SharonsFacebookVideo

Post by Sharon Anderson.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

SpeechlessSharonAffidavitPrejudiceLookingbillGassoway



                                 Ruling Case's http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DOJ-St-Paul.pdf  RICO Case Fixing Ramsey Co. Director
Monty Martin acting in Concort with County Attorneys,City Attorneys and JUDGES.



PLESE NOTE SPEECHLESS VIDEO'S HOPEFULLY ARE USED




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


  1. MinnesotaLawlessAmerica: Sharon



Oct 9, 2013 - Title 31 Whistleblower, re: Scarrella for Associate Justice 221NW2d562; 1994 Independent Republican nominee for attorney general; VA ...
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. Sharons Disability stems from the Gay Suicidal Judge Alberto MIERO who threw Sharon in Jail, 1983 on one of her buildings 2194 Marshall re;
  4. www.crimes-against-humanity.blogspot.com
  5. QUESTIONS
  6. 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
http://hcopub.dhs.state.mn.us/
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 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



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







APPENDIX AND ITS INDEX








Page



Previous Pleadings are filed with the Appellate Court under Case 000 http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sharonandersonbernicepeterson821292taxfight






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,






Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Judge Edward Toussaint



Defendant’s Summary Please send Electronically Paulina Thao dtd 17Jan2014



Brad Borcher SNAP Award dtd 16Dec.2013 Files at www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com




or Summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s



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






































per month

ogram
Medicare savings programs help eligible people pay the cost of their Medicare.http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/idcplg?IdcService=GET_DYNAMIC_CONVERSION&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&dDocName
http://mn.gov/portal/government/state/agencies-boards-commissions/index.jsp

VIEW www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com Forensic Files in R Column www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson www.scribd.com/sharon-anderson-1091 http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/hpsc/mcs/external.htm
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.


















LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: HEALTHCARE http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/judicial-corruption-
0.0.02.1418696724D6I 8DPygL

at