Thursday, December 19, 2019
Sunday, December 15, 2019
JusticeDavidL.lILLEHAUGformerUSATTRYMNformerOutsideCounsel4CitySt.Paul,MN
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
FILED WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2019
NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.
A18-1171 William DeRosa, Appellant, vs. Craig M. McKenzie, Respondent.
Court of Appeals.
1. A corporate officer who did not author a defamatory statement, but participated in the publication of the statement, may be held personally liable for defamation.
2. The pleadings provided sufficient notice to a corporate officer of the defamation claim against him in his personal capacity for his participation in the commission of a tort to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Reversed and remanded. Justice Anne K. McKeig.
SHARON SCARRELLA ANDERSON
DISCLAIMER; USSC10-1032 titled Magner vs. Gallagher
Outside Counsel4CitySt.Paul,MN David Lillehaug DirtyDFL Deals QuoWarranto
given Judgship also City Attorney Sara Grewing.
https://www.nationalbcc.org/images/stories/DOJ-St-Paul.pdf
Executive Summary In early February 2012, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez made a secret deal behind closed doors with St. Paul, Minnesota, Mayor Christopher Coleman and St. Paul’s outside counsel, David Lillehaug. Perez agreed to commit the Department of Justice to declining intervention in a False Claims Act qui tam complaint filed by whistleblower Fredrick Newell against the City of St. Paul, as well as a second qui tam complaint pending against the City, in exchange for the City’s commitment to withdraw its appeal in Magner v. Gallagher from the Supreme Court, an appeal involving the validity of disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act. Perez sought, facilitated, and consummated this deal because he feared that the Court would find disparate impact unsupported by the text of the Fair Housing Act. Calling disparate impact theory the “lynchpin” of civil rights enforcement, Perez simply could not allow the Court to rule. Perez sought leverage to stop the City from pressing its appeal. His search led him to David Lillehaug and then to Newell’s lawsuit against the City.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/09-1528/091209p-2011-02-25.html
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file4.pdf
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/hud-sued-for-records-of-obama-administration-involvement-in-controversial-st-paul-mn-housing-discrimination-case/
ORDERS
A18-0454 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Gretchen Renee Severin, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0240886.
Supreme Court.
Suspended. Justice David L. Lillehaug.
A19-1351 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Christine Michelle Middleton, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 028810X.
Supreme Court.
Suspended. Justice David L. Lillehaug.
Thursday, December 5, 2019
RepMattGaetzVSPamelaKarlanDFLObamaLawPro2019
Thurs.5Dec2019
Fighting Lawyers http://lying-lawyers.blogspot.com
The U.S. Supreme Court signaled it will move quickly to decide whether Donald Trump’s financial records must be turned over to a House committee, telling the president to file an expedited appeal and ordering the files kept private in the meantime.
The justices on Monday set up a briefing schedule that could let them decide by mid-December whether to take Trump’s appeal in the case, which stems from a House subpoena to his accounting firm. If they accept the case, the justices could rule by the end of their term in late June.
In the same order, the court granted Trump’s request to block the subpoena until the justices act, delaying the delivery of the records for at least several more weeks. The court gave Trump until noon on Dec. 5 to file any appeal.
The five-sentence order said nothing about how the nine justices might rule, or even whether they will agree to hear the appeal. None of the justices publicly dissented.
The case is one of two that are testing the court’s willingness to shield the president from investigations into his personal and business affairs. Both subpoenas went to Mazars USA, which isn’t contesting the demands.
The subpoena from the House Oversight and Reform Committee seeks “all statements of financial condition, annual statements, periodic financial reports, and independent auditors’ reports” in the possession of Mazars, as well as supporting documentation and related communications. It covers Trump’s individual finances as well as those of the Trump Organization.
The panel says it wants the documents because it is considering revising the federal ethics-in-government laws. Trump’s lawyers say the primary purpose is law enforcement, something they say is beyond Congress’s legislative powers.
A federal appeals court in Washington backed the committee on a 2-1 vote. Chief Justice John Roberts previously put that ruling on a temporary hold by issuing an administrative stay.
In the New York case, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance is investigating whether Trump’s business falsified records to disguise hush payments to two women who claimed they had sex with him before he took office. In an appeal filed last week, Trump contended that presidents have broad immunity from criminal investigations while in office.
Under an agreement with Vance, Trump asked the court to resolve the case in its current term. Vance’s office said it won’t try to enforce the subpoena until the Supreme Court acts.
The congressional case is Trump v. Mazars, 19A545. The New York case is Trump v. Vance, 19-635.
xx
The justices on Monday set up a briefing schedule that could let them decide by mid-December whether to take Trump’s appeal in the case, which stems from a House subpoena to his accounting firm. If they accept the case, the justices could rule by the end of their term in late June.
In the same order, the court granted Trump’s request to block the subpoena until the justices act, delaying the delivery of the records for at least several more weeks. The court gave Trump until noon on Dec. 5 to file any appeal.
The five-sentence order said nothing about how the nine justices might rule, or even whether they will agree to hear the appeal. None of the justices publicly dissented.
The case is one of two that are testing the court’s willingness to shield the president from investigations into his personal and business affairs. Both subpoenas went to Mazars USA, which isn’t contesting the demands.
The subpoena from the House Oversight and Reform Committee seeks “all statements of financial condition, annual statements, periodic financial reports, and independent auditors’ reports” in the possession of Mazars, as well as supporting documentation and related communications. It covers Trump’s individual finances as well as those of the Trump Organization.
The panel says it wants the documents because it is considering revising the federal ethics-in-government laws. Trump’s lawyers say the primary purpose is law enforcement, something they say is beyond Congress’s legislative powers.
A federal appeals court in Washington backed the committee on a 2-1 vote. Chief Justice John Roberts previously put that ruling on a temporary hold by issuing an administrative stay.
In the New York case, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance is investigating whether Trump’s business falsified records to disguise hush payments to two women who claimed they had sex with him before he took office. In an appeal filed last week, Trump contended that presidents have broad immunity from criminal investigations while in office.
Under an agreement with Vance, Trump asked the court to resolve the case in its current term. Vance’s office said it won’t try to enforce the subpoena until the Supreme Court acts.
The congressional case is Trump v. Mazars, 19A545. The New York case is Trump v. Vance, 19-635.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)