Sharons QuiTam_RICO62cv10-112_Manatron


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Sharons QuiTam_RICO62cv10-112_Manatron

  1. 1. STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY 2ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT 62cv10-112 _2009 Tax Delinquent _ Personal Injury’s_RICO Claims,Deceptive Trade Practices. MS609.903 MS 609.605 State of Minnesota by and thro ACS_Manatron, Ramsey Co. Auditor Mark Oswald et al 2009 Tax Delinquent Plaintiffs RICO_Relatee’s Vs. In the Matter of Delinquent Real Property Taxes for Real Property Described to Wit: Lyman Dayton Addition to St. Paul,Lot 5,Blk46,aka 697 Surrey Avenue PIN: Sharon Lea Andeson aka Sharon Scarrella Anderson aka Sharon Peterson-Chergosky record owner. Defendant’s RICO_Relator 3rd Party QuiTam 22F.3d 783 Scarrella v. Midwest Fed S&L USCAVC 03-0639 Plaintiffs. to also join with MN Supreme Court A06- 1150 Quo Warranto MS2.724, “Taking Drivers License” cit 905191492,MS 171.02 171.16 30 day suspension only,MS 117 Eminent Domain “takings” WATER File No. 62-cv09-1163_ 2008 Tax Delinquent re: 1163 indicating a “Patterned Enterprise” over 25 years. Case Type: Other Civil and RICO_Criminal similar 62cv09-11693 Sup Crt. A100064 Unallotment. Nancy Lazaryan 42USC 3631 JURY TRIAL-FORPERSON GRAND JURY DEMAND AFFIDAVITS OF PREJUDICE MS 176.312 In re: Scarrella4Justice 221NW2nd562
  2. 2. Beale v. McClure 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 2008 Tax Delinquent 18Mar09 MapleWood Review and 2009 Tax Delinquent.published 17Mar10. Affidavit by Sharon4Anderson Electronic_Fax Service,US Mail to Clerk Court Mon.19Apr2010 postage prepaid, ****************************************************************************** STATE OF MINNSOTA, DEFENDANTS JOINT ANSWER/CROSSCOMPLAINT, CONSTITUTIONALITY MS 429.061 MS 279 , MS 508/ MS 171.02 AUDITOR MARK OSWALD 697 SURREY AVE $2,499.43 Reconfigured Amt. unknown 2009, Classification,”takings” Homestead,DisabilitysDisparagment of Titles,Death, State of Minnesota, Rule 24.04 by and thro State Attorney General Lori Swanson ,Constitutionality MS 429.061,Title Examiner Wayne D. Anderson MS 508.12, Revenue Ward Einess, Michael Campion, Public Safety,Mark Oswald,RamseyCo.Auditor/Tax/Elections,,ACS,Manatron,Chris Samuels,Larry Dease,Court Administrator,St.Paul Mayor Chris B. Coleman,City Clerk Shari Moore,Council President Kathy Lantry, Janice Rettman res: No 2009-012,Toni Carter Canvass Board and County Commissioners, DSI Bob Kessler,Joel Essling,Wally Nelson dba Renovation Inc.,Lyn Moser, Kristine A. Kujala Supervisor Property Tax Services 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, John Vandenorth, Edward Toussaint Appeal A09-2031 et al 1988 Files 495722 499129 Default 66 Million Dollars. Plaintiffs V. 697 Surrey Ave St.Paul,MN.55106 ,Intestate Decedant ,VA Widow,Senior,Disabled Political Activist Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Chergosky_Scarrella Page 2 of 2
  3. 3. Beale v. McClure + 96 Blogs Candidate Republican State Attorney General , 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 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. A. By information and belief No Administrative Hearing’s have been held to confer Authority/Jurisdiction. 2008,2009,2010.since 1982 re: 82-1292 Appeal C8-84-241 2. Defendants admitted to having Homestead Classification since 1992, (17 yrs), Ex. 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, A.15Apr2010, by US Mails Electronicall served Application for Review Form 1679 challenging “takings” Homestead Credits and Bogus Non Homestead contrary to sec. 3631 Title 42. Summary Abatements, ROW with 12 % interest , Unconstitutionally Vague,Arbitrary,Discriminatory, contrary to MN Const. Art. X. with exhibits including ltr.dtd. 14Apr10, rcvd 16Apr10 by Kristine A. Kujala Supervisor Property Tax Services,651-296-3781 admitting Bizzare Ponzi Scheme, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary responsibilitys, reckless fraud and concealment, misrepresentation and unlawful and deceptive trade practices. They made a willful mistake,Unabated by Defendant Co attorney Susan Gaertner. “change 2009 * * * from Residential Non-Homestead to Residential Homestead Blind/Disability” Page 3 of 3
  4. 4. Beale v. McClure INTENT It is the intent of this fiduciary to challenge the Constitutionality and Assessment,Ratifications, findings, and conclusions apparently made by the DSI Inspector Joel Essling, Water Shutoff by Jerome Ludden acting in Concort with Wally Nelson dba Renovation Inc. PLEASE NOTE: Today Sun. 18Apr10 at 9:30 am, while Affiant was getting the Sun Papers, The Blue Water Truck was just driving around, Affiant said what do you want” He got out of Car parked on wrong side of Street and stated: Nothing We are planting a tree at 699 Surrey,“ on file for other WaterTrucks. City Council President Kathy Lantry acting in concort with Marcia Moermond in proper venue and forum Art. II US Constitution ,First Amendment right to petition for redress of greivances: it is Affiants 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’s A06 -1150 62cv09-1163,62cv10-112 apparently are 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 I Wilful negilenge of the Courts to READ the Record, ForensicFiles URL’s also 3. As to the Allegations “taken” in the form of Summary Judgment, published Falsely in the Maplewood Review, 18Mar09 pg.53 Sharon Anderson 697 Surrey Ave. 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 Page 4 of 4
  5. 5. Beale v. McClure v. Cruikshank,92 US 542 at 558 (1876), Affiant was the only one of 3 thousand alleged Delinquents to Challenge. Triggering “at risk” Anti Trust Litigation. Affiants property strangely absent 2009 Tax Delinquent “but for” Ii Chief Judge Kathleen R Gearin pg. 20 published Wed. 17Mar10 Apt.Own no.85 St.Albans Row unit 6 $2,660.59 , willful Tax Delinquent, triggers her Ethics to hear the Brayton v. Ward Einess, Cal Ludeman 62cv09-11693 Unallotment Case Affidavits of Prejudice filed URL’s at Taxes pd-DM-F9-1366 v. Judge Gregg Johnson re: Murder of Cpl Anderson. COUNT I CONSPIRACY Title 18 s. 241,242 Between April 2005 up to and including the present The “taking” of Sharons Drivers License contrary to State and Federal Laws, Stalking of Sharon by shutting off Water, A06-1150 Justice Russell Anderson Denied Access to Blow the Whistle on Major RICO Acts by the City of St. Paul, County of Ramsey, unabated by the DFL County Attorney Susan Gaertner, Darwin Looking Bill and Jean Stepan,Stalking causing Fracutured Ankle, Sharon ran for State Ag from her Wheel Chair, Plaintiffs, Lantry,Moore,Coleman,Kessler,Essling, did unlawfully “take“ Sharons Valid Drivers License M243104164509 Oct. 2005 “combine,conspire,confederate and agree to Shut Off Sharons Water 2006 Police Stalking fractured ankle 2006 then 2007 Steal Sharons Car, Trailer, Realestate “takings” contrary to 5th Amendments Just Compensation, obstruct justice in connection with the Homicide of Cpl James R. Anderson 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. Removals to Federal Court, Ann Montgomery locked the Doors denying Access to Seats of Government, JR Anderson was dying at Brainard State Hospital. Page 5 of 5
  6. 6. Beale v. McClure 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 now challenged, Classification,Assessments,Fees,Row Maintainance,Delq Utilitys, Usurious interest , hold the Plaintiffs to the strictest proof thereof. 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 4 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. Affinats Bank Statements prove Taxes Paid, but for Theft,Trespass,Treason of Taking Car,Trailer Constitutionality MS429.061. 7. As its Second Affirmative Defense, Defendants state insufficiency of service of process, Fraud upon the Court,which failed to read the Forensic Files,Records, Judge John Vandenorth does not pay any ROW fees, or fair share . AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION AFFIDAVIT OF INFORMIA PAUPERIOUS Faxed>Mon.30Mar09 to 651-266-8263 By depositing in the US Mails postage prepaid 19Apr2010 62cv10-112 ON SHARONS BLOGS, PDF FILES: BY E-COMMERCE: E-MAIL STATE OF MINNESOTA ET AL V. 697 SURREY ET AL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FILE: 62-cv09-1163 62cv10-112 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 Page 6 of 6
  7. 7. Beale v. McClure 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 ? Obama Health Care comes into play Affiant on the Mon.19Apr2010 by US Mails filed State & Federal Taxes, Property Tax Refund 2009, to resolve this Matter: Affiant has blown the Whistle on ie: Manatron with Chris Samuels Conflict, the Facts that files are deleted, Property Statements have NOT been mailed, triggering State and Federal Investigations into Wire,Bank,Mail Fraud or Software Provider. /s/ Sharon Anderson Private Attorney General, Attorney Pro Se_InFact will Move the Jurisdiction/Authority of the Court to investigate the Major Fraud in the Property Tax/Election in Ramsey Co. and City of St. Paul, MN. Recover of Car,Trailer,Personal Propertys,Drivers License, plus Quiet Titles to 1058 Summit Ave, Homestead, 325 No. Wilder 6 unit, 2194 Marshall duplex,448 Desnoyer duplex “taken” without Just Compensation Attorney Fees $240.00 pr hour, WHEREFORE< Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by their pretended cause of action and that the same 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. Examiner of Titles are appointed by Judges,yet paid for by the County Taxpayers,Unconstitutionally Vague MS508.12 Dated: Sat. 17thApr2010 /s/ Sharon Anderson ECF _P165913 Pacer: sa1299 MEMORANDUM OF LAW ENCOMPASSED HEREIN Qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act: As expressed by a court discussing the original version of the Act, qui tam actions are based on the theory "that one of the least expensive and most effective means of preventing frauds on the Treasury is to make the perpetrators of them liable to actions by private persons acting, if you please, under the strong stimulus of personal ill will or the hope of gain." United States v. Griswold, 24 F. 361, 366 (D. Or. 1885) (quoted, inter alia, in Quinn, 14 F.3d at 649 (emphasis added)). It can be argued that monies paid in settlement to a relator outside of the framework of an action brought under the Act should have an equivalent deterrent effect to monies paid in settlement subsequent Page 7 of 7
  8. 8. Beale v. McClure to the filing of the suit. We believe, however, that the Act's deterrent objectives would be diluted substantially by the enforcement of prefiling releases. To see this, one need only assume that, but for the filing of a qui tam claim, the government would be significantly less likely to learn of the allegations of fraud. Because Congress itself has made this very assumption, see Senate Report, supra, at 4-7, reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5269-72, we find it a reasonable starting point. When the qui tam relator files suit, the relator stands to receive only a percentage of the eventual proceeds from the action; at most, this will amount to 30 percent of the recovery. See 31 U.S.C.A. S 3730(d) (West Supp. 1994). Accordingly, in settlement negotiations, both the government and the relator will have incentives to maximize the expected gross recovery. It is commonly recognized that the central purpose of the qui tam provisions of the FCA is to "set up incentives to supplement government enforcement" of the Act, Quinn, 14 F.3d at 649, by "encourag[ing] insiders privy to a fraud on the government to blow the whistle on the crime," Wang v. FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 1412, 1419 (9th Cir. 1992). The history and structure of the FCA and its qui tam provisions is described in United States ex rel. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645, 649-55 (D.C. Cir. 1994); United States ex rel. Kelly v. Boeing Co., 9 F.3d 743, 745-47 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1125 (1994); United States ex rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante, P.A. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 944 F.2d 1149, 1152-1154 (3d Cir. 1991); John T. Boese, Civil False Claims and Qui Tam Actions (1993). The vital importance of this incentive effect is demonstrated by the reasons set forth by Congress in 1986 in undertaking the first extensive revision of the Act since its enactment in 1863. Congress expressed its judgment that "sophisticated and widespread fraud" that threatens significantly both the federal treasury and our nation's national security only could successfully be combatted by "a coordinated effort of both the Government and the citizenry." S. Rep. No. 345, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 2-3 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5267-68 [hereinafter Senate Report]. Emphasizing both difficulties in detecting fraud that stem largely from the unwillingness of insiders with relevant knowledge of fraud to come forward, see id. at 4, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5269, and "the lack of resources on the part of Federal enforcement agencies" that often leaves unaddressed "[a]llegations that perhaps could develop into very significant cases," id. at 7, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5272, Congress sought to "increase incentives, financial and otherwise, for private individuals to bring suits on behalf of the Government," id. at 2, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5267. Congress's overall intent, therefore, was "to encourage more private enforcement suits. " Id. at 23, quoted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5288-89; see also Killingsworth, 25 F.3d at 721 ("The amended Act `increased incentives, financial and otherwise, for private Page 8 of 8
  9. 9. Beale v. McClure individuals to bring suits on behalf of the Government.'" (quoting Senate Report, supra, at 2, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5267)). The importance of the Act's incentive effect is evidenced clearly in the revised Act's structure. A relator who properly brings a claim will generally receive a share of the recovery as well as eligibility for attorneys' fees and costs. See 31 U.S.C.A. S 3730(d) (West Supp. 1994). This is true even if the government decides to intervene and conducts the action itself, see id. S 3730(d)(1), or elects to pursue its claim in an administrative proceeding, see id. S 3730(c)(5). The right to recovery clearly exists primarily to give relators incentives to bring claims.*fn8 Moreover, the extent of the recovery is tied to the importance of the relator's participation in the action and the relevance of the information brought forward.*fn9 This demonstrates not only the importance of the incentive effect, but that Congress wished to create the greatest incentives for those relators best able to pursue claims that the government could not, and bring forward information that the government could not obtain. The Act's jurisdictional provisions also demonstrate Congress's concern with maintaining adequate incentives for those who materially would advance the goals of revealing fraud and supplementing government enforcement efforts. Under the Act, if an action is "based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in" certain specified proceedings, reports, or mediums, a qui tam action cannot be brought unless the relator "is an original source of the information" on which the allegations are based. 31 U.S.C.A. S 3730(e)(4)(A) (West Supp. 1994). We held in Wang that "section 3730(e)(4)(A) requires a qui tam plaintiff to have played some part in his allegation's original public disclosure." Wang, 975 F.2d at 1418. Reviewing the history of the Act's jurisdictional provisions and the concerns that led Congress to amend the Act in 1986, we concluded that "Congress wanted in 1986 what it apparently thought it had in 1943: a law requiring that the relator be the original source of the government's information." Id. at 1419 (emphasis in original). We therefore held that engrafting a requirement that "a qui tam plaintiff . . . have played some part in his allegation's original public disclosure," id. at 1418, was in accord with Congress's purpose "of encouraging private individuals who are aware of fraud being perpetuated against the Government to bring such information forward," id. at 1419 (internal quotations omitted)), because it "`discourages persons with relevant information from remaining silent and encourages them to report such information at the earliest possible time,'" id. (quoting United States ex rel. Dick v. Long Island Lighting Co., 912 F.2d 13, 18 (2d Cir. 1990)). Creating incentives for those with knowledge of fraud to come forward was not Congress's sole objective. In carefully crafting provisions that specify the relator's recovery and in amending the jurisdictional provisions, it is clear that Congress attempted "to walk a fine line between encouraging whistle-blowing and discouraging opportunistic behavior." Quinn, 14 F.3d at 651. Moreover, once a claim is filed, it is clear that an important Page 9 of 9
  10. 10. Beale v. McClure concern is ensuring that the United States' rights are not prejudiced by the relator's conducting of the action. That is why the government can object to a settlement between a relator and defendant when the settlement might be structured artificially to defeat the United States' right to recovery. See Killingworth, 25 F.3d at 723-25. That is also why the government retains the right to intervene for good cause and to reduce substantially the relator's role. See 31 U.S.C.A. S 3730(c). The private right of recovery created by the qui tam provisions of the FCA exists not to compensate the qui tam relator, but the United States. The relator's right to recovery exists solely as a mechanism for deterring fraud and returning funds to the federal treasury. See Kelly, 9 F.3d at 760. Therefore, qui tam actions exist only to vindicate the public interest. TITLE 42, U.S.C., SECTION 3631 Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with-- (a) any person because of his race, color, religion, sex, handicap (as such term is defined in section 3602 of this title), familial status (as such term is defined in section 3602 of this title), or national origin and because he is or has been selling, purchasing, renting, financing, occupying, or contracting or negotiating for the sale, purchase, rental, financing or occupation of any dwelling, or applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the business of selling or renting dwellings; or (b) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from-- (1) participating, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion, sex, handicap (as such term is defined in section 3602 of this title), familial status (as such term is defined in section 3602 of this title), or national origin, in any of the activities, services, organizations or facilities described in subsection (a) of this section; or /s/ Sharon Anderson Attorney Pro Se Legal Challenge to Redunan(sp)Rules IFP’s on File re IRS Form 1040A Disclosure,Privacy,Paperwork Reduction Act Page 10 of 10
  11. 11. Beale v. McClure . ECF_P165913 Pacer: sa1299 Legal Domicile 1058 Summit/PO Box 4384 St.Paul, MN 55104-0384 “taken” 1988 without Quiet Title or Just Compensation Submitted for Filings 62cv10-112, Original_Objections Denied Mar.18th 2010 In the Saint Paul City Council Agenda thurs,July5,2007 Page 11 of 11
  12. 12. Beale v. McClure 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 ,Attorney Pro Se: Private Attorney General Decedant , 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 branch in their personal,official capacities, sued individually, severally, John Doe and Mary Roe. Matt Smith ) Relatees Page 12 of 12
  13. 13. Page 1 of 2 Subj: mncccTax62cv10-112Sharon4AndersonLegalObjections2009Tax_Quitam_RICO Date: 4/19/2010 9:32:51 A.M. Central Daylight Time From: To:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, CC: 19Apr2010 AFFIDAVIT OF QUITAM_VICTIM SHARON SCARRELLA ANDERSON TO: United States DOJ MN US Attorney B.Todd JonesThe United States Department of Justice - United States Attorney's ... The United States Department of Justice. United States Attorneys ..... MINNESOTA, PHONE, FAX. B. Todd Jones, USA* 600 U. S. Courthouse ... - Cached MINNESOTA PHONE FAX B. Todd Jones, USA* (612)664- 600 U. S. Courthouse 5787 300 South Fourth Street (612)664-5600 651) (651) Minneapolis, MN 55415 848- 848- Web Site | Press Releases 1950 1943 404 U. S. Courthouse 316 North Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55101 To Ramsey Co. 2nd Judicial Court Administrator Larry Dease and Clerk Lynae Olsen at the Ramsey Co. Court House rm 70 at 15 W. Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 tel: 651-266-8255 Fax 266- 8263 Legal Objections re: 62cv10-112 join with 62cv09-1163 (Vandenorth) Forensic Files also at 2009-2010 Officers: Chair: Jim Martinson, Olmsted County Vice Chair: Dan Carlson, Rice County Recording Officer: Brenda Miller, Waseca County Past Chair: Arden Fritz, Sherburne County Monday, April 19, 2010 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
  14. 14. Page 2 of 2 Standards Chair: Dan Carlson, Rice County Standards Recording Officer: Rhea Grove, Polk County Training Chair: Mike Nelson, Olmsted County At Large Representative: Steve Betcher, Goodhue County At Large Representative: David Hauser, Otter Tail County At Large Representative, David Walker, Freeborn County At Large Representative, Ryan McNamee, Carver County ISSG Liaison: Sherry Hiller, Rice County MCCC Liaison: Paul Beaumaster, Rice County County Attorney User Group Rules and Regulations Approved September 2008 Enhancement Request Form Click here: mnccc - Tax - Manatron Tax Group LEGAL NOTICE: /s/ ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Candidate AG2010 Blogger: Homestead Act of 1862 Twitter / Sharon4Anderson Shar1058's Buzz Activity Page - My Buzz Activity - Yahoo! Buzz - 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 SharonsWritProA06_1150_30Jun06_26 The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers kare11.com_SA Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption 3Apr0 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 , 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 Sharon4And Monday, April 19, 2010 AOL: Sharon4Anderson