 Pursuant to and in accordance with
your reservation of rights as established in the 9th and 10th Amendments
to the United States Constitution.

Blessings,

Bill

Reply to sender Reply to group Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

5.

Sharon4PrivateAG

Wersal_Weasal4Justice_8thCir_JudicialReformMN

MinnLawyer Blog

8th Circuit strikes down judicial campaign restrictions

One Response to “8th Circuit strikes down judicial campaign restrictions”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Dolan Law Sites

Minnesota partners

State/National Law Blogs

Pinal Co., AZ Sheriff Receives Death Threats From Mexican Mafia

JURIST - Paper Chase: DOJ files lawsuit against controversial Arizona immigration law

Feds sue AZ_Immigration_Sharon MN_AG Disagree's

Justice Department Sues Arizona

July 06, 2010

Justice Department Sues Arizona

MaryJane Duchene_Ann Montgomery Remand A10-12

http://sharon4privateattorneygeneral.blogspot.com

Sharon Anderson Answer/Cross MN 62cv09-1163

http://taxthemax.blogspot.com

Wm Greene Private Attorneys General's

http://sharon4privateattorneygeneral.blogspot.com

Private Attorney General 42USC1988_WmGreene NY

"Private Attorneys General" (de jure)

Posted by: "William Moral Greene" wm@greenes.us wmgreenesr

Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:47 am (PDT)