SharonsVideo Bar

Loading...

RICO by City of St. Paul"Patterened Enterprise" for 30 years against the citizenery, TAXACTION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

SexySeniorSharon-SueEm

SexySeniorSharon-SueEm
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com WE ARE TAXED OUT OF OUR HOMES: BY CORRUPT POLITICANS FIGHT BACK:

RottweillerBodyGuard Maddy

RottweillerBodyGuard Maddy

Saturday, August 8, 2015

SharonvsCitySt.PaulFairHousing2015

http://lennycarolanderson.blogspot.com/2012/12/minnesota-lawlessamericacongressional.html

  
Fri.7Aug2015
Click here: Freedom-4You NOTE TO CITY ST.PAUL,All Candidates,Media, et al
WE THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT AND P-RIVILEGE TO HAVE FREE COPYS OF CITY LAWSUITS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ________________________________________________________________________ Case No. 04-2632 (MJD/SER) Frank J. Steinhauser, III, Mark E. Meysembourg, and Kelly G. Brisson, Plaintiffs vs. City of Saint Paul defendants Case No. 05-0461 (MJD/SER) Sandra Harrilal, Bee Vue, Lamena Vue, and Steven R. Johnson, d/b/a Market Group and Properties, Plaintiffs vs. City of Saint Paul defendants ________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs Frank J. Steinhauser, Mark E. Meysembourg, Kelly G. Brisson, Sandra Harrilal, and Steve Johnson, through their undersigned counsel submit this status Brief pursuant to the Court’s July 6, 2015 Order.
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs filed suit May 5, 2004 after Defendant through its officials and inspectors during 2002 through 2005 targeted their low-income rental properties with illegally heightened housing standards and illegal code enforcement tactics and methods and other retaliatory tactics, including repeated false claims of code violations, illegal condemnations of homes and removal of “grandfathering” protections through forced renovations to present code under City “Code Compliance Certifications” in violation of the Minnesota State Building Code, all resulting in displacement of and injuries to “protected class” tenants, removal of habitable housing units, and economic losses to Plaintiffs. During 2005 through 2008, Plaintiffs participated in extensive discovery and motion practice including unsuccessfully seeking sanctions against the City for its admitted destruction following commencement of the first lawsuit in 2004 of electronic communications of Defendant officials and inspectors and thousands of relevant City
City of Saint Paul's attempt to cover up the illegal housing activities,

DEFENDANT’S STATUS BRIEF

At the inception of this dispute, sixteen plaintiffs filed three cases, collectively asserting thirty-two causes of action against eighteen defendants, which included the City of St. Paul (the “City”) and a host of City officials and employees. Today, five plaintiffs, one defendant, and one cause of action remain: Plaintiffs assert the City violated the Fair Housing Act based on a disparate impact theory. The remaining plaintiffs are landlords or former landlords, and paradoxically, they claim the City’s enforcement of its housing code against their dilapidated properties created a disparate impact on minorities and disabled tenants by decreasing the availability of low-income housing.
Earlier this year, the Court stayed this action pending issuance of a decision in a case pending before the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued that decision on June 25, 2015. Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015) (“Texas”). The Court has asked the parties to brief the status of the case in light of this ruling. Doc. No. 348.
The impact of the Texas decision on this case is clear: Plaintiffs’ sole claim against the City must be dismissed. To be sure, the Supreme Court in Texas acknowledged that disparate impact claims may be asserted under the Fair Housing Act. But it is equally clear that in doing so, the Court imposed cautionary requirements that must be met before a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case. In the present case—which the Supreme Court specifically identified by name in its decision—Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements identified in Texas. Specifically, Plaintiffs have failed to establish the existence of an actual City policy that resulted in discrimination, and have similarly failed to establish the necessary robust causal connection between a City policy and its purported discriminatory effects. Both elements are mandatory. Even if Plaintiffs had complied with the Supreme Court’s prima facie requirements, Plaintiffs’ claim still fails post-Texas because all parties agree that the City had a legitimate governmental objective, and the Supreme Court opined that legitimate objectives cannot give rise to disparate imp
Citys Answer
lhttp://lennycarolanderson.blogspot.com/2012/12/minnesota-lawlessamericacongressional.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwtnZaIlfDg#t=26Sharon4Anderson@aol.com AttorneyProSe_Private AG, ECF 65913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel: 651-776-5835 HEALTH CARE Candidate 2014 MNAG www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com Senate64 http://cobrashar.blogspot.com/
www.sharonsenate64.blogspot.comhttp://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.pdfhttp://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profile/SharonScarrellaAndersonwww.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson www.taxthemax.blogspot.com www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson

From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
To: fmelo@pioneerpress.com, portia.hampton.flowers@ci.stpaul.mn.us, samuel.clark@ci.stpaul.mn.us
CC: james.shiffer@startribune.com, whistleblower@startribune.com
Sent: 8/7/2015 3:17:22 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Check out Sharon4Anderson
Called Portia she stated Dorsey is Pro Bono, said Contract did not have to go before Council.
Portia stated she would send it to me
Further How many Asst City Attorneys are their.
We do not need outside counsel last i checked over 42 Asst.
 

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwtnZaIlfDg#t=26Sharon4Anderson@aol.com AttorneyProSe_Private AG, ECF 65913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel: 651-776-5835 HEALTH CARE Candidate 2014 MNAG www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com Senate64 http://cobrashar.blogspot.com/
    www.sharonsenate64.blogspot.comhttp
    w.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson

    No comments: