Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Sharon4Mayor2018: CitySt.PaulViolations42UScode3631MayoralSharonAndersonQuiTamRelator

Sharon4Mayor2018: CitySt.PaulViolations42UScode3631MayoralSharonAndersonQuiTamRelator


                             Tues. 31stOct2017
         To the Above Named, Media, Candidates, Citizens
                   With Humble Regret, Affiant VA Widow Sharon Anderson www.sharon4mayor2018.blogspot.com  has the Flu and cannot attend the last 2 Forums.
                   Nov. 2nd  to Jon  Shumaker Executive Director St.AnthonyFoundation
                  Nov. 4th  to Karen Larsen Radio Show

                          So many Non Profits have Arbitrarily excluded 5 of the 10 Candidates
contrary to Title 26s501c3 or 4.
                HOWEVER  All 10 Candidates came up with the $500 filing Fee except Goldstein by Petition.
                            No Matter who is elected Mayor We/They must be held Accountable.
                FURTHER  Sharons attempt to bring to the Public the Heinous, Repugnant, Ponzi Taxing Scheme of the Current Administration, including Carter,Harris,Thao of the Criminal Acts,  stealing Sharons Car, Water www.sharon4anderson.org  Trailer, Drivers License, Commerce Rights etc.
              FORENSIC FILES
2007EDemCouncil  in a RICO PATTERNEDr  ENTERPRISE, constituting Deceptive Trade in RealEstate Matters  sachambe published at the Chambers Disclosures of Candidates.
ReformTomPerez Chris  Colemans Complicity to Case Fix the USSC 10-1032 titled Magner vs Gallagher with David Lillhaug now Justice Lillhaug, complicit with City Attorney Sara Grewing now Judge, complicit with Council Members, complicit with Steve Magner, DSI, complicit with Tom Perez former Asst. US Attorney, Hud,Current DFL National Chair to Case Fix Fair Housing, Disparate Impact, triggering Death,Disabilitys,Disparagment of Titles, 
                        THEY must be held Accoountable, what is the kicker
LillhaugRowOrder2017 Justice Lillhaug issue's Order that ROW unconstutional applied
In a message dated 9/1/2017 12:25:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jon@sapfoundation.org writes:
Dear St. Paul Mayoral Candidates,

Our Foundation is hosting a mayoral candidate forum open to the public on November 2. The pertinent information is listed below:

Who: Saint Anthony Park Community Foundation
What: St. Paul Mayoral Candidate Forum
When: Thursday November 2, 7-8:30pm
Where: Murray Middle School, 2200 Buford Ave

All candidates are invited and the format will be as follows:
  • Same 2 questions for each candidate, one will allow a two minute answer, the 2nd a one minute answer.
  • 3 minutes to each candidate to answer a final question: Why should we vote for you?
Depending on the number of candidates who attend, there may be time for questions from the audience, we'll play it by ear.

It's our Foundation's annual meeting so we will take a few minutes to announce new board officers, board members and just a little business. I'm guessing the candidates will be introduced at 7:15pm and we'll get right into it.

Our deadline for an RSVP - jon@sapfoundation.org - is Sept. 8. If you plan to attend, please include a bio of 100 words or less which will be read as your introduction. If we don't hear back from you by then, we'll assume you are unable to attend. 

Thank you very much for your consideration, we look forward to an informative evening.

Jon Schumacher
Executive Director
Saint Anthony Park Community Foundation
P.O. Box 8038
St. Paul, MN 55108
                            FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT AT THIS TIME


NOTICE:  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.


Friday, August 4, 2017


                               To the Above NamedFri 4Aug2017
                  Valid Proof you were served Chambers Answers
                 Ever since Affiant VA Widow Mrs. Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella sued Midwest Fed S&L   Reprisals via DFL are Heinous

From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
To: amanda@saintpaulchamber.com
Sent: 8/3/2017 2:49:30 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Fwd: SPACC PAC candidate questionnaire Sharon4Anderson
From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
To: haley@saintpaulchamber.com
CC: sharon4anderson@aol.com
Sent: 8/3/2017 2:47:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Fwd: SPACC PAC candidate questionnaire Sharon4Anderson

From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
To: Marie@saintpaulchamber.com, haley@saintpaulchamber.com
CC: sharon4anderson@aol.com
Sent: 8/3/2017 2:13:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: SPACC PAC candidate questionnaire Sharon4Anderson
                              Marie Transferred Word to e-mail with links included
             AFFIDAVIT OF MRS. SHARON ANDERSON AKA PETERSON AKA SCARRELLA     www.sharon4mayor2018.blogspot.com

2017 Saint Paul Mayoral Candidate Questionnaire

Name: Sharon Anderson        

Campaign Phone: 651-776-5835

Please include the headshot you would like included with your candidate profile.

1. Please provide a brief bio highlighting experience and accomplishments that qualify you to be the next Mayor of Saint Paul. (200 word maximum)
           Affiant Sharon Hometown, Homegrown of High Morals, has been reduced to Poverty via DFL Corruption Takings Sharons Homestead at 1058 Summit Ave,326 N. Wilder 6 unit,2194 Marshall, 448 Desnoyer even tho taxes were paid. Car Trailer without Just Compensations  at 697 Surrey etal
Title 31 Whistleblower chap. 53

"Sharon is not a Liar or Lawyer " Minnesota Constitution Art. III
In Re: Scarrella for Associate Justice 221 NW2d.562 Election Contest Vote Fraud/MS 211b.16 MS2.724, Rep vs. White 2002, Dr. Wild v Justices Otis and Knutson no 46895 & 46882 Aug.12th,1977 Dr. Wild vs. Justices Otis/Knutson Aug.12th,1977 46895 & Widow of James R. Anderson US MC:11022885 VA 16136312 / SaluteTroops& Cpl. James R. Anderson USMC:11028855 | COVA
US Dist.CV-02-332(Rosenbaum) 

Business climate
2. How would you characterize the business climate in Saint Paul?
           Average Please read Frank Steinhauser Letter

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.


3. What role do you think the City should have in attracting and retaining jobs, and how would your administration actively solicit new businesses to, and retain existing businesses in, Saint Paul?  City
                   Have Faith in President Donald Trump, Eliminate the Duplication of City St. Paul and Ramsey Co.
                        Estopp City from Excessive Consumption via Driveby, without Valid Complaints,
4. Will you commit to hiring a business advocate as a member of your senior staff, to concentrate on business retention and expansion; new business recruitment; and business impact of proposed regulations on the business climate in Saint Paul?

5. Do you support an increase to the minimum wage in Saint Paul? If so, what specific steps would you take to understand the impact of an increase on the many types of businesses in Saint Paul and do you support proposals to mitigate the effects on businesses like a tip credit, a youth wage, a training wage, and/or a phase-in?
                     Sharon former Waitress at Hilton, Blue Horse etc. does not support Increase in Minium Wage  taking Tips  IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX IT.

Public safety
6. What is your strategy to address public safety concerns in the downtown core, including safety concerns in the skyway system and police force presence?
                            Agree with Mrs. Brooks to shut down at her Hours of operation
                            Bicycle trails  are not efficient  look at 3rd St. Bridge look at the Business on St. Peter, Just how many  Riders does not justify the Expense.

7. What is your vision for these key downtown development opportunities?
  • The empty lot near the Central Station stop downtown
                 Will have to study, City closed Senior Center,
  • The former West Publishing / Ramsey County jail site
                   Environmental Planners should have left some wall to abut as a Severe Storm would wash away the Hill techinally the Courthouse foundation would erode.

Balanced budget
8. What are your priorities for the City’s budget?
                      Downsize all Departments, Combine DSI with Health, Combine Sheriff and Police  Elect City Attorney and Police Chief.

9. How do you view the relationship between commercial and residential property taxes?
                     Art. X Uniformity of Taxes must be based on Intrinsic Values.

10. What changes need to happen to the City’s budget to avoid an increasing tax burden on businesses and residents, particularly to replace the City’s longstanding Right of Way assessment program?
                                     Downsize all Agencys/Combine/ Eliminate

Workforce development
11. How will you work with K-12 and post-secondary educational institutions and businesses to ensure our region develops and retains an educated workforce?
                              Delegate to Commissioner
12. What do you see as the mayor’s role with regard to Saint Paul Public Schools?
                              Separation of Powers School Board must override Mayors Executive Power, Jurisdiction/Authority.

13. What is the biggest challenge facing the city and how would you address it?
14. What would be your top three priorities if elected?
                    Elect City Attorney Police Chief, have them carry personal Insurance,  Its Odd that the City Attorney Asst. Rachael Gunderson has to advise the Council, with Lawyers Chris Tolbert also works at the Hennepin Co. Attorneys Office and Lawyer Jane Prince,
15. What do you think should be the city’s top transportation related priority?
                         Estopp these Bike Paths does not justify the Expense

16. Are there any services currently provided by the city that you believe should be cut back or eliminated? Or, are there new opportunities to share services with other entities?
  Abolish DSI  Settlement of Private Lawyers with Risk Insurance from League of MN Cities.
17. Is there anything else you would like to share with voters not covered above?
                   MEMORANDUM OF DISPARITY
                         Frank Steinhauser tried for Public Policy for 14 years
    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.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VFnqe-kXVwA/WXwsREWerYI/AAAAAAAATl4/RXtGRBOH4TwDH8gCZis7yKpf6oEDrmS_gCLcBGAs/s1600/8738_10209327956015022_5458999501362579362_n.jpg                  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 Fileswww.sharon4anderson.org

                  EX1  AFFIDAVIT OF CANDIDACY $500FilingFee24420139345
                         CampaignReporthttps://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 16-1661http://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,   http://bp2.blogger.com/_p8sCq3UK2t4/RdmJSo7tFdI/AAAAAAAAAfs/VI6UBTWg7oQ/s1600-h/LIEP+FileEssling.jpg
            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
In a message dated 8/2/2017 4:01:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Marie@saintpaulchamber.com writes:
Hello Sharon,
Attached is the Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee’s candidate questionnaire for mayoral candidates. We will post candidates’ written responses on our East Metro Voter Guide webpage when we receive them, and we post them exactly as received (no formatting changes, summarizing, etc).

Please return your completed questionnaire to me and Haley, and we will post it online.

Thursday, July 20, 2017


Minnesota Supreme Court Opinions LILLEHAUG RULE

Docket: A15-1795
Opinion Date: July 19, 2017
Judge: David L. Lillehaug
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Real Estate & Property Law
The Supreme Court declined Appellants’ invitation to depart from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) and hold that Minnesota’s constitution requires that an administrative search warrant be supported by probable cause of the sort required in a criminal investigation. Camara held that an administrative warrant satisfies the probable cause requirement if reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an unconsented-to rental housing inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular dwelling. In this case, the City of Golden Valley petitioned the district court for an administrative search warrant to search rental property for compliance with the city code. The district court denied the petition for the administrative search warrant, concluding that the issuance of such a search warrant was foreclosed without suspicion of a code violation. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Minnesota Constitution does not require individualized suspicion of a code violation to support an administrative search warrant for a rental housing inspection.
Read Opinion

Wiebesick v. Golden Valley | Cato Institute

Wiebesick v. Golden Valley. By Bennett Evan Cooper, William K. Forbes, and Ilya Shapiro. September 29, 2016. In Kyllo v. United States, the late Justice Antonin ...

City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick :: 2017 :: Minnesota Supreme Court ...

law.justia.com › ... › Minnesota Supreme Court Decisions › 2017
7 hours ago - In this case, the City of Golden Valley petitioned the district court for an administrative search warrant to search rental property for compliance ...

Tenants' privacy rights should be protected - StarTribune.com

Jan 18, 2016 - Minnesotans — and in particular, tenants in Golden Valley — have a new ... rental property of Jason and Jacki Wiebesick to check that they are, ...

Golden Valley Couple Calls Housing Inspection A Violation Of Privacy ...

Jan 19, 2016 - The case involves Jason and Jackie Wiebesick's Golden Valley duplex. The city was requesting an inspection in order to renew the couple's ...

Golden Valley v. Wiebesick | ACLU of Minnesota

Challenging suspicion-less rental house inspectionsCASE UPDATEThe district court did not uphold that rental houses should require a warrant, based on ...

[PDF]In re the Application for an Administrative Search ... - Minnesota.gov

Jun 13, 2016 - In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant,. City of Golden Valley, petitioner,. Appellant, vs. Jason Wiebesick,. Respondent,.


NOTICE:  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.