Sharon's Favorites


Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Congressional Testimony: Sharon Anderson to Bill Windsor of Lawless Ame...

 Dark Glasses as Sharon again Victimized by Dr. Jane Tanube, who lasered Sharons Left Eye causing Blindness, Medical Malpractice, Conmplaints unabated by Minnesota DFL Public Officials 
                         Forensic Files re: Google Web Sites,Blogs
Congressional Testimony: Lea Banken to Bill Windsor of Lawless America
Congressional Testimony: Lea Banken to Bill Windsor of Lawless America. Lawless America...The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawles...
Lea Banken Carver County
Under Penalty of Perjury:Sharon Anderson vs. Minnesota Judiciary

    Shared on Google+. View the post.
    Instantly connect to what's most important to you. Follow your friends, experts, favorite celebrities, and breaking news.
  2. Citizenery-MNCourts: Sharon4Anderson QuiTam Petition v. MN ...
    Shared on Google+. View the post.
    Jan 31, 2010 – Falsified Court Records, acting as a Judicial Officer in a "Patterened Enterprise" since 1988 up to and including 2010 apparantly acting in ...

  3. Sharons QuoWarranto v. MN Judge Edward Toussaint A09-2031 ...
    Shared on Google+. View the post.
    Sharons QuoWarranto v. MN Judge Edward Toussaint A09-2031. December 23, 2009 by sharon4anderson. Wed. ...Minnesota Judicial Center (MJC) Suite #: ...

Quo warr gildea26jul10
Shared on Google+. View the post.
Jul 26, 2010 – (People v. Bailey (1916) 30 Cal.App. 581, 584-585.) Minnesota Judicial Center Phone: (651) ...

  1. sharon4anderson « Sharon4anderson's Weblog
    Shared on Google+. View the post.
    Oct 5, 2009 – Posts about sharon4anderson written by sharon4anderson. ... Welcome to the official Website of the Minnesota Judicial Branch. .... for Electronic Filing VA-8453 sharon4anderson v. judge john vandenorth mn – Google Search ...
  2. Lying-Lawyers: FredGrittnerClerkMNCourts_Title18Complaint v ...
    Shared on Google+. View the post.
    May 31, 2011 – Minnesota Judicial Branch employees cannot provide legal advice, advise you on your rights, interpret law, or comment regarding court rulings.
  3. Courts « Sharon4anderson's Weblog
    Shared on Google+. View the post.
    Oct 5, 2009 – Posts about Courts written by sharon4anderson. ... Welcome to the official Website of the Minnesota Judicial Branch. This site includes many ...
  4. Sharons Informal Brief re: FIAFEA_FIRREA_A09-2031 ... - SimilarShare
    Shared on Google+. View the post.
    Dec 26, 2009 – Send an email via our contact form Minnesota Judicial Center (MJC) ... A09-2031(ToussaintSt. Paul, MN 5515 and ... In re Scarrella4 Assoc. Justice 221NW 2nd 562 Plaintiffs V. 

Sharon4Anderson_MN Senate ... - Before It's News
Shared on Google+. View the post.
Oct 10, 2012 – ... FROM THE NOV6TH BALLOT IN MINNESOTA 2ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT. ... V-1C4GY54R5MX597 stolen 2 years ago by DSI and Cop Tanya ...

  1. State Senate District 064 - VOTE411 Voter Guide;jsessionid...?id...CachedShare
    Shared on Google+. View the post. ... Supreme Court defined the adequacy requirements in Skeen vs State of Minnesota.

Ad related to Sharon4Anderson vs. Minnesota Judiciary

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

MNTaxCourtJudge George W.Perez_Violations BJS

Transposed by Affiant Sharon Scarrella Anderson Educational Sharon current Candidate MNAG MINNESOTA BOARD ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS



Judge George W. Perez, Minnesota Tax Court

Formal Statement of Complaint & Judge Perez's Answer filed with the Supreme Court on

Minnesota judicial board contends top judge at state's tax court is too slow

Updated:   11/28/2012 12:19:25 AM CST

George W. Perez
The state board that investigates claims of judicial misconduct has accused Minnesota's top tax court judge of routinely delaying rulings, sloughing work off to his colleagues and lying about it in the official forms he submitted to the state. George W. Perez, appointed to the Minnesota Tax Court in 1997 and chief judge since 2001, was named in the complaint filed Tuesday, Nov. 27, by the Board on Judicial Standards. The 35-page complaint lays out alleged violations of the state's Code of Judicial Conduct. Many deal with claims that the judge routinely ignored the state law that dictates that a case must be decided within three months after it is submitted to the court. One case reviewed by board investigators stretched as long as a year and a half, the complaint says, while others languished from eight to 16 months. The Board of Judicial Standards claims Perez's behavior violated state statutes in four areas: he falsely certified records involving the disposition of cases, he refused new case assignments, he made false representation to the judicial board's investigators and he dragged cases out long past when the law said they were to be decided. Perez, 53, of Mendota Heights could not be reached for comment. His lawyer, Frederick Finch, said the jurist wasn't guilty of any wrongdoing and would be contesting the board's claims. "Obviously, we think they will not be able to prove all the charges, or to
the extent they can prove them, they'll have no legal significance," said Finch. "Our belief is that when the case is tried, the trier of fact will arrive at the conclusion that there's no basis for removing the judge from office or not taking any serious actions against him."
Perez's formal answer to the complaint also was filed Tuesday. In it, Finch wrote thatmore important to make a good decision than to comply with the statutory deadline."
Statistics weren't available Tuesday on the court's current caseload; the court administrator was not in the office. But Finch said that since the tax court was the only venue for hearing such cases in the state, "the result is they get an enormous number of case filings." He estimated that when there were three judges, each handled 4,000 to 5,000 cases a year. "No mortal judge can dispose of 5,000 cases in a year," he said. "They do so without much assistance." Unlike their robed brethren in the state district courts, tax court judges don't have law clerks. The entire tax court has a single clerk and one paralegal, Finch said. "It can be very frustrating and very difficult to keep up with the caseload," the lawyer said. The board's complaint lists 10 cases it says are "representative examples" of Perez's delays. They involved petitions filed by private citizens, big corporations, small businesses and a farm co-op. The complaint said that Perez stretched cases out "routinely," calling conferences with the parties to ask for more time or more information the judge "consistently and in good faith followed Tax Court practices and procedures, as he understood them, for calculating and documenting due dates for decisions and grants of extensions of time as they were explained to him by other judges and court staff beginning with his appointment to the court ... without objection or complaint."
Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea of the Minnesota Supreme Court must appoint a three-person panel to hear the board's complaint at a public trial. That proceeding could pit Perez against former colleagues, and the complaint says some of them raised objections about Perez's practices. The Minnesota Tax Court hears appeals of orders issued by the state's Commissioner of Revenue on local property tax valuations, classifications and exemptions. The court is not part of the state's judicial branch; it is part of the executive branch. Its judges, who serve six-year terms, are appointed by the governor. There are supposed to be three judges on the court, but at present Perez is the only one. Kathleen Hvass Sanberg resigned in September after she was appointed a U.S. bankruptcy judge. Sheryl A. Ramstad also resigned in September. Perez, a graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law School, was appointed to the court in 1997 by Gov. Arne Carlson. He was reappointed by Jesse Ventura in 1999, Tim Pawlenty in 2005 and Mark Dayton in 2011. In the past, he's been named the Lawrence Lasser Tax Judge of the Year by the National Conference of State Tax Court Judges. He is on the governing council of the American Bar Association's Judicial Division. In that group, he is a chair of the National Conference of Specialized Court Judges.
"Judge Perez's practice of failing to make timely decisions began shortly after his appointment to the tax court in November 1997," the complaint said. It said that when another judge asked Perez about the delays in late 1998 or early 1999 -- and expressed concerns they reflected badly on the court -- "Judge Perez responded with words to the effect, 'that's for me to worry about.' Judge Perez also told the other judge to leave him alone and accused the judge of picking on him because of his ethnicity." The complaint also said that Perez "frequently opined to other tax court judges and court personnel that the quality of his judicial decisions took precedence over meeting any deadline for deciding a case. He and a different tax court judge discussed his delay in deciding cases on several occasions. During those conversations, Judge Perez expressed his belief that it was
In mid-December, he allegedly told court staff to add him to the rotation every other turn, so instead of getting every third case filed, he got every fifth case. He also allegedly told the staff not to tell the other two judges about it. One of the other judges found out about it and confronted the staff, the complaint claims. In his reply to the board, Finch wrote that Perez told court staff to give him every fifth case but that state statutes allowed him to do that and it was done "to balance the caseload of the three tax court judges." Finch also said Perez denies telling the court staff "to withhold information about the change in case assignment rotation" from the other judges. The charges against Perez will be heard by a three-member panel that includes a judge, a lawyer and a layperson. After hearing evidence, the panel issues findings of fact. If it finds rules have been violated, it will recommend a sanction to the Minnesota Supreme Court. That sanction can range from a private admonition to removal from the bench. Perez remains on the bench while the case is pending. "He comes to work every day in the morning, works every day and leaves at the end of the day -- which is good because otherwise, they'd have to turn out the lights," Finch said. David Hanners can be reached at 612-338-6516.

PLF_USSC review_Michigan Judges_EqualRights

              Cross Re: Educational Purposes

November 28, 2012
In Michigan, activist judges slam the gavel on equal rights
PLF will help seek U.S. Supreme Court review


In a startling decision, a federal appeals court has ruled against Michigan's landmark constitutional amendment that banned racial preferences and discrimination by state and local government.

Ruling 8-7, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative --- which voters enacted as Proposal 2, an amendment to the state constitution --- violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution! Thompson
Staff Attorney
"Think about that for a second --- a constitutional amendment banning discrimination is held to violate the Equal Protection Clause," said PLF attorney Joshua P. Thompson, who authored our amicus brief in support of Proposal 2. "If that doesn't make sense to you, then you understand the ruling perfectly."

The majority invoked a murky doctrine known as "Hunter/Seattle," from two U.S. Supreme Court cases on the initiative process that are both more than 30 years old and that the High Court has never cited since in relation to any law or litigation dealing with race.
In today's PLF Podcast, Joshua Thompson explains why the ruling against Proposal 2 is flat-out wrong --- and why PLF will be working to get the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case.

Your donations help PLF fight for equal rights
Throughout the country, PLF is the leading litigator for equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal justice under law, without regard to anyone's race, ethnicity, or sex. In Michigan, we've been on front lines, defending Proposal 2 --- the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative --- from the beginning, and we're not stopping now. We'll be front-and-center in the effort to get the Supreme Court to take this case!
RLR Signature
Rob Rivett
Pacific Legal Foundation
Recent YouTube Videos
The election is over, but PLF's Obamacare suit goes on!
Challenging the constitutionality of Nevada's anti-competitive licensing law
PLF Back in the Supreme Court with Important Property Rights Case!
Race-based admissions in Fisher v. University of Texas PLF Liberty Blog Facebook Twitter YouTube Podcast

Monday, November 19, 2012

Saturday, November 3, 2012


Subj: Defeat Leftist Judges
Joe Miller Email Logo
Dear Fellow Patriot,
Please see the following important newsletter from the Committee for an Ethical Judiciary and help them out. Many judges are up for election or re-election on Tuesday and that will have a dramatic impact on the future of our country.
Joe Miller
Committee for an Ethical Judiciary
David Shrum - Chairman
The Committee for an Ethical Judiciary
932 "D" Street, Suite 2
Ramona, California 92065

Dear Conservative Friend,
Leftist judges are on the ballot all across America. And the Committee for an Ethical Judiciary is working overtime to defeat them next Tuesday.
Unfortunately, we are being massively outspent by liberal special interest groups that are determined to seize or expand their control over state courts, and to impose their leftist, socialist, views on America.
Please make an urgent donation of $25, $50, $100, $250, or whatever that you can afford to help fund conservative l
This is profoundly urgent. The leftists have specifically targeted a number of states, and even specific state supreme court seats this year.
They are spending huge amounts of time and money to win these elections.
And the Committee for an Ethical Judiciary is the only conservative group in America that is 100% committed to helping win these critical judicial elections.

Many of the candidates that we are supporting don't have very high name ID, or much organization. And many of the conservative challengers to liberal, anti-traditional values, and pro-ObamaCare judges don't have much money.
That's why the conservative grassroots needs to stand up.
In North Carolina, the liberals are fighting like crazy to seize control of that state's Supreme Court. They want to use the court to attack traditional marriage and voter ID laws.
In Alabama, former judge and conservative hero Roy Moore is campaigning to win a seat on the Alabama State Supreme court. This is one of the most brutal judicial campaigns in the country. Alabama and America need Roy Moore back on the bench.
In Florida, left-wing members of that state's Supreme Court - Barbara Pariente, Fred Lewis, and Peggy Quince, - are all running for reelection. These three liberals have led the charge in support of ObamaCare. We have a GREAT chance to finally get rid of these anti-Constitution judicial activists!
And, in Iowa, ultra-liberal Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins is fighting to remain on the bench. He was one of the justices who forced Iowa to legalize homosexual marriage. If we get Iowa conservatives to turn out, we can defeat this crusading leftist!
In the months and years to come, the fate of traditional marriage, voter ID laws, immigration control measures, and scores of other conservative issues will be decided by state supreme courts.
That makes this year's elections so incredibly important.
And, because many of these elections are "non-partisan," and involve "social issues", the Republican Party establishment wants nothing to do with them!
So the Committee for an Ethical Judiciary has to step in and help.
Please, conservative judicial candidates need your help!
If the candidates and challenge efforts that we are supporting get blown out because they didn't get the kind of grassroots support that their left-wing opponents receive, America will pay a horrific price.

Our goal is to help identify and turn out conservative voters in these key races. And our ability to do that could mean the difference between winning and losing.
Please do what you can. Election Day is next week!
Thank you in advance for your generosity.
If the link does not work, you can copy and paste the following full link in your browser window:
David Shrum - Chairman
Committee for an Ethical Judiciary
932 "D" Street, Suite 2
Ramona, California 92065

Please forward this vital message to
all of your friends & acquaintances.

Minnesota Sharon4Seniors must RICO Judges Gregg Johnson and Jon Vandenorth.
                                        NEWS RELEASE 3RDNOV.2012
Sent: 11/3/2012 11:16:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: CandidateSharon4SeniorsMN64_Constitutionality204c.31County_State Canvass Boards                   Sharon is not a Liar or Lawyer Unreasonable 20 yrs later Tobacco Case Still in Court  THEREFORE DFL Lawyer,Commitment Lawyer Senator64 Dick Cohen MN CONST.ARTIII MUST GO:

TThe Supreme Court concluded (1) the proposed tobacco appropriation bonds did not constitute public debt for which the state's full faith, credit, and taxing powers have been pledged under the plain language of Minn. Const. art. XI, 4; and (2) therefore, the restrictions imposed by Minn. Const. art. XI, 5 do not apply to the bondsSearch Results

  1. MPR: Minnesota's Tobacco Trial: A Summary - SimilarShare
    Shared on Google+. View the post.
    May 8, 1998 – At its heart, Minnesota's tobacco case was a fraud and anti-trust case. The state and Blue Cross and Blue Shield claimed tobacco companies Schowalter v. State
Docket: A12-622
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law
Petitioner, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Management and Budget, validation tobacco appropriation bonds to be issued to refund, in advance of maturity, outstanding tobacco securit
Opinion Date: October 31, 20
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar
SAT: 3NOV2012
Please Vote Tues 6thNov2012 Forward,circulate,copy Vote YES Sharon4Seniors
1.    Ramsey   County canvassing board:            Rafael Ortega, Ramsey County Commissioner
                                                                                Jan Parker, Ramsey County Commissioner
                                                                                Mark Oswald, Ramsey County Auditor
                                                                                Lawrence Dease, Ramsey County Court Administrator
                                                                 Shari Moore, St Paul City Clerk – designee of Mayor Coleman
ST. PAUL, Minn.—October 30, 2012—Secretary of State Mark Ritchie today announced the members of the State Canvassing Board whose responsibility it will be to canvass and certify the results of the State General Election held on November 6.

Minnesota Statutes 204C.31 requires the Secretary of State to select the five members of state canvassing board. By law members of the board must be the secretary of state, two judges from the Minnesota Supreme Court and two judges of the district court.

Members of the 2012 State General Election State Canvassing Board include:
• The Honorable Mark Ritchie, Minnesota Secretary of State
• The Honorable Paul H. Anderson, Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court
• The Honorable Christopher J. Dietzen, Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court
• The Honorable Edward I. Lynch,  Chief Judge, First Judicial District
• The Honorable Karen J. Asphaug, District Court Judge, First Judicial District

To avoid conflicts of interest, by law, no judges or justices who are members of the state canvassing board may be candidates at the election.  It is also important to note that unlike other election issues subject to administrative recounts, constitutional amendments are not subject to recounts administered by the state canvassing board, but are subject to court election contests.

The State Canvassing Board will meet at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, November 27, 2012, in Room 10 of the State Office Building located at 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, Minnesota
 We are asking all elected and appointed government officials and all political candidates to sign an HONESTY Contract with the Citizens of the United States of America. 
We ask all Americans to vote only for candidates who have signed the Contract.
The Supreme Court Justices:

Sent to — why did I get this?
unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences
JoeMiller.US · PO Box 83440 · Fairbanks, Alaska 99708


About Me

My photo

VA Widow, Political-Realeste Entreprenuer, Blogger, More fun getting there than being there.
Favorite Saying " Supbonea God into the Court Room" aka Shewolfeagle , CobraShar