SharonsSlideShare

SharonsFacebook

www.facebook.com

Sharon's Favorites

Loading...

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

You be the Judge_MNSupremeCourt_John P.Murphy

It appears that John Murphy and or Atwater Murphy exposing Lesbian Judge Joanne Smith is still alive. SHAME SUPREME COURT MN FOR DENYING MURPHY WHO IS DYING, FURTHER WILFUL FAILURE OF JUSTICE GILDEA TO REAPPOINT LESBIAN JUDGE JOANNE SMITH TO THE SCAP PANEL 2012.

Crimes Against Humanity: JohnRyberg_SexOffender v. SCAP ...

crimes-against-humanity.blogspot.com/.../johnryberg...Share
Shared on Google+. View the post.
Sharon Anderson
Mar 11, 2011 – SCAP JudgesLesbianJoanneSmith,KathleenGearin,LeslieMetzen et al ... (1) JOANNE SMITH: re: Institutionalized John Patrick Murphy and ...

A life in prison | mndaily.com - The Minnesota Daily

www.mndaily.com › NewsProjectsCached - SimilarShare
Shared on Google+. View the post.
Nov 2, 2009 – Facing colon cancer, John Patrick Murphy, a former University student ... to prove his involvement in terroristic acts against Judge Joanne Smith, Busch ... of judges and placing gay and lesbian classified ads on their behalf.

SPECIAL RELEASE OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

FILED AUGUST 27, 2012


A12-0920 League of Women Voters Minnesota; Common Cause, a District of
Columbia nonprofit corporation; Jewish Community Action; Gabriel
Herbers; Shannon Doty; Gretchen Nickence; John Harper Ritten;
Kathryn Ibur, Petitioners, vs. Mark Ritchie, in his capacity as Secretary
of State of the State of Minnesota, and not in his individual capacity,
Respondent.
Supreme Court.
1. Permissive intervention of the Minnesota House and Senate is appropriate when the intervenors present common questions of law and fact with the present action. Intervention of a nonprofit organization is inappropriate, however, when the entity’s only interest in the proposed constitutional amendment at issue is lobbying for passage and the entity’s interests will be adequately represented by the House and Senate intervenors.
2. Minnesota Statutes § 204B.44 (2010), provides this court with subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim that a ballot question is so misleading that it violates the Minnesota Constitution because it deprives voters of the constitutional right to cast a vote for or against the proposed constitutional amendment.
3. The ballot question on a proposed constitutional amendment implementing a photographic identification requirement for Minnesota voters is not so unreasonable and misleading as to be a palpable evasion of the constitutional requirement in Minn. Const. art. IX, § 1, that constitutional amendments shall be submitted to a popular vote.
Petition denied. Per Curiam.
Dissenting, Justices Alan C. Page and Paul H. Anderson.
Dissenting, Justice Paul H. Anderson.


A12-1149 Warren Limmer, et al., Petitioners (A12-1149), vs. Mark Ritchie, in his
A12-1258 official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, et al,
Respondents (A12-1149), and Mary Kiffmeyer, et al., Petitioners
(A12-1258), vs. Mark Richtie, in his official capacity as Secretary of
State of the State of Minnesota, et al., Respondents (A12-1258).
Supreme Court.
When the Legislature has included a title for a ballot question in the bill proposing a constitutional amendment, the “appropriate title” the Secretary of State must provide for that ballot question, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 204D.15, subd. 1 (2010), is the title designated by the Legislature.
Per Curiam.
Dissenting, Justices Alan C. Page and Paul H. Anderson.
Dissenting, Justice Paul H. Anderson.



OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

FILED WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2012

NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.


A11-0070 De-Aunteze Lavion Bobo, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
A11-1671 Hennepin County.
1. The postconviction court did not err when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim because appellant failed to allege facts that, if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would satisfy the first prong of the Strickland test.
2. The postconviction court erred when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s newly discovered evidence claim because the record does not conclusively establish that appellant failed to allege facts that, if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, could satisfy the Rainer test.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part, Justices David R. Stras and Christopher J. Dietzen.



A10-1992 Remodeling Dimensions, Inc., Appellant, vs. Integrity Mutual Insurance Company,
Respondent.
Court of Appeals.
1. Homeowners’ claim for moisture damage caused by the contractor to preexisting walls and structure located adjacent to work performed by the contractor satisfies the definition of an “occurrence,” and is not excluded under the business-risk exclusion of the applicable commercial general liability insurance policy.
2. When an insurer notifies its insured that it accepts defense of an arbitration claim under a reservation of rights that includes covered and noncovered claims, the insurer not only has a duty to defend the claim, but also to disclose to its insured the insured’s interest in obtaining a written explanation of the award that identifies the claims or theories of recovery actually proved and the portions of the award attributable to each.
Reversed and remanded. Justice Christopher J. Dietzen.



A11-1052 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against David Lawrence McCormick,
a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 259500.
Supreme Court.
Respondent’s conduct warrants a 60-day suspension. Per Curiam.



A12-1014 In re Petition of Jesse Pfliger to Correct Omission Regarding Candidate Filing
for Minnesota State Senate.
Supreme Court.
The Secretary of State properly rejected an affidavit of candidacy for elective office that lacked the telephone number required by Minn. Stat. § 204B.06, subd. 1b(a) (2010).
Petition denied. Per Curiam.

A12-1139 Rae Anderson, Petitioner, vs. Mark Ritchie, Minnesota Secretary of State, Respondent.
Supreme Court.
The Secretary of State properly rejected the nominating petition of a candidate whose statement of political party or political principle exceeded the limit under Minn. Stat. § 204B.07, subd. 1(c) (2010), of three words.
Petition denied. Per Curiam.

Added to website on August 23, 2012

ORDERS ON PETITIONS FOR FURTHER REVIEW
Filed August 21, 2012
(Petitioner indicated in Italic Type)

1. State of Minnesota vs. John Scott Zavoral – A11-1063 – Denied
2. In re the Custody of: D.T.R. Michael L. Richards, Petitioner Below vs. Derek Reiter,
Lynette A. Marthe – A10-1098 – Denied
3. State of Minnesota vs. George Allen Machen – A11-1034 – Denied
4. State of Minnesota vs. Reginald Neal Birts – A10-0322 – Denied
5. State of Minnesota vs. John Wesley Defatte, Sr. – A11-0908 – Denied
6. State of Minnesota vs. Walter Alexander Williams – A11-1158 – Denied
7. Steven M. Johnson vs. USL Products, Inc., Defendant, Clam Corporation, Inc. – A11-1774 –
Denied
8. Mary Jane Novitske vs. Target Corporation – A11-1551 – Denied
9. State of Minnesota vs. Roger Allen King – A11-0956 – Denied
10. State of Minnesota vs. Robin Kimberly Magee – A11-0772 – Denied
11. State of Minnesota vs. Bret Thomas Ninefeldt – A11-1061 – Denied
12. State of Minnesota vs. Corey Daniel Bell – A11-0933 – Denied
13. Red Wing Port Authority vs. Osemi, Inc. – A11-1851 – Denied
14. Paul Orsello vs. Steven D. Gaffney, et al. – A12-0900 – Denied
15. State of Minnesota vs. Juan Francisco Martinez – A11-1179 – Denied
16. State of Minnesota vs. Steven White – A11-1030 – Denied
17. State of Minnesota vs. John Leslie Anderson – A11-1002 – Denied
18. State of Minnesota vs. Carol Jane Baker – A11-1590 – Denied
19. State of Minnesota vs. Michael David Roberts – A11-1947 – Granted/Stayed
20. In Re John Patrick Murphy, John Patrick Murphy vs. State of Minnesota – A12-0559 – Denied
21. AgStar Financial Services, FLCA vs. HJR Farms, LLC, et al., Steven J. Bautch, et al., Todd E.
Rodenwald, Sarah Rodenwald – A11-1571 – Denied
22. State of Minnesota vs. Theran Robert Stai – A11-1095 – Denied
23. DeJuan Haywood Higgins vs. City of Bloomington, et al. – A11-2059 – Denied
24. State of Minnesota vs. Donna Jo Spangler – A11-0797 – Denied
25. In re the Guardianship of Christine Rose Samson, Proposed Ward and Protected Person –
A11-2180 – Denied
26. State of Minnesota vs. DeAngelos DeManye Cook a/k/a DeAngelas Cook – A11-1309 – Denied
27. State of Minnesota vs. Jeremy Roy Kruger – A11-0713 – Denied
28. State of Minnesota vs. William Arthur Bickel – A11-0982 – Granted/Stayed
29. State of Minnesota vs. Chia Yang – A10-1590 – Denied
30. Donald Morris Fernow, Country Mutual Insurance Company vs. Michael Donald Gould, et al. –
A11-1904 – Granted31. Robert McCaughtry, et al. vs. City of Red Wing – A10-0332 – Granted32. State of Minnesota, byFriends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness vs. AT&T Mobility, LLC, et al.
– A11-1725 – Denied
33. Yatau Her vs. State of Minnesota – A11-1462 – Denied
34. Joseph Anthony Favors vs. Jamie Jungers, et al. – A11-2055 – Denied
35. In re Keith A. Thompson, Grefe Construction, Inc., Otimbum LeRoy Wilson, Jr. and Daniel
P. Freiborg, Juanda R. White, trustee for the next-of-kin of Deallo D. Felder, deceased vs.
Otimbum LeRoy Wilson, Jr., et al., Keith A. Thompson, et al. – A12-0838 – Denied
36. Steven Dargi, et al., Citizens Independent Bank, Involuntary Co-Plaintiff vs. City of Golden
Valley
, Northwest Asphalt, Inc. – A12-0727 – Denied
37. State of Minnesota vs. Danny Lewis Stamps – A11-0760 – Denied
38. State of Minnesota vs. Natalie Ann Brown – A11-0662 – Denied
39. Frontier Pipeline, LLC vs. Metropolitan Council – A12-0022 – Denied
40. State of Minnesota vs. Joshua Dean Lee – A11-0978 – Denied
41. Mark Kohout vs. Homecomings Financial, LLC, et al., and Mark Kohout vs. Ronald R. Reitz,
et al., GMAC Mortgage, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, International Fidelity
Insurance Company – A11-1765 – Denied
42. State of Minnesota vs. Shane Michael Brunner – A11-1077 – Denied
43. State of Minnesota vs. Toraus Marquis Eason – A11-0835 – Denied

Saturday, August 25, 2012

JURIST - Paper Chase: Legal groups asks US Supreme Court to hear DOMA challenge

JURIST - Paper Chase: Legal groups asks
Thursday, August 23, 2012

Legal groups asks US Supreme Court to hear DOMA challenge
Max Slater at 10:31 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] A gay rights group urged [cert. petition, PDF] the US Supreme Court [official website] on Tuesday to review a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive] that denies benefits to married same-sex couples. The Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) [advocacy website] specifically challenged Section 3 of DOMA, which restricts tax, health care and other benefits of marriage to married heterosexual couples. The petitioners in the case are six married same-sex couples and a widower who argue that Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutionally denies same-sex married couples' equal protection rights. Earlier this month Judge Vanessa Bryant of the US District Court for the District of Connecticut [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional, as it lacked a rational basis. In the petition, GLAD urged the Supreme Court to hear the DOMA challenge because same-sex couples continue to face economic hardships due to DOMA and the Supreme Court could resolve DOMA's constitutionality once and for all:
[E]ach of the Petitioners demonstrates existing and ongoing economic harms as well as other burdens on their valid and existing marriages. Any continued delay in the resolution of the clear constitutional question presented by this case and this petition for review only exacerbates those harms unnecessarily for these Petitioners and for all other legally married same-sex couples throughout the country.
It is unclear if or when the Supreme Court will decide to hear the petitioners' challenge to DOMA. Last month Bryant denied a motion by the Bipartisant Legal Advocacy Group (BLAG) to stay the lawsuit [JURIST reports] pending a Second Circuit ruling in another case. Edith Schlain Windsor, 83, successfully sued the US government [complaint, PDF] in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) [official website], which in June also ruled on summary judgment that under a rational basis standard [Cornell LII backgrounder] of judicial scrutiny that DOMA is unconstitutional [JURIST report]. Last month the elderly New York woman petitioned the Supreme Court to expedite her DOMA challenge [JURIST report] and bypass the Second Circuit appeal. That same week a lesbian couple filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Central District of California [official website] in a DOMA challenge that seeks to achieve for gay and lesbian couples the same federal immigration rights afforded to heterosexual couples [JURIST report] under the Immigration and Nationality Act [materials]. Also that week 132 members of the US House of Representatives [official website] filed an amicus brief [JURIST report] stressing that the House is "not united on DOMA's validity" and arguing that statutory classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny, but that DOMA should be overturned as unconstitutional under any level of judicial scrutiny. The brief was filed in the appeal of Karen Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, the landmark case in which the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional [JURIST report].
US Supreme Court to hear DOMA challenge

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Sharon_LawlessAmerica_Bill Windsor_Bill Dahn et al


Sharon has joined forces with www.lawlessamerica.com exposing Corrupt Judiciary
www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.youtube.com/lawlessamerica
www.sharonsenate64.blogspot.com www.sharons-mn-id.blogspot.com
Judges must be elected by the People, Must NOT hold Office4Life.
Vote Nov 6th,2012 SHARON4SENATE64 MINNESOTA Vote YES Marriage
Amendment. One Man and One Woman Sharon VA Widow Votes pdf format.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

JURIST - Paper Chase: Florida court dismisses lawsuit against three state supreme court justices

JURIST - Paper Chase: Florida court dismisses lawsuit against three state supreme court justices
Friday, August 10, 2012

Florida court dismisses lawsuit against three state supreme court justices
Max Slater at 10:09 AM ET


Photo source or description
[JURIST] Florida's Second Judicial Circuit [official website] on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit that sought to disqualify from the November 6th ballot three Florida Supreme Court justices who face a retention vote. The lawsuit alleged that the three justices unlawfully used court employees to further their election campaigns [AP report] in that the employees helped prepare the justices' election papers. In dismissing the lawsuit Circuit Judge Terry Lewis [official profile] ruled that the plaintiffs, two voters in Florida, lacked standing to sue because they failed to show how their situation differs from other voters. Many critics have labeled the lawsuit as a political power grab, as Florida Governor Rick Scott [official profile] would get to appoint replacements for the justices if they were disqualified from the ballot. The two voters who filed the lawsuit plan to appeal the trial court's decision. Florida has been at the center of several election law controversies recently. Earlier this month a federal judge blocked enforcement [JURIST report] of a Florida statute that prevents minors from donating more than $100 to any political candidate or committee within an election period. Last month Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner [official profile] announced that the federal government will allow Florida access [JURIST report] to a US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [official website] immigration database to challenge individuals' voting rights if the state suspects them of not being US citizens. In June a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied a request by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official websites] to issue a temporary injunction barring Florida from continuing the practice of purging its voter rolls [JURIST report]. The DOJ alleged that Florida's policy violates the Voting Rights Act (VRA) [text] as well as the National Voter Registration Act [text], which requires all voter roll maintenance to cease 90 days before the primary election, meaning all purging in Florida should have stopped by May 16. Florida also faces challenges to its purging policy from the ACLU-FL and a coalition of rights groups [JURIST reports] on behalf of several Florida citizens.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Friday, August 3, 2012

Estopp Gov.DaytonsJudicialAppointment_David Lillehaug

Fri.3Aug2012 

 OPEN LETTER TO MN GOVERNOR MARK DAYTON DFL

http://www.kare11.com/news/article/985477/391/Gov-Dayton-considers-4-for-his-first-appointment-to-MN-Supreme-Court
On the Graves of Parents_Tenants in Common at Sharons Legal Domicile at 1058 Summit Ave. St.Paul,MN Have a Great Weekend_

Vote 14Aug2012 Primary. Vote Now Absentee Thanks SharonSen64


Challenge the Governors Appoint of Judges specifically David Lillehaug who create Death,Disability,Disparagment of Titles for their GREED>
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file4.pdf



Note to Governor Dayton, the Retirement of Justice Helen Meyers is just another covert act to deny the Taxpaying Public the Right and Privilege to Vote for Judges.


DFL Dayton_Demise of Voting Rights Act
Humphrey would roll over in his Grave_Civil Rights.



From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com


To: dmashak@aol.com
, bill@whistleblowerproductions.com
, jz12345@earthlink.net


Sent: 8/3/2012 12:33:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time


Subj: Check out Gov. Dayton considers 4 for his first appointment to MN Supreme Cou


Click here: Gov. Dayton considers 4 for his first appointment to MN Supreme Court
kare11.com


Lillehaug is toooo political to render impartial decisions.


http://www.angelfire.comxpay/planet/andersonadvocates/PDFedem
2006/file4.pdf








Sharon4Anderson@aol.com AttorneyProSe_Private AG, ECF 65913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel: 651-776-5835 HEALTH CARE Candidate 2012Senate64 www.sharonsenate64.blogspot.com http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/judicial-corruption-_sharonscarrellaanderson_lawless-america/http://www.pacificlegal.org/document.doc?id=608&utm_source=Sentry+-+3%2F21%2F12+Healthcare&utm_campaign=3-21-12+Healthcare+SENTRY&utm_medium=emailhttp://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/10-1032-bsac-Massachusetts.pdfhttp://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com/2007/03/foia-06cv-permission-to.htmlhttp://mpls.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/profiles/26222.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/planet/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file4.pdfhttp://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file6.pdfwww.sharon4anderson.org http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/900-2007-02-27T034409Z/WritProA06-1150_30Jun06.pdfhttp://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/google-lawmen-cases-mn-62cv09-1163/



POA http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/PDFcorr/SADPA4172006.pdf http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profile/SharonScarrellaAnderson www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson www.taxthemax.blogspot.com  www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson  www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson

Sharon4Judge