Anderson, Sharon Initialsubmission

METRO GANG STRIKE FORCE or MINNESOTA GANG STRIKE FORCE
("STRIKE FORCE")
CLASS SETTLEMENT CLAIM FORM
(TO BE FILLED OUT BY CLAIMANT OR THEIR COUNSEL)

Name: SHARON LEA ANDERSON
First Middle Last

Address: LEGAL: 1058 Summit/PO Box 4384 re: 697 Surrey Ave. St. Paul, MN 55104-0384
55106.
Street City State
Zip County

Telephone Number: 651-776-5835 Fax out only
Email: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
Birth date: Jan.27,1939 Social Security Number: 475-36-5396 Decedant
James R. 476-26-9032 Murdered 21Sept2000 File with Sheriff Bob Fletcher

If claimant is less than 18 years old:
Parent or Guardians Name

First Last

Address (if different than
above)
Street City
State
Zip

Place of Contact with Strike Force: St.Paul MN by E-Mail Forensic Files re: Google RICO Acts
by City St.Paul, former Clerk Don Luna current Internal Affairs, acting in concort with John
and Kathy Wourin, re: Police Chief John Harrington, Bob Fletcher, at all times Material DSI
Employees Joel Essling, Stealing Cars,Trailer re: Tanya Hunter a Packing Cop without "due
process" current Files 62cv09-1163 (Vandenorth) Appeal A09-2031 proof Taxes paid. current
62cv10-112(Lindman) pending.
Wed. 22Dec2010
To Jason.Johnston@zimmreed.com heidi.cuppy@zimmreed.com
at www.mgsfsettlement.com

1-800-755-0098 tel: 612-341-0400 Fax: 612-341-0844

Page 1 of 6
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHDA7twqjW4 re : Sharon Anderson's Claim of Cop
Corruption: Jason Johnston also notifying Chris Barden www.barden4ag.com and Don
Mashak and Greg Wersal who are honorable and may also assist Claiments?
Money is not the Issue "but for" Cop Corruption is,
In Good Faith as you suggested Affiant will download 2pg form and hand write and fax in.

January 11, 2010 by sharon4anderson
Date: Sunday, January 10, 2010, 2:05 PM
OPEN LETTER TO CHIEF JUDGE EDWARD TOUSSAINT
RE: CANONS CONSTRUCTION
MS 645.Canons of Construction Clarify Abandoned A09-2031

Sun.10Jan10
Judge Profile To: Chief Judge Eward Toussaint

age 69 Minnesota Judicial Center
Phone: (651) 297-7650 edward.toussaint@courts.state.mn.us

Sa Open Ltr Touss10 Jan10
ISSUES:
Pursuant to Ramsey 62cv09-1163 Sharon4andersons Weblog Dist.Crt. File 62cv09-1163(Vandenorth)
Appeal A09-2031 www.sharon4anderson.wordpress.com

Affiant takes Issue with your Orders Please clarify abandoned

Sharon v. Judge Edward Toussaint A09-2031

Street
City

Date(s) of Contact: Theft of Water Car, Trailer etc Apr.May 2006 up to and including today
22Dec2010.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=Sharon4Anderson+v.+City+St.Paul+&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=c341562a61b59af3
Page 2 of 6
Identity of Strike Force Officers (if
known):
Were you arrested or charged with any crime resulting from the above contact? Yes No X so Candidate for
MN AG www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com www.sharon4anderson.org POA on file.
If so, what charges were brought? Did a conviction result? Yes No
Did you suffer any personal injuries requiring medical care as a result of the above listed contact with Strike Force
Officers?
Yes PTSD Fractured Ankle Commerce "takings" DL by unlicensed Cop Cy Abrahamson
reported to Neil Melton unabated by State AG since Warren Spannaus. No If yes, what were your
injuries?

Please attach any supporting documentation of your injuries and medical care, including Doctor records, medical bills, etc.
Did the Strike Force Officers take any property from your person, you vehicle, at your dwelling or from any other
location? If yes, please identify the location(s) and list all the property taken and its value:
Sharon will firm up this complant in the next couple days, Files
are extensive Death,Disabilitys,Disparagment of Titles on Cars,Trailers,94Peterbilt in Aitkin,
Propertys in Itasca,Aitkin and
St.Paul,MN.

Please attach additional pages if necessary. Please also attach photos of the property and/or receipts of purchase, if available.
If your property was taken by Strike Force Officers, did you receive any formal Notice of Forfeiture of rights? Yes
No X
Was it in your native language? Yes No Please attach a copy of the Notice of Forfeiture.
Have you made any previous formal complaint against Strike Force Officers or filed a claim through the Hotline
administered by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) prior to completing this Class Settlement Claim
Form? Yes No X By information and Belief the Association with www.alicekrengel.blogspot.com
Affiant verily believes Heinous Reprisals
If yes, when? Complaints on file with former City Attorney John Choi nor Ramsey Co.
Attorney and with US Justice etc. And how?

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,17291,24472,27147,27615&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=Sharon+Anderson+v.+Joel+Essling+DSI&cp=35&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&a
z Code-Corruption: DSI-Joel Essling -Marcia Moermond-St.Paul City ...
Page 3 of 6
Feb 17, 2008 ... VA Widow Political Activist Sharon Anderson aka Peterson-Scarrella ... arrest/grand jury indictments
against DSI, employees Joel Essling, ...
code-corruption.blogspot.com/.../joel-esslings-false-publications-rico.html - Cached
z Answer/Cross/1/2MillionClaim v.CitySt.Paul
Jun 12, 2007 ... St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman,DSI and Bob Kessler,Joel Essling and 168 ..... Sharon Anderson has not
been accused of any criminal activity or ...
www.scribd.com/.../AnswerCross12MillionClaim-vCityStPaul - Cached - Similar

I understand that by signing this form, I am expressly confirming my agreement to the terms of the settlement. I declare
under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.

___/s/ Sharon Anderson aka
Peterson_Scarrella _______________________________________________
Sign on Line
Above Date

__________________________________________________
Print Name on Line
Above

About 375 results (0.33 seconds)

Search Results
2.
MaryJaneDuchene v. WSt.Paul KoriLane RemFC Sharon4anderson's Weblog
Jan 13, 2010 ... City of West St. Paul, Plaintiff, Notice of and Removal of Dakota County District Court Criminal Case on Grounds. VS. of Judicial
Prejudice ...

sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/.../maryjaneduchene-v-wst-paul-korilane-remfc/ - Cached

3.
Crimes Against Humanity
Nov 26, 2010 ... Sharon4Anderson v. City St.Paul taking 91 Chrysler Google Search ... triggering Constitutional Challenge of Jurisdiction/Authority
of ...

crimes-against-humanity.blogspot.com/ - Cached

4.
Sharon4Anderson (Sharon4Anderson) on Twitter
Sharon4Anderson 2010Contest MNAG Separation Powers Scarrella4Justice221NW2d562 ... via @AddThis There are some great V about 11 hours
ago via Tweet Button ... City of St. Paul clears Highwood Hills property again - TwinCities.com ...

twitter.com/sharon4anderson - Cached

5. [PDF]
Page 1 of 2 Friday, June 30, 2006 America Online: Sharon4Anderson ...

1.
MN Judge Edward Toussaint A09-2031 Sharon4anderson's Weblog

Jan 11, 2010 ... City St. Paul A06-2118,Money LaunderinNo direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C.
STEWARD MACH. CO. v ...

sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/.../mn-judge-edward-toussaint-a09-2031/ - Cached - Similar

Page 4 of 6

In a message dated 12/21/2010 3:53:40 P.M. Central Standard Time, Heidi.Cuppy@zimmreed.com writes:
To Ms. Anderson,
I received your voicemail yesterday requesting a CuppyLclaim form regarding Metro Gang Strike
Force. If you have any problems opening the attachment let me know. The claim form must be
completed and submitted by December 30, 2010.
Thank you, Happy Holidays!
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Next
EGA,bL
NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
ECF_P165913Pacersa1299
telfx: 651-776-
5835:
Attorney
ProSe_InFact,Private
Attorney
General
QuiTam
Whistleblower,
Candidate
AG2010
www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com
Blogger:
www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

ECF P165913 Pacer sa1299. Petitioner. V. United States of America, All Agencies. State of Minnesota, All Agencies,City of St. Paul,Chris Coleman
Mayor ...

forums.e-democracy.org/.../stpaul-issues/.../WritProA06-1150_30Jun06.pdf

6.
R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) was a United States Supreme Court case involving hate speech and the free speech clause of the
First ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul - Cached - Similar

7.
Abolish Property Taxes: 2010 PropertyTaxes ...
Mar 30, 2010 ... http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/62cv09-1163-vandenorth- .... Sharon4Council: DLJ Management v. City St. Paul A06-
2118,Money ...

taxthemax.blogspot.com/.../2010-propertytaxes-sharonanderson697sur.html - Cached

8.
Sharons Letter Motion 62cv09-1163
City St. Paul A06-2118,Money LaunderinNo direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH.
CO. v. ...

www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sharons-letter-motion-62cv091163 - Cached

9.
Are Prosecutors Trying to Conceal the Size of - Minnesota Majority ...
Jul 16, 2010 ... City of St. Paul, MN - Official Website ... You are here: Home > Staff Directory. ... Homestead Act of 1862 Twitter /
Sharon4Anderson Shar1058's Buzz ... Sharon4Council: DLJ Management v. City St. Paul A06-2118,Money ...

www.minnesotamajority.org/Home/tabid/112/.../304/Default.aspx - Cached

10.
SharonsBudgetChallenge1Dec09_8
Dec 1, 2009 ... City of St. Paul, MN - Official Website - Council Sharon4Anderson v. Co. Ramsey Risk Management MN - Google Search 23. ...

www.scribd.com Business & Law Finance - Cached

z Everything

z Images

z Videos

z News

z Shopping

z Books

z Places

z Blogs

z Realtime

z Discussions

MoreFewer

z Saint Paul, MN

Auto-detected

Change locationClose

Search Options

Hide search tools
Show search tools

Enter location
Set
Page 5 of 6
Heidi
Clerk
heid.cuppy@zimmreed.com

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law and is
intended ONLY for particular clients, parties, or entities involved in litigation or dealings with the Zimmerman Reed, PLLP law firm. If you
are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, discard any paper copies and
delete all electronic files of the message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of the e-mail or its attachment(s) is
prohibited by law.

www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson Homestead Act of 1862 neopopulism.org - Pro Se Dec Action Litigation Pack
Sharon4Anderson | Scribd Document's are based on SEC filings, Blogger: Dashboard Home |
www.slideshare.com/sharonanderson www.taxthemax.blogspot.com www.sharon4anderson.org
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are makinknowledge gained as financial journalists , securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees,
and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting on that
recommendations, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these or other Public Office documents
expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in g such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
whistleblower protection issues, MY FindLaw SharonsWritProA06_1150_30Jun06_26
The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers
Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption
3Apr0http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPlawsuit/courtfilings/Docket.htm Sharon4Council: DLJ Management v. City St. Paul A06-
2118,Money LaunderinNo direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH.
CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937) g andFCC Complaints - http://sharons-copywrite.blogspot.com
Page 6 of 6
Cop-Corruption

Video Bur
ShuronqAnderson {ShuronqAnderson) on
Twitter
Share Report Abuse Next Blog Create Blog Sign In
Page 1 of 8 Cop- Corruption-Minnesota: Criminal Charges Joel Essling-Tanya Hunter 18USCs...
12/22/2010 http://cop-corruption-minnesota.blogspot.com/2007/06/criminal-charges-joel-essling...

Monduy, June q, oo,
Criminul Churges Joel Issling-Tunyu
Hunter 1SLSCs1q61RICO
POST BOARD ON LEGAL NOTICE: neil.melton@state.mn.us
)URP Sharon+Anderson@aol.com [mailto:Sharon+Anderson@aol.com|
6HQW Sunday, June 03, 2007 8:18 PN
7R askdoj@usdoj.gov; james.lackner@usdoj.gov; rachel.paulose@usdoj.gov;
Tim.Pawlenty@state.mn.us; Attorney.General@state.mn.us; rca@co.ramsey.mn.us;
bbakst@ap.org; pcondon@ap.org; mlohn@ap.org; tim.budig@ecm-inc.com;
ddavis@forumcomm.com; jcroman@kare11.com; ahart@kare11.com;
klksnews@yahoo.com; ochsnews@yahoo.com; thauser@kstp.com;
mfischenich@mankatofreepress.com; baverill@mndaily.com; ntibbetts@mndaily.com;
lmccallum@mpr.org; tscheck@mpr.org; swente@republican-eagle.com;
jayjohnson@postbulletin.com; lschumacher@stcloudtimes.com; charley.shaw@legal-
ledger.com; jragsdale@pioneerpress.com; rrosario@pioneerpress.com;
bsalisbury@pioneerpress.com; rstassen-berger@pioneerpress.com;
jsullivan@pioneerpress.com; dbrewster@startribune.com;
mbrunswick@startribune.com; cdefiebre@startribune.com; pdoyle@startribune.com;
ndraper@startribune.com; hopfen@startribune.com; plopez@startribune.com;
lsturdevant@startribune.com; bbowring@tpt.org; mlahammer@tpt.org;
EEskola@aol.com; eeskola@cbs.com; pjkessler@wcco.cbs.com;
trudy.moloney@ci.stpaul.mn.us; margaret.egan@ci.stpaul.mn.us;
marcia.moermond@ci.stpaul.mn.us; elizabeth.davis@ci.stpaul.mn.us;
kenneth.smith@ci.stpaul.mn.us; thomas.davenport@ci.stpaul.mn.us;
randy@neighborsforrandy.org; bernie@electbernie.org; samantha@russforward+.org;
webmaster@thune2007.com; info@melvincarter.org;
contact@davidhaasforcitycouncil.org; helgen0000S@hotmail.com;
stpaulward6@gmail.com; info@pakouhang.com; Bill+Dahn@aol.com;

velma.Korbel@state.mn.us; Admin.!nfo@state.mn.us; Glenn.Wilson@state.mn.us;
Alice.Seagren@state.mn.us; Cal.Ludeman@state.mn.us;
Deed.Customerservice@state.mn.us; Dianne.Nandernach@state.mn.us;
Dianne.Nandernach@state.mn.us; Dli.Commissioner@state.mn.us;
Nichael.Campion@state.mn.us; Dan.Salomone@state.mn.us;
carol.molnau@state.mn.us; michael.pugliese@state.mn.us; Tim.Narx@state.mn.us;
mhfa@state.mn.us; chris.coleman@ci.stpaul.mn.us; citizen.service@ci.stpaul.mn.us;
CityofSaintPaul@govdelivery.com; jerry.ludden@ci.stpaul.mn.us;
mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us; erin.dady@ci.stpaul.mn.us; ann.mulholland@ci.stpaul.mn.us;
Nancy.Homans@ci.stpaul.mn.us; Kris.Fredson@ci.stpaul.mn.us;
Bob.Hume@ci.stpaul.mn.us; Chris.Rider@ci.stpaul.mn.us;
Anne.Hunt@ci.stpaul.mn.us; Nick.Shuminsky@ci.stpaul.mn.us;
Joe.Spencer@ci.stpaul.mn.us; va-Negn.Thoj@ci.stpaul.mn.us;
Nelvin.Carter@ci.stpaul.mn.us; vallay.varro@ci.stpaul.mn.us;
Carol.Washington@ci.stpaul.mn.us; Darlyne.Norrow@ci.stpaul.mn.us;
Jean.Karpe@ci.stpaul.mn.us; Nilyon.Tekle@ci.stpaul.mn.us;
Sean.Johnson@ci.stpaul.mn.us; john.harrington@ci.stpaul.mn.us;
matt.bostrom@ci.stpaul.mn.us; bob.fletcher@co.ramsey.mn.us;
Neil.Nelton@state.mn.us; Nary.Bjornberg@state.mn.us;
Sheryl.Waddick@state.mn.us; Paul.Nonteen@state.mn.us;
Peggy.Strand@state.mn.us; Dan.Glass@state.mn.us; Terry.Sandbeck@state.mn.us;
Carol.J.Hall@state.mn.us; Dee.Dodge@state.mn.us; Starr.Suggs@state.mn.us;
Debra.Soderbeck@state.mn.us; Nitch.Lee@state.mn.us;
bill.martinez@ci.stpaul.mn.us; mark.letexier@co.polk.mn.us;
kwilkening@co.nobles.mn.us; junstad@yahoo.com; timbildsoe@visi.com;
Brent.Richter@state.mn.us; johnp@alx.tec.mn.us; mike.ardolf@state.mn.us;
tracey.a.martin@co.hennepin.mn.us; harr@csp.edu; mdohman@ci.maple-
grove.mn.us; mylan.masson@minneapolis.edu; michael.young@ci.minneapolis.mn.us;
john.bolduc@co.crow-wing.mn.us; diverson@pioneerpress.com;
aharrington@pioneerpress.com; dbeal@pioneerpress.com;
jbjorhus@pioneerpress.com; dfondler@pioneerpress.com; jforster@pioneerpress.com;
mhopp@pioneerpress.com; khubbard@pioneerpress.com;
rhubbard@pioneerpress.com; sjean@pioneerpress.com;
jkrocheski@pioneerpress.com; lsuzukamo@pioneerpress.com;
twebb@pioneerpress.com; janice.rettman@co.ramsey.mn.us;
chiefclerk@co.ramsey.mn.us; jim.mcdonough@co.ramsey.mn.us;
david.twa@co.ramsey.mn.us; victoria.reinhardt@co.ramsey.mn.us;
toni.carter@co.ramsey.mn.us; tony.bennett@co.ramsey.mn.us;
bonnie.jackelen@co.ramsey.mn.us; jan.parker@co.ramsey.mn.us;
rafael.e.ortega@co.ramsey.mn.us; rob.fulton@co.ramsey.mn.us;
john.choi@ci.stpaul.mn.us; john.lesch@ci.stpaul.mn.us; lisa.veith@ci.stpaul.mn.us;
john.kelly@ci.stpaul.mn.us; jerry.hendrickson@ci.stpaul.mn.us
&F Sharon+Anderson@aol.com
6XEMHFW Fwd: Aff6Apr07inditColemanCharge Joel Essling False !nfo to Tanya Hunter
Cop

697 Surrey and see what you get: I've already printed it out Esslings lies must seize and desist:
He must never trespass on our property unless a Valid Complaint with list of witness, Long
Form, and or Ticket of what Statute or ordinance is violated to Answer and cross Apology if in
duplicate This matter is serious that the Police refuse to criminally charge these RICO
Building Inspectors.

Property Details
1. Property Details To Enter 2. Search for An Address
House Number:

orensIc EvIdence oI MS6oq.8q1z EncryLIon

X-MImeOE: Produced By MIcrosoIL Exchunge V6.
ReLurn-PuLh:
MME-VersIon: 1.o
ConLenL-Tye: muILIurLJmIxed;
boundury="----_=_NexLPurL_oo_o1C;A6.qq8BB8o"
X-MuIIer: AO q.o VR sub 1oo
uII-nume: ShuronqAnderson
ConLenL-cIuss: urn:conLenL-cIusses:messuge
SubjecL: AII6Aro;IndILCoIemunChurge JoeI EssIIng uIse nIo Lo Tunyu HunLer Co
DuLe: Sun, Jun zoo; 1q:z8: -ooo
Messuge-D:
X-MS-Hus-ALLuch: yes
X-MS-TNE-CorreIuLor:

3June07 E Service Sun.7:27pm
To John Harrington St. Paul Chief Police tel: 651-266-5733
Fax: 651-266-5797

"...Excellence, Ethics,
Empathy, and
Education! "
-Chief John M.
Harrington

Affidavit of Sharon Anderson Candidate Ward (2)
Forensic Analyst-Whistleblower
Candidate profile Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299
telfx: 651-776-5835: Document's are based on SEC filings, current events,
interviews, press releases, and
knowledge
hereby gives notice of Criminal Charges against Building Inspector
joel.essling@ci.stpaul.mn.us of 913 W. Nevada- Brother to Lawyer David Essling
913W-Nevada-Essling joel essling - Google Search d efendant in Federal Cases for RICO
697
Street Name:
surrey
Submit
Search

Please enter the property details and click
on the 'Submit' button.
Please do not include street type (Ave., St., Blvd) or
direction (N, S, W, E) in the Street Name
If you are not sure about the property Street
name, click on the 'Search' button.
Chief John M.
Harrington
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY 2
ND
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
62cv10-112 _2009 Tax Delinquent _ Personal Injurys_RICO
Claims,Deceptive Trade Practices. MS609.903 MS 609.605
State of Minnesota by and thro ACS_Manatron, Ramsey Co. Auditor
Mark Oswald et al 2009 Tax Delinquent Plaintiffs RICO_Relatees
Vs.
In the Matter of Delinquent Real Property Taxes for Real Property
Described to Wit: Lyman Dayton Addition to St. Paul,Lot 5,Blk46,aka 697 Surrey
Avenue PIN: 32.29.22.41.0053 Sharon Lea Andeson aka Sharon Scarrella Anderson
aka Sharon Peterson-Chergosky record owner. Defendants RICO_Relator 3
rd

Party QuiTam 22F.3d 783 Scarrella v. Midwest Fed S&L USCAVC 03-0639
Plaintiffs.

www.taxthemax.blogspot.com to also join with MN Supreme Court A06-
1150 Quo Warranto MS2.724, Taking Drivers License cit 905191492,MS 171.02
171.16 30 day suspension only,MS 117 Eminent Domain takings WATER File No.
62-cv09-1163_ 2008 Tax Delinquent re:
www.sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/google-lawmen-cases-mn-62cv09-
1163 indicating a Patterned Enterprise over 25 years.
Case Type: Other Civil and RICO_Criminal similar 62cv09-11693 Sup Crt. A100064
Unallotment. www.sharon4anderson.wordpress.com Nancy Lazaryan
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/activism_non_profit/watch/v20011459fweDN6C3
http://www.justice.gov/crt/crim/3631fin.php 42USC 3631

JURY TRIAL-FORPERSON GRAND JURY DEMAND
AFFIDAVITS OF PREJUDICE MS 176.312 In re: Scarrella4Justice 221NW2nd562
Page 2 of 2

Beale v. McClure

To: All Persons with legal interest in the Parcels of Real Property described in the
Following Delinquent Tax List, Filed with District Court Administrator Lynae.K.E. Olson 651-2202,
published 2008 Tax Delinquent 18Mar09 MapleWood Review and www.review-news.com 2009 Tax
Delinquent.published 17Mar10. http://www.review-
news.com/SiteImages/FileGallery/Ramsey_Co_Tax_03-15-10_402.pdf

Affidavit by Sharon4Anderson Electronic_Fax Service,US Mail to Clerk
Court Mon.19Apr2010 postage prepaid,
******************************************************************************
STATE OF MINNSOTA, DEFENDANTS JOINT
ANSWER/CROSSCOMPLAINT, CONSTITUTIONALITY
MS 429.061 MS 279 , MS 508/ MS 171.02
AUDITOR MARK OSWALD 697 SURREY AVE 32.29.22.41.0053
$2,499.43 Reconfigured Amt. unknown 2009,
Classification,takings Homestead,DisabilitysDisparagment of Titles,Death,
State of Minnesota, Rule 24.04 by and thro State Attorney General Lori
Swanson www.ag.state.mn.us ,Constitutionality MS 429.061,Title Examiner Wayne
D. Anderson MS 508.12, Revenue Ward Einess, Michael Campion, Public
Safety,Mark Oswald,RamseyCo.Auditor/Tax/Elections,,ACS,Manatron
www.mnccc.org,Chris Samuels,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,Wally Nelson dba Renovation Inc.,Lyn Moser, Kristine A. Kujala
Supervisor Property Tax Services in their Official Capacitys,
Individually,Severally, acting in concort with John Doe and Mary Roe.
SCAP,Judges Kathleen Gearin,Joanne Smith,Gregg Johnson,Salvador Rosas,Larry
Cohen, John Vandenorth, Edward Toussaint Appeal A09-2031 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
Page 3 of 3

Beale v. McClure

www.sharon4staterep64a.blogspot.com http://sharon4council.blogspot.com
http://sharon4privateattorneygeneral.blogspot.com + 96 Blogs
www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com Candidate Republican State Attorney General
www.sharonanderson.org , et al as their interest appear , Defendants and
3
rd
Party Plaintiffs,Intestate Decedants Tenant in Common Wm.O and Bernice
A.Peterson.
***************************************************************
TO THE ABOVE NAMED PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS
LORI SWANSON,STATE CAPITOL,SUSAN GAERTNER,JOHN CHOI,AT
THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICES .
Defendants, as and for their Answer to Plaintiffs 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.
A. By information and belief No Administrative Hearings have been
held to confer Authority/Jurisdiction. 2008,2009,2010.since 1982 re: 82-1292 Appeal
C8-84-241
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,
A.15Apr2010, by US Mails Electronicall served Application for
Review Form 1679 challenging takings Homestead Credits and Bogus Non
Homestead contrary to sec. 3631 Title 42. Summary Abatements, ROW with 12 %
interest ,
Unconstitutionally Vague,Arbitrary,Discriminatory, contrary to MN Const.
Art. X. with exhibits including ltr.dtd. 14Apr10, rcvd 16Apr10 by Kristine A.
Kujala Supervisor Property Tax Services,651-296-3781 admitting Bizzare Ponzi
Scheme, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary responsibilitys, reckless fraud and
concealment, misrepresentation and unlawful and deceptive trade practices. They
made a willful mistake,Unabated by Defendant Co attorney Susan Gaertner.
www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson www.slideshare.net/sharon4anderson
change 2009 * * * from Residential Non-Homestead to Residential Homestead Blind/Disability
Page 4 of 4

Beale v. McClure

INTENT
It is the intent of this fiduciary to challenge the Constitutionality and
Assessment,Ratifications, findings, and conclusions apparently made by the DSI
Inspector Joel Essling, Water Shutoff by Jerome Ludden acting in Concort with
Wally Nelson dba Renovation Inc.
PLEASE NOTE: Today Sun. 18Apr10 at 9:30 am, while Affiant was getting
the Sun Papers, The Blue Water Truck was just driving around, Affiant said what
do you want He got out of Car parked on wrong side of Street and stated: Nothing
We are planting a tree at 699 Surrey,
www.youtube.com/sharon4anderson on file for other WaterTrucks.
City Council President Kathy Lantry acting in concort with Marcia
Moermond in proper venue and forum Art. II US Constitution ,First Amendment
right to petition for redress of greivances: it is Affiants intent to preserve all
Constitutional rights, either by amendment,supplement or future litigation and or
Removals to protect property interest rights under Constitutional and Statutory
Law:
Court Files A06 -1150 62cv09-1163,62cv10-112 apparently are
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
I Wilful negilenge of the Courts to READ the Record, ForensicFiles
URLs www.slideshare.net/sharon4anderson also
www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson
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
Page 5 of 5

Beale v. McClure

v. Cruikshank,92 US 542 at 558 (1876), Affiant was the only one of 3 thousand
alleged Delinquents to Challenge. Triggering at risk Anti Trust Litigation.
Affiants property strangely absent 2009 Tax Delinquent but for
Ii Chief Judge Kathleen R Gearin pg. 20 published Wed.
17Mar10
02.28.23.41.0142 Apt.Own no.85 St.Albans Row unit 6 $2,660.59 , willful Tax
Delinquent, triggers her Ethics to hear the Brayton v. Ward Einess, Cal Ludeman
62cv09-11693 Unallotment Case www.sharon4anderson.wordpress.com
Affidavits of Prejudice filed URLs at www.slideshare.net/sharon4anderson
Taxes pd-DM-F9-1366 v. Judge Gregg Johnson re: Murder of Cpl Anderson.

COUNT I CONSPIRACY Title 18 s. 241,242
Between April 2005 up to and including the present The taking of Sharons
Drivers License contrary to State and Federal Laws, Stalking of Sharon by shutting
off Water www.sharonanderson.org, A06-1150 Justice Russell Anderson Denied
Access to Blow the Whistle on Major RICO Acts by the City of St. Paul, County of
Ramsey, unabated by the DFL County Attorney Susan Gaertner, Darwin Looking
Bill and Jean Stepan,Stalking causing Fracutured Ankle, Sharon ran for State Ag
from her Wheel Chair, Plaintiffs, Lantry,Moore,Coleman,Kessler,Essling, did
unlawfully take Sharons Valid Drivers License M243104164509 Oct. 2005
combine,conspire,confederate and agree to Shut Off Sharons Water 2006
www.sharon4anderson.org Police Stalking fractured ankle 2006 then 2007
Steal Sharons Car, Trailer, Realestate http://sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com
takings contrary to 5
th
Amendments Just Compensation, 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 2
nd
Husband.
Removals to Federal Court, Ann Montgomery locked the Doors denying
Access to Seats of Government, JR Anderson was dying at Brainard State Hospital.
Page 6 of 6

Beale v. McClure

4. Defendants are without sufficient information in order to judge the truth
or falsity of the allegations contained in the Tax Statements 2008,2009 and the 2010
The Valuation is now challenged, Classification,Assessments,Fees,Row
Maintainance,Delq Utilitys, Usurious interest , 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 Sharons Realestate, Cars,Trailers,
Personal Property, reducing her to utter Poverty, Standing in Food Lines, for over 4
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. Affinats Bank Statements prove Taxes Paid, but for
Theft,Trespass,Treason of Taking Car,Trailer Constitutionality MS429.061.
7. As its Second Affirmative Defense, Defendants state insufficiency of
service of process, Fraud upon the Court,which failed to read the Forensic
Files,Records, Judge John Vandenorth does not pay any ROW fees, or fair share .
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION
AFFIDAVIT OF INFORMIA PAUPERIOUS
Faxed>Mon.30Mar09 to Lynae.Olson@courts.mn.us 651-266-8263
By depositing in the US Mails postage prepaid 19Apr2010 62cv10-112
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 62cv10-112
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
Page 7 of 7

Beale v. McClure

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 ? Obama Health Care comes into play
Affiant on the Mon.19Apr2010 by US Mails filed State & Federal Taxes,
Property Tax Refund 2009, www.slideshare.net/sharon4anderson to resolve this
Matter:
Affiant has blown the Whistle on www.mnccc.org ie: Manatron with Chris
Samuels Conflict, the Facts that files are deleted, Property Statements have NOT
been mailed, triggering State and Federal Investigations into Wire,Bank,Mail Fraud
or Software Provider.
/s/ Sharon Anderson Private Attorney General, Attorney Pro Se_InFact will
Move the Jurisdiction/Authority of the Court to investigate the Major Fraud in the
Property Tax/Election in Ramsey Co. and City of St. Paul, MN.
Recover of Car,Trailer,Personal Propertys,Drivers License, plus Quiet Titles
to 1058 Summit Ave, Homestead, 325 No. Wilder 6 unit, 2194 Marshall duplex,448
Desnoyer duplex taken without Just Compensation Attorney Fees $240.00 pr
hour,
WHEREFORE< Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by their
pretended cause of action and that the same 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. Examiner of Titles are appointed by
Judges,yet paid for by the County Taxpayers,Unconstitutionally Vague MS508.12
Dated: Sat. 17thApr2010 /s/ Sharon Anderson ECF _P165913 Pacer:
sa1299
MEMORANDUM OF LAW ENCOMPASSED HEREIN
Qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act: As expressed by a court
discussing the original version of the Act, qui tam actions are based on the theory
"that one of the least expensive and most effective means of preventing frauds on
the Treasury is to make the perpetrators of them liable to actions by private persons
acting, if you please, under the strong stimulus of personal ill will or the hope of
gain." United States v. Griswold, 24 F. 361, 366 (D. Or. 1885) (quoted, inter alia, in
Quinn, 14 F.3d at 649 (emphasis added)). It can be argued that monies paid in
settlement to a relator outside of the framework of an action brought under the Act
should have an equivalent deterrent effect to monies paid in settlement subsequent
Page 8 of 8

Beale v. McClure

to the filing of the suit. We believe, however, that the Act's deterrent objectives
would be diluted substantially by the enforcement of prefiling releases.
To see this, one need only assume that, but for the filing of a qui tam claim,
the government would be significantly less likely to learn of the allegations of fraud.
Because Congress itself has made this very assumption, see Senate Report, supra, at
4-7, reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5269-72, we find it a reasonable starting point.
When the qui tam relator files suit, the relator stands to receive only a percentage of
the eventual proceeds from the action; at most, this will amount to 30 percent of the
recovery. See 31 U.S.C.A. S 3730(d) (West Supp. 1994). Accordingly, in settlement
negotiations, both the government and the relator will have incentives to maximize
the expected gross recovery.
It is commonly recognized that the central purpose of the qui tam provisions
of the FCA is to "set up incentives to supplement government enforcement" of the
Act, Quinn, 14 F.3d at 649, by "encourag[ing] insiders privy to a fraud on the
government to blow the whistle on the crime," Wang v. FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 1412,
1419 (9th Cir. 1992). The history and structure of the FCA and its qui tam
provisions is described in United States ex rel. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v.
Quinn, 14 F.3d 645, 649-55 (D.C. Cir. 1994); United States ex rel. Kelly v. Boeing
Co., 9 F.3d 743, 745-47 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1125 (1994); United
States ex rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante, P.A. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 944
F.2d 1149, 1152-1154 (3d Cir. 1991); John T. Boese, Civil False Claims and Qui
Tam Actions (1993).
The vital importance of this incentive effect is demonstrated by the reasons
set forth by Congress in 1986 in undertaking the first extensive revision of the Act
since its enactment in 1863. Congress expressed its judgment that "sophisticated
and widespread fraud" that threatens significantly both the federal treasury and
our nation's national security only could successfully be combatted by "a
coordinated effort of both the Government and the citizenry." S. Rep. No. 345, 99th
Cong., 2d Sess. 2-3 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5267-68
[hereinafter Senate Report]. Emphasizing both difficulties in detecting fraud that
stem largely from the unwillingness of insiders with relevant knowledge of fraud to
come forward, see id. at 4, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5269, and "the lack of
resources on the part of Federal enforcement agencies" that often leaves
unaddressed "[a]llegations that perhaps could develop into very significant cases,"
id. at 7, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5272, Congress sought to "increase
incentives, financial and otherwise, for private individuals to bring suits on behalf of
the Government," id. at 2, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5267. Congress's
overall intent, therefore, was "to encourage more private enforcement suits. " Id. at
23, quoted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5288-89; see also Killingsworth, 25 F.3d at 721
("The amended Act `increased incentives, financial and otherwise, for private
Page 9 of 9

Beale v. McClure

individuals to bring suits on behalf of the Government.'" (quoting Senate Report,
supra, at 2, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5267)).
The importance of the Act's incentive effect is evidenced clearly in the revised
Act's structure. A relator who properly brings a claim will generally receive a share
of the recovery as well as eligibility for attorneys' fees and costs. See 31 U.S.C.A. S
3730(d) (West Supp. 1994). This is true even if the government decides to intervene
and conducts the action itself, see id. S 3730(d)(1), or elects to pursue its claim in an
administrative proceeding, see id. S 3730(c)(5). The right to recovery clearly exists
primarily to give relators incentives to bring claims.*fn8 Moreover, the extent of the
recovery is tied to the importance of the relator's participation in the action and the
relevance of the information brought forward.*fn9 This demonstrates not only the
importance of the incentive effect, but that Congress wished to create the greatest
incentives for those relators best able to pursue claims that the government could
not, and bring forward information that the government could not obtain.
The Act's jurisdictional provisions also demonstrate Congress's concern with
maintaining adequate incentives for those who materially would advance the goals
of revealing fraud and supplementing government enforcement efforts. Under the
Act, if an action is "based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions
in" certain specified proceedings, reports, or mediums, a qui tam action cannot be
brought unless the relator "is an original source of the information" on which the
allegations are based. 31 U.S.C.A. S 3730(e)(4)(A) (West Supp. 1994). We held in
Wang that "section 3730(e)(4)(A) requires a qui tam plaintiff to have played some
part in his allegation's original public disclosure." Wang, 975 F.2d at 1418.
Reviewing the history of the Act's jurisdictional provisions and the concerns that led
Congress to amend the Act in 1986, we concluded that "Congress wanted in 1986
what it apparently thought it had in 1943: a law requiring that the relator be the
original source of the government's information." Id. at 1419 (emphasis in original).
We therefore held that engrafting a requirement that "a qui tam plaintiff . . . have
played some part in his allegation's original public disclosure," id. at 1418, was in
accord with Congress's purpose "of encouraging private individuals who are aware
of fraud being perpetuated against the Government to bring such information
forward," id. at 1419 (internal quotations omitted)), because it "`discourages
persons with relevant information from remaining silent and encourages them to
report such information at the earliest possible time,'" id. (quoting United States ex
rel. Dick v. Long Island Lighting Co., 912 F.2d 13, 18 (2d Cir. 1990)).
Creating incentives for those with knowledge of fraud to come forward was not
Congress's sole objective. In carefully crafting provisions that specify the relator's recovery
and in amending the jurisdictional provisions, it is clear that Congress attempted "to walk
a fine line between encouraging whistle-blowing and discouraging opportunistic behavior."
Quinn, 14 F.3d at 651. Moreover, once a claim is filed, it is clear that an important
Page 10 of 10

Beale v. McClure

concern is ensuring that the United States' rights are not prejudiced by the relator's
conducting of the action. That is why the government can object to a settlement between a
relator and defendant when the settlement might be structured artificially to defeat the
United States' right to recovery. See Killingworth, 25 F.3d at 723-25. That is also why the
government retains the right to intervene for good cause and to reduce substantially the
relator's role. See 31 U.S.C.A. S 3730(c).
The private right of recovery created by the qui tam provisions of the FCA exists
not to compensate the qui tam relator, but the United States. The relator's right to
recovery exists solely as a mechanism for deterring fraud and returning funds to the federal
treasury. See Kelly, 9 F.3d at 760. Therefore, qui tam actions exist only to vindicate the
public interest.
TITLE 42, U.S.C., SECTION 3631
Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of
force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure,
intimidate or interfere with--
(a) any person because of his race, color, religion, sex, handicap (as
such term is defined in section 3602 of this title), familial status (as such term
is defined in section 3602 of this title), or national origin and because he is or
has been selling, purchasing, renting, financing, occupying, or contracting or
negotiating for the sale, purchase, rental, financing or occupation of any
dwelling, or applying for or participating in any service, organization, or
facility relating to the business of selling or renting dwellings; or
(b) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such
person or any other person or any class of persons from--
(1) participating, without discrimination on account of race, color,
religion, sex, handicap (as such term is defined in section 3602 of this title),
familial status (as such term is defined in section 3602 of this title), or national
origin, in any of the activities, services, organizations or facilities described in
subsection (a) of this section; or
/s/ Sharon Anderson Attorney Pro Se Legal Challenge to Redunan(sp)Rules
IFPs on File re IRS Form 1040A Disclosure,Privacy,Paperwork Reduction Act
Page 11 of 11

Beale v. McClure

.
ECF_P165913 Pacer: sa1299 Legal Domicile 1058 Summit/PO Box 4384
St.Paul, MN 55104-0384 taken 1988 without Quiet Title or Just Compensation
Submitted for Filings 62cv10-112, Original_Objections Denied Mar.18
th
2010

In the Saint Paul City Council Agenda
thurs,July5,2007
Page 12 of 12

Beale v. McClure

Items 35 Resolution Assessments 07-601from May17 to
June12
th
,2007 public hearing Aug.15
th
,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 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
Page 13 of 13

Beale v. McClure

Sharons 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
(8
th
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 Cars,
Page 14 of 14

Beale v. McClure

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 5
th
Amend, Illegal Search
and Seizure 4
th
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
Page 15 of 15

Beale v. McClure

test the laws 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,
Minnesotas 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.
Page 16 of 16

Beale v. McClure

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 Acts 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 (9
th
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 (9
th
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 (1
st
Cir. 1995); Diamond Ring Ranch v. Morton,
531 F.2d 1397, 1401 (1976); U.S. v. Omega Chemical Corp., 156 F.3d 994 (9
th
Cir.
1998); U.S. v. Corona, 849 F.2d 562, 565 (11
th
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
Page 17 of 17

Beale v. McClure

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. 24
th
,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 5
th
, stating Fence and Paint with another
Page 18 of 18

Beale v. McClure

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 14
th
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
Page 19 of 19

Beale v. McClure

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 1/3
rd
of 309
Pelham Blvd,St. Paul Minnesota or her Buck Lake Cabin Itasca Co. 42741-
321
st
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
Page 20 of 20

Beale v. McClure

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 (5
th
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
Page 21 of 21

Beale v. McClure

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 (9
th
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
Page 22 of 22

Beale v. McClure

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 60.44 (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
Page 23 of 23

Beale v. McClure

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 owes 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
Page 24 of 24

Beale v. McClure

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
Page 25 of 25

Beale v. McClure

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 24
th
, 2007 and May 16
th
,2007 property
seizures 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-
Page 26 of 26

Beale v. McClure

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 Agendas, 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 propertys
Page 27 of 27

Beale v. McClure

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
Page 28 of 28

Beale v. McClure

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 alonethe 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
Page 29 of 29

Beale v. McClure

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 Moermonds 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
Page 30 of 30

Beale v. McClure

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:
/s/ Sharon Anderson Attorney Pro Se, Private Attorney General,
__________________________________http://sharon4council.blogspot.com
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.

Page 31 of 31

Beale v. McClure

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 former city clerk
don.luna@ci.stpaul.mn.us demanding that they cease Trespassing/Theft and
return assets and demanding my constitutional and statutory rights of due
process and trial by jury.
17. On April 24
th
, again 16May, 2007, the DSI trespassed into 697 Surrey and
land valued at about $137,000.00, Trees, shrubs, flower gardens and ground
cover valued at black top driveway, redwood fencing, retaining walls and
personal property valued at about $50,000.the seizure of my assets, without
claiming that I was a criminal.
18. I am not in receipt of any evidence in record of criminal conduct that would
warrant admiralty or common law seizure. None of the real and personal
property I own was used in conjunction with or was the fruit of drug-related
commercial crimes.
Under penalties of perjury, I attest that to the best of my present knowledge,
Page 32 of 32

Beale v. McClure

understanding, and belief all matters of fact set out above are accurate and true, so
help me God. /s/ Sharon Anderson Disclaimer
Word Program by Beale is used for Original and Educational Purposes.
Cop- Corruption-
Minnesota

Next 8log Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
SEAPCH 8L0C
FLAC 8L0C
Wednesday, ApriI 25, 2007
Notice: Ins.Claim Stolen
91 Chrysler V-
1C4GY54R5MX597169

Proof of nsurance altho697
SurreySingleFamily for our protection
Pottweiller has different carrier.
EDemocracy,
UTube
Blog Archive
2007 (4)
April (4)
Notice: ns.Claim
Stolen 91 Chrysler 7
1C4CY54P5VX...
Forensic Evidence
CasLine
LarcenyVS169.041
Theft Trespass
powered by
Page 1 of 12 Cop- Corruption-Minnesota
4/25/2007 http://cop-corruption-minnesota.blogspot.com/

42 USC J6J1Criminal Complaints to St. Paul Lawyer Vayor
Chris Coleman, his aide
carol.washington@ci.stpaul.mn.us hangs up on me when
reasonable request of Where are Police Peports, Tickets
4thAmend study_4police chief John Harrington et.al
coverup of 8arb Winn Aaron Foster St. Paul mpound Lot
Coogle SearchVurder All posts in The immediate removal
of Aaron Foster from St. Paul Police 0epartm...: St. Paul
ssues Forum: E0emocracy.0rg Fo...

609.546Car Tampering C0UNT .ANTTPUST
Lawyer 0FL Vayor Chris Coleman acting in
concort with the police to conduct PC0
activities stealing propertys,cars, via the bait
and switch, bidriggering contrary to Statute,
Constitutional Cuarantees, in a patterened
enterprise now for years and this claim.
Criminal Section Home Page
Selected case summaries
C0UNT .80PCCNCPC0
Lawyer Vayor Chris Coleman in a patterened
enterprise, has overlooked the St. Paul mpound
Lot stealing cars, motorcycles, parting out and
the criminal indictments against Foster
www.minnesotamurders.blogspot.com Sharon
must also file Claims against the City, Pevisors
office Joint House/Senate on Claims

Therefore Vet Life must pursue Theft of Sharons
Car, Aitkin Homeowners ie: corrupt cop Sheriff
Larceny PC0
Theft by St.Paul Cops
Sharon's Car
About Me
Sharon Anderson
Advocate,Friend, 7A
Widow,Whistleblower,Pr
ivate Attorney
Ceneral,Political
ActivistPepublican,
8logger8abe, Forensic
Analyst, Pealestate
Entreprenuer,
Candidate St. Paul
Vinnesota Ward 2 City
Council,8ackground
Checks online, google
names,address,emails
sharon4anderson@aol.co
m, E 0emocracy,
UTubes,Watchdognews
7iew my complete
profile
Scott Turner et al

Notice of nsurance Claims
www.sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com Homeowners
at 42741J21stpl(CunLake) Aitkin VN 564J1 P0
no.J50J150 51507 to 111507 runs to 1991
Chrysler 7in 1C46Y54R5MX5Z1 Ayent
mcl@nsurcncemcstersnc.com, lnsurcnce
Mcsters lnc. 855 \llcye Center 0r #J48 St.
Pcul,MN5512Z tel:514844J12 ]x: 48J2 1
80022JZ28

www.eservce.metl]e.com Your message
identification number is 10215JJ
eService@meteservice.com
Click here: Cop CorruptionVinnesota
To expedite this for LegaI Notice Car CIaim today from Joe
Heck is L60852 1-800-854-6011 ex 783 Aitkin
Homeowners cIaim no L0088
UESTIDN : 0I0 ACENT WHEELEP TPY TD SIhULATE THEFT
DF CAP
notice
www.sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com
23Apr07 Car stoIen tues 24Apr07
These charges against Lawyer hayor CoIeman are very
serious, he must resign or be indicted, the 0SI 0epartment
must be AboIished which does not show on
www.ci.stpaul.mn.us
Subje
ct:
Check out Cop CorruptionVinnesota
Nsurance Claims
0ate:
4/25/2007 1:16:12 P.V. Central 0aylight
Time
From: Sharon4Anderson
To: john.harrington@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
ken.reed@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
mail@insurancemastersinc.com,
eService@meteservice.com,
crudy@metlife.com
CC: dchristensen@metlife.com,
Sharon4Anderson

Subject:
Pe: Customer Contact
Us from Sharon
Anderson on 04.2J.2007
at05:21:54 PV:
nformation Pequest
(KVVJJ149007651J5L0K
V)
0ate:
4/2J/2007 4:5J:47 P.V.
Central 0aylight Time
From:
eService@meteservice.c
om


meteservice.com J4Apr07.
Posted by Sharon Anderson at 9:20 AV 0 comments
Tuesday, ApriI 24, 2007
Forensic Evidence
GasLine-
LarcenyMS169.041

Shar
on4An
derso
n@aol
.com
Sent ]rom the lnternet (0etcls)
At all times
Vaterial,Notice of Claim of Stolen 7ehicle 91
TEC Chrysler Lantry0beseApr07 CarCop1544.jpg (image)
www.codecorruption.blogspot.com www.minnesota
murders.blogspot.com Patterened Enterprise VS
609.90J PC0 Election Contests:Vandating
abolishment of 0S 0epartment of Safety E
nspectionsACLU of VN Challenges St. Paul
nspection Program buzz.mn , all employees
Corrupt Practices Act:YouTube 8roadcast
Yourself.12
CIick he
re: Dffice of the Pe16.041 TDWINC AUTHDPIZE0.
Subdivision 1. Towing authority. For purposes of this
section, "towing authority" means any
IocaI authority authorized by section 16.04 to enforce the
traffic Iaws, and aIso incIudes a private
towing company authorized by a IocaI authority to tow
vehicIes on behaIf of that IocaI authority.
Subd. 2. Towing order required. A towing authority may not
tow a motor vehicIe from
pubIic property unIess a peace officer or parking
enforcement officer has prepared, in addition
to the parking citation, a written towing report describing
the motor vehicIe and the reasons for
towing. The report must be signed by the officer and the
tow driver.
Subd. 3. Four-hour waiting period. In enforcing state and
Sectio
n
16.0
41
Towing Authorized.
Sectio
n
16.0
42
Towing; Notice To Victim Df VehicIe
Theft.
IocaI parking and visor of Statutes - Statutes 16.042
TDWINC; NDTICE TD VICTIh DF VEHICLE THEFT.
Subdivision 1. Notification. The Iaw enforcement agency
that originaIIy received the
report of a vehicIe theft shaII make a reasonabIe and good-
faith effort to notify the victim of the
reported vehicIe theft within 48 hours after recovering the
vehicIe or receiving notification that
the vehicIe has been recovered. The notice must specify
when the recovering Iaw enforcement
agency expects to reIease the vehicIe to the owner and
where the owner may pick up the vehicIe.
The Iaw enforcement agency that recovers the vehicIe must
promptIy inform the agency that
received the theft report that the vehicIe is recovered,
where the vehicIe is Iocated, and when the
vehicIe can be reIeased to the owner.
Subd. 2. VioIation dismissaI. A traffic vioIation citation given
to the owner of the vehicIe as

al with No Tickets ssued or currently on the Car,
Pestitution mandated Punatitive, Compensatory,
Tort, mkt v. 697 Surrey Quitam triple damages +
S240.00 pr hour attorney pro se fees,cop
stalking broken ankle S20 thous med.

Hmong destruction fence
causing sinking back yard, cracked cement,
sinking drive etc.


WHAT S A HEALTH T0W8U0CET T0WNC
PEP0PT:697 SurreySingleFamily
SharonsFedCases_1J US
C00E: Title 18,TTLE 18-CPVES AN0 CPVNAL
PP0CE0UPEThuneElectionContest 1992_22
YouTube 8roadcast Yourself._22Legal Eagle
SharonAnderso Pattern harassment for TAKNC
0L_A0L Journal J0 years,
0eath,0isability,0isparagment VS 546.27 0rder
90 dys www.sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com proof
insurance

SharonScarrellaAnderson AffSer8L0C Further
Affiant Sayeth not at this time: Notice to
nsurance co, F8, Justice and VS 609.912 Co
Attorneys Notice to AC
Posted by Sharon Anderson at 5:56 PV 0 comments
Theft Trespass Larceny
RICO

CAS LNE

C0P CAP 1544

Larceny what is it:
Forensic evidence:taken 24Apr07
Theft by St.Paul Cops
Sharon's Car
609.546Car Tampering 609.52, Theft
Click here: Cop CorruptionVinnesota 0ated 24Apr07
42 USC 3631 Forensic Evidence by e-commerce
5:05pm 24Apr07
Dffice of the Pevisor of Statutes - Statutes hS 60
John Harrington PIease be so aprised that the
undersigned has CriminaI Charges of Theft, PICD ACTS,
etc. by person's known and unknown apparantIy in
your empIoyee.
CompeIDrder-04-07T185_14
AnsCross5Apr07_71
PLEASE TAKE LECAL NDTCE THE CITY IS UN0EP
FE0EPAL IN0ICThENTS. aIso www.sharon-mn-
ecf.bIogspot.com aIso the aIIeged code vioIations were
answered, with criminaI charges to you.
CDUNT I 60.605 TrespassA
67 SurreySingIeFamiIy With 1R7UHVSDVVLQJ signs
posted at 67 Surrey
said car was "taken" without Tickets etc, apparantIy
sitting now at the St. PauI Impound Lot without a
Ticket to object to.St PaulCity of: Impound Lot
maps.google.com
8J0 8arge Channel Pd, Saint Paul, 55107
St. PauI Impound Lot - CoogIe Search re: phone info by
ken.reed@ci.stpauI.mn.us Licensed Cop www.code-
corruption.bIogspot.com
CDUNT II60.6055 Trespass pipeIines
The reaI issue is trespass on my gas Iines, weII marked,
running under the driveway,
the undersigned current city counciI candidate ward
(2) www.sharon4counciI.bIogspot.com
must remind you in 12 when Sharon was a hayoraI
candidate against Norm CoIeman, we had the 3rd
haria LAST, many dead persons, caused again by
incompetant city empIoyees. www.minnesota-
murders.bIogspot.com
CDUNT III hS 60.55,0amage to property
www.sharonvaitkin.bIogspot.com
AII posts in The immediate removaI of Aaron Foster
from St. PauI PoIice 0epartm...: St. PauI Issues Forum:
E-0emocracy.Drg Fo.. A more formaI CriminaI
CompIaint wiII foIIow as your cop city empIoyee,
femaIe, white, bIonde ponytaiI about 5:3 135 Ibs gun
packing, uniform, squad car 1544 has oversight of the
Theft of my TC ChrysIer today at 8:00 am, Tues
24Apr07. gas Iines marked.
hy caII to don.Iuna@ci.stpauI.mn.us to seize and desist
before formaI CriminaI Charges:
Then during caII to Iuna :30 this femaIe, cop, gun
packing,squad came back to 67 Surrey with about 8
persons apparantIy from the City Parks Pec.
trespassing again on private property
FUPTHEP AFFIANT SAYETH hS 60.03 PICD NDT AT
THIS TIhE except the 0amages amount to FeIonIy
Statutes State FederaI
hS 60.12 Co Attorneys Notice to AC
SHARON-MN-ECF: Judges-Greylord-Libby-Guilty
Sharon4Council
SHARON-MN-ECF: FOIA-06cv-PERMISSION TO
INVESTIGAGE,COPY,CIRCULATE Sharon-Minnesota
Sharon-E-Dem CobraShar:aka
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
SharonsBriefs MinnesotaMortgageMassacre
Candidate profile Sharon4Anderson's
Legal BlogBriefs
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Document's are based on SEC filings, current events,
interviews, press releases, and knowledge
gained as financial journalists, Private
Attorney Generals, Candidates for Public
Offices, and may contain errors. Investment decisions
should not be based solely on these
documentexpressly forbids its writers from having
financial interests in securities they recommend to
readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an
initial trade recommendation published on the
Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before
acting on that recommendation. s BlogItBabe Legal
Eagle SharonAnderson Sharon-
AndersoSharonScarrellaAndersonnI AnderDivas1: RICO-
WHISTLEBLOWERS sonAdvocates Sharon4Anderson Bill
Dahn Sexy Seniors1 Alice Krengel Cheryl Hilyar Judicial
Delusions1 WILLY LUFSKY Scap129FAnokaP2697(1976)
Cpl James R. Anderson USMC 11022885 Bio for Sharon
Anderson , Senior Queen 2007 Winter-Carnival TAKING
DL_AOL Journal Legal Eagle SharonAnderson 1
Journalism Ethics Blogger: 1986 Petition Jane Duchene MN
Bull SharonScarrellaAndersonUSBriefs - Buzznet Photo
Sharing Community Sharon'sFedCases1973to2006_13pdf
Anderson + Advocates www.sharonanderson.org
www.sharon4anderson.org
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Shuron v Aitkin
Monduy, April , oo,
q,q1-1st.pl{GunLuke)
Aitkin MN.g6q1

Next 8log Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
SEAPCH 8L0C
FLAC 8L0C
Page 1 of 8 Sharon v Aitkin
4/25/2007 http://www.sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com/

eguI NoLIce oI CIuIms: vIu: LhIs bIog oI nsurunce
ruud, AnLI-TrusL
www.meLIIIe.com
MS 6oq.86 CommerIcuI BrIbery uguInsL Shuron's nsurunce
CurrIer und AILkIn Co.
US DIsL. CrL. oz-oz mnd.uscourLs.gov
www.co.uILkIn.mn.us
RIch WheeIer- Cur & Homeowners PO no
66o16o
Deur Shuron,ruud HoLIIne

Thunk you Ior conLucLIng MeLIIe AuLo & Home.

PIeuse resond wILh your secIIIc servIce requesL und wIII
be huy Lo
heI you.

I you huve uddILIonuI quesLIons or concerns, Ieuse IeeI Iree
Insurunce Musters, Sgg VILLAGI CINTIR DR # q8
ST PALL, MN 1z;-o16 o.q mIIes dIsLunL, 61-q8-
q1z, unknown. AIIsLuLe, ynn Anderson, q;o HGHWAY
q6 W ...hLL:JJwww.cIjImunderson.bIogsoL.comJ
corruLIon oI AILkIn Co und SherIII ScoLL Turner
TAKNG D_AO JournuI BIo Ior Shuron Anderson
COLNT I: Antitrust issues:Re: LS ist.o-o
{JR)www.eservice.metliIe.com hus wilIully Iuiled to
settle my insurunce cluim over 1 yeur ugo Iull
dumuges[loss's oI the Aitkin Property.
DIscIIInuryBrudIey C. RhodesAILkInCoALLorney, Gun uke
AssocIuLIon, eL uI., ReIuLors, vs. CounLy oI AILkIn,
IndIvIduuIIy und George SheLku, ResondenL, vs. AILkIn
CounLy, MInnesoLu, AeIIunL. C;-q6-z1q;
COLNT II: Ins. Musters ie: Rich Wheeler Broker
huve Iuiled to notiIy Shuron oI cuncellution oI
Homeowners Policy? Why,When,Whut Ior.
MInnesoLu DeurLmenL oI Commerce
MS 6oq.6;1Huz wusLe,EnvIr
COLNT III: Ior g yeurs uppro. $1qo.oo dollurs
monthly huve been debited Irom Shuron's uccount
Ior coveruge.
COLNT IV: Shurons new MKT. V Ior Aitkin is
$q6,Soo.oo iI policy is cuncelled without notice,
must trigger Stute & Iederul Investigutions into
Insurunce Iruud by Agents, Bunk Iruud by "tuking"
without coveruge etc.
corruLIon oI AILkIn SherIII ScoLL Turner und oLhers BIo Ior
Shuron Anderson
qz USC 61D LukIng
w orkIngonIIndIngIIIeseLc.eguIEugIeShuronAnderson1

M S6 oq . q 11RCOCIvIIM S6 oq . ; 6 CrImDeIumuLIon
Lo
conLucL me.

SIncereIy,

John
MeLIIe AuLo & Home OnIIne CusLomer ServIce

OrIgInuI Messuge oIIows:
------------------------
rom: ShuronqAndersonQuoI.com vIu A&HJeAuLo &
Home
To: eServIceQmeLeservIce.com
DuLe: qJzJzoo; :zz:o PM
SubjecL: CusLomer ConLucL Us Irom Shuron Anderson on
oq.z.zoo;
uLo:z1:q PM: nIormuLIon RequesL

CusLomer ConLucL Us Irom Shuron Anderson on oq.z.zoo;
uL o:z1:q PM:
nIormuLIon RequesLDoes LhIs quesLIon or commenL InvoIve
u secIIIc
roducL LhuL you own?: Yes
The Lye oI roducL LhuL Is owned: AuLo&Home
The MeLIIe comuny LhuL Issued Lhe roducL: MeLIIe
The nuLure oI LhIs quesLIon or commenL: ProducL
ConLrucL or PoIIcy Number: PO no
EmuII Address: ShuronqAndersonQuoI.com
IrsL Nume: Shuron
usL nume: Anderson
SLreeL Address: PO Box q8q

CILy: SL. PuuI
SLuLe: MN
ZI Code: 1oqo8q
Home Phone Number: (61) ;;6-8
BusIness Phone Number:
QuesLIon: CIuIm Ignored www.shuronvuILkIn.bIogsoL.com

PosLed by Shuron Anderson uL 11:o AM o
commenLs
Monduy, Murch g, oo,
Shuron v. Aitkin Co.
MS6oq.q

qz;q1 z1sL.I(Gunuke) AILkIn 6q1
www.co.uILkIn.mn.us
Boyds overbuIIdIng LheIr decks on my roud
MS 6oq.q,Dumuge Lo roerLy

PosLed by Shuron Anderson uL z:1o PM o
commenLs
SubscrIbe Lo: PosLs (ALom)
Blog Archive
zoo; (z)
ArII (1)
qz;q1-z1sL.I(Gunuke) AILkIn MN.6q1
Murch (1)
About Me
Shuron Anderson
AdvocuLe,rIend, VA WIdow,WhIsLIebIower,PrIvuLe
ALLorney GeneruI,PoIILIcuI AcLIvIsL-ReubIIcun,
BIogger-Bube, orensIc AnuIysL, ReuIesLuLe
EnLrerenuer, CundIduLe SL. PuuI MInnesoLu Wurd z
CILy CouncII,Buckground Checks onIIne, googIe
numes,uddress,emuIIs shuronqundersonQuoI.com, E
Democrucy, UTubes,WuLchdog-news
VIew my comIeLe roIIIe
Subj: Re: SA62CV09-1163_1APR09_MGSTSharon4Anderson GangStrikeClaim
Date: 12/27/2010 3:56:26 P.M. Central Standard Time
From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
To: Jason.Johnston@zimmreed.com
CC: jrgraham@oricom.ca, rcbarden@mac.com, AngelsAdvocates@aol.com
Page 1 of 3
Monday, December 27, 2010 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
Thank You: Jason License Tabs, looking for Insurance which ran to Homestead at 42741_321stPl
Aitkin MN
http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/aff6-apr07indit-coleman-20

http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/copaitkbgs-presentation Jason please open Link 91
Chrysler VIN 1C4GY54R5MX597169
Apr. 25, 2007 Have Hard Copy's of Title's, Propertys in a Safe Place: Issues may
involve 13 Propertys including 697 Surrey Ave. St. Paul, County of Financial
Responsibilitys "takings" without Just Compensation

In a message dated 12/27/2010 3:34:00 P.M. Central Standard Time, Jason.Johnston@zimmreed.com
writes:
Ms. Anderson,

Pursuant to our telephone conversation on December 27, 2010, you may continue to submit
documents via email that you would like us to include in your file. We will confirm receipt via
email and print the documents. In regards to your previous email (received 12/27/10 at
1:00pm), the right and privilege to amend the class and add additional defendants does
not exist. Therefore, your reservation of right and privilege to add the State of Minnesota
and DFL Attorney General Lori Swanson as defendants is moot. I will continue working with
you to complete your claim form to your satisfaction. Please contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Jason P. Johnston
Zimmerman Reed P.L.L.P.
Tel: (612) 341-0400
Fax: (612) 341-0844

From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com [mailto:Sharon4Anderson@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 1:00 PM
To: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com; Jason Johnston; Heidi Cuppy; Ronald Goldser
Cc: rcbarden@mac.com; greg@wersalforjustice.com; tim@highesthill.com;
jrgraham@oricom.ca
Subject: SA62CV09-1163_1APR09_MGSTSharon4Anderson GangStrikeClaim

Mon 27thDec.2010

In Compliance with www.mgstsettlement.com Order's Files etc.
and as promised: Sharon Peterson_Chergosky 1st Husband John Scarrella VA Widow
2nd Husband Cpl James Richard Anderson www.cpljimanderson.blogspot.com is
firming up the Serious,Deliberate,Material Heinous Acts by Defendants,.
a. Many Files of Sharon have become encrypted, destroyed,lost or
hacked Doing the Best We Can.

The Issues are extensive: Theft of Sharon's Car with disabled parking
Sticker, fully insured at that time with Disabled Plates, without Tickets,Warrants, "due
process" by defendant City St. Paul, John Harrington's agents,employees, from the
Disabled Homestead Credit of the Tiny property at 697 Surrey St.Paul,MN

Triggering Forclosure 2013, Fractured Ankle by Police Stalking,Water
Shutoff, Denial of Property Rights including a 94 Peterbilt,Boat,Car,Trailer etc. Illegal
Warrants in Aitkin for 10 years, with Sharons jailing and the Resignation of Aitkin Sheriff
Dennis Landborg as on File with Neil Melton et al.
Further Affiant Sharon4Anderson Sayeth not at this time

Further Affiant hereinafter Sharon4Anderson not to be confused with the
Cass Co. Auditor Sharon Anderson or others with similar name, reserves the Right and
Privilege to Amend the Class apparantly now over 100 to Add the State of Minnesota
and DFL Attorney General Lori Swanson as a Defendant.
Sharon4Anderson at all times material is Attorney Pro Se, must be served
and noticed as such.

Sharon4Anderson also as a Member of the Class of Victims by the
Defendants also reserves the Right and Privileges to have out side Standby counsel
namely her Republican Opponent Dr. Chris Barden www.barden4ag.com
possible Jeff Johnson, Greg Wersal,Tim Highstill,as a Northern Magistrate, familiar with
Northern Criminal Conduct also Dan Griffin, Eric Kaardal,
John Remington Graham, as Defendant City St.Paul new City Attorney Sara Grewing
(sp) John Choi now Ramsey Co. Attorney and defendant Sheriff Fletcher has been
Page 2 of 3
replaced by Matt Bostrom the son of defendant City St. Paul Council Member Dan
Bostrom.

Sharon4Anderson@aol.com www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson
www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson
ECF 165913Pacer sa1299 www.taxthemax.blogspot.com Tel: 651-776-5835
www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law and is
intended ONLY for particular clients, parties, or entities involved in litigation or dealings with the Zimmerman Reed, PLLP law firm. If you
are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, discard any paper copies and
delete all electronic files of the message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of the e-mail or its attachment(s) is
prohibited by law.
Page 3 of 3

AFFIDAVIT OF SHARON ANDERSON CLAIMENT CURRENT CANDIDATE WARD2
ST.PAUL CITY COUNCIL www.sharon4council.blogspot.com
www.sharon4anderson.org

METRO GANG STRIKE FORCE
DEFENDANTS CITY ST.PAUL,POLICE CHIEF JOHN HARRINGTON ET AL, COUNTY
OF RAMSEY, SHERIFF BOB FLETCHER ET AL_ JOHN DOE,MARY ROE, IN OFFICIAL
AND PERSONAL CAPACITYS, SEVERALLY,INDIVIDUALLY THOSE ACTING IN
CONCORT RICO LAWS APPLY.FILED DEC.2010, REFILED TODAY Fri.30SEPT2011.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Case No.09cv01995(JNE/AJB)
ZELAIDO RIVERA GARCIA,
MAURA GONZALEZ SALINAS,
ADRIAN RAMIREZ-CUEVAS,
CAMERINA CUEVAS LOPEZ,
KATHLEEN YANKOVIC, JOHN
YANKOVIC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
METRO GANG STRIKE FORCE, Class Action Complaint Damages
RON RYAN, former Metro Gang and Injunctive Relief
Strike Force Commander, DOE
OFFICERS 1-34, individually and in
their official capacities, OTHER
UNKNOWN DOE OFFICERS,
METRO GANG STRIKE FORCE Jury Trial Demanded
ADVISORY BOARD, MANILA
(BUD) SHAVER, Chief of the West
ST. Paul Police Department, KEN
SCHILLING, Inspector at the
Hennepin County Sheriffs Office,
Subj: Sharon Anderson MGSF ClaimSpecMaster MarkGehan09cv01995(JNE/AJB)
Date: 9/29/2011 3:46:11 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
To: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
Page 1 of 7
Thursday, September 29, 2011 America Online
DAVE BELLOWS, Chief Deputy of
the Dakota County Sheriffs Office,
BOB FLECTCHER, Sheriff of the
Ramsey County Sheriffs Office,
JOHN HARRINGTON, Chief of the
St. Paul Police Department, ROB
ALLEN, Deputy Chief of the
Minneapolis Police Department,
BILL HUTTON, Sheriff of the
Washington County Sheriffs Office,
DAVE THOMALLA, Chief of the
Maplewood Police Department,
DAVE PECCHLA, Chief of the Lino
Lakes Police Department, DAVE
INDREHUS, Chief of the Metro
Transit Police Department,
MICHAEL DAVIS, Chief of the
Brooklyn Park Police Department,
BARRY FRITZ, Captain of the
Richfield Police Department,
Defendants. http://www.zimmreed.com/uploads/MGSF.pdf
Settlement Order Judge Joan N. Ericksen dtd. 16Dec2010 Docket no. 63
PLEASE NOTE Certain Sites "taken down"arbitrarily.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-
courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2009cv01996/107908/77 Document 77 :: Garcia et al v. Metro Gang Strike Force
et al :: 0 ...
law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0.../77Cached
Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan METRO GANG STRIKE FORCE, et al. Defendants. SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT This
action was heard on December 16,
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2009cv01996/107908/80/

1. This is a class action brought by Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly-situated, to recover damages and to impose
injunctive relief under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983 et seq.
(CRA), to recover monetary damages for negligence in the supervision and
training of law enforcement employees and for liability based on respondeat
superior, to recover monetary damages for civil tort conversion and
conspiracy to convert, for civil tort of assault, for civil tort of false
imprisonment, and for violations of the Minnesota State Constitution.
Plaintiffs seek remedies for themselves and the Class and Subclass for
Defendants negligence and unlawful deprivation of Plaintiffs and class
members property and liberty.

Defendants were required to provide receipts of seized property, (b) whether
Defendants
were required to provide notices of the right to contest the forfeiture of property, (c)
whether Defendants repeatedly failed to provide receipts of seized property, (d)
whether
Defendants repeatedly failed to provide notice of the right to contest the forfeitures as
Page 2 of 7
required by Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. 609.5314), (e) whether Defendants acted
under
color of law when improperly seizing property, (f) whether Defendants failed to create
records of seized property and incidents leading to the seizure of property, and (g)
whether Defendants failed to properly maintain records of seized property and
incidents
leading to the seizure of property. (3) The claims or defenses of the proposed
Class wy

AFFIDAVIT OF CLAIMANT SHARON ANDERSON aka PETERSON_SCARRELLA

Affiant became a Member of the Class one year ago by information and belief the
MetroGangStrikeForce hereinafter MGSF was formed 1997.

DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS
AND FINANCIAL INTEREST OF www.lmc.org ie: League of
Minnesota Cities, the Risk Management_ Insurance.
Pursuant to the 3 Million Settlement "Ordered" (JNE/AJB)
SETTLEMENT FUNDS ESCROW ACCOUNT.
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/1412-2007-04-15T191746Z/ApplBlog5Apr07_71.pdf

1. Are said Defendants ie: CitySt.Paul,CountyRamsey,PoliceChief John Harrington
and Sheriff Bob Fletcher
said partys or subsidiary or affiliate of the Non Profit_
quasi_Publicly-owned corporation League MN Cities,?
YES
2. Is the LMC therefore a quasi publicly-owned nonprofit corporation said party to the
3 million payout and has financial interest in the outcome of the Class?
YES
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/900-2007-02-27T034409Z/WritProA06-
1150_30Jun06.pdf
3. Did Affiant Sharon Anderson notify the Defendants on Numerous Occassions of
the "taking" and Stalking Sharon causing Fractured Ankle 2005
www.sharon4anderson.org Theft,Trespass,of her Car's,Trailer,Personal Property's
2006_2007 with Claim's 1/2 Million Dollars
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/1500-2007-05-11T163654Z/AitkinAns0332_27.pdf
http://cop-corruption-minnesota.blogspot.com/2007/04/notice-insclaim-stolen-91-chrysler-v.html

YES
4. Does the Special Master Mark Gehan have preconceived Prejudice against
Affiant ?
YES
Sharon was sued with now Decedant Dick Bullock with the "Unauthorized Practice of
Law" by the MN Bar v. DRI + Divorce Reform Inc.
YES
5. Has Sharon suffered Reprisals with her Association with Alice Krengel and Bill
Dahn.?
YES
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/PDFcases/sharoncases.pdf

http://sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com/2011/01/garcia-vmetrogangstrikeforce09-cv.html
Page 3 of 7

http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sharons-gangstrikeclaims

Class Add Party Sharon_Similarly Situated.

1. VA Widow_ Political Candidate Sharon Anderson aka
Peterson_Chergosky_Scarrella_ is now, and at all relevant times was/is a resident of
the City of St. Paul,MN Homestead's at 1058 Summit Ave/PO Box 4384_697 Surrey Ave
St.Paul,MN 55104-0384, relevant other residences 42741-321stPL (GunLake) Aitkin MN

2. All acts hereinafter alleged occurred in a Repeated "Patteren" by
Defendants for the past 20 years"

3. The "Takings" of Sharon's Car licensed to the Aitkin Property but
taken without a Ticket, at the 697 Surrey Address on or about 19Apr.2007 Criminal
Charges against Joel Essling and Cop Tana Hunter Defendant John Harrington's
employee then on 16May2007 the same Cop trespassed at 697 Surrey and took
Sharons Trailer again without Tickets,Notice and or any Forfeiture Law. Constituting
Involuntary Conversion of Sharons Titles, creating a Ponzi Scheme by Defendants for
Pecunairy Gain.

Page 4 of 7
http://cop-corruption-
minnesota.blogspot.com/ http://cop-corruption-minnesota.blogspot.com/ MS 609.86 Commerical Bribery against
Sharon's Insurance Carrier and Aitkin Co.
US Dist. Crt. 02-0332 mnd.uscourts.gov www.co.aitkin.mn.us

a. www.sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com http://forums.e-
democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/1500-2007-05-
11T163654Z/AitkinAns0332_27.pdf relative to Titles to Peterbilt, 91 Chrysler and
Illegal Restraining Orders without Long Form Complaint C9-01-421Hallbeck,419
Swansons,420Viet,Scheben et al served Removals to AG 20Aug2001.

Rich Wheeler- Car & Homeowners PO no 3665031560
Insurance Masters, 855 VILLAGE CENTER DR # 348 ST PAUL, MN 55127-3016 0.45 miles distant, 651-
483-4312, unknown. Allstate, Lynn Anderson, 470 HIGHWAY 96 W ...http://www.cpljimanderson.blogspot.com/
corruption of Aitkin Co and Sheriff Scott Turner
TAKING DL_AOL Journal Bio for Sharon Anderson
COUNT I: Antitrust issues:Re: US Dist.02-0332 (JR)www.eservice.metlife.com has wilfully failed to settle
my insurance claim over 1 year ago full damages/loss's of the Aitkin Property. DisciplinaryBradley C.
RhodesAitkinCoAttorney, Gun Lake Association, et al., Relators, vs. County of Aitkin, individually and George
Shetka, Respondent, vs. Aitkin County, Minnesota, Appellant. C7-96-2147
Page 5 of 7

Aitkin Co.
US Dist. Crt. 02-0332 mnd.uscourts.gov www.co.aitkin.mn.us
Rich Wheeler- Car & Homeowners PO no 3665031560

COUNT I: Antitrust issues:Re: US Dist.02-0332 (JR)www.eservice.metlife.com has wilfully failed to settle
my insurance claim over 1 year ago full damages/loss's of the Aitkin Property. DisciplinaryBradley C.
RhodesAitkinCoAttorney, Gun Lake Association, et al., Relators, vs. County of Aitkin, individually and George
Shetka, Respondent, vs. Aitkin County, Minnesota, Appellant. C7-96-2147
COUNT II: Ins. Masters ie: Rich Wheeler Broker have failed to notify Sharon of cancellation of
Homeowners Policy? Why,When,What for.
Minnesota Department of Commerce
MS 609.671Haz waste,Envir
COUNT III: For 5 years approx. $140.00 dollars monthly have been debited from Sharon's account for
coverage.
COUNT IV: Sharons new MKT. V for Aitkin is $96,800.00 if policy is cancelled without notice, must
trigger State & Federal Investigations into Insurance Fraud by Agents, Bank Fraud by "taking" without
coverage etc.
corruption of Aitkin Sheriff Scott Turner and others Bio for Sharon Anderson
42 USC 3631DL taking
Page 6 of 7

www.sharonvbarbarmstrong.blogspot.com 15823Cty55BuckLake,Nashwaulk, MN

The $3 million Metro Gang Strike Force settlement will be paid out to eligible class members who
submit valid claim forms before the deadline of December 30, 2010. To be considered a class
member, you must meet the following criteria:
(1) You were stopped, questioned, ar
METRO GANG STRIKE FORCE or MINNESOTA GANG STRIKE FORCE
("STRIKE FORCE")
CLASS SETTLEMENT CLAIM FORM
(TO BE FILLED OUT BY CLAIMANT OR THEIR COUNSEL)
Name: SHARON LEA ANDERSON
First Middle Last
Address: LEGAL: 1058 Summit/PO Box 4384 re: 697 Surrey Ave. St. Paul, MN 55104-0384
55106.
Street City State
Zip County
Telephone Number: 651-776-5835 Fax out only
Email: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
Birth date: Jan.27, Social Security Number: 5396 Decedant
James R. 476-26-9032 Murdered 21Sept2000 File with Sheriff Bob Fletcher
Page 7 of 7
7303392v1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ZELAIDO RIVERA GARCIA, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
METRO GANG STRIKE FORCE, et al.
Defendants.
Case No. 09-cv-01996-JNE-AJB
Judge Joan N. Ericksen
Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan
SETTLEMENT ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
This action was heard on December 16, 2010, before the undersigned, upon
Plaintiffs Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, Certification of Settlement Class,
and Payment of Attorneys Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (Docket
#63), and pursuant to the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Approving
Notice to Class Members (the Preliminary Approval Order) entered on September 14,
2010, for the purpose of determining: (i) whether a settlement class could be certified
pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (ii) whether
the proposed settlement (the Settlement) on the terms and conditions set forth in the
Settlement Agreement previously submitted to the Court, should be approved as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (iii) whether the method of notice was the best notice that was
practicable under the circumstances pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure; (iv) whether incentive or special awards for named plaintiffs
serving as class representatives pursuant to the Settlement Agreement should be
Garcia et al v. Metro Gang Strike Force et al Doc. 77
Dockets.Justia.com
2
7303392v1
approved; (v) whether Class Counsels application for fees and expenses is appropriate;
and (vi) whether final judgment should be entered in this matter.
Having conducted the analysis required by the statute, the Court finds and
concludes, for purposes of settlement only, that the requirements of Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied; that a settlement
class should be certified; that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable; that notice
was provided in accordance with Rule 23(c)(2); that incentive or special awards to
named plaintiffs serving as class representatives should be approved; that Class
Counsels fees and expenses are appropriate and should be awarded; and that final
judgment should be entered.
Having considered the record in this action, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
1. The Definitions section of the Settlement Agreement is incorporated
herein by reference. All capitalized terms used in this Order have the meaning set forth
in the Settlement Agreement unless otherwise expressly indicated.
2. This action is maintainable as a class action for settlement purposes only on
behalf of a class (the Settlement Class) consisting of all persons who:
(a) have been stopped, questioned, arrested, charged, frisked,
detained or searched (including but not limited to persons
who have had property searched or seized), or whose
dwelling was searched;
(b) by a peace officer or peace officers serving on or assisting the
MGSF or by a peace officer or peace officers serving on or
assisting the Minnesota Gang Strike Force;
3
7303392v1
(c) in an incident where property was taken from one or more of
the individuals stopped, questioned, arrested, detained or
searched (or during a search and seizure of property
belonging to one or more of such individuals); and
(d) the property was taken
i. without a receipt or inventory itemization, or
ii. without notification to the property owner of his or her
right to contest the forfeiture.
The Settlement Class includes, but is not limited to, the persons whose property
was taken in connection with one of the 202 incidents referenced in Finding 8 of the
Report of the Office of the Legislative Auditor dated May 20, 2009.
The Settlement Class does not include persons who commenced and settled
individual lawsuits against one or more of the Released Parties regarding claims
encompassed in the definition of Released Claims.
3. For settlement purposes only, the Court finds that the prerequisites of Rule
23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and hereby certifies the foregoing defined Settlement Class
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).
4. The prerequisites for class action treatment under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied by the Settlement Class, in that: (1) The
number of class members comprising the Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable. Settlement Class includes, but is not limited to, the persons
whose property was taken in connection with one of the 202 incidents referenced in
Finding 8 of the Report of the Office of the Legislative Auditor dated May 20, 2009. (2)
There are questions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class, including (a) whether
4
7303392v1
Defendants were required to provide receipts of seized property, (b) whether Defendants
were required to provide notices of the right to contest the forfeiture of property, (c)
whether Defendants repeatedly failed to provide receipts of seized property, (d) whether
Defendants repeatedly failed to provide notice of the right to contest the forfeitures as
required by Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. 609.5314), (e) whether Defendants acted under
color of law when improperly seizing property, (f) whether Defendants failed to create
records of seized property and incidents leading to the seizure of property, and (g)
whether Defendants failed to properly maintain records of seized property and incidents
leading to the seizure of property. (3) The claims or defenses of the proposed Class
Representatives are typical of the claims or defenses of the other members of the
Settlement Class. (4) The proposed Class Representatives and Class Counsel will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. (5) The questions of law and
fact common to the Settlement Class members predominate over any questions affecting
only individual Settlement Class members. (6) Class action treatment is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient resolution of this controversy. The Court also
notes that, because this Action is being settled rather than litigated, the Court need not
consider manageability issues that might be presented by the trial of a class action
involving the issues in this case.
5. In making its findings, the Court has been provided copies of (1) the Report
on the Metro Gang Strike Force issued by the Office of the Legislative Auditor for the
State of Minnesota on or about May 20, 2009 and (2) the Report of the Metro Gang
Strike Force Review Panel issued on or about August 20, 2009.
5
7303392v1
6. The Court finds that counsel for the Plaintiffs, Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P.,
Fishman & Binsfeld P.A. and the Alvarez Law Firm, are competent to serve as Class
Counsel and will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.
7. The Court has received and reviewed the following submissions regarding
the implementation of notice:
(a) Affidavit of Elizabeth A. Peterson dated November 4, 2010
[Docket No. 67];
(b) Declaration of Jonathan Reid dated November 4, 2010
[Docket No. 68];
(c) Supplemental Affidavit of Elizabeth A. Peterson dated
November 19, 2010 [Docket No. 70]; and
(d) Supplemental Declaration of Jonathan Reid dated
November 19, 2010 [Docket No. 71].
8. Based on the submissions provided to the Court, the Court finds that notice
has been given to the class pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, and that the
mailing and publication of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Release
of Claims (the Notice) in accordance with the methodology adopted pursuant to this
Settlement (a) was the best notice that was practicable to members of the Settlement
Class; (b) was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise members of the
Settlement Class of the pendency of the Action, certification of the Settlement Class, the
proposed Settlement, the rights of Class Members to object to the Settlement and the
application of Plaintiffs counsel for payment of their attorneys fees and reimbursement
of their litigation expenses, and to request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (c) was
reasonable and satisfied the requirements of due process by providing due, adequate, and
6
7303392v1
sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled to receive notice; (d) clearly and
concisely stated in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action, (ii) the
definition of the class certified, (iii) the class claims, issues or defenses, (iv) that a class
member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires, (v) that
the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion, (vi) the time
and manner for requesting exclusion, and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on
members under Rule 23(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (e) met all
applicable requirements of law including, but not limited to, Rule 23(c) and the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
9. Based on the submissions provided to the Court, the Court finds that
Defendants have satisfied 28 U.S.C. 1715(b) by, within 10 days after the Settlement
was filed with the Court, serving upon the appropriate State official of each state in which
a class member resides and the appropriate Federal official the Notice required under the
statute. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1715(d), more than 90 days have elapsed since
the above-referenced notice was provided.
10. The terms of the Settlement, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, are
hereby determined to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, said Agreement,
including each of its respective terms and conditions, is hereby finally approved.
11. At the request and suggestion of Class Counsel, the named plaintiffs
serving as Class Representatives, namely Zelaido Rivera Garcia, Maura Gonzalez
Salinas, Adrian Ramirez-Cuevas, and Camerina Cuevas Lopez, are awarded incentive
awards in the amount of $2,500 each in addition to any distributions as part of the
7
7303392v1
Settlement calculation to which they may be entitled, to compensate them for the time
and efforts in leading this case for the benefits of the Class members.
12. The Court finds that counsel for the Plaintiffs, Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P.,
is competent to serve as Claims Administrator and will fairly and efficiently administer
the remaining settlement requirements.
13. The Court hereby enters judgment fully and finally dismissing and
terminating all claims with prejudice, on the merits, against Defendants.
14. The Settling Class Members, those persons bound by the Settlement
Agreement and subject to this Settlement Order and Final Judgment, consist of all
persons included within the Settlement Class except for the three individuals, identified
in the Administrators Opt-Out Report, who filed timely requests for exclusion from the
Settlement Class. (The three individuals identified in the Administrators Opt-Out Report
are James Mackey, Maria Mackey and Kimberly Nagel.)
15. Pending the Effective Date, neither the Plaintiffs, nor any Settling Class
Member, either directly, representatively, or in any other capacity, shall prosecute any
action or proceeding in any court, tribunal or other forum asserting any of the Released
Claims against the Released Parties.
16. As of the Effective Date:
(a) Each Settling Class Member is deemed to have released and
forever discharged the Released Parties from any and all
Released Claims.
(b) The Released Parties are not, and in the future shall not be,
subject to liability or expense of any kind to Settling Class
Members with respect to any of the Released Claims. The
8
7303392v1
provisions of the Agreement shall be the exclusive remedy of
all Settling Class Members against the Released Parties.
(c) Each Settling Class Member is forever barred from asserting
any of the Released Claims against any of the Released
Parties.
(d) Each Settling Class Member is deemed to have covenanted
and agreed (a) that he or she will forever refrain from
instituting, maintaining or proceeding against any Released
Party on any Released Claim, including Released Claims
known and not now known, suspected, or claimed, that they
have or hereafter may have against the Released Parties; and
(b) that he or she release the Released Parties from each and
every such Released Claim.
17. As of the Effective Date, Settling Class Members are permanently enjoined
from filing, commencing, prosecuting, continuing, litigating, intervening in, participating
in as class members or otherwise, seeking to certify a class in a separate class of persons,
as a purported class action (including by seeking to amend a pending complaint to
include class allegations), or receiving any benefits or other relief from any other lawsuit,
arbitration or administrative, regulatory or other proceeding or order in any jurisdiction,
based on or relating to the claims and causes of action, or the facts and circumstances
relating thereto, in or underlying this action which qualify them as Class Members.
18. As of the Effective Date, all Settling Class Members are forever barred and
permanently enjoined from filing, commencing or prosecuting any other lawsuit as a
class action (including by seeking to amend a pending complaint to include class
allegations or by seeking class certification in a pending action in any jurisdiction), if
such other lawsuit is based on or relates to the claims and causes of action, or the facts
and circumstances relating thereto, in this action and/or the Released Claims.
9
7303392v1
19. Attorneys fees are awarded as set forth in a separate order entered on this
date.
20. Defendants have denied liability in this matter, and this Settlement does not
constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing. Neither this Final Judgment, the
Settlement Agreement, the fact of settlement, the settlement proceedings, settlement
negotiations, nor any related document, shall be used as an admission of any act or
omission by Defendants or be offered or received in evidence as an admission,
concession, presumption, or inference of any wrongdoing by Defendants in any
proceeding other than such proceedings as may be necessary to consummate or enforce
the Settlement.
21. Defendants shall have no responsibility for and shall have no liability
whatsoever with respect to the allocation among Class Counsel and/or any other person
who may assert a claim thereto, of any attorneys fees or expenses that the Court may
award.
22. The Court retains jurisdiction over this Settlement to the extent necessary to
implement, effectuate and administer this Settlement and this Settlement Order and Final
Judgment, including, but not limited to, any issues arising from the Courts award of
attorneys fees.
This 16th day of December, 2010.
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
Judge Joan N. Ericksen
United States District Judge
Subj: Fwd: WRITPRO 30JUN06DOC1.WPSAnderson v. City A06-1150
To: velma.korbel@state.mn.us, brian.mcclung@state.mn.us, admin.info@state.mn.us,
gene.hugoson@state.mn.us, glenn.wilson@state.mn.us, alice.seagren@state.mn.us,
cal.ludeman@state.mn.us, deed.customerservice@state.mn.us,
dianne.mandernach@health.state.mn.us, dianne.mandernach@state.mn.us,
kevin.goodno@state.mn.us, dli.commissioner@state.mn.us, gene.merriam@state.mn.us,
michael.campion@state.mn.us, dan.salomone@state.mn.us, carol.molnau@state.mn.us,
michael.pugliese@state.mn.us, tim.marx@state.mn.us, mhfa@state.mn.us,
sheryl.corrigan@state.mn.us, chris.coleman@ci.stpaul.mn.us, citizen.service@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
CityofSaintPaul@govdelivery.com, jerry.ludden@ci.stpaul.mn.us, mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
ann.mulholland@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Nancy.Homans@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Kris.Fredson@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
Bob.Hume@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Chris.Rider@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Anne.Hunt@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
Nick.Shuminsky@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Joe.Spencer@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Va-Megn.Thoj@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
Melvin.Carter@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Vallay.Varro@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Carol.Washington@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
Darlyne.Morrow@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Jean.Karpe@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Milyon.Tekle@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
Sean.Johnson@ci.stpaul.mn.us, eagle@eagleforum.org, Bonnuge, diverson@pioneerpress.com,
aharrington@pioneerpress.com, cselix@pioneerpress.com, dbeal@pioneerpress.com,
jbjorhus@pioneerpress.com, scarlson@pioneerpress.com, dfondler@pioneerpress.com,
jforster@pioneerpress.com, mhopp@pioneerpress.com, khubbard@pioneerpress.com,
rhubbard@pioneerpress.com, sjean@pioneerpress.com, jkrocheski@pioneerpress.com,
mmoylan@pioneerpress.com, lsuzukamo@pioneerpress.com, twebb@pioneerpress.com,
jwelbes@pioneerpress.com, janice.rettman@co.ramsey.mn.us, chiefclerk@co.ramsey.mn.us,
jim.mcdonough@co.ramsey.mn.us, david.twa@co.ramsey.mn.us,
victoria.reinhardt@co.ramsey.mn.us, toni.carter@co.ramsey.mn.us,
tony.bennett@co.ramsey.mn.us, bonnie.jackelen@co.ramsey.mn.us,
jan.parker@co.ramsey.mn.us, rafael.e.ortega@co.ramsey.mn.us, rob.fulton@co.ramsey.mn.us,
debbie.montgomery@ci.stpaul.mn.us, dave.thune@ci.stpaul.mn.us, pat.harris@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
kathy.lantry@ci.stpaul.mn.us, jay.benanav@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Lee.Helgen@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
dan.bostrom@ci.stpaul.mn.us, nathan.stublaski@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
steve.schneider@ci.stpaul.mn.us, john.zanmiller@ci.west-saint-paul.mn.us,
will.rossbach@ci.maplewood.mn.us, dave.wagner@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
dave.schuler@ci.stpaul.mn.us, steve.gleason@ci.stpaul.mn.us, jim.graupmann@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
waterinquiries@ci.stpaul.mn.us, magnuson@womenspress.com
CC: Shewolfeagle
Page 1 of 2
Friday, June 30, 2006 America Online: Sharon4Anderson

VOTE SHARON ANDERSON ATTORNEY GENERAL telfx: 651-776-5835
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com SharonsWaterShutOff19Apr06 Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs
Anderson + Advocates P165913sa1299 PACER
CM/ECF Olmstead v. US GovLawbreaker Vision America: US v Cruikshank92US542(1875)Decend to
Particulars Judges As Criminals? OIC

-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: WRITPRO 30JUN06DOC1.WPSAnderson v. City A06-1150
To:
russell.anderson@courts.state.mn.us, fred.grittner@courts.state.mn.us, tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us,
attorney.general@state.mn.us, rca@co.ramsey.mn.us, Sharon4Anderson, eagledahn1,
john.harrington@ci.stpaul.mn.us, bob.fletcher@co.ramsey.mn.us, john.choi@ci.stpaul.mn.us,

To the Clerk Fred Grittner www.courts.state.mn.us

Thank You for the Court File no. A06-1150

However the Test Case to force the State to
Comply with ECF Filings, must be implemented.

Further the Eminent Domain Law MS117.xx
must provide for Just Compensation.

Further for Educational Purposes, I must share
my knowledge as Friends,Advocates,Affilliates
have shared theirs.

IN the Integrity of Justice the Word Doc is submitted

Doc I, and will also be submitted in pdf format
AOL only allows 5 mg Doc 2
The Exhibits etc will be in pdf format.

john.lesch@ci.stpaul.mn.us, lisa.veith@ci.stpaul.mn.us, rachael.gunderson@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
jerry.hendrickson@ci.stpaul.mn.us, trudy.moloney@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
margaret.egan@ci.stpaul.mn.us, marcia.moermond@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
elizabeth.davis@ci.stpaul.mn.us, kenneth.smith@ci.stpaul.mn.us,
thomas.davenport@ci.stpaul.mn.us
CC: rosenbaum@am1500.com, gljoe@am1500.com
Page 2 of 2
Friday, June 30, 2006 America Online: Sharon4Anderson
1

STATE OF MINNESOTA

Minnesota Supreme Court
A06-1150

In Re; Petition for Writ of Prohibition
Quo Warranto
MS 2.724
MS117 Eminent Domain

Sharon Anderson, Title 31 Relator
ECF P165913 Pacer sa1299

Petitioner

V.

United States of America, All Agencies
State of Minnesota, All Agencies,City
of St. Paul,Chris Coleman Mayor
Marcia Moermond, Debbie Montgomery, Dave Thune,
Pat Harris, Jay Benanav, Lee Helgen,Dan Bostrom,
Kathy Lantry,individually,severally, official capacitys
John Choi, Lisa Vieth,JudyHansonJeromeLudden,JackReardon
Bob Kessler,Harold RobinsonPersonally and Professionally,
St. Paul Regional Water Board John Doe and Mary Roe others similarly situated

Relatees-Respondents

Proposed Trial Court: St. Paul City Council via legislative appeals officer,
Marcia Moermond, regarding St. Paul City Council Hearing File: Re: 697 Surrey Ave
File #06-077356 hearing 06/06/2006

________________________________________
Mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us
Chris Coleman &John Choi Sharon Anderson
Attorney Pro Se,for Respondants Attorney Pro Se
Rm 300 City Hall LegalDomicile
15 W. Kellogg Blvd. 1058 Summit/POBox4384
St. Paul,MN 55102-1635 St. Paul,MN. 55104-0384
Tel:651-266-8535 telex:651-776-5835
2

Fax: 651-266-8513 Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
Mike Hatch (MN)State Attorney US Attorney Alberto R. Gonzales
102 State Capitol St.Paul, MN55155 Rachel.K.Paulose (USMN)
651-296-6196 attorney.general@state.mn.us 950 Pennsylvania AveNW
www.ag.state.mn.us Washington DC 20530-0001
202-353-1555-1-888-264-5107
www.usdoj.gov/usao/mn
DISCLAIMER
Pursuant toClerks Court Order dtd. 21June06
* * *appendix no pages * * * index * * *Affidavit off Pauper
Brief served 20Jun06 Bill Dahn all Parties: personally and by e-commerce
THEREFORE: the appendix and Pauper must be served electronically
Related Cases for the past 30 years will be incorporated to Quiet Titles to all.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX TO APPENDIX....................................................................ii

CASES..........................................................................................Iii

STATUTES.....................................................................................iv

RELIEF.........................................................................................1,2

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Background...........................2,3
Facts..................................3-10

LEGAL ISSUES........................................................................10-11

MEMORANDUMN OF LAW

Probable Cause...............A1-3

Due Process..................A1-3

Discrimination................A-3

Retaliation/Reprisals.....A-4

Constitutional Rights8-10-A3

Eminent Domain..2-3-5-7-8

ARGUMENT................................................................................11

APPENDIX.................................................................................A-1
3

EXHIBIT...........................................................................A-3
TABLE OF CASES

United States v. Cruikshank ,92 US 543at556(1876)......A-2

Russell v. US, 369 US 749 at 783-765 (1962)...................A-2

State v. Grose 367 NW2d 24,162 at 169 (Minn,.App.1986)..A-2

Muse v. Sullivan 925 F2d 785 (5
th
Cir.)(1991)....................A-2

Porter v. Singletary 49 F3d, 1483 (11 Cir.) (1995).............A-2

US v. Henderson 19F3d, 917, (5
th
Cir.)(1994)....................A-2

Thiede v. Town of Scandia Valley,217 Minn.218,14 NW2d 400 (1944)A-2

............TABLE OF WEB SITES

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/water.html 3-9

http://www.watchdog-news.com/watchdog-0506/0506-page03.htm 3

http://www.watchdog-news.com/watchdog-0506/0506-page08.htm .3

http://www.watchdog-news.com/watchdog-0506/0506-page09.htm ..3

.MINNESOTA STATUTES

MS 2.72,ChiefJustice.......................................................................................1

MS.609.43 Misconduct PublicOfficials...............................................................2-4-A-2

MS.117.xx Eminent Domain...............................2-5-7-10-11

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

US Constitution................................................8-910-11 A-2

Fifth Amendment......................................................9-10A-3
4

Minnesota Constitution Art. III Separation of Powers.11
ST. PAUL LEGISLATIVE ORDINANCES

Chapter 15 Ownership-Operation.....................5

Chapter 18 Legislative Hearing.........................6

INDEX TO APPENDIX

Will be sent pdf format noticed as Doc II

Case Filing A06-1150 21Jun06.............................1

Affidavit of Service Bill Dahn 20Jun06..................2,3

Office Max Printing $27.09..........................................4

Ex. A-1 jerry.ludden@ci.stpaul.mn.us dtd. 3Jun06working meterA3.-1

Betty Speaker Story www.goldparty.org .........B3-2

Correction Notices. www.ci.stpaul.mn.us .......C3-5-9

Water Bills 2000-to 2006 ...............................D,E,10-14

Miscellanous:

Heritage District 687 Conway Warren Burger Home file 03156(2003)G-15

5

To: 1) RT. HON. Russell Anderson Chief Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court, Minnesota
Judicial Center, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55101, Fax: 651-297-4149
By and thro Clerk Fred Grittner www.courts.state.mn.us

2) St. Paul City Attorney, 400 City Hall, 15 W. Kellogg Blvd., Saint Paul, MN
55102, Fax: 651 651-298-5532 (City Attorney), Fax 651 266-8574 (City Council and
Water Board) and Fax: 651 266-1926 (City works) www.ci.stpaul.mn.us

3.) Michael Hatch State Attorney General Rule 24.04,address as above:
4.) St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us address as above
5). US Justice Dept by and throUS Attorneys address as above
6.)Legal Notice to US Dist. Crt. Rich.sletten@mnd.uscourts.gov Files
02-0332(Rosenbaum), US Dist.06cv-1607 , appealled to 8
th
Cir without any
Answers from Defendant City of St. Paul www.mnd.uscourts.gov

MEMORANDUMN

Affidavit of Sharon Anderson aka In re: Scarrella for Associate Justice
NW2d221page 562, the denial of the Elective Franchise of the tax supported
Employment of Judgedenied to all non-lawyer citizenry mandates Affidavit of
Prejudices against all Judges to insure Access to the Seats of Government
Accountability, Fair, Impartial Trials, with Constitutional Challenges of the
MS117 Eminent Domain Laws. www.msnusers.com/AndersonAdvocates

Sharon brings these matters to the Supreme Court via MS2.724
Chief Justice has full Supervisory, Fidicuary Control of the Courts,Lawyers
Judicial Branch www.courts.state.mn.us

Sharon mandates this to be a Test Case
ISSUES: EMINENT DOMAIN ELECTRONIC FILINGS
And as a Republican Candidate for State Attorney General

RELIEF SOUGHT

This action is brought pursuant to jurisdictional authority stated in Minnesota
Statutes 2.724 Chief Justice.
The Petitioner, requests a Writ of Prohibition, restraining the Respondents from all
legislative hearing officers appointed by same, inclusive their agents and employees, acting
6

as adjudicators for abatements and condemnation, in any administrative hearing, that does
not give full access to courts in the judicial branch, and allow full due process, discovery
and subpoena power.
This action arises regarding the circumstance of a fraudulent claim, by Jerry
Ludden from St. Paul Regional Water, in violation of Minnesota Statues, 609.43, that the
replacement of interior and exterior water meters were necessary, when in fact these
meters were and are working, and the consequent withdrawal of Petitioners water services
therefore, when Petitioner refused to allow this change which involved violation of her
privacy and access to the property. As the matter has escalated the Respondents are
attempting to condemn the property in a legislative hearing body, such bodies, which are
by definition, not courts of law and which do not grant, inclusive but not limited to,
subpoena power and discovery defined due process. These legislative administrative
processes, purport to remove the judicial branch of government from law enforcement
concurrent to implementation of legislative courts which contravene the, which also
authorizes similar abatements with respect to violations of the condemnation buildings,
without the authority of a finding in district court of law, that shows wrongdoing and
justification as defined under the Eminent Domain law, in effect as of May 15, 2006.

STATEMENT OF FACT
Background
This action, under the legal supervision and advice of Lisa Vieth, is one in a series of
similar legal actions in which Ms. Lisa Vieth has advised the city to prosecute the
7

Petitioner, wrongfully and unsuccessfully, because Ms. Lisa Vieth has pursued harassing
criminal charges knowing that no crime as defined by city ordinance, or state or federal
law has been committed by Petitioner. In this matter Lisa Vieth has advised the St. Paul
Water Board to disconnect the Plaintiff water on the fraudulent pretence that the interior
and exterior water meters do not work, so that the City can attempt to condemn the
property of Petitioner. There has been a pattern of this kind of behavior involving a series
of similar activities by the City, for example the case of Betty Speaker, a 68 year old senior
woman who owned her own home.
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/water.html
http://www.watchdog-news.com/watchdog-0506/0506-page03.htm
These actions have been done without due process and instead involve quasi-judicial
hearings by city planners and the city council, who are in the executive branch, and who
have the agenda of gaining more property for the city, without paying fair compensation.
Petitioner has several physical disabilities including a broken ankle, sustained
because of the stress from the harassment the city exerted, which Petitioner is still
recovering from.
The City of St. Paul and the City Attorney has in the recent past also engaged in
similar harassment, namely:
a) Various complaints relevant to Petitioners dog which were withdrawn.
b) Various complaints about Petitioners gardens/yard, which have been withdrawn

The previous matters were resolved by administrative means via the St. Paul City
8

Attorney in all matters.
Facts of Current Case

In this current instance, the basic facts are as follows:
1. Petitioner is a sixty eight year old disabled woman who lives alone, at 697 Surrey
Ave, St. Paul, in a property that is about 70 - 100 years old, and has a history of very
frugal use of water, with quarterly bills of about $17.00, all of which is known by
Respondents.
2. The current interior and exterior meter were installed in about 1992, at the same
time these were installed in the neighboring properties, and there is no known
problem with any of the meters at 697 Surrey Ave, or in any of the neighboring
properties.
3. Approximately seven of the immediately neighboring properties are empty for
reasons unknown and may have been purchased, or obtained by other means, by the
City of St. Paul for redevelopment,
4. That the City of St. Paul has engaged in patterns of systematic harassment,
intimidation, threats of police action, and made frivolous complaints of code
violations to force elderly, disabled, women, from their homes, as detailed in the
Betty Speaker case, which started by giving voluntary access to City of St. Paul
Officials, to property, which amounts to legal misconduct that is in violation of
Minnesota Statues, 609.43.
5. That this May, 2006, in order to obtain voluntary granted access access to
Petitioners home, St. Paul Regional Water, falsely claimed that the water meter was
9

not giving any reading because the readings were (as they had always been in the
past) low, and that St. Paul Water wanted to gain access inside Petitioners home to
replace the water meters; with a police escort and presence:- and this claim appears
to have been nothing more than a pretence: as no city engineer has been willing to
sign a professional, written, report that verifies and legitimizes that the meters were
not giving readings or that the existing meters were broken; only the supervisor,
Jerry Ludden, who is not an engineer, has made these claims, and has used bully
like tactics against Petitioner, inclusive threats of police action.
6. Before acting in purportedly shutting the water off Regional Water gave Petitioner
a hearing, which precluded Petitioner from discovery and the right to compel the
agency to provide evidence.
7. Consequently, after returning to the property several times, to turn of the water
repeatedly, usually with police, and taking a reading from the allegedly
inoperative meter equipment, the water board and the City of St. Paul wish to
condemn the property for lack of water.
8. The actions of the city are those of an government agency aware that Eminent
Domain legislation was due to be passed, acting to surreptitiously take action to
essentially grab and procure the real property of Petitioner, before the Eminent
Domain legislation became law, which predictably would be about August 1, in any
year a law passes, but in fact, was exceptional as the Eminent Domain law went into
effect immediately on May 15, 2006, by use of these two ordinances, Chapter 15 and
Chapter 18, in an attempt to subordinate state Eminent Domain Law, with local city
10

politics:
Chapter 15. PUBLIC OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF
UTILITIES
Sec. 15.01. Acquisition and operation of utilities.
Sec. 15.02. Regulations and rates.
Sec. 15.03. Board of water commissioners.
Sec. 15.01. Acquisition and operation of utilities.
The city may own and operate any gas, water, heat, power, light, telephone, transportation, market or other
public utility for supplying its own needs for utility service or for supplying utility service to private consumers
or other governmental agencies. It may construct all facilities needed for that purpose and may acquire any
existing utility properties so needed. The city shall not acquire or construct any public utility unless the
proposition to acquire or to construct it has been approved by a majority of the electors voting upon the
proposition at a general or special election.
Sec. 15.02. Regulations and rates.
The council may by ordinance fix rates, fares and prices for municipal utilities and may prescribe the time
and manner of payments for all such services, and may make such other regulations as may be necessary,
and prescribe penalties for violation of such regulations.
Sec. 15.03. Board of water commissioners.
There shall be a board of water commissioners composed of six (6) members appointed as follows: The
mayor shall appoint with the approval of the council three (3) members who shall be members of the city
council for terms to coincide with their elected terms of office and two (2) members who shall be resident
citizens of Saint Paul who hold no other city office or city employment. The sixth (6th) member who shall be a
resident citizen of a suburb served by the board's water system to be appointed in the manner provided for in
the water extension agreement with the suburb(s). All citizen members shall serve for a term of four (4)
years. A citizen member appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve for the unexpired term. In the event of a tie
vote on any issue before the board the mayor of Saint Paul shall be considered an ex officio member with the
right to vote to break the tie vote. The council may provide for an additional citizen board member to be
appointed as provided for in the water extension agreements with the suburbs.
The board shall elect biannually from its membership a president, and vice-president. The board may make
bylaws, rules and regulations for its government not inconsistent herewith, subject to the approval of the city
council. The compensation of the board, if any, and the compensation of all officers and employees, shall be
fixed by the city council.
Employees of the board shall be considered employees of the City of Saint Paul. Except as modified by this
Charter or state law, the board and its employees shall in all respects be subject to and subordinate to all
provisions of this Charter and the ordinances and resolutions enacted in pursuance thereof.
The board of water commissioners shall exercise all authority for the operation of the water utility as
provided by Chapter 110, Special Laws of Minnesota for 1885, which is incorporated herein as fully and
effectively as if set forth herein verbatim.
(C.F. No. 96-1365, 1, 12-11-96)

Chapter 18. Legislative Hearing Officer*
Sec. 18.01. Legislative hearing officer.
Sec. 18.02. Hearing petition, filing, fee, notice.
Sec. 18.03. Judicial review.
C.F. No. 95-105, 1, adopted Mar. 22, 1995, amended this chapter in its entirety, in effect
repealing former ch. 18, property code enforcement board of appeals, 18.01--18.04, and adding new
provisions as herein set out. Formerly, such sections derived from 55.01--55.04 of the 1956 Code; Ord.
No. 16897, adopted Mar. 18, 1982; Ord. No. 17346, 1, adopted Apr. 24, 1986; Ord. No. 17565, 1, adopted
May 24, 1988; Ord. No. 17740, 2, adopted June 5, 1990; Ord. No. 17810, 1, adopted Mar. 5, 1991; and
17875, 1, adopted Oct. 22, 1991.
*Editor's note--
Sec. 18.01. Legislative hearing officer.
In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the enforcement officers
relative to the enforcement of health, housing, building or fire codes contained in the Saint Paul Legislative
Code, and in order to hear appeals and make determinations relative to safe pedestrian crossing areas under
11

section 156.05 and newsracks under chapter 131 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, there shall be and is
hereby created a legislative hearing officer. The legislative hearing officer shall be a city employee appointed
by the president of the city council. The legislative hearing officer shall have the authority to hear appeals to
orders, decisions or determinations of the enforcement officers or others and make recommendations to the
city council. The hearing officer shall not have the power to grant waivers of the Minnesota State Building
Code. All matters, orders, decisions and determinations of the hearing officer shall be forwarded to the city
council in resolution form within ten (10) days of the hearing officer's actions. The city council shall have the
authority to approve, modify, reverse, revoke, wholly or partly, the hearing officer's orders, decisions or
determinations and shall make such order, decision or determination as ought to be made.
(C.F. No. 95-105, 1, 3-22-95; C.F. No. 00-550, 3, 11-22-00; C.F. No. 01-277, 2, 7-5-01; C.F. No. 02-
125, 1, 3-6-02)
Ord. No. 00-550, 3, which amended 18.01, becomes effective one hundred eighty (180) days from the
date of publication, December 18, 2000.
Sec. 18.02. Hearing petition, filing, fee, notice.
Any property owner affected by any order which has been issued in connection with the enforcement of a
health, housing, building or fire code, or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto, or any newsrack
owner affected by any decision made pursuant to section 131.70(B) of the St. Paul Legislative Code, may
request and shall be granted a hearing before the legislative hearing officer on all matters set forth in such
notice; provided, that such property or newsrack owner shall first file with the legislative hearing officer a
written petition requesting such hearing and setting forth a brief statement of grounds therefor within ten (10)
days after the date the original notice of code violations, or within ten (10) days after the date on which notice
of the newsrack decision under section 131.70(B), was issued.
The filing fee for such petition shall be twenty-five dollars ($25.00) except that where there is financial
hardship, the hearing officer may waive this filing fee subject to the approval of the city council.
Upon receipt of such petition, the hearing officer shall set a time and place for such hearing and shall give the
petitioner written notice thereof. The hearing shall be commenced not later than thirty (30) days after the date
on which the petition was filed.
(C.F. No. 95-105, 1, 3-22-95; C.F. No. 00-550, 3, 11-22-00)
Ord. No. 00-550, 3, which amended 18.02, becomes effective one hundred eighty (180) days from the
date of publication, December 18, 2000.
Sec. 18.03. Judicial review.
Any person aggrieved by the final decision of the legislative hearing officer may obtain judicial review by
timely filing of an action seeking review of such decision as provided by law in district court.
(C.F. No. 95-105, 1, 3-22-95)

In the past few years Respondents, mainly the City Council and City Attorney, have
used many tactics covering a very wide range of city ordinances, to attempt to justify
fraudulently contrived situations, which allows Respondents to create their own legislative,
biased court, to effect administrative taking of real property from citizens without just
compensation. In this case these tactics appear to be expressly, for the purpose of rushing
in to compromise and usurp the power of the new Eminent Domain Law, in effect since
May 15, 2006. The City Council and City Attorney have usurped powers of the district
courts in general (see Betty Speaker case) in recent history, and in this matter, although
this ordinance does not appear to have been created replace district criminal and civil
12

court proceedings, or give powers to the City Council and City Attorney to adjudicate cases
involving alleged misdemeanor offenses and ownership of real property, in practice this has
been, unfortunately, what the effect has been.
In this instant matter, in which the Respondents have sought to over ride and
circumvent the new State Eminent Domain Law, abuse abatement powers, replace
prosecution of alleged crimes, property ownership claims, or misdemeanors in district
court with the jurisdiction of the city council as court of law, which is in effect without
due process, and Petitioner has endured and is at risk of violations of Petitioners legal
rights as follows:
Infringement on several constitutional rights of the Petitioner inclusive
privacy, due process of law, and rights to be free from discrimination
because of age, disability and sex. Respondents should pay Petitioner
punitive damages for such actions.
Infringement on petitioners rights to reasonable accommodation of
Petitioners disability pursuant to federal statutes, including but not limited
to the ADA, and respect for Petitioners age as a senior. Respondents should
pay Petitioner punitive damages for such actions.
Infringement on petitioners rights to protection from crimes, including but
not limited those laws that prohibit: officious harassment, fraudulent and
deceptive claims of fact regarding meter reading equipment for water
services. Respondents should pay Petitioner punitive damages for such
actions.
13

Infringement on petitioners rights to protection from crimes, inclusive laws
that prohibit swindling and taking of real property without compensation,
abuse of police and official powers, that caused the Petitioner to incur stress
that impacted her physical health, invaded Petitioners privacy and peaceful
and quiet enjoyment of Petitioners real property. Respondents should pay
Petitioner punitive damages for such actions.
The superseding federal and state law regarding due process matters have not
changed, however, the City of St. Paul have, since 1995, passed the aforestated Chapter 18,
which allows powers of abatement, condemnation and more, before appearance in court
and adjudication from a court of law determining that such official conduct is justified.
Knowing that the use of such abatement powers require demonstration of a high
standard of necessity and demonstration of imminent public or private peril, the city, by
the apparent advice of Ms. Lisa Vieth, are making frivolous use of this law, using the new
city law to justify criminal acts and torts, and to harass the Petitioner. There appears to be
an element of personal aggrandizement involved in these actions for Ms. Lisa Vieth, and
some city Council members, stemming from retaliation, rage and discrimination on the
basis of age, income, and disability.
The photographs attached and online at:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/water.html

Further, the City Council and City Attorney, apparently pursuant to the advice of
the City Attorney, are engaging in vigilante, criminal prosecution, outside a court of law,
which subjects citizens in St. Paul, and the Petitioner to violation of rights to rights
14

guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution to Due Process of
Law. These prosecutions attempt to interfere with rights of privacy, ownership and due
process, . This is being done, additionally, in a manner that is SELECTIVE and vindictive.
The city and Ms. Lisa Vieth were fully aware, in advance of commencing the
apparently malicious prosecutions and persecution of Petitioner, that these actions would
cost the Petitioner significant time, emotional distress, and financial loss. Therefore the
causing this loss and distress to the Petitioner appears to have been deliberate.
In this matter there is an attempt to bypass the civil and criminal courts, in a matter
which would not survive a demand for a long form complaint in a venue in a district court,
criminal division.
The city ordinances which deny access to district courts, criminal divisions, appear
to be unconstitutional, and therefore, these ordinances should be rendered void for being
unconstitutional.
LEGAL ISSUES

1. The Respondents had no probable cause to demand access into Petitioners property
and thereafter to punish Petitioner for refusing to grant access. . Petitioner has frugally
used water for years and there was nothing unusual about the meters showing a low
reading, and this was not justification to believe the meters were not working and to
demands access into property, with a police presence. The Respondents must be ordered to
stop further official and legislative legal actions as described, and bring a legitimate
condemnation proceeding under the Eminent Domain Law if Respondents want to take
Petitioners property. .
15

2. The Respondents have harassed and bully Petitioner, who is a member of three
protected classes, seniors, the disabled and women: and the Respondents must be ordered
to stop this.
3) The City of St. Paul, presumably with the legal counsel and recommendation of the
City Attorney, have acted to violate the provisions of the Fifth Amendment of the United
States Constitution in the apparent systematic denial of access to a court of law, in real
estate ownership matters which require adjudication in a court of Law under the Eminent
Domain Law in effect from May 1, 2006. There is justification in prohibiting further
actions of this type against Petitioner, to harass the Petitioner with legislative
jurisprudence, consequent to this Petition.
4) The City of St. Paul, presumably with the legal counsel and recommendation of the
City Attorney, have acted violate the provisions of the United States Constitution, which
compel that there be a separation of powers, judiciary, legislative and executive; by
attempting to act as all three branches of government, executive, legislative and, in
particular, judicial by appointing the St. Paul City Council to be an adjudicating body that
replaces the courts in criminal matters, resulting in abuses of law and power. There is
justification in prohibiting further actions of this type against Petitioner, to harass the
Petitioner, consequent to this Petition.

ARGUMENT

The Petitioner believes that in the above circumstances that an issuance of the Writ
of Prohibition is wholly justified and necessary.
16

Wherefore, the Petitioner requests an order granting the Petition for a Writ of
Prohibition that prevent the Respondents from continuing all attempts to condemn
Petitioners Property without a court proceeding and without compensation, and the
issuance of the Writ which has this effect.
June 05, 2006 Respectfully submitted.
30Jun06

s/Sharon Anderson ECF P165913 pacer sa1299_
Sharon Anderson, Petitioner
Attorney Pro Se
Legal Domicile 1058 Summit
PO Box 4384 55104-0384
697 Surrey Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55106
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
www.msnusers.com/AndersonAdvocates

TEL: 651 776 5835
Fax: 651 776 5835
or 651 457 4376

STATE OF MINNESOTA

A06-1150
Sharon Anderson,

Petitioner

v. Memorandum of Fact Supporting
Petition for Writ of Prohibition
Marcia Moermond, Chris Coleman, Quo Warranto
Debbie Montgomery, Dave Thune,
Pat Harris, Jay Benanav, Lee Helgen,
Dan Bostrom, Kathy Lantry,
John Choi, Lisa Vieth, Judy Hanson
17

Jerome Ludden, Jack Reardon, Bob Kessler,
all Personally and Professionally, and the
St. Paul Regional Water and Directors,
St. Paul City Council and the City of St. Paul

Respondents
Proposed Trial Court: St. Paul
City Council via legislative appeals
officer, Marsha Moyhand,
regarding
St. Paul City Council Hearing File:
Re: 697 Surrey Ave File #06-
077356, hearing 06/06/2006

To: 1) RT. HON. Russell Anderson Chief Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court,
Minnesota Judicial Center, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, MN
55101, Fax:651-297-4149
Water Board) and Fax: 651 266-1926 (City works)

1) Petitioner attaches exhibit A the e-mail from Jerry Ludden admitted the meters
were working, although not giving a significantly different reading, as the water had
been allegedly turned off.
2) Petitioner attaches exhibit B, details of Betty Speaker Case.
3) Petitioner attaches exhibit C, which is correction notice upon which City alleges to
have power to act upon.
4) Petitioner attaches related exhibit D which is correction notice upon which City
alleges to have power to act upon, and Petitioner will file further related notices
from city to be included in this writ and orders prohibiting action by the City.
5) Petitioner attaches related exhibits E, estimated water bill from 2006, and exhibit F,
non estimated water bill from July, 2005
18

STATE OF MINNESOTA

A06-1150
Sharon Anderson,

Petitioner

v. Memorandum of Law Supporting

Respondents
regarding
077356, hearing 06/06/2006

To: 1) RT. HON. Russell Anderson Chief Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court, Minnesota
Judicial Center, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55101,
Fax:651-297-4149
19


Probable Cause, Abuse of Power and Due Process
In this instant case there is no probable cause to believe any fault in the property at:
697 Surrey Avenue. The Respondents cannot bully Petitioner to grant voluntary access to
the property to go on a fishing trip hoping to find probable cause, by unlawfully turning
off Petitioners water, on the false pretext that the meters are not working right. This
action would not be able to survive a probable cause hearing or motion for Summary
Dismissal by Petitioner, in a criminal court, because:
The standard for specificity of a criminal accusation as cited in: United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U.U/ 543 at 556 (1876), affirmed by Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 at
783-765 (1962) and State v. Grose, 367 N.W. 24 162 at 169 (Minn. App. 1986).
Due Process
The St. Paul City Council (as legislators), Mayor (as executive) and City Prosecutor,
cannot be said to be a mix that creates an impartial hearing board that replaces a criminal
court of law, in district court, and therefore the City Council of St Paul, Mayor, and the
Prosecutor, who have self interests in the outcome of this matter, cannot adjudicate the
matter, see: Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F2d., 785 (5th Cir.) (1991) and Porter v. Singletary, 49
F3d., 1483, (11 Cir.) (1995).
The lack of a hearing in district court in this matter, resulting in a abate or
condemn which would indicate the city may have rights to
abate
and condemn with due
process in a court of law and compensation, is a denial of due process, see:
US v. Henderson, 19 F3d., 917, (5th Cir.) (1994), wherein it was held that failure to hold a
20

hearing, when a hearing is necessary to uphold due process right, is abuse of discretion and
violation of due process rights.
Respondents conduct amounts to abuse to the level described in Minnesota Statues,
609.43. Respondents have no immunity for torts, see: Thiede v. Town of Scandia Valley,
217 Minn. 218, 14 N.W.2d 400), 1944.

There are inherently to this matter, serious implications of unconstitutional city
ordinances which seek to, in practice, undermine Fifth Amendment rights to Due Process
of Law, in a court of law, governed by the Rules of Evidence and the Minnesota Rules of
Criminal Procedure, as opposed to an administrative legislative body, that is the St. Paul
City Council.
There are also serious concerns about the separation of powers, when a legislative
and administrative body, like the St. Paul City Council, seeks to take over authority from
criminal courts at the District Court level.
The City of St. Paul has apparently decided that it does not like the way the courts
in Minnesota and the United States function, and perhaps believes that it does not, or
should not have to incur the costs of prosecutions in a real court, or the risk of loosing cases
in a criminal court of law authorized by the United States government. Therefore the city
is dismissing the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and previous rule of
law so that the city can do what it wishes to do, unhampered by the restraints of the rule of
law.
Discrimination on the Basis of Disability, Age and Sex
21

The attempt by Respondents, to use a police presence and bully tactics, to cause
Petitioner to be terrorized and be in a state of extreme emotional distress and is on the face
of it discrimination, because of Petitioners age, disabilities and sex. Refusal to adopt
reasonable accommodation and behavior towards the Petitioner, a disabled, senior woman,
likely indicates wider systematic abuses, particularly in view of the Betty Speaker case.
Retaliation
Because there have been several frivolous actions against Petitioner by the City of
St. Paul, there is reasonable grounds to presume that the Respondents are acting in bad
faith, to retaliate against the Petitioner, in addition to seeking to cause the Petitioner harm,
financially, by taking Petitioners home without compensation, and by causing Petitioner
trauma and emotional harm.
STATE OF MINNESOTA

A06-1150
Sharon Anderson,

Petitioner

v. Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis supporting Petition for
Marcia Moermond, Chris Coleman, Writ of Prohibition Quo
Debbie Montgomery, Dave Thune, Warranto
St. Paul City Council and the City of St.Paul

Respondents
22

regarding
077356, hearing 06/06/2006

To: 1) RT. HON. Russell Anderson Chief Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court,
Minnesota Judicial Center, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, MN
55101, Fax:651-297-4149

Petitioner requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis because Petitioner is a senior
in receipt of Social Security Disability, to cover costs of copying, service, notary costs, filing
fees, and other unspecified costs which might arise..
Petitioner is currently recovering from surgery on Petitioners broken ankle and is
unable to get out immediately to have an Affidavit supporting this motion notarized, and
Petitioner requests that this motion be granted in the interim.
June 05, 2006 Resubmitted 30Jun06 Respectfully submitted
TEST TO FORCE THE COURTS TO ACCEPT ECF P165913 Pacer sa1299
Filings,Challenge Eminent Domain MS117 with Just Compensation for the taxpaying
Citizenery www.msnusers.com/AndersonAdvocates
Sharon Anderson, Petitioner
Attorney Pro Se Legal Domicile 1058 Summit/PO Box 4384-697 Surrey AvenueSt. Paul,
MN 55106 PO Box 4384 St. Paul, MN 55104-0384 Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
TEL: 651 776 5835
Fax: 651 776 5835
or 651 457 4376

23

STATE OF MINNESOTA

A06-1150
Sharon Anderson,

Petitioner

v. Affidavit of Service

Respondents

STATE OF MINNESOTA )SS

COUNTY OF RAMSEY )SS Court file: A06-1150

Affiant, Bill Dahn, of St. Paul, Minnesota, having been duly sworn upon oath deposes and
says that Affiant today, on June 07 2006, served by personal service, four copies of the
above entitled Writ of Prohibition on the clerk of court, Minnesota Supreme Court,and one
copy of the same on:
1) St. Paul City Attorney, 400 City Hall, 15 W. Kellogg Blvd., Saint Paul, MN 55102
and
2) Minnesota Attorney General, Mike Hatch.
And four copies, by personal service, of the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on the
Minnesota Supreme Court,
Subscribed to and sworn before me
on this _20_______day of June, 2006 _____________________________
Affiant, Bill Dahn www.billdahn.com

Notary Public Jan M. Bremner Commission expires 1-31-2011
24

Anderson, Sharon Initialsubmission

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anderson, Sharon Initialsubmission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

METRO GANG STRIKE FORCE or MINNESOTA GANG STRIKE FORCE

You might also like