SharonsVideo Bar


Thursday, March 1, 2007

Bad Behavior Federal Judge to Comptroller


Fwd: Criminal Bad Behavior 06cv1607Judge James M. RosenbaumMN or Notice Appea...

Date: 6/28/2006 3:40:43 A.M. Central Daylight Time











Page 1 of AOL Email 4

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 America Online: Sharon4Anderson


Forwarded Message:


Forwarded Message:


Fwd: Criminal Bad Behavior 06cv1607Judge James M. RosenbaumMN or Notice Appea...

Date: 6/28/2006 3:34:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time

























Right-click picture(s) to display picture options


Criminal Bad Behavior 06cv1607Judge James M. RosenbaumMN or Notice Appeal 8thCir

Date: 6/28/2006 3:28:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time







Right-click picture(s) to display picture options

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 1 of 24

TO: David M. Walker, Comptroller

General of the United States

Dated: Wed. 28Jun06 by E Commerce at 5:09am





Humble Request for Integrity in Government for all citizens.

Submitted in good Faith the Federal Civil Rights litigation: 06CV1607, WITH

30 years of Federal litigation and attached 19 pages pdf file of Affidavit of Prejudice against

Federal Judge James Rosenbaum who for years has Obstructed Legal Process to coverup

theCourts Corruption in Minnesota.


This is to trigger an Audit or investigation of Rosenbaums Abuse of ECF

Filings for his own pecuniary gain, to steal the filing fees US Dist.02-0332 to reduce the

citizenery to poverty, then deny access to the Seats of Government is Bizzare. 06cv1607 AND


Then based on the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934

"In cases of actual controversy the court of the US

shall have power * * * to declare * * * * final

judgment and be reviewable as such* * * *

Rosenbaum to deny IFP Doc (3,4,5,) undersigned has been reduced to poverty,

social security receipient, disabled, senior, woman Attorney Pro Se,

further Doc ,7 Rescusal Affidavit of Prejudice in re: Scarrella for Associate

Justice 221NW2nd562 and Separation of Powers Doctrine when we sued the Federal Bench

30 years ago for blatant abuse of Denial of Seats of Government.

Then to insult my intelligence by the 1 page Order to strike and vacate a civil

rights of taking the basic necessity of life " WATER"

when no moving papers from the City of St. Paul or its attorneys to dismiss,vacate or strike,

police brutality to stalk me, causing Ankle Fracture, in Wheel Chair and Crutch's is

repugnant to Homeland Security.

Rosenbaum lied to Congress , IS CONDUCTING A "PATTERNED



Page 2 of AOL Email 4

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 America Online: Sharon4Anderson

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 2 of 24



Further Affiant sayeth not at this time:

s/ Sharon Anderson sig. below


By phone: (202) 512-3000 (Locator)

By email:

Organizational Phone Book

The GAO Organizational Telephone Directory provides contact information for Agency personnel.

This document is updated frequently.


By phone: (202) 512-6000


Contact: Paul Anderson

Room Number: 7149

Phone Number: (202) 512-4800


Contact: Gloria Jarmon

Room Number: 7125

Phone Number: (202) 512-4400

lick here: Contact GAO


5835 SharonsWaterShutOff19Apr06

Page 3 of AOL Email 4

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 America Online: Sharon4Anderson

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 3 of 24

Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs

Anderson + Advocates P165913sa1299 PACER Nancy Osterman’s story Betty

Speaker’s Story

CM/ECF Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefsAOL Olmstead v. US GovLawbreaker Vision

America: US v Cruikshank92US542(1875)Decend to Particulars Judges As Criminals?


Page 4 of AOL Email 4



Date: 5/6/2006 6:38:09 P.M. Central Daylight Time

From: Sharon4Anderson


CC: Sharon4Anderson, eagledahn1

Page 1 of 4

Saturday, May 06, 2006 America Online: Sharon4Anderson

United States District Court

District of Minnesota

TOLL-FREE CM/ECF HELP DESK: 866-325-4975 or 612-664


Related Cases 02-0332(Rosenbaum/Noel)

97- 1258(Montgomery)

22 others on file since 1973

COVA: 03-0639(Clark Dryrud)





According to Congress, U.S. Supreme Court case law and Minnesota's canons of

judicial ethics, a judge must bow out of hearing any case in which his or her

impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The Minnesota Canons of Judicial

Conduct say that judges must avoid all impropriety and appearance of

impropriety. "The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would

create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial

responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired."

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 5 of 24

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 America Online: Sharon4Anderson

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 4 of 24

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


ALL AGENCIES,Counties of Ramsey,Itasca,Aitkin,CrowWing,

City of St. Paul and its City Attorneys, dba Tax Exempt Utilities,District EnergySt. Paul Water

Commissioners , data warehousing Medical Records,John Doe Mary

Roe, individually,severally,and in

Official Capacities, Complaintants_ Title 31 Relatees


697 Surrey St.- SharonShutOff19Apr06 SharonScarrellaAnderson .

Water CaseNumber:4256

Title 26 501(c)3


Now comes the above named, VA Widow Sharon Peterson_Chergosky_Scarrella

Anderson and moves to recuse Judge's James Rosenbaum, Ann Montgomery,

Franklin Noel and others as their interests appear, from the above entitled matter

under 2

MS 176.312Aff Pred

8 USCS Sec. 455, and Marshall v

Jerrico Inc., 446 US 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980).

"The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property

will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of

the facts or the law."




Page 2 of 4

Saturday, May 06, 2006 America Online: Sharon4Anderson

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 6 of 24

The above is applicable to this court by application of Article VI of the United States

Constitution and Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d

1067 (1976).

"State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to

safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law."

Also see Minnesota Supreme Court , Judicial Canons listed below.

The above mentioned Judge's have in the past deliberately violated our litigant's

personal liberties and/or has wantonly refused to provide due process and equal

protection to all litigants before the court or has behaved in a manner inconsistent

with that which is needed for full, fair, impartial hearings.

Embellezed Filing Fee's re: US Dist 02-0332, Locked Court Doors, when my

husband was at Brainard for 1 year........

Which has led to Murder of Cpl Anderson21Sept00

Murder of Steven M. Quale9Feb05

The United States Constitution guarantees an unbiased Judge who will always

provide litigants with full protection of ALL RIGHTS. Therefore, Petitioner

respectfully demands said judge's recuse themselves in light of the evidence attached

as Exhibit 1 detailing prior unethical and/or illegal conduct or conduct which gives

Petitioner good reason to believe the above Judge 's cannot hear the above case "s in

a fair and impartial manner

The Court for 30 years In re Scarrella for Associate Justice 221NW2d562, has Denied

Employment in their Exclusive Franchise, contrary to Separation of Powers Doctrines.

July 12, 2002

1 In a related advisory opinion, the Committee analyzes recusal issues arising from a judge's

representation by the U.S. Department of Justice in legal proceedings. See Advisory Opinion No.



Further Affiant Sayeth not at this Time:

Its Peculiar that any Judge can make Rulings without the State even having

Salute The Troops& Cpl. James R. Anderson USMC:11028855 Motions, Bizzare way to do


USCAVC Docket 03-0639 Sharon L. Anderson

To Shut off ourWater , Basic Necessity off Life is the Absolute last

Straw............. "taking" our Homes not once but numerous times for the past 30 years......


Anderson + Advocates P165913sa1299 PACER

CM/ECF Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefsAOL Olmstead v. US GovLawbreaker Vision America: US v

Cruikshank92US542(1875)Decend to Particulars Judges As Criminals? OIC





Canon 1. A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence

of the Judiciary

Canon 2. A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance

of Impropriety in All Activities

Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office

Impartially and Diligently

Canon 4. A Judge May Engage in Extra-Judicial Activities To

Improve the Law, the Legal System, and the

Administration of Justice

Canon 5. A Judge Should Regulate Extra-Judicial Activities To

Minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Duties

Canon 6. A Judge Should Regularly File Reports of Compensation

Received for Law-Related and Extra-Judicial Activities

Canon 7. A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

Compliance with the Code of Conduct

Applicable Date of Compliance

Checklists for Financial and Other Conflicts of Interest (PDF)

Page 4 of 4

Saturday, May 06, 2006 America Online: Sharon4Anderson

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 8 of 24

2 The Committee notes that 28 U.S.C. § 455 contains language substantially similar to Canon 3C

(1). However, the charter of the Committee does not permit it to render opinions interpreting

section 455. Judges may want to review the judicial interpretation of section 455 by various

federal circuits in addition to the advice contained in this opinion.


Page 3 of 4

Saturday, May 06, 2006 America Online: Sharon4Anderson

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 7 of 24

"This is my eleventh year

in Congress," says Rep.

Scott, "and I've never

seen anything like this. I

don't see how you can

interpret it as anything

other than an attempt to

intimidate anyone who

seeks to tesify against a

bill by the majority on the


Getting Judge Rosenbaum

by David Rubenstein

On May 14, 2002, Judge James M.

Rosenbaum, chief judge of the U.S. District

Court for the District of Minnesota, appeared

before the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland

Security Subcommittee of the House Judiciary

Committee. He had been invited to give his views

on proposed legislation dealing with the federal

sentencing guidelines. Republicans on the

committee were pushing hard for the legislation.

Rosenbaum opposed it.

He may have thought he was doing his

civic duty, but some Republicans on the Judiciary

Committee didn’t see it that way. They went over

his testimony with a legal microscope, crossreferencing

to court records and transcripts,

looking for anything that arguably could be

called a misstatement or omission.

About a week after the hearing,

Rosenbaum received the first of a series of letters

suggesting there were problems with his

testimony and demanding more information, and

some court records.

About six months after the hearing, in

October of 2002, the committee issued a bound

report that featured 22 pages of criticism of and

accusations against Rosenbaum. It said, among

other things, that he had failed to follow the

sentencing guidelines and that he had lied to the


Rosenbaum’s supporters in turn have

accused Republicans on the committee,

spearheaded by Chairman F. James

Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, of conducting a

witch-hunt. They say the accusations were bogus,

based largely on a perverse interpretation of how

the sentencing guidelines work and a

misunderstanding, perhaps purposeful and

contrived, of what Rosenbaum had said to the

Page 1 of Minnesota Law & Politics 11 11/8/2004

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 9 of 24


More than a year after the hearing, as this

article was being prepared, the matter was still

simmering and no one could say for sure where it

was headed. Rosenbaum had retained Victoria

Toensing, one of the most seasoned and wellconnected

Republican attorneys in Washington to

try to put out the fire. On the case for the

subcommittee was chief counsel Jay Apperson, a

tenacious right-wing prosecutor and former

Kenneth Starr deputy on the investigation of

President Clinton.

Under terms of an agreement that averted

a subpoena, Rosenbaum was being treated like

Enron scum: A magistrate from the

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts had

been dispatched to his offices to pore over

sentencing records going back to 1999.

Meanwhile the subcommittee, after being

rebuffed in its attempt to get the General

Accounting Office (GAO) to investigate

Rosenbaum, had prevailed upon the GAO to

conduct a wider inquiry into sentencing patterns

of all federal judges in Minnesota.

On the Judiciary Committee,

Rosenbaum’s staunchest defender is Rep. Robert

C. Scott, an attorney and Democrat, and the first

African-American congressman from Virginia

since Reconstruction.

“This is my 11th year in Congress,” Scott

says, "and I’ve never seen anything like this. I

don’t see how you can interpret it as anything

other than an attempt to intimidate anyone who

seeks to testify against a bill supported by the

majority on the committee.”

There are two possible tracks an attack on

Rosenbaum could take, to carry it to a finish. One

is impeachment. The other is criminal indictment.

A source familiar with the majority subcommittee

position says that a perjury charge is not an

option because Rosenbaum was not under oath,

but also notes that knowingly making false

statements to Congress or an agency is a

violation of federal statute. The source added,

however, that a referral is not being


Tough Sentencer

classic stage of overripeness when it

begins to eat its own children.

Rosenbaum was a protégé of Republican

Sen. Rudy Boschwitz, and at Boschwitz’s

recommendation, an appointee of the father and

progenitor himself, Ronald Reagan.

“I was in the Senate for 12 years and had

the opportunity to appoint one judge— or

recommend, whatever the proper word is — and

Jim was it,” says Boschwitz. "I’ve always

thought it was one of the better things I did.”

Rosenbaum has a reputation as a tough

sentencer, “certainly not the judge you would

most prefer your cases to be in front of,” says

Minneapolis defense attorney Joe Friedberg.

Jon Hopeman, attorney with Felhaber

Larson Fenlon & Vogt, was an assistant U.S.

attorney for 11 years, two of them under

Rosenbaum when Rosenbaum was U.S. attorney

in the early 1980s. Since then he has both

prosecuted and defended clients in front of him.

“I have clients still writing letters of

complaint to me about their sentences,” Hopeman


He recalls one letter that went to

Rosenbaum himself, from a Columbian drug

dealer whom Rosenbaum had given 60 years.

“And that was before the guidelines,” Hopeman


The man wrote to request his 60 years be

changed to a death sentence.

But Rosenbaum is not an off-the-shelf

conservative. He came of age in the ’60s with a

social conscience informed by a profoundly

conservative respect for institutions. At a time

when many of his peers and friends were

picketing or otherwise raising hell as participants

and cheerleaders of the nascent civil rights

movement, Rosenbaum kept his head down in

law school and emerged standing as a Vista legal

rights worker on the South Side of Chicago.

Whereas some judges are inclined to

sentence in silence, Judge Rosenbaum is known

for his colloquies, which sometimes resemble an

old-fashioned dressing-down by the principal.

Rosenbaum’s admirers say he speaks

from the heart, firm but fair. His detractors, and

even some of his admirers, say he frequently tilts

to the pompous. There are a number of theories

about what got Judge Rosenbaum in trouble, and

one of them is that when it came to pomposity, he

Page 3 of Minnesota Law & Politics 11 11/8/2004

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 11 of 24

The attack on Rosenbaum raises the

question of whether the heretofore seemingly

unstoppable conservative Republican revolution

in the United States may be approaching that

Page 2 of Minnesota Law & Politics 11 11/8/2004

met his match and didn’t know it. Or

perhaps he was just a bit too earnest.

“It’s been a real eye-opener I think for my

brother, who unlike me thinks the world runs on

decency,” says Twin Cities attorney and radio

personality Ron Rosenbaum. “We grew up

together, but I always thought he was a little

more naive and felt that the political process was

not quite as rough and tumble as it in fact is.

“This,” says Rosenbaum, “is nothing

more than my brother being used as a political

football, to play out an agenda of limiting the

power of the judiciary.”

Senior Judge Paul A. Magnuson of the

U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota,

who was chief judge until Rosenbaum began his

tenure in 2001, has a unique perspective on

Rosenbaum’s travails. “There but for the grace of

God,” he says.

Judges nationwide share the sentiment,

but Magnuson, a Reagan appointee who has been

on the bench since 1981, has something specific

in mind. The initial request to testify at the May

14 hearing went to him, but he had a scheduling

conflict.“I know that Judge Rosenbaum views

these things about the same as I do, and he’s an

articulate guy,” Magnuson says. “I picked up the

phone and said, ‘Hey Jim, you are going to get a


The call was a request to testify at

hearings regarding proposed bill H.R. 4689. You

could think of H.R. 4689 as a dope slap to the

U.S. Sentencing Commission, which had, as it

may each year, proposed amendments to the

federal sentencing guidelines. Commission

amendments go into effect on November 1,

unless Congress votes to negate them. H.R. 4689,

supported by Republicans on the committee,

would have done just that.

Of particular interest to Sensenbrenner

and the other Republicans on the subcommittee

was a Sentencing Commission recommendation

that would, in Judge Magnuson’s thumbnail, “cap

the points on mules,” thus resulting in some

reduction in their sentence. (See accompanying

piece, “The Judicial Problems of Mules.”)

In Magnuson’s view, the subcommittee’s project

constitutes a serious breach of separation of

powers — “incredibly inappropriate,” he says.

Magnuson notes that there are specific rules for

Page 4 of Minnesota Law & Politics 11 11/8/2004

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 12

of 24

departing from the guidelines, and as far as he

knows Rosenbaum follows them.

In any case, oversight on sentencing

issues is not a job for Congress, according to

Magnuson. “My Constitution contains no such

provision. If the trial judge in someone’s view

acts improperly, it goes to the Court of Appeals.”


They say politics makes strange

bedfellows, but this affair demonstrates that it can

make pretty strange ex-bedfellows too.

Sensenbrenner was first elected in 1978,

but he was little known nationally until January

of 1999, when he delivered the speech making

the House case for impeachment of Clinton.

The speech made numerous references to

“civil rights” (in the context of the Paula Jones

case), a strategy that piqued the interest of

political journalist John Nichols. "Outside of a

handful of Southern congressmen,” Nichols

wrote at the time, "Sensenbrenner has perhaps the

most troubling civil rights record in the House.”

Sensenbrenner is the multimillionaire heir

to a fortune made in the paper business, and he

represents a solidly Republican district that

includes bedroom suburbs stretching north and

west of Milwaukee. But he can’t be understood

solely as a lockstep right-winger. “Sensenbrenner

doesn’t try to win popularity contests among

Republicans or Democrats, and he is very

protective of his role as chairman,” says Jeff

Mayers, editor and president of,

a political news service.

Rosenbaum is not the first public figure

Sensenbrenner threatened with a subpoena. That

distinction goes to Attorney General John

Ashcroft, for attempting to stonewall the

Judiciary Committee’s attempt to get information

about the Patriot Act and possible abuses of

power. (They worked it out.)

The chief counsel to the subcommittee,

Jay Apperson, was hired by Sensenbrenner about

two years ago. He was deputy to special counsel

Kenneth Starr and was reportedly under

consideration to replace Starr before he resigned

in 1999.“If you become a target of Jay Apperson,”

says one anonymous source who crossed swords

with him during his 13-year career with the

Justice Department, “it’s not a polite inquiry. He

doesn’t run polite inquires.”

Page 5 of Minnesota Law & Politics 11 11/8/2004

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 13

of 24

A well-spoken Southerner, Apperson is a

former assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern

District of Virginia, where he will always be

remembered by some for the confederate

paraphernalia that adorned his office. He was

hired by Sensenbrenner about two years ago.

Rosenbaum eschewed local counsel and

went right to the heart of darkness to reach the

third ex-bedfellow in this drama, Victoria

Toensing, partner in the Washington, D.C., law

firm diGenova & Toensing.

Toensing was a noted Clinton-basher,

writing scathing and slightly racy op-eds for the

Washington Times at the peak of the party. But

that’s just a footnote to a long and remarkable

career. Her curriculum vitae suggests she might

be fathomed as a Washington, D.C., political

version of the legendary Hollywood producer and

finagler Sam Spiegel, about whom the film

director Billy Wilder once said in homage: “If

you woke up in a motel with a dead whore who’d

been stabbed, who would you call?”

Toensing has represented both members

of Congress and people appearing before

Congress, and has been a frequent witness herself

before congressional committees. Early in her

career, she was chief counsel for Sen. Barry

Goldwater when he chaired the Senate Select

Committee on Intelligence, and she is credited

with creating the Justice Department’s terrorism

unit while serving in the department under

Ronald Reagan. For a while she made a career

out of managing the legal pursuit of terrorists and

hijackers. In 1997, she was named special

counsel by the House of Representatives to probe

the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. She

has also become a familiar face on the fastermoving

TV public affairs shows, where she more

than holds her own with the likes of Bill Maher.

Rosenbaum is the last person you’d

expect to wake up under the circumstances

conjured up by Wilder, but he certainly did get a

wake-up call in late May 2002, when he got the

opening letter from the subcommittee, a week or

so after he testified. It was one of those letters

that in the reading produces measurable changes

in the viscera and permanent changes in the

brain, as you understand on the spot that it will

mark a milestone in your life and a permanent

change, the exact nature of which will not be

clear for some time.

Page 6 of Minnesota Law & Politics 11 11/8/2004

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 14

of 24

“Thank you for your recent testimony,” it

began. “Would you please provide the

Subcommittee with the following information

concerning each case referenced in your

testimony. …”

There followed a list of items, framed in

the style of a discovery request, some of them

employing that most unsettling of litigator’s

techniques, ominously akin to the fisherman’s

setting of the hook, wherein the interrogator

echoes the target’s own words, which appear ohso-

naked and helpless as the interrogator holds

them up like mice by the tail. (“Please identify

any multiple defendant case over which you

presided and in which you declined to sentence

the planner and enterprise-operator who set the

evil [drug-trafficking scheme] plan in motion and

who figures to take its profits at the high end of

his guideline range and/or in which you declined

to sentence the minor or minimal participants

who did a day’s work at the low end of the

guidelines range. ...” )

And so on, for two pages. Eleven items in


An exchange of letters followed, with

Rosenbaum apparently still not fully grasping

what he was having to come to grips with. In one

letter, he concludes by offering to take Texas

Rep. Lamar Smith (at the time the signatory to

the subcommittee’s letters) on a tour of the penal

institution of his choice. “I know that meeting

and discussing sentencing with those who know

it most intimately would provide a further insight

into the workings of the Sentencing Guidelines

system,” he wrote.

Then, in November, Rosenbaum got to

see something quite terrible that few of us will

ever see, a real stomach-grabber: his own name

in a published U.S. government document (H.R.

Rep. No. 107-769 (2002)), not buried in the text,

but set off as part of little chapter-like section

heads, in a 22-page section of text that reads like

a legal complaint. The chapters have titles like:

“Assurances of Categorical Enhancements for

Criminal History were not Reflected in Judge

Rosenbaum’s Own Sentencing of ‘EPR.’” And so


A short time later he retained Toensing.

The Koon Downdraft

Whatever the role played by personalities

in this episode, Judge Rosenbaum appears to

Page 7 of Minnesota Law & Politics 11 11/8/2004

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 15

of 24

have been caught up in political winds

triggered by a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decision

called Koon v. United States.

Stacey Koon was one of the Los Angeles cops

who beat up Rodney King. Or, as the decision

says more eloquently and precisely, willfully

permitted the other officers to use unreasonable

force during the arrest. Koon was found guilty,

but got a big downward departure in his sentence.

In Koon, the Supreme Court summarized

what could be considered an acceptable rationale

for a departure from a by-the-book sentence

generated by a guidelines computation: If a judge

perceives some factor that is not specifically

mentioned in the guidelines and it is significant

enough to take the case out of the “heartland” of

cases contemplated by the recipe book, then the

judge may depart.

Importantly, the Court in Koon also

clarified the standard of review to be applied

when a sentence is appealed: The district court

should get “substantial deference.”

“District courts,” said the Supreme Court,

“have an institutional advantage over appellate

courts in making these sorts of determinations,

especially as they see so many more Guidelines

cases than appellate courts do.”

Some members of Congress, notably

Sensenbrenner, were not happy with Koon, and

one theory about the ferocious attack on Judge

Rosenbaum is that it is in part an attack on Koon.

Since Rosenbaum’s ordeal began,

Sensenbrenner and other Republicans have

managed to effectively overturn Koon, in large

part, by legislation. This was achieved by

shoehorning the so-called Feeney amendment

(after Sensenbrenner’s colleague on the Judiciary

Committee, Republican Tom Feeney of Florida)

into the “Amber Alert” bill, which established a

nationwide system to locate missing children. In

today’s media climate, that practically assured

that you couldn’t cast a vote against what

amounted to a wholesale attack on judicial

sentencing discretion without the risk of being

labeled soft on child molesters and perverts, if

not one yourself.

Despite the fact it was opposed by everyone from

the National Association of Criminal Defense

Attorneys to the American Petroleum Institute—

and, in an unusual public statement, by Chief

Justice William Rehnquist — the Feeney

Page 8 of Minnesota Law & Politics 11 11/8/2004

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 16

of 24

amendment passed, in a somewhat compromised


Among other things (in all cases, not just

child abduction), it changes the standard of

appellate review of departures from due

deference to de novo. It mandates new reporting

requirements for judges who depart, provides the

judicial committees of Congress with new

oversight powers, and gives the Sentencing

Commission six months to come up with new

rules that will reduce the frequency of departures.

It also reduces the number of judges on the

seven-person Sentencing Commission from at

least three to no more than three.

The Sentencing Ratchet

Underlying Rosenbaum’s inquisition, the

Feeney amendment, and much of the debate

about the sentencing guidelines, is the whole

issue of drugs and the demagoguery for which it

is a seemingly bottomless fount.

In some ways, Minnesota has escaped the

most blatant manifestations of the phenomenon,

but not entirely. With so much water over the

dam, it’s easy to forget that in 1998, the

Republican Party in Minnesota launched Norm

Coleman’s campaign for governor with a picturebook

dive right down to the bottom of the barrel

on the drug issue. Literally the opening salvo of

the campaign was the Republican claim that

Humphrey was soft on crime because he had

been a party to a reduction in penalties for

marijuana possession some years before.

The Humphrey campaign plunged right

in, with the observation that Coleman had been a

dope smoker in college, and if he’d been subject

to the penalties the Republicans claim to yearn

for, he probably wouldn’t be around as a

politician. Together they frolicked and splashed.

Meanwhile the ex-wrestler and third-party

candidate mused over the radio that if he wasn’t

pursuing politics, he would probably be up in

northern Minnesota somewhere growing hemp.

You’d have to say Jesse Ventura’s victory

was the exception that proves the rule: Few on

the American political stage lose an election by

going “too far” in their advocacy for drug

sentences. William Bennett, at the time wrestling

with his own 40-milligrams-per-day nicotine

habit, once told the a TV audience he would

advocate beheading for dealers, and it didn’t hurt

his numbers. With few exceptions, drug

Page 9 of Minnesota Law & Politics 11 11/8/2004

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 17

of 24

sentencing laws work like a ratchet. They

only turn in one direction.

Largely because of drug convictions, the

United States has the highest prison population

rate in the world, with 702 people incarcerated

per 100,000. That compares to 139 people

incarcerated per 100,000 in the United Kingdom,

which has the highest incarceration rate in the

European Union.

Both major U.S. political parties have

exploited the drug issue, but the Republicans

have pushed the envelope. It’s easy to see this as

the function of an ideological and temperamental

predisposition, and no doubt to some extent it is.

But in the 1990s a new factor emerged, with

enormous political consequences: The

incarceration rate began to have a significant

effect on the electoral process.

According to The Sentencing Project, a

Washington, D.C., nonprofit, about 3.9 million

Americans, including 1.4 million African-

American men, have currently or permanently

lost their voting rights as a result of a felony

conviction. In the seven states that deny the vote

to ex-offenders, one in four black men is

permanently disenfranchised.

The only policy tool with such

exhilarating effects on the electoral process, from

the viewpoint of some Republicans, is the

immigration policies, which effectively create an

entire class of laborers who can’t vote. Florida is

a special and noteworthy case. Not only are the

pools cleaned, the lawns trimmed and the roofs

shingled by disenfranchised laborers, but at the

time of the 2000 presidential election, according

to an estimate by The Sentencing Project, its

residents included 600,000 ex-felons who also

could not vote.

Subverting the Public Interest

The same subcommittee that is currently

spending its time building its case against

Rosenbaum is also responsible for terrorism and

homeland security, from the protection of nuclear

power plants to the security of ports. A question

arises about possible misallocation of resources.

But another question may be more

consequential in the long run. In legislative

hearings, witnesses are called to provide

information and a viewpoint that will help

members in their deliberations. For this process

to work, the witnesses must be free to make their

Page 10 of Minnesota Law & Politics 11 11/8/2004

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 18

of 24

case with passion, even with wile, and

without feeling that they have to consult an

attorney before they speak. By laying down a

record that suggests a witness who brings a

viewpoint at odds with that of the subcommittee

will risk retaliation, the subcommittee threatens

national security in much the same way as an

executive who pressures an intelligence official

to cook the books.

One prominent judge didn’t shy away

from addressing the prospect of impeachment in

a recent speech in which he defended “our

colleague Judge James Rosenbaum.” Eleven

federal judges (in history), he noted, have in fact

been impeached. Six were convicted, one “by

default,” because he joined the Confederacy. The

other convictions were for financial

improprieties, income tax evasion, and perjury.

Thus, the judge argues, the historical

record upholds a principle that was clearly

established in the case of Justice Samuel Chase,

during the administration of Thomas Jefferson: A

judge's judicial acts cannot serve as a basis for his

removal from office.

The judge making the argument was

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in a speech on

May 5.

Can’t hurt.

Back to Articles

Subscriptions Articles About Law & Politics Ad Information Contact Us

[ ] [ ]

Page 11 of Minnesota Law & Politics 11 11/8/2004

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 19

Subj: Activity in Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Anderson v. St Paul, City of "Order Adopting

Report and Recommendations"

Date: 6/26/2006 10:14:13 A.M. Central Daylight Time



Page 1 of 1

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 America Online: Sharon4Anderson

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions.

U.S. District Court

District of Minnesota

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was received on 6/26/2006 at 10:10 AM CDT and filed on 6/26/2006

Docket Text:

ORDER ADOPTING [11] Report and Recommendation and denying [3] Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma

pauperis filed by Sharon Scarrella Anderson. Appellant Anderson's [1] "Notice of Removal" is summarily stricken

and vacated. Signed by Chief Judge James M Rosenbaum on 6/20/2006. (HLL)

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

0:06-cv-1607 Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Sharon Scarrella Anderson

0:06-cv-1607 Notice will be delivered by other means to:

Case Name: Anderson v. St Paul, City of

Case Number: 0:06-cv-1607


WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 06/26/2006

Document Number:15

Document description:Main Document

Original filename:n/a

Electronic document Stamp:

[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1051215216 [Date=6/26/2006] [FileNumber=1032975-0

] [0371cfbcc1ae56e00884d68ae38f56b519e0295462fb05c46cf767c50415fdf41f6


Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 20

of 24

of 24



City of St. Paul, Civil 06-1607 JMR/FLN


v. O R D E R

Mrs. Sharon Anderson,



Based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation by

United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel dated May 25, 2006, all the files and

records, and no objections having been filed to said Report and Recommendation,


1. Appellant Anderson.s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees,

(Docket No. 3), is DENIED;

2. Appellant Anderson.s .Notice of Removal,. (Docket No. 1), is summarily

stricken and vacated; and

3. This case is TERMINATED AND CLOSED by the Clerk of Court.

DATED: June 20, 2006. s/James M. Rosenbaum

at Minneapolis, Minnesota CHIEF JUDGE JAMES M. ROSENBAUM

United States District Court

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 15 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 1 of 1

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 21

of 24

U.S. District Court

District of Minnesota (DMN)



Anderson v. St Paul, City of

Assigned to: Chief Judge James M Rosenbaum

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Franklin L Noel

Demand: $75,000

Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 04/26/2006

Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights:


Jurisdiction: Federal Question


Sharon Scarrella Anderson

Suing as Sharon Anderson

represented by Sharon Scarrella Anderson

PO Box 4384

St Paul, MN 55104-0384





St Paul, City of

Date Filed # Docket Text

04/26/2006 1 COMPLAINT and Petition for Immediate Temporary

Injunctive Relief Barring Trial in State Court; with Jury

Demand, against City of St Paul, assigned to Judge James M

Rosenbaum per Civil rights list and referred to Magistrate

Judge Franklin L. Noel., filed by Sharon Anderson.

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A & B# 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(MKC)

(Entered: 04/27/2006)

04/26/2006 2 MEMORANDUM by Sharon Anderson in support of 1

Petition for Immediate Temporary Injunctive Relief Barring

Trial Via Administrataive Hearing, filed by Sharon Anderson.

(MKC) (Entered: 04/27/2006)

04/26/2006 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Sharon

Anderson. (MKC) (Entered: 04/27/2006)

Page 1 CM/ECF - District of Minnesota - Live - Docket Report of 3 6/27/2006

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 22 of 24

04/26/2006 4 AFFIDAVIT of Sharon Anderson in SUPPORT OF 3

MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by

Sharon Anderson. (MKC) (Entered: 04/27/2006)

04/26/2006 5 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Sharon Anderson re 3 MOTION

for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 4 Affidavit in Support

of Motion, 1 Complaint and Petition for injunctive relief, 2

Memorandum (MKC) (Entered: 04/27/2006)

05/02/2006 6 ORDER Within ten (10) days from the date of this order

"Appellant" Anderson must submit copies of all process,

pleadings, and orders served upon her in the state court action

that she is attempting to remove, as required by 28 U.S.C.

1446(a), failing which the Court will recommend that

"Appellant" Anderson's Notice of Removal be summarily

stricken, and that this removal proceeding be terminated.

Signed by Magistrate Judge Franklin L Noel on 5/2/06. (JLB)

(Entered: 05/03/2006)

05/08/2006 7 MOTION for Recusal by Sharon Scarrella Anderson.

(Anderson, Sharon) (Entered: 05/08/2006)

05/21/2006 8 EXHIBIT (Filed as "MOTION to Amend/Correct 1

Complaint") by Sharon Scarrella Anderson. (Anderson,

Sharon) Modified text on 5/22/2006 (gjs). (Entered:


05/21/2006 9 EXHIBIT (filed as "Amended Complaint against all parties")

filed by Sharon Scarrella Anderson.(Anderson, Sharon)

Modified on 5/22/2006 (gjs). (Entered: 05/21/2006)

05/23/2006 10 EXHIBIT (Filed as "AMENDED ANSWER with Jury

Demand") by Sharon Scarrella Anderson. (Anderson, Sharon)

Modified title on 5/24/2006 (gjs) (Entered: 05/23/2006)


Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Sharon Scarrella

Anderson,, 1 Complaint, filed by Sharon Scarrella Anderson.

Objections to R&R due by 6/14/2006. Signed by Magistrate

Judge Franklin L Noel on 5/25/05. (GJS) (Entered:


05/26/2006 12 ORDER- DENYING 7 Motion for Recusal . Signed by

Magistrate Judge Franklin L Noel on 5/25/06. (GJS) (Entered:


06/14/2006 13 MOTION to Amend/Correct 9 Amended Complaint Writ of

Page 2 CM/ECF - District of Minnesota - Live - Docket Report of 3 6/27/2006

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 23 of 24

Prohibition MNSupremeCrt by Sharon Scarrella Anderson.

(Anderson, Sharon) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

06/15/2006 14 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Sharon Scarrella Anderson re 13

MOTION to Amend/Correct 9 Amended Complaint Writ of

Prohibition MNSupremeCrt Affidavit of Service by e-

commerce (Anderson, Sharon) (Entered: 06/15/2006)

06/26/2006 15 ORDER ADOPTING 11 Report and Recommendation and

denying 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed

by Sharon Scarrella Anderson. Appellant Anderson's 1 "Notice

of Removal" is summarily stricken and vacated. Signed by

Chief Judge James M Rosenbaum on 6/20/2006. (HLL)

Modified on 6/26/2006 (gjs). (Entered: 06/26/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/27/2006 16:00:22


Login: sa1299 Client Code:

Description: Docket







Pages: 2 Cost: 0.16

Page 3 CM/ECF - District of Minnesota - Live - Docket Report of 3 6/27/2006

Case 0:06-cv-01607-JMR-FLN Document 16 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 24 of 24

AllianceMNSharon Anderson

My photo

VA Widow, Political-Realeste Entreprenuer, Blogger, More fun getting there than being there.
Favorite Saying " Supbonea God into the Court Room" aka Shewolfeagle , CobraShar