SharonsFacebookVideo

Post by Sharon Anderson.

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 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

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,

  2. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Judge Edward Toussaint
  3. Defendant’s Summary Please send Electronically Paulina Thao dtd 17Jan2014
  4. Brad Borcher SNAP Award dtd 16Dec.2013 Files at www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com
    5. 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/andersonadvocates/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
at

Thursday, January 23, 2014

SharonAnderson_vs_DFL MarkDayton_Medicare_OpenLetter


                                                  http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/14773354

Thurs.23rdJan.2014
https://sites.google.com/site/sharon4anderson/Home/aolfiles
MEDICARE Ramsey Co.File 670295 Appeal HS 149632

             www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com
OPEN LETTER TO DFL MN GOV MARK DAYTON,Justice Appt. David Lillehaug,HS LUCINDA JESSON,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/201179524/SA-Appeal-670295Comb19Jan
her Employees Civil Service Darwin Lookingbill,David Gassoway,Ramsey Co.Director HS Monty Martin his Employees Ramsey county board Enbanc and all others similarily situated.
QUESTION
Has the MN Gov Mark Dayton covertly instructed County Officials to 'TAKE' Affiants Medicare Health Benefits to Force MNSURE or Obama care.
Leaving Citizenery uninsured subjected to Penaltys?
http://scannedretina.com/2014/01/09/18-usc-%c2%a7-1031-major-fraud-against-the-united-states/
Therefore: Stay Affiants Appeals until We know who we are dealing with.
http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sharonsmedicareramseyco67029562cv091163
Affiant undersigned Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Scarrella
hereby states and alleges: Request that affiant be so informed what Health Care does the state Officials Public Servants have?
Pre existing Mark dayton alcoholism, David Lillehaug Throat Cancer etc. Affiant Sharons blindness 
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-civil-rights-act-of-1866/


Before any further actions are taken the above named must fill out the Questionnaire, so republican candidate for www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com

Forensic Files in Right Columns re Scribd and Slideshare.'
Separation of Powers Doctrine MN const. Art. III

apparantly the HS Judges Licensed Lawyers are hired via
civil service rules? re David Gassoway are trying to exploit the Blind to deny forensic files
pdf format for easy read.  Also Affiant has not been notified of Inperson and Video Hearings
 
The Civil Service Rules are also currently available in PDF and you will need the Adobe Reader or Adobe Acrobat to download and view. To download and view, select Civil Service Rules (PDF Version) below.

Civil Service Rules (PDF Version)     http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/1679-2007-07-08T193758Z/5Jul07RatAssLegal_22.pdf
Grievance Procedures



at

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Who is David Gassoway aka David E LaBarre MN Judge Human Services?

                                   Wed 22ndJan2014
                            

AFFIANT SHARON ANDERSON AKA SCARRELLA Title 5 Freedom of INFORMATION RE; Civil Service www.dhs.state.mn.us HS Judge David Galloway

By information and Belief Affiant, VA Widow, QuiTam Relator,Victim

apparantly has been DENIED in the Above entitled Cases to have Electronic Commerce pdf Briefs instead of Fax's Has David Gassoway aka Labarre with Heinous Bias against a 75 yr old Female Blind in L Eye created Under Color of Authority and Jurisdiction.
 
FURTHER; IT may be that David E. Labarre is in fact David Gassoway His e-mail states Nuteral Affiant is duly concerned that he is NOT Impartial.
                        a.   That the Consitutionality of 'TAKING' Affiants Medicare Benefits to Force
Obama Care on Sharon Anderson http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2014/01/political-reality-dflers-own-a-mnsure-program-that-fails/
program that fails
Bob CollinsBob CollinsJan 22, 201434
MPR News reporter Elizabeth Stawicki’s story today on a consultant’s opinion that the state’s health insurance exchange program “won’t be fixed quickly and the state should consider the option of scrapping the system altogether and starting over,” brings us back to a question that’s lingering: Is anybody in charge listening?
As I wrote in December, so many politicians — starting with Gov. Mark Dayton — have their careers tied to MNsure that the order of the day has been denial for months. The risk of facing the problems head on is political suicide for the leaders — the state is full of “I told you so” opponents who would be happy to take their jobs.
                                                QUESTIONS
                                WHAT HEALTH CARE ARE ALL STATE,COUNTY,CITY EMPLOYEES ON?

Health in Minnesota

www.healthinminnesota.com/‎


Jan 15, 2014 - In today's health news, MNsure stays under fire, this time for the state ... bring it to bear on the federal government's vast Medicare program. ... as MNsure's interim chief executive until a permanent replacement can be found.

FURTHER; Affiant left a tel message to have Inperson and Video Conference without a Response.

At all times Material Director of HS of Ramsey County Monty Martin has been Notified.

THEREFORE IT MAY BE PRUDENT FOR ANOTHER HEARING OFFICIAL FOR INPERSON AND VIDEO CONFERENCE http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/1679-2007-07-08T193758Z/5Jul07RatAssLegal_22.pdf



Results summary
David E LaBarre Human Services Dept david.gassoway@state.mn.us 651/431-2847



  1. PDF]

  2. See Document - Minnesota Judicial Branch

    1. www.mncourts.gov/.../Plaintiff_Motion_for_Temporary_Restraining_Or...‎

  • Attorneys Galen Robinson, David Gassoway, and Rolanda Mason ... and the Legislature alone, to make laws that, in the Court's opinion, was unconstitutional.

    1. [PDF]

    2. amicus brief - Minnesota State Legislature

    1. www.leg.state.mn.us/.../BriefOfAmiciCuriae.pd...‎
    3. Minnesota Legislature
    5. Loading...
    7. David Gassoway (#389526) '. 430 First .... Amici acknowledge that the opinion of the Minnesota .... legislative authority, the district court' s review was - then.

    Results summary
    David E LaBarre Human Services Dept david.gassoway@state.mn.us 651/431-2847
    From: david.gassoway@state.mn.us
    To: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com, Darwin.Lookingbill@state.mn.us
    CC: inta.sellars@state.mn.us
    Sent: 1/22/2014 2:07:51 P.M. Central Standard Time
    Subj: RE: Check out State rolls out MinnesotaCare 2.0 | Politics in Minnesota


    Dear Ms. Anderson:

    As the judge who will hear your upcoming appeal, I must remain neutral. As such, I ask that you do not send me any emails such as the one below. If you would like to submit information for your hearing, please do so via fax at 651-431-7523 as fax is a secure way to submit documents and information for your hearing. Any documents sent to me for the hearing must also be sent to the agency that made the decision in your case.

    Any communication regarding the substance of your case sent to the judge without also sending the agency that made the decision in your case a copy, is an ex-parte communication to the judge, which is improper under applicable Minnesota statutes.

    Thank you for your cooperation.

    Judge Gassoway

    From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com [mailto:Sharon4Anderson@aol.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:50 PM
    To: Lookingbill, Darwin J (DHS); Gassoway, David E (DHS)
    Cc: sharon4anderson@aol.com; ddaweb@comcast.net
    Subject: Check out State rolls out MinnesotaCare 2.0 | Politics in Minnesota


    Working on Issues for Evidentary HearingPolitics in Minnesota > News > The Briefing Room > State rolls out MinnesotaCare 2.0

    State rolls out MinnesotaCare 2.0

    by Paul Demko
    Published: June 19,2013
    Time posted: 2:40 pm
    http://politicsinminnesota.com/files/2013/06/lourey-w.jpg

    In a message dated 1/21/2014 2:10:55 P.M. Central Standard Time, Sharon4Anderson@aol.com writes:

    Tues 21Jan2014
    Legal Notice to DHS Judge David Gassoway
    Tel.651-431-2847 Fax 651-431-7523
    Request for Continuence In person Video Thanks for continuing Medical
    Notice to www.stpauleye.com dr. Steffen via 227-6637 Fax 651-228-9398
     
    www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com Scribd and Slideshare Files Right Side
    Finding old files Count I 2014
    Count 11 2009
    2009
    MEMORANDUMN\

    In a message dated 1/21/2014 1:40:54 P.M. Central Standard Time, Alycia.Jacobson@state.mn.us writes:

    Sharon,

    Attached is the hearing notice as discussed.

    Alycia

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Jacobson, Alycia (DHS)
    Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:13 PM
    To: Jacobson, Alycia (DHS)
    Subject: Send data from L5120-T755 01/21/2014 13:13


  • at

    Sunday, January 19, 2014

    Congressional Testimony: Sharon Anderson to Bill Windsor of Lawless Ame...


    at

    Civil Rights Case Against Judge David Knutson

      http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/

    http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DOJ-St-Paul.pdf  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/1679-2007-07-08T193758Z/5Jul07RatAssLegal_22.pdf

    http://www.co.ramsey.mn.us/NR/rdonlyres/0662DB4E-63F4-4E46-8DDF-D91E53ABB3B3/34834/A
    http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid2667782325001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAGBdRBg~,Fa2suEROi7GXAH746o0wzaiSZCyL_zeZ&bctid=2767739664001

    at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)