To Whom it may concern; VOTE RED NOV3RD2020
SHARONSENATE64TRUMP SUPPORTER CREDITS TO BILL WINDSOR 
Tom Fitton http://judicialwatch.org
 |
| https://www.academia.edu/8854769/Sharons_Realestate_USSC |
 |
| https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/tax-cases-in-th.html |
Why Affiant hereinafter Sharon Anderson aka Peterson 1st husband Scarrella, Files and Blogs from her Legal HOMESTEAD at 1058 Summit Ave St.No Statute of Limitations on Fraud or Murder.
EQUITY SKIMMING FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES DEFAULT https://sharon4council.blogspot.com/2008/05/sharons-default-judgments-v-city-
In the event MNAG Muslin Keith Ellison trys to lay a Felony on Sharon from her Legal Domicle 1058 Summit Ave BRING IT ON
| https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/09-1528/091209p-2011-02-25.htmlhttps://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/09-1528/091209p-2011-02-25.html |
| Political Party | ||
| Sharon Anderson | Republican | |
| Residence Address | Campaign Address | |
| LEGAL 1058 SUMMIT AVE ST. PAUL, MN 55104 | 697 SURREY AVE ST. PAUL, MN 55106 | |
| Candidate Website | Phone Number | |
| http://sharonsenate64.blogspot.com | (651) 7765835 | |
| View Voluntary Disclosure | ||
| sharon4anderson@aol.com | ||
| State Senator District 64 | |||||
| Candidate Name | Party | Website | File Date | ||
| Patricia Jirovec McArdell | Legal Marijuana Now | 5/19/2020 | |||
| Sharon Anderson | Republican | http://sharonsenate64.blogspot.com | 5/21/2020 | ||
| Erin Murphy | Democratic-Farmer-Labor | 5/22/2020 | |||
Clerk Fred Grittner was not a Judge THEREFORE; said Judgment dtd. Apr 19th,1989 from file 495722 Lesbian Judge Kathleen Gearin. taking homestead when property taxes were paid, Sharon and her 2nd husband both on Disability at that time. Prohibited Purscher Asst AG James Donnelly and Llyods,Bober Drugstore Pharmasists. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/19
1. TENANTS IN COMMON DENIED Due
 |
| http://petersonfamilytree.blogspot.com |
Mother Died May
Subject: Check out state legislation proposal-2012-09-26.pdf
state legislation proposal-2012-09-26.pdf
Lawless A 28 U.S.C. § 1691 requires that all orders must be signed and issued under seal.
In my experience, federal courts rarely issue legal orders....
The word "process"� at 28 U.S.C. § 1691 means a court order. See Middleton Paper Co. v. Rock River Paper Co., 19 F. 252 (C.C. W.D. Wisconsin 1884); Taylor v. U.S., 45 F. 531 (C.C. E.D. Tennessee 1891); U.S. v. Murphy, 82 F. 893 (DCUS Delaware 1897); Leas & McVitty v. Merriman, 132 F. 510 (C.C. W.D. Virginia 1904); U.S. v. Sharrock, 276 F. 30 (DCUS Montana 1921); In re Simon, 297 F. 942, 34 ALR 1404 (2nd Cir. 1924); Scanbe Mfg. Co. v. Tryon, 400 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1968); and Miles v. Gussin, 104 B.R. 553 (Bankruptcy D.C. 1989).
"The legal meaning of the word 'process' varies according to the context, subject matter, and spirit of the statute in which it occurs. [United States v. Kinney, D.C., 264 F. 542, writ of error dismissed 254 U.S. 663, 41 S. Ct. 64, 65 L. Ed. 464; United States v. Murphy, D.C., 82 F. 893.] In some jurisdictions codes or statutes variously define 'process' as signifying or including: A writ or summons issued in the course of judicial proceedings; all writs, warrants, summonses, and orders of courts of justice or judicial officers; or any writ, declaration, summons, order, or subpoena whereby any action, suit, or proceeding shall be commenced, or which shall be issued in or upon any action, suit, or proceeding". 50 Cor. Jur. 442. "The term 'process' includes any writ of summons, subpoena or order * * * issued in or upon any action, * * * brought in any court * * * having jurisdiction of the subject-matter." Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U.S. 369, 374, 24 L. Ed. 853. "A 'process' is merely a formal writing issued by authority of law. In re Martin, 86 N.J.Eq. 265, 98 A. 510; State v. Superior Court of Thurston County, 139 wash. 454, 247 P. 942; see, also, In re Simon [2 Cir.], 297 F. 942; Frank Adams Elec. Co. v. Witman, 16 Ga.App. 574, 85 S.E. 819." Massey v. United States, D.C., 46 F.2d 78, 79. (United States v. Fore, 38 F. Supp. 142 (03/10/1941).)
"The term 'process' is not limited to 'summons.' In its broadest sense it is equivalent to, or synonymous with, 'procedure,' or 'proceeding.' ...the term is also broadly defined as the means whereby a court compels a compliance with its demands."� 72 CJS Process § 2, at 589 (1987).
See also Chisholm v. Gilmer, 299 U.S. 99 (1936).
Furthermore, the word "process" itself implies court action. It is generally defined as the means by which a court compels the appearance of a defendant before it or by which the court compels a compliance with its demands. Black's Law Dictionary (Revised Fourth Edition 1968), p. 1370; United States v. Kinney, 264 F. 542 (E.D.Pa.1920); United States v. Fore, 38 F.Supp. 142 (S.D.Cal.1941); 72 C.J.S. Process § 1; State v. Sullivan, 245 Wis. 180, 13 N.W.2d 550 (1944). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1691-1696. (Girardier v. Webster College, 563 F.2d 126 (1977.)
It is clear that an order is a "process," and thus must be signed and issued under seal as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1691.
But in my cases in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, there are only a few orders that have been signed and issued under seal. In my five actions in the United States Supreme Court, there has never been an order signed and issued under seal. Note: There is no statute that allows a judge to sign using /s/, but even if there was, the orders do not bear the required seal.
This is a legal order -- signed and sealed with signature of the Clerk of the Court.
Here are three ILLEGAL so-called "Orders" just issued on three petitions that a man filed in the United States Supreme Court.
Here is one of hundreds of examples from my actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Here are some of my invalid orders from the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is my opinion that if the orders issued in a case were not signed and sealed, they are void. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) and 60(d) provide a procedure where you can file a motion (60(b)) or a new complaint (60(d)) to set aside the orders and judgments in your case.
I am not an attorney, and I do not offer legal advice. I am simply sharing the results of the thousands of hours that I have spent conducting legal research into legal and judicial corruption.
William M. Windsor
I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS. The comments of visitors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions. This website does not provide legal advice. I do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose corruption in government, law enforcement, and the judiciary. 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 of 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.
merica - Judicial Corruption and Government Corruption Exposed"The district court held that 'the injunction signed only by a deputy clerk of the District Court is void' for want of a judicial signature. Section 1691 of Title 28, U.S.C. (which was not called to the attention of the district court) provides that 'All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof.'" In view of the clear provisions of the statute, the judgment must be reversed." (Scanbe Mfg. Co. v. Tryon, 400 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1968).)
xx
Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.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
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
