Sharons62cv09-1163AppealA09-2031

	Help Sharons Disclaimer : www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson ForensicFiles
Case View ORCA Info		Case Information Case Number: A092031 Filing Date: 11/06/2009 Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals Status: Pre-Briefing ORCA: Civil Division Ramsey County District Court Hearing Type: Nonoral Classification: Standard - Civil - Other Short Title: In the Matter of Delinquent Real Property Taxes for Real Property Described, to wit: Lyman Dayton Addition to St. Paul, Lot 5, Blk 46, a/k/a 697 Surrey Avenue, PIN: 32.29.22.41.0053, Sharon Lee Anderson a/k/a Sharon Scarrella Anderson, record owner Full Title: In the Matter of Delinquent Real Property Taxes for Real Property Described, to wit: Lyman Dayton Addition to St. Paul, Lot 5, Blk 46, a/k/a 697 Surrey Avenue, PIN: 32.29.22.41.0053, Sharon Lee Anderson a/k/a Sharon Scarrella Anderson, record owner Summary: Citation: - Hide Party Information Party Information MACS ID Appellate Role Party Name Attorney(s) 51332 Appellant Sharon Anderson Pro Se 10976 Respondent Ramsey County JEAN STEPAN Docketing Filter View Display: ChronologicalThreaded Docket Information Document Description Jurisdiction Filing Date Docket Entry Type Filing Type Status Transcript - Delivery Certificate - Patricia Martinez Court of Appeals 11/19/2009 Transcript Delivery Certificate Final Notice - Case Filing Court of Appeals 11/12/2009 Notice Case Filing Final Statement - Case - Appellant Court of Appeals 11/06/2009 Statement Case - Appellant Final Notice - Appeal - Case Filed Court of Appeals 11/06/2009 Notice Appeal - Case Filed Final Transcript - Initial Certificate - Patricia Martinez Court of Appeals 10/15/2009 Transcript Initial Certificate Final C-Track - Public Site

http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1612475200

Logout Search Menu New Civil Search Back Location : All MNCIS Sites - Case Search Help

Register Of Actions

Case No. 62-CV-09-1163

Delinquent Real Property Taxes for 2008

§ § § § §

Case Type: Administrative File Date Filed: 02/12/2009 Location: Ramsey Civil

Party Information

				Lead Attorneys
Topic	Delinquent Real Property Taxes for 2008			STEPAN, JEAN Retained

Events & Orders of the Court

			DISPOSITIONS
02/12/2009			Closed administratively
09/10/2009			Judgment (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.)
			OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
02/12/2009			Notice-Other
03/31/2009			Affidavit for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis
03/31/2009			Order-Other
03/31/2009			Affidavit-Other
04/02/2009			Other Document
04/06/2009			Affidavit of Service
04/06/2009			Correspondence
04/06/2009			Other Document
04/06/2009			Other Document
04/06/2009			Other Document
04/07/2009			Order to Remove
04/09/2009			Notice of Case Reassignment
04/10/2009			Correspondence
06/26/2009			Affidavit of Publication
06/26/2009			Other Document
07/06/2009			Publicly Viewable Note to File
07/15/2009			Motion
07/15/2009			Memorandum
07/15/2009			Affidavit-Other
07/15/2009			Affidavit-Other
07/15/2009			Affidavit of Service
08/10/2009			Affidavit of Prejudice
08/12/2009			Notice of Motion and Motion
08/13/2009			Other Document
08/17/2009			Motion
08/19/2009			Other Document
08/20/2009			Motion Summary Judgment (10:30 AM) Result: Held
09/09/2009			Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order
09/10/2009			Judgment
09/10/2009			Notice of Entry of Judgment
09/11/2009			Other Document
09/11/2009			Other Document
09/14/2009			Notice of Appeal
09/14/2009			Other Document
09/14/2009			Supplemental Affidavit for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis
09/15/2009			Supplemental Affidavit for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis
09/18/2009			Supplemental Order for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis
09/18/2009			Correspondence
09/21/2009			Affidavit of Service
10/20/2009			Other Document
10/27/2009			Notice of Appeal
10/30/2009			Affidavit of Service
11/02/2009			Statement of Case
11/05/2009			Affidavit-Other
11/17/2009			Notice of Case Filing
11/18/2009			Certificate of Receipt of Transcript-Appellate Court
11/18/2009			Transcript

House pass Health-Care Bill 7Nov09

House Democrats promise health-care victory as Republicans remain opposed to bill - washingtonpost.com

House Democrats pass health-care bill

One Republican votes for plan Senate will act next on legislation

Video

House passes health-care bill

The U.S. House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. The vote was 220-215.

» LAUNCH VIDEO PLAYER

Health-Care Vote Analysis See how members voted and view by vote, party, state, percentage of uninsured in their congressional district and campaign contributions from the health industry.

Google Lawmen Cases MN 62cv09-1163 « Sharon4anderson’s Weblog

Vote Eva 3Nov09

Saint Paul Sample Ballot

SHARON VOTED YES TO ELIMINATE PRIMARYS

Sharons Appeal 62cv09-1163 Judge John Vandenorth

Sent: 10/26/2009 5:19:55 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Appeal 62cv09-1163 http://www.mncourts.gov/

Abolish Property Taxes

TRANSMIT AND CERTIFY RECORD ON APPEAL WITH IFP SERVICE BY THE SHERIFF

This document must be accompanied by 2 copies of a completed statement of the case. IFP Service by Sheriff Bob.Fletcher@co.ramsey.mn.us Faxes & Electronically.
SharonsAppeal 62cv09-1163(VAndenorth) HYPERLINK "RCAP.htm" \l "a13303
APPENDIX OF FORMS

mn const. art.x taxes - Google Search

FORM 103A. NOTICE OF APPEAL (COURT OF APPEALS)

MN 62cv09-1163 « Sharon4anderson’s Weblog

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF RAMSEY COUNTY COURT
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CASE TITLE Civil,Criminal,General Eminent Domain

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 18Mar09 MapleWood Review www.review-news.com

and all Candidates for Political Offices www.sharon4mayor2010.blogspot.com
******************************************************************************

STATE OF MINNESOTA,Ward Einess, Revenue, Michael Campion DPS,Cal Ludman HS,All Agencies,County of Ramsey,All Agencies, City of

St.Paul,MN,All Agencies, DSI,HS,HR,

AUDITOR MARK OSWALD, Elections/Taxes Supervisor, Canvass Board,
State of Minnesota, Rule 24.04 by and thro State Attorney General Lori
Swanson www.ag.state.mn.us, Michael Campion, Public Safety,Larry Dease,Court Administrator,St.Paul
Mayor Chris B. Coleman,City Clerk Shari Moore,Council President Kathy Lantry et al,
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

John Harrington Chief Police,his agents , Kathy Wuorinen,Don Luna,Tanya Hunter, Aaron Foster, Police Impound Lot, Rapid Towing et al in
their Official Capacity‘s, Ind ividually,Severally, acting in concort with John Doe
and Mary Roe. SCAP,Judges Kathleen Gearin,Joanne Smith,Gregg
Johnson,Salvador Rosas,Larry Cohen et al, unk at this time 1988 Files 495722 499129 Default 66
Million Dollars. In re Scarrella4 Assoc. Justice 221NWS2d,562

Plaintiffs
V.

697 SURREY AVE 32.29.22.41.0053$2,499.43
St.Paul,MN.55106 ,Intestate Decedant
www.cpljimanderson.blogspot.com ,VA Widow,Senior,Disabled Political Activist
Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Chergosky_Scarrella
www.sharon4staterep64a.blogspot.com http://sharon4council.blogspot.com
http://sharon4privateattorneygeneral.blogspot.com + 96 Blogs
www.sharonanderson.org , et al as their interest appear , Defendants and
3rd Party Plaintiffs,Intestate Decedants Tenant in Common Wm.O and Bernice
A.Peterson. http://crimes-against-humanity.blogspot.com

Title to Sharons Cars,Trailers,Peterbilt,Realestate in Fee Simple AbsoluteNotice: Ins.Claim Stolen 91 Chrysler V-1C4GY54R5MX597169

Defendants: 3rd Party Plaintiffs

Cop- Corruption-Minnesota: Theft Trespass Larceny RICO

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEALS

TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER: 62cv09-1163
DATE OF ORDER: 8Sept.09
OR
http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/62cv091163vandenorthsumjudg8sept09

DATE JUDGMENT ENTERED:10Sept09

TO: Clerk of the Appellate Courts Fred Grittner et al
Minnesota Judicial Center
St. Paul, MN 55155
Please take notice that the above-named defendant's 3rd party plaintiff's appeals to the Court of Appeals of the
State of Minnesota from an order (judgment) of the court filed (10Sept09) on the date shown,
denying defendant's_ QuiTam Relator motion's Jury trial Evidentiary Hearing, Fact Finding,Continuence, Affidavit of Prejudice and for Public Policy pdf Formats found at http://www.sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/

	Affidavit of Prejudice AffidavitPrejudice Kathleen Gearin Judge
08/12/2009			Notice of Motion and MotionSharons FactFinding 62cv09-1163 Taxes/Elections
08/13/2009			Other DocumentMotion to Continue 62cv09-1163Judge John Vandenorth
08/17/2009	08/19/2009		Motion http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sharon4andersonwebnair-20aug09

Document SharonsSanction Attorneys_Fraud on Court pg26Sharons Letter Motion 62cv09-1163

NAME,ADDRESS AND NUMBER OF ATTORNEY(S) FOR PLAINTIFF'S

Ramsey Co. Attorney Susan Gaertner aka Mrs. John Wodele, M.Jean Stepan aka Mrs.John Tancabel 895 Osceola St.Paul, (105120) MN Student John Edison address unk

Sicko-City StPaul: FindLaw InterrogatoriesJean Tancabel aka Jean Stepan re: 62cv09-1163

Phone:Tel: 651-266-3222 Fax: 651-266-3010 Email: RCA@co.ramsey.mn.us

Ramsey County Attorney

NAME, ADDRESS, ZIP CODE, TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND ATTORNEY
REGISTRATION LICENSE NUMBER OF ATTORNEY(S) FOR DEFENDANT:
/s/ VA Widow_Whistleblower QuiTam Relator, Attorney Pro Se,Private AG, InFact, Sharon Anderson aka Peterson-Chergosky-Scarrella Tel: 651-776-5835

Legal Domicile: 1058 Summit/PO Box 4384 and 697 Surrey Ave St.Paul,MN 55104-0384

ECF :P165913_sa1299___sharon4anderson@aol.com _E Democracy Files - Sharon Anderson

_____
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file6.pdf

SIGNATURE
(The trial court caption is used on the notice of appeal. Subsequent documents shall bear the
appropriate appellate court caption. {HYPERLINK "RCAP.htm" \l "a10301"}, subd. 1 specifies
the contents of the notice of appeal and filings required to perfect an appeal, including filing fees.
{HYPERLINK "RCAP.htm" \l "a10303"} sets forth judgments and orders which are appealable
to the Court of Appeals. {HYPERLINK "RCAP.htm" \l "a10401"} specifies time limits for
filing and service of the notice of appeal. {HYPERLINK "RCAP.htm" \l "a107"} provides for
bond or deposit for costs. {HYPERLINK "RCAP.htm" \l "a10801"} provides for a supersedeas

FORM 133. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
(IN COURT OF APPEALS)
CASE TITLE: General,Civil,Criminal Eminent Domain,Taxes,Forfeiture,Constitutionality MS 429.061 Fees/Assess/ROW
STATEMENT OF THE CASE OF
(RESPONDENT)
TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER:62cv09-1163 (Vandenorth)Reporter(Martinez)
vs.
APPELLATE COURT CASE NUMBER: UNK
Respondent.
1. Court or agency of case origination and name of presiding judge or hearing officer.Answer/Cross/1/2MillionClaim v.CitySt.Paul St.Paul City Council (Lantry) thurs,5Jul2007,Res Assess 07-601pub.hearing 15Aug07,(GS3041156) Notice to Combine Item 51 Res.Ratifying Assessments 07-609 from 12Apr to 27Apr07 (J0707A J0708A: Assm.#8337 697 Surrey ID 32-29-22-41-0053, Referred to Risk Management Ron Guilfoile, See Venue: Ramsey Dist. Crt. 62cv09-1163 Judge Edward Cleary, Recused, Judge Gregg Johnson Recused, Judge John Vandenorth.

2. Jurisdictional statement

Study in Appellate Advocacy: Guide To Appellate Briefs The Appellate Brief : SparkCharts

Minnesota Court of Appeals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tax and Property Look Up Information - Quick Info 697 Surrey http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/current/OPA090064-0306.pdf re Mark Oswald Canvass Board

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the Court criminally abused its discretion by Acting a WAR with MN Constitution Art. X to dispose of appellants’ constitutional challenge , Bizzare Method of City St.Paul Fees/Assessments/ROW by Theft,Trespass and Treason.? Usury Interest on Property Tax Statement without WritProA06-1150 30Jun06 Formal Complaints,Warrants,Tickets to Defend

2. Auditor Mark Oswald in perjury as http://www.usbank.com/ Tax Receipts pdf format.

Mark Oswald Auditor/Elections re: 2008 US Senate

Mark Oswald Canvass Board US Senate 2008 MN - Google Search

Auditor's False Statements have put at risk 3 thousand Propertys + QuiTam Relator

MN 62cv09-1163 « Sharon4anderson’s Weblog ,

. Sections 212, 214(b), 214(c), 304, 319, and 403(b) of the Bipartisan Campaign Re-form Act of 2002 (BCRA), Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, because those challenges are plainly nonjusticiable or insubstantial under settled law.
bipartisan campaign re-form act 2002 - Google Search

3. Whether, in other respects, the Court should note probable jurisdiction over appellants’ constitutional challenges to BCRA, Relators Medicare, Federal Jurisdiction and set the appeals on those issues for briefing and oral argument.

Intellectual Property in Cyberspace

Minnesota's Longest Arm: Jurisdiction Over the Internet - Law Firm Mansfield, Tanick and Cohen, P.A. Attorneys Minneapolis, M..

PROOF OF SERVICE 62cv09-1163

BY PDF FORMAT SHARONSCARRELLA ANDERSON AKA PETERSON

AKA CHERGOSKY_VA Widow_Whistleblower_Candidate State AG,Attorney Pro Se_Private AG

AFFIANT; SET'S FORTH THIS CLAIM OF INJURY CAUSED
BY EMPLOYEES OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL ,COUNTY OF RAMSEY, POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THEIR TRUSTEE'S UNDER THE NAME
OF THE UNITED STATES /GOVERNMENT/CORPORATION 42 USC 3631 GROUNDS FOR INJURY VIOLATIONS OF

TITLE 18 USCs: 241,242,245,
Civil Rights Division Home Page HATE CRIMES, R.I.C.O. 18 USCs 1581 Peonage, 1584,Servitude

HONEST SERVICE FRAUD & VIOLATION OF THE US and State of Minnesota's Constitution's & STATUTES of wrong doings, "Bad Behavior" MS609.
609 - CRIMINAL CODE, 2009 Minnesota Statutes

Title 42 USC sec.1983 - Google Search

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or
other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,
shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any
action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken
in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be
granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief
was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered
to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

1 . Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D. Wis. 1972).
Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1973).

Title 42 USC sec.1983 Wood v. Breier, Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, Private AG's - Google Search

“Each citizen acts as a private attorney
general who ‘takes on the mantel of sovereign’,”

2. Minnesota is a “Right to Work” State! Affiant 1973 Started the Church of Justice Reform, legally incorporated at 1058 Summit Ave. St. Paul, re: Scarrella v. Midwest Fed S&L - Google Search

536F.2d.1207

Its OK to practice God`s law with out a
license, Luke 11:52, Sharon in Good Faith re: God`s Law was here first! “There is a higher loyalty than the Office of Justice of the MN Supreme Court. Sharon Scarrella for Assoc. Justice MN Sup Crt. - Google Search loyalty to this
country, loyalty to God” U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 172, 85 S. Ct. 850, 13 L. Ed. 2d 733
(1965)

US v. Seeger - Google Search

3. “The practice of law can not be licensed by any state/State. Schware v. Board of Examiners,
United States Reports 353 U.S. pgs. 238, 239. Schware v. Board Examines - Google Search

In Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)

Sims v Aherns - Google Search

“The practice of law is an occupation of common right.” A bar card is not a license, its a dues card
and/or membership card. A bar association is that what it is, a club, A association is not license,
it has a certificate though the State, the two are not the same..........

RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED BY
Relief can be granted in the following ways in dollar amount Option (A). Approximately
$60,000,000.00 million tax free dollars (Sixty-Six Million Dollars) including Legal Fees, Costs,

Research and Time or tax free;

PLUS THE RIGHTS TO RECOVERY.All 13 Propertys, 91 Chrysler,Trailer,Drivers License, triggering Long Formal Complaints, Warrants, List of Witness, Evidentary , Indictments in the Murder of Cpl.Jim Anderson, 21Sept2000 Sharons 2nd Husband
, Intestate Decedants Tenants in Common , William O and Bernice A. Peterson, Sharons Parents,

Murder of Steven Monroe Quale Sr. and the "takings" of Sharons Daughter Vonessa

40 yrs ago by Corrupt Officials, Cold Case Murders http://minnesota-murders.blogspot.com/ Barb Winn aks Aaron Foster Manager of Police Impound Lot "who stole sharons car", Greenly and 10 month Baby Boy Henry Gooselaw Jr (40) years ago.

Remove the City Attorney John Choi,Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner and Jean Stepan, Student John Edison and State Attorney General Lori Swanson affilliates ,ABA BAR Association and place all lawyer's under the state or federal
licensing program to work in this country under the Constitutional Mandate as it was originally
required. Remove all Lawyers and Attorneys as Staff employment for The State of Minnesota and Congress. Have the State of Minnesota and Congress
restate the state militia under the intent of HR11654 better known as the DICK ACT of 1902

Dick Act 1902 - Google Search

and allow the state militia to enforce and bring claims of injury to the Minnesota State Legislature and floor of Congress to have
these issue address and deal with in 72 hour of such complaint or before a citizen tribunal
hearing board. or Convene Grand Jurys.

Option (B), Bring in the military to help set up a new government to be put in
place and remove all federal and state officials who are guilty of Malfeasance,Nonfeasance,Misfeasance from office and brought them up on military
charges as was done in Germany 1945 for crime against humanity. That how relief can be
granted. The debt cause in this action comes under the 14th amendment section 3 people section

4 tell how to collect this debt..as the "takings" of our Homesteads via City Council's RICO Acts of Theft,Trespass,Treason placed on Property Taxes without Public Improvements to cause Eminent Domain must not stand.

Disclaimer: City of St.Paul cannot and must not tax,Fees/Assessments/ROW based on

Criminal RICO Acts of Theft of Cars,Trailers,Personal Property, Water, Trespass on private Property ie 3 Thousand Cases, Affiant is the only one to Answer, and Treason to Deny Act at War with STate and Federal Laws, Constitutional Guarantees on Candidate Sharon Anderson aka Sharon4Anderson,Scarrella,Peterson-Chergosky_Beckley, Woman,Senior,Disabled, in a Protected Class.
REFERANCE COURT CASES
1. Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 151 Fed. 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox 456 2nd 233.

Picking v. Pennsylvania - Google Search

Pro se
pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants pleadings are not to
be held to the same high
standards of perfection as lawyers. Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25.

Platsky v CIA - Google Search

Additionally, pro se litigants
are to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings. Reynoldson v
Reynoldson v Shillinger - Google Search Shillinger 907F .2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990); See also Jaxon v Circle K. Corp. 773 F.2d 1138,
1140 (10th Cir. 1985) (1)
Jaxon v. Circle K. Corp - Google Search

2. Haines v. Kerner (92 S. Ct. 594). The respondent in this action is a not a Liar or -lawyer and is moving forward in
Haines v. Kerner - Google Search

Private Attorney General and Attorney Pro Se, IFP

3. NAACP v. Button (371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs (383 U.S. 715);
NAACP v. Button - Google Search

and Johnson v. Avery 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969). Members of groups who are competent non-lawyers
Johnson v. Avery - Google Search can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being
charged with “Unauthorized practice of law.”

Unauthorized Practice of Law Rev. Dick Bullock MN - Google Search

4. Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar (377 U.S. 1); Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia Bar - Google Search

Gideon v.Wainwright 372 U.S. 335;

gideon v. wainwright case brief - Google Search

Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425. Litigants may be
assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial proceedings.
Argersinger v. Hamlin - Google Search

5. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State
Howlett v. Rose - Google Search Court Cases
6. Federal Rules Civil Proc., Rule 17, 28 U.S.C.A. “Next Friend” A next friend is a person who represents
Fed Rules 17, 28 USCA Next Friend - Google Search

someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest...

7. Minnesota Court Rules and Procedures,
Minnesota Court Rules - Google Search Title 12, sec. 2017 (C) “If an infant or incompetent person does not have a duly appointed
representative he may sue by his next friend or by a guardian ad litem.”
8. Mandonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F3d 576 (1st Cir. 1994) Inadequate training of subordinates may be basis for 1983 claim.

Mandonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez - Google Search

9. Warnock v. Pecos County, Tex., 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does not
Warnock v. Pecos County Tex - Google Search

protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state
officials acted in violation of federal law.
government offices, State, local political subdivision, judicial etc comes under Rule 4 j as a
Foreign State.
The question will arise to the issue of 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim to which relief can
be grant. How does put a price on such crimes against humanity. The issue should be
were the 12(b)(6) for the People or 12(b)(1)(2) rule 17 where was the people immunity.
If they were as censured about the people 12 (b) s and immunity and their rights We the
People would not be in this Court now.

NOTICE: We, the people, reserve the right to amend this Appeal at any time daring the
Process of this action at bar as www.usbank.com is the holding company for City of St. Paul and County of Ramsey Taxes, and that 20+ years ago Lesbian Judge Kathleen Gearin kicked us out of our Paid for Home, triggering the Heinous, Repugnant Deprivation of the Anderson's both Disabled, Jim Silver Star, Purple Heart Marine (Korea), as said Judge apparantly embellzed over $110,000.00

"taking" our Homestead in a "Patterened Enterprise for over 20 years

currently the County Auditor Mark Oswald is in Perjury or MN 62cv09-1163 « Sharon4anderson’s Weblog he has also Embellzed the Property Tax Payment of $
449.92, > The Payment of $449.93 was returned and run thro again.

even tho Affiant called and thro another account processed.

Totalling $893.xx Paid May 15,16th 2008.

Affiant charges Mark Oswald as he has been notified by Phone,E-mails and Bank Statements. Oswald has tried to circumvent Affiants online Banking for his pecuniary gain.

Federal Reserve Banks,
mn const. art.x taxes - Google Search

Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the
relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose
of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.”
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region.
The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of
directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal
Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is
exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the
12 USC 301 - Google Search

manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement
12 USC 341 - Google Search

and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks,
making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks,
discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market.
See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341 361.
12 USC 341-361 - Google Search

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal
agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 48 L. Ed. 2d
US v. Orleans - Google Search

390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or
instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal
regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day
operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused
to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the
Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks.
Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank
employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by
worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees
room. When the Department Of Justice fails to prevent these actions in the courtroom
and conceal the truth this now show collusion between all three branches of
government. One branch of our government such had integrity to stand up for what is
right. Their failure to do so comes under the term of high crimes and treason, war
crimes, human rights violations, R.I.C.O., and etc. This Appellate Court
of the State of Minnesota www.mncourts.gov is being placed on Notice. Every Federal and State Court
outside of the Ten square miles area and the Federal Court inside of that ten
square miles, area have made it impossible, through its own corruption. For the People and Sharon Scarrella Anderson for over 30 years
lacked enforcement and has been denied the ability to defend herself as those in
Nazis Germany under Hitler. Those who set in the same position in Germany at ,that
time as member of their Government and Military stood before our Military Court and
the World Court and were tried for war crimes and crime against humanity. Years later
they are still being rounded up and charged. There is no statute of limitation on these
types of crimes. This Superior Court of the STate of Minnesota has the choice to find
some type of humanity to give to the People of this nations or pursuing their course of
action, knowing that such action is a crime and some day run the risk of be tried in
another world court.

This Superior Court of the State of Minnesota is fully aware that a corporation
can not bring charges against a living being. The High Court has ruled this in U.S.
Supreme Court PENHALLOW v. DOANE'S ADM'RS, 3 U.S. 54 (1795) and Rule 17,
requires a interest party a living body. Penhallow v. Doanes Admr - Google Search

Case law
Title 28, USC 1601-1611 FSIA

Title 28 USC 1601 FSIA - Google Search

protects the people under the 11th amendment as all

11th amendment commerce clause - Google Search
public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the
corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation
under 31 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a nongovernmental,
31USC 846 - Google Search

independent entity, not covered under the Act.
Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. § 341.

31USC 846 - Google Search

Conclusion
The issue being place before this Superior Court of the State of Minnesota is a
history of the abuse being allowed by the Federal and State Courts outside the Ten
square miles and by the Federal Courts inside the State of Minnesota against all
American Nationals. This is in direct violation of our federal constitution and statutes
and title 50 and the 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249 (section 1), enacted July 27,
1868 Chap. CCXLIX. ---An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign
Title 50 - Google Search States and of the above. The American people never rescinded their citizenship to their
country, but by the misuse of legislation, created by the Bar Association, they have
fraudulently expatriated the public officials from our Country the united States of
America and their citizenship to a foreign state standing outside of the constitution and
Suspended the Federal and all State Constitutions without the people knowledge or
consent. By the Courts continuing these actions in the courtrooms they have become a
co-conspirator in acts of mutiny and the overthrow of a constitutional form of
government. Legislators are hiding behind the separation of power clause,
knowing full well of these injuries, being done to the people. When legislation by
Congress could be created to prevent this injury, and their willful failure to do so, make
them as guilty as those Court officials who deny the supreme of the land in their court
bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or
premiums are the same.
Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any
Allodial Title - Google Search

liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) "Hypothecated" all property within the
Federal Reserve Act (1913) - Google Search

federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees
(stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a
"beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States
hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the
14th amendment us constitution - Google Search 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.
In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all
the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States
government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan.
Since the federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private property of
their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the un-payable federal debt.
They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth
certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already
been transferred as payment to the international bankers.
The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. §
31 USC - Google Search

846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, a factor considered in 31 USC 846,856 - Google Search

Wilful failure to address the Affidavit of Prejudice against Ramsey Co. Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin http://www.sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/

Ex. Disclosure Statement

http://www.povertylaw.org/poverty-law-library/case/55500/55504/55504a.pdf

Pearlv. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956),

which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a
Pearl v. US,230 F. 2d 243 - Google Search federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status [*1242] of the Federal Reserve
Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the
from sources within or outside the United States.
United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303

US Congressional Record Mar 17,1993 Vol 33 - Google Search

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the
Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1,Public Law 89-719; declared by President
Emergency Banking Ace Mar 9 1933 - Google Search

Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 -
Emergency Banking Act June 5th 1933 - Google Search

Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the
Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States
Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States
supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase
in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.
The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty
protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a
"Canon Law Trust" as their model, adding stock and naming it a "Joint Stock Trust." The U.S.
Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal "person" to duplicate a "Joint Stock
Trust" in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870),
3. 1935 U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 The INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Ruled
US v. Constantine 296 - Google Search

unconstitutional since prohibition has been repealed. No legislative act Has ever lawfully
established the IRS as a Department of the United States Treasury.
4. 1818: U. S. v. Beavans, 16 U.S. 336. Established two separate jurisdictions within the
US v. Beavans - Google Search

United States Of America: 1. The “federal zone” and 2. “the 50 States”. The I.R.C.
(INTERNAL REVENUE CODE) only has jurisdiction within the “federal Zone”.
5. Fraud by Trickery: Zone Improvement Plan (Zip Code) Congress divides the union states
(50 ) into 10 Federal Zones in violation of Constitution and Color of Law. Found in
Postal Code.
There are to type of action to which any Court can operate one is civil as found in the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 2 or under Criminal Which is found under Title 50 Chapter
3 Section 23 Jurisdiction of United States courts and judges; upon complaint against any
alien enemy resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public
peace. The department of the IRS is misusing this section as defined below. {HYPERLINK
"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html" \o "TITLE 26 - INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE"} > {HYPERLINK
"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A.html" \o "Subtitle A -
Income Taxes"} > {HYPERLINK
"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A_20_3.html" TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 245
The portion of Section 245 of Title 18 which is primarily enforced by the Criminal Section
makes it unlawful to willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with any person, or to attempt to do
so, by force or threat of force, because of that other person's race, color, religion or national
origin and because of his/her activity as one of the following: (b) a participant in any benefit,
service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by the United States. (e)
a participant in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The offense is
punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon
the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
{HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26.html" \o "TITLE 26 - INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE"} > {HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F.html"
\o "Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration"} > {HYPERLINK
"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F_20_64.html" \o "CHAPTER 64 -
COLLECTION"} > {HYPERLINK
"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F_20_64_30_D.html" \o "Subchapter D -
Seizure of Property for Collection of Taxes"} > {HYPERLINK
"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_F_20_64_30_D_40_II.html" \o "PART II -
LEVY"} > § 6331. Levy and Distraint
(a) Authority of Secretary
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice
and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall
be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property
(except such property as is exempt under section {HYPERLINK
"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006334----000-.html"}) belonging to
such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy
may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of
the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States
or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section
3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the
collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may
be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy
shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.
United States Supreme case decision on taxes just to name a few. Taxes can only apply to
those under 26 USC 6331 and not the people of the several fifty states. Below are the case laws.
1. 1895 Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co. 157 U. S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 The Supreme
Court ruled “income tax” unconstitutional.
Pollock v. Farmers Loan - Google Search

2. 1920 Eisner v. Mcomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206

Eisner v. Macomber - Google Search

Congress cannot by any definition it
may adopt conclude what income is, since it cannot by legislation alter the
Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate and within who’s
limitations alone that power Can be lawfully exercised.
long been a part of human history. It is only recently, however, that our society has given it a
name and decided to monitor it, study it and legislate against it." 1
The FBI defines a hate crime (a.k.a. bias crime) to be: "a criminal offense committed against a
person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against
a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin." (America Nationals)
Public Law #103-322A, a 1994 federal law, defines a hate crime as: "a crime in which the
Hate Crime Public Law #103-322A - Google Search defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the
object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."
Official definitions of hate crimes:
Typical hate crime laws criminalize the use of force, or the threat of force, against a
Person because they are a member of a specific, protected group. Four definitions of
the term "hate crime" are:
Hate Crimes Statistics Act (1990): "... crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on
race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder,
nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson,
and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." (Public Law 101-275).
Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA; 1997): "Hate crimes--or bias-motivated crimes—are
defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on his or her race, religion,
sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin."
Anti-Defamation League (ADL): A hate crime is "any crime committed because of the victim's
actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender [male or
female] or sexual orientation."
National Education Association (NEA): "Hate crimes and violent acts are defined as offenses
motivated by hatred against a victim based on his or her beliefs or mental or physical
characteristics, including race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation."
Traditional hate crime legislation protects persons because of "his race, color, religion or
national origin , " as in the case of the 1969 federal hate crimes law. (18 U.S.C. Section 245).
Most state laws now include additional protected groups. Some laws are restrictive and
Only protect a member of a group if she/he is involved in specific activities. For
example, the 1969 federal law only applies if the crime happens when a person is
attending a public school or is at work or participating in one of four other "federally
protected activities."
persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any
segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331
§ 2331. Definitions
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
HR 3162 RDS
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population
HATE CRIMES
When the Federal Government; Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches allows
such action they are now aiding & abating in Hate crimes as defined by the FBI in the
following issue. When these Government offices have had complaint filed into them and
the people has had appointment to cover these issues in person with the public officials
and they refuse to address the complaint. By hiding behind the separated of power
clause. These are the same official who created, enforce and minister the laws. If law
can be created to injury, be enforced and minister to injury the people then laws can be
made to reversed such injuries by the same means.
The FBI's hate-crime report for 2002 quotes a statement about hate crimes by the
American Psychological Association:
"...not only is it an attack on one's physical self, but is also an attack on one's very
identity."Attacks upon individuals because of a difference in how they look, pray or behave have
(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to
commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other
than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon
another within his custody or control.
(C) Performing biological experiments.— The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or
attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological
experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body
or health of such person or persons.
(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or
kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under
this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those
placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
(I) Taking hostages.— The act of a person who, having knowingly seized or detained one or
more persons, threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or persons with the
intent of compelling any nation, person other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or
refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or release of such person or
persons.
(2) Definitions.— In the case of an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3)—
(A) the term “severe mental pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraphs
(1)(A) and (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2340 (2) of
this title;
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340
§ 2340. Definitions
Title 18 2340 - Google Search

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting
from
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or
suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures
calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and
the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in
the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against
pretender and or agents who has expatriated themselves from the constitutional form of
government to a foreign state standing then to allow the misuse or impersonate a
constitutional position in order to collect federal funds and to bond these cases to place
in a insurance account under ticket numbers, case number or use of federal ID number
in a time that a State Emergency has been declared. This misuse of that public office
and in a state of emergency a war crime and also is defined as a hate crime as a group
is being singled out (American National) and also falls under the term of R.I.C.O. (TITLE 18 >
PART I > CHAPTER 96 > § 1961)
§ 1961. Definitions
Title 18 s 1961 - Google Search

(1) “racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling,
arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance
or listed chemical.
(2) “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, any political subdivision, or any
department, agency, or instrumentality thereof;
(4) “Enterprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal
entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity;
(5) “pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of
which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten
years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering
activity;
Definition of a war crime comes under.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441
§ 2441. War crimes
Title 18 s 2441 - Google Search

(d) Common Article 3 Violations.—
(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3”
means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the
international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act
specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or
suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical
control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation,
coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

TITLE 50, APPENDIX App. > TRADING > ACT > § 2
Title 50 Trading Act s2 - Google Search

§ 4. Licenses to enemy or ally of enemy insurance or reinsurance companies; change of name;
doing business in United States.
Required SR 22 bond
Laws vary from state to state on the legal requirements one must meet in order to be a licensed
driver. In most states, one must carry proof of insurance in order to drive; being caught without
proof of insurance carries a stiff penalty. An SR22 is a financial responsibility document that
informs the state that a driver has met his or her insurance requirements.
Function
While all states require drivers to be insured in order to legally drive, most states do not require
that the state has documentation of said insurance unless the driver is pulled over or otherwise
attracts the attention of the Department of Motor Vehicles. In certain cases, however, a driver
will need to register his or her insurance with the state, and that is where the SR22 comes in. The
SR22 is generally filed by the insurance provider and tells the state that the driver does have the
insurance required to be on the road. In the event that the insurance policy is canceled, the
provider is likewise required to inform the state that the driver does not have the required
coverage.
State-to-State Differences
Some states (Pennsylvania, Delaware, Minnesota, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Oklahoma) never
require an SR22, but if a driver required one in his or her previous state, it is still necessary to
remain on file with that state; moving from Ohio to Oklahoma will not absolve one of his or her
responsibilities towards Ohio. Additionally, if the requirements for insurance are different, the
driver must meet the requirements for both states in order to drive legally. Neither New York nor
North Carolina, however, require out-of-state SR22 filings

so returning by circumstances beyond his control.
By the Federal and State Courts allowing such act by the Federal and State
v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 3 Wheat. 336 336 (1818) these case law show
that there are three different and distinct forms of the United States of America.
The Federal and State Courts and the Federal and State pretenders and their
agents have misused the meaning of these Supreme Court cases along with title 50 of
the USC and have knowingly defrauded the America people by expatriation them from
their own country in the courtrooms and silenced them making the people the enemy of
the state under this USC title 50. By and thru mandatory licensing, regulation of
transactions in foreign exchange of gold or silver to FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES,
property transfers by placing all property under the name of the State such as homes
,vehicles, children, animals, firearms and etc. The Federal and State pretender and or
agents have made a willful presumption of expatriation on the part of the People
therefore denying the People their rights to their lawful standing as an American National.
The court has willfully and knowing concealed this from the people. The following
Congressional Statute at large has given the People protection from foreign state under
the federal constitutional 11th amendment not subject to foreign state.
15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249 (section 1), enacted July 27, 1868.
American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the
government thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this
claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed, Therefore:
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of
American in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision,
of any officers of a government which denies., restricts , impairs or questions the rights of
expatriation , is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.
(B) the court having jurisdiction over the defendant in the case;
(ii) shall be an officer of the court, and the powers of the Federal Receiver shall include the
powers set out in section 754 of title 28, United States Code; and
(iii) shall have standing equivalent to that of a Federal prosecutor for the purpose of submitting
Title 28 - Google Search

requests to obtain information regarding the assets of the defendant -
(I) from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury; or
(II) from a foreign country pursuant to a mutual legal assistance treaty, multilateral agreement, or
other arrangement for international law enforcement assistance,
provided that such requests are in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Attorney
General.
(c) As used in this section -
The term United States has been defined in Title 28, USC under § 3002 15 (a) as a Federal
Title 28 USC 3002 - Google Search

Corporation CJS Vol 20 § 1785 a Foreign Corporation and substantiated by Supreme Court case
laws.
BLACKS LAWS FIFTH EDTION
FOREIGN STATE; A “foreign state” within statues providing for expatriation of America
Blacks Law 5th ed - Google Search

citizens who are naturalized under laws of a foreign state in a country which is not the United
States, or its possession or colony, an alien country, other than their own. Kletter v. Dulles,
Kletter v. Dulles - Google Search

D.C.D.C.111F.SUPP.593, 598.
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1101
(14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing
dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.
At no time have the People expatriated his/her self from his country. By and
through the passing of Title 50, USC TWEA all public officials knowingly or unknowingly
have declared themselves to be foreign and did expatriate from the original united
States of America to become a citizen of the UNITED STATES located in the District of
Columbia as defined by the United States Supreme Court in the following case laws.
“The high Court confirmed that the term "United States" can and does mean three
completely different things, depending on the context:” Hooven & Allison Co. vs. Evatt,
hooven & allison co. v. evatt - Google Search

324 U.S. 652 (1945) & United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) & United States
US v. Cruikshank - Google Search

SECTION TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 3 > § 23
Title 50 chapter 3 - Google Search

§ 23. Jurisdiction of United States Courts and Judges; “After any such proclamation has been
made, the several courts of the United States, having criminal jurisdiction,” All judgments’
against the people fall under criminal.This is why the Courts refuse to answer the challenges of
jurisdiction. Under the TWEA this is but one jurisdiction and that jurisdiction is criminal.
Second; TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 3 > § 21
§ 21. Restraint, regulation, and removal. TITLE 50 APPENDIXES -- WAR AND NATIONAL
DEFENSE Sec. 16. Offenses; punishment; forfeitures of property(a) Whoever shall willfully
violate any of the provisions of this Act or of any license, rule, or regulation issued there under,
and whoever shall willfully violate, neglect, or refuse to comply with any order
AND
Third; TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 95 - RACKETEERING
Title 18 RICO - Google Search

(2) Jurisdiction over foreign persons. - For purposes of adjudicating an action filed or enforcing a
penalty ordered under this section, the district courts shall have jurisdiction over any foreign
person, including any financial institution authorized under the laws of a foreign country, against
whom the action is brought, if service of process upon the foreign person is made under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the laws of
the country in which the foreign person is found, and –
(A) the foreign person commits an offense under subsection
(a) involving a financial transaction that occurs in whole or in part in the United States;
(B) the foreign person converts, to his or her own use, property in which the United States has an
ownership interest by virtue of the entry of an order of forfeiture by a court of the United States;
or
(C) the foreign person is a financial institution that maintains a bank account at a financial
institution in the United States.
(3) Court authority over assets. - A court described in paragraph (2) may issue a pretrial
restraining order or take any other action necessary to ensure that any bank account or other
property held by the defendant in the United States is available to satisfy a judgment under this
section.
(4) Federal receiver. -
(A) In general. - A court described in paragraph (2) may appoint a Federal Receiver, in
accordance with subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, to collect, marshal, and take custody,
control, and possession of all assets of the defendant, wherever located, to satisfy a civil
judgment under this subsection, a forfeiture judgment under section 981 or 982, or a criminal
sentence under section 1957 or subsection (a) of this section, including an order of restitution to
any victim of a specified unlawful activity.
Section 3); and (Article I section 10 clause 1)The Federal CEO Corporate President of then as
well as of today along with all Federal and State government. Federal Corporation/State
Corporation/Foreign Corporation or “doing business as “under any other name aka has become a
"domestic enemy" by implementing & reimplementing the Bankruptcy of (1930-32) and "War
and Emergency Powers" (March 9, 1933 and subsequently) and "International Emergency and
War Powers" (1977) in contradiction to Article 4 Section 4; "The United States shall guarantee
to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them
against Invasion (from all enemies foreign and domestic); and on Application of the Legislature,
or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
By and thru the passing of The Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933. Title 50, USC
Trading with the Enemy Act Public Law No. 65-91 (40 Stat. L. 411) October 6, 1917.
The original Trading with the Enemy Act excluded citizens of the United States from
being treated as the enemy when involved in transactions wholly within the United
States. The Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933, however, included the people of the
United States as the enemy by inserting the following “citizens within the United
States”. The issue of abuse upon the American national(s) comes from the misuses of
Title 50 of the U.S.C. TWEA.
JUDICIAL NOTICE TO THIS COURT
That, We, the people of the States in America has overly provided Congress House and
Senate Judiciary Committees with Evidence and/or Exhibits with NO concern of ANY
"Due Process "Violation of/in the Courts, Judges, Prosecutors, Lawyers, Attorneys, et
al., ect... Evidence of Summies and Documentation will be provided in Discovery after
Scheduling Order Issued.
The Doctrine of Contra Non Valentem
The rule that a limitation or prescriptive period does not begin to run against a plaintiff
who is unable to act usually. Because of the defendants culpable act, such as concealing material
information that would give rise to the plaintiffs claim- Often shortened to Contra Non
Valentem( Case limitation of action key 43,95,CJS Employer- Employee Relationship sec. 87;
Limitation of action sec. 81-84,87,131,138,142,164-165,170-173,175-176,183,198-205;
Physicians, surgeons, and other health-care providers sec. 108, RICO sec 16
COMPLAINT
Now Comes, David Lee; Buess & Rodney Dale; Class a naturalist citizen of the United
States of America whomever rescinded his/her Citizenship to his/her Country. This document
comes in a form of a complaint in the name of David Lee; Buess & Rodney Dale; Class SET
FORTH THIS CLAIM OF INJURY CAUSED BY EMPLOYEES OF THE CORPORATION
AND THEIR TRUSTEE UNDER THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES
/GOVERNMENT/CORPORATION TITLE 28 SEC.3002 SEC.15(a) GROUNDS FOR INJURY
VIOLATIONS OF TITLE 50 TWEA WAR CRIMES, HATE CRIMES, R.I.C.O. HONEST
SERVICE FRAUD & VIOLATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONSTITUTION &
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATUTES That the actions of the federal Government and
State Government, the federal President and State Governor, the federal Congress and State
legislators and the federal Judiciary and State Judicial branch acting in concert with the Treasury,
DOJ and FRB constitute an unlawful usurpation of the Constitution for the united States of
America, for the purpose(s) of implementing exclusive Legislation, in all cases whatsoever
(Statutory Jurisdiction) over the People, to the detriment of lawful money in these united States
of America and for Treason, high Crimes and Misdemeanors (Article II Section 4 and Article III
2. The STATE OF OHIO Law Firm represents REGINALD J. ROUTSON which collected
fraudulent taxes under the heading STATE OF OHIO dba Corporation for the United
States Corporation in the name of the Department of IRS.
3. The STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Law Firm represents Gaston County Tax
Department which collected fraudulent taxes for the United States Corporation for the
Department of IRS under the Treasury Department, which collect for the Federal Reserve
Bank which is also a private Corporation.
4.
The complaint below goes into detail on how the fraud came about and that we are
dealing with the departments/ corporations of the United States under the Judiciary and
judicial procedure manual under Title 28 USC. 3002 15(a) and under the Constitution of the
United States 14th amendment section 3 which was created by the reconstruction Act of
1868. Placing all of the State offices under the jurisdiction of the Federal Corporation know
as the District of Columbia / The United States.
The doctrine of Uberrima Fides; Hold the four rules of fiduciary obligation
1. Must not benefit from their position(s)
2. Must provide full disclosure of all activities’
3. May not compromise the beneficiary’s interests
4. May not delegate absolute responsibility over their beneficiary’s interest
outside of the ten square miles have become co-conspirer in aiding& abating in war
crimes and hate crimes against a united States national(s) with the intent to cause
and/or commit human trafficking on such united States national(s). This
Superior Court of the District of Columbia is an aware that there is no statute of
limitation on fraud, war crimes, hate crimes, human trafficking, R.I.C.O. or
constitutional violation. The United States Bill of Right as found in the District of
Columbia Constitution and in the United Nations charter defines this as acts as crimes
against humanity.
PARTIES OF THE CASE
Respondant-Appellant_QuiTam Private AG Whistleblower Sharon Scarrella Anderson aka Peterson-Chergosky for Realestate,Car Title Search's are the Relators in this State of Minnesota Appellate Action setting
forth claim of injuries
Appelle's_ United States dba Corporation, Department of the Minnesota Revenue and IRS dba Corporation, STATE
OF Minnesota dba Corporation Law firm State Attorney General Lori Swanson Rule 24.04, Employee of Corporation

. All of the Parties involved:
come under Title 28 USC 3002 15 (a) as department under the United States
Corporation definition
title 28 usc 3002 - Google Search

FOUNDATION & BASES FOR THE COMPLAINT
The MN Government Officials ie: DSI Employee Joel Essling and Cop Tanya Hunter have committed tax fraud upon the Affiant Sharon Scarrella Anderson by stealing her 91 Chrysler with Disabled License Plates. By and thru the different
departments of the United States Corporation as listed under 28 USC 3002 15 (a). The United
States Corporation created Title 26 of THE UNITED STATES CODES and Title 26 of CODE
OF FEDERAL REGULATION on how they are to tax it own Federal & State employee, aliens,
and corporations as found under 26 USC 6331(a) and the CFR under Title 26
1. The United States dba Corporation is the Law Firm for the Department of IRS
Corporation under the Treasury Department, which collect for the Federal Reserve Bank
which is also a private Corporation.
These are the Corporate laws being missed use by the Corporate employees are the
Delaware Code Title 8 under Corporate Law is Chapter 6 CHAPTER. PROFESSIONAL
Delaware Code Title 8 - Google Search

SERVICE CORPORATIONS section 617 Corporate names The corporate name of a corporation
organized under this chapter shall contain either a word or words descriptive of the professional
service to be rendered by the corporation or shall contain the last names and the Texas
Administrative Code under Corporation Chapter 79 CORPORATIONS Subchapter C. ENTITY
NAMES section 79.31. The amendments to §79.31, which relates to the characters of print
acceptable in a proposed entity name, are required to more specifically identify the capabilities
and limitations in the entry of entity names into the present computer system maintained by the
Secretary of State even the Style Manual created by the Corporation for use of grammar in their
Corporate usage.
.
NOTICE
Notice is being placed into this Superior Court of the State of Minnesota to have it placed on the record of fraud commit by the Corporate employees under the
name of the UNITED STATES aka, Federal Corporation, Foreign Corporation “doing
business as” the UNITED STATES /GOVERNMENT/CORPORATION, UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA. The Superior Court of the State of Minnesota is here by
placed on Notice that the State and Federal ie: Ramsey Co. Auditor Mark Oswald

appointed by the 2nd Judicial Judges , apparantly has committed Bank Fraud, Wire Fraud in the Taxes/Elections of Ramsey County with selective False Statements on the Propertys of Sharon Scarrella Anderson et al and fraudulently took public oath with the intent to expatriate his/ herself with the
intent to created injury and allow fraudulent claim against Sharon Scarrella Anderson and the united States national/s under
Title 50, USC Trading With Enemy Act (TWEA). Sharon et al are coming before this
Superior Court of State of Minnesota for Domestic Terrorism crimes against Sharon and those
who hold these federal public offices. As of date all Federal and State Courts
All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1985
§ 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
Delaware Legislation passed a Act called “An Act to Provide General Corporate
Law” This act created a corporation into a Person with all the same rights as a natural
person to buy, sell, mortgage, receive licenses. Pledges, etc but not to be construed as
a natural person /being. The High Court has rule in three case law that a corporation
can be sued as a Person. SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118
U.S. 394(1886), New York Central R. Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 (1909)
United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943)
Superior Court of the District of Columbia has jurisdiction over this matter as it is not a
State and not represented in Congress and is not part of this country but holds a neutral
position as all parties having a claim against them hold residents and work within the
District of Columbia area and are federal citizens of that District. All crimes and their
planing to injury the people of this nation were within the federal district of District of
Columbia as made subject by the Constitution and not outside of District of Columbia.
All injury originated within this ten square mile area. As no State Court has jurisdiction to
hear such an action. No Federal Court outside of the D.C. or inside of D.C. has
jurisdiction to hear this case as they are a party to this action. The District of Columbia
Constitution and it federal statutes have been violated by all parties named by their
constitutional standing in Article I, II, III of the D.C. Constitution and under the 14th
amendment section 3. This gives the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
jurisdiction over subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to hear this claim
providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.
(b) For purposes of this section -
(1) the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a State;
and
(2) any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to
be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Sec. 1443. Civil rights cases
-STATUTE
Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions,
commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the
District Court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is
pending
:
(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the
courts of such State a right under any law providing for the
equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all
persons within the jurisdiction thereof;
(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law
providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the
ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.
{HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sup_01_28.html" \o "TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY
AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE"} > {HYPERLINK
"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sup_01_28_10_VI.html" \o "PART VI - PARTICULAR
PROCEEDINGS"} > {HYPERLINK
"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sup_01_28_10_VI_20_171.html" \o "CHAPTER 171 - TORT
CLAIMS PROCEDURE"} >§ 2671. Definitions
As used in this chapter and sections {HYPERLINK
"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001346----000-.html"} {HYPERLINK
"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001346----000-.html" \l "b"} and
{HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00002401----000-.html"}
{HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00002401----000-.html" \l "b"}
of this title, the term “Federal agency” includes the executive departments, the judicial and
legislative branches, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States,
and corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the United States, but does
not include any contractor with the United States.
{HYPERLINK "http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode04/usc_sup_01_4.html" \o "TITLE 4 -
FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES"} > {HYPERLINK
"http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode04/usc_sup_01_4_10_3.html" \o "CHAPTER 3 - SEAT
OF THE GOVERNMENT"} > § 72. Public offices; at seat of Government
jurisdiction" as used in reference to subject matter jurisdiction.) Public Law 96-170 Dec
29 1979. “AN ACT” To permit civil suit under section 1979 of the Revise Statutes(42
USC1983) against any person acting under color of any law or custom of the District of
Columbia who subject any person within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia to
the deprivation rights, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and Laws
including & 24 Am Jur 2d District of Columbia ß 21 ß 21 Superior Court of the District of
Columbia and divisions thereof The District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, the Juvenile
Court of the District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia Tax Court were consolidated in a
single court known as the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (Title 28,). (2) by adding at
the end thereof the following new sentence;“ for the purposes of this section , Any Act of
Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of
the District of Columbia. Sec.2 Section 1343 of title 28 UNITED STATES CODES is amended
(1) by inserting”(a)“ before : The district court”. Sec. 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise...
-STATUTE-
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be
commenced by any person:
(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any
right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of and
conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;
(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs
mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to
prevent;
(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United
States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within
the jurisdiction of the United States;
(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress

SET FORTH THIS CLAIM OF
INJURY
CAUSED BYEMPLOYEES OF THE CORPORATION AND THEIR TRUSTEE UNDER
THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES /GOVERNMENT/CORPORATION TITLE 28
SEC.3002 SEC.15(a) GROUNDS FOR INJURY VIOLATIONS OF TITLE 50 TWEA
WAR CRIMES, HATE CRIMES, R.I.C.O. HONEST SERVICE FRAUD & VIOLATION
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONSTITUTION & THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STATUTES
NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO THE AGENTS
NOTICE TO THE AGENTS IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE
R.I.C.O.
FRAUD, BANK FRAUD, POSTAL FRAUD
CONSPIRACY/OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
TAX FRAUD, MONEY LAUNDERING, WIRE FRAUD, PERJURY,
PETITION IN THE NATURE OF A SUIT FOR DEPRIVATION
OF FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS TITLE 28, 42 USC 1983, 1981, 1985, 1988,
TITLE18 USC 241, 242, 1512, 1968, 1964, 1918 AND 18 USC SECTION 4 FOR
INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
OTHER DAMAGES AS THE COURT SHALL DETERMINE REASONABLE, LAWFUL,
AND JUST
JURISDICTION
Private Attorney General VA Widow Sharon Scarrella Anderson Attorney Pro Se

Petitioners-Relator QuiTam
Vs ___________________State of Minnesota, All Agencies, Ward Einess, Revenue,

Michael Campion DPS, Mark Oswald Ramsey Co. Auditor,City St.Paul, All Agencies DSI Joel Essling, Cop Tanya Hunter John Doe and Mary Roe, Individually,severally, official capacity , 2008 Tax Delinquent

/s//s/ Ramsey Co. Attorney Susan Gaertner, aka Mrs. John Wodele, M.Jean Stepan aka Mrs.xxx Tancibel (sp) (105120) Student John Edison UNK. 560 RCGC W. 50 Kellogg Blvd. St.Paul Mn 55102 tel 651-266-3110
UNITED STATES dba CORPORATION
LAW FIRM ERIC HOLDER
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 2053
Department of IRS dba Corporation
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
WASHINGTON, DC 20224

(A) Appeal from Ramsey district court, 62cv09-1163 (John Vandenorth, Court Reporter Patricia Martinez)
Statute, rule or other authority authorizing appeal: MN Const. Art. X, MS429.061,Rule 24.04,RICO Charges of Bank Fraud,Wire Fraud by Auditor Mark Oswald False Statements.

Date of entry of judgment or date of service of notice of filing of order from which appeal is
taken:8Sept09
Authority fixing time limit for filing notice of appeal (specify applicable rule or statute): 60 Days
Date of filing any motion that tolls appeal time:10Sept09
Date of filing of order deciding tolling motion and date of service of notice of filing:10Sept09
(B) Certiorari appeal.
Statute, rule or other authority authorizing certiorari appeal:
Authority fixing time limit for obtaining certiorari review (cite statutory section and date of
event triggering appeal time, e.g., mailing of decision, receipt of decision, or receipt of other
notice):
(C) Other appellate proceedings.
Statute, rule or other authority authorizing appellate proceeding:
Authority fixing time limit for appellate review (cite statutory section and date of event
triggering appeal time, e.g., mailing of decision, receipt of decision, or receipt of other
notice):
(D)Finality of order or judgment.
Does the judgment or order to be reviewed dispose of all claims by and against all parties,
including attorney fees? Yes ( ) No ( X)
If no:
Did the district court order entry of a final partial judgment for immediate appeal pursuant to
MINN. R. CIV. APP. P. 104.01? Yes ( ) No (X ) or
If yes, provide date of order:
If no, is the order or judgment appealed from reviewable under any exception to the finality
rule? Yes (x ) No ( )
If yes, cite rule, statute, or other authority authorizing appeal:
(E) Criminal only:RICO MS 609 MS609.43, Theft,Trespass,Treason
Has a sentence been imposed or imposition of sentence stayed? Yes ( ) No ( X)
If no, cite statute or rule authorizing interlocutory appeal:
3. State type of litigation and designate any statutes at issue. Constitutionality 429.061, Forfeiture, Eminent Domain,Taxes/Election

4. Brief description of claims, defenses, issues litigated and result below. For criminal cases,
specify whether conviction was for a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony offense.
5. List specific issues proposed to be raised on appeal.
6. Related appeals.
http://www.sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/

MN 62cv09-1163 « Sharon4anderson’s Weblog List all prior or pending appeals arising from the same action as this appeal. If none, so

Google Lawmen Cases MN 62cv09-1163

September 23, 2009 by sharon4anderson

Lawmen Google Groups http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/quowarranto-a06-1150-30-jun06 ApplBlog5Apr07_71 SharonvCitySt.Paul, Car,Insurance,TitledTheft

http://www.rockyou.com/show_my_gallery2.php?instanceid=133464503

MN Courts www.mncourts.gov Re: Ramsey Dist.Crt. 62cv09-1163 2008 697 Sur reyTax ThreatJudge VandeNorth SharonScarrellaAnderson Attorney Pro Se Appeals based on Fraud,Abuse of Disgression Judges As Criminals? Financial Institution Recovery Reform Enforcement Act – Google Financial Institution Anti Fraud Enforcement Act – Google Regulation Z – Google SearchSearchSearchhttp://taxthemax.blogspot.com All Files @ www.slideshare.net/sharon4anderson and www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson MS 363AHumanRights Forfeiture Cars etc. Trilogy Impeach1992 35 Copaitkbgs

Logout Search Menu New Civil Search Back Location : All MNCIS Sites – Case Search Help

Register of Actions www.mncourts.gov Sharons_Medicare_Ramsey Co.#670295 Aff6 Apr07indit Coleman 20 Lantry Stalking19 Apr07

Case No. 62-CV-09-1163 Related Case: WritProA06-1150 30Jun06 Answer/Cross/1/2MillionClaim v.CitySt.Paul

Delinquent Real Property Taxes for 2008 EastSideRevies DelTaxesI_73pgs pg.53Forfeiture Cars etc.42 USC 3631 MS555DeclaratoryJudgmentAct

§ § § § § §

Case Type: Administrative File Date Filed: 02/12/2009 Location: Ramsey Civil Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. john.vandenorth@courts.state.mn.us

Party Information LeadAttorneys jean.@stepan@co.ramsey.mn.us john.edison@co.ramsey.mn.us

Topic Delinquent Real Property Taxes for Legal Notice TaxLetter 62cv09-1163(VandeNorth)2008 EastSideReviewnews 2008TaxDelpg53

Events & Orders of the Court Sa 62cv09 1163 1 Apr09

			DISPOSITIONS
02/12/2009			Closed administratively
09/10/2009			Judgment (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/62cv091163vandenorthsumjudg8sept09
			Sa 62cv09 1163 1 Apr09
			OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
02/12/2009			Notice-Other http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sa-tax-del62cv09-1163-18 pg.7 proof taxes pd $449.93 and $449.13
03/31/2009			Affidavit for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis Sa Tax Del62cv09 1163 18 84
03/31/2009			Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Lindman, Dale B. )
03/31/2009			Affidavit-Other http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sa-tax-del62cv09-1163-18-84-1252842
04/02/2009			Other Document Sa Tax Del62cv09 1163 18 84
04/06/2009			Affidavit of Service
04/06/2009			Correspondence Sa 62cv09 1163 1 Apr09
04/06/2009			Other Document Sa Affid Hud Hra Fair Ho45pdf
04/06/2009			Other Document 435 – PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, OTHER PROCEEDINGS, 2009 Minnesota Statutes
04/06/2009			Other DocumentTamar N. GronvallMNAG_DenyService did not serve all Parties,Refused Rule 24.04 Constitutionality of Fees/Assessments
04/07/2009			Order to Remove (Judicial Officer: Johnson, Gregg E. )Dm 1399 23
04/09/2009			Notice of Case Reassignment Edward Cleary
04/10/2009			Correspondence
06/26/2009			Affidavit of PublicationTamar N. GronvallMNAG_DenyService
06/26/2009			Other Document
07/06/2009			Publicly Viewable Note to File
07/15/2009			Motion Sa62cv09 1163 Stephan Ans 15
07/15/2009			Memorandum
07/15/2009			Affidavit-Other Auditor Mark Oswald Affidavit 62cv09-1163
07/15/2009			Affidavit-OtherSa 62cv09 1163 Aff Lynn Moser Dtd.8 Jul09 13
07/15/2009			Affidavit of Service
08/10/2009			Affidavit of Prejudice AffidavitPrejudice Kathleen Gearin Judge
08/12/2009			Notice of Motion and MotionSharons FactFinding 62cv09-1163 Taxes/Elections
08/13/2009			Other DocumentMotion to Continue 62cv09-1163Judge John Vandenorth
08/17/2009			Motion http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sharon4andersonwebnair-20aug09
08/19/2009			Other Document SharonsSanction Attorneys_Fraud on Court pg26Sharons Letter Motion 62cv09-1163
08/20/2009			Motion Summary Judgment (10:30 AM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) Result: Held
09/09/2009			Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
09/10/2009			Judgment
09/10/2009			Notice of Entry of Judgment http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/62cv091163vandenorthsumjudg8sept09
09/11/2009			Other Document
09/11/2009			Other Document
09/14/2009			Notice of Appeal
09/14/2009			Other Document
09/14/2009			Supplemental Affidavit for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis
09/15/2009			Supplemental Affidavit for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis 15 Sept09 Ifp Implement ECF http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sharonsifp62cv091163appeal 24pgs
09/18/2009			Supplemental Order for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
09/18/2009			Correspondence http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sharonsifp62cv091163appeal 24pgs.
09/21/2009			Affidavit of Service LetterMotionRequestCourtReporter ECF 36pgs

RElated Briefs:aff6apr07inditcoleman_20 1058 Warrant 34 St.Paul,MN Tax_ElectionAssessor MarkOswald Handbook for Electronic Filers VA-1345 Declaration for Electronic Filing VA-8453 sharon4anderson v. judge john vandenorth mn – Google Search

APPENDIX OF FORMS File4[1]Shar Thune 22 Aitkin Ans0332 27

Trilogy Impeach1992 35 Jrsa 88 Homeless 17 Sharons-DL-07 10

1058 Warrant 34 Trilogy Impeach1992 35

Posted in Blogroll Tagged 62cv09-1163, Appeals, CaseFixing, CitySt.Paul, Clerks, Constitution, CoRamsey, Courts, Felony, Forms, Fred Grittner, Google, Judge John Vandenorth, lawmen, MN, sharon4anderson No Comments Yet

state.

List any known pending appeals in separate actions raising similar issues to this appeal. If
none are known, so state.
7. Contents of record.
Is a transcript necessary to review the issues on appeal? Yes ( X) No ( )
If yes, full (X ) or partial ( ) transcript?
Has the transcript already been delivered to the parties and filed with the trial court
administrator? Yes ( ) No (X )
If not, has it been ordered from the court reporter? Yes (X ) No ( )
If a transcript is unavailable, is a statement of the proceedings under Rule 110.03 necessary?
Yes ( X) No( )
In lieu of the record as defined in Rule 110.01, have the parties agreed to prepare a statement
of the record pursuant to Rule 110.04? Yes ( ) No (X )
8. Is oral argument requested? Yes ( X) No ( )
If so, is argument requested at a location other than that provided in Rule 134.09, subd. 2?
Yes ( ) No ( X)
If yes, state where argument is requested:
9. Identify the type of brief to be filed.
Formal brief under Rule 128.02. ( )
Informal brief under Rule 128.01, subd. 1 (must be accompanied by motion to accept unless
submitted by claimant for reemployment benefits). (X ) Online pdf Format
Trial memoranda, supplemented by a short letter argument, under Rule 128.01, subd. 2. (X )
10. Names, addresses, zip codes and telephone numbers of attorney for appellant and respondent.
NAME, ADDRESS, ZIP CODE, TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND ATTORNEY
REGISTRATION LICENSE NUMBER OF ATTORNEY(S) FOR (APPELLANT)
(RESPONDENT)
__/s/ Sharon Anderson Attorney Pro Se_Privat AG Legal Domicile 1058 Summit Ave. St.Paul,MN PO Box 4384 _55104-0384 tel 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.com http://www.sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/ http://www.sharonanderson.org/ ECF P165913-sa1299______________________________________________
SIGNATURE
OR, IF NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL:
NAME, ADDRESS, ZIP CODE AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF (APPELLANT)
(RESPONDENT)
________________________________________________
SIGNATURE (OF APPELLANT) (OF RESPONDENT)
Dated: Mon. 26Oct09
(The Statement of Case is not a jurisdictional document, but it is important to the proper and
efficient processing of the appeal by the appellate courts. The "jurisdictional statement" section
is intended to provide sufficient information for the appellate court to easily determine whether
the order or judgment is appealable and if the appeal is timely. The nature of the proceedings
below and the notice of appeal determine the jurisdiction of the appellate court. The sections
requesting information about the issues litigated in the lower court or tribunal, and the issues
proposed to be raised on appeal are for the court's information, and do not expand or limit the
issues that might be addressed on appeal. Likewise, the section asking counsel to identify and
prior or pending appeals from the same case, and any separate appeals that raise similar issues is
intended to provide more information about the procedural history of the case and to ensure that
the court has early notice of other pending related matters in case consolidation is appropriate

FORM 105. PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
CASE TITLE: PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Petitioner, Sharon Scarrella Anderson
vs. TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER: 62cv09-1163
Respondent. DATE OF FILING ORDER: 10Sept09
TO: The Court of Appeals of the State of Minnesota:
The petitioner (SharonScarrella Anderson ) requests discretionary review of the (8Sept09) order of the
Ramsey Co. Second Judicial Court. John VandeNorth
1. Statement of facts necessary to an understanding of the issues presented.
2. Statement of the issues. See Above
3. Statement why immediate review of interlocutory or otherwise nonappealable order
necessary. See Above
WHEREFORE, the petitioner requests an order of the court granting the petition for
discretionary review.
DATED:
NAME, ADDRESS, ZIP CODE, TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND ATTORNEY
REGISTRATION LICENSE NUMBER OF ATTORNEY(S) FOR PETITIONER
_/s/ Sharon Anderson __ECF P165913 sa:1299_____http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/PDFcases/sharoncases.pdf ___________________
SIGNATURE
(The content requirements of the petition for discretionary review are found in RCAP 105. A
memorandum of law and pertinent lower court documents should be attached to the petition.
The submission and the requirements for filing, form and the number of copies are contained in
RCAP 105.02.State of Minnesota District Court
County Judicial District:
Court File Number:
Case Type:
Plaintiff/Petitioner Affidavit for Proceeding
vs / and In Forma Pauperis
(Minn. Stat. § 563.01)
Defendant/Respondent
1. I am a party in this action. I am a natural person (not a corporation, partnership or other entity).
In good faith, I request a court order waiving court fees and costs. I cannot support my family
and myself and also pay or give security for costs.
2. I believe that I have valid reasons for pursuing this action. My pleadings (the Petition,
http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sharonsifp62cv091163appealMN 62cv09-1163 « Sharon4anderson’s Weblog l Complaint, Answer, Appeal or other pleading) are attached.
3. a. I am receiving public assistance under one or more of the following means-tested programs:
MSA (Minnesota Supplemental Assistance Programs);
MFIP (Minnesota Family Investment Program);
Food Stamps;
General Assistance or Discretionary Work Program;
MinnesotaCare, Medical Assistance, or General Assistance Medical Assistance;
Energy Assistance;
b. I am receiving public assistance under some other means-tested program: (Name the program)
I have attached proof that I receive public assistance (such as MFIP card or cancelled check
from agency) or I will provide proof if requested.
XXXc. I receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) as a resource for meeting my expenses.
If you checked #3a or 3c and receive help under one of the listed programs, skip to the signature line
on page 2. If you checked #3b and receive some "Other" means-tested assistance, go to Question 4.
4. I am represented by attorney pro se on behalf of Self,
a civil legal services program or volunteer attorney
program, based on indigency. If you checked #4, skip to the signature line on page 2.
5. My family size is ______1_____. (Include yourself, your spouse, your minor children, and other
dependents in your household.) For my family size, I counted myself and (list all others):
Name Age Relationship to you
6. My gross annual family income (before taxes and deductions) is $ 11 thous,which
is less than 125% of the Federal Poverty Line for my family size of ____1_____ Sharons_Medicare_Ramsey Co.#670295 members. I have
attached proof of my family income or I will provide proof if requested. If you checked #6, skip re: Affidavits IFP
to the signature line on page 2.
Print Form
CONFIDENTIAL
IFP102 State ENG Rev 9/09 www.mncourts.gov/forms Page 2 of 220fi)

State of Minnesota District Court
County Judicial District:
Court File Number:
Case Type:
Plaintiff/Petitioner Affidavit for Proceeding
vs / and In Forma Pauperis
(Minn. Stat. § 563.01)
Defendant/Respondent
1. I am a party in this action. I am a natural person (not a corporation, partnership or other entity).
In good faith, I request a court order waiving court fees and costs. I cannot support my family
and myself and also pay or give security for costs.
2. I believe that I have valid reasons for pursuing this action. My pleadings (the Petition,
Complaint, Answer, Appeal or other pleading) are attached.
3. a. I am receiving public assistance under one or more of the following means-tested programs:
MSA (Minnesota Supplemental Assistance Programs);
MFIP (Minnesota Family Investment Program);
Food Stamps;
General Assistance or Discretionary Work Program;
MinnesotaCare, Medical Assistance, or General Assistance Medical Assistance;
Energy Assistance;
b. I am receiving public assistance under some other means-tested program: (Name the program)
I have attached proof that I receive public assistance (such as MFIP card or cancelled check
from agency) or I will provide proof if requested.
c. I receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) as a resource for meeting my expenses.
If you checked #3a or 3c and receive help under one of the listed programs, skip to the signature line
on page 2. If you checked #3b and receive some "Other" means-tested assistance, go to Question 4.
4. I am represented by attorney on behalf of
a civil legal services program or volunteer attorney
program, based on indigency. If you checked #4, skip to the signature line on page 2.
5. My family size is ___________. (Include yourself, your spouse, your minor children, and other
dependents in your household.) For my family size, I counted myself and (list all others):
Name Age Relationship to you
6. My gross annual family income (before taxes and deductions) is $ which
is less than 125% of the Federal Poverty Line for my family size of _________ members. I have
attached proof of my family income or I will provide proof if requested. If you checked #6, skip
to the signature line on page 2.
Print Form
CONFIDENTIAL
IFP102 State ENG Rev 9/09 www.mncourts.gov/forms Page 2 of 220fi

appropriate appellate court caption. Minnesota Statutes, Section 632.14 provides that appeals
from a final judgment of conviction of the crime of murder in the first degree are taken directly
to the Supreme Court. Rule 29, subdivision 1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure specifies the
procedure for service and filing of the notice of appeal; subdivision 2 itemizes the contents of the
notice of appeal; subdivision 3 defines the time for taking an appeal; and subdivision 4 cites
other relevant procedures in first-degree murder appeals.)

LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Sharon4 Anderson - Google Profile Candidate AG2010 www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com Blogger: User Profile: Sharon Anderson SharonsYahoo! iGoogle

Homestead Act of 1862 Twitter / Sharon4Anderson Shar1058's Buzz Activity Page - My Buzz Activity - Yahoo! Buzz neopopulism.org - Pro Se Dec Action Litigation Pack Sharon4Anderson Scribd Document's are based on SEC filings, Blogger: Dashboard Home
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making 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
kare11.com_SA
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.comknowledge gained as financial journalists , http://taxthemax.blogspot.com securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade Public domain recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting Google Search Times v. Sullvian Libel with malice - 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 Google Search BlogItBabe2007 Candidate profile Sharon4Anderson's Legal

Judge John Vandenorth Order 8Sept09_VOID4FRAUD

Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court - Disqualification Of Judges

Options Posted as NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON FRAUD OR MURDER

MN 62cv09-1163 « Sharon4anderson’s Weblog

Logout Search Menu New Civil Search Back

Location : All MNCIS Sites – Case Search Help

Register of Actions www.mncourts.gov Sharons_Medicare_Ramsey Co.#670295 Aff6 Apr07indit Coleman 20 Lantry Stalking19 Apr07

Case No. 62-CV-09-1163 Related Case: WritProA06-1150 30Jun06 Answer/Cross/1/2MillionClaim v.CitySt.Paul

Delinquent Real Property Taxes for 2008 EastSideRevies DelTaxesI_73pgs pg.53Forfeiture Cars etc.42 USC 3631 MS555DeclaratoryJudgmentAct

§ § § § § §

Case Type: Administrative File Date Filed: 02/12/2009 Location: Ramsey Civil Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. john.vandenorth@courts.state.mn.us

Party Information LeadAttorneys jean.@stepan@co.ramsey.mn.us

The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your

'> Bob Hurt View profile More options Oct 16, 11:43 am From: "Bob Hurt" ...@bobhurt.com> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:43:15 -0400 Local: Fri, Oct 16 2009 11:43 am Subject: Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court - Disqualification Of Judges Reply Reply to author Forward Print Individual message Show original Report this message Find messages by this author Roger sent me this: Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court - Disqualification Of Judges Contents 1. Who is an <> "officer of the court"?. 1 2. What is <> "fraud on the court"?. 1 3. How does <> "fraud upon the court" affect court proceedings?. 2 4. What <> causes the "Disqualification of Judges?". 2 1. Who is an "officer of the court"? A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980). 2. What is "fraud on the court"? People v. Zajic,88Ill.App.3d - Google Search Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted." Bulloch v. US 763 F.2d 115 - Google Search "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final." Kenner v. C.I.R.,387 F.3d 689 - Google Search 3. How does "fraud upon the court" affect court proceedings? "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court. It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) The People Ill v. Fred E.Sterling,357 - Google Search ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers,336 Ill 316 - Google Search ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is In re Village of Willowbrok, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 - Google Search axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896);Dunham v. Dunham 57 Ill.App.475 (1894) - Google Search Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Skelly Oil Co.v.Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App - Google Search Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935). Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corp 362 Ill.350 - Google Search Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect. 4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?" Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). Liteky v. US 114 S.Ct 1147 - Google Search Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 US 847 - Google Search matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) US . Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 - Google Search (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process."). Judicial Code, 28 USC 445 - Google Search That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 - Google Search In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice." Pfizer Inc. v. Lor,456 F.2d 532 (8thCir) 1972 - Google Search The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960),Levine v. US 362 US610 - Google Search citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice. Offutt v. US 348 US 11,14,75 S.Ct.11,13 (1954) - Google Search "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7thCir.1989) - Google Search Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202. Balistrieri at 1202 - Google Search Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/ herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Due Process US Constitution - Google Search United States v. Sciuto, 521 United States v. Sciuto 521 F2d 842, - Google Search F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause."). Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law. If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself. However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce. Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts. ----------------------------------------------------------

Vote 3Nov09_IRV_MarkOswald Title18s241_Judge JohnVandenorth

CC: askdoj@usdoj.gov, frank.magill@usdoj.gov, b.todd.jones@usdoj.gov, james.lackner@usdoj.gov, minneapolis@fbi.gov
Sent: 10/18/2009 2:56:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: St.Paul will cast vote on instant-runoff elections StarTribune.Sharons Comment

Click here: St. Paul will cast vote on instant-runoff elections StarTribune.com

Dated Sun. 18Oct09 ISSUES:

ELECTIONS/RESIDENCE/IRV/ST.PAUL'S PONZI REALESTATE SCHEME'S

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-0791.resp.pdf

$28 Million ROW Public Works Assess.

http://stpaul.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=37&clip_id=1473&meta_id=77545 Kathy Lantry

AFFIDAVIT OF SHARON SCARRELLA ANDERSON AKA PETERSON

QUITAM_VA WIDOW_WHISTLEBLOWER re: 62cv09-1163

CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST DFL MARK OSWALD,LYN MOSER,CHRIS COLEMAN ACTING IN CONCORT WITH

DFL COUNTY ATTORNEY SUSAN GAERTNER ACTING IN CONCORT WITH JUDGE JOHN VANDENORTH

Complaint Requesting An Investigation of Judge John Vandenorth For Pecuniary and Political Activity Inconsistent With His Official Duties As A State MN Employee

COUNT I Bait_Switch Acorn re: Elections_Hud

AT ALL TIME MATERIAL Affiant: with newly discovered Evidence that

Judge John Vandenorth 1932 Princeton has not paid any Fees/Assessments/ROW except the Recycle of $24.xx dollars since 2006

on their Homesteaded Property while denying Affiant "due process"

Grand Jury or Trial by Jury when Taxes are paid in full for that year

MN 62cv09-1163 « Sharon4anderson’s Weblog

EastSideRevies DelTaxesI_73pgs re: pg 53

Thus acting in concort with Ramsey Co. Auditor Mark Oswald, Court Administrator

Larry Dease et al City Financial Lyn Moser et al

COURT II

42USC1988 - Google Search

Judge John Vandenorth by information and belief has full knowledge

that Ponzi Schemes at the City of St.Paul are in fact in full swing

to sway elections by Covert Fee's/Assessment/ROW based

on theft of Cars,trailers, Trespass on Private Property,Treason

heinous violations of State and Federal Laws on Protected Class's

Usurious Interest on Bogus Fees/Assessments/ROW

Right of Way Maintenance without decending to particulars

Decending to particulars - Google Search

Minnesota AG sues Source Lending over 'bait-and-switch' tactics Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit against HUD to Obtain ACORN Documents Judicial Watch LegalNewsline

Realestate Ponzi Schemes MN - Google Search 105821Apr88+004.jpg (image)

"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged." Luke 6:37 - The Holy Bible

"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged." Luke 6:37 - The Holy Bible

"The butterfly is my emissary. They are so very fragile, like life. When I see one,
I am reminded of the shortness of life and how important it is to live wisely."
~ Virgil ~

GOOD LUCK TO ALL NOTE TO CHRIS COLEMAN

Christopher B. Coleman Cherokee Ave St.Paul MN - Google Search of 686 Chippewa

Coleman 686 Chippewa apparantly pays for Fees/Assessments/ROW

EVEN IF YOU WIN, WHAT HAVE YOU REALLY WON

WITH HIGH TAXES, EXCESSIVE FEES,ASSESSMENTS

NOW THIS ROW IE: RIGHT OF WAY MAINTENANCE

STARTED APPROX. 10 YEARS AGO, AS STATED TO AFFIANT

SHARON SCARRELLA ANDERSON AKA PETERSON,

WHEN AFFIANT GOT THE BILL OF $117.60 for 697 SURREY, IMMEDIATELY

CALLED 651-266-8858, "IF YOU PAY WITH PROPERTY TAXES

ANOTHER ILLEGAL FEE/INTEREST OF 5.5% AND AS JUAN

ORTIZ@CI.LSTPAUL.MN.US STATED A 13% INCREASE FROM

LAST YEAR.

Another usurious interest as if Property taxes are not paid on Time

12% interest tacked onto

IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR IS MARGARET XXXX AND LYN MOSER

ADDRESS'S UNK.

RE: RAMSEY DIST.COURT FILE 62CV09-1163 JUDGE JOHN VANDENORTH RE: ORDER Sharon4Anderson v. Judge John Vandenorth mn - Google Search

MN 62cv09-1163 « Sharon4anderson’s Weblog

Sharon4 Anderson v. Judge John Vandenorth mn - Google Search

J Vandenorth1932 Princeton - Oct 12

Case Fixing by Judge John B. Vandenorth,Order, taking HS Credit on the Seniors,Disabled ... 11Sept09 To Judge John Vandenorth at 1932 Princeton Ave St.Paul, MN. ... The Theft of Sharons 91 Chrysler Vin V-1CYGY54R5MX5A Further research that ... Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Sharon4 Anderson - Google Profile ...
www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/j-vandenorth1932-princeton - Cached - Similar -

Show more results from www

The kicker of Tax/Election/Fees/Assessments/ROW, apparantly the Ponzi Scheme that Judge John Vandenorth of 1932 Princeton

Tax and Property Look Up Information - Quick Info given Full HS, denied to Sharon who is Senior,Woman,Disabled for 20 yrs,Candidate_Whistleblower DOES NOT PAY ANY FEES/ASSESSMENTS/ROW SINCE 2006, EXCEPT THE $27 RECYCLE FEE.

http://rrinfo.co.ramsey.mn.us/public/characteristic/TaxValueStmt.asp?pin=042823340101

http://rrinfo.co.ramsey.mn.us/public/characteristic/HistTaxValueStmt.asp?pin=042823340101&it=1&year=2008&seq=1

http://rrinfo.co.ramsey.mn.us/public/characteristic/HistTaxValueStmt.asp?pin=042823340101&it=1&year=2006&seq=1

COLEMAN AND WIFE CONSTANCE OF EDINA REALESTATE

Coleman 686 Chippewa

BUT FOR THE MAKE OVER HOME WITH APPARANT LICENSED

CHILD CARE: 226 PRESCOTT Owner Sandra Rosario also has not paid any Fees/Assessments/ROW since 2006 up to and including the present.

http://rrinfo.co.ramsey.mn.us/public/characteristic/TaxValueStmt.asp?pin=082822240113

http://rrinfo.co.ramsey.mn.us/public/characteristic/HistTaxValueStmt.asp?pin=082822240113&it=1&year=2007&seq=1 http://rrinfo.co.ramsey.mn.us/public/characteristic/HistTaxValueStmt.asp?pin=082822240113&it=1&year=2008&seq=1

http://rrinfo.co.ramsey.mn.us/public/characteristic/HistTaxValueStmt.asp?pin=082822240113&it=1&year=2006&seq=1

WaterA06-1150_26pdf

LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Sharon4 Anderson - Google Profile Candidate AG2010 www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com Blogger: User Profile: Sharon Anderson SharonsYahoo! iGoogle

Homestead Act of 1862 Twitter / Sharon4Anderson Shar1058's Buzz Activity Page - My Buzz Activity - Yahoo! Buzz neopopulism.org - Pro Se Dec Action Litigation Pack Sharon4Anderson Scribd Document's are based on SEC filings, Blogger: Dashboard Home
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making 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
kare11.com_SA
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/knowledge gained as financial journalists , http://taxthemax.blogspot.com/ securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade Public domain recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting Google Search Times v. Sullvian Libel with malice - 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 Google Search BlogItBabe2007 Candidate profile Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs Sharon4And

Subject: Fwd: St.Paul will cast vote on instant-runoff elections StarTribune.Sharons... Date: 10/18/2009 3:09:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time From: Sharon4Anderson Reply To: To: eric.magnuson@courts.state.mn.us, fred.grittner@courts.state.mn.us, larry.dease@courts.state.mn.us, kyle.christopher@courts.state.mn.us, Juan.Ortiz@ci.stpaul.mn.us, mark.oswald@co.ramsey.mn.us, lynn.moser@ci.stpaul.mn.us, lynae.olson@courts.state.mn.us, rca@co.ramsey.mn.us, attorney.general@state.mn.us, tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us, john.vandenorth@courts.state.mn.us, edward.cleary@courts.state.mn.us, kathleen.gearin@courts.state.mn.us, gregg.johnson@courts.state.mn.us, aaron.foster@ci.stpaul.mn.us, mburbach@pioneerpress.com, judicial.standards@state.mn.us CC: Sharon4Anderson, nancylazaryan@yahoo.com, mami2fine2004@yahoo.com, leslie@lesliedavis.org BCC: Sent on: Sent from the Internet (Details) Internet Address Card Attached

From: Sharon4Anderson To: eva@evaformayor.com, Sharon4Mayor, BillDahn4Mayor, chris.coleman@ci.stpaul.mn.us, bob@calhouncompanies.com, will@willrossbach.com, aonealpha@yahoo.com, mayorlongrie@yahoo.com, jtstiles@gmail.com, baverill@mndaily.com, eeskola@cbs.com, ddavis@forumcomm.com, hopfen@startribune.com, rstassen-berger@pioneerpress.com, ochsnews@yahoo.com, bbowring@tpt.org, charley.shaw@legal-ledger.com, mlohn@ap.org, jragsdale@pioneerpress.com, ahart@kare11.com, swente@republican-eagle.com, mfischenich@mankatofreepress.com, EEskola, tim.budig@ecm-inc.com, ndraper@startribune.com, lmccallum@mpr.org, bsalisbury@pioneerpress.com, lschumacher@stcloudtimes.com, pcondon@ap.org, mbrunswick@startribune.com, ntibbetts@mndaily.com, pjkessler@wcco.cbs.com, jcroman@kare11.com, plopez@startribune.com, tscheck@mpr.org, thauser@kstp.com, mlahammer@tpt.org, pdoyle@startribune.com, rrosario@pioneerpress.com, klksnews@yahoo.com, lsturdevant@startribune.com, jayjohnson@postbulletin.com, bbakst@ap.org, dbrewster@startribune.com, FREEDOMFORUM@yahoogroups.com, FreedomLawSchool@yahoogroups.com, COURTWATCHERS_OF_AMERICA@yahoogroups.com, rcwcodebuster@yahoo.com, rcwcodebuster, rcwcodebuster@comcast.net, rcwcodebuster@gmail.com, luis@luisewing.com, customerservice@theliberators11.org, wm@greenes.us, Shewolfeagle, dthoule@redred.com, info@theradiantimage.us, psamdahl@hotmail.com, stan@izoom.net, lbolton1@hotmail.com, tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us, velma.korbel@state.mn.us, carol.molnau@state.mn.us, brian.mcclung@state.mn.us, steve.sviggum@state.mn.us, clark.dyrud@state.mn.us, dli.commissioner@state.mn.us, general.commerce@state.mn.us, susan.heegard@state.mn.us, cal.ludeman@state.mn.us, webmaster.finance@state.mn.us, dorweb.comm@state.mn.us, data.center@metc.state.mn.us, webmaster@doc.state.mn.us, webmaster@pca.state.mn.us, deed.customerservice@state.mn.us, dhs.info@state.mn.us, admin.info@state.mn.us, info@dot.state.mn.us, webinfo@mda.state.mn.us, webmaster@mn-arng.ngb.army.mil, alice.seagren@state.mn.us, dan.salomone@state.mn.us, oet.web@state.mn.us, ward.einess@state.mn.us, mhfa@state.mn.us, bms@state.mn.us, mdva.webmaster@mdva.state.mn.us, mde.webmaster@state.mn.us, info@dnr.state.mn.us, michael.pugliese@state.mn.us, sanne.magnan@state.mn.us, tom.sorel@state.mn.us, info@IronRangeResources.org, peter.bell@metc.state.mn.us, glenn.wilson@state.mn.us, michael.campion@state.mn.us, Dps.webmaster@state.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, Jean.Karpe@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Anne.Hunt@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Vallay.Varro@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Kris.Fredson@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Joe.Spencer@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Darlyne.Morrow@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Chris.Rider@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Melvin.Carter@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Nancy.Homans@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Milyon.Tekle@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Nick.Shuminsky@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Carol.Washington@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Bob.Hume@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Sean.Johnson@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Va-Megn.Thoj@ci.stpaul.mn.us, rway@minnpost.com, sberg@minnpost.com, swaterman@minnpost.com, bhawkins@minnpost.com, dbeal@minnpost.com, brobson@minnpost.com, sjanecek@minnpost.com, info@minnpost.com, mhelms@minnpost.com, ccapecchi@minnpost.com, sschmickle@minnpost.com, rbattle@minnpost.com, jkimball@minnpost.com, dgrow@minnpost.com, minnclips@minnpost.com, jreinan@minnpost.com, eagle@eagleforum.org, Bonnuge, bob.fletcher@co.ramsey.mn.us, matt.bostrom@ci.stpaul.mn.us, neil.melton@state.mn.us, john.harrington@ci.stpaul.mn.us, mary.bjornberg@state.mn.us, kwilkening@co.nobles.mn.us, terry.sandbeck@state.mn.us, johnp@alx.tec.mn.us, mitch.lee@state.mn.us, mylan.masson@minneapolis.edu, paul.monteen@state.mn.us, tracey.a.martin@co.hennepin.mn.us, mark.letexier@co.polk.mn.us, john.bolduc@co.crow-wing.mn.us, dan.glass@state.mn.us, brent.richter@state.mn.us, debra.soderbeck@state.mn.us, mdohman@ci.maple-grove.mn.us, sheryl.waddick@state.mn.us, junstad@yahoo.com, carol.j.hall@state.mn.us, mike.ardolf@state.mn.us, bill.martinez@ci.stpaul.mn.us, michael.young@ci.minneapolis.mn.us, peggy.strand@state.mn.us, timbildsoe@visi.com, starr.suggs@state.mn.us, harr@csp.edu, diverson@pioneerpress.com, dbeal@pioneerpress.com, mhopp@pioneerpress.com, rhubbard@pioneerpress.com, twebb@pioneerpress.com, jforster@pioneerpress.com, jkrocheski@pioneerpress.com, khubbard@pioneerpress.com, aharrington@pioneerpress.com, lsuzukamo@pioneerpress.com, dfondler@pioneerpress.com, janice.rettman@co.ramsey.mn.us, chiefclerk@co.ramsey.mn.us, Julie.Kleinschmidt@co.ramsey.mn.us, tony.bennett@co.ramsey.mn.us, jim.mcdonough@co.ramsey.mn.us, rafael.e.ortega@co.ramsey.mn.us, jan.parker@co.ramsey.mn.us, toni.carter@co.ramsey.mn.us, victoria.reinhardt@co.ramsey.mn.us, rob.fulton@co.ramsey.mn.us, bonnie.jackelen@co.ramsey.mn.us, DOR.taxpayeradvocate@state.mn.us, indinctax@state.mn.us, salesuse.tax@state.mn.us, withholding.tax@state.mn.us, minnesotacare.tax@state.mn.us, insurance.taxes@state.mn.us, special.taxes@state.mn.us, businessincome.tax@state.mn.us, mdor.collection@state.mn.us, elections.dept@state.mn.us, secretary.state@state.mn.us, public.information@state.mn.us, direct.access@state.mn.us, authentication.inquiries@state.mn.us, ucc.dept@state.mn.us, dave.thune@ci.stpaul.mn.us, pat.harris@ci.stpaul.mn.us, kathy.lantry@ci.stpaul.mn.us, Lee.Helgen@ci.stpaul.mn.us, dan.bostrom@ci.stpaul.mn.us, russ.stark@ci.stpaul.mn.us, mranfang@hotmail.com, 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, waterinquiries@ci.stpaul.mn.us, jim.graupmann@ci.stpaul.mn.us, dave.schuler@ci.stpaul.mn.us, steve.gleason@ci.stpaul.mn.us, dave.wagner@ci.stpaul.mn.us CC: askdoj@usdoj.gov, frank.magill@usdoj.gov, b.todd.jones@usdoj.gov, james.lackner@usdoj.gov, minneapolis@fbi.gov Sent: 10/18/2009 2:56:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time Subj: St.Paul will cast vote on instant-runoff elections StarTribune.Sharons Comment Click here: St. Paul will cast vote on instant-runoff elections StarTribune.com Dated Sun. 18Oct09 ISSUES: ELECTIONS/RESIDENCE/IRV/ST.PAUL'S PONZI REALESTATE SCHEME'S http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-0791.resp.pdf $28 Million ROW Public Works Assess. http://stpaul.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=37&clip_id=1473&meta_id=77545 Kathy Lantry