AFFIDAVIT OF PREJUDICE Sat15Feb 2014
COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF
MINNESOTA
VA WIDOW SHARON ANDERSON AKA SCARRELLA Ramsey
Co.670295 DHS149632 Disabled Blind Appellant www.taxthemax.blogspot.com
Quitam Relator Defendant Medicare Receiptant
1983
vs. DHS COMMISSIONER LUCINDIA JESSEN,aDAVID GASSOWY
AKA
LBARRE AND DARWIN LOOKINGBILL, ALL LICENSED LAWYERS
ACTING IN EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHS,JOHN DOE AND MARY
ROE,
http://kstp.com/kstpImages/repository/cs/files/LAWSUIT.pdf
similarily situated and IN THEIR OFFICIAL
CAPACITY'S
AFFIANT QuiTam Relator has notified David Gassoway aka David
LBarre and Drarwin Lookingbill Gay Lawyers on 5 diferent occasions Demanding IN
PERSON INCAMERA HEARING.
DENIED 10fEB2014
Gassowy with ltr.dtd.5Feb2014
Darwin Lookingbill Gay Lawyer former Ramsey County assist Attorney acting as a
Judge contrary to MN Constitution Art.III Separation of Powers
-
MinnesotaLawlessAmerica: Sharon
Oct 9, 2013 - Title 31 Whistleblower, re: Scarrella for Associate
Justice 221NW2d562; 1994 Independent Republican nominee for attorney general; VA
...
- ISSUES Licensed Lawyers Judges in the Executive and Legislative
Branchs usurping Minnesota Constitution Art. III cannot have a Fair Hearing in
the Executive Branch Agency aka Dhs
- re www.sharon4judge.blogspot.com
All licensed lawyers and All Judges in all branchs have consistently acted at
WAR with the Citizenery especially Va Widow Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella aka
Peterson Attorney Pro Se.
- Sharons Disability stems from the Gay Suicidal Judge Alberto MIERO
who threw Sharon in Jail, 1983 on one of her buildings 2194 Marshall
re;
- www.crimes-against-humanity.blogspot.com
- QUESTIONS
- Have lawyers and Gay and Lesbian Lawyers and Judges taken control
with their Monoply, Franschise of USA Government? ursurping undermining the
State Constitutional Office of Attorney General www.ag.state.mn.us
THEREFORE IN GOOD FAITH, PUBLIC POLICY,FAIR
HEARINGS,DUE PROCESS
AFFIANT MUST DISCLOSE AND DISQUALIFY DARWIN
LOOKINGBILL ACTING AS A JUDGE AND DAVID GASSOWAY AKA LBARRE.
Minnesota Administrative Rules provide for
disqualification of an Administrative
Law Judge:
1405.1000
DISQUALIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
The administrative law judge
shall withdraw from participating in the
proceedings at any time upon deeming
himself or herself disqualified for any
reason. Upon the filing in good faith
by a person of an affidavit of prejudice, the
chief administrative law judge
shall determine the matter as a part of the record
provided the affidavit
shall be filed no later than five days prior to the date set
for the first
hearing date.
8. The Minnesota Cod of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge
perform judicial duties
without bias or prejudice, and provides for
disqualification where impartiality may be
questioned and in bias or
prejudice regarding disputed evidentiary facts at issue in
the
proceeding.
Canon 3
A. Adjudicative Responsibilities.
(5) A
judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge
shall
not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest
bias
or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon
race,
sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation
or
socioeconomic status, and shall not permit court personnel and others
subject
to the judge's direction and control to do so.
D.
Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a
proceeding in which the
judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned,
including but not limited
to instances where:
(a) the judge has a personal
bias or prejudice concerning a party or a
party's lawyer, or personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding;
9. In
good faith, I submit this Affidavit of Prejudice as provided by Minn. R.
1405.1000 6
Ramsey Co has willfully failed to have County Advocate and
Submitt Appeal to State OMBUDSMANPDF]
FAS Staff Directory 10-2013 - Ramsey
County, Minnesotawww.co.ramsey.mn.us/NR/rdonlyres/.../FASStaffDirectory102013.pdf
Oct 6, 2013 - Michael. 651/266-4504. Casalenda,
Karen. Clerk Typist 3. Ramsey County Gov't Ctr East. Karen.Casalenda@co.ramsey.mn.us.
651/266-4369.
In a message dated 1/25/2014 11:52:17 A.M. Central Standard
Time, Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
writes:
Please visit www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com
FURTHER
Affiant Blind in L Eye VA Widow,Senior
must for Public Policy expose the
Corruption,Incompetance
of Public Employees. Denial of Medicare Benefits to
Force
Obama Care or MNSURE is outrageous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
To:
sharon4anderson@aol.com
Sent:
1/25/2014 10:53:39 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Sharons Medicare Appeal
File 670295DHS 149632
Sat.25Jan.2014
APPELLATE CASE NUMBER
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN DHS COURT OF APPEALS
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 Scarrella
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
2.erred in dismissing due process claims with statutes
health care
3. in applying Res Judicata
4. erred in granting summary judgment
APPENDIX AND ITS INDEX
Page
Relator First Amended Petition and Complaint in the
Nature 001
Sections 1,2,4,7,8 & 10 of the Constitution of the
State of Minnesota,
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Judge Edward Toussaint
Defendant’s Summary Please send Electronically Paulina
Thao dtd 17Jan2014
or Summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s
Notice of Appeal – Form 103A 269
PARTIES
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."
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
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.
1989BerniceMemoralization_011.jpg)
Database Last Refreshed 02-26-2014 05:28:00 
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com AttorneyProSe_Private AG, ECF 65913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel:
651-776-5835 HEALTH CARE Candidate 2014 MNAG www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com
www.sharon4anderson.org www.sharonsenate64.blogspot.com
http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/judicial-corruption
www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson
www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson
