Judges Trading | Full Measure

County Tries to Bulldoze 100-Year-Old Neighborhood

MuslinKeithEllisonmustResignqQuoranvsUSAConstitution YES

               WE THE PEOPLE HAS MNAG MUSLIN KEITH ELLISON USED

                           THE QUORAN TO SUBVERT USA CONSTITUTION?

Jan6th202 Execution Ashley Babbit

Magner v. Gallagher - SCOTUSblog

                                   9Feb2022

          TO THE ABOVE NAMED,MEDIA,CITIZENS,PUBLIC

          Why Muslin Keith Ellison apparantly with the following ConConflicts has put Minnesota Citizens at Risk,when V Chair DNC complicit with Chair Tom Perez, QuidPro Quo making Dirty Deals with Mayor at that time Chris Coleman to DISMISS USSC

                 Reopened re RICO Charges not addressed 

       
Home | The Office of Attorney General Keith Ellison         AFFIANT Mrs.Sharon Anderson aka Scarrells re Penalty of Perjury :

                   State and allege Why Muslin Keith Ellison  current MNAG

            Conflicts:  Quoran overriding Constitution, Keith sworn in by Pelosi while in Congress, MN AG sworn in by Blk Fed Ju
2017 Michael Davis dismissed USSC 10-1032 - Google Searchdge Michael Davis, When Davis arbitrarily dismissed USSC 10-1032

 

Sharon4AndersonShar on Going Blind but for  with 100 Blogs etc.

                   

 Server ie Google REJECTS PICS, Will work on this later

Doin 
pic Ashley Babbit - Google Search

 Memory of Ashley Babbit 

 

     QUESTIONS 
Michael J. Davis - Wikipedia

             HAS BLACK FEDERAL JUDGE MICHAEL DAVIS ACTED BAD BEHAVIOR BY REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO FEDERAL GRAND JURY OR ACTING US ATTORNEY DAVID LILLHAUG OR OBAMA LAWYER TOM PEREZ RICO CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS JULY2017

indicating Case Fixing, Denial Jury Trials.

                     Steinhauser et al v. St Paul, City of et al (0:04-cv-02632), Minnesota District Court

Case Filed:	May 05, 2004
Re-opened:	Nov 30, 2010Terminated2017
:	President Trump Clashes with Legal Oversight in Three Cases to be Argued at the Supreme Court By Rodger Citron   40 mins ago

Magner v. Gallagher

FacebookLinkedInTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare

 

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
10-1032	8th Cir.	Not Argued	Feb 14, 2012	N/A	N/A	OT 2011

 

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

• Fair housing case dismissed (Lyle Denniston, February 10, 2012)
• Petition of the day (Conor McEvily, May 20, 2011)

Briefs and Documents

FacebookLinkedInTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare

Merits Briefs for the Petitioners

• Brief for Steve Magner et al.

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners

• Brief of the International Municipal Lawyers Association et al.
• Brief of the Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey
• Brief of the Pacific Legal Foundation et al.
• Brief of the Independent Community Bankers of America et al.
• Brief of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
• Brief of the American Bankers Association et al. 

Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither Party

• Brief of the United States

Merits Briefs for the Respondents

• Brief of Thomas Gallagher et al.

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents

• Brief of the NAACP Legal Defense & Edu

Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.com http://sharonsenate64.blogspot.com http://crimes-against-humanity.blogspot.com 

 

http://blogitbabe.blogspot.com    http://sharon4council.blogspot.com

LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, www.taxthemax.blogspot.com 
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 
Ch.119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this "Message," 
including attachments, may contain the originator's
proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies
recipients Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based 
actions. Authorized carriers of this message 
shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients.  See: Quon 
v. Arch

In a message dated 2/5/2022 8:33:48 AM Central Standard Time, sharon4anderson@aol.com writes: