Wed. 9Jan2019
TO THE ABOVE NAMED; State of MN Tim Walz,all Agencys,Ramsey Co, Auditor Chris Samuels et al,City St.
Paul,MN Melvin Carter,Amy Brendmoen aka Mrs. Mike Hahn et al.
QUESTIONS
Is the City St. Paul,MN ITS Mayor, Council enbanc,Agencys,Empl
oyees so Ignorant of the Law, Constitutional Quarantees of Homeowners, Disabled, Seniors to Ratify/Certfy Fees of Excessive Consumption now renamed Inspection.
a. Without Valid Compl
aints,physical presence of DSI,reports.
b. Malfeasance,Misfeasance,Nonfeasance to answer any/all
electric Documents,Social Media, Blogs.
c. To Railroad Fidicuary Duties via Consent Agenda
to Create Debt, on unspecting property owners.
d. Reprisals as Widow Mrs.
Sharon Scarrella Anderson
Loyal Trump Supporter.
Fri.4Jan2019 City going Bonkers/Bankrupt
QUESTION HAS BLACK MAYOR MELVIN CARTER FORSAKEN
BAPTIST SIHLO CHURCH TO INVOKE MUSLIN AND SHARIA LAW.
Approx 80 Propertys each Excessive Inspection 2 or 3 on Agenda Jan 2019
Round 20thous X5 100K Revenue in a 2 month Basis
Todd Hurley gone Now Lyn Moser ?
lOVE my Trumpy Heart and Soul to protect the American People cc Rush Limbaug Trumpy the Trooper4Truth Nancy Pelosi must look at her own Border Wall, re Corruption Start with the DFL Chair Tom Perez, former Justice Attorney, appointed by Obama, then Hud Commissioner, it took me hours to find
https://www.nationalbcc.org/images/stories/DOJ-St-Paul.pdf
re
Executive Summary In early February 2012, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez made a secret deal behind closed doors with St. Paul, Minnesota, Mayor Christopher Coleman and St. Paul’s outside counsel, David Lillehaug.
Perez agreed to commit the Department of Justice to declining intervention in a False Claims Act qui tam complaint filed by whistleblower Fredrick Newell against the City of St. Paul, as well as a second qui tam complaint pending against the City, in exchange for the City’s commitment to withdraw its appeal in Magner v. Gallagher from the Supreme Court, an appeal involving the validity of disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act. Perez sought, facilitated, and consummated this deal because he feared that the Court would find disparate impact unsupported by the text of the Fair Housing Act. Calling disparate impact theory the “lynchpin” of civil rights enforcement, Perez simply could not allow the Court to rule. Perez sought leverage to stop the City from pressing its appeal. His search led him to David Lillehaug and then to Newell’s lawsuit against the City. Fredrick Newell, a minister and small-business owner in St. Paul, had spent almost a decade working to improve economic opportunities for low-income residents in his community. In 2009, Newell filed a whistleblower lawsuit alleging that the City of St. Paul had received tens of millions of dollars of community development funds, including stimulus funding, by improperly certifying its compliance with federal law. By November 2011, Newell had spent over two years discussing his case with career attorneys in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, and the Civil Fraud Section within the Justice Department’s Civil Division. These three entities, which had each invested a substantial amount of time and resources into Newell’s case, regarded this as a strong case potentially worth
Magner v. Gallagher - SCOTUSblog
Magner v. Gallagher ... 10-1032, 8th Cir. Not Argued, Feb 14, 2012, N/A ... Brief for Steve Magner et al. Amicus Briefs ... Brief of Thomas Gallagher et al. Amicus ..
Magner v. Gallagher
Disclosure: 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?
Judgment:
Dismissed - Rule 14 on February 14, 2012.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs for the Petitioners
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners
Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither Party
Merits Briefs for the Respondents
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents
Certiorari-stage documents
AgendaXX
Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.comLEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
