• Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,050
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Page 1 of 26Subj: SharonAndersonQuiTamRelatorvState of MN_OAH7-0900-220096-2_2ndHarvesDate: 8/25/2011 1:57:33 P.M. Central Daylight TimeFrom: Sharon4Anderson@aol.comTo: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com, gina.jensen@state.mn.us, attorney.general@state.mn.usCC: richard.luis@state.mn.us State of Minnesota Office of Attorney General Lori Swanson www.ag.state.mn.us Office of OAH www.oah.state.mn.us OAH no.7-0900-220962-2(Luis) Office of 2Harvest www.2harvest.org ID6915 (Chatmas) Thurs 25Aug.201 In the Matter of QuiTam Relator Sharon Anderson Candidate_Attorney Pro Se_ Relator vs. State of Minnesota, All Agencies,87 Countys,Municipalitys,Gina.Jensen Atty.Reg.0346743, acting counsel for MN Health, 2nd Harvest, MN Nonprofit Inc. Pat Pearson, Barb Downs, "Judge" Robert B.Chatmas et al. John Doe,Mary Roe,in personal and official capacities, severally,individually. To the above Named: US Attorney MN B.todd Jones Counsel for Federal Sec.Health Kathleen Sebelius et al Relatees ONCE JURISDICTION/AUTHORITY OF TAX COURT,OAH,SCAP IS CHALLENGED THE STATE CANNOT PROCEED. Challenge Jurisdiction www.abodia.com/court/files/Challenge%20Jurisdiction.htm - Cached- Block all www.abodia.com results "Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, ... ISSUES: COUNT I Constitutionality of Federal Statute http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/groups/publications/documents/pub/dhs16_151416.pdf Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 2. Page 2 of 26 July 2010, UNABATED by the State of MN,All Agencies. COUNT II MN. Constitution Art. III SEPERATION POWERS http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/eis/agdetail/ag700.html COUNT III UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609 Apparantly Gina.Jensen Assist AG in a repeated "Patteren" vs. Attorney Pro Ses Candidate for Judge Inre:Scarrella4Justice 221NW2s562 "Sharon denied as No Lawyers License" appears to be representing the employees of 2harvest Pa Pearsonand Barb Downs and Financial Officer Chatmas, without the Lawyer for 2 harvest filing any moving papers etc. Limitations ListedThere are, however, a number of limitations that courts impose upon pro se litigation. In Minnesota, organizations such as corporations or other businesses cannot represent themselves, although Conciliation Court allows pro se representation with proper writtenauthorization. Corporate entities are considered in the eyes of the law as a separate individual and generally need to be represented bylegal counsel, rather than an individual or even the proprietor of the business. However, more obligations and obstacles on courts and litigants in connection with pro se litigation. Candidates for MN AG re: www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com consistently wilfully refuse to protect the public on unfair, Disparate Impact, in this case: Gives Legal Notice to Remove the Food Proceedings from 2harvest denial that Children receive 185% contrary to Seniors 130% creating Disparity. Please note the MNAG www.ag.state.mn.us has wilfully failed to address the constitutionality of the Federal Statute http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/2/Public/Civil/Executive_findings_of_fact.pdf Ramsey Co. District Court File 61cv-11-5203 To the Public at large Affiant Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella akaChergosky_Peterson Republican Candidate with www.bardn4ag.com Dr. Barden for the Employment of MN State AG. have lobbied extensively vs. Obama Health Care. Reprisals by the MN AG Lori Swanson are Heinous,Repugnant. http://www.barden4ag.com/pdfs/SwansonCivello9-29-08ARCHIVE.pdf pg 5 7. MN has a 6 Billion Medicaid Progran * * * Affidavit of Paul B. Civello. [PDF] IN THE MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITORS INVESTIGATION OF ... www.barden4ag.com/pdfs/SwansonCivello9-29-08ARCHIVE.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View my tenure as an Assistant Attorney General at the Minnesota Attorney Generals Ofliee .... Rehecca stated that the new person, Gina Jensen, would be an ... friendly, they attmtpt to work with AGs and Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 3. Page 3 of 26 respect their suggestions regarding ... Sharons Notice of Objections to States Summary Disposition without "due process" Constitutional_Discovery_Jurisdictional/Authority Memorndum of Federal Case Law re: Black Farmers Class ActionMartin said in court papers (PDF) that “there are obvious problems” with approving a settlement before discovery. The plaintiffs, he said, lose bargaining leverage with the federal government. Martin urged Friedman to reject class certification. “Where there is less investigation into what the individual claims may be worth, and less admissible evidence regarding liability obtained from discovery, class counsel has significantly less bargaining power to obtain the best settlement for its clients,” Martin said.Martin said there’s no “particularized evidence” as to what individuals claimants’ damages are. “There is no way to determine whether the settlement is fair or not, especially in light of the dearth of discovery in this case,” he said. Gina D 2007S1 (Attorney Generals Office)200560,630 0060,630 Jensen Linda S 2007S3 (Attorney Generals Office)2000100,39100100,391 Jensen Gina D 2007S1 (Attorney Generals Office)200560,630 0060,630 Jensen Linda S 2007S3 (Attorney Generals Office)2000100,39100100,391 Jensen VA Widow Current Candidate Ward (2) Sharon Anderson aka Peterson-Scarrella http://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com ,Attorney Pro Se: Private Attorney General Decedant http://cpljimanderson.blogspot.com , FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF: DISPARATE IMPACT: re: Federal Poverty Guidelines used withdifferent % for Children v. Seniors, Social Services_Food_Energy Assistance_Health Care, EBT Cards etc. Request for MN Attorney Generals Oversight MS8 to clarify the Appeal_Authority_Jurisdiction Constitutional Issues: MN Dept.HS Suggested Social Services Income Eligibility Annual Gross $27,144 monthly $2,262 Fees 0http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/groups/publications/documents/pub/dhs16_151416.pdf /s/ SharonAnderson@aol.com 651-776-5835 Techinal Issues Federal Poverty Guidelines 130% for Elderly v. 185% used for Children in the Commodities Food Supplement Program ie: CFSP Disparate Impact Sharon has one witness Bill4Dahn@aol.com that may assist. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Sharon had been on the CSFP for 3 years, with her Brother as Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 4. Page 4 of 26 Proxy,May of 2010 was Decertified. Mar.2011 Ms Pearson called Sharon to recertify. a. In Good Faith, as it is Bizzare to Have Medicare_Humana included in Gross Income by 2harvest, Sharon Opted Out of Medicare- Humana. to have Money for Food Gross monthly $1,187.00. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: b. In Good Faith_Public Policy Sharon "must" lobby for Seniors on low income to have a Box of Food. THIRD CALIM FOR RELIEF: Declaratory Relief: Uniformity of % used by NonProfits c. Disparate Impact via use of % to deny Seniors is Bizzare THEREFORE: Fair Dealings_Uniform Contracts_ Uniformity of NonProfits is not reasonable that Food Support % Children v. Seniors is Vague,Discriminatory,Arbitrary. MN. 87 Countys with Spend Downs is also contrary tothe "Rigid" 130% of Senior Eligibility contrary to the 185% of Children, contrary to the Eligibility for Energy Assistance, Medicaid, and Legal Services. Sharons Good Will_ Humble Plea that www.2harvest.org use a different accounting procedure to qualify any citizen in need of FOOD. Dept.Health is the proper venue SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE OAH in the Executive Branch under Control of the Governor Mark Dayton In a message dated 4/14/2011 4:17:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, rick.chiat@state.mn.us writes: d ^&W  D  , d ^&W W & E ^ ^ h ^  h^ d h^  , , ^ ^ , , ^&W h^ ^ , , t ^&W W From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com [mailto:Sharon4Anderson@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:16 AM To: ppearson@2harvest.org; bdowns@2harvest.org; fdd-psb@fns.usda.gov; attorney.general@state.mn.us; Dayton, Mark (GOV); rca@co.ramsey.mn.us; Health Commissioner (MDH) Cc: askdoj@usdoj.gov; b.todd.jones@usdoj.gov; frank.magill@usdoj.gov; james.lackner@usdoj.gov; john.choi@co.ramsey.mn.us; whistleblower@startribune.com; rcbarden@mac.com; jrgraham@oricom.ca; Bill4Dahn@aol.com; hoch29@hotmail.com; Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 5. Page 5 of 26 owings1064@hotmail.com; rep.tony.cornish@house.mn; Sharon4Anderson@aol.com Subject: SharonAnderson6915CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL DISPARATE TREATMENT TUES 28MAR2011 To the Above Named: Please take legal Notice of the CSFP Denial, with Specifics on Appeal Apparantly Sharon Anderson is $7.70 cents over the $180.00 Fed.Guidelines Amt. 1. Disparate Treatment of the % Percentages used a. 185% for Children v. 130% for the Elderly. 2. Affiant Sharon Anderson Elderly Challenges the Constitutionality of the Disparity of the Wick Program given 185% while Elderly are given 130% Seniors must maintain Health with Nutrition. 3. Affiant also Questions the Federal Guidelines to waive the Guidelines for Hawaii and Alaska, verily alleges that Affiant as a Republican former Candidate for MNAG www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com fighting the DFL Obama Health Care has suffered Reprisals. 4. Has the DFL President Obama given special_Disparate Treatment to the State of Hawaii his alleged "BirthPlace" Tables z 2011 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia z 2011 Poverty Guidelines for Alaska z 2011 Poverty Guidelines for Hawaii contrary to Civil Rights Laws? http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/01/20/2011- 1237/annual-update-of-the-hhs-poverty-guidelines THEREFORE: Legal Notice to Appeal, this letter document will be transcribed pdf format+HDGTXDUWHUHG LQ $OH[DQGULD 9$ RXU PDLOLQJ DGGUHVV LVPDF] Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 6. Page 6 of 26 )HGHUDO 3RYHUW *XLGHOLQHV)LOH )RUPDW 3)$GREH $FUREDW  4XLFN 9LHZ )HGHUDO 3RYHUW *XLGHOLQHV       6WDWHV WKDW KDYH WKHLU RZQ /LIHOLQH DQG /LQN8S 3URJUDPV PD VHW WKHLU RZQ HOLJLELOLW FULWHULD ZZZXVDFRUJBUHVGRFXPHQWVOLSGI,QFRPHB5HTXLUHPHQWVSGI• >3)@ )HGHUDO 3RYHUW *XLGHOLQHV)LOH )RUPDW 3)$GREH $FUREDW  4XLFN 9LHZ-DQ     )HGHUDO 3RYHUW /HYHO *XLGHOLQHV $OO VWDWHV DQG & H[FHSW $ODVND DQG +DZDLL
  • 7. 0RQWKO *XLGHOLQHV $QQXDO *XLGHOLQHVFFIJHRUJHWRZQHGXFPVILOHVVWHPDFWLRQ"IHGHUDO SRYHUW JXLGHOLQHV)RRG 1XWULWLRQ 6HUYLFH)RRG LVWULEXWLRQ LYLVLRQ 3DUN &HQWHU ULYH 5RRP $OH[DQGULD 9$   3KRQH
  • 8.   )D[
  • 9. (PDLO IGGSVE#IQVXVGDJRY In a message dated 3/28/2011 10:28:16 A.M. Central Daylight Time, bdowns@2harvest.org writes:  D From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com To: whistleblower@startribune.com, fdd-psb@fns.usda.gov Sent: 3/28/2011 6:52:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time Subj: Fwd: From "SECOND HARVEST"(Fax Message NO.1636)SharonAnderson ID 6xxxDENIAL Affiant Sharon Anderson Elderly Challenges the Constitutionality of the Disparity of the Wick Program given 185% while Elderly are given 130% Seniors must maintain Health with Nutrition. +HDGTXDUWHUHG LQ $OH[DQGULD 9$ RXU PDLOLQJ DGGUHVV LV )RRG 1XWULWLRQ 6HUYLFH )RRG LVWULEXWLRQ LYLVLRQ  3DUN &HQWHU ULYH 5RRP  $OH[DQGULD 9$    3KRQH
  • 10.   )D[
  • 11. (PDLO IGGSVE#IQVXVGDJRY From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com To: bdowns@2harvest.org, mark.dayton@state.mn.us, health.commissioner@state.mn.us, attorney.general@state.mn.us, rca@co.ramsey.mn.us, rcbarden@mac.com, jrgraham@oricom.ca, jragsdale@pioneerpress.com, Sharon4Anderson@aol.com CC: ppearson@2harvest.org, Bill4Dahn@aol.com Sent: 3/28/2011 6:34:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time Subj: From "SECOND HARVEST"(Fax Message NO.1636) SharonAnderson ID 6xxxDENIAL Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 12. Page 7 of 26 Mon. 27Mar2011 To Barb Downs: and MN Commissioner Healthhttp://mn.gov/governor/dayton/governors-cabinet.jsp Commissioners Office Overview - Minnesota Department of Health health.state.mn.usMinnesota Department of Health ... Assistant Commissioner Jeanne F.Ayers ... Commissioners Office 625 N. Robert St. St. Paul, MN 55155- 2538 651-201-5810 ... www.health.state.mn.us/divs/comm/index.html - Cached - Similar In response, There was No Attachment, 1st Sharon Anderson has to have the ForensicFile of letter of denial in order to Appeal, 2nd the 31Mar2011 is not convenient until this letter is given, Sharon has been deprived of her Car now over 4 years, the Maplewood creates a hardship, so telphone conference is OK. Sharons Proxy her Brother is very busy with his Volunteerism. 3rd the Constitutionality of the percentages of the Seniors at 130% vs. the Wick Program Mothers with Children. 4th Please provide the URL of What Programwww.2harvest.org uses. As Dorthy Day for a single person is 21 Thous + 5th Uniformity of the States in this Federal Program. PDF] Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 13. Page 8 of 262010-2011 Federal Povery Guidelines & State Median Income File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick ViewNOTE: The Federal Poverty Guidelines did not change from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011. .... Both the Food Support Program and the Energy Assistance Program use these ... 555 Park St. Suite 410 St. Paul, MN 55103 651-227-6121 www.cdf-mn.org. mn.bridgetobenefits.org/.../2010- 2011_Federal_Povery_Guidelines___State_Median_Income.pdf County Poverty Statistics - Second Harvest Food Bank of North ... The 2009 Federal Poverty Guidelines define the poverty level for a family of four as income at or below $22050. Second Harvest serves member agencies in ...www.secondharvestfoodbank.org/county-poverty-statistics - Cached - Similar • Second Harvest Food Bank of NWPA | Partner OrganizationsGuidelines for Eligibility. To be eligible to become a Second Harvestmember ... have incomes equal to or less than 185 percent of federal poverty levels; ...www.eriefoodbank.org/Content.aspx?Section=partner-organizations - Cached In a message dated 3/28/2011 11:17:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time, bdowns@2harvest.org writes: Dear Ms. Anderson, You requested an appeal of the decision to deny your application to participate in CSFP. The first step is a pre- hearing conference. I have scheduled the pre-hearing for Thursday, March 31 at 10:00 am. You may come to our office at 1140 Gervais Ave, Maplewood, MN, or we can have the hearing by conference call. Is 10:00 am on Thursday a convenient time for you? If not, would you suggest an alternate day and time. Thank you. Barb Downs Director of Field Services Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 14. Page 9 of 26 Second Harvest Heartland 651.209.7938 cell: 651-592-5759 fax: 651-484-1064 2harvest.org )URP 3DWULFLD 3HDUVRQ 6HQW 0RQGD 0DUFK    $0 7R 6KDURQ$QGHUVRQ#DROFRP &F %DUE RZQV 6XEMHFW ): )URP 6(&21 +$59(67 )D[ 0HVVDJH 12
  • 15. Ms. Anderson, Attached is the CSFP Participant Fair Hearing Fact Sheet. Please let me know if you have questions. Thank you, Pat Pearson )URP ID[#KDUYHVWRUJ >PDLOWRID[#KDUYHVWRUJ@ 6HQW 0RQGD 0DUFK    $0 7R 3DWULFLD 3HDUVRQ 6XEMHFW )URP 6(&21 +$59(67 )D[ 0HVVDJH 12
  • 16. LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651- 776-5835: Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Candidate AG2010 www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com Blogger: www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson d & ^&WKWWSZZZIQVXVGDJRYFJD)DFW6KHHWV&6)3B4XLFNB)DFWVKWP W W    & ^ ^ , , Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 17. Page 10 of 26 )URP 6KDURQ$QGHUVRQ#DROFRP >PDLOWR6KDURQ$QGHUVRQ#DROFRP@ 6HQW 0RQGD 0DUFK    $07R 3DWULFLD 3HDUVRQ PDUNGDWRQ#VWDWHPQXV DWWRUQHJHQHUDO#VWDWHPQXV UFD#FRUDPVHPQXV 6KDURQ$QGHUVRQ#DROFRP UFEDUGHQ#PDFFRP MUDJVGDOH#SLRQHHUSUHVVFRP MUJUDKDP#RULFRPFD &F %LOODKQ#DROFRP 6XEMHFW 5H 1HZ &6)3 6HQLRU *XLGHOLQHV Mon. 28Mar.2011 To: Pat Pearson: Pursuant to our Tel: Conversation this Morning at 8:45 amSharon Stated her Gross Social Security Income is the Same as last year of $1,187.70, Sharon opted out of Medicare and Humana. THEREFORE: Please send the Federal Link as Sharon must research the www.2harvest.org use of 130% for Disabled and Seniors. as Sharon is $7 Dollars and 70 cents apparantly over the Amount. HOWEVER: If in Fact Pat Pearson of 2 harvest is refusing to allow certain deductions"such as Mortgage, Rent, Expenses of Energy Assistance etc. and if in Fact Mothers with Children are given a Higher % to qualify. THEN Sharon must appeal based on Blatant Discrimination of the Elderly v. Children for 1 box of FOOD pr. Month. Please e-mail the Appeal Form for Public Scrunity to Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ,jrg Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 18. Page 11 of 26 In a message dated 3/28/2011 9:22:06 A.M. Central Daylight Time, ppearson@2harvest.org writes: Ms. Anderson, August 2010 HHS Poverty GuidelinesAug 3, 2010 ... SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 148, August 3, 2010 ... aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/10poverty.shtml - Cached Show more results from hhs.gov • Poverty Guidelines - FederalWorkWORLD Help/Information System Topic: Poverty Guidelines - Federal. ... The separate poverty guidelines for Alaska and Hawaii reflect Office of Economic ... www.workworld.org/.../poverty_guidelines_federal.htm - Cached - Similar • [PDF] 2010 POVERTY GUIDELINES* File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick ViewJan 23, 2009 ... 2010 POVERTY GUIDELINES*. ALL STATES (EXCEPT ALASKA AND HAWAII) AND D.C.. ANNUAL GUIDELINES. FAMILY. PERCENT OF POVERTY GUIDELINE ... https://www.cms.gov/MedicaidEligibility/downloads/POV10Combo.pdf • [PDF] 2011 Federal Poverty Guidelines File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View Household. 48 Contiguous. States and D.C.. Alaska. Hawaii. Persons in ...Please Note: The federal proverty guidelines are typically updated in the end of ... www.usac.org/_res/documents/li/pdf/Income_Requirements.pdfBelow are the new Income Eligibility Guidelines for CSFP, these are set by theUSDA and are effective April 1st,2011.Please let me know if you require further information. Thank you. Effective April 1st 2011 Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 19. Page 12 of 26 Nutrition Assistance Program for Seniors (NAPS) Maximum allowable gross income standards - 130% of Federal Poverty GuidelinesHousehold Size Annual Monthly Weekly 1 14,157 1,180 273 2 19,123 1,594 368 3 24,089 2,008 464 4 29,055 2,422 559 5 34,021 2,836 655 6 38,987 3,249 750 7 43,953 3,663 846 8 48,919 4,077 941Each additionalmember add: +4,966 +414 +96 Pat Pearson Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 20. Page 13 of 26 In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture policy, this institution is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC, 20250-9410 or call 800.795.3272 (voice) or 202.720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Effective April 1st 2011 Due to confusing legislative language dating back to 1972, the poverty guidelines sometimes have been mistakenly referred to as the "OMB" (Office of Management and Budget) poverty guidelines or poverty line. In fact, OMB has never issued the guidelines; the guidelines are issued each year by the Department of Health and Human Services. The poverty guidelines may be formally referenced as "the poverty guidelines updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2)."Some Federal programs use a percentage multiple of the guidelines (for example, 125 percent or 185 percent of the guidelines), as noted in relevant authorizing legislation or programregulations. Non-Federal organizations that use the poverty guidelines under their own authority in non-Federally-funded activities may also choose to use a percentage multiple of the guidelines. The poverty guidelines do not make a distinction between farm and non-farm families, or between aged and non-aged units. (Only the Census Bureau poverty thresholds have separate figures for aged and non-aged one-person and two-person units.) Note that this notice does not provide definitions of such terms as "income" or "family," because there is considerable variation in defining these terms among the different programs that use the guidelines. These variations are traceable to the different laws and regulations that govern the various programs. Therefore, questions about how a particular program applies the poverty guidelines (for example, Is income counted before or after taxes? Should a particular type of income be counted? Should a particular person be counted in the family or householdunit?) should be directed to the entity that administers or funds the program; that entity has theresponsibility for defining such terms as "income" or "family," to the extent that these terms are not already defined for the program in legislation or regulations. Dated: January 14, 2011. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services. [FR Doc. 2011-1237 Filed 1-18-11; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4151-05-P LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Candidate AG2010 www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com Blogger: www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson Homestead Act of 1862 neopopulism.org -Pro Se Dec Action Litigation Pack Sharon4Anderson | Scribd Documents are based on SEC filings, Blogger: Dashboard Home | www.slideshare.com/sharonanderson www.taxthemax.blogspot.com www.sharon4anderson.org FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are makinknowledge gained as financial journalists , securities they recommend to readers, affiliatedentities, employees, and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting on that recommendations, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these or other Public Office documents expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in g such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of whistleblower protection issues, MY FindLaw SharonsWritProA06_1150_30Jun06_26 The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 21. Page 14 of 26 Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption3Apr0http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPlawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm Sharon4Council: DLJ Management v. City St. Paul A06-2118,Money LaunderinNo direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937) g andFCC Complaints - http://sharons-copywrite.blogspot.com http://sharon4council.blogspot.com all others similarily situated Quitam Whistleblower-Fidicuary Watchdog Victim Relator Sharon’s discovery of Treason by State of MN, forcing repeal of State and Federal Laws and in all realestate matters: Cooking the Fidicuary Books by Mail Fraud , Extortion, Complicity, Theft of Personal Property,defrauding the Stateof Minnesota and the United States of America, http://sicko-citystpaul.blogspot.com http://sharon4council.blogspot.com by mail fraud, confusion,stacking,blatant trespass on private property in a “Patterned Enterprise” for Greed, to conspire to commit Murder by WATER SHUTOFF www.sharonanderson.org.and not the Constitutionality of CSFP_NAPS 7 CFRs247.9(2010) Disparity Impact of Children at 185% Fed.Poverty Guidelines vs. Seniors at 130% Fed.Poverty Guidelines. FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT IN THE NATURE OF A SUIT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER AUTHORITY OF ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 & 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA JUDICIAL NOTICE re: MS2.724 of City and County Attorneys, Lawyer Mayors Treasonable Bad Behavior. Separation of Powers Doctrine, During MN Shutdown the Tax Court,OAH are considered Non Essential "Courts" THEREFORE: JURISDICTION/AUTHORITY IS CHALLENGED.Pursuant to Penality of Perjury, 2nd Harvest a nonprofit Food Bank has wilfully failed to have a Licensed Attorney Represent them or file Moving Papers, contrary to the Criminal Charges that Employees Pat Pearson, Barb Downs are Practicing Law without a License.Employee Financial Officer acting "Judge" Robert Chatmas without a Law License is commiting Judicial Malpractice. BACKGROUND; 1. Officers of the court who may come in contact with the matters of city ,county and or private attorneys simulating legal process without warrants, tickets, due process , arenoticed under authority of the supremacy and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and the common law authorities of Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S.519-421, Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25, and Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000). In re Haines: pro se litigants are held to less stringent pleading standards than bar licensed attorneys. Regardless of the deficiencies in their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to submit evidence in support of their claims. In re Platsky: court errs if court Sharon had been on the Program for 3 years previous, then arbitrarily "taken" off. Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 22. Page 15 of 26 And St. Paul City Council to assess fees willfully, knowingly, to Steal Car’s, Trailers, constituting a Restraint of Trade, Heinous, Repugnant without a probable cause complaint which contains an accusation or charging language, distinct from the statement of probable cause constituting of a statement of essential facts constituting a public offense or public offenses charged or sought to be charged. Contrary to Rules 2.01 and 2.03 of Minn. Rules of Criminal Procedure., Taxaction without Representationd, kickbacks, bribery scheme involving the Department of Safety and Inspections involving non-profits:, Defendants Steve Magner residence Stillwater Minnesota, Defendants Dick Lippert, living in Inver Grove, technically under RICO Indictments Steinhauser, et al v. Randy Kelly et al File No 04-2632, Harrilal et al v. Magner et al File 05-461, Gallagher et al v. Magner et al File No 05- 1348 (JNE/SRN), City has dismissed the Sharon Andersons Answer/CrossComplaints without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings. In re Anastasoff: litigants’ constitutional rights are violated when courts City attorneys representing City Council and the Mayor depart from precedent where parties are similarly situated. 2. A court-city council (quasi-judicial) may dismiss a assessments for failure to state a claim "only if it appears to a certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent with the pleading, exist which would support granting the relief demanded." N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395, 122 N.W.2d 26, 29 (1963), In re Milk Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 588 N.W.2d 772, 1999.MN.42154, A claim prevails against illegal “takings” 5th Amend, Illegal Search and Seizure 4th Amend,it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleaders theory, to grant the relief demanded. The purpose of a motion to dismiss and or the alleged tax assessments thro the back door of the executive branch of the Mayor, then to be approved by the Legislative Branch “AFTER THE FACT” is not only TREASON but Domestic Terrorism Sharon is to test the law’s support for a claim, not the sufficiency of the underlying facts, Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc., Okla. 987 P.2d 1185 (1999). The burden to show legal insufficiency of petition is on party moving for dismissal, and motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim must separately state each omission or defect in petition; if it does not, motion shall be denied without hearing, Indiana Nat. Bank v. State Dept. of Human Services, Okla., 880 P.2d 371 (1994). And demurrers have been abolished – see Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7(c). 3. Minnesota Rule 8001.9 incorporates the Federal Internal Revenue Code into the Minnesota Rules by reference. The State of Minnesota has entered into agreement with the Federal government to establish their qualified state income tax particularized in 5 USC 5517 and 31 CFR Part 215. Administration of qualified state income taxes is governed by regulations published in 26 CFR Part 31. The State of Minnesota has abdicated both administrative and judicial remedies to the Federal Government under 26 CFR §301.6361-2. Therefore, the Federal Debt Collection Procedure, 28 USC §3001, is the exclusive remedy for tax related debt. It provides substantive rights secured by the fourth, fifth, Sixth, and Seventh amendments to the United States Constitution, restricting administrative and judicial powers and the government bears the burden of proof for whatever claim is made. 4. The MDR consistently quotes Minnesota statutes as authority for their behavior. However, courts have consistently stated that statutes have no force or effect without implementing regulations. In accordance with Minnesota Rule 8001.9, Minnesota’s regulations are the Federal regulations for the state income tax. There are no other Minnesota rules implementing most of Minnesota Statutes, chapters270, 271, 290 and 290A. Therefore, the MDR amd State Health Dept is required to submit to the Federal Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 23. Page 16 of 26regulations that provide substantive rights under the Constitution of the UnitedStates and due process of law.4(a) In order for there to be (1) liability for any given tax imposed by theInternal Revenue Code,and in this instance Of $7.70 dollars over the Amt. of Federal PovertyGuidelines without Deductions ,Spend Downs etc. Assessments for What by the St. Paul City Council or (2) a requirement to collect any given tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code, an implementing regulation must apply to the fact circumstance of the person liable. The requirement for implementing regulations is restated in the general rule that controls 26 U.S.C. § 6011(a): “When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.” 4(b) California Bankers Assn. v. Schultz, 39 L.Ed. 2d 812 at 820: “Because it has a bearing on some of the issues raised by the parties, we think it important to note that the Act’s civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone.” In U.S. v. Murphy, 809 F.2d 1427 at 1430 (9th Cir. 1987), following California Bankers Association rationale, the court said “The reporting act is not self-executing; it can impose no reporting duties until implementing regulations have been promulgated.” In U.S. v. Reinis, 794 F.2d 506 at 508 (9th Cir. 1986) the court said, “An individual cannot be prosecuted for violating this Act unless he violates an implementing regulation … The result is that neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other, and only together do they have any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves the construction of the other.” U.S. v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431, 4 L.Ed. 2d 423, 80 S.Ct. 459 (1960), agreed with in Leyeth v. Hoey, supra, U.S. v. $200,00 in U.S. Currency, 590 F.Supp. 866; U.S. v. Palzer, 745 F.2d 1350 (1984); U.S. v. Cook, 745 F.2d 1311 (1984); U.S. v. Gertner, 65 F.3d 963 (1st Cir. 1995); Diamond Ring Ranch v. Morton, 531 F.2d 1397, 1401 (1976); U.S. v. Omega Chemical Corp., 156 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Corona, 849 F.2d 562, 565 (11th Cir. 1988); U.S. v. Esposito, 754 F.2d 521, 523-24 (1985); U.S. v. Goldfarb, 643 F.2d. 422, 429-30 (1981). “For Federal tax purposes, the Federal Regulations govern. Lyeth v. Hoey, 1938, 305 U.S. 188, 59 S.Ct. 155, 83 L.Ed. 119,” quoted in Dodd v. U.S., 223 F.Supp. 785 (1963). 5. The Supreme Court of Minnesota has determined that the Minnesota Legislature has not provided adequately for trial by jury in the statutes and that trial by jury is always available to review statutory law and administrative decisions. 5(a) Abraham v. County of Hennepin, 2002,639 N.W.2d 342. (“one form of action” procedure is anathema to due process in the course of the common law), however, “Provision in Minnesota Constitution regarding trial by jury is intended to continue, unimpaired and inviolate, the right to trial by jury as it existed in the Territory of Minnesota when constitution was adopted in 1857.” The prohibition against depriving people of property without proper adjudication is secured by Article I § 2 of the Minnesota Constitution: “No member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers…” CAUSES OF ACTION UNABATED BY STATE AG LORI SWANSON 6. On Apr. 24th,2007 The City of St. Paul trespassed on Property at 697 Surrey without Probable cause, warrant, tickets, caused irreparable harm injury, intentional infliction of Emotional Stress on Candidate Sharon Anderson, Defendants Joel Essling and policewoman Tanya Hunter to Steal Sharons Car, fully licensed and to date 2ndJuly07 fully insured: Towing company Rapid Towing as on numerous blogs, web sites, Again 16May07 during the Police Memorial at mears Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 24. Page 17 of 26 Park Essling or Harold Robinson with pistol packing cop Tanya hunter again trespassed on Sharons and intestate decedants property at 697 Surrey ,stealing Sharons Trailer. The cop corruption involves Aaron Foster, Murder of Barb Winn, as the city employs an indicted Murder Aaron Foster to steal Cars, at the St. Paul police Inpound Lot. Again thro the US Mails June 5th, stating Fence and Paint with another inspection by Badge 322 joel Essling on 5July07 Again Because all these complaints fail to set forth an accusation in separate counts for separate offenses charged or sought to be charged, contrary to Rule 17.02 of Mn Rules Crim. In a patterned enterprise are falsely claimed that Sharon Anderson is a criminal without the required specificity of a criminal accusation, re: US v. Cruikshank,92 US 542 at 558 (1876) As to the prohibition of duplicity in a criminal accusation (ie: charging m9ore than one offense in one accusation without separate counts for each offense charged US 73F2d795 (10Cir.1934) The right to a specific accusation including separate counts for distinct offenses charged has been incorporated by the 14th Amend. To the US Constitution re: Cole v. Arkansas 33 US 196 at 201 (1948) and Faretta v. California 442 US 806 at 818 (1975) The City of St. Paul apparently has 25 million for Housing Programs,DSI has conducted a program against the elderly, disabled, vunerable persons, mandating the federal government audit the 1065 vacant buildings manulipated by defendants Magner and Moermond. Sharon Anderson has established in the past 30 years the continuing pattern of taking realestate for pecuniary gain without quiet titles, marketable propertys without investigation, evidence, or a competent witness with first-hand knowledge. The claims are demonstrably false, since Sharon Anderson has submitted affidavits that she has been harmed injured along with 1415 vacant Minnesota Rule 8001.9 which puts the burden of proof on the government to prove their claims. MS 289A.37, Subd. 3, which puts the burden of proof on the victim, is unconstitutional on its face, since it directly contradicts Article I, Sections 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. The constitution places the burden of proof on the government to establish their claim that Sharon Anderson has with intent violated any Criminal, or Ordinance Violations for the past 30 years.Furthermore 26 USC 7403 requires the The city of St. Paul as a government entity, to prove their claim in Court. Common law process also places the burden of proof on the advocate, particularly when the plaintiff is government. 6(a) Wright v. Commissioner of Revenue, MN Tax Court, Docket No. 2620 June 4, 1980, "A person who leaves his home to go into another state for temporary purposes only is not considered to have lost his residence. But if a person removes to another state with intention of remaining therefore an indefinite time as a place of permanent residence, he shall be considered to have lost his residence in this state." Sharon Anderson has never abandoned her legal domicile at 1058 Summit, 2194 Marshall,325 N. Wilder, 448 Desnoyer, 697 Surrey 1/3rd of 309 Pelham Blvd,St. Paul Minnesota or her Buck Lake Cabin Itasca Co. 42741- 321st pl (GunLake ) Aitkin or Gull Lake in Brainard. http://sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com6(b) The character of acts that suppose to bypass judicial process isarticulated in United States v. Lovett (1946), 328 U.S. 303; 66 S. Ct. 1073; 90 L. Ed.1252: We hold that § 304 falls precisely within the category of congressional actionswhich the Constitution barred by providing that "No Bill of Attainder or ex postfacto Law shall be passed." In Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 323, this Courtsaid, "A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 25. Page 18 of 26judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of painsand penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include billsof pains and penalties." … On the same day the Cummings case was decided, theCourt, in Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333 also held invalid on the same grounds an Actof Congress which required attorneys practicing before this Court to take a similaroath. Neither of these cases has ever been overruled. They stand for the proposition thatlegislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or toeasily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on themwithout a judicial trial are bills of attainder prohibited by the Constitution.Adherence to this principle requires invalidation of § 304. We do adhere to it.Those who wrote our Constitution well knew the danger inherent in speciallegislative acts which take away the life, liberty, or property of particular namedpersons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct, which deservespunishment. They intended to safeguard the people of this country frompunishment without trial by duly constituted courts. See Duncan v. Kahanamoku,327 U.S. 304. And even the courts to which this important function was entrustedwere commanded to stay their hands until and unless certain tested safeguards wereobserved. An accused in court must be tried by an impartial jury, has a right to berepresented by counsel, he must be clearly informed of the charge against him, thelaw which he is charged with violating must have been passed before he committedthe act charged, he must be confronted by the witnesses against him, he must not becompelled to incriminate himself, he cannot twice be put in jeopardy for the sameoffense, and even after conviction no cruel and unusual punishment can be inflictedupon him. See Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 235-238. When our Constitutionand Bill of Rights were written, our ancestors had ample reason to know thatlegislative trials and punishments were too dangerous to liberty to exist in the nationof free men they envisioned. And so they proscribed bills of attainder. Section 304 isone. Much as we regret to declare that an Act of Congress violates the Constitution,we have no alternative here.6(c) See 26 CFR 601.106 (f)(1), Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1, 6 L.Ed. 253,10 Wheat 1 and Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority, 535U.S. ___, 122 S. Ct. 1864. In Miranda v. United States, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966), former Chief Justice Earle Warren penned the following: “Ascourts have been presented with the need to enforce constitutional rights, they havefound means of doing so. That was our responsibility when Escobedo was before usand it is our responsibility today. Where rights secured by the Constitution areinvolved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”7(a) In Brafman v. United States of America, 348 F.2d 863 (5th Circuit, 1967),the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff because an assessment officer did not sign acertificate of assessment. “For a tax to be collected upon any deficiency, anassessment must be made against the taxpayer within three years after his return isfiled… If the estate is not assessed within the statutory period there can be notransferee liability. United States v. Updike, 1930, 281 U.S. 489, 50 S. Ct. 367, 74 L.Ed. 984. We therefore adhere to our pronouncement in United States v. Fisher, 5 Cir.1965, 353 F.2d 396, 398-399, that: In the absence of any better test, we give effect tothe generally recognized rule that Regulations issued by the Secretary of theTreasury, pursuant to statutory authority, and when necessary to make a statute effective, although not a statute, may have the force of law. Fawcus Machine Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 375, 51 S. Ct. 144, 75 L. Ed. 397; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. South Texas Lumber Co., 333 U.S. 496, 501, 68 S. Ct. 695, 92 L. Ed. 831. The Treasury Regulations are binding on the Government as well as on the taxpayer: "Tax officials and taxpayers alike are under the law, not above it." Pacific National Bank of Seattle v. Commissioner, 9 Cir. 1937, 91 F.2d 103, 105. Even the instructions on the reverse side of the assessment certificate, Form 23C, specify that the original form "is to be transmitted to the District Director for signature, after which it will be returned to the Accounting Branch for permanent filing. * * *" Case after case has quoted Treasury Regulation § 301.6203-1 and cited it Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 26. Page 19 of 26 approvingly, and the treatises on taxation take its literal application for granted. Finally, where state taxation is involved, compliance with a statutory provision requiring an assessment list to be signed by the assessors is usually considered essential to the validity of further proceedings. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 473 (1954).” 7(b) The requirement for IRS, and therefore the MDR, to provide assessment certificates was defined by the court in Huff v. United States of America, 10 F.3d1440 (9th Cir.,1993):” the IRS failed to respond to the Huffs request for a copy of an assessment under § 6203. See 26 C.F.R. § 301.6203-1… the record contains noevidence indicating that the Huffs received copies of their assessments pursuant totheir request under § 6203, we conclude there are genuine issues of material fact asto whether the IRS has complied with the requirements of § 6203. See Farr, 990 F.2d at 454; Geiselman, 961 F.2d at 5-6; Brewer, 764 F. Supp. at 315-16. Accordingly, we reverse the district courts grant of summary judgment as to count II. 7(c) Date of assessment is date when summary record is signed by assessment officer in district directors office or in service center. Welch Ins. Agency v Brast (1932, CA4 W Va) 55 F2d 60, 10 AFTR 1041, cert den 285 US 555, 76 L Ed 944, 52 S Ct 457; Davidovitz v United States (1932) 75 Ct Cl 211, 58 F2d 1063, 11 AFTR 347. 7(d) Assessment is complete as soon as record is signed by assessment officer. Filippini v United States (1961, ND Cal) 200 F Supp 286, 62-1 USTC P 9144, 9 AFTR 2d 313, affd (CA9 Cal) 318 F2d 841, 63-2 USTC P 9548, 11 AFTR 2d 1720, cert den 375 US 922, 11 L Ed 2d 165, 84 S Ct 267. 7(e) Assessment of estate tax deficiency was not timely filed and was invalid where it had not been signed by the proper official, and the authenticity of the document and admissibility at trial had no effect on the validity where the requisite signature was missing. Brafman v United States (1967, CA5 Fla) 384 F2d 863, 67-2 USTC P 12494, 20 AFTR 2d 6008. 7(f) Radinsky v. United States of America, 622 F.Supp. 412 (USDC, Colorado, 1985). 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) confers jurisdiction upon this court and waives the sovereign immunity of the United States regarding claims for sums wrongfully collected under the internal revenue laws. In a suit under this section, a plaintiff "may challenge the constitutionality, legality or fairness of any tax statute oramount assessed or collected." White v. C.I.R., 537 F.Supp 679 (D.Colo. 1982). In the two briefs filed in this action, the IRS has not explained where it finds statutoryauthority to employ its tax collection procedures to collect from the plaintiffs a sum of money that has never been assessed as a tax. Since the IRS had no authority to adjust the plaintiffs account or employ deficiency procedures in these circumstances, it is self-evident that the collection of the sum in this manner was wrongful. under 26 CFR 301.6361-2 (d)(3) the MDR does not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine an increase in income tax: “all administrative determinations shall be made by the Federal Government without review by the State.” Therefore the ST. Paul City Council judgments are void for both violation of Constitutional rights and lack of subject matter jurisdiction under MRCP 60.02 (d) and can therefore be vacated at any time and cannot be time barred. Including over 1415 vacant building in the city of St. Paul et al. 8(a) Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, MSC, 612 N.W.2d 862, C1-98-2200, 2000. “The traditional rule is that there is no time limit for challenging a final judgment that is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 12 James W. Moore et al., Moores Federal Practice §á60.44 (3d ed. 1997). The principle underlying this rule is that a judgments validity is of utmost importance. Minnesota courts have adhered to this traditional rule. In Lange v. Johnson and itsprogeny, we held that judgments are void if a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that there is no time limit for bringing a motion to vacate such a judgment. 295 Minn. 320, 323-24, 204 N.W.2d 205, 208 (1973); see also Peterson v. Eishen, 512 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Minn. 1994)”. 8(b) Mesenbourg v. Jerome, 1995.MN.20775, 538 N.W.2d 489, Although thelanguage of the statute and the rule indicate that motions to vacate void judgmentsmust be made within a reasonable time, the supreme court has held that there is no time limit for commencing proceedings to set aside a judgment void for lack of Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 27. Page 20 of 26 jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties. Id. A void judgment is legally ineffective; it may be vacated by the court which rendered it at any time, and a void judgment cannot become valid through the passage of time. Id 8(c) Peterson v. Eishen, 1994.MN.21542, 512 N.W.2d 338, A judgment rendered without due service of process upon the defendant is void and may be vacated at any time. Although the language of the rule and the statute indicate that motions to vacate void judgments must be made within a reasonable time, we have previously held that there is no time limit for commencing proceedings to set aside a judgment void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties. Lange v. Johnson, 295 Minn. 320, 204 N.W.2d 205 (1973) (applying Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02); Beede v. Nides Finance Corp., 209 Minn. 354, 296 N.W. 413 (1941). A void judgment is legally ineffective; it may be vacated by the court which rendered it at any time. United States v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 909 F.2d 657, 661 (1st Cir. 1990); Misco Leasing, Inc. v. Vaughn, 450 F.2d 257 (10th Cir. 1971) (holding defendants failure to move to vacate default judgment within reasonable time after its entry did not preclude motion to vacate the judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction). A void judgment cannot gain validity by the passage of time. In re Center Wholesale Inc., 759 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir. 1985); Austin v. Smith, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 97, 312 F.2d 337, 343 (D.C. Cir. 1962). given notice by regular mail is a rebuttable assumption, and is therefore not on the record. violation of Minnesota Rule 8001.03. St. Paul Executive Branch complicity with St. Paul Legislative branch mandates FBI or Justice Intervention for false tax assessments to acquire Property rights of the citizenry denied constitutional right of notice and the opportunity to be heard. They also violated Sharon Andersons rights under Minnesota Constitution, Article I, Sections 6 and 7 to be confronted by competent witnesses with first-hand knowledge and evidence that she owe’s any money. Administrative decisions must be based on testimony and evidence in the hard-copy case file, per 5 U.S.C. §§ 556 & 557. However, according to the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Tax Court has no jurisdiction in matters of fact or law if it is not a) granted by the appealing individual, or b) granted by the District Court. Also, a void administrative judgment cannot be time barred. 10(a) “In analyzing the framework created by the tax statutes in question, it is crucial to note that the taxpayer always has the option to file in district court. See, Minn.St. 278.01; Note, 4 Wm. Mitchell L.Rev. 371, 406. 10(b) Wulff v. Tax Court of Appeals, 288 N.W.2d 221 (Minn. 1979). “This is perhaps the saving feature of this statutory scheme. Because a tax suit may be initiated in district court, and because transfer of that suit to the tax court is discretionary with the district court, the exercise of jurisdiction of the tax court on transfer does not violate Minn. Const. art. 6, § 3, which provides that the district court has original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases”. 12(a) The Notice of Levy does not apply to income tax. It is a search and seizure instrument used in criminal violation of internal revenue laws exclusively related to regulated industries and authorized by 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321, 6331 and implementing regulations 27 CFR Part 70 under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Sharon Anderson has not been accused of any criminal activity or violating any Internal Revenue Laws. Therefore, the St. Paul City Officials fraudulently seized Sharon Andersons assets, under the color of law, by pretending that she violated laws related to unknown at this time.. 12(b) The Federal Government must sue to secure a judgment prior to executing a levy if an alleged tax liability is contested, initiated in compliance with 26 U.S.C. § 7401. Then procedure must comply with requirements of the FederalDebt Collection Act at 28 U.S.C. § 3201 as the exclusive remedy for collection of taxrelated debt. The Notice of Levy must conform to requirements specified by 28 U.S.C. § 3201(a) that a notice of levy, filed subsequent to judgment, must include an abstract of the judgment. A notice of levy is evidence of a levy only when it identifies the underlying judgment. The City of St. Paul has consistently violated Sharon Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 28. Page 21 of 26 Andersons constitutional rights by denying her due process of law. 12(c) Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 82 (1972): The requirement of notice and an opportunity to be heard raises no impenetrable barrier to the taking of a persons possessions. But the fair process of decision-making that it guarantees works, by itself, to protect against arbitrary deprivation of property. For when aperson has an opportunity to speak up in his own defense, and when the State must listen to what he has to say, substantively unfair and simply mistaken deprivations of property interests can be prevented. It has long been recognized that "fairnesscan rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights . . .. And no better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give aperson in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 170-172 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due process has been clear: "Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified." Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223, 233. See Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274; Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385. It is equally fundamental that the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard "must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552. Sharon Anderson has never been served with The Order for Writ of Entry and seizure was an in rem, admiralty action; there is nothing comparable in common law procedure. Minnesota Statute 270.70 and 26 U.S.C. § 7302, relate onlyto property used in violation of internal revenue laws, so it is necessarily predicated on the presumption that the seized property was being used in violation of or was the fruit of criminal activity. The implementing regulation is 26 CFR Part 403, which applies only to drug-related commercial crimes listed in the regulation. Article III § 2 of the U.S. Constitution secures exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the United States and that the Minnesota Constitution authorizes law and equity only. Therefore, the April 24th, 2007 and May 16th,2007 property seizure’s and Minnesota Statute § 270.70 are patently unconstitutional. Sharon Anderson has not been accused of violating an State, County, City or FederalInternal Revenue laws. Therefore the seizure of Sharon Andersons property without probable cause of criminal activity is pure criminal behavior characteristic of a totalitarian government. 17(b) Per The Sarah, (1823) 21 U.S. 391, it is simply necessary to declare that the seizure was on land to abort an admiralty seizure. Cans of Egg Product v. U.S., 226 U.S. 172, 1912.SCT.40400, 57 L. Ed. 174, 33 S. Ct., “Although this statuteprescribes that the proceedings shall conform "as near as may be to the proceedings in admiralty," the proceeding being a seizure on land is, in its nature, a commonlaw proceeding”. Hendry v. Moore, (1943) 318 U.S. 133, 63 S. Ct. 499, 87 L. Ed. 663: “, since a judgment in rem to enforce a lien is not a remedy which the common law is competent to give, a ruling which has since been consistently followed.” Morris Cotton v. U.S., 8 Wall. 507, “Property on land was seized under the acts of 1861 and1862, passed for suppression of the rebellion, according to which the claimants were entitled to a trial by jury.” 17(c) State of New Jersey v. One 1990 Honda Accord, (New Jersey Supreme Court, 1998) 154 N.J. 373, 712 A.2d 1148, The Appellate Division reversed, holding that McDermott was entitled to a jury trial in a forfeiture action and that the statutory proceeding for summary Disposition was unconstitutional. 302 N.J. Super. at 227. In reaching that result, the court relied on an historical analysis of the right to trial by jury in England and the American colonies. Id. at 230-34. In New Jersey, forfeiture never existed at common law and remains a disfavored remedy. State v. Seven Thousand Dollars, 136 N.J. 223, 238 (1994); State v. 1979 Pontiac Trans Am, 98 N.J. 474, 480-81 (1985); Farley v. $168,400.97, 55 N.J. 31, 36-37 (1969); State v. One Ford Van, 154 N.J. Super. 326, 331 (App. Div. 1977), certif. den., 77 N.J. 474 (1978). Its existence depends on the enactment of a statute. Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 29. Page 22 of 26 The State argues that because forfeiture is a creature of statute, McDermott has no common-law right to a jury trial. Although forfeiture depends on a statute for its existence, it remains subject to common-law principles. When analyzing the right to trial by jury, the term"common law" refers to those principles of English law that evolved in the commonlaw courts such as the Court of the Exchequer, as opposed to those applied in the Admiralty, Chancery, or Ecclesiastical Courts. People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe, 231 P.2d 832, 836 (Cal. 1951); In re Forfeiture of 1978 Chevrolet Van, 493 So.2d 433, 435 (Fla. 1986); Commonwealth v. One 1984 Z-28 Camaro Coupe, 610 A.2d 36, 39 (Pa. 1992); The City of St. Paul has violated Sharon Andersons constitutional rights by advertising /publishing on the www.ci.stpaul.mn.us false information, again with the publication of the Agenda’s, mail fraud sent by Joel Essling numerous times without obtaining ownership rights to the property in violation of 28 CFR §403.26(b). The City of St. Paul is prohibited from selling/ excessive consumption/taxs on all Sharons Propertys and all citizens 1,415 vacant property’s until they obtain ownership rights in a court of competent jurisdiction. 200 years of jurisprudence has firmly established that administrative claims cannot take ownership to property until obtaining a judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction. Even drug dealers are guaranteed a trial after their property is seized before it can be sold. The City of St. Paul is committed extortion under the color of law, by causing Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella to pay about $9xx.00 before July 18, 2007, to prevent the interest and illegal tax fees 18(a) United States v. A Parcel of Land, Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements, known as 92 Buena Vista Avenue, Rumson, New Jersey (1993), 507 U.S. 111; 113 S.Ct. 1126; 122 L.Ed. 2d 469.Writing for four of the justices joining the plurality decision, Justice Stevens traced the relation-back doctrine to an 1806 decision written by former Chief Justice John Marshall: "It has been proved, that in all forfeitures accruing at common law, nothing vests in the government until some legal step shall be taken for the assertion of its right, after which, for many purposes, the doctrine of relation carries back the title to the commission of the offence." United States v. Grundy, 7 U.S. 337, 3 Cranch 337, 350-351, 2 L. Ed. 459 (1806). n20 18(b) United States v. Real Property at 2659 Roundhill Drive, Alamo, California, 283 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2002) we reversed, holding that the government had no legal interest in the property. We applied United States v. 92 Buena Vista Ave., 507 U.S. 111 (1993), which held that the relation-back rule of 21 U.S.C. § 881(h) cannot be invoked until a final judgment of forfeiture has been entered; the United States had never obtained a final judgment. Therefore, according to Buena Vista, the governments interest in the Roundhill property could not have related back to 1974 (when the Paytons engaged in drug trafficking 19(a) In re Welfare of B.R.K., 658 N.W.2d 565 (Minn. 04/03/2003): The Fourth Amendment guarantees: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967). Thus, the Fourth Amendment is a personal right and an individual must invoke its protections. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998). An individual may invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment by showing "that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable; i.e., one that has a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society." Carter, 525 U.S. at 88 (quoting Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 n.12 (1978)). Thus, the determination of whether B.R.K. can invoke the protections of the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis. First, we must determine whether B.R.K. exhibited an actual subjective expectation of privacy in the home and, second, whether that expectation is reasonable. See Katz, 389 U.S. at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring). Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 30. Page 23 of 26 19(b) The Minnesota Supreme Court recognized the tort of invasion of privacy in Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231, 235 (Minn. 1998): “Theright to privacy exists in the common law of Minnesota, including causes of action in tort for intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, and publication of private facts.” 19(c) State v. Larsen, 2002.MN.0001476: The right to be left alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 478 (Brandeis, J., dissenting). Concerns for this essential element of our personal freedom are reflected in the Fourth Amendment and art. I, § 10 of the Minnesota Constitution protecting the"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV; see Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. Entry constitutes a search whenever there is an intrusion upon an area where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, State v. Hardy, 577 N.W.2d 212, 215 (Minn. 1998). Warrantless searches where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment— subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967); see also Matter of Welfare of D.A.G., 484 N.W.2d 787, 789 (Minn. 1992) (extending the per se concept to the Minnesota Constitution); OConnor v. Johnson, 287 N.W.2d 400, 405 (Minn. 1979) (discussing the greater protections available under the Minnesota Constitution). But an expectation of privacy does not have the constitutional right to be free from impermissible search as its roots. As the Supreme Court noted in Minnesota v. Carter, an expectation of privacy has a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society." 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998) (quoting Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 n.12 (1978)). The Supreme Court has recognized that an expectation of privacy is reasonable in ones home and curtilage, Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589-90 (1980), in ones automobile, Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 662-63 (1978), and in a closed telephone booth, Katz, 389 U.S. at 352. We have similarly acknowledged a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in ones home and curtilage, State v. Perkins, 582 N.W.2d 876, 878 (Minn. 1998), Garza v. State, 632 N.W.2d 633, 639 (Minn. 2001), in ones automobile, State v. Goodrich, 256 N.W.2d 506, 510 (Minn. 1977), and in a public restroom, State v. Bryant, 287 Minn. 205, 211-12, 177 N.W.2d 800, 804 (1970). NOTICE OF MISPRISION 20. All Judges in the State of Minnesota has shown prejudice to Sharon Scarrella Anderson In re: Scarrella for Associate Justice 221Nw2nd562 denied employment of Judge without a Law License ie: Therefore Madam MarciaMoermond who has an eating disorder weights over 350 lbs, her “hearings” are null and void, mandating Just compensation to over 1415 vancant bldgs. Owners and constitutional rights by denying her access to court. All Minnesota Judges haveshown contempt against the courts of justice by making light of the violations of law by the City and County Attorneys representing City and County Employees, as well as the unconstitutional infringement of the Madam Moermond’s illegal jurisdiction/authority on the judicial functions of this district court. , Minnesota Constitution Art III Separation of Powers Doctrine. City of St. Paul has not provided transcripts of DSI hearing in a timely manner, and falsely claimed that MGRP, Rule 4 denies the opportunity to have your own court reporter. City and County Attorneys acting in concort with State Attorney General have denied the citizenry right to what the Minnesota Supreme Court described as an “opportunity to elect a judicial determination” in matters relating to the Tax Court, which isprecisely what the Supreme Court declared was “the saving feature of this statutory scheme”. Wulff v. Tax Court of Appeals, 288 N.W.2d 221 (Minn. 1979). Finally, Madam Marcia Moermond must be disqualified for incompetence for not understanding that demurrer has been abolished by Federal RCP Rule 7(c), and Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 31. Page 24 of 26that unsupported contentions of material fact without affidavits and other testimony are insufficient for dismissal of claims. REMEDY SOUGHT 21. Determination by the St. Paul Mayor and City Council, and that Sharon Anderson does not owe the amount claimed by the DSI Badge 322 Joel Essling Approximately $900.00 22. Return to Sharon Scarrella Anderso Car 91 Chev replacement value $30 thous, Trailer $10 thous, Contents over $10 thousand, plus Damage to Driveway, Fence, over 20 thous, Punatitive, Compensatory,Tort Damages $500,000.00 for each and every occurrence. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Prepared and Submitted by: /s/ Sharon Anderson Attorney Pro Se, Private Attorney General, __________________________________http://sharon4council.blogspot.com AFFIDAVITS 3. I did not authorize MDR or the City of St. Paul personnel to execute substitute or levy fees, assessments, banking online and or Minnesota property or individual income tax returns for me. evidence in record that alleged delinquent Minnesota property taxes have been assessed against me, and therefore I have no evidence that I have a delinquent property tax liability for qualified Minnesota resident or nonresident property taxes. 13. I have not signed a consent agreement authorizing the City of St. Paul direct withdrawal of sums decedant intestate http://cpljimanderson.blogspot.com and I have on deposit in banks located in Minnesota. 14. I am not a government disbursement officer or withholding agent required to withhold income and employment taxes from wages at the source, deposit such taxes into trust accounts, report amounts withheld and pay said amounts to the Treasury of the United States or the Minnesota Department of Revenue. 16. On April and May 2007 Theft/Trespass Criminal Charges were sent to St. Paul police John Harrington control no. Cn07089912 Kathy.wuorinen@ci.stpaul.mn.us former city clerk don.luna@ci.stpaul.mn.us demanding that they cease Trespassing/Theft and return assets and demanding my constitutional and statutory rights of due process and trial by jury. 17. On April 24th, again 16May, 2007, the DSI trespassed into 697 Surrey and land valued at about $137,000.00, Trees, shrubs, flower gardens and ground cover valued at black top driveway, redwood fencing, retaining walls and personal property valued at about $50,000.the seizure of my assets, without claiming that I was a criminal. 18. I am not in receipt of any evidence in record of criminal conduct that would warrant admiralty or common law seizure. None of the real and personal property I own was used in conjunction with or was the fruit of drug-related commercial crimes. Under penalties of perjury, I attest that to the best of my present knowledge,understanding, and belief all matters of fact set out above are accurate and true, so help me God. /s/ Sharon Anderson Disclaimer Word Program by Beale is used for Original and Educa Gina D 2007S1 (Attorney Generals Office)200560,630 0060,630 Jensen Linda S 2007S3 (Attorney Generals Office)2000100,39100100,391 Jensen tional Purposes. Misconduct of Assistant AG Gina Jensen z [PDF] Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 32. Page 25 of 26 IN THE MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITORS INVESTIGATION OF ... www.barden4ag.com/pdfs/SwansonCivello9-29-08ARCHIVE.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick Viewmy tenure as an Assistant Attorney General at the Minnesota Attorney Generals Ofliee .... Rehecca stated that the new person, Gina Jensen, would be an ... friendly, they attmtpt to work with AGs and respect their suggestions regarding ...z From: Gina.Jensen@state.mn.us To: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com CC: Richard.Luis@state.mn.us Sent: 8/17/2011 10:08:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: In the Matter of the Appeal of Sharon Anderson OAH Docket No. 7-0900-22096-2Dear Ms. Anderson:It is my understanding that the courtesy copy of the Minnesota Department of Healths Notice of Motionand Motion for Summary Disposition; Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition; andAffidavit of Rick Chiat and Exhibits A-H in the above-referenced matter that were emailed to you onMonday, August 15, 2011, were not delivered to your email address. Therefore, I am resending anelectronic copy of the documents to you. I apologize for any inconvenience. If you have questions orconcerns, please feel free to contact me.Sincerely yours,Gina D. JensenAssistant Attorney GeneralBoards and Agencies DivisionBremer Tower, Suite 1200445 Minnesota StreetSt. Paul, MN 55101-2130(651) 757-1263gina.jensen@ag.state.mn.us)URP 6RX]D 3DW6HQW 0RQGD $XJXVW    307R /XLV 5LFKDUG VKDURQ$QGHUVRQ#$OFRP&F -HQVHQ *LQD6XEMHFW ,Q WKH 0DWWHU RI WKH $SSHDO RI 6KDURQ $QGHUVRQ 2$+ RFNHW 1R Dear Judge Luis and Ms. Anderson:Attached please find a courtesy copy of the Minnesota Department of Healths Notice of Motion andMotion for Summary Disposition; Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition; andAffidavit of Rick Chiat and Exhibits A-H in the above-referenced matter. The originals will follow by U.S.Mail. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact AssistantAttorney General Gina Jensen at (651) 757-1263.3DW 6RX]D/HJDO 6HFUHWDU0LQQHVRWD $WWRUQH *HQHUDOV 2IILFH 
  • 33.  Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  • 34. Page 26 of 26This e-mail is intended to be read only by the intended recipient. This e-mail may be legally privilegedor protected from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination of this e- mail or any attachments is strictly prohibited, and you should refrain from reading this e-mail orexamining any attachments. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments. Thank you. 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 originators 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. Thursday, August 25, 2011 AOL: Sharon4Anderson