Ramsey Co.File no.670295 since
1995
Appeal 1_ 149632
Sellars,Gassoway,Lookingbill
Appeal 2_ File unk Thayer
Similar File No. 62-cv09-1163 Case
Type: Other Civil and Criminal Vandenorth,Toussaint
JURY TRIAL-FORPERSON GRAND JURY DEMAND
To: All Persons with legal interest
in the Parcels of Realestate, DHS Removals,Appeals, to be Filed with District
Court Clerk Lynae.K.E. Olson 651-2202, Larry.Dease@courts.state.mn.us
Court Administrator
NOTICE OF MOTION
STATE OF MINNSOTA,
Mark Dayton,All Agencies,Civil Service
Commissioners,Tyler Tech
Texas,Judicial Panel,SCAP,MS8.01,DHS,LucindaJesson aka Mrs. Peter
Knapp,Inta.M.Sellars aka Mrs. Jeronimus, Louis.Thayer,David Gassoway aka
LaBarre,Darwin Lookingbill,Gay Spouse Potter,Ramsey County Board enbanc,Court
Administrator Larry Dease, John Choi,former City Attorney,County Attorney, Mark
Oswald Auditor,HS Megan Kelly Mohs,her employes,Brad Borcher,Jennefier
Tuto,Patricia, Karen Cassolemos,Supervisors Any Andrews, City St. Paul, Mayor
Chris Coleman, Dr. Diane Tanabe,Lufkin Clinic John Doe, Mary Roe,
individually,sererally, personal and Official Capacity's
Appelees-Relatees
VS
SHARON L.
ANDERSON,aka Peterson_Scarrella, MEDICARE since 1983 when jailed by Gay Sucidal
Judge Alberto Miero,VA Widow,Whistleblower, Legally Blind,Hearing ,Candidate www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com
QUITAM RELATOR_ Appellant_Attorney Pro Se.
INTRODUCTION
DISPARATE
IMPACT,TREATMENT
FRANCHISE OF LICENSED LAWYERS TAKING GOVERNMENT CONTROL
CONTRARY TO MN CONSTUTION ART.III AND X Ramsey Co. Auditor Ponzi Taxing Schemes
taking Disability,Homestead Credits,Wilful Failure to account for $2,680.00 tax
payment to avoid Forclosure from the Stealing of Sharons Car,Trailer,Water etc.
DENYING STATE PAID MEDICARE
BENEFITS TO SHARON
Sharon Scarrella Anderson
hereinafter Sharon is/has been a Political Activist over 40 yrs http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=38824 techinally
when DFL AG Warren Spannus took Sharons Daughter via Covert Means up to the
Present to Quiet Title to RealEstate also Taken without Compensation on
Seniors,Disabled etc. currently Blind, hard hearing, Repugnant
Discrimination.
Sharon must expost the Ponzi Schemes
of City St. Paul, County of Ramsey to Falsify Medical Records 1996 Sharons
Heinous re; Rule 20 to put Sharon while Candidate for MNAG IN St. Peter and
Brainard for 94 days, forcing Depokote, Shock Treatments to dumbdown a Political
Candidate exposing Major Corruption. Murder of Cpl Jim Anderson thrown in
Brainard or 1 year.
Sharon has been beaten jailed forced
to live in a Tar Paper Shack for yrs when Lesbian Judge Kathleen Gearin on SCAP
Panel. BECAUSE SHARON IS A QUITAM RELATOR EXPOSING CORRUPT LICENSED
LAWYERS.
Aug 9, 2009 - Affidavit of Prejudice against Judge Kathleen
Gearin et al,Ramsey Dist. Crt. 62cv09-1163 ... by Sharon Anderson,
Hobby_RealEstate Entreprenuer,Advocate/Activist at .... Justice
221NWS2d,562 Plaintiffs V. 697 SURREY AVE ...
n Gearin exploited the Anderson Family for her Heinous
Repugnant Greed
CONSTITUTIONALITY MS8.01
Sharon state and allege that We the People do not need 87 County Attorneys,
Numerous Private Attorneys acting as City Attorneys when the State AG committs
Malfeasance,NONfeasance,Misfeasance
8.01 .
The attorney general shall appear for the state in
all causes in the supreme and federal courts wherein the state is directly
interested; also in all civil causes of like nature in all other courts of the
state whenever, in the attorney general's opinion, the interests of the state
require it. Upon request of the county attorney, the attorney general shall
appear in court in such criminal cases as the attorney general deems proper.
Upon request of a county attorney, the attorney general may assume the duties of
the county attorney in sexual psychopathic personality and sexually dangerous
person commitment proceedings under chapter 253D. Whenever the governor shall so
request, in writing, the attorney general shall prosecute any person charged
with an indictable offense, and in all such cases may attend upon the grand jury
and exercise the powers of a county attorney.
COUNT I Title 18 RICO MS 609.43 MS
8.01
-
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell,
P.C. serves as counsel to the respondents in this case. Issue: (1) Whether
disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair
...
-
-
-
State of Minnesota Government Employees
Executive Branch Mark Dayton,DHS,Licensed Lawyers Jesson et al, Ramsey County a
Political Branch of the State,in the Executive, Employees incompetance
concerning Combined Manuels, Debit Down Property Taxes,Equity Line Mortgage,
City St. Paul a Municipality chartered in St. Paul, Dr. Diane Tanabe sole
practicioner charged with Medical Malpractice re Sharons Blindness. Tyler Tech
is the Web Master for the www.mncourts.gov located in Texas, SCAP ie
Judicial Appeal Panel acting in concort to committ with State AG,County
Attorneys without Jury Trials.
PARTIES
|
|
| Name |
Sharon Anderson |
| Address |
1058 Summit
St. Paul, Minnesota , United States |
| Email |
sharon4anderson@aol.com |
| Website |
None |
| Born |
Unknown |
| Died |
Still Living |
| Contributor |
The Oncoming Storm |
| Last Modified |
RBH
Jun 26, 2012 03:36am |
| Tags |
|
| Info |
Sharon is a registered Gun Owner and
believes in the 2nd Constitutional
Amendment of the "Right to Bear Arms"
| PIN (Property ID#) |
Number |
Street Address |
City |
| 32.29.22.41.0053
|
697 |
Surrey Ave |
St. Paul |
Municipality
Watershed
School District
Number |
697 Surrey Ave
St. Paul
Capital Region
W/S
625 |
|
Tax Year |
Date |
Type |
Tax Amount
or Adjustment |
Total
Amount Paid |
| 2014 |
03-18-2014 |
Payment |
0.00 |
320.00 |
| 2014 |
03-02-2014 |
Original Charge |
640.00 |
0.00 |
| 2013 |
09-19-2013 |
Payment |
0.00 |
332.00 |
| 2013 |
05-10-2013 |
Payment |
0.00 |
332.00 |
| 2013 |
03-03-2013 |
Original Charge |
664.00 |
0.00 |
| 2012 |
10-16-2012 |
Payment |
0.00 |
1,368.00 |
| 2012 |
10-11-2012 |
Payment |
0.00 |
2,666.00 |
| 2012 |
09-18-2012 |
Payment |
0.00 |
293.50 |
| 2012 |
05-23-2012 |
Payment |
0.00 |
-7,164.00 |
| 2012 |
05-23-2012 |
Payment |
0.00 |
7,164.00 |
| 2012 |
04-10-2012 |
Payment |
0.00 |
292.00 |
| 2012 |
03-10-2012 |
Original Charge |
584.00 |
0.00 |
|
|
JURISDICTION
AND VENUE
Minnesota Whistleblower Act MS181,932 altho Sharon as a
Taxpayer techinally is Employeer of DHS.
Background
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE VIA FAX AND
E-MAIL,PDF,WEB,FACEBOOK
a. That Jesson certify and Transcribe all DHS since
1995 as on File with Ramsey County.
File 670295 Appeal no 1 file 149632 Gassoway Appeal no
2 File unk.
b. For Article 111 Judicial
Review.
c. What State Employee keeps taking State Medical
Benefits out of Sharons Checking Acct.contrary to Sharons duly qualified as a
Poor Person, with $15.00 Food Stamps, ADA Compliance etc.
d. Constitutionality of MS.8.01 Attorney General
Lawyer for Agencies and not the Peoples Attorney.
MOTIONS
Affiant Sharon state and allege re;
Mar 19, 2014 - A long-time hospital payment rates official at the
Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Paul Olson, filed a whistleblower
lawsuit ...
COMMISSIONER LUCINDIA JESSEN,DHS AND DARWIN LOOKINGBILL,DHS
Referee-Judge David Gassoway ET AL.
LEGAL NOTICE AFFIANT QuiTam Relator has notified David Gassoway aka
David LBarre on 5 diferent occasions Demanding IN PERSON INCAMERA
HEARING.
Called today Thurs.6Feb2014 Recorded
651-431-2847 Fax
7523
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR that Appeal no 2 has
not been addressed, Tran
Affiant Sharon Scarrella Anderson QuiTam Relator state and allege
that letter dtd.29Jan14, mailed 30th,rcvd
1Feb2014.
*Hearing 27Feb2014 10am 444Lafayette
Rd.St.Paul,MN55101
cc Ramsey Co Attry Robert Roche#0289589
Tel 651-266-3230 Fx3032 Re Bounds vs. StateMN
13-cv-266(JRT/FLN) has withdrawn without proper
notice
to Affiant in the above titled DHS hearings, without Notice to
Ramsey Co Advocate or State Ombudsman.
MOTION TO CONTINUE PENDING FULL DISCLOSURE DISCOVERY
Apparantly David Gassoway has wilfully failed to conform
to
to exploit Affiant and her Blindness. exposing Major Tax Fraud in
Ramsey County, Disparate Treatment causing Disparate Impact on the
Citizenery.
1. Denial of InPerson Video hearings. on the Web. BLINDNESS IS NO
LAUGHING MATTER. Video's below.
2. Manulipating Easy Access 651-266-3800 File no. 670295 False
INFORMATION.
3. Wilul neglience and failure on Criminal Charges to notify State
AG Lori Swanson. tel 651-266-3353 Fax 651-282-2155
4. Constitutionality of Sharons Medicare Denial Benefits vs.
MNSURE.
5. Affiant Attorney Pro Se reserves the Right to File Affidavit of
Prejudice against David Gassoway similar to Affiants Affidavit of Prejudice vs.
Kathleen Gerain.
www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/affidavit-prejudicejudge-kathleen-...
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit:
4/29/12
www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Dec 17, 2012 - Uploaded by
lawlessamerica
Congressional Testimony:
Sharon Anderson to Bill Windsor of Lawless America. Lawless America...The
...
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit:
12/20/12
www.rawstory.com/.../st-paul-mayor-laughs-throughou...
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT AT THIS TIME
WILL FAX TOMORROW FRI.7FEB2014
AUDITOR MARK OSWALD 697 SURREY AVE
32.29.22.41.0053$2,499.43
State of Minnesota, Rule
24.04 by and thro State Attorney General Lori Swanson
www.ag.state.mn.us, Michael Campion,
Public Safety,Mark Oswald,RamseyCo.Auditor/Tax/Elections,Larry Dease,Court
Administrator,St.Paul Mayor Chris B. Coleman,City Clerk Shari Moore,Council
President Kathy Lantry www.ci.stpaul.mn.us, Janice Rettman res: No
2009-012,Toni Carter Canvass Board and County Commissioners,
www.co.ramsey.mn.us DSI Bob Kessler,Joel
Essling in their Official Capacity‘s, Individually,Severally, acting in concort
with John Doe and Mary Roe. SCAP,Judges Kathleen Gearin,Joanne Smith,Gregg
Johnson,Salvador Rosas,Larry Cohen et al 1988 Files 495722 499129 Default 66
Million Dollars. Plaintiffs
V.
697 Surrey Ave
St.Paul,MN.55106 ,Intestate Decedant www.cpljimanderson.blogspot.com ,VA
Widow,Senior,Disabled Political Activist Sharon Anderson aka
Peterson_Chergosky_Scarrella www.sharon4staterep64a.blogspot.com
http://sharon4council.blogspot.com
http://sharon4privateattorneygeneral.blogspot.com + 96 Blogs
www.sharonanderson.org , et al as their
interest appear , Defendants and 3rd Party
Plaintiffs,Intestate Decedants Tenant in Common Wm.O and Bernice
A.Peterson.
***************************************************************
TO THE ABOVE NAMED PLAINTIFF’S AND THEIR
ATTORNEYS LORI SWANSON,STATE CAPITOL,SUSAN GAERTNER,JOHN CHOI,AT THEIR
RESPECTIVE OFFICES .
Defendants, as and for their Answer to
Plaintiff’s Complaint, state:
1. Deny each and every matter,allegation
and thing contained in Plaintiffs Vague,Arbitrary, False Assessments, by
Theft,Trespass,Treason, except as hereinafter specifically admitted,qualified or
otherwise answered.
2. Defendants admitted
to having Homestead Classification since 1992, (17 yrs), Ex.
http://sharon4privateattornygeneral.blogspot.com pg 8 Paid the full
property taxes of $949.86, for 2008. Challenge thAT Title 18 USC 1001 False
charges. By Mark Oswald to “take” HS Credit,
INTENT
It is the intent of this fiduciary to
challenge the Assessment,Ratifications, findings, and conclusions made by the
DSI Inspector Joel Essling, City Council President Kathy Lantry acting in
concort with Marcia Moermond in proper venue and forum Art. II US Constitution
an First Amendment right to petition for redress of reievances: and it is my
intent to preserve all Constitutional rights, either by amendment,supplement or
future litigation and or Removal’s to protect property interest rights under
Constitutional and Statutory Law:
Court File 62cv09-1163 apparently is an
Administrative without Filing Fees, to Simulate Legal Process, causing
irreparable intentional infliction of emotional stress, anti-trust by government
official, Sharons intent to preserve minimal or full-blown due process rights to
an Administrative Hearing with FOIA Disclosure of Warrants, Tickets, signed off
by City Attorneys, to Steal Cars,Trailers,, in US Supreme Court decisions it has
been determined that it is clearly unlawful to seize or levy funds absent a
prior fully disclosed proof of lawful claim or judicial due process through
judicial courts with proper jurisdiction. Larson v. Domestic and Foreign
Commerce Corp. 337 US 682 (1949) Kelo Decision Stands
3. As to the Allegations “taken” in the
form of Summary Judgment, published Falsely in the Maplewood Review,
www.review-news.com 18Mar09 pg.53 Sharon Anderson 697 Surrey Ave.
32.29.22.41.0053 Lyman Dayton Add. Lot 5 Blk 46 2008 $2,499.43 without proper
citation of any statute,ordinance,rule,or regulation which Defendants alleged to
have violated contrary to Crim Rules , as to the required specificity of an
apparent crimial accusation of “not paying taxes” US v. Cruikshank,92 US 542 at
558 (1876)
COUNT I CONSPIRACY Title 18 s.
241,242
Between April 2006 up to
and including the present The Stalking of Sharon by shutting off Water
www.sharonanderson.org, Stalking causing
Fracutured Ankle, Sharon ran for State Ag from her Wheel Chair, Plaintiffs,
Lantry,Moore,Coleman,Kessler,Essling, did unlawfully
combine,conspire,confederate and agree to Steal Sharons Car, Trailer, Realestate
http://sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com and obstruct justice in
connection with the Homicide of Cpl James R. Anderson
www.cpljimanderson.blogspot.com starting 1996, when
Sharon paid the property taxes on her Cabin in Itasca Co. legally in the
Corporation of Anderson+Advocates, by altering and orchestrating the crime
scene, disposing of,altering and planting evidence, commitments to Brainard for
1 year by the SCAP Panel Gearin and Smith, lying to law enforcement authorities
and others about the true circumstances surrounding Sharons RealEstate,
Disabilitys,Disparagment of Title and Death of Tenants in Common and Sharons
2nd
Husband.
4. Defendants are without sufficient
information in order to judge the truth or falsity of the allegations contained
in the Tax Statement’s 2008,2009 and the 2010
The Valuation is not
challenged, but the Classification,Assessments,Fees,Row Maintainance,Delq
Utilitys, Usurious interest is.and hold the Plaintiffs to the strictest proof
thereof. http://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com
5. Defendants deny the False
Assessments,False Fees, Ratification thereof obtained by Fraud and Murder to
Steal Sharon’s Realestate, Car’s,Trailers, Personal Property, reducing her to
utter Poverty, Standing in Food Lines, for over 2 years, Heinous Hardship of
taking Commerce Rights to drive to get grocerys, medical care and the
Aitkin,Itaska Cabins. “taken under color of corrupt
Judges”
AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES
6. As its First Affirmative Defense,
Defendants state Plaintiffs complaints of Non Payment of Property Taxes fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
7. As its Second Affirmative Defense,
Defendants state insufficiency of service of process.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY
PUBLICATION
AFFIDAVIT OF INFORMIA
PAUPERIOUS Faxed>Mon.30Mar09 to Lynae.Olson@courts.mn.us
651-266-8263
ON SHARONS BLOGS, PDF FILES: BY
E-COMMERCE: E-MAIL
STATE OF MINNESOTA ET AL V. 697 SURREY ET
AL
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FILE:
62-cv09-1163
Please take legal notice, pending Full
Disclosure, Tickets,Warrants,
Constitionality, Demand for Grand Jury
Indictments against the Plaintiffs
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
:
Whether a state violates the dormant
Commerce Clause by providing an exemption of Homestead Credits, Old House
Credits, Disabled, Senior Credits, re: MN Const. Art.X to the citizenry, yet
Denial to a Political Candidate for State Attorney General, Judge,State Rep64a
?
/s/ Sharon Anderson Private Attorney
General, Attorney Pro Se_InFact will Move the Jurisdiction/Authority of the
Court for Dismissal, Recover of Car,Trailer,Personal Propertys, Attorney Fees
$240.00 pr hour,
WHEREFORE< Defendants pray that
Plaintiff take nothing by their pretended cause of action and that the sam be
dismissed and that Defendants recover their costs,disbursements,herein attorney
pro se fees, quiet title actions,on all Sharon Scarrella Anderson dba Church of
Justice Reform, Rose of Sharon Ministrys, Anderson+Advocates, “taken” without
Just Compensation, under color of Authority, by the Corrupt
Judiciary.
Dated: Wed. 1Apr09 /s/ Sharon Anderson
ECF
MEMORANDUM OF LAW ENCOMPASSED
HEREIN
In the Saint Paul
City Council Agenda
thurs,July5,2007
Items 35 Resolution Assessments 07-601“from May17 to
June12th,2007 public hearing Aug.15th,07 (GS3041156)
Notice to combine
with Item 51 Res.Ratifying Assessments 07-609 from 12Apr to 27Apr07
(J0707A
Notice to remove
from Agenda refer
To City or County
Attorneys
Notice of Damages
over ½ Million Dollars
State of
Minnesota, County of Ramsey, City of St. Paul
Owner- Taxpayer Co
Dist.File#J0707A-J0708A:Assm.#8337 697 Surrey ID 32-29-22-41-0053
VA Widow Candidate Ward (2) Sharon
Anderson aka Peterson-Scarrella
http://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com
,Attorney Pro Se: Private Attorney
General
Decedant http://cpljimanderson.blogspot.com ,
http://sharon4council.blogspot.com all others similarily
situated
Quitam
Whistleblower-Fidicuary Watchdog Victim Relator
vs.
St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman,DSI and Bob
Kessler,Joel Essling and 168 employees, union Supervisory, John Choi, all
agents,city attorneys,assigns, in their personal and official capacities,
executive branch Kathy Lantry as President of the City Council,enbanc
Thune,Bostrom,Harris,Benanav,Montgomery,helgen,her agents,assigns specifically
shari moore, Marcia moermond,enbanc in the legislative branch in their
personal,official capacities, sued individually, severally, John Doe
and Mary Roe. Matt Smith
www.ci.stpaul.mn.us
)
Relatees
Sharon’s discovery of Treason by city
officials in all realestate matters:
Forcing repeal of State
and Federal Laws. Cooking the Fidicuary Books by Mail Fraud , Extortion,
Complicity, Theft of Personal Property,defrauding the State of Minnesota and the
United States of America, http://sicko-citystpaul.blogspot.com
http://sharon4council.blogspot.com by mail fraud,
confusion,stacking,blatant trespass on private property in a “Patterned
Enterprise” for Greed, to conspire to commit Murder by WATER SHUTOFF
www.sharonanderson.org.
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT IN
THE NATURE OF A SUIT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER AUTHORITY OF ARTICLE I,
SECTIONS 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 & 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA
JUDICIAL NOTICE re:
MS2.724 of City and County Attorneys, Lawyer Mayors Treasonable Bad
Behavior.
BACKGROUND;
1. Officers of the court
who may come in contact with the matters of city attorneys simulating legal
process without warrants, tickets, due process , are noticed under authority of
the supremacy and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and
the common law authorities of Haines v
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-421, Platsky v. C.I.A.
953 F.2d. 25, and Anastasoff v. United
States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000). In re
Haines: pro se litigants are
held to less stringent pleading standards than bar licensed
attorneys. Regardless
of the deficiencies in
their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to submit
evidence in support of their claims. In re Platsky: court errs if court
And St. Paul City
Council to assess fees willfully, knowingly, to Steal Car’s, Trailers,
constituting a Restraint of Trade, Heinous, Repugnant without a probable cause
complaint which contains an accusation or charging language, distinct from the
statement of probable cause constituting of a statemebnt of essential facts
constituting a public offense or public offenses charged or sought to be
charged. Contrary to Rules 2.01 and 2.03 of Minn. Rules of Criminal Procedure.,
Taxaction without Representationd, kickbacks, bribery scheme involving the
Department of Safety and Inspections involving non-profits:, Defendants Steve
Magner residence Stillwater Minnesota, Defendants Dick Lippert, living in Inver
Grove, technically under RICO Indictments Steinhauser, et al v. Randy Kelly et
al File No 04-2632, Harrilal et al v. Magner et al File 05-461, Gallagher et al
v. Magner et al File No 05-1348 (JNE/SRN), City has dismissed the Sharon
Andersons Answer/CrossComplaints without instruction of how pleadings are
deficient and how to repair pleadings. In re Anastasoff: litigants’
constitutional rights are violated when courts
City attorneys representing City Council
and the Mayor depart from precedent where parties are similarly
situated.
2. A court-city council
(quasi-judicial) may dismiss a assessments for failure to state a claim "only if
it appears to a certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent
with the pleading, exist which would support granting the relief demanded."
N. States Power Co. v.
Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395, 122 N.W.2d 26, 29 (1963),
In re Milk Indirect Purchaser Antitrust
Litigation, 588 N.W.2d 772, 1999.MN.42154, A claim prevails
against illegal “takings” 5th Amend, Illegal Search
and Seizure 4th Amend,it is possible on
any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader's theory, to
grant the relief demanded. The purpose of a motion to dismiss and or the alleged
tax assessments thro the back door of the executive branch of the Mayork, then
to be approved by the Legislative Branch “AFTER THE FACT” is not only TREASON
but Domestic Terrorism Sharon is to test the law’s support for a claim, not the
sufficiency of the underlying facts, Patel v. OMH Medical
Center, Inc., Okla. 987 P.2d 1185 (1999).
The burden to show legal insufficiency of petition is on party moving for
dismissal, and motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim must separately
state each omission or defect in petition; if it does not, motion shall be
denied without hearing, Indiana Nat. Bank v.
State Dept. of Human Services, Okla., 880 P.2d 371
(1994). And demurrers have been abolished – see Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 7(c).
3. Minnesota Rule 8001.9 incorporates the
Federal Internal Revenue Code into the Minnesota Rules by reference. The State
of Minnesota has entered into agreement with the Federal government to establish
their qualified state income tax particularized in 5 USC 5517 and 31 CFR Part
215. Administration of qualified state income taxes is governed by regulations
published in 26 CFR Part 31. The State of Minnesota has abdicated both
administrative and judicial remedies to the Federal Government under 26 CFR
§301.6361-2. Therefore, the Federal Debt Collection Procedure, 28 USC §3001, is
the exclusive remedy for tax related debt. It provides substantive rights
secured by the fourth, fifth, Sixth, and Seventh amendments to the United States
Constitution, restricting administrative and judicial powers and the government
bears the burden of proof for whatever claim is made.
4. The MDR consistently quotes Minnesota
statutes as authority for their behavior. However, courts have consistently
stated that statutes have no force or effect without implementing regulations.
In accordance with Minnesota Rule 8001.9, Minnesota’s regulations are the
Federal regulations for the state income tax. There are no other Minnesota rules
implementing most of Minnesota Statutes, chapters 270, 271, 290 and 290A.
Therefore, the MDR is required to submit to the Federal regulations that provide
substantive rights under the Constitution of the United States and due process
of law.
4(a) In order for there to be (1)
liability for any given tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code,and in this
instance Assessments for What by the St. Paul City Council or (2) a requirement
to collect any given tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code, an implementing
regulation must apply to the fact circumstance of the person liable. The
requirement for implementing regulations is restated in the general rule that
controls 26 U.S.C. § 6011(a): “When required by regulations prescribed by the
Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with
respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to
the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to
make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by
such forms or regulations.”
4(b) California
Bankers Assn. v. Schultz, 39 L.Ed. 2d 812 at
820: “Because it has a bearing on some of the issues raised by the parties, we
think it important to note that the Act’s civil and criminal penalties attach
only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the
Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on
anyone.” In U.S. v. Murphy, 809 F.2d 1427 at 1430
(9th Cir. 1987), following
California Bankers Association rationale, the court said “The reporting act is
not self-executing; it can impose no reporting duties until implementing
regulations have been promulgated.” In U.S. v.
Reinis, 794 F.2d 506 at 508
(9th Cir. 1986) the court
said, “An individual cannot be prosecuted for violating this Act unless he
violates an implementing regulation … The result is that neither the statute nor
the regulations are complete without the other, and only together do they have
any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves
the construction of the other.” U.S. v.
Mersky, 361 U.S. 431, 4 L.Ed. 2d 423, 80 S.Ct. 459 (1960),
agreed with in Leyeth v. Hoey,
supra, U.S. v. $200,00 in U.S.
Currency, 590 F.Supp. 866; U.S. v.
Palzer, 745 F.2d 1350 (1984);
U.S. v. Cook, 745 F.2d 1311 (1984);
U.S. v. Gertner, 65 F.3d 963
(1st Cir. 1995);
Diamond Ring Ranch v. Morton, 531 F.2d 1397, 1401
(1976); U.S. v. Omega Chemical Corp., 156 F.3d 994
(9th Cir. 1998);
U.S. v. Corona, 849 F.2d 562, 565
(11th Cir. 1988);
U.S. v. Esposito, 754 F.2d 521, 523-24
(1985); U.S. v. Goldfarb, 643 F.2d. 422, 429-30
(1981). “For Federal tax purposes, the Federal Regulations govern.
Lyeth v. Hoey, 1938, 305 U.S. 188, 59
S.Ct. 155, 83 L.Ed. 119,” quoted in Dodd v.
U.S., 223 F.Supp. 785 (1963).
5. The Supreme Court of Minnesota has
determined that the Minnesota Legislature has not provided adequately for trial
by jury in the statutes and that trial by jury is always available to review
statutory law and administrative decisions.
5(a)
Abraham v. County of Hennepin, 2002,639 N.W.2d 342.
(“one form of action” procedure is anathema to due process in the course of the
common law), however, “Provision in Minnesota Constitution regarding trial by
jury is intended to continue, unimpaired and inviolate, the right to trial by
jury as it existed in the Territory of Minnesota when constitution was adopted
in 1857.” The prohibition against depriving people of property without proper
adjudication is secured by Article I § 2 of the Minnesota Constitution: “No
member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or
privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the
judgment of his peers…”
CAUSES OF
ACTION
6. On Apr.
24th,2007 The City of St.
Paul trespassed on Property at 697 Surrey without Probable cause, warrant,
tickets, caused irreparable harm injury, intentional infliction of Emotional
Stress on Candidate Sharon Anderson, Defendants Joel Essling and policewoman
Tanya Hunter to Steal Sharons Car, fully licensed and to date 2ndJuly07 fully
insured: Towing company Rapid Towing as on numerous blogs, web sites, Again
16May07 during the Police Memorial at mears Park Essling or Harold Robinson with
pistol packing cop Tanya hunter again trespassed on Sharons and intestate
decedants property at 697 Surrey ,stealing Sharons
Trailer.
The cop corruption involves Aaron Foster,
Murder of Barb Winn, as the city employs an indicted Murder Aaron Foster to
steal Cars, at the St. Paul police Inpound Lot.
Again thro the US Mails
June 5th, stating Fence and
Paint with another inspection by Badge 322 joel Essling on 5July07 Again Because
all these complaints fail to set forth an accusation in separate counts for
separate offenses charged or sought to be charged, contrary to Rule 17.02 of Mn
Rules Crim. In a patterned enterprise are falsely claimed that Sharon Anderson
is a criminal without the required specificity of a criminal accusation, re: US
v. Cruikshank,92 US 542 at 558 (1876)
As to the prohibition of duplicity in a
criminal accusation (ie: charging m9ore than one offense in one accusation
without separate counts for each offense charged US 73F2d795 (10Cir.1934)
The right to a specific
accusation including separate counts for distinct offenses charged has been
incorporated by the 14th Amend. To the US
Constitution re: Cole v. Arkansas 33 US 196 at 201 (1948) and Faretta v.
California 442 US 806 at 818 (1975)
The City of St. Paul apparently has 25
million for Housing Programs,DSI has conducted a program against the elderly,
disabled, vunerable persons, mandating the federal government audit the 1065
vacant buildings manulipated by defendants Magner and
Moermond.
Sharon Anderson has established in the
past 30 years the continuing pattern of taking realestate for pecuniary gain
without quiet titles, marketable propertys without investigation, evidence, or a
competent witness with first-hand knowledge. The claims are demonstrably false,
since Sharon Anderson has submitted affidavits that she has been harmed injured
along with 1065 vacant Minnesota Rule 8001.9 which puts the burden of proof on
the government to prove their claims. MS 289A.37, Subd. 3, which puts the burden
of proof on the victim, is unconstitutional on its face, since it directly
contradicts Article I, Sections 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10 of the Minnesota
Constitution. The constitution places the burden of proof on the government to
establish their claim that Sharon Anderson has with intent violated any
Criminal, or Ordinance Violations for the past 30 years.Furthermore 26 USC 7403
requires the The city of St. Paul as a government entity, to prove their claim
in Court. Common law process also places the burden of proof on the advocate,
particularly when the plaintiff is government.
6(a) Wright v. Commissioner of
Revenue, MN Tax Court, Docket No. 2620 June 4, 1980, "A
person who leaves his home to go into another state for temporary purposes only
is not considered to have lost his residence. But if a person removes to another
state with intention of remaining therefore an indefinite time as a place of
permanent residence, he shall be considered to have lost his residence in this
state."
Sharon Anderson has
never abandoned her legal domicile at 1058 Summit, 2194 Marshall,325 N. Wilder,
448 Desnoyer, 697 Surrey 1/3rd of 309 Pelham Blvd,St.
Paul Minnesota or her Buck Lake Cabin Itasca Co.
42741-321st pl (GunLake ) Aitkin
or Gull Lake in Brainard. http://sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com
6(b) The character of
acts that suppose to bypass judicial process is articulated in
United States v. Lovett (1946), 328 U.S. 303;
66 S. Ct. 1073; 90 L. Ed. 1252: We hold that § 304 falls precisely within the
category of congressional actions which the Constitution barred by providing
that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." In
Cummings v. Missouri, 4
Wall. 277, 323, this Court said, "A
bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a
judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill
of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of
attainder include bills of pains and penalties." … On the same day the
Cummings case was decided, the
Court, in Ex parte Garland,
4 Wall. 333 also held invalid on the same grounds an Act of
Congress which required attorneys practicing before this Court to take a similar
oath. Neither of these cases has ever been overruled. They stand
for the proposition that legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply
either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in
such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial
are bills of attainder prohibited by the Constitution. Adherence to this
principle requires invalidation of § 304. We do adhere to
it.
Those who wrote our
Constitution well knew the danger inherent in special legislative acts which
take away the life, liberty, or property of particular named persons because the
legislature thinks them guilty of conduct, which deserves punishment. They
intended to safeguard the people of this country from punishment without trial
by duly constituted courts. See Duncan v. Kahanamoku,
327 U.S. 304. And even the courts to which this important function
was entrusted were commanded to stay their hands until and unless certain tested
safeguards were observed. An accused in court must be tried by an impartial
jury, has a right to be represented by counsel, he must be clearly informed of
the charge against him, the law which he is charged with violating must have
been passed before he committed the act charged, he must be confronted by the
witnesses against him, he must not be compelled to incriminate himself, he
cannot twice be put in jeopardy for the same offense, and even after conviction
no cruel and unusual punishment can be inflicted upon him. See
Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227,
235-238. When our Constitution and Bill of Rights were
written, our ancestors had ample reason to know that legislative trials and
punishments were too dangerous to liberty to exist in the nation of free men
they envisioned. And so they proscribed bills of attainder. Section 304 is one.
Much as we regret to declare that an Act of Congress violates the Constitution,
we have no alternative here.
6(c) See 26 CFR 601.106
(f)(1), Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1, 6 L.Ed.
253, 10 Wheat 1 and Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina
Ports Authority, 535 U.S. ___,
122 S. Ct. 1864. In Miranda v. United
States, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694
(1966), former Chief Justice Earle Warren penned the following: “As courts have
been presented with the need to enforce constitutional rights, they have found
means of doing so. That was our responsibility when
Escobedo was before us and it is
our responsibility today. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
7(a) In
Brafman v. United States of
America, 348 F.2d 863 (5th Circuit, 1967), the
court ruled in favor of the plaintiff because an assessment officer did not sign
a certificate of assessment. “For a tax to be collected upon any deficiency, an
assessment must be made against the taxpayer within three years after his return
is filed… If the estate is not assessed within the statutory period there can be
no transferee liability. United States v.
Updike, 1930, 281 U.S. 489, 50 S. Ct. 367, 74 L. Ed. 984.
We therefore adhere to our pronouncement in
United States v. Fisher, 5 Cir. 1965, 353 F.2d 396,
398-399, that: In the absence of any better test, we give
effect to the generally recognized rule that Regulations issued by the Secretary
of the Treasury, pursuant to statutory authority, and when necessary to make a
statute effective, although not a statute, may have the force of law.
Fawcus Machine Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 375, 51 S. Ct.
144, 75 L. Ed. 397;
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. South Texas Lumber Co., 333
U.S. 496, 501, 68 S. Ct. 695, 92 L. Ed. 831. The Treasury Regulations
are binding on the Government as well as on the taxpayer: "Tax officials and
taxpayers alike are under the law, not above it." Pacific National Bank
of Seattle v. Commissioner, 9 Cir. 1937, 91 F.2d 103,
105. Even the instructions on the reverse side of the assessment
certificate, Form 23C, specify that the original form "is to be transmitted to
the District Director for signature, after which it will be returned to the
Accounting Branch for permanent filing. * * *" Case after case has quoted
Treasury Regulation § 301.6203-1 and cited it approvingly, and the treatises on
taxation take its literal application for granted. Finally, where state taxation
is involved, compliance with a statutory provision requiring an assessment list
to be signed by the assessors is usually considered essential to the validity of
further proceedings. 84 C.J.S.
Taxation § 473 (1954).”
7(b) The requirement for
IRS, and therefore the MDR, to provide assessment certificates was defined by
the court in Huff v. United States of
America, 10 F.3d 1440 (9th Cir.,1993):” the IRS
failed to respond to the Huffs' request for a copy of an assessment under §
6203. See
26 C.F.R. § 301.6203-1… the record contains no
evidence indicating that the Huffs received copies of their assessments pursuant
to their request under § 6203, we conclude there are genuine issues of material
fact as to whether the IRS has complied with the requirements of § 6203.
See Farr, 990 F.2d at 454;
Geiselman, 961 F.2d at 5-6;
Brewer, 764 F. Supp. at
315-16. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's grant
of summary judgment as to count II.
7(c) Date of assessment
is date when summary record is signed by assessment officer in district
director's office or in service center. Welch Ins. Agency v
Brast (1932, CA4 W Va) 55 F2d 60, 10 AFTR
1041, cert den 285 US 555, 76 L Ed
944, 52 S Ct 457; Davidovitz v United
States (1932) 75 Ct Cl 211, 58 F2d 1063, 11 AFTR
347.
7(d) Assessment is
complete as soon as record is signed by assessment officer.
Filippini v United States (1961, ND Cal) 200 F Supp 286,
62-1 USTC P 9144, 9 AFTR 2d
313, affd (CA9 Cal) 318 F2d 841,
63-2 USTC P 9548, 11 AFTR 2d
1720, cert den 375 US 922, 11 L Ed
2d 165, 84 S Ct 267.
7(e) Assessment of
estate tax deficiency was not timely filed and was invalid where it had not been
signed by the proper official, and the authenticity of the document and
admissibility at trial had no effect on the validity where the requisite
signature was missing. Brafman v United
States (1967, CA5 Fla) 384 F2d 863, 67-2
USTC P 12494, 20 AFTR 2d 6008.
7(f) Radinsky v.
United States of America, 622 F.Supp. 412 (USDC,
Colorado, 1985). 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) confers jurisdiction upon this court and
waives the sovereign immunity of the United States regarding claims for sums
wrongfully collected under the internal revenue laws. In a suit under this
section, a plaintiff "may challenge the constitutionality, legality or fairness
of any tax statute or amount assessed or collected."
White v. C.I.R., 537 F.Supp 679 (D.Colo.
1982). In the two briefs filed in this action, the IRS has
not explained where it finds statutory authority to employ its tax collection
procedures to collect from the plaintiffs a sum of money that has never been
assessed as a tax. Since the IRS had no authority to adjust the plaintiffs'
account or employ deficiency procedures in these circumstances, it is
self-evident that the collection of the sum in this manner was
wrongful.
under 26 CFR 301.6361-2 (d)(3) the MDR
does not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine an increase in income
tax: “all administrative determinations shall be made by the Federal Government
without review by the State.” Therefore the ST. Paul City Council judgments are
void for both violation of Constitutional rights and lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under MRCP 60.02 (d) and can therefore be vacated at any time and
cannot be time barred. Including over 1065 vacant building in the city of St.
Paul et al.
8(a)
Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, MSC, 612 N.W.2d 862, C1-98-2200, 2000. “The
traditional rule is that there is no time limit for challenging a final judgment
that is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 12
James W. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice
§á60.44 (3d ed. 1997). The principle underlying this rule is that
a judgment's validity is of utmost importance. Minnesota courts have adhered to
this traditional rule. In Lange v.
Johnson and its progeny, we held that judgments are void if
a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that there is no time limit for
bringing a motion to vacate such a judgment. 295 Minn. 320, 323-24, 204 N.W.2d
205, 208 (1973); see also Peterson v.
Eishen, 512 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Minn.
1994)”.
8(b) Mesenbourg v.
Jerome, 1995.MN.20775, 538 N.W.2d 489, Although the
language of the statute and the rule indicate that motions to vacate void
judgments must be made within a reasonable time, the supreme court has held that
there is no time limit for commencing proceedings to set aside a judgment void
for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties. Id. A void
judgment is legally ineffective; it may be vacated by the court which rendered
it at any time, and a void judgment cannot become valid through the passage
of time. Id
8(c) Peterson v.
Eishen, 1994.MN.21542, 512 N.W.2d 338, A judgment rendered
without due service of process upon the defendant is void and may be vacated at
any time. Although the language of the rule and the statute indicate that
motions to vacate void judgments must be made within a reasonable time, we have
previously held that there is no time limit for commencing proceedings to set
aside a judgment void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over
the parties. Lange v. Johnson, 295 Minn. 320, 204 N.W.2d 205 (1973) (applying
Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02); Beede v. Nides Finance Corp., 209 Minn. 354, 296 N.W.
413 (1941). A void judgment is legally ineffective; it may be vacated by the
court which rendered it at any time. United States v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 909
F.2d 657, 661 (1st Cir. 1990); Misco Leasing, Inc. v. Vaughn, 450 F.2d 257 (10th
Cir. 1971) (holding defendant's failure to move to vacate default judgment
within reasonable time after its entry did not preclude motion to vacate the
judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction). A void judgment cannot gain
validity by the passage of time. In re Center Wholesale Inc., 759 F.2d 1440 (9th
Cir. 1985); Austin v. Smith, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 97, 312 F.2d 337, 343 (D.C. Cir.
1962).
given notice by regular mail is a
rebuttable assumption, and is therefore not on the record. violation of
Minnesota Rule 8001.03. St. Paul Executive Branch complicity with St. Paul
Legislative branch mandates FBI or Justice Intervention for false tax
assessments to acquire Property rights of the citizenry denied constitutional
right of notice and the opportunity to be heard. They also violated Sharon
Andersons rights under Minnesota Constitution, Article I, Sections 6 and 7 to be
confronted by competent witnesses with first-hand knowledge and evidence that
she owe’s any money. Administrative decisions must be based on testimony and
evidence in the hard-copy case file, per 5 U.S.C. §§ 556 &
557.
However, according to the Minnesota
Supreme Court, the Tax Court has no jurisdiction in matters of fact or law if it
is not a) granted by the appealing individual, or b) granted by the District
Court. Also, a void administrative judgment cannot be time
barred.
10(a) “In analyzing the
framework created by the tax statutes in question, it is crucial to note that
the taxpayer always has the option to file in district court. See,
Minn.St. 278.01; Note, 4 Wm. Mitchell
L.Rev. 371, 406.
10(b) Wulff v. Tax Court of
Appeals, 288 N.W.2d 221 (Minn. 1979). “This is perhaps the
saving feature of this statutory scheme. Because a tax suit may be initiated in
district court, and because transfer of that suit to the tax court is
discretionary with the district court, the exercise of jurisdiction of the tax
court on transfer does not violate Minn. Const. art. 6, § 3, which provides that
the district court has original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal
cases”.
12(a) The Notice of Levy does not apply
to income tax. It is a search and seizure instrument used in criminal violation
of internal revenue laws exclusively related to regulated industries and
authorized by 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321, 6331 and implementing regulations 27 CFR Part
70 under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms. Sharon Anderson has not been accused of any criminal activity or
violating any Internal Revenue Laws. Therefore, the St. Paul City Officials
fraudulently seized Sharon Andersons assets, under the color of law, by
pretending that she violated laws related to unknown at this time..
12(b) The Federal Government must sue to
secure a judgment prior to executing a levy if an alleged tax liability is
contested, initiated in compliance with 26 U.S.C. § 7401. Then procedure must
comply with requirements of the Federal Debt Collection Act at 28 U.S.C. § 3201
as the exclusive remedy for collection of tax-related debt. The Notice of Levy
must conform to requirements specified by 28 U.S.C. § 3201(a) that a notice of
levy, filed subsequent to judgment, must include an abstract of the judgment. A
notice of levy is evidence of a levy only when it identifies the underlying
judgment. The City of St. Paul has consistently violated Sharon Andersons
constitutional rights by denying her due process of law.
12(c) Fuentes v.
Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 82 (1972): The requirement of notice
and an opportunity to be heard raises no impenetrable barrier to the taking of a
person's possessions. But the fair process of decision-making that it guarantees
works, by itself, to protect against arbitrary deprivation of property. For when
a person has an opportunity to speak up in his own defense, and when the State
must listen to what he has to say, substantively unfair and simply mistaken
deprivations of property interests can be prevented. It has long been recognized
that "fairness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of
facts decisive of rights . . .. And no better instrument has been devised for
arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of
the case against him and opportunity to meet it." Joint Anti-Fascist
Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 170-172
(Frankfurter, J., concurring).
For more than a century
the central meaning of procedural due process has been clear: "Parties whose
rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may
enjoy that right they must first be notified." Baldwin v.
Hale, 1 Wall. 223, 233. See Windsor v.
McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274; Hovey v.
Elliott, 167 U.S. 409; Grannis v.
Ordean, 234 U.S. 385. It is equally fundamental that the
right to notice and an opportunity to be heard "must be granted at a meaningful
time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v.
Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552.
Sharon Anderson has
never been served with The Order for Writ of Entry and seizure was an
in rem, admiralty action; there
is nothing comparable in common law procedure. Minnesota Statute 270.70 and 26
U.S.C. § 7302, relate only to property used in violation of internal revenue
laws, so it is necessarily predicated on the presumption that the seized
property was being used in violation of or was the fruit of criminal activity.
The implementing regulation is 26 CFR Part 403, which applies only to
drug-related commercial crimes listed in the regulation. Article III § 2 of the
U.S. Constitution secures exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the
United States and that the Minnesota Constitution authorizes law and equity
only. Therefore, the April 24th, 2007 and May
16th,2007 property seizure’s
and Minnesota Statute § 270.70 are patently unconstitutional. Sharon Anderson
has not been accused of violating an State, County, City or Federal Internal
Revenue laws. Therefore the seizure of Sharon Andersons property without
probable cause of criminal activity is pure criminal behavior characteristic of
a totalitarian government.
17(b) Per
The Sarah, (1823) 21 U.S. 391, it
is simply necessary to declare that the seizure was on land to abort an
admiralty seizure. Cans of Egg Product v.
U.S., 226 U.S. 172, 1912.SCT.40400, 57 L. Ed. 174, 33 S. Ct.,
“Although this statute prescribes that the proceedings shall conform "as near as
may be to the proceedings in admiralty," the proceeding being a seizure on land
is, in its nature, a common-law proceeding”. Hendry v.
Moore, (1943) 318 U.S. 133, 63 S. Ct. 499, 87 L. Ed. 663:
“, since a judgment in rem to enforce a lien is not a remedy which the common
law is competent to give, a ruling which has since been consistently followed.”
Morris' Cotton v. U.S., 8 Wall. 507, “Property
on land was seized under the acts of 1861 and 1862, passed for suppression of
the rebellion, according to which the claimants were entitled to a trial by
jury.”
17(c) State of New Jersey v. One 1990 Honda
Accord, (New Jersey Supreme Court, 1998) 154 N.J. 373, 712
A.2d 1148, The Appellate Division reversed, holding that McDermott was entitled
to a jury trial in a forfeiture action and that the statutory proceeding for
summary Disposition was unconstitutional. 302 N.J. Super. at 227. In reaching
that result, the court relied on an historical analysis of the right to trial by
jury in England and the American colonies. Id. at
230-34.
In New Jersey, forfeiture never existed
at common law and remains a disfavored remedy. State v. Seven Thousand Dollars,
136 N.J. 223, 238 (1994); State v. 1979 Pontiac Trans Am, 98 N.J. 474, 480-81
(1985); Farley v. $168,400.97, 55 N.J. 31, 36-37 (1969); State v. One Ford Van,
154 N.J. Super. 326, 331 (App. Div. 1977), certif. den., 77 N.J. 474 (1978). Its
existence depends on the enactment of a statute. The State argues that because
forfeiture is a creature of statute, McDermott has no common-law right to a jury
trial.
Although forfeiture depends on a statute
for its existence, it remains subject to common-law principles. When analyzing
the right to trial by jury, the term "common law" refers to those principles of
English law that evolved in the common-law courts such as the Court of the
Exchequer, as opposed to those applied in the Admiralty, Chancery, or
Ecclesiastical Courts. People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe, 231 P.2d 832, 836
(Cal. 1951); In re Forfeiture of 1978 Chevrolet Van, 493 So.2d 433, 435 (Fla.
1986); Commonwealth v. One 1984 Z-28 Camaro Coupe, 610 A.2d 36, 39 (Pa. 1992);
The City of St. Paul has
violated Sharon Andersons constitutional rights by advertising /publishing on
the www.ci.stpaul.mn.us false information,
again with the publication of the Agenda’s, mail fraud sent by Joel Essling
numerous times without obtaining ownership rights to the property in violation
of 28 CFR §403.26(b). The City of St. Paul is prohibited from selling/ excessive
consumption/taxs on all Sharons Propertys and all citizens 1,065 vacant
property’s until they obtain ownership rights in a court of competent
jurisdiction. 200 years of jurisprudence has firmly established that
administrative claims cannot take ownership to property until obtaining a
judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction. Even drug dealers are guaranteed
a trial after their property is seized before it can be sold.
The City of St. Paul is committed extortion under the color of
law, by causing Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella to pay about $9xx.00 before July
18, 2007, to prevent the interest and illegal tax fees
18(a) United States
v. A Parcel of Land, Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements, known as 92
Buena Vista Avenue, Rumson, New Jersey (1993), 507 U.S. 111;
113 S.Ct. 1126; 122 L.Ed. 2d 469.Writing for four of the justices joining the
plurality decision, Justice Stevens traced the relation-back doctrine to an 1806
decision written by former Chief Justice John Marshall: "It has been proved,
that in all forfeitures accruing at common law, nothing vests in the government
until some legal step shall be taken for the assertion of its right, after
which, for many purposes, the doctrine of relation carries back the title to the
commission of the offence." United States v.
Grundy, 7 U.S. 337, 3 Cranch 337, 350-351, 2 L. Ed. 459
(1806). n20
18(b) United States
v. Real Property at 2659 Roundhill Drive, Alamo,
California, 283 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2002) we reversed, holding
that the government had no legal interest in the property. We applied
United States v. 92 Buena Vista
Ave., 507 U.S. 111 (1993), which held that the relation-back rule of
21 U.S.C. § 881(h) cannot be invoked until a final judgment of forfeiture has
been entered; the United States had never obtained a final judgment. Therefore,
according to Buena Vista, the government's interest in the Roundhill property
could not have related back to 1974 (when the Paytons engaged in drug
trafficking
19(a) 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). An individual may invoke the
protection of the Fourth Amendment by showing "that he personally has an
expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is
reasonable; i.e., one that has 'a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either
by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings
that are recognized and permitted by society.'" Carter, 525 U.S. at 88 (quoting
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 n.12 (1978)). Thus, the determination of
whether B.R.K. can invoke the protections of the Fourth Amendment involves a
two-step analysis. First, we must determine whether B.R.K. exhibited an actual
subjective expectation of privacy in the home and, second, whether that
expectation is reasonable. See Katz, 389 U.S. at 361 (Harlan, J.,
concurring).
19(b) The Minnesota
Supreme Court recognized the tort of invasion of privacy in
Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231, 235
(Minn. 1998): “The right to privacy exists in the common law of Minnesota,
including causes of action in tort for intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation,
and publication of private facts.”
19(c) 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.
Entry constitutes a search whenever there
is an intrusion upon an area where a person has a reasonable expectation of
privacy, State v. Hardy, 577 N.W.2d 212, 215 (Minn. 1998). Warrantless searches
where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy are per se
unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically
established and well-delineated exceptions." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S.
347, 357 (1967); see also Matter of Welfare of D.A.G., 484 N.W.2d 787, 789
(Minn. 1992) (extending the per se concept to the Minnesota Constitution);
O'Connor v. Johnson, 287 N.W.2d 400, 405 (Minn. 1979) (discussing the greater
protections available under the Minnesota Constitution). But an expectation of
privacy does not have the constitutional right to be free from impermissible
search as its roots. As the Supreme Court noted in Minnesota v. Carter, an
expectation of privacy has 'a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by
reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that
are recognized and permitted by society.'" 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998) (quoting Rakas
v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 n.12 (1978)).
The Supreme Court has recognized that an
expectation of privacy is reasonable in one's home and curtilage, Payton v. New
York, 445 U.S. 573, 589-90 (1980), in one's automobile, Delaware v. Prouse, 440
U.S. 648, 662-63 (1978), and in a closed telephone booth, Katz, 389 U.S. at 352.
We have similarly acknowledged a constitutionally protected expectation of
privacy in one's home and curtilage, State v. Perkins, 582 N.W.2d 876, 878
(Minn. 1998), Garza v. State, 632 N.W.2d 633, 639 (Minn. 2001), in one's
automobile, State v. Goodrich, 256 N.W.2d 506, 510 (Minn. 1977), and in a public
restroom, State v. Bryant, 287 Minn. 205, 211-12, 177 N.W.2d 800, 804
(1970).
NOTICE OF
MISPRISION
20. All Judges in the
State of Minnesota has shown prejudice to Sharon Scarrella Anderson In re:
Scarrella for Associate Justice 221Nw2nd562 denied employment of Judge without a
Law License ie: Therefore Madam Marcia Moermond who has an eating disorder
weights over 350 lbs, her “hearings” are null and void, mandating Just
compensation to over 1065 vancant bldgs. Owners and constitutional rights by
denying her access to court. All Minnesota Judges have shown contempt against
the courts of justice by making light of the violations of law by the City and
County Attorneys representing City and County Employees, as well as the
unconstitutional infringement of the Madam Moermond’s illegal
jurisdiction/authority on the judicial functions of this district court. ,
Minnesota Constitution Art III Separation of Powers Doctrine. City of St. Paul
has not provided transcripts of DSI hearing in a timely manner, and falsely
claimed that MGRP, Rule 4 denies the opportunity to have your own court
reporter. City and County Attorneys acting in concort with State Attorney
General have denied the citizenry right to what the Minnesota Supreme Court
described as an “opportunity to elect a judicial determination” in matters
relating to the Tax Court, which is precisely what the Supreme Court declared
was “the saving feature of this statutory scheme”.
Wulff v. Tax Court of Appeals, 288 N.W.2d 221 (Minn.
1979). Finally, Madam Marcia Moermond must be disqualified for incompetence for
not understanding that demurrer has been abolished by Federal RCP Rule 7(c), and
that unsupported contentions of material fact without affidavits and other
testimony are insufficient for dismissal of claims.
REMEDY SOUGHT
21. Determination by the St. Paul Mayor
and City Council, and that Sharon Anderson does not owe the amount claimed by
the DSI Badge 322 Joel Essling
Approximately
$900.00
22. Return to Sharon Scarrella Anderso
Car 91 Chev replacement value $30 thous, Trailer $10 thous, Contents over $10
thousand, plus Damage to Driveway, Fence, over 20 thous, Punatitive,
Compensatory,Tort Damages $500,000.00 for each and every
occurance.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Prepared and
Submitted by:
AFFIDAVITS
3. I
did not authorize MDR or the City of St. Paul personnel to execute substitute or
levy fees, assessments, banking online and or Minnesota property or individual
income tax returns for me.
evidence
in record that alleged delinquent Minnesota property taxes have been assessed
against me, and therefore I have no evidence that I have a delinquent property
tax liability for qualified Minnesota resident or nonresident property
taxes.
13.
I have not signed a consent agreement authorizing the City of St. Paul direct
withdrawal of sums decedant intestate http://cpljimanderson.blogspot.com and I have on deposit
in banks located in Minnesota.
14.
I am not a government disbursement officer or withholding agent required to
withhold income and employment taxes from wages at the source, deposit such
taxes into trust accounts, report amounts withheld and pay said amounts to the
Treasury of the United States or the Minnesota Department of
Revenue.
16.
On April and May 2007 Theft/Trespass Criminal Charges were sent to St. Paul
police John Harrington control no. Cn07089912 Kathy.wuorinen@ci.stpaul.mn.us
Minnesota Malpracticde Government of Lawyers, by Lawyers and for Lawyers must seize and desist.
Forensic Files 
Please Select a County
