Sa Tax Del62cv09 1163 18 84

of 4

Subj: Fwd: Sharon Scarrella Anderson Answers/Cross Ramsey Dist.Crt 62cv09-1163
Date: 3/30/2009 12:37:22 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From: Sharon4Anderson
To: Sharon4Anderson

A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!

-----------------
Forwarded Message:
To: larry.dease@courts.state.mn.us, lynae.olson@courts.state.mn.us,
DOR.taxpayeradvocate@state.mn.us, dorweb.comm@state.mn.us, ward.einess@state.mn.us
CC: fred.grittner@courts.state.mn.us, eric.wood@spps.org, eric.magnuson@courts.state.mn.us

Fax Transmittal_ Affidavit of E Service/Answers/Cross
Ramsey Dist. Court 62cv09-1163 www.co.ramsey.mn.us
mn revenue department - Google Search Property Tax Taxpayer rights advocate
Ward EinessCabinet

Pursuant to my call today Mon 30Mar09 to larry.dease@courts.state.mn.us Court
Administrator
tel.651- 266-8266 Fax: 651-266-8266 and lynae.olson@courts.state.mn.us
tel.651-266-8255 Fax: 651-266-8263
Sample Brief encompassed 1984+Tax+Court.jpg (image)

GrittnerJud89.jpg (image) CrimComplaint v Judges 05_41 FTC v. Debt Assets04_73.pdf

CityStP_Conflicts_Ethics Sharon TrustTrilogy_21 Aitkin Ans/Cross20Aug01
SharonsWritProA06_1150_30Jun06_26

(FIAFEA&FIRREA)Dahn

Files are exensive, We the People must make government accountable.

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

Homestead Act of 1862 Twitter / Sharon4Anderson AllMN | Sharon Anderson's Blog neopopulism.org - Pro Se Dec Action Litigation Pack
Sharon4Anderson | Scribd Document's are based on SEC filings, Blogger: Dashboard Home |
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of whistleblower protection issues, MY FindLaw
The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers
kare11.com_SA
Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption
3Apr0http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPlawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm Sharon4Council: DLJ Managment 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.comknowledge gained as financial journalists ,
http://taxthemax.blogspot.com securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade Public
domain recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting Google Search Times v. Sullvian
Libel with malice - 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 Google Search BlogItBabe2007 Candidate profile
Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs Sharon4Anderson St.Paul City Council Ward2 SA-Blogs2007 Blogger: Dashboard http://sharons-
copywrite.blogspot.co

Sunday, April 05, 2009 AOL: Sharon4Anderson

of 4


-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Date: 3/30/2009 11:30:03 A.M. Central Daylight Time
To: lynae k.e.olson@courts.state.mn.us
CC: Sharon4Anderson

Sorry for e-error


-----------------
Forwarded Message:
To: Sharon4Anderson
CC: a_democracy@yahoo.com, BillDahn4

Will transpose to http://taxthemax.blogspot.com My Presentations on SlideShare


-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Sharon Scarrella Anderson Answers/Cross Ramsey Dist.Crt 62cv09-1163
To: lynae k.e.olson@courts.state.mn.us, mark.oswald@co.ramsey.mn.us,
deb.haselman@co.ramsey.mn.us
CC: askdoj@usdoj.gov, tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us, michael.campion@state.mn.us,
attorney.general@state.mn.us, rca@co.ramsey.mn.us, john.harrington@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
bob.fletcher@co.ramsey.mn.us, a_democracy@yahoo.com

DTD: Mon 30Mar09
AFFIDAVIT OF SHARON SCARRELLA ANDERSON
697 Surrey 32.29.2.41.0053 2008_$2,499.43 pg 53
www.review-news.com ie: Janice Rettman Res: 2009-012
279 - DELINQUENT REAL ESTATE TAXES, 2008 Minnesota Statutes 697 Surrey_09
697 Surrey Illegal Assessments_09
TO THE ABOVE NAMED www.co.ramsey.mn.us www.ci.stpaul.mn.us

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY 62cv09-1163 2ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
To: All Persons with Legal Interest in the Parcels of Real Property Described in the Folowing Delinquent
Tax List, Filed with District Court Administrator Lynae.K.E.Olson 651-266-2002 , published 18Mar09,
sent to Affiant by US Mails Fri.20thMar09, received Sat. 21Mar09, Auditor Mark Oswald, acting in
concort with Larry Dease Court Administrator without a FEE, Proper Service, S&C. Heinous denial


of 4

of due process as Realestate taxes 2008 paid.
State of Minnesota, County of Ramsey ,Auditor
Mark Oswald,PS Michael Campion,Agents,Assigns,Official Capacity,
Individually,severally, John Doe,Mary Roe Plaintiffs
279 - DELINQUENT REAL ESTATE TAXES, 2008 Minnesota
Statutes vs.
697 Surrey, Intestate Decedant CplJimAnderson,VA Widow
Sharon Anderson, heirs,assigns, all others as their interest appear
Defendants Memorandumn of law,Dismissal

554 - FREE SPEECH; PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT, 2008 Minnesota Statutes 3rd
Party Pltf,vs. US&State of MN et al File No.62cv09-1163

INTRODUCTION COUNT 1 Title 18
At all times material, when notified Sharon has answered, techinaly
the city of st.paul has created False Statements, False Assessments, False
Ratification of Asessments, then signed off by the Mayor Chris Coleman
WaterA06-1150f/_26 in a RICO Patterened DL/803-2007-02-27T0343 Enterprise against Seniors,
Protected Class to Steal Cars, Suspend Drivers License, Shut off Water www.sharonanderson.org
without Long Form Complaints, specifically DSI Employee Joel Essling,

Sharon Anderson v. Joel Essling MN - Google Search unabated by Public Offici als.

COUNT II 42 USC 3631

COUNT IIIMS 609.51SimulatingLegProcess
To simulate legal process without decending to particulars , said file/complaint of
delinquent taxes contains NO accusations or charging language, distinct from the
published 18Mar09 Maple Wood Review www.review-news.com .

COUNT IV MS555DeclaratoryJudgmentAct
Affiant challenges Authority/Jurisdiction as no long formal complaints, Car fully
insured until Dec.08, DL never returned http://sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com
Property taxes were paid

Please take legal notice: that E Commerce Brief is under construction, Affidavits of
Prejudice against Kathleen Gearin and Gregg Johnson for Criminal Cause
My Presentations on SlideShare

Sa Tax Del62cv09 1163 18
1 hour ago
Pursuant to Law Brief due 20 days from 18Mar09 = exclusive of weekends 7Apr
to 17th Apr09 and or place in File 62cv09-1163 this E-Commerce Notification. to challenge the
quot;takingquot; of Homestead Credit, The Bizzare Assessments with 12% interest is Bizzare, Reppugnant to


of 4

the 1st,4th,5th Amendments of the US and Art. 3 MN Constitution.

Submitted in Good Faith
/s/ Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913_sa1299 Attorney Pro Se_InFact,Private Attorney General,Candidate 2010
www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com Homestead Act of 1862
Sharon Scarrella Anderson's Page - We The People USA http://sharon4privateattorneygeneral.blogspot.com
political ?(Sharon4Anderson?)
Alliance for a Better Minnesota | Sharon Anderson's Blog Click here: Sharon4Council file4[1]Shar_thune_22.pdf - Google Docs
Disclaimer on Site'sThe Electronic Communications Privacy Act MY FindLaw (ECPA) sets out the provisions for access, use, disclosure,
interception and privacy protections of electronic communications. Sharon4Anderson | Scribd pdf files. The law was enacted in 1986 and
covers various forms of wire and electronic communications. According to the U.S. Code, electronic communications quot;means any
transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio,
electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce.quot; ECPA prohibits unlawful access
and certain disclosures of communication contents. Additionally, the law prevents government entities from requiring disclosure of
electronic communications from a provider without proper procedure. The Legal Institute provides Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which
encompasses ECPA. Blogger: Dashboard
NOTICE: This communication is not encrypted. This e-mail (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and Electronic Communications Privacy Act The CAN-SPAM Act:
Requirements for Commercial Emailers



of 5

Subj: SharonScarrellaAndersonsObjections to RealEstate Tax CasesMN 62cv09-1163
To:
mark.oswald@co.ramsey.mn.us, larry.dease@courts.state.mn.us, dorrick@pioneerpress.com,
ward.einess@state.mn.us, karen.norgaard@co.ramsey.mn.us, bonnie.andrews@co.ramsey.mn.us,
aitkinpz@co.aitkin.mn.us, achhs@co.aitkin.mn.us, acac@mlecmn.net, age@aitkinage.com,
acld@co.aitkin.mn.us, lgrams@co.aitkin.mn.us, janice.bare@courts.state.mn.us,
ltibbetts@co.aitkin.mn.us, dale.lueck@co.aitkin.mn.us, irwi0009@umn.edu,
central.services@co.aitkin.mn.us, sbennett@co.aitkin.mn.us, auditor@co.aitkin.mn.us,
marta.swanson@courts.state.mn.us, license@co.aitkin.mn.us, kladd@co.aitkin.mn.us,
sheriff2@co.aitkin.mn.us, chills@co.aitkin.mn.us, dselander@co.aitkin.mn.us, jratz@co.aitkin.mn.us,
brian.napstad@co.aitkin.mn.us, diane.lafferty@co.aitkin.mn.us, assessor@co.aitkin.mn.us,
reid.amborn@co.aitkin.mn.us, dboyer@co.aitkin.mn.us, ruth.bender@courts.state.mn.us,
treas@co.aitkin.mn.us, dniemi@co.aitkin.mn.us, mark.wedel@co.aitkin.mn.us, janze003@umn.edu,
tburke@co.aitkin.mn.us, mis@co.aitkin.mn.us, kpeysar@co.aitkin.mn.us,
bonnie.lecocq@courts.state.mn.us, plandg@co.aitkin.mn.us, jhicks@co.aitkin.mn.us,
russ.wagner@co.aitkin.mn.us, nancy.lebland@courts.state.mn.us, mbos@co.aitkin.mn.us,
tsanbeck@co.aitkin.mn.us, paul.bailey@co.aitkin.mn.us, tveenker@co.aitkin.mn.us,
bill.thompson@co.aitkin.mn.us, csutch@co.aitkin.mn.us, jblomberg@co.aitkin.mn.us,
michelle.cosgriff@courts.state.mn.us, lori.grams@co.aitkin.mn.us, dmoore@co.aitkin.mn.us, mnext-
aitkin@umn.edu, tgustin@co.aitkin.mn.us, rmnelson@co.aitkin.mn.us, coatty@co.aitkin.mn.us,
galen.tveit@co.aitkin.mn.us, llcc@mlecmn.net, tburman@co.aitkin.mn.us, baverill@mndaily.com,
eeskola@cbs.com, ddavis@forumcomm.com, hopfen@startribune.com, rstassen-
berger@pioneerpress.com, ochsnews@yahoo.com, bbowring@tpt.org, charley.shaw@legal-
ledger.com, mlohn@ap.org, jragsdale@pioneerpress.com, ahart@kare11.com, swente@republican-
eagle.com, mfischenich@mankatofreepress.com, EEskola, tim.budig@ecm-inc.com,
ndraper@startribune.com, lmccallum@mpr.org, bsalisbury@pioneerpress.com,
lschumacher@stcloudtimes.com, pcondon@ap.org, mbrunswick@startribune.com,
ntibbetts@mndaily.com, pjkessler@wcco.cbs.com, jcroman@kare11.com, plopez@startribune.com,
tscheck@mpr.org, thauser@kstp.com, mlahammer@tpt.org, pdoyle@startribune.com,
rrosario@pioneerpress.com, klksnews@yahoo.com, lsturdevant@startribune.com,
jayjohnson@postbulletin.com, bbakst@ap.org, dbrewster@startribune.com,
glenn.wilson@state.mn.us, market.assurance@state.mn.us, licensing.commerce@state.mn.us,
education.comerce@state.mn.us, unclaimed.property@state.mn.us, energy.info@state.mn.us,
general.commerce@state.mn.us, insdatareports.commnerce@state.mn.us,
financial.commerce@state.mn.us, insurance.commerce@state.mn.us,
securities.commerce@state.mn.us, petrofund.commerce@state.mn.us,
telecom.commerce@state.mn.us, weights.measures@state.mn.us,
MNLabContact@commerce.state.mn.us, mn.relay@state.mn.us,
commerce.commissioner@state.mn.us, commerce.webmaster@state.mn.us,
marcia.moermond@ci.stpaul.mn.us, kenneth.smith@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
margaret.egan@ci.stpaul.mn.us, elizabeth.davis@ci.stpaul.mn.us, trudy.moloney@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
thomas.davenport@ci.stpaul.mn.us, mwandersee@eldercarerights.org, jaasve@eldercarerights.org,
hkaur@eldercarerights.org, justice@eldercarerights.org, mthurin@eldercarerights.org,
jmcquillan@eldercarerights.org, jabrams@eldercarerights.org, tpeplinski@eldercarerights.org,
tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us, velma.korbel@state.mn.us, carol.molnau@state.mn.us,
brian.mcclung@state.mn.us, dli.commissioner@state.mn.us, cal.ludeman@state.mn.us,
admin.info@state.mn.us, alice.seagren@state.mn.us, dan.salomone@state.mn.us,
mhfa@state.mn.us, michael.pugliese@state.mn.us, michael.campion@state.mn.us,
info@IronRangeResources.org, webinfo@mda.state.mn.us, mde.webmaster@state.mn.us,
webmaster@doc.state.mn.us, deed.customerservice@state.mn.us, oet.web@state.mn.us,
webmaster.finance@state.mn.us, sanne.magnan@state.mn.us, dhs.info@state.mn.us,
steve.sviggum@state.mn.us, bms@state.mn.us, data.center@metc.state.mn.us,
peter.bell@metc.state.mn.us, webmaster@mn-arng.ngb.army.mil, susan.heegard@state.mn.us,
info@dnr.state.mn.us, webmaster@pca.state.mn.us, Dps.webmaster@state.mn.us,
dorweb.comm@state.mn.us, tom.sorel@state.mn.us, info@dot.state.mn.us,
clark.dyrud@state.mn.us, mdva.webmaster@mdva.state.mn.us, rep.tim.faust@house.mn,
rep.morrie.lanning@house.mn, rep.sandra.peterson@house.mn, rep.kathy.brynaert@house.mn,
rep.bud.heidgerken@house.mn, rep.carol.mcfarlane@house.mn,


of 5

rep.augustine.dominguez@house.mn, rep.nora.slawik@house.mn, rep.phyllis.kahn@house.mn,
rep.joe.atkins@house.mn, rep.maryellen.otremba@house.mn, rep.steve.gottwalt@house.mn,
rep.john.ward@house.mn, rep.leon.lillie@house.mn, rep.tony.cornish@house.mn,
rep.brita.sailer@house.mn, rep.frank.hornstein@house.mn, rep.joe.mullery@house.mn,
rep.tom.emmer@house.mn, rep.cy.thao@house.mn, rep.paul.kohls@house.mn,
rep.david.bly@house.mn, rep.joyce.peppin@house.mn, rep.sandy.wollschlager@house.mn,
rep.rick.hansen@house.mn, rep.carlos.mariani@house.mn, rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn,
rep.bob.dettmer@house.mn, rep.mike.jaros@house.mn, rep.kim.norton@house.mn,
rep.bruce.anderson@house.mn, rep.patti.fritz@house.mn, rep.dean.urdahl@house.mn,
rep.john.lesch@house.mn, rep.julie.bunn@house.mn, rep.tom.rukavina@house.mn,
rep.bill.hilty@house.mn, rep.frank.moe@house.mn, rep.steve.drazkowski@house.mn,
rep.steve.smith@house.mn, rep.margaret.kelliher@house.mn, rep.john.benson@house.mn,
rep.erik.paulsen@house.mn, rep.bob.gunther@house.mn, rep.andy.welti@house.mn,
rep.shelley.madore@house.mn, rep.matt.dean@house.mn, rep.marty.seifert@house.mn,
rep.larry.hosch@house.mn, rep.mary.murphy@house.mn, rep.tom.tillberry@house.mn,
rep.sondra.erickson@house.mn, rep.carolyn.laine@house.mn, rep.neil.peterson@house.mn,
rep.robin.brown@house.mn, rep.larry.haws@house.mn, rep.sandra.masin@house.mn,
rep.dean.simpson@house.mn, rep.denise.dittrich@house.mn, rep.al.juhnke@house.mn,
rep.tom.anzelc@house.mn, rep.mark.olson@house.mn, rep.pat.garofalo@house.mn,
rep.neva.walker@house.mn, rep.bernie.lieder@house.mn, rep.karen.clark@house.mn,
rep.maria.ruud@house.mn, rep.joe.hoppe@house.mn, rep.terry.morrow@house.mn,
rep.kent.eken@house.mn, rep.marsha.swails@house.mn, rep.lyle.koenen@house.mn,
rep.karla.bigham@house.mn, rep.gene.pelowski@house.mn, rep.rod.hamilton@house.mn,
rep.ryan.winkler@house.mn, rep.tim.mahoney@house.mn, rep.dan.severson@house.mn,
rep.randy.demmer@house.mn, rep.thomas.huntley@house.mn, rep.bud.nornes@house.mn,
rep.jim.abeler@house.mn, rep.ken.tschumper@house.mn, rep.brad.finstad@house.mn,
rep.ann.lenczewski@house.mn, rep.jeanne.poppe@house.mn, rep.mark.buesgens@house.mn,
rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn, rep.denny.mcnamara@house.mn, rep.al.doty@house.mn,
rep.linda.slocum@house.mn, rep.jeremy.kalin@house.mn, rep.mike.beard@house.mn,
rep.dennis.ozment@house.mn, rep.mindy.greiling@house.mn, rep.lynn.wardlow@house.mn,
rep.diane.loeffler@house.mn, rep.jim.davnie@house.mn, rep.bev.scalze@house.mn,
rep.melissa.hortman@house.mn, rep.erin.murphy@house.mn, rep.ron.erhardt@house.mn,
rep.paul.thissen@house.mn, rep.scott.kranz@house.mn, rep.laura.brod@house.mn,
rep.aaron.peterson@house.mn, rep.kurt.zellers@house.mn, rep.alice.hausman@house.mn,
rep.paul.marquart@house.mn, rep.steve.simon@house.mn, rep.david.dill@house.mn,
rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn, rep.dave.olin@house.mn, rep.sarah.anderson@house.mn,
rep.paul.gardner@house.mn, rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn, rep.tina.liebling@house.mn,
rep.lyndon.carlson@house.mn, rep.connie.ruth@house.mn, rep.maryliz.holberg@house.mn,
rep.will.morgan@house.mn, rep.rob.eastlund@house.mn, rep.loren.solberg@house.mn,
rep.kate.knuth@house.mn, rep.john.berns@house.mn, rep.michael.paymar@house.mn,
rep.tom.hackbarth@house.mn, rep.torrey.westrom@house.mn, rep.doug.magnus@house.mn,
rep.tony.sertich@house.mn, rep.larry.howes@house.mn, rep.michael.nelson@house.mn,
bob.fletcher@co.ramsey.mn.us, matt.bostrom@ci.stpaul.mn.us, neil.melton@state.mn.us,
john.harrington@ci.stpaul.mn.us, mary.bjornberg@state.mn.us, kwilkening@co.nobles.mn.us,
terry.sandbeck@state.mn.us, johnp@alx.tec.mn.us, mitch.lee@state.mn.us,
mylan.masson@minneapolis.edu, paul.monteen@state.mn.us, tracey.a.martin@co.hennepin.mn.us,
mark.letexier@co.polk.mn.us, john.bolduc@co.crow-wing.mn.us, dan.glass@state.mn.us,
brent.richter@state.mn.us, debra.soderbeck@state.mn.us, mdohman@ci.maple-grove.mn.us,
sheryl.waddick@state.mn.us, junstad@yahoo.com, carol.j.hall@state.mn.us,
mike.ardolf@state.mn.us, bill.martinez@ci.stpaul.mn.us, michael.young@ci.minneapolis.mn.us,
peggy.strand@state.mn.us, timbildsoe@visi.com, starr.suggs@state.mn.us, harr@csp.edu,
diverson@pioneerpress.com, dbeal@pioneerpress.com, mhopp@pioneerpress.com,
rhubbard@pioneerpress.com, twebb@pioneerpress.com, jforster@pioneerpress.com,
jkrocheski@pioneerpress.com, jbjorhus@pioneerpress.com, khubbard@pioneerpress.com,
aharrington@pioneerpress.com, lsuzukamo@pioneerpress.com, dfondler@pioneerpress.com,
janice.rettman@co.ramsey.mn.us, chiefclerk@co.ramsey.mn.us, tony.bennett@co.ramsey.mn.us,
jim.mcdonough@co.ramsey.mn.us, rafael.e.ortega@co.ramsey.mn.us,
jan.parker@co.ramsey.mn.us, toni.carter@co.ramsey.mn.us, victoria.reinhardt@co.ramsey.mn.us,
rob.fulton@co.ramsey.mn.us, bonnie.jackelen@co.ramsey.mn.us,


of 5

Julie.Kleinschmidt@co.ramsey.mn.us, elections.dept@state.mn.us, secretary.state@state.mn.us,
public.information@state.mn.us, direct.access@state.mn.us, authentication.inquiries@state.mn.us,
ucc.dept@state.mn.us, sen.patricia.torres.ray@senate.mn, sen.tarryl.clark@senate.mn,
sen.mary.olson@senate.mn, sen.linda.higgins@senate.mn, sen.david.senjem@senate.mn,
sen.john.marty@senate.mn, sen.john.doll@senate.mn, sen.yvonne.prettner.solon@senate.mn,
sen.paul.koering@senate.mn, sen.daniel.sparks@senate.mn, sen.terri.bonoff@senate.mn,
sen.chris.gerlach@senate.mn, sen.kathy.saltzman@senate.mn, sen.warren.limmer@senate.mn,
sen.jim.vickerman@senate.mn, sen.dick.day@senate.mn, sen.sandra.pappas@senate.mn,
sen.debbie.johnson@senate.mn, sen.katie.sieben@senate.mn, sen.thomas.bakk@senate.mn,
sen.geoff.michel@senate.mn, sen.sharon.erickson.ropes@senate.mn,
sen.claire.robling@senate.mn, sen.keith.langseth@senate.mn, sen.david.tomassoni@senate.mn,
sen.satveer.chaudhary@senate.mn, sen.gen.olson@senate.mn, sen.david.hann@senate.mn,
sen.linda.scheid@senate.mn, sen.ann.lynch@senate.mn, sen.chuck.wiger@senate.mn,
sen.steve.dille@senate.mn, sen.lawrence.pogemiller@senate.mn, sen.amy.koch@senate.mn,
sen.dan.skogen@senate.mn, sen.don.betzold@senate.mn, sen.steve.murphy@senate.mn,
sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn, sen.sandy.rummel@senate.mn, sen.ron.latz@senate.mn,
sen.ray.vandeveer@senate.mn, sen.richard.cohen@senate.mn, sen.julianne.ortman@senate.mn,
sen.bill.ingebrigtsen@senate.mn, sen.kathy.sheran@senate.mn, sen.ellen.anderson@senate.mn,
sen.jim.metzen@senate.mn, sen.michelle.fischbach@senate.mn, sen.ann.rest@senate.mn,
sen.gary.kubly@senate.mn, sen.leroy.stumpf@senate.mn, sen.jim.carlson@senate.mn,
sen.rick.olseen@senate.mn, sen.joe.gimse@senate.mn, sen.tom.saxhaug@senate.mn,
sen.tony.lourey@senate.mn, sen.betsy.wergin@senate.mn, sen.scott.dibble@senate.mn,
sen.pat.pariseau@senate.mn, sen.mike.jungbauer@senate.mn, sen.rod.skoe@senate.mn,
sen.linda.berglin@senate.mn, sen.mee.moua@senate.mn, sen.leo.foley@senate.mn,
sen.julie.rosen@senate.mn, sen.dan.larson@senate.mn, john.choi@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
john.lesch@ci.stpaul.mn.us, lisa.veith@ci.stpaul.mn.us, john.kelly@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
jerry.hendrickson@ci.stpaul.mn.us, dave.thune@ci.stpaul.mn.us, pat.harris@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
kathy.lantry@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Lee.Helgen@ci.stpaul.mn.us, dan.bostrom@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
russ.stark@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Melvin.Carter@ci.stpaul.mn.us, mranfang@hotmail.com,
jerry.ludden@ci.stpaul.mn.us, nathan.stublaski@ci.stpaul.mn.us, steve.schneider@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
john.zanmiller@ci.west-saint-paul.mn.us, will.rossbach@ci.maplewood.mn.us,
waterinquiries@ci.stpaul.mn.us, jim.graupmann@ci.stpaul.mn.us, dave.schuler@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
steve.gleason@ci.stpaul.mn.us, dave.wagner@ci.stpaul.mn.us
CC: nancylazaryan@gmail.com, a_democracy@yahoo.com, BillDahn4, Sharon4Anderson,
attorney.general@state.mn.us, rca@co.ramsey.mn.us

Click here: Objections to RealEstate Tax Cases MN - Google Search
Mon.30Mar09
NIOTICE OF APPEARANCE BY E-COMMERCE/FAX RE: CLASSIFICATION 697 SURREY AVE
32.29.22.41.0053 published 18Mar09 www.review-news.com
Tues for 1Apr09
Related Court File Ramsey Dist.Crt. 62cv09-1163 Further to reopen the Grand Jury Proceedings
against Lou McKenna former Auditor.

697 Surrey 08 Assess/TaxValueStmt.asp?pin=32292

To Mark.Oswald@co.ramsey.mn.us Auditor/Taxes/Elections,his
Agents,Assigns,Employees,et al.
Ramsey County PRR If you have questions regarding your Notice of Valuation and Classification for Taxes
Payable in 2010, you may call the Assessor’s Office at 651-266-2000, prior to March 27, 2009, to discuss your
concerns with an appraiser over the phone. Please be aware that you will:

Pursuant to Affiants call today to karen.norgaard@co.ramsey.mn.us, re: Supervisor
bonnie.andrews@co.ramsey.mn.us to Challenge the quot;takingquot; of Homestead credit at 697 Surrey Ave. St.
Paul, MN.55106, Continuous Homestead from 1992 up to and including the present, apparantly quot;takenquot;
2008 for taxes payable 2009, again 2009 payable 2010., without change in ownership and or Sale.

Affiant is not objecting to the Valuation, as the single little cottage is insured for over
$100,000.00. Questioned What is Row Maintance 01000032 $112.68 Water Drain 01000080 $67.84


of 5

Delq Util 01008416 $78.92 Recycle 01009996 $27.04, was told they were city issues.
Sha Answer/Cross 5Apr07
THEREFORE: http://taxthemax.blogspot.com working a a pdf legal brief to challenge
the City of St.Paul, Fraudulent Theft,Trespass,Treason to have Joel Essling of DSI 42USC1988 - Google
Search and Tanya Hunter cop packing a gun steal my car,traileCode-Corruption 19Apr07 Lantry
r,personal property
Sharon TrustTrilogy_21
Michael Campion v. Mpls,Rybak
Sa Beale Answ 07
278 - REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX; OBJECTION, DEFENSE, 2008 Minnesota Statutes

278.14 REFUNDS OF MISTAKENLY BILLED TAXES.

Subdivision 1.Applicability.

697 Surrey Illegal Assessments_09 A county must pay a refund of a mistakenly billed tax as provided in
this section. As used in this section, quot;mistakenly billed taxquot; means an amount of property tax that was
billed, to the extent the amount billed exceeds the accurate tax amount due to a misclassification of the
owner's property under section 273.13 or a mathematical error in the calculation of the tax on the
owner's property, together with any penalty or interest paid on that amount. This section applies only to
taxes payable in the current year and the two prior years. As used in this section, quot;mathematical errorquot;
is limited to an error in:

(1) converting the market value of a property to tax capacity or to a referendum market value;

(2) application of the tax rate as computed by the auditor under sections 275.08, subdivisions 1b, 1c, and
1d; 276A.06, subdivisions 4 and 5; and 473F.07, subdivisions 4 and 5, to the property's tax capacity or
referendum market value; or

(3) calculation of or eligibility for a credit.

The remedy provided under this section does not apply to a misclassification under section 273.13 that
is due to the failure of the property owner to apply for the correct classification as required by law.

Subd. 2.Procedure.

A refund of mistakenly billed tax must be paid upon verification of a claim made in a written application
by the owner of the property or upon discovery of the mistakenly billed tax by the county. Refunds of
overpayments will be made as provided in section 278.12.

Subd. 3.Appeals.

If the county rejects a claim by a property owner under subdivision 2, it must notify the property owner
of that decision within 90 days of receipt of the claim. The property owner may appeal that decision to
the Tax Court within 60 days after receipt of a notice from the county of the decision. Relief granted by
the Tax Court is limited to current year taxes, and taxes in the two prior years

AFFIANT'S DEMAND'S OF TAKING FOR THE PAST 21 YEARS

MANDATES 21 MILLION RE: RICO ACTS.

Cop- Corruption-Minnesota: Notice: Ins.Claim Stolen 91 Chrysler V-1C4GY54R5MX5 Not his car, but still his tickets? It's man versus state
database - TwinCities.com Sharon's Quitam


of 5

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

Homestead Act of 1862 Twitter / Sharon4Anderson AllMN | Sharon Anderson's Blog neopopulism.org - Pro Se Dec Action Litigation Pack
Sharon4Anderson | Scribd Document's are based on SEC filings, Blogger: Dashboard Home |
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of whistleblower protection issues, MY FindLaw
The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers
kare11.com_SA
Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption
3Apr0http://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.comknowledge gained as financial journalists ,
http://taxthemax.blogspot.com securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade Public
domain recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting Google Search Times v. Sullvian
Libel with malice - 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 Google Search BlogItBabe2007 Candidate profile
Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs Sharon4Anderson St.Paul City Council Ward2 SA-Blogs2007 Blogger: Dashboard http://sharons-
copywrite.blogspot.co



Message Page 1 of 1

Subj: RE: SharonAnderson,BillDahn Constitutional Challenge Agenda 1Apr091thro15_33,37,50
From: ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov
To: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com

Thank you for contacting the Department of Justice. This is an automatic acknowledgement that your e-mail was
received. It will be reviewed in the order it was received.


STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
2ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
File No. 62-cv09-1163 Case Type: Other Civil and Criminal

JURY TRIAL-FORPERSON GRAND JURY DEMAND

To: All Persons with legal interest in the Parcels of Real Property described in the
Following Delinquent Tax List, Filed with District Court Administrator Lynae.K.E. Olson 651-2202,
published 18Mar09 MapleWood Review www.review-news.com

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

STATE OF MINNSOTA, DEFENDANTS JOINT ANSWER/CROSS

AUDITOR MARK OSWALD 697 SURREY AVE 32.29.22.41.0053$2,499.43

State of Minnesota, Rule 24.04 by and thro State Attorney General Lori
Swanson www.ag.state.mn.us, Michael Campion, Public Safety,Mark
Oswald,RamseyCo.Auditor/Tax/Elections,Larry Dease,Court Administrator,St.Paul
Mayor Chris B. Coleman,City Clerk Shari Moore,Council President Kathy Lantry
www.ci.stpaul.mn.us, Janice Rettman res: No 2009-012,Toni Carter Canvass Board
and County Commissioners, www.co.ramsey.mn.us DSI Bob Kessler,Joel Essling in
their Official Capacity‘s, Individually,Severally, acting in concort with John Doe
and Mary Roe. SCAP,Judges Kathleen Gearin,Joanne Smith,Gregg
Johnson,Salvador Rosas,Larry Cohen et al 1988 Files 495722 499129 Default 66
Million Dollars. Plaintiffs

V.

697 Surrey Ave St.Paul,MN.55106 ,Intestate Decedant
www.cpljimanderson.blogspot.com ,VA Widow,Senior,Disabled Political Activist
Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Chergosky_Scarrella
www.sharon4staterep64a.blogspot.com http://sharon4council.blogspot.com
http://sharon4privateattorneygeneral.blogspot.com + 96 Blogs
www.sharonanderson.org , et al as their interest appear , Defendants and
3rd Party Plaintiffs,Intestate Decedants Tenant in Common Wm.O and Bernice
A.Peterson.

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

TO THE ABOVE NAMED PLAINTIFF’S AND THEIR ATTORNEYS

Beale v. McClure

LORI SWANSON,STATE CAPITOL,SUSAN GAERTNER,JOHN CHOI,AT
THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICES .

Defendants, as and for their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, state:

1. Deny each and every matter,allegation and thing contained in Plaintiffs
Vague,Arbitrary, False Assessments, by Theft,Trespass,Treason, except as
hereinafter specifically admitted,qualified or otherwise answered.

2. Defendants admitted to having Homestead Classification since 1992, (17
yrs), Ex. http://sharon4privateattornygeneral.blogspot.com pg 8 Paid the full
property taxes of $949.86, for 2008. Challenge thAT Title 18 USC 1001 False
charges. By Mark Oswald to “take” HS Credit,

INTENT

It is the intent of this fiduciary to challenge the Assessment,Ratifications,
findings, and conclusions made by the DSI Inspector Joel Essling, City Council
President Kathy Lantry acting in concort with Marcia Moermond in proper venue
and forum Art. II US Constitution an First Amendment right to petition for redress
of reievances: and it is my intent to preserve all Constitutional rights, either by
amendment,supplement or future litigation and or Removal’s to protect property
interest rights under Constitutional and Statutory Law:

Court File 62cv09-1163 apparently is an Administrative without Filing Fees,
to Simulate Legal Process, causing irreparable intentional infliction of emotional
stress, anti-trust by government official, Sharons intent to preserve minimal or full-
blown due process rights to an Administrative Hearing with FOIA Disclosure of
Warrants, Tickets, signed off by City Attorneys, to Steal Cars,Trailers,, in US
Supreme Court decisions it has been determined that it is clearly unlawful to seize
or levy funds absent a prior fully disclosed proof of lawful claim or judicial due
process through judicial courts with proper jurisdiction. Larson v. Domestic and
Foreign Commerce Corp. 337 US 682 (1949) Kelo Decision Stands

3. As to the Allegations “taken” in the form of Summary Judgment,
published Falsely in the Maplewood Review, www.review-news.com 18Mar09
pg.53 Sharon Anderson 697 Surrey Ave. 32.29.22.41.0053 Lyman Dayton Add. Lot
5 Blk 46 2008 $2,499.43 without proper citation of any statute,ordinance,rule,or
regulation which Defendants alleged to have violated contrary to Crim Rules , as to
the required specificity of an apparent crimial accusation of “not paying taxes” US
v. Cruikshank,92 US 542 at 558 (1876)

COUNT I CONSPIRACY Title 18 s. 241,242

Page 2 of 2

Beale v. McClure

Between April 2006 up to and including the present The Stalking of Sharon
by shutting off Water www.sharonanderson.org, Stalking causing Fracutured
Ankle, Sharon ran for State Ag from her Wheel Chair, Plaintiffs,
Lantry,Moore,Coleman,Kessler,Essling, did unlawfully
combine,conspire,confederate and agree to Steal Sharons Car, Trailer, Realestate
http://sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com and obstruct justice in connection with the
Homicide of Cpl James R. Anderson www.cpljimanderson.blogspot.com starting
1996, when Sharon paid the property taxes on her Cabin in Itasca Co. legally in the
Corporation of Anderson+Advocates, by altering and orchestrating the crime scene,
disposing of,altering and planting evidence, commitments to Brainard for 1 year by
the SCAP Panel Gearin and Smith, lying to law enforcement authorities and others
about the true circumstances surrounding Sharons RealEstate,
Disabilitys,Disparagment of Title and Death of Tenants in Common and Sharons 2nd
Husband.

4. Defendants are without sufficient information in order to judge the truth
or falsity of the allegations contained in the Tax Statement’s 2008,2009 and the 2010

The Valuation is not challenged, but the Classification,Assessments,Fees,Row
Maintainance,Delq Utilitys, Usurious interest is.and hold the Plaintiffs to the
strictest proof thereof. http://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com

5. Defendants deny the False Assessments,False Fees, Ratification thereof
obtained by Fraud and Murder to Steal Sharon’s Realestate, Car’s,Trailers,
Personal Property, reducing her to utter Poverty, Standing in Food Lines, for over 2
years, Heinous Hardship of taking Commerce Rights to drive to get grocerys,
medical care and the Aitkin,Itaska Cabins. “taken under color of corrupt Judges”

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

6. As its First Affirmative Defense, Defendants state Plaintiffs complaints of
Non Payment of Property Taxes fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

7. As its Second Affirmative Defense, Defendants state insufficiency of
service of process.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION

AFFIDAVIT OF INFORMIA PAUPERIOUS
Faxed>Mon.30Mar09 to Lynae.Olson@courts.mn.us 651-266-8263

ON SHARONS BLOGS, PDF FILES: BY E-COMMERCE: E-MAIL

Page 3 of 3

Beale v. McClure

STATE OF MINNESOTA ET AL V. 697 SURREY ET AL

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FILE: 62-cv09-1163

Please take legal notice, pending Full Disclosure, Tickets,Warrants,

Constitionality, Demand for Grand Jury Indictments against the Plaintiffs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED :

Whether a state violates the dormant Commerce Clause by providing an
exemption of Homestead Credits, Old House Credits, Disabled, Senior Credits, re:
MN Const. Art.X to the citizenry, yet Denial to a Political Candidate for State
Attorney General, Judge,State Rep64a ?

/s/ Sharon Anderson Private Attorney General, Attorney Pro Se_InFact will
Move the Jurisdiction/Authority of the Court for Dismissal, Recover of
Car,Trailer,Personal Propertys, Attorney Fees $240.00 pr hour,

WHEREFORE< Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by their
pretended cause of action and that the sam be dismissed and that Defendants
recover their costs,disbursements,herein attorney pro se fees, quiet title actions,on
all Sharon Scarrella Anderson dba Church of Justice Reform, Rose of Sharon
Ministrys, Anderson+Advocates, “taken” without Just Compensation, under color
of Authority, by the Corrupt Judiciary.

Dated: Wed. 1Apr09 /s/ Sharon Anderson ECF

MEMORANDUM OF LAW ENCOMPASSED HEREIN

Page 4 of 4

Beale v. McClure

In the Saint Paul City Council Agenda
thurs,July5,2007
Items 35 Resolution Assessments 07-601“from May17 to
June12th,2007 public hearing Aug.15th,07 (GS3041156)
Notice to combine with Item 51 Res.Ratifying
Assessments 07-609 from 12Apr to 27Apr07 (J0707A
Notice to remove from Agenda refer
To City or County Attorneys
Notice of Damages over ½ Million Dollars
State of Minnesota, County of Ramsey, City of St. Paul
Owner- Taxpayer Co Dist.File#J0707A-
J0708A:Assm.#8337 697 Surrey ID 32-29-22-41-0053

VA Widow 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 ,
http://sharon4council.blogspot.com all others similarily situated

Quitam Whistleblower-Fidicuary Watchdog Victim Relator

vs.

St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman,DSI and Bob Kessler,Joel Essling and 168
employees, union Supervisory, John Choi, all agents,city attorneys,assigns, in their
personal and official capacities, executive branch Kathy Lantry as President of the
City Council,enbanc Thune,Bostrom,Harris,Benanav,Montgomery,helgen,her
agents,assigns specifically shari moore, Marcia moermond,enbanc in the legislative
Page 5 of 5

Beale v. McClure

branch in their personal,official capacities, sued individually, severally, John Doe

and Mary Roe. Matt Smith www.ci.stpaul.mn.us

) Relatees

Sharon’s discovery of Treason by city officials in all realestate matters:

Forcing repeal of State and Federal Laws. Cooking the Fidicuary Books by
Mail Fraud , Extortion, Complicity, Theft of Personal Property,defrauding the State
of 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.

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.

BACKGROUND;

1. Officers of the court who may come in contact with the matters of city
attorneys simulating legal process without warrants, tickets, due process , are
noticed 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

Page 6 of 6

Beale v. McClure

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

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 statemebnt 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 quot;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.quot; 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

Page 7 of 7

Beale v. McClure

and Seizure 4th Amend,it is possible on any evidence which might be produced,
consistent with the pleader's 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 Mayork, 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,

Page 8 of 8

Beale v. McClure

Minnesota’s regulations are the Federal regulations for the state income tax. There
are no other Minnesota rules implementing most of Minnesota Statutes, chapters
270, 271, 290 and 290A. Therefore, the MDR is required to submit to the Federal
regulations that provide substantive rights under the Constitution of the United
States and due process of law.

4(a) In order for there to be (1) liability for any given tax imposed by the
Internal Revenue Code,and in this instance 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,

Page 9 of 9

Beale v. McClure

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
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
Park Essling or Harold Robinson with pistol packing cop Tanya hunter again
trespassed on Sharons and intestate decedants property at 697 Surrey ,stealing

Page 10 of 10

Beale v. McClure

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.
Page 11 of 11

Beale v. McClure

The claims are demonstrably false, since Sharon Anderson has submitted affidavits
that she has been harmed injured along with 1065 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, quot;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.quot;

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.com

6(b) The character of acts that suppose to bypass judicial process is
articulated 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 actions
which the Constitution barred by providing that quot;No Bill of Attainder or ex post
facto Law shall be passed.quot; In Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 323, this Court
said, quot;A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a
judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains
and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills
of pains and penalties.quot; … On the same day the Cummings case was decided, the
Court, in Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333 also held invalid on the same grounds an
Act of Congress which required attorneys practicing before this Court to take a
similar oath. Neither of these cases has ever been overruled. They stand for the
proposition that legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named

Page 12 of 12

Beale v. McClure

individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict
punishment on them without 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 special
legislative acts which take away the life, liberty, or property of particular named
persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct, which deserves
punishment. They intended to safeguard the people of this country from
punishment without trial by duly constituted courts. See Duncan v. Kahanamoku,
327 U.S. 304. And even the courts to which this important function was entrusted
were commanded to stay their hands until and unless certain tested safeguards were
observed. An accused in court must be tried by an impartial jury, has a right to be
represented by counsel, he must be clearly informed of the charge against him, the
law which he is charged with violating must have been passed before he committed
the act charged, he must be confronted by the witnesses against him, he must not be
compelled to incriminate himself, he cannot twice be put in jeopardy for the same
offense, and even after conviction no cruel and unusual punishment can be inflicted
upon him. See Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 235-238. When our Constitution
and Bill of Rights were written, our ancestors had ample reason to know that
legislative trials and punishments were too dangerous to liberty to exist in the nation
of free men they envisioned. And so they proscribed bills of attainder. Section 304 is
one. 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, 535
U.S. ___, 122 S. Ct. 1864. In Miranda v. United States, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602,
16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966), former Chief Justice Earle Warren penned the following:
“As courts have been presented with the need to enforce constitutional rights, they
have found means of doing so. That was our responsibility when Escobedo was
before us and it is our responsibility today. Where rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, 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 a
certificate of assessment. “For a tax to be collected upon any deficiency, an
assessment must be made against the taxpayer within three years after his return is
filed… If the estate is not assessed within the statutory period there can be no
transferee 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.

Page 13 of 13

Beale v. McClure

1965, 353 F.2d 396, 398-399, that: In the absence of any better test, we give effect to
the generally recognized rule that Regulations issued by the Secretary of the
Treasury, 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: quot;Tax officials and taxpayers alike are under the law, not above it.quot; 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 quot;is to be transmitted to the District Director for signature, after
which it will be returned to the Accounting Branch for permanent filing. * * *quot;
Case after case has quoted Treasury Regulation § 301.6203-1 and cited it
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.3d
1440 (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 no
evidence indicating that the Huffs received copies of their assessments pursuant to
their request under § 6203, we conclude there are genuine issues of material fact as
to 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 court's 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 director's 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

Page 14 of 14

Beale v. McClure

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
quot;may challenge the constitutionality, legality or fairness of any tax statute or
amount assessed or collected.quot; 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 statutory
authority 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 1065 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., Moore's Federal Practice §á60.44 (3d ed. 1997). The
principle underlying this rule is that a judgment's validity is of utmost importance.
Minnesota courts have adhered to this traditional rule. In Lange v. Johnson and its
progeny, 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)”.

Page 15 of 15

Beale v. McClure

8(b) Mesenbourg v. Jerome, 1995.MN.20775, 538 N.W.2d 489, Although the
language of the statute and the rule indicate that motions to vacate void judgments
must 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
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
defendant's 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

Page 16 of 16

Beale v. McClure

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 Federal
Debt Collection Act at 28 U.S.C. § 3201 as the exclusive remedy for collection of tax-
related 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

Page 17 of 17

Beale v. McClure

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
person's possessions. But the fair process of decision-making that it guarantees
works, by itself, to protect against arbitrary deprivation of property. For when a
person 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 quot;fairness
can 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 a
person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to
meet it.quot; 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: quot;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.quot; 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 quot;must be granted at a meaningful time and in a
meaningful manner.quot; 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 only
to 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 Federal
Internal Revenue laws. Therefore the seizure of Sharon Andersons property without

Page 18 of 18

Beale v. McClure

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 statute
prescribes that the proceedings shall conform quot;as near as may be to the proceedings
in admiralty,quot; the proceeding being a seizure on land is, in its nature, a common-
law 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 and
1862, 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.
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
quot;common lawquot; refers to those principles of English law that evolved in the common-
law 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);

Page 19 of 19

Sa Tax Del62cv09 1163 18 84

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (7)

Similar to Sa Tax Del62cv09 1163 18 84

Similar to Sa Tax Del62cv09 1163 18 84 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Sa Tax Del62cv09 1163 18 84