USSC_Twitter_Sharon4Anderson re: LawlessAmerica,BillWindsor,Lea Banken

                                         Thurs.20Dec2012

                            MERRY CHRISTMAS_MINNESOTA MOTHERS LOVE

                                            Please assist to Protect our Familys "Parens Patriae"

                                    Note to Windsor4Wisdom et al Happy Holidays As Nobodies, Victims and Documentary Members of www.lawlessamerica.com www.youtube.com/lawlessamerica

                                   Further Note   MN Attorney General Lori Swanson www.ag.state.mn.us  Candidates et al  https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=8.31&year=2012   

                             Rough Draft to have the Attorney Generals indict Judges for Judicial Malpractice, exceeding  the AG's Authority of Parens Patriae,?  www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com  Forensic Files www.sharon4anderson.org

                                  40 years ago DFL MNAG Warren Spannus used undue influence to Take my Daughter Vonessa Scarrella aka Cleveland aka Florentine, giving Custody illegally to John and his Mistress Joan Cloyd Gooselaw who Murdered the 10 month old Baby Boy Henry Gooselaw Jr.  Judges in that Case are now Deceased.

                              UP TO DATE 40 YEARS LATER  JUDGES BARTERING OUR CHILDREN IF WE teach them the Bible and if WE DO NOT TAKE DOWN PUBLIC WEBSITES AND OR BLOGS. RE: LEA BANKEN

    HAS JUDGE RICHARD PERKINS IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

USURPED THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.

15 USC § 15c - Actions by State attorneys general | LII / Legal ...

www.law.cornell.edu › USC › Title 15 › Chapter 1Cached

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

(1) Any attorney general of a State may bring a civil action in the name of such State, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in such State, in any ...

www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/.../42.../04_FMS.htmCached

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

10 Many state legislatures have therefore enacted laws making it easier to try .... a waiver of jurisdiction order with a statement listing the reasons for transfer.51 The ..... state legislators, district attorneys, the Attorney General, and the Governor , ..... like a parent was the British doctrine of parens patrie, the State as parent.

                               QUESTIONS:  HAS THE USA ATTORNEY GENERALS in their Official Capacity's[PDF] 

The Public Trust Doctrine, Parens Patriae, and the Attorney General ...

scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1097...delpf

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
by A Kanner - 2005 - Cited by 61 - Related articles
Mar 13, 2006 – 57. THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE, PARENS. PATRIAE, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS. THE GUARDIAN OF THE STATE'S NATURAL ...

ncpp: National Coalition for Protective Parents Exposing Corruption in Carver County Minnesota Family Court/CPS and Foster Care System. Government Abuse IS Child Abuse for Profit. We The People... are no longer tolerating; TAXPAYER dollars (billions) used to separate, and financially demolish families.  http://www.youtube.com/user/lawlessamerica/videos?query=Minnesota

Search results for "Minnesota":

• 13:58 Congressional Testimony: Sharon Anderson to Bi... 132 views | 2 days ago
• 3:20 Congressional Testimony: Lea Banken to Bill Wi... 293 views | 2 days ago

 Go to www.lennycarolanderson.blogspot.com  for other MN Video's

             Bill you have brought to my Attention the Horrors of Judge Perkins destroying Lea Banken Free Speech, Taking down her

http://carvercountycorruption.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/judge-flagrantly-violates-federal-and-mn-constitutions/

The large number of people at the hearing heard Judge Perkins give no reason why Ms. Banken cannot see her children other than his false assertion that Ms. Banken has not had a psychological evaluation. The truth is that she had an evaluation and it was completely normal. Judge Perkins gave no reason why Ms.During this time she would have no contact with her children and would be unable to protect them. You can see these rulings on the website MNCIS Government Access Resource Center. The case file number is 111452.

---

From: n-Funeba4Naqrefba=nby.pbz-ed2a8@postmaster.twitter.com
To: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
Sent: 12/18/2012 1:36:17 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: US Supreme Court (@USSupremeCourt1) is now following you on Twitter!

Sharon4Anderson, You have a new follower on Twitter.   US Supreme Court @USSupremeCourt1 Follow us to get the latest news about US Supreme Court Los Angeles, CA 90012 Followed by Health Care Lawsuits and jamiedelton. Following: 4189 · Followers: 4849 Follow Twitter, Inc. 1355 Market St., Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94103

                         
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UChwpfgqEZnbFH28fia8byPQ
http://www.lawlessamerica.com/images/stories/GRIP/state%20legislation%20proposal-2012-09-26.pdf


Current Candidate MNAG www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com
www.sharonsenate64.blogspot.com www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson
www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson
www.sharon4anderson.org

LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: HEALTHCARE http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/judicial-corruption-

Congressman Bob Goodlatte to Chair House Judiciary Committee 2013

Protecting the Right to Work: A Victory in Michigan This week we saw another victory for American workers and freedom in the workplace. Just days ago, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed into law two right to work bills, making Michigan the twenty-fourth right to work state in our nation, including Virginia. This means individual employees can join unions voluntarily, but unions cannot force membership or force the payment of dues across entire worksites. The news out of Michigan comes just 10 months after Indiana became a right to work state and is a particularly significant trend in the Midwest. I have been an ardent and vocal opponent of any efforts by labor leaders to force a man or woman to pay dues to a union in order to work. Folks should have the freedom to decide whether or not they will join a union. This freedom creates healthier unions that are constantly seeking to provide better services to members and prospective members. Eliminating this freedom limits the individual freedom of workers, results in fewer jobs, and makes our nation less competitive versus our foreign competitors. As our country struggles to find ways to stay competitive, create more jobs and grow our national economy, states must be looking for commonsense ways to ensure their prosperity. A recent study indicates that there is faster growth in employment and income in states with right to work laws in place. I am also a strong supporter of the National Right to Work Act, which preserves and protects the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities. This legislation is simple and reasonable. The bill deletes provisions in federal law that authorizes contracts forcing workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Some argue that by passing a national right to work law, we will be wiping out a competitive advantage over other states that we currently enjoy in Virginia, thanks to our right to work law. However, our real competitors are Japan, Mexico, China, and Europe--not Ohio, New York, and California. So by making our nation more competitive as a whole, we also help Virginia’s workers and businesses. By passing right to work legislation in statehouses or in Congress we can restore the freedom of America's workers to choose the form of workplace representation that best suits their needs or to choose not to participate. Most importantly, we help improve the standard of living of all American workers, support job creation and help keep the jobs we already have right here in the United States. These are the kind of pro-growth, pro-jobs policies we need to help fuel our economic recovery. This message was generated from an unattended mailbox. Should you have further questions, please visit the “Contact Bob” section of my website or call my office at (202) 225-5431.

WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE 2309 Rayburn HOB Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: (202) 225-5431 Fax: (202) 225-9681 HARRISONBURG OFFICE 2 South Main Street Suite A, First Floor Harrisonburg, VA 22802 Phone: (540) 432-2391 Fax: (540) 432-6593

LYNCHBURG OFFICE 916 Main Street Suite 300 Lynchburg, VA 24504 Phone: (434) 845-8306 Fax: (434) 845-8245 ROANOKE OFFICE 10 Franklin Road SE Suite 540 Roanoke, VA 24011 Phone: (540) 857-2672 Fax: (540) 857-2675

STAUNTON OFFICE 117 South Lewis Street Suite 275 Staunton, VA 24401 Phone: (540) 885-3861 Fax: (540) 885-3930

VISIT CONGRESSMAN BOB GOODLATTE'S WEBSITE

This message was intended for: sharon4anderson@aol.com
You were added to the system November 30, 2012. For more information

HUD Sued Records Obama Involvement USSC10-1032_St. Paul, MN, Judicial Watch

HUD Sued for Records of Obama Administration Involvement in Controversial St. Paul, MN, Housing Discrimination Case | Judicial Watch

                          ME TOO  www.taxthemax.blogspot.com 
 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (No. 1:12-cv-01785)) on November 2, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to force compliance with an April 4, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents relating to possible collusion between the Obama administration and the city of St. Paul, MN, in withdrawing a “disparate impact” appeal pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. HUD has refused all JW FOIA requests for public records, even after JW paid in advance for the information.
The disparate impact case arose from a lawsuit by a St. Paul minority contractor claiming that the city’s targeted enforcement of the city’s housing code against rental units reduced the availability of low-income rentals, with a disparate impact upon African-Americans. The Eighth Circuit found in the contractor’s favor, after which the city appealed to the Supreme Court. Generally speaking, under a disparate impact analysis, an entity can be found to have engaged in discriminatory activity for practices that merely have a “disparate impact” on protected minorities, irrespective of any intentional bias.
The Obama DOJ then intervened, apparently persuading St. Paul to take the extraordinary step of withdrawing its cert petition from the Supreme Court docket. On February 13, the Wall Street Journal reported that various federal officials had asked the City of St. Paul to withdraw its petition for certiorari in a controversy that had already been slated for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Obama administration’s concern, explained the article, was that a legal theory known as “disparate impact” might either: 1) harden into law as used by the landlords who had won at the state level or 2) be eviscerated entirely.  Apparently, several federal agencies that rely on that legal theory to secure out-of-court settlements in the consumer lending and family housing arena were reluctant to risk a change in the legal landscape.  The next day, the parties to Magner v. Gallagher withdrew their case by mutual consent.
Judicial Watch separately obtained documents under the Minnesota Data Practices Act, showing that St. Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing arranged a meeting between the chief of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, Tom Perez, and Mayor Chris Coleman a week before the city’s withdrawal from the case, captioned Magner v. Gallagher. Following Perez’s visit, the city withdrew its case and thanked DOJ and officials at HUD for their involvement.
On April 4, Judicial Watch sent a FOIA request to the DOJ and HUD seeking access to the following:

1. All communications with or about St. Paul, Minnesota, its residents, landlords, low-income properties or employees, specifically those exchanges:

a. relating to the city’s recent petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, including the petition’s withdrawal in February 2012;

b. regarding “disparate impact” theory or analysis in the housing, landlord-tenant, or mortgage arena;

c. involving any member of the U.S. Senate’s Democratic Policy & Communications Committee, the House Democratic Caucus, or the White House, and their respective staffs; and,

d. involving third parties such as the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Thomas Goldstein, orWalter Mondale and their respective staffs;

2.  All invoices for travel, food, lodging, communications, or entertainment expenses incurred in connection with any “disparate impact” lawsuit against St. Paul, Minnesota.

In filing its FOIA request, JW requested a waiver of both search and duplication fees, citing its role as a member of the news media. On June 11, 2012, HUD denied JW’s waiver request, informing JW that it would be required to pay a $1,024.43 fee before HUD would release any records.
On June 21, 2012, JW appealed HUD’s denial of a waiver request. On July 23, HUD denied JW’s appeal, and on July 31, JW paid the waiver fee in full.
Despite payment in full, and despite repeated inquiries from JW about the status of its FOIA request, HUD has continued to refuse to release of the documents requested by JW.
“We have reason to believe that the Obama administration improperly and successfully pressured St. Paul city officials to take the extremely rare action of withdrawing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration and its liberal activist allies are desperate to protect their ability to use the discredited ‘disparate impact’ legal standard in lawsuits in order to shakedown businesses and reward allies.”

Read more about FOIA, HUD, U.S. District Court

Sharon4Anderson Constitutional PropertyRights_lawlessamerica_Bill Windsor et al

Uploaded videos  2012 Legal Notice this Dec.12, 

Public Plea Basic Necessities of Life,Water,Air,Housing "takings" by City St.Paul,MNState,Federal Governments via Judicial Corruption causing  Theft,Trespass and Treason to cause Death,Disabilitys,Disparagement of Titles, unabated by MN Attorney General Lori Swanson www.ag.state.mn.us et al www.sharon4anderson.org  Forensic Files www.lawlessamerica.com

1-10 of 34 http://www.youtube.com/user/lawlessamerica/videos?query=Minnesota

---

• 3:07 SharonsForensicFiles_ Sharon Anderson 12 views 2 days ago Sharons Forensic Files Submitted to Bill Windsor for www.lawlessamerica.com for Congressional Hearings, re: Judicial Corruption "taking" via Illegal,Unpublished Orders Real...

  How to Fight Judicial Corruption and Government Corruption - Part 1 -- Go in with Your Eyes Open

  Sunday, 11 March 2012 01:00

  William M. Windsor

  • 
  • 
  • 

  
  When I discovered that I was being victimized by judicial corruption, I decided to fight.
  I am not an attorney, and I am not giving legal advice.
  This is the first in a series of articles that detail the things that I have done in fighting judicial corruption. 
  Most of this applies to fighting any form of government corruption....
  Go in with Your Eyes Open
  I went into this process expecting to win because mine is an easily-proven case of judicial misconduct and corruption.  I have found that you can’t win with the system because the judges are corrupt and protect each other.  Your best hope is a grand jury, but I believe taking every available shot is the best way to go.
  If I had it to do over again, I wouldn’t have done much any different.  When I realized how pervasive the corruption was, I set out to document as much wrongdoing as possible.  This is very important in the fight against corruption because we need to build a tsunami of evidence of wrongdoing.
  As you make decisions about what you will and won't do in battling corruption, please realize that you will probably lose in court.  You won't lose because you have a bad case or because you won't do an adequate job of presenting your case.  You will lose because the system is corrupt.
  

  How to Fight Judicial Corruption and Government Corruption -- A Step-by-Step Procedure

  Part 1 in this series is "Go in with Your Eyes Open."
  Part 2 in this series is "Fire Your Attorney."
  Part 3 in this series is "Establish a Support Network."Always abide by the Rules
  Part 4 in this series is "Know How Judges Commit Crimes."
  Part 5 in this series is "Document Everything -- Take Notes -- Put it in Writing."
  Part 6 in this series is "Always abide by the Rules."
  Part 7 in this series is "Prepare Everything Very Carefully."
  Part 8 in this series is "Get Your Facts and Evidence Together."
  Part 9 in this series is "Get Help from Others."
  Part 10 in this series is "Take Advantage of Every Opportunity to Generate Proof of Corruption."
  Part 11 in this series is "File Motions for Conferences and Hearings"
  Part 12 in this series is "Always have Witnesses at Hearings"
  Part 13 in this series is "Check the Orders in Your Case"
  Part 14 in this series is "Put your Proof on a Website"
  Part 15 in this series is "Appeal Early and Often"
  Part 16 in this series is "File Criminal Charges with the District Attorney and U.S. Attorney"
  Part 17 in this series is "File Motions for Recusal"
  

  ---

  William M. Windsor

  I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.  This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption.   Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.
  

  ---

  Last Updated on Friday, 13 April 2012 02:54
•  

View this page online. December 12, 2012 PLF fights feds' takeover of a Santa Fe couple's land VIDEO: PLF attorney Jennifer Fry explains why this case is of nationwide importance Peter and Frankie Smith live outside of Santa Fe on property with a dry creek bed. Imagine their shock when the Army Corps of Engineers labeled this dry land a "water of the United States" subject to federal control! "We can't believe that the Federal Government can control what we do in our own backyard under the Clean Water Act when there is no water on our property!" says Peter Smith. This week, PLF attorneys sued the Corps on behalf of the Smiths, challenging its misuse of the Clean Water Act to grab control of private property. As Fry points out, "If the federal government can tell the Smiths what they can and can't do on their own land, by twisting the Clean Water Act and essentially using a divining rod to conjure a 'water body' out of dry soil, then no property owner, anywhere, is safe from federal intrusion." Smith case follows up on PLF's Supreme Court victory for the Sacketts Listen to a discussion of the Smith case with PLF's Jennifer Fry. Don't have iTunes? Listen to the podcast online. This lawsuit follows up on PLF's victory earlier this year in Sackett v. EPA. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Idaho residents Mike and Chantell Sackett --- and by extension, all property owners --- have a right to bring a court challenge to a federal "wetlands compliance order." The Smith case, in turn, argues that property owners may seek court review if the federal government designates their land as subject to the Clean Water Act. Help PLF fight for the Smiths --- and for victims of abusive regulations nationwide! "We don't believe Congress ever intended to give the Corps power to regulate dry creek beds like ours and we want to help put an end to the Corps' ridiculous interpretation of 'waters of the United States,'" said Peter Smith. "We heard about Pacific Legal Foundation when it helped Mike and Chantell Sackett. We are bringing this lawsuit now to get the feds off our property and also so that we, like the Sacketts, can help property owners across America stand up against federal government bullies." YOU can help the Smiths --- and the cause of property rights nationwide --- by DONATING to help PLF "rescue liberty" from coast to coast! Rob Rivett President Pacific Legal Foundation www.pacificlegal.org Recent YouTube Videos Fighting to keep the Feds from regulating deserts under the Clean Water Act Dr. Tachibana speaks out against Obamacare Challenging the constitutionality of Nevada's anti-competitive licensing law PLF Back in the Supreme Court with Important Property Rights Case! PLF Liberty Blog PLF Facebook PLF Twitter PLF YouTube PLF Podcast

Lawless America...The Movie: Update -- November 18, 2012

 Thanks Billy Windsor Smart Move Happy Holidays  with Love from Minnesota www.lawlessamerica.com  www.youtube.com/lawlessamerica   type Minnesota in Search Engine  PS will Join LoveLetters to Children  PSS Having Major Troubles with Widgets???

Trilogy Impeachments Judges,Public Officials 1992 to 2009

VOTE NOW! Should Republicans try to stop Obama's tax increases? | Sponsored by Independent Living News

VOTE NOW! Should Republicans try to stop Obama's tax increases? | Sponsored by Independent Living News
In remarks on the Senate floor today, Alabama senator Jeff Sessions blasted President Barack Obama and congressional leadership for holding "secret" fiscal cliff negotiations.
"I rise today to express my reservations about the fiscal cliff negotiations that are currently underway," said Sessions. "Over the last two years, Congress and the President have held an endless series of secret negotiations. There have been gangs of six and eight, a supercommittee of 12, talks at the Blair House and the White House. But the only thing these secret talks have produced is a government that skips from one crisis to the next. Everything has been tried but the open production of a 10-year budget plan as required by law and open discussions of the difficult choices."
Sessions, the highest Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, saved most of his criticism for the president. "President Obama campaigned on a tax increase of ‘only’ $800 billion," said Sessions. "But now the White House is demanding $1.6 trillion in new taxes. Don’t the American people have a right to see these taxes and where they will fall? Shouldn’t the President of the United States, the only person who represents everybody in the country, lay out his plan, or must that remain a secret too? Will it just be revealed to us on the eve of Christmas or eve of the new calendar year? We will be asked to vote for it, to ratify it like lemmings, I suppose."
The Alabama senator insisted Obama is not serious about cutting spending--or cutting government waste.

In fact, the President is giving speeches calling for even more spending. On Tuesday, he gave a speech in which he said he wants to use the tax hikes to ‘invest in training, education, science, and research.’ Investment, of course, is just code for spending.