SharonsFacebookVideo

SharonYouTubeWidget

SharonSlideShareWidget

Friday, January 31, 2014

ElectronicRoster-DFLMarkRicthie_DavidGassoway-JohnChoi-

http://mnteaparty.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/meeting-electronic-roster-task-force-fri-jan-31-2014-20
shari.moore@ci.stpaul.mn.us, kathy.lantry@ci.stpaul.mn.us, dave.thune@ci.stpaul.mn.us
CC: sharon4anderson@aol.com
Sent: 1/31/2014 11:25:20 A.M. Central Standard Time  http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/
Subj: Sharon4anderson's Weblog mandating BlindAccesstoStateMN-DHS legal notice





The Saint Paul City Council

Dan Bostrom, Ward 6 Russ Stark, Ward 4 Dai
Thao, Ward 1
Kathy Lantry, Ward 7 and Council President Dave Thune, Ward 2 Chris Tolbert, Ward 3 Amy Brendmoen, Ward 5
About the Council
As the legislative body, the City Council is responsible for setting City policy through ordinances and resolutions. The Council also has sole responsibility for adopting the City’s budget. The Council legislates by passing Ordinances which become City laws. The Council also makes performance auditing decisions and monitors the operation and performance of city agencies and holds regular oversight hearings on city departments to determine how programs are working and whether budgeted funds are being spent well. In its decision-making roles, the City Council actively involves public through its weekly public meetings. (NOTE: The meetings are seen live on cable TV and via webcast. Videos of past council meetings and agendas are available here and goes back to 2006 by clicking on the “Research” tab.) In addition, the Council acts in a quasi-judicial role in hearing appeals regarding actions taken by a number of City agencies.

In addition to their duties as Councilmembers, the City Council serves as the Board of Health and as the directors for the Public Library Agency and commissioners for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Representatives from the Council are members of the boards for the Saint Paul RiverCentre Convention and Visitors Authority, the Saint Paul Port Authority, the Joint Property Tax Advisory Board (JPTAC), and the Board of Water Commissioners.
Fri31stJan2014

To the Above Named Ramsey County Board enbanc




Ramsey County Board of Commissioners





District 1 - Blake Huffman representing Arden Hills, Gem Lake, Mounds View, North Oaks, Shoreview, Vadnais Heights, and White Bear Township
District 2 - Mary Jo McGuire representing Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View (Precinct 4), New Brighton, Roseville, and St. Anthony
District 3 - Janice Rettman representing Falcon Heights, St Paul Neighborhoods in District 5, North End/South Como (District 6), Como Park, Frogtown (District 7), Summit-University, and Hamline-Midway.
District 4 - Toni Carter representing Crocus Hill, Desnoyer Park, Hamline-Midway (Part), Highland Park (Part), Lexington-Hamline, Macalester-Groveland (Part), Merriam Park, Snelling-Hamline, Summit Hill, St. Anthony Park and Summit-University
District 5 - Rafael Ortega representing Macalester-Groveland (Precincts 3-8 and 3-14), Highland Park, West 7th, Capitol Heights, Downtown, The West Side, Railroad Island, Dayton's Bluff and Mounds Blvd on the East Side
District 6 - (Chair) Jim McDonough representing Daytons Bluff, East Side, Hayden Heights, Hazel Park, Payne-Phalen, and Sunray-Battle Creek
District 7 - Victoria Reinhardt representing Maplewood, North St. Paul, the City of White Bear Lake, and the Hillcrest area of St. Paul (Ward 6 Precinct 12).
Telephone Number:
651-266-8350
Mailing Address:
220 Court House
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
St Paul, MN 55102


and that Heinous Conflict of Defendant






The Ramsey County Attorney's Office protects public safety through aggressive prosecution - but that isn't all we do.

Public safety is caring for children by collecting child support, making sure kids get to school to receive an education, and helping youth who are vulnerable. Public safety is advocating for those - young and old - who have been abused. Public safety happens when we collectively care for all of the people in our community and when we work together for prevention. We strive for better victim safety and greater offender accountability in all we do.
      
                                          MEMORANDUMN

With your expertise Affiants intent is to expose the SCAP Panel Affiants Mother was overdosed with Potassium , 1983 St.Paul Mayoral Candidate died or was "Murdered" exposing the Tax Exempt Dist. Heating.......... unabated by the City,County and State Attorneys.
http:
  • http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sasc1988-brief15pdf http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sasc1988-brief15pdf Sasc1988 Brief15pdf 2 years ago, 166 views
  • http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/jrsa-88-homeless-17-presentation-917955 http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/jrsa-88-homeless-17-presentation-917955 Jrsa 88 Homeless 17 2 years ago, 441 views
  • http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/jt-memoof-law-support-motto-alter-judgmt1-6-08ecf-presentation http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/jt-memoof-law-support-motto-alter-judgmt1-6-08ecf-presentation Jt Memoof Law Support Mo… 2 years ago, 390 views
  • http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sa-2-jan09-swanson-presentation http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sa-2-jan09-swanson-presentation Sa 2 Jan09 Swanson 2 years ago, 443 views
  • http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/file41shar-thune-22-presentation http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/file41shar-thune-22-presentation File4[1]Shar Thune 22 2 years ago, 544 views
  • http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/l-ufskyjr-presentation http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/l-ufskyjr-presentation L Ufsky&Jr 2 years ago, 244 views
  • http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/1058-warrant-34-presentation http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/1058-warrant-34-presentation 1058 Warrant 34 2 years ago, 792 views //www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson with over 111 Documents Forensic Evidence

    LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
    Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Blogger: User Profile: Sharon Anderson SharonsYahoo!
    Sharon4 Anderson - Google Profile Candidate AG2010 iGoogle www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com
    Homestead Act of 1862 Twitter / Sharon4Anderson Shar1058's Buzz 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

    Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption

  •  

    Annual Report to the County Board of Commissioners using a 2012 report is Bizzare

    Meeting – Electronic Roster Task Force FRI Jan 31, 2014 – 2:00 PM Sharons690725-149632

    January 31, 2014


    Fri.31stJan2014
    http://mnteaparty.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/untitled.jpg
    To the above named; Chair Mark Ritchie www.sos.mn.us
    Please be so apprised that the undersigned Quitam Relator
    Sharon Anderson aka Peterson Scarrella Candidate
    www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com challenges the Bizzare Exploitation of ‘Judge David Gassoway aka Labarre of www.dhs.state.mn.us against Blind Litigation
    Sharon must have Electronic Notice of all Files, Proceedings in Medicare Spend down,
    Ramsey Co. File 690725 Appeal 149632
    THEREFORE
    Please include Affiants Request into your Files.

    Wed. 29JAN2014 re; www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com
    PUBLIC SERVICE TO PROTECT DUE PROCESS4 BLINDNESS
    44USC35 Note to DHS Commissioner Lucindia Jesson
    www.dhs.state.mn.us has electronically links etc.

    Compliance Office

    Chief Compliance Officer
    Gregory Gray,
    651-431-4266
    The chief compliance officer has responsibility for legal and compliance activities throughout the agency.

    Appeals and Regulations Division

    A meeting of the Electronic Roster Task Force has been scheduled for:
    FRIDAY, January 31, 2014
    2:00 PM – 2:30 PM
    om: 300 North State Office Building

    Chair: Secretary of State Mark Ritchie
    Agenda: Approval of draft legislation
    Note: It is anticipated that some Task Force members will be participating in the meeting via telephone
    people collage in R shapeThis report was prepared by the CHS Office of Research and Evaluation. It includes:
            • Highlights
            • Human services provided to Ramsey County residents (128,000 on an average day)
            • Goals and outcomes of over 40 programs
            • How CHS addressed racial disparities
            • Financial information

    District 1 - Blake Huffman representing Arden Hills, Gem Lake, Mounds View, North Oaks, Shoreview, Vadnais Heights, and White Bear Township
    District 2 - Mary Jo McGuire representing Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View (Precinct 4), New Brighton, Roseville, and St. Anthony
    District 3 - Janice Rettman representing Falcon Heights, St Paul Neighborhoods in District 5, North End/South Como (District 6), Como Park, Frogtown (District 7), Summit-University, and Hamline-Midway.
    District 4 - Toni Carter representing Crocus Hill, Desnoyer Park, Hamline-Midway (Part), Highland Park (Part), Lexington-Hamline, Macalester-Groveland (Part), Merriam Park, Snelling-Hamline, Summit Hill, St. Anthony Park and Summit-University
    District 5 - Rafael Ortega representing Macalester-Groveland (Precincts 3-8 and 3-14), Highland Park, West 7th, Capitol Heights, Downtown, The West Side, Railroad Island, Dayton's Bluff and Mounds Blvd on the East Side
    District 6 - (Chair) Jim McDonough representing Daytons Bluff, East Side, Hayden Heights, Hazel Park, Payne-Phalen, and Sunray-Battle Creek
    District 7 - Victoria Reinhardt representing Maplewood, North St. Paul, the City of White Bear Lake, and the Hillcrest area of St. Paul (Ward 6 Precinct 12).
    Telephone Number:
    651-266-8350
    Mailing Address:
    220 Court House
    15 West Kellogg Blvd.
    St Paul, MN 55102

    Commissioner District Maps



    From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
    To: , fmelo@pioneerpress.com, dmashak@aol.com, speechlessmn@gmail.com, nobodies@att.net, editor@pioneerpress.com, city18@ci.stpaul.mn.us, citypagesCommunity@bigcity.com
    CC: sharon4anderson@aol.com, a9696b@msn.com, leslie@earthprotector.org, nancylazaryan@gmail.com
    Sent: 1/31/2014 2:47:50 A.M. Central Standard Time
    Subj: Check out Sharon4anderson's Weblog | Just another WordPress.com weblog




    Meeting - Electronic Roster Task Force FRI Jan 31, 2014 - 2:00 PM Sharons690725-149632

    http://mnteaparty.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/meeting-electronic-roster-task-force-fri-jan-31-2014-200-pm-sharons690725-149632/http://mnteaparty.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/meeting-electronic-roster-task-force-fri-jan-31-2014-200-pm-sharons690725-149632/ Fri.31stJan2014

    To the above named; Chair Mark Ritchie www.sos.state.mn.us

    Please be so apprised that the undersigned Quitam Relator
    Sharon Anderson aka Peterson Scarrella Candidate www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com challenges the Bizzare Exploitation of 'Judge David Gassoway aka Labarre of www.dhs.state.mn.us against Blind Litigation
    Sharon must have Electronic Notice of all Files, Proceedings in Medicare Spend down,
    Ramsey Co. File 690725 Appeal 149632
    THEREFORE…
    type www.sos.state.mn.us




    Saturday, January 25, 2014

    SharonAnderson_vs_Minnesota_MontyMartin_RamseyCo_Medicare



    APPELLANT'S InFORMAL BRIEF AND APPENDIX
    DHS 149632 Ramsey Co.670295
    APPELLATE CASE NUMBER
    STATE OF MINNESOTA
    IN DHS COURT OF APPEALS
    Hearing 'Judge David Gassoway david.gassoway@state.mn.us
    tel; 651-431-2857 fx651-431-7523 http://www.mncourts.gov/district/2/?page=3775
    JURISDICTION AUTHORITY IS CHALLENGED
    NOTICE AND MOTION FOR VIDEO INPERSON HEARING 4Blind
    Affiant Sharon Anderson is Blind in L Eye www.stpauleye.com mandating inperson, video hearing before a Fair, Impartial Person, with Enlarged Computer Files to Access.
    Affiant called the Easy Access 651-266-3800 was informed 670295 was informed that 1995 Denial
    THEREFORE DHS cannot go further pending the entire 1995 File.
    CONSTUTIONAL QUESTIONS
    Denial of Medicare Benefits to Force MnSure Disparate Treatment in the Federal Poverty Guidelines 135% to 200%
    Prepaid Minnesota Health Care Programs Manual (PMHCP)
    This manual provides policies and procedures for all Prepaid Minnesota Health Care Programs (PMHCP) including the Prepaid Medical Assistance Program, Prepaid General Assistance Medical Care Program, Minnesota Senior Health Options, Minnesota Disability Health Options and the Prepaid MinnesotaCare CASE TITLE: Medicare Sharon Anderson aka Sc
    arrella
    Sharon Anderson QuiTam Relator,Attorney Pro Se, all others similarily situated et al
    Appellant,
    vs.

    STATE OF MINNESOTA,All Agencies DHS, Lucinda Jesson,
    Darwin Lookingbill,David Gassoway,Ramsey Co, Monty.Martin,Brad Broscher,John Choi,City St. Paul, personal and official capacitysJohn Doe,Mary Roe, similarily situated,

    1. Who is an "officer of the court"?

    A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

    Respondant's
     
    APPELLANT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX

    STATE OF MINNESOTA

    * * * *

    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    Page
    Parties 3
    Jurisdiction 3
    Summary of the Case 4
    Table of Authorities 5
    Legal Issues 6
    Statement of Facts 9
    Argument
    1 Ramsey Co Brad Borcher erred in applying appeal deadlines http://www.scribd.com/doc/201179524/SA-Appeal-670295Comb19Jan
    2.erred in dismissing due process claims with statutes health care
    3. in applying Res Judicata
    4. erred in granting summary judgment

    Count 11 2009
    2009

    Conclusion

    APPENDIX AND ITS INDEX

    Page
    1. Previous Pleadings are filed with the Appellate Court under Case 000 http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sharonandersonbernicepeterson821292taxfight
    1. Relator First Amended Petition and Complaint in the Nature 001
    Suit for Deprivation of Rights Under Authority of Article I, http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/aff6-apr07indit-coleman-20
    Sections 1,2,4,7,8 & 10 of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota,

    1. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Judge Edward Toussaint
    2. Defendant’s Summary Please send Electronically Paulina Thao dtd 17Jan2014
    3. Brad Borcher SNAP Award dtd 16Dec.2013 Files at www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com
    4. or Summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s
    1. Notice of Appeal – Form 103A 269 PARTIES
     
    1. Appellant Sharon Anderson is a natural human being, a Son of God, a Servant of Jesus Christ, and a Steward of the Kingdom of Israel, whose legal domicile is at 1058 Summit Ave St. Paul, taken illegally via Lesbian Judge Kathleen Gearin http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/sharons-quowarranto-v-mn-judge-edward-toussaint-a09-2031/ http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/sharons-informal-brief-re-fiafea_firrea_a09-2031/
    Appellant is a sovereign Elector Appellant is the Trustee of the Social Security Trust Account, Sharon Scarrella aka Anderson created by the Social Security Administration in June 1983
    . Appellant is neither an employee of, nor has any contractual relationship with, the Respondants and is not within the jurisdiction of the Respondant’s statutes. Appellant’s only law is the Holy Bible and the English Common Law, which are the foundational law of our nation. This action arises from Respondant’s erroneous trespass, search and seizure of Appellant’s Medicare Benefits St Paul, Minnesota and defamation of Appellant’s character via Incompetant Case Manager Brad Borcher Supervisor Monty Martin.

    2. Respondant STATE OF MINNESOTA, a private corporation, by and through its actors, Department of Human Services
    JURISDICTION
     
    3. Appellant is a sovereign citizen of Minnesota. Appellant has repudiated all contracts with the Respondant Corporation for being either non-existent, fraudulent due to non-disclosure of terms and conditions, signed under extortion or being a no interest agreement. Therefore, the Appellant is neither an employee of nor has any contractual relationship with the Respondant. Respondant is also willfully deceiving this court by confusing the identity of the Appellant’s Social Security AND Medicare Therefore, the Appellant is not subject to the jurisdiction of Respondant’s statutes.

    RESERVATION OF RIGHTS: Plaintiff claims his Constitutional protection under UCC 1-207.7 and UCC 1-103.6. –Appellant reserves his right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that he did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. And furthermore, he does not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.

    RECOURSE: Uniform Commercial Code 1-103.6: The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.

    4. Appellant therefore believes that this court does have subject matter jurisdiction under the Constitution of Minnesota. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and shall extend to all cases at law without regard to the amount in controversy.
    SUMMARY OF THE CASE

    5. The Ramsey County executed an erroneous Summary Terminating Medicare, refusal to look at Taxes Paid to prevent Forclosure that never existed. “How about coming to the conclusion that when the department operates in a way that a totally innocent non-tax expert thinks is, at least, over bearing, that we ought to rethink that. … in those particular situations maybe the clock ought not to run.” Appellant’s failure to appeal within the time limits prescribed by statute.

    6. The trial court also dismissed many other claims: 1) A challenge to the constitutionality of using MS 289A.37, Subd. 3, to put the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion on the victim, 2) Making claims for money without investigation, hearings, witnesses, testimony, or evidence. 3) Denial of constitutional due process rights provided by Article I, Sections 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10 of the Minnesota constitution and MRCP 38 providing a trial by jury. 4) Subjecting Appellant to Admiralty procedures on land by invading and seizing property and Medicare Benefits without obtaining ownership rights in a court of competent jurisdiction. 5) Invading Appellant’s privacy and intentionally defaming his character

    7. The trial court has allowed Appellant’s Data Practices claim to proceed to trial as a result of Respondant’s violation of Minn Stat. §270B.085

    8. The alleged liability Medicare Benefits is continued automatically pending appeal apparantly was placed in escrow with an escrow agreement to avoid the limitations of Minn Stat. §289A.50, pending the outcome of this case. Therefore, Appellant is not requesting a refund. Appellant is seeking a court order that the 1995 EMS files up to and including 2014 be incorporated Electronically .

     
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

    Minnesota Statutes
    Page
    Minn. Stat 289A.37, Subd 3 4,7
    Minn Stat. §270B.085 5
    Minn Stat. §289A.50 5
    Minn Stat. §271.06 6,10
    Minn Stat. §289A.40 6,10
    Minn. Stat. §3.736, Subd 3(c) 8,10



    Cases
    Page

    Radinsky v. United States of America, 622 F.Supp 413 (USDC, Colorado, 1985) 6
    Great Lakes Gas Transmission L.P. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 7
    638 N.W.2d 435, 437 n.5 (Minn. 2002) 7
    State of Minnesota v. Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Co., 7
    75 N.W.2d 398, 399 (Minn. 1956) 6
    Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 702 n.31 (1975); 7
    McInerney v. Berman, 621 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir.) 7
    cert. denied, 449 U.S. 867 (1980); 7
    In re K.C., 513 N.W.2d 18, 22 (Minn. Ct. App.) 7
    Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 795 (1983) 7
    Page
    Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965) 7
    Dixon v. Depositors Ins. Co., 619 N.W.2d 752, 755 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000) 8
    Hauser v. Mealey, 263 N.W.2d 803, 808 (Minn. 1978) 8
    Huttner v. State, 637 N.W.2d 278, 2001.MN.0001152 8
    Johnson v. State, 553 N.W.2d 40, 45 (Minn. 1996) 8
    S.W. v. Spring Lake Park Sch. Dist. No. 16, 580 N.W.2d 19, 23 (Minn. 1998) 8
    Wiederholt, 581 N.W.2d at 316 8
    Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 583 (Minn. 1988) 9
    Dokman v. County of Hennepin, 637 N.W.2d 286, 292 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) 9
    Leamington Co. v. Nonprofits' Ins. Ass'n, 615 N.W.2d 349, 355 n.4 (Minn. 2000) 9
    State v. Larsen, 2002.MN.0001476 9
    In re Welfare of B.R.K., 658 N.W.2d 565 (Minn. 04/03/2003 9
    Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967) 9
    Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998) 9



    LEGAL ISSUES

    9. Tax Law Claims, Lack of Jurisdiction: A taxpayer may appeal an administrative determination to the Minnesota Tax Court pursuant to Minn Stat. §271.06 within 60 days or pay the tax and sue in District Court pursuant to Minn Stat. §289A.40 for a refund. The trial court ruled that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction because Appellant did not avail himself of these remedies.

    10. Appellant’s position is that: 1) the liability never existed, 2) he is not a Minnesota “taxpayer”, and 3) he is not an employee of nor has any contractual relationship with the STATE OF MINNESOTA, therefore he in not subject to these statutes and has no standing to appeal to Tax Court.

    Statutes have no jurisdiction if no liability exists. Lack of standing exists for administrative remedy, tax court remedy, or United States district court until there is a lawful assessment. Radinsky v. United States of America, 622 F.Supp 413 (USDC, Colorado, 1985)

    The Tax Court has limited jurisdiction and no original jurisdiction to hear constitutional matters. Great Lakes Gas Transmission L.P. v. Commissioner of Revenue,
    638 N.W.2d 435, 437 n.5 (Minn. 2002)


    11. Due Process Claims: Minnesota Constitution Article I, Sections 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 and MRCP 38 providing a trial by jury.
    1) A challenge to the constitutionality of using MS 289A.37, Subd. 3, to put the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion on the victim, 2) Making claims for money without investigation, hearings, witnesses, testimony, or evidence. 3) Denial of constitutional due process rights of notice and hearing. 4) Subjecting Appellant to Admiralty procedures on land by invading and seizing property without obtaining ownership rights in a court of competent jurisdiction. 5) Invading Appellant’s privacy and intentionally defaming his character on television. Candidacy for Mayor to expose Ponzi Schemes http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/sharons-informal-brief-re-fiafea_firrea_a09-2031/
    . [D]ue process does involve an element of fair play and an opportunity for fair hearing, and, when conduct of administrative officials becomes so unfair that litigants are deprived of the opportunity to fairly present their evidence or be heard, it becomes the duty of the courts to nullify an order based on such hearing for lack of due process. State of Minnesota v. Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Co., 75 N.W.2d 398, 399 (Minn. 1956)

    Shifting the burden of persuasion to the defendant obviously places an even greater strain upon her since he no longer need only present some evidence with respect to the fact at issue; he must affirmatively establish that fact. Accordingly, the Due Process Clause demands more exacting standards before the State may require a defendant to bear this ultimate burden of persuasion. Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 702 n.31 (1975); McInerney v. Berman, 621 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir.) (“[a] mandatory presumption which shifts the burden of persuasion by requiring the defendant to establish affirmatively the negative of an element of the offense is unconstitutional”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 867 (1980); In re K.C., 513 N.W.2d 18, 22 (Minn. Ct. App.)

    Due process protections are triggered whenever the state takes “action which will affect an interest in life, liberty, or property.” Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 795 (1983) A fundamental requirement of due process is “the opportunity to be heard.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)
    12. Res Judicata. Trial court dismissed most of these claims stating Res Judicata And, these due process claims are Constitutional claims that supersede the jurisdiction ofHealth Care and tax law statutes.
    Thus, with regard to claims having “some constitutional basis,” there has been no “final judgment on the merits” and res judicata cannot apply. See Dixon v. Depositors Ins. Co., 619 N.W.2d 752, 755 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).

    Hauser v. Mealey, 263 N.W.2d 803, 808 (Minn. 1978) This court recognizes "the general rule that a judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction to hear a case does not have the effect of res judicata."

    13. Tort Claims Immunity. Trial court also claimed the state is immune from loss connected to tax collections pursuant to Minn. Stat. §3.736, Subd 3(c). Appellant claims the state employees are not immune because their duties were ministerial, not discretionary. http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/1679-2007-07-08T193758Z/5Jul07RatAssLegal_22.pdf

    Huttner v. State, 637 N.W.2d 278, 2001.MN.0001152, Whether government entities and employees are protected by official immunity is a legal question which appellate courts review de novo. Johnson v. State, 553 N.W.2d 40, 45 (Minn. 1996)

    Only discretionary decisions are immune from suit, so the critical determination is whether the nature of the official's actions is discretionary or ministerial. A discretionary act involves individual professional judgment, reflecting the professional goal and factors of a situation. Id. "[A] ministerial duty is one in which nothing is left to discretion; it is absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts." Id.

    The existence of a ministerial act cannot be determined without a review of the duty underlying the challenged conduct. S.W. v. Spring Lake Park Sch. Dist. No. 16, 580 N.W.2d 19, 23 (Minn. 1998) "[P]ublic officials clearly have a duty to adhere to ordinances and statutes." Wiederholt, 581 N.W.2d at 316 (citation omitted)


    14. Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is not appropriate where there are facts in dispute, in accordance with MRCP Rule 56.04. Summary judgment proceedings are not a trial by affidavit. When affidavits are disputed, questions of fact must be reserved for triors of fact, which is a jury of peers, in accordance with MRCP Rule 38.01. Appellant claims that there are more than 22 major disputes over the facts of the case. Given that MNDOR moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, MNDOR must demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact exists.

    See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 583 (Minn. 1988). No genuine issue of material fact exists where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. Dokman v. County of Hennepin, 637 N.W.2d 286, 292 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) Sharon does not have to prove her case to withstand MNDOR’ or DHSs motion for summary judgment; he need only demonstrate "a genuine issue as to any material fact." See Leamington Co. v. Nonprofits' Ins. Ass'n, 615 N.W.2d 349, 355 n.4 (Minn. 2000)

    15. Privacy Claims. Trial court dismissed privacy claims stating there is no common law right to privacy. Appellant believes the trial court erred in this opinion.
    State v. Larsen, 2002.MN.0001476: The right to be left alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 478 (Brandeis, J., dissenting) Concerns for this essential element of our personal freedom are reflected in the Fourth Amendment and art. I, § 10 of the Minnesota Constitution protecting the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV; see Minn. Const. art. I, § 10

    In re Welfare of B.R.K., 658 N.W.2d 565 (Minn. 04/03/2003): The Fourth Amendment guarantees: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967) Thus, the Fourth Amendment is a personal right and an individual must invoke its protections. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998)


    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

    16. The Liability Never Existed. that Property Taxes on the Theft,Trespass at 697 Surrey via Stealing Affiants Car. The examination officer stated that he created a fictitious, amended tax order to put the burden of proof on the Appellant. Appellant competed all required Documents.
    When Appellant revealed this error, the appeals officer stated that he believed he was prevented, by statute, from correcting his mistake. He advised the Appellant to appeal to Tax Court. However, the appellant, not being a lawyer or domiciled in the state, believed that if a liability did not exist, statutes would have no jurisdiction and he would have no standing to appear in Tax Court.

    17. . Appellant paid $2,680.xx alleged Taxes to avoid Forclosure at 697 Surrey Ave. St. Paul,MN this liability under an escrow agreement to avoid the limitations of Minn Stat. §289A.50, pending the outcome of this case.

    18. Appellant filed for There was no motion, affidavit, witness or testimony from the State regarding the merits of the case. Therefore, Appellant claims that this is a void judgment for want of subject matter jurisdiction that can be challenged and reopened at any time. https://sites.google.com/site/sharon4anderson/Home/aolfiles

    19. Appellant filed this appeal Jan2014t Res Judicata, lack of subject matter jurisdiction in health,tax law claims and immunity of the state from tort claims for loss in connection with the collection of taxes (Minn. Stat. §3.736, subd 3(c)).

    20. Appellant filed

    21. Judge

    22. Appellant Appellant filed the following due process complaints:
    Count I- MDR DHA MUST admits an erroneous determination of Appellant’s liability, failed to provide a hearing and failed to provide proper notice of remedies. I
    Count II- MDR DHS AND RAMSEY COUNTY unlawfully shifted the burden of persuasion to the Appellant. After Appellant provided the proof in the form of the Combined Manuel questionnaire, the appeals officer failed to obtain further information when confronted with one typographical error in the data.
    Count III- MDR’sDHS entire process SINCE 1995 and so vague that Appellant was not aware of his remedies. After a delay of a few days from submitting the appeal, Appellant believed that the process was ad hoc and finished. Since the appeals officer informed Appellant that he had extended the appeal period several times, Appellant believed he could deal with a typographical error in the data without resorting to Court of Competant Jurisdiction
    Count IV- MDR’s DHS process failed to provide Appellant proper notices or an opportunity for an inperson video pdf format hearing.
    Count V- MDR DHS AND RAMSEY COUNTY subjected Appellant to admiralty procedures by failing to provide Appellant proper notice or a hearing or obtaining ownership rights in a court of competent jurisdiction before seizing property.
    Count VI- MDR DHS RAMSEY COUNTY KNOWING AFFIANT IS BLIND DECEITFULLY TAKING MEDICARE invaded Appellant’s privacy and intruded upon his seclusion.
    Count VII- MDRRAMSEY COUNTY invaded Appellant’s privacy by publishing
    Count VIII- MDR DHS AND RAMSEY COUNTY willfully defamed Appellant’s character on with the admitted goal of promoting fear in the minds of all Minnesotans. TO FORCE MNSURE.
    Count IX- MDR RAMSEY COUNTY violated Appellant’s common law right to privacy.


    23. Judge
    ARGUMENT

    24. Ramsey County via Director Monty Martin, his employees Brad Borcher erred in applying appeal deadlines. This case is the result of admitted errors. If a liability never existed, claims cannot make it come into existence. If the original claimant admits that he made a mistake, then the statutes time baring the remedy lose their jurisdiction. “in those particular situations, the clock ought not to run”.

    25. Monty Martin his employees erred in dismissing Appellant’s due process claims with statutes. This court does have jurisdiction over due process claims under the Common Law. Appellant is not subject to legislative statutes. Appellant is a sovereign landowner, and is not an employee nor has any contractual relationship with the state, and has claimed his Constitutional protection under UCC 1.207.7 and 1.103.6. This cannot be an equity or admiralty case due to a lack of a contract between the parties. Minnesota Constitution Article VI, Sec 3 states: The district court has original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases.

    26. Monty Martin his employees Brad Borcher erred in dismissing Appellant’s claims under Res Judicata. Their judgment is void for want of subject matter jurisdiction, because there was only one party in attendance. The state had no evidence, witnesses, or affidavits, nor did they make any motion on the merits of the case. Therefore, Appellant can challenge and reopen that case at any time, because void judgments cannot be time barred. However, in the interest of judicial economy, Appellant is waiting for a final judgment in this case before reopening the previous case.

    27. Monty Martin his employees erred in granting QuiTam Relator Sharon Anderson Medicare Benefits or Award via Incompetant Telephone hearings, Transcripts must be provided for summary judgment. There are over 22 major facts in dispute in this case. Summary Judgment is totally inconsistent with MRCP 56.04 and 38.01.

    CONCLUSION

    27. Appellant requests that DHs reverse the lower Ramsey County Worker Brad Borcher decision to deny Medicare Benefits on Sharon Anderson VA Widow whose Husband was Murdered after 1 year at Brainard State Hospital and these claims, issue an order that the liability does exist against the City and County and release the funds to the Appellant that were seized and funds held in escrow. The erroneous collection process has damaged appellant financially, socially and emotionally. Appellant shall be entitled to actual damages, as a jury should decide. http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/1679-2007-07-08T193758Z/5Jul07RatAssLegal_22.pdf



    Prepared and Submitted
    Tel 651-776-5835 Fax out only Mandate Electric Filings Sharon4Anderson@aol.com



    Sharon4Anderson@aol.com AttorneyProSe_Private AG, ECF:165913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel: 651-776-5835 Candidate MNAttorney General 2014 www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com Senate 64 www.sharonsenate64.blogspot.com
    www.sharon4anderson.org
    www.lawlessamerica.com
    http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/judicial-corruption-_sharonscarrellaanderson_lawless-america/



    http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sharonandersonbernicepeterson821292taxfight

    http://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com/2007/03/foia-06cv-permission-to.html

    http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Magner_Respondents_Brief_Jan23-Final-To-Print.pdf

    http://mpls.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/profiles/26222.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/planet/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file4.pdfhttp://www.angelfire.com/mn3/anderso
    nadvocates/PDFedem2006/file6.pdfwww.sharon4anderson.org http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/900-2007-02-27T034409Z/WritProA06-1150_30Jun06.pdfhttp://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/google-lawmen-cases-mn-62cv09-1163/POA http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/PDFcorr/SADPA4172006.pdfhttp://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profile/SharonScarrellaAnderson www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson www.taxthemax.blogspot.com www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson








    How does a consumer request an external review? A. To initiate the external review process, you, the enrollee, or anyone acting on behalf of the enrollee must complete an external review form. You may request external review within six months of the date of the adverse determination. If you are enrolled in a Minnesota HMO, you may request the external review form by phone, e-mail or by submitting a written request to:

    Minnesota Department of Health
    Managed Care Systems Section
    P.O. Box 64882
    St. Paul, MN 55164-0882
    651-201-5100 or 1-800-657-3916
    Email: health.mcs@state.mn.us
    If you are enrolled in an insurance company or a Blue Cross and Blue Shield plan, you should contact the Minnesota Department of Commerce at 1-800-657-3602 or 651-539-1600 or fill out the application at Department of Commerce.
    0.0.02.1418696724D6I 8DPygL