STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY 2ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DHS,MEDICARE,REMOVAL,APPEAL
Ramsey Co.File no.670295 since 1995
Appeal 1_ 149632 Sellars,Gassoway,Lookingbill
Appeal 2_ File unk Thayer
Similar File No. 62-cv09-1163 Case Type: Other Civil and Criminal Vandenorth,Toussaint
JURY TRIAL-FORPERSON GRAND JURY DEMAND
To: All Persons with legal interest in the Parcels of Realestate, DHS Removals,Appeals, to be
Filed with District Court Clerk Lynae.K.E. Olson 651-2202, Larry.Dease@courts.state.mn.us
Court Administrator
NOTICE OF MOTION
STATE OF MINNSOTA, Mark Dayton,All Agencies,Civil Service
Commissioners,Tyler Tech Texas,Judicial Panel,SCAP,MS8.01,DHS,LucindaJesson
aka Mrs. Peter Knapp,Inta.M.Sellars aka Mrs. Jeronimus, Louis.Thayer,David
Gassoway aka LaBarre,Darwin Lookingbill,Gay Spouse Potter,Ramsey County
Board enbanc,Court Administrator Larry Dease, John Choi,former City
Attorney,County Attorney, Mark Oswald Auditor,HS Megan Kelly Mohs,her
employes,Brad Borcher,Jennefier Tuto,Patricia, Karen Cassolemos,Supervisors Any
Andrews, City St. Paul, Mayor Chris Coleman, Dr. Diane Tanabe,Lufkin Clinic
John Doe, Mary Roe, individually,sererally, personal and Official Capacity's
Appelees-Relatees
VS
SHARON L. ANDERSON,aka Peterson_Scarrella, MEDICARE since 1983 when jailed by
Gay Sucidal Judge Alberto Miero,VA Widow,Whistleblower, Legally
Page 1 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
Blind,Hearing ,Candidate www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com QUITAM RELATOR_
Appellant_Attorney Pro Se.
INTRODUCTION
DISPARATE IMPACT,TREATMENT
FRANCHISE OF LICENSED LAWYERS TAKING GOVERNMENT CONTROL CONTRARY
TO MN CONSTUTION ART.III AND X Ramsey Co. Auditor Ponzi Taxing Schemes
taking Disability,Homestead Credits,Wilful Failure to account for $2,680.00 tax
payment to avoid Forclosure from the Stealing of Sharons Car,Trailer,Water etc.
DENYING STATE PAID MEDICARE BENEFITS TO SHARON
Sharon Scarrella Anderson hereinafter Sharon is/has been a Political
Activist over 40 yrs http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?
CandidateID=38824 techinally when DFL AG Warren Spannus took Sharons Daughter
via Covert Means up to the Present to Quiet Title to RealEstate also Taken without
Compensation on Seniors,Disabled etc. currently Blind, hard hearing, Repugnant
Discrimination.
Heinous Civil Rights Denial of Any Attorney Pro Se to run for
Judgship, See Forensic Files www.sharon4anderson.org
http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/ Current www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com
The State of MN crossed the line to take State Paid Medicare Benefits.
Sharon must expost the Ponzi Schemes of City St. Paul, County of
Ramsey to Falsify Medical Records 1996 Sharons Heinous re; Rule 20 to put Sharon
while Candidate for MNAG IN St. Peter and Brainard for 94 days, forcing Depokote,
Shock Treatments to dumbdown a Political Candidate exposing Major Corruption.
Murder of Cpl Jim Anderson thrown in Brainard or 1 year.
Sharon has been beaten jailed forced to live in a Tar Paper Shack for
yrs when Lesbian Judge Kathleen Gearin on SCAP Panel. BECAUSE SHARON IS A
QUITAM RELATOR EXPOSING CORRUPT LICENSED LAWYERS.
AffidavitPrejudice Kathleen Gearin Judge - SlideShare
Aug 9, 2009 - Affidavit of Prejudice against Judge Kathleen Gearin et al,Ramsey Dist.
Crt. 62cv09-1163 ... by Sharon Anderson, Hobby_RealEstate Entreprenuer,Advocate/
Activist at .... Justice 221NWS2d,562 Plaintiffs V. 697 SURREY AVE ...
n Gearin exploited the Anderson Family for her Heinous Repugnant Greed
CONSTITUTIONALITY MS8.01 Sharon state and allege that We the
People do not need 87 County Attorneys, Numerous Private Attorneys acting as City
Attorneys when the State AG committs Malfeasance,NONfeasance,Misfeasance
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=8&view=chapter
8.01 .
The attorney general shall appear for the state in all causes in the supreme and federal courts wherein the state is directly interested; also in all civil
causes of like nature in all other courts of the state whenever, in the attorney general's opinion, the interests of the state require it. Upon request of
Page 2 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
the county attorney, the attorney general shall appear in court in such criminal cases as the attorney general deems proper. Upon request of a
county attorney, the attorney general may assume the duties of the county attorney in sexual psychopathic personality and sexually dangerous
person commitment proceedings under chapter 253D. Whenever the governor shall so request, in writing, the attorney general shall prosecute any
person charged with an indictable offense, and in all such cases may attend upon the grand jury and exercise the powers of a county attorney.
COUNT I Title 18 RICO MS 609.43 MS 8.01
Exhibits A. http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaulissues/
files/f/1679-2007-07-08T193758Z/5Jul07RatAs City St. Paul Stealing Sharons
Car,Water,Trailer etc. unabated by www.ag.state.mn.us
B. http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012-
08-30-Grassley-DEI-Gowdy-to-Jesson-MN-HHS.pdf Jessons oversight of 30 Million.
C. http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DOJ-St-
Paul.pdf LandLords ie Case Fixing USSC 10-1032
1. Magner v. Gallagher : SCOTUSblog http://www.scotusblog.com/casefiles/
cases/magner-v-gallagher/
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. serves as counsel to the respondents in
this case. Issue: (1) Whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the
Fair ...
2.
3.
4. PARTIES
State of Minnesota Government Employees Executive Branch Mark
Dayton,DHS,Licensed Lawyers Jesson et al, Ramsey County a Political Branch of the
State,in the Executive, Employees incompetance concerning Combined Manuels,
Debit Down Property Taxes,Equity Line Mortgage, City St. Paul a Municipality
chartered in St. Paul, Dr. Diane Tanabe sole practicioner charged with Medical
Malpractice re Sharons Blindness. Tyler Tech is the Web Master for the
www.mncourts.gov located in Texas, SCAP ie Judicial Appeal Panel acting in concort
to committ with State AG,County Attorneys without Jury Trials.
PARTIES
Name Sharon Anderson
Address
1058 Summit
St. Paul, Minnesota , United States
Email sharon4anderson@aol.com
Website None
Born Unknown
Died Still Living
Contributor The Oncoming Storm
Last Modified
RBH
Jun 26, 2012 03:36am
Tags
Page 3 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Minnesota Whistleblower Act MS181,932 altho Sharon as a Taxpayer techinally is
Employeer of DHS.
Info
Sharon is a registered Gun Owner and
believes in the 2nd Constitutional Amendment of the "Right to Bear
Arms"
PIN (Property
ID#)
Number Street
Address
City
32.29.22.41.0053 697 Surrey Ave St.
Paul
Municipality
Watershed
School District Number
697 Surrey Ave
St. Paul
Capital Region W/S
625
Tax
Year
Date Type
Tax Amount
or
Adjustment
Total
Amount
Paid
2014 03-18-
2014
Payment 0.00 320.00
2014 03-02-
2014
Original
Charge
640.00 0.00
2013 09-19-
2013
Payment 0.00 332.00
2013 05-10-
2013
Payment 0.00 332.00
2013 03-03-
2013
Original
Charge
664.00 0.00
2012 10-16-
2012
Payment 0.00 1,368.00
2012 10-11-
2012
Payment 0.00 2,666.00
2012 09-18-
2012
Payment 0.00 293.50
2012 05-23-
2012
Payment 0.00 -7,164.00
2012 05-23-
2012
Payment 0.00 7,164.00
2012 04-10-
2012
Payment 0.00 292.00
2012 03-10-
2012
Original
Charge
584.00 0.00
Page 4 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
Background
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com writes: www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE VIA FAX AND E-MAIL,PDF,WEB,FACEBOOK
COMES NOT AFFIANT SHARON ANDERSON Learned in E-Commerce since 1998
www.sharon4anderson.org http://www.angelfire.com/planet/andersonadvocates/index.html
DEMANDS TITLE 5 FOIA Fair Hearings in Compliance with ADA, State and Federal
Constitutions.
a. That Jesson certify and Transcribe all DHS since 1995 as on File with Ramsey County.
File 670295 Appeal no 1 file 149632 Gassoway Appeal no 2 File unk.
b. For Article 111 Judicial Review.
c. What State Employee keeps taking State Medical Benefits out of Sharons Checking
Acct.contrary to Sharons duly qualified as a Poor Person, with $15.00 Food Stamps, ADA
Compliance etc.
d. Constitutionality of MS.8.01 Attorney General Lawyer for Agencies and not the Peoples
Attorney.
MOTIONS
Affiant Sharon state and allege re;
Whistleblower Lawsuit Filed Against Minnesota Department of ...
www.halunenlaw.com/whistleblower-lawsuit-filed-against-minn...by Clayton Halunen - in 29 Google+ circles
Mar 19, 2014 - A long-time hospital payment rates official at the Minnesota Department
of Human Services (DHS), Paul Olson, filed a whistleblower lawsuit ...
Hearing 'Judge David Gassoway david.gassoway@state.mn.us
tel; 651-431-2857 fx651-431-7523 http://www.mncourts.gov/district/2/?page=3775
COMMISSIONER LUCINDIA JESSEN,DHS AND DARWIN LOOKINGBILL,DHS
Referee-Judge David Gassoway ET AL.
LEGAL NOTICE AFFIANT QuiTam Relator has notified David Gassoway aka
David LBarre on 5 diferent occasions Demanding IN PERSON INCAMERA
HEARING.
Called today Thurs.6Feb2014 Recorded
651-431-2847 Fax 7523
Files on EDemocracy,
St.
Paul - April
06, 2006:
Best regards
HOME
Water
Board, 2006
Page 5 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR that Appeal no 2 has not been addressed, Tran
Affiant Sharon Scarrella Anderson QuiTam Relator state and allege that letter
dtd.29Jan14, mailed 30th,rcvd 1Feb2014.
*Hearing 27Feb2014 10am 444Lafayette Rd.St.Paul,MN55101
cc Ramsey Co Attry Robert Roche#0289589
Tel 651-266-3230 Fx3032 Re Bounds vs. StateMN
13-cv-266(JRT/FLN) has withdrawn without proper notice
to Affiant in the above titled DHS hearings, without Notice to Ramsey Co Advocate or State Ombudsman.
http://www.hansenlawoffice.com/DRE/Ramsey%20County%20Reply%20to%20Plaintiffs'%20Memo.pdf
MOTION TO CONTINUE PENDING FULL DISCLOSURE DISCOVERY
Apparantly David Gassoway has wilfully failed to conform to
DHS Rules/Statutes/ADA/ acting in concort with John Choi http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaulissues/
files/f/1679-2007-07-08T193758Z/5Jul07RatAssLegal_22.pdf former capacity of St. Paul City Attorney and
now as Ramsey County Attorney his employee Robert Roche
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DOJ-St-Paul.pdf
to exploit Affiant and her Blindness. exposing Major Tax Fraud in Ramsey County, Disparate Treatment causing
Disparate Impact on the Citizenery.
1. Denial of InPerson Video hearings. on the Web. BLINDNESS IS NO LAUGHING MATTER. Video's below.
2. Manulipating Easy Access 651-266-3800 File no. 670295 False INFORMATION.
3. Wilul neglience and failure on Criminal Charges to notify State AG Lori Swanson. tel 651-266-3353 Fax 651-282-
2155
4. Constitutionality of Sharons Medicare Denial Benefits vs. MNSURE.
5. Affiant Attorney Pro Se reserves the Right to File Affidavit of Prejudice against David Gassoway similar to
Affiants Affidavit of Prejudice vs. Kathleen Gerain.
from,
Sharon
Download/Get:
File 1
Constitutionality State Laws
Download/Get:
File 2
Health Issues
Download/Get:
File 3
Eminent Domain Demolition
Download/Get:
File 4
Election Contest
Download/Get:
File 5
POA 4/17/2006
Download/Get:
File 6
Sharon's Federal Cases 1973 to 2006
Download/Get:
File 7
USDist.Crt.02-0332 (Rosenbaum)
Download/Get:
File 8
Eminent Domain Homeless
Andersons
Download/Get: Index E Democcracy April 6, 2006
Page 6 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
AffidavitPrejudice Kathleen Gearin Judge - SlideShare
www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/affidavit-prejudicejudge-kathleen-...
Aug 9, 2009 - Affidavit of Prejudice against Judge Kathleen Gearin et al,Ramsey Dist. ... or hearing cannot result, and therefore Sharon You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 4/29/12
Congressional Testimony: Sharon Anderson to Bill ... - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Share
YouTube
Loading...
Dec 17, 2012 - Uploaded by lawlessamerica
Congressional Testimony: Sharon Anderson to Bill Windsor of Lawless America. Lawless
America...The ...
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 12/20/12
St. Paul mayor laughs throughout wacky candidate's forum | The ...
http://bcove.me2jo42rzu
www.rawstory.com/.../st-paul-mayor-laughs-throughou...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/28/st-paul-mayor-laughs-throughout-wacky-candidates-forum/
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT AT THIS TIME
WILL FAX TOMORROW FRI.7FEB2014
http://www.youtube.com/user/lawlessamerica/search?query=Minnesota+Sharon+Anderson
http://www.youtube.com/user/lawlessamerica/videos?query=Minnesota
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UChwpfgqEZnbFH28fia8byPQ
http://www.lawlessamerica.com/images/stories/GRIP/state%20legislation%20proposal-2012-09-26.pdf
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com AttorneyProSe_Private AG, ECF 65913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel: 651-776-
5835 HEALTH CARE Candidate 2014 MNAG www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com
www.sharon4anderson.org www.sharonsenate64.blogspot.com
http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/judicial-corruption
www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqovJkLgXI
http://www.youtube.com/user/lawlessamerica/search?query=Minnesota+Sharon+Anderson
http://bcove.me/x4qgtars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqovJkLgXI
AUDITOR MARK OSWALD 697 SURREY AVE 32.29.22.41.0053$2,499.43
State of Minnesota, Rule 24.04 by and thro State Attorney General Lori Swanson www.ag.state.mn.us, Michael
Campion, Public Safety,Mark Oswald,RamseyCo.Auditor/Tax/Elections,Larry Dease,Court Administrator,St.Paul
Mayor Chris B. Coleman,City Clerk Shari Moore,Council President Kathy Lantry www.ci.stpaul.mn.us, Janice
►
13:58► 13:58
Page 7 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
Rettman res: No 2009-012,Toni Carter Canvass Board and County Commissioners, www.co.ramsey.mn.us DSI Bob
Kessler,Joel Essling in their Official Capacity‘s, Individually,Severally, acting in concort with John Doe and Mary
Roe. SCAP,Judges Kathleen Gearin,Joanne Smith,Gregg Johnson,Salvador Rosas,Larry Cohen et al 1988 Files
495722 499129 Default 66 Million Dollars. Plaintiffs
V.
697 Surrey Ave St.Paul,MN.55106 ,Intestate Decedant www.cpljimanderson.blogspot.com ,VA
Widow,Senior,Disabled Political Activist Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Chergosky_Scarrella
www.sharon4staterep64a.blogspot.com http://sharon4council.blogspot.com
http://sharon4privateattorneygeneral.blogspot.com + 96 Blogs www.sharonanderson.org , et al as their interest
appear , Defendants and 3
rd
Party Plaintiffs,Intestate Decedants Tenant in Common Wm.O and Bernice
A.Peterson.
***************************************************************
TO THE ABOVE NAMED PLAINTIFF’S AND THEIR ATTORNEYS LORI SWANSON,STATE
CAPITOL,SUSAN GAERTNER,JOHN CHOI,AT THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICES .
Defendants, as and for their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, state:
1. Deny each and every matter,allegation and thing contained in Plaintiffs Vague,Arbitrary, False Assessments, by
Theft,Trespass,Treason, except as hereinafter specifically admitted,qualified or otherwise answered.
2. Defendants admitted to having Homestead Classification since 1992, (17 yrs), Ex.
http://sharon4privateattornygeneral.blogspot.com pg 8 Paid the full property taxes of $949.86, for 2008. Challenge
thAT Title 18 USC 1001 False charges. By Mark Oswald to “take” HS Credit,
INTENT
It is the intent of this fiduciary to challenge the Assessment,Ratifications, findings, and conclusions made by the DSI
Inspector Joel Essling, City Council President Kathy Lantry acting in concort with Marcia Moermond in proper
venue and forum Art. II US Constitution an First Amendment right to petition for redress of reievances: and it is
my intent to preserve all Constitutional rights, either by amendment,supplement or future litigation and or
Removal’s to protect property interest rights under Constitutional and Statutory Law:
Court File 62cv09-1163 apparently is an Administrative without Filing Fees, to Simulate Legal Process, causing
irreparable intentional infliction of emotional stress, anti-trust by government official, Sharons intent to preserve
minimal or full-blown due process rights to an Administrative Hearing with FOIA Disclosure of Warrants, Tickets,
signed off by City Attorneys, to Steal Cars,Trailers,, in US Supreme Court decisions it has been determined that it
is clearly unlawful to seize or levy funds absent a prior fully disclosed proof of lawful claim or judicial due process
through judicial courts with proper jurisdiction. Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp. 337 US 682
(1949) Kelo Decision Stands
3. As to the Allegations “taken” in the form of Summary Judgment, published Falsely in the Maplewood Review,
www.review-news.com 18Mar09 pg.53 Sharon Anderson 697 Surrey Ave. 32.29.22.41.0053 Lyman Dayton Add. Lot
5 Blk 46 2008 $2,499.43 without proper citation of any statute,ordinance,rule,or regulation which Defendants
alleged to have violated contrary to Crim Rules , as to the required specificity of an apparent crimial accusation of
“not paying taxes” US v. Cruikshank,92 US 542 at 558 (1876)
COUNT I CONSPIRACY Title 18 s. 241,242
Between April 2006 up to and including the present The Stalking of Sharon by shutting off Water
Page 8 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
www.sharonanderson.org, Stalking causing Fracutured Ankle, Sharon ran for State Ag from her Wheel Chair,
Plaintiffs, Lantry,Moore,Coleman,Kessler,Essling, did unlawfully combine,conspire,confederate and agree to Steal
Sharons Car, Trailer, Realestate http://sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com and obstruct justice in connection with the
Homicide of Cpl James R. Anderson www.cpljimanderson.blogspot.com starting 1996, when Sharon paid the
property taxes on her Cabin in Itasca Co. legally in the Corporation of Anderson+Advocates, by altering and
orchestrating the crime scene, disposing of,altering and planting evidence, commitments to Brainard for 1 year by
the SCAP Panel Gearin and Smith, lying to law enforcement authorities and others about the true circumstances
surrounding Sharons RealEstate, Disabilitys,Disparagment of Title and Death of Tenants in Common and Sharons
2nd Husband.
4. Defendants are without sufficient information in order to judge the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in
the Tax Statement’s 2008,2009 and the 2010
The Valuation is not challenged, but the Classification,Assessments,Fees,Row Maintainance,Delq Utilitys, Usurious
interest is.and hold the Plaintiffs to the strictest proof thereof. http://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com
5. Defendants deny the False Assessments,False Fees, Ratification thereof obtained by Fraud and Murder to Steal
Sharon’s Realestate, Car’s,Trailers, Personal Property, reducing her to utter Poverty, Standing in Food Lines, for
over 2 years, Heinous Hardship of taking Commerce Rights to drive to get grocerys, medical care and the
Aitkin,Itaska Cabins. “taken under color of corrupt Judges”
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
6. As its First Affirmative Defense, Defendants state Plaintiffs complaints of Non Payment of Property Taxes fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
7. As its Second Affirmative Defense, Defendants state insufficiency of service of process.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION
AFFIDAVIT OF INFORMIA PAUPERIOUS Faxed>Mon.30Mar09 to Lynae.Olson@courts.mn.us 651-266-8263
ON SHARONS BLOGS, PDF FILES: BY E-COMMERCE: E-MAIL
STATE OF MINNESOTA ET AL V. 697 SURREY ET AL
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FILE: 62-cv09-1163
Please take legal notice, pending Full Disclosure, Tickets,Warrants,
Constitionality, Demand for Grand Jury Indictments against the Plaintiffs
QUESTIONS PRESENTED :
Whether a state violates the dormant Commerce Clause by providing an exemption of Homestead Credits, Old
House Credits, Disabled, Senior Credits, re: MN Const. Art.X to the citizenry, yet Denial to a Political Candidate
for State Attorney General, Judge,State Rep64a ?
/s/ Sharon Anderson Private Attorney General, Attorney Pro Se_InFact will Move the Jurisdiction/Authority of the
Court for Dismissal, Recover of Car,Trailer,Personal Propertys, Attorney Fees $240.00 pr hour,
WHEREFORE< Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by their pretended cause of action and that the sam be
dismissed and that Defendants recover their costs,disbursements,herein attorney pro se fees, quiet title actions,on
Page 9 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
all Sharon Scarrella Anderson dba Church of Justice Reform, Rose of Sharon Ministrys, Anderson+Advocates,
“taken” without Just Compensation, under color of Authority, by the Corrupt Judiciary.
Dated: Wed. 1Apr09 /s/ Sharon Anderson ECF
MEMORANDUM OF LAW ENCOMPASSED HEREIN
In the Saint Paul City Council Agenda
thurs,July5,2007
Items 35 Resolution Assessments 07-601“from May17 to June12th,2007
public hearing Aug.15th,07 (GS3041156)
Notice to combine with Item 51 Res.Ratifying Assessments 07-609 from
12Apr to 27Apr07 (J0707A
Notice to remove from Agenda refer
To City or County Attorneys
Notice of Damages over ½ Million Dollars
State of Minnesota, County of Ramsey, City of St. Paul
Owner- Taxpayer Co Dist.File#J0707A-J0708A:Assm.#8337 697
Surrey ID 32-29-22-41-0053
VA Widow Candidate Ward (2) Sharon Anderson aka Peterson-Scarrella
http://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com ,Attorney Pro Se: Private Attorney General
Decedant http://cpljimanderson.blogspot.com , http://sharon4council.blogspot.com all others similarily situated
Quitam Whistleblower-Fidicuary Watchdog Victim Relator
vs.
St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman,DSI and Bob Kessler,Joel Essling and 168 employees, union Supervisory, John
Choi, all agents,city attorneys,assigns, in their personal and official capacities, executive branch Kathy Lantry as
President of the City Council,enbanc Thune,Bostrom,Harris,Benanav,Montgomery,helgen,her agents,assigns
specifically shari moore, Marcia moermond,enbanc in the legislative branch in their personal,official capacities,
sued individually, severally, John Doe
and Mary Roe. Matt Smith www.ci.stpaul.mn.us
Page 10 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
) Relatees
Sharon’s discovery of Treason by city officials in all realestate matters:
Forcing repeal of State and Federal Laws. Cooking the Fidicuary Books by Mail Fraud , Extortion, Complicity,
Theft of Personal Property,defrauding the State of Minnesota and the United States of America, http://sickocitystpaul.
blogspot.com http://sharon4council.blogspot.com by mail fraud, confusion,stacking,blatant trespass on
private property in a “Patterned Enterprise” for Greed, to conspire to commit Murder by WATER SHUTOFF
www.sharonanderson.org.
FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT IN THE NATURE OF A SUIT FOR DEPRIVATION OF
RIGHTS UNDER AUTHORITY OF ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 & 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
JUDICIAL NOTICE re: MS2.724 of City and County Attorneys, Lawyer Mayors
Treasonable Bad Behavior.
BACKGROUND;
1. Officers of the court who may come in contact with the matters of city attorneys simulating legal process without
warrants, tickets, due process , are noticed under authority of the supremacy and equal protection clauses of the
United States Constitution and the common law authorities of Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-421, Platsky v. C.I.A.
953 F.2d. 25, and Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000). In re Haines: pro se litigants are held to
less stringent pleading standards than bar licensed attorneys. Regardless of the deficiencies in their pleadings, pro
se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to submit evidence in support of their claims. In re Platsky: court errs if
court
And St. Paul City Council to assess fees willfully, knowingly, to Steal Car’s, Trailers, constituting a Restraint of
Trade, Heinous, Repugnant without a probable cause complaint which contains an accusation or charging
language, distinct from the statement of probable cause constituting of a statemebnt of essential facts constituting a
public offense or public offenses charged or sought to be charged. Contrary to Rules 2.01 and 2.03 of Minn. Rules
of Criminal Procedure., Taxaction without Representationd, kickbacks, bribery scheme involving the Department
of Safety and Inspections involving non-profits:, Defendants Steve Magner residence Stillwater Minnesota,
Defendants Dick Lippert, living in Inver Grove, technically under RICO Indictments Steinhauser, et al v. Randy
Kelly et al File No 04-2632, Harrilal et al v. Magner et al File 05-461, Gallagher et al v. Magner et al File No 05-
1348 (JNE/SRN), City has dismissed the Sharon Andersons Answer/CrossComplaints without instruction of how
pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings. In re Anastasoff: litigants’ constitutional rights are violated
when courts
City attorneys representing City Council and the Mayor depart from precedent where parties are similarly
situated.
2. A court-city council (quasi-judicial) may dismiss a assessments for failure to state a claim "only if it appears to a
certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent with the pleading, exist which would support granting
the relief demanded." N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395, 122 N.W.2d 26, 29 (1963), In re Milk
Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 588 N.W.2d 772, 1999.MN.42154, A claim prevails against illegal “takings”
5th Amend, Illegal Search and Seizure 4th Amend,it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent
with the pleader's theory, to grant the relief demanded. The purpose of a motion to dismiss and or the alleged tax
assessments thro the back door of the executive branch of the Mayork, then to be approved by the Legislative
Branch “AFTER THE FACT” is not only TREASON but Domestic Terrorism Sharon is to test the law’s support
for a claim, not the sufficiency of the underlying facts, Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc., Okla. 987 P.2d 1185
(1999). The burden to show legal insufficiency of petition is on party moving for dismissal, and motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim must separately state each omission or defect in petition; if it does not, motion shall be
denied without hearing, Indiana Nat. Bank v. State Dept. of Human Services, Okla., 880 P.2d 371 (1994). And
Page 11 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
demurrers have been abolished – see Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7(c).
3. Minnesota Rule 8001.9 incorporates the Federal Internal Revenue Code into the Minnesota Rules by reference.
The State of Minnesota has entered into agreement with the Federal government to establish their qualified state
income tax particularized in 5 USC 5517 and 31 CFR Part 215. Administration of qualified state income taxes is
governed by regulations published in 26 CFR Part 31. The State of Minnesota has abdicated both administrative
and judicial remedies to the Federal Government under 26 CFR §301.6361-2. Therefore, the Federal Debt
Collection Procedure, 28 USC §3001, is the exclusive remedy for tax related debt. It provides substantive rights
secured by the fourth, fifth, Sixth, and Seventh amendments to the United States Constitution, restricting
administrative and judicial powers and the government bears the burden of proof for whatever claim is made.
4. The MDR consistently quotes Minnesota statutes as authority for their behavior. However, courts have
consistently stated that statutes have no force or effect without implementing regulations. In accordance with
Minnesota Rule 8001.9, Minnesota’s regulations are the Federal regulations for the state income tax. There are no
other Minnesota rules implementing most of Minnesota Statutes, chapters 270, 271, 290 and 290A. Therefore, the
MDR is required to submit to the Federal regulations that provide substantive rights under the Constitution of the
United States and due process of law.
4(a) In order for there to be (1) liability for any given tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code,and in this
instance Assessments for What by the St. Paul City Council or (2) a requirement to collect any given tax imposed by
the Internal Revenue Code, an implementing regulation must apply to the fact circumstance of the person liable.
The requirement for implementing regulations is restated in the general rule that controls 26 U.S.C. § 6011(a):
“When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this
title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and
regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein
the information required by such forms or regulations.”
4(b) California Bankers Assn. v. Schultz, 39 L.Ed. 2d 812 at 820: “Because it has a bearing on some of the issues
raised by the parties, we think it important to note that the Act’s civil and criminal penalties attach only upon
violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would
impose no penalties on anyone.” In U.S. v. Murphy, 809 F.2d 1427 at 1430 (9th Cir. 1987), following California
Bankers Association rationale, the court said “The reporting act is not self-executing; it can impose no reporting
duties until implementing regulations have been promulgated.” In U.S. v. Reinis, 794 F.2d 506 at 508 (9th Cir. 1986)
the court said, “An individual cannot be prosecuted for violating this Act unless he violates an implementing
regulation … The result is that neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other, and only
together do they have any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves the construction of
the other.” U.S. v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431, 4 L.Ed. 2d 423, 80 S.Ct. 459 (1960), agreed with in Leyeth v. Hoey, supra,
U.S. v. $200,00 in U.S. Currency, 590 F.Supp. 866; U.S. v. Palzer, 745 F.2d 1350 (1984); U.S. v. Cook, 745 F.2d 1311
(1984); U.S. v. Gertner, 65 F.3d 963 (1st Cir. 1995); Diamond Ring Ranch v. Morton, 531 F.2d 1397, 1401 (1976); U.S.
v. Omega Chemical Corp., 156 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Corona, 849 F.2d 562, 565 (11th Cir. 1988); U.S. v.
Esposito, 754 F.2d 521, 523-24 (1985); U.S. v. Goldfarb, 643 F.2d. 422, 429-30 (1981). “For Federal tax purposes, the
Federal Regulations govern. Lyeth v. Hoey, 1938, 305 U.S. 188, 59 S.Ct. 155, 83 L.Ed. 119,” quoted in Dodd v. U.S.,
223 F.Supp. 785 (1963).
5. The Supreme Court of Minnesota has determined that the Minnesota Legislature has not provided adequately
for trial by jury in the statutes and that trial by jury is always available to review statutory law and administrative
decisions.
5(a) Abraham v. County of Hennepin, 2002,639 N.W.2d 342. (“one form of action” procedure is anathema to due
process in the course of the common law), however, “Provision in Minnesota Constitution regarding trial by jury is
intended to continue, unimpaired and inviolate, the right to trial by jury as it existed in the Territory of Minnesota
when constitution was adopted in 1857.” The prohibition against depriving people of property without proper
adjudication is secured by Article I § 2 of the Minnesota Constitution: “No member of this state shall be
disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the
Page 12 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
land or the judgment of his peers…”
CAUSES OF ACTION
6. On Apr. 24th,2007 The City of St. Paul trespassed on Property at 697 Surrey without Probable cause, warrant,
tickets, caused irreparable harm injury, intentional infliction of Emotional Stress on Candidate Sharon Anderson,
Defendants Joel Essling and policewoman Tanya Hunter to Steal Sharons Car, fully licensed and to date 2ndJuly07
fully insured: Towing company Rapid Towing as on numerous blogs, web sites, Again 16May07 during the Police
Memorial at mears Park Essling or Harold Robinson with pistol packing cop Tanya hunter again trespassed on
Sharons and intestate decedants property at 697 Surrey ,stealing Sharons Trailer.
The cop corruption involves Aaron Foster, Murder of Barb Winn, as the city employs an indicted Murder Aaron
Foster to steal Cars, at the St. Paul police Inpound Lot.
Again thro the US Mails June 5
th
, stating Fence and Paint with another inspection by Badge 322 joel Essling on
5July07 Again Because all these complaints fail to set forth an accusation in separate counts for separate offenses
charged or sought to be charged, contrary to Rule 17.02 of Mn Rules Crim. In a patterned enterprise are falsely
claimed that Sharon Anderson is a criminal without the required specificity of a criminal accusation, re: US v.
Cruikshank,92 US 542 at 558 (1876)
As to the prohibition of duplicity in a criminal accusation (ie: charging m9ore than one offense in one accusation
without separate counts for each offense charged US 73F2d795 (10Cir.1934)
The right to a specific accusation including separate counts for distinct offenses charged has been incorporated by
the 14th Amend. To the US Constitution re: Cole v. Arkansas 33 US 196 at 201 (1948) and Faretta v. California 442
US 806 at 818 (1975)
The City of St. Paul apparently has 25 million for Housing Programs,DSI has conducted a program against the
elderly, disabled, vunerable persons, mandating the federal government audit the 1065 vacant buildings
manulipated by defendants Magner and Moermond.
Sharon Anderson has established in the past 30 years the continuing pattern of taking realestate for pecuniary gain
without quiet titles, marketable propertys without investigation, evidence, or a competent witness with first-hand
knowledge. The claims are demonstrably false, since Sharon Anderson has submitted affidavits that she has been
harmed injured along with 1065 vacant Minnesota Rule 8001.9 which puts the burden of proof on the government
to prove their claims. MS 289A.37, Subd. 3, which puts the burden of proof on the victim, is unconstitutional on its
face, since it directly contradicts Article I, Sections 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. The constitution
places the burden of proof on the government to establish their claim that Sharon Anderson has with intent
violated any Criminal, or Ordinance Violations for the past 30 years.Furthermore 26 USC 7403 requires the The
city of St. Paul as a government entity, to prove their claim in Court. Common law process also places the burden
of proof on the advocate, particularly when the plaintiff is government.
6(a) Wright v. Commissioner of Revenue, MN Tax Court, Docket No. 2620 June 4, 1980, "A person who leaves his
home to go into another state for temporary purposes only is not considered to have lost his residence. But if a
person removes to another state with intention of remaining therefore an indefinite time as a place of permanent
residence, he shall be considered to have lost his residence in this state."
Sharon Anderson has never abandoned her legal domicile at 1058 Summit, 2194 Marshall,325 N. Wilder,
448 Desnoyer, 697 Surrey 1/3rd of 309 Pelham Blvd,St. Paul Minnesota or her Buck Lake Cabin Itasca
Co. 42741-321st pl (GunLake ) Aitkin or Gull Lake in Brainard. http://sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com
6(b) The character of acts that suppose to bypass judicial process is articulated in United States v. Lovett (1946), 328
Page 13 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
U.S. 303; 66 S. Ct. 1073; 90 L. Ed. 1252: We hold that § 304 falls precisely within the category of congressional
actions which the Constitution barred by providing that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be
passed." In Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 323, this Court said, "A bill of attainder is a legislative act which
inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains
and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties." … On
the same day the Cummings case was decided, the Court, in Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333 also held invalid on the
same grounds an Act of Congress which required attorneys practicing before this Court to take a similar oath.
Neither of these cases has ever been overruled. They stand for the proposition that legislative acts, no matter what their
form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict
punishment on them without a judicial trial are bills of attainder prohibited by the Constitution. Adherence to this
principle requires invalidation of § 304. We do adhere to it.
Those who wrote our Constitution well knew the danger inherent in special legislative acts which take away the life,
liberty, or property of particular named persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct, which
deserves punishment. They intended to safeguard the people of this country from punishment without trial by duly
constituted courts. See Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304. And even the courts to which this important function
was entrusted were commanded to stay their hands until and unless certain tested safeguards were observed. An
accused in court must be tried by an impartial jury, has a right to be represented by counsel, he must be clearly
informed of the charge against him, the law which he is charged with violating must have been passed before he
committed the act charged, he must be confronted by the witnesses against him, he must not be compelled to
incriminate himself, he cannot twice be put in jeopardy for the same offense, and even after conviction no cruel and
unusual punishment can be inflicted upon him. See Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 235-238. When our
Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, our ancestors had ample reason to know that legislative trials and
punishments were too dangerous to liberty to exist in the nation of free men they envisioned. And so they
proscribed bills of attainder. Section 304 is one. Much as we regret to declare that an Act of Congress violates the
Constitution, we have no alternative here.
6(c) See 26 CFR 601.106 (f)(1), Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1, 6 L.Ed. 253, 10 Wheat 1 and Federal Maritime
Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 U.S. ___, 122 S. Ct. 1864. In Miranda v. United States, 384 U.S.
436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966), former Chief Justice Earle Warren penned the following: “As courts
have been presented with the need to enforce constitutional rights, they have found means of doing so. That was our
responsibility when Escobedo was before us and it is our responsibility today. Where rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
7(a) In Brafman v. United States of America, 348 F.2d 863 (5th Circuit, 1967), the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff
because an assessment officer did not sign a certificate of assessment. “For a tax to be collected upon any deficiency,
an assessment must be made against the taxpayer within three years after his return is filed… If the estate is not
assessed within the statutory period there can be no transferee liability. United States v. Updike, 1930, 281 U.S. 489,
50 S. Ct. 367, 74 L. Ed. 984. We therefore adhere to our pronouncement in United States v. Fisher, 5 Cir. 1965, 353
F.2d 396, 398-399, that: In the absence of any better test, we give effect to the generally recognized rule that
Regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to statutory authority, and when necessary to make a
statute effective, although not a statute, may have the force of law. Fawcus Machine Co. v. United States, 282 U.S.
375, 51 S. Ct. 144, 75 L. Ed. 397; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. South Texas Lumber Co., 333 U.S. 496, 501, 68
S. Ct. 695, 92 L. Ed. 831. The Treasury Regulations are binding on the Government as well as on the taxpayer:
"Tax officials and taxpayers alike are under the law, not above it." Pacific National Bank of Seattle v.
Commissioner, 9 Cir. 1937, 91 F.2d 103, 105. Even the instructions on the reverse side of the assessment certificate,
Form 23C, specify that the original form "is to be transmitted to the District Director for signature, after which it
will be returned to the Accounting Branch for permanent filing. * * *" Case after case has quoted Treasury
Regulation § 301.6203-1 and cited it approvingly, and the treatises on taxation take its literal application for
granted. Finally, where state taxation is involved, compliance with a statutory provision requiring an assessment
list to be signed by the assessors is usually considered essential to the validity of further proceedings. 84 C.J.S.
Taxation § 473 (1954).”
7(b) The requirement for IRS, and therefore the MDR, to provide assessment certificates was defined by the court
in Huff v. United States of America, 10 F.3d 1440 (9th Cir.,1993):” the IRS failed to respond to the Huffs' request for
Page 14 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
a copy of an assessment under § 6203. See 26 C.F.R. § 301.6203-1… the record contains no evidence indicating that
the Huffs received copies of their assessments pursuant to their request under § 6203, we conclude there are
genuine issues of material fact as to whether the IRS has complied with the requirements of § 6203. See Farr, 990
F.2d at 454; Geiselman, 961 F.2d at 5-6; Brewer, 764 F. Supp. at 315-16. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's
grant of summary judgment as to count II.
7(c) Date of assessment is date when summary record is signed by assessment officer in district director's office or
in service center. Welch Ins. Agency v Brast (1932, CA4 W Va) 55 F2d 60, 10 AFTR 1041, cert den 285 US 555, 76 L
Ed 944, 52 S Ct 457; Davidovitz v United States (1932) 75 Ct Cl 211, 58 F2d 1063, 11 AFTR 347.
7(d) Assessment is complete as soon as record is signed by assessment officer. Filippini v United States (1961, ND
Cal) 200 F Supp 286, 62-1 USTC P 9144, 9 AFTR 2d 313, affd (CA9 Cal) 318 F2d 841, 63-2 USTC P 9548, 11 AFTR
2d 1720, cert den 375 US 922, 11 L Ed 2d 165, 84 S Ct 267.
7(e) Assessment of estate tax deficiency was not timely filed and was invalid where it had not been signed by the
proper official, and the authenticity of the document and admissibility at trial had no effect on the validity where
the requisite signature was missing. Brafman v United States (1967, CA5 Fla) 384 F2d 863, 67-2 USTC P 12494, 20
AFTR 2d 6008.
7(f) Radinsky v. United States of America, 622 F.Supp. 412 (USDC, Colorado, 1985). 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) confers
jurisdiction upon this court and waives the sovereign immunity of the United States regarding claims for sums
wrongfully collected under the internal revenue laws. In a suit under this section, a plaintiff "may challenge the
constitutionality, legality or fairness of any tax statute or amount assessed or collected." White v. C.I.R., 537 F.Supp
679 (D.Colo. 1982). In the two briefs filed in this action, the IRS has not explained where it finds statutory authority
to employ its tax collection procedures to collect from the plaintiffs a sum of money that has never been assessed as
a tax. Since the IRS had no authority to adjust the plaintiffs' account or employ deficiency procedures in these
circumstances, it is self-evident that the collection of the sum in this manner was wrongful.
under 26 CFR 301.6361-2 (d)(3) the MDR does not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine an increase in
income tax: “all administrative determinations shall be made by the Federal Government without review by the
State.” Therefore the ST. Paul City Council judgments are void for both violation of Constitutional rights and lack
of subject matter jurisdiction under MRCP 60.02 (d) and can therefore be vacated at any time and cannot be time
barred. Including over 1065 vacant building in the city of St. Paul et al.
8(a) Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, MSC, 612 N.W.2d 862, C1-98-2200, 2000. “The traditional
rule is that there is no time limit for challenging a final judgment that is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
See 12 James W. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice §á60.44 (3d ed. 1997). The principle underlying this rule is
that a judgment's validity is of utmost importance. Minnesota courts have adhered to this traditional rule. In Lange
v. Johnson and its progeny, we held that judgments are void if a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that
there is no time limit for bringing a motion to vacate such a judgment. 295 Minn. 320, 323-24, 204 N.W.2d 205, 208
(1973); see also Peterson v. Eishen, 512 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Minn. 1994)”.
8(b) Mesenbourg v. Jerome, 1995.MN.20775, 538 N.W.2d 489, Although the language of the statute and the rule
indicate that motions to vacate void judgments must be made within a reasonable time, the supreme court has held
that there is no time limit for commencing proceedings to set aside a judgment void for lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter or over the parties. Id. A void judgment is legally ineffective; it may be vacated by the court which
rendered it at any time, and a void judgment cannot become valid through the passage of time. Id
8(c) Peterson v. Eishen, 1994.MN.21542, 512 N.W.2d 338, A judgment rendered without due service of process upon
the defendant is void and may be vacated at any time. Although the language of the rule and the statute indicate
that motions to vacate void judgments must be made within a reasonable time, we have previously held that there is
no time limit for commencing proceedings to set aside a judgment void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter or over the parties. Lange v. Johnson, 295 Minn. 320, 204 N.W.2d 205 (1973) (applying Minn. R. Civ. P.
Page 15 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
60.02); Beede v. Nides Finance Corp., 209 Minn. 354, 296 N.W. 413 (1941). A void judgment is legally ineffective; it
may be vacated by the court which rendered it at any time. United States v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 909 F.2d 657,
661 (1st Cir. 1990); Misco Leasing, Inc. v. Vaughn, 450 F.2d 257 (10th Cir. 1971) (holding defendant's failure to
move to vacate default judgment within reasonable time after its entry did not preclude motion to vacate the
judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction). A void judgment cannot gain validity by the passage of time. In re
Center Wholesale Inc., 759 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir. 1985); Austin v. Smith, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 97, 312 F.2d 337, 343
(D.C. Cir. 1962).
given notice by regular mail is a rebuttable assumption, and is therefore not on the record. violation of Minnesota
Rule 8001.03. St. Paul Executive Branch complicity with St. Paul Legislative branch mandates FBI or Justice
Intervention for false tax assessments to acquire Property rights of the citizenry denied constitutional right of
notice and the opportunity to be heard. They also violated Sharon Andersons rights under Minnesota Constitution,
Article I, Sections 6 and 7 to be confronted by competent witnesses with first-hand knowledge and evidence that she
owe’s any money. Administrative decisions must be based on testimony and evidence in the hard-copy case file, per
5 U.S.C. §§ 556 & 557.
However, according to the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Tax Court has no jurisdiction in matters of fact or law if
it is not a) granted by the appealing individual, or b) granted by the District Court. Also, a void administrative
judgment cannot be time barred.
10(a) “In analyzing the framework created by the tax statutes in question, it is crucial to note that the taxpayer
always has the option to file in district court. See, Minn.St. 278.01; Note, 4 Wm. Mitchell L.Rev. 371, 406.
10(b) Wulff v. Tax Court of Appeals, 288 N.W.2d 221 (Minn. 1979). “This is perhaps the saving feature of this
statutory scheme. Because a tax suit may be initiated in district court, and because transfer of that suit to the tax
court is discretionary with the district court, the exercise of jurisdiction of the tax court on transfer does not violate
Minn. Const. art. 6, § 3, which provides that the district court has original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal
cases”.
12(a) The Notice of Levy does not apply to income tax. It is a search and seizure instrument used in criminal
violation of internal revenue laws exclusively related to regulated industries and authorized by 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321,
6331 and implementing regulations 27 CFR Part 70 under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms. Sharon Anderson has not been accused of any criminal activity or violating any Internal
Revenue Laws. Therefore, the St. Paul City Officials fraudulently seized Sharon Andersons assets, under the color
of law, by pretending that she violated laws related to unknown at this time..
12(b) The Federal Government must sue to secure a judgment prior to executing a levy if an alleged tax liability is
contested, initiated in compliance with 26 U.S.C. § 7401. Then procedure must comply with requirements of the
Federal Debt Collection Act at 28 U.S.C. § 3201 as the exclusive remedy for collection of tax-related debt. The
Notice of Levy must conform to requirements specified by 28 U.S.C. § 3201(a) that a notice of levy, filed subsequent
to judgment, must include an abstract of the judgment. A notice of levy is evidence of a levy only when it identifies
the underlying judgment. The City of St. Paul has consistently violated Sharon Andersons constitutional rights by
denying her due process of law.
12(c) Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 82 (1972): The requirement of notice and an opportunity to be heard raises no
impenetrable barrier to the taking of a person's possessions. But the fair process of decision-making that it
guarantees works, by itself, to protect against arbitrary deprivation of property. For when a person has an
opportunity to speak up in his own defense, and when the State must listen to what he has to say, substantively
unfair and simply mistaken deprivations of property interests can be prevented. It has long been recognized that
"fairness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights . . .. And no better
instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case
against him and opportunity to meet it." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 170-172
(Frankfurter, J., concurring).
Page 16 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due process has been clear: "Parties whose rights are to
be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified."
Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223, 233. See Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274; Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409; Grannis v.
Ordean, 234 U.S. 385. It is equally fundamental that the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard "must be
granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552.
Sharon Anderson has never been served with The Order for Writ of Entry and seizure was an in rem, admiralty
action; there is nothing comparable in common law procedure. Minnesota Statute 270.70 and 26 U.S.C. § 7302,
relate only to property used in violation of internal revenue laws, so it is necessarily predicated on the presumption
that the seized property was being used in violation of or was the fruit of criminal activity. The implementing
regulation is 26 CFR Part 403, which applies only to drug-related commercial crimes listed in the regulation.
Article III § 2 of the U.S. Constitution secures exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the United States
and that the Minnesota Constitution authorizes law and equity only. Therefore, the April 24th, 2007 and May
16th,2007 property seizure’s and Minnesota Statute § 270.70 are patently unconstitutional. Sharon Anderson has
not been accused of violating an State, County, City or Federal Internal Revenue laws. Therefore the seizure of
Sharon Andersons property without probable cause of criminal activity is pure criminal behavior characteristic of
a totalitarian government.
17(b) Per The Sarah, (1823) 21 U.S. 391, it is simply necessary to declare that the seizure was on land to abort an
admiralty seizure. Cans of Egg Product v. U.S., 226 U.S. 172, 1912.SCT.40400, 57 L. Ed. 174, 33 S. Ct., “Although
this statute prescribes that the proceedings shall conform "as near as may be to the proceedings in admiralty," the
proceeding being a seizure on land is, in its nature, a common-law proceeding”. Hendry v. Moore, (1943) 318 U.S.
133, 63 S. Ct. 499, 87 L. Ed. 663: “, since a judgment in rem to enforce a lien is not a remedy which the common law
is competent to give, a ruling which has since been consistently followed.” Morris' Cotton v. U.S., 8 Wall. 507,
“Property on land was seized under the acts of 1861 and 1862, passed for suppression of the rebellion, according to
which the claimants were entitled to a trial by jury.”
17(c) State of New Jersey v. One 1990 Honda Accord, (New Jersey Supreme Court, 1998) 154 N.J. 373, 712 A.2d
1148, The Appellate Division reversed, holding that McDermott was entitled to a jury trial in a forfeiture action
and that the statutory proceeding for summary Disposition was unconstitutional. 302 N.J. Super. at 227. In
reaching that result, the court relied on an historical analysis of the right to trial by jury in England and the
American colonies. Id. at 230-34.
In New Jersey, forfeiture never existed at common law and remains a disfavored remedy. State v. Seven Thousand
Dollars, 136 N.J. 223, 238 (1994); State v. 1979 Pontiac Trans Am, 98 N.J. 474, 480-81 (1985); Farley v. $168,400.97,
55 N.J. 31, 36-37 (1969); State v. One Ford Van, 154 N.J. Super. 326, 331 (App. Div. 1977), certif. den., 77 N.J. 474
(1978). Its existence depends on the enactment of a statute. The State argues that because forfeiture is a creature of
statute, McDermott has no common-law right to a jury trial.
Although forfeiture depends on a statute for its existence, it remains subject to common-law principles. When
analyzing the right to trial by jury, the term "common law" refers to those principles of English law that evolved in
the common-law courts such as the Court of the Exchequer, as opposed to those applied in the Admiralty,
Chancery, or Ecclesiastical Courts. People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe, 231 P.2d 832, 836 (Cal. 1951); In re
Forfeiture of 1978 Chevrolet Van, 493 So.2d 433, 435 (Fla. 1986); Commonwealth v. One 1984 Z-28 Camaro Coupe,
610 A.2d 36, 39 (Pa. 1992);
The City of St. Paul has violated Sharon Andersons constitutional rights by advertising /publishing on the
www.ci.stpaul.mn.us false information, again with the publication of the Agenda’s, mail fraud sent by Joel Essling
numerous times without obtaining ownership rights to the property in violation of 28 CFR §403.26(b). The City of
St. Paul is prohibited from selling/ excessive consumption/taxs on all Sharons Propertys and all citizens 1,065
vacant property’s until they obtain ownership rights in a court of competent jurisdiction. 200 years of
jurisprudence has firmly established that administrative claims cannot take ownership to property until obtaining a
judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction. Even drug dealers are guaranteed a trial after their property is
seized before it can be sold. The City of St. Paul is committed extortion under the color of law, by causing Sharon
Page 17 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
Anderson aka Scarrella to pay about $9xx.00 before July 18, 2007, to prevent the interest and illegal tax fees
18(a) United States v. A Parcel of Land, Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements, known as 92 Buena Vista
Avenue, Rumson, New Jersey (1993), 507 U.S. 111; 113 S.Ct. 1126; 122 L.Ed. 2d 469.Writing for four of the justices
joining the plurality decision, Justice Stevens traced the relation-back doctrine to an 1806 decision written by
former Chief Justice John Marshall: "It has been proved, that in all forfeitures accruing at common law, nothing
vests in the government until some legal step shall be taken for the assertion of its right, after which, for many
purposes, the doctrine of relation carries back the title to the commission of the offence." United States v. Grundy, 7
U.S. 337, 3 Cranch 337, 350-351, 2 L. Ed. 459 (1806). n20
18(b) United States v. Real Property at 2659 Roundhill Drive, Alamo, California, 283 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2002) we
reversed, holding that the government had no legal interest in the property. We applied United States v. 92 Buena
Vista Ave., 507 U.S. 111 (1993), which held that the relation-back rule of 21 U.S.C. § 881(h) cannot be invoked until
a final judgment of forfeiture has been entered; the United States had never obtained a final judgment. Therefore,
according to Buena Vista, the government's interest in the Roundhill property could not have related back to 1974
(when the Paytons engaged in drug trafficking
19(a) In re Welfare of B.R.K., 658 N.W.2d 565 (Minn. 04/03/2003): The Fourth Amendment guarantees: "The right
of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." Katz v. United
States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967). Thus, the Fourth Amendment is a personal right and an individual must invoke its
protections. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998). An individual may invoke the protection of the Fourth
Amendment by showing "that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his
expectation is reasonable; i.e., one that has 'a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to
concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.'"
Carter, 525 U.S. at 88 (quoting Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 n.12 (1978)). Thus, the determination of whether
B.R.K. can invoke the protections of the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis. First, we must determine
whether B.R.K. exhibited an actual subjective expectation of privacy in the home and, second, whether that
expectation is reasonable. See Katz, 389 U.S. at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring).
19(b) The Minnesota Supreme Court recognized the tort of invasion of privacy in Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582
N.W.2d 231, 235 (Minn. 1998): “The right to privacy exists in the common law of Minnesota, including causes of
action in tort for intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, and publication of private facts.”
19(c) State v. Larsen, 2002.MN.0001476: The right to be left alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right
most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the
privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id.
at 478 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
Concerns for this essential element of our personal freedom are reflected in the Fourth Amendment and art. I, § 10
of the Minnesota Constitution protecting the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV; see Minn. Const. art. I, § 10.
Entry constitutes a search whenever there is an intrusion upon an area where a person has a reasonable expectation
of privacy, State v. Hardy, 577 N.W.2d 212, 215 (Minn. 1998). Warrantless searches where an individual has a
reasonable expectation of privacy are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few
specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967); see also
Matter of Welfare of D.A.G., 484 N.W.2d 787, 789 (Minn. 1992) (extending the per se concept to the Minnesota
Constitution); O'Connor v. Johnson, 287 N.W.2d 400, 405 (Minn. 1979) (discussing the greater protections
available under the Minnesota Constitution). But an expectation of privacy does not have the constitutional right to
be free from impermissible search as its roots. As the Supreme Court noted in Minnesota v. Carter, an expectation
of privacy has 'a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal
property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.'" 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998) (quoting
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 n.12 (1978)).
Page 18 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
The Supreme Court has recognized that an expectation of privacy is reasonable in one's home and curtilage, Payton
v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589-90 (1980), in one's automobile, Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 662-63 (1978), and
in a closed telephone booth, Katz, 389 U.S. at 352. We have similarly acknowledged a constitutionally protected
expectation of privacy in one's home and curtilage, State v. Perkins, 582 N.W.2d 876, 878 (Minn. 1998), Garza v.
State, 632 N.W.2d 633, 639 (Minn. 2001), in one's automobile, State v. Goodrich, 256 N.W.2d 506, 510 (Minn. 1977),
and in a public restroom, State v. Bryant, 287 Minn. 205, 211-12, 177 N.W.2d 800, 804 (1970).
NOTICE OF MISPRISION
20. All Judges in the State of Minnesota has shown prejudice to Sharon Scarrella Anderson In re: Scarrella for
Associate Justice 221Nw2nd562 denied employment of Judge without a Law License ie: Therefore Madam Marcia
Moermond who has an eating disorder weights over 350 lbs, her “hearings” are null and void, mandating Just
compensation to over 1065 vancant bldgs. Owners and constitutional rights by denying her access to court. All
Minnesota Judges have shown contempt against the courts of justice by making light of the violations of law by the
City and County Attorneys representing City and County Employees, as well as the unconstitutional infringement
of the Madam Moermond’s illegal jurisdiction/authority on the judicial functions of this district court. , Minnesota
Constitution Art III Separation of Powers Doctrine. City of St. Paul has not provided transcripts of DSI hearing in
a timely manner, and falsely claimed that MGRP, Rule 4 denies the opportunity to have your own court reporter.
City and County Attorneys acting in concort with State Attorney General have denied the citizenry right to what
the Minnesota Supreme Court described as an “opportunity to elect a judicial determination” in matters relating to
the Tax Court, which is precisely what the Supreme Court declared was “the saving feature of this statutory
scheme”. Wulff v. Tax Court of Appeals, 288 N.W.2d 221 (Minn. 1979). Finally, Madam Marcia Moermond must be
disqualified for incompetence for not understanding that demurrer has been abolished by Federal RCP Rule 7(c),
and that unsupported contentions of material fact without affidavits and other testimony are insufficient for
dismissal of claims.
REMEDY SOUGHT
21. Determination by the St. Paul Mayor and City Council, and that Sharon Anderson does not owe the amount
claimed by the DSI Badge 322 Joel Essling
Approximately $900.00
22. Return to Sharon Scarrella Anderso Car 91 Chev replacement value $30 thous, Trailer $10 thous, Contents
over $10 thousand, plus Damage to Driveway, Fence, over 20 thous, Punatitive, Compensatory,Tort Damages
$500,000.00 for each and every occurance.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Prepared and Submitted by:
/s/ Sharon Anderson Attorney Pro Se, Private Attorney General,
__________________________________http://sharon4council.blogspot.com
AFFIDAVITS
3. I did not authorize MDR or the City of St. Paul personnel to execute substitute or levy fees, assessments,
banking online and or Minnesota property or individual income tax returns for me.
evidence in record that alleged delinquent Minnesota property taxes have been assessed against me, and
therefore I have no evidence that I have a delinquent property tax liability for qualified Minnesota resident
or nonresident property taxes.
13. I have not signed a consent agreement authorizing the City of St. Paul direct withdrawal of sums decedant
Page 19 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
intestate http://cpljimanderson.blogspot.com and I have on deposit in banks located in Minnesota.
14. I am not a government disbursement officer or withholding agent required to withhold income and
employment taxes from wages at the source, deposit such taxes into trust accounts, report amounts
withheld and pay said amounts to the Treasury of the United States or the Minnesota Department of
Revenue.
16. On April and May 2007 Theft/Trespass Criminal Charges were sent to St. Paul police John Harrington
control no. Cn07089912 Kathy.wuorinen@ci.stpaul.mn.us former city clerk don.luna@ci.stpaul.mn.us
demanding that they cease Trespassing/Theft and return assets and demanding my constitutional and
statutory rights of due process and trial by jury.
17. On April 24th, again 16May, 2007, the DSI trespassed into 697 Surrey and land valued at about $137,000.00,
Trees, shrubs, flower gardens and ground cover valued at black top driveway, redwood fencing, retaining
walls and personal property valued at about $50,000.the seizure of my assets, without claiming that I was a
criminal.
18. I am not in receipt of any evidence in record of criminal conduct that would warrant admiralty or common
law seizure. None of the real and personal property I own was used in conjunction with or was the fruit of
drug-related commercial crimes.
Under penalties of perjury, I attest that to the best of my present knowledge, understanding, and belief all matters
of fact set out above are accurate and true, so help me God. /s/ Sharon Anderson Disclaimer
Word Program by Beale is used for Original and Educational Purposes.
Page 11 of 11
Beale v. McClure
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com AttorneyProSe_Private AG, ECF 65913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel: 651-776-
5835 HEALTH CARE Candidate
MN Attorney General www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com 2014 2012Senate64
www.sharonsenate64.blogspot.com
http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/judicial-corruption-
_sharonscarrellaanderson_lawless-america/http://www.pacificlegal.org/document.doc?
id=608&utm_source=Sentry+-+3%2F21%2F12+Healthcare&utm_campaign=3-21-
12+Healthcare+SENTRY&utm_medium=emailhttp://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wpcontent/
uploads/2012/01/10-1032-bsac-Massachusetts.pdfhttp://sharon-mnecf.
blogspot.com/2007/03/foia-06cv-permissionto.
htmlhttp://mpls.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/profiles/26222.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/planet/andersonadvocates/http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/900-2007-02-27T034409Z/WritProA06-
1150_30Jun06.pdfhttp://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/google-lawmen-cases-mn-62cv09-1163/
POA
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/PDFcorr/SADPA4172006.pdfhttp://wethepeopleusa.ning.www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson www.taxthemax.blogspot.com www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson
www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson
Page 20 of 20
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 AOL: Sharon4Anderson
Michelle MacDonald defamation suit may lack factual basis
This photo of Michelle MacDonald was taken after an incident in a Dakota County courtroom in 2013. MacDonald says it’s misleading to refer to it as a “booking photo.”
Two of three key claims in lawyer Michelle MacDonald’s defamation lawsuit against Michael Brodkorb and his muckraking website appear unfounded, Minnesota Lawyer has learned.
Meanwhile Brodkorb, who accuses MacDonald of trying to squelch his First Amendment rights as a journalist, asserts that a third allegation in her suit also is factually inaccurate. Minnesota Lawyer could not independently verify that.
MacDonald and her law firm has sued Brodkorb’s muckraking MissingInMinnesota.com website, saying it has violated the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics by repeatedly defaming her. “I want him to stop,” MacDonald said in an interview Wednesday.
With a doggedness that verges on obsession, the site covers just one story — the case of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, whose children went missing for 944 days until they were found on a northern Minnesota ranch.
Grazzini-Rucki and MacDonald’s 2014 Supreme Court campaign manager, Dede Evavold, both were convicted on six felony counts related to the case. The criminal prosecutions ended two years ago; yet the site has barely slowed its coverage.
There could be a reason for that: Brodkorb and his co-author Allison Mann say they are writing a book about the case and expect to make an announcement about its publication in the coming weeks.
MacDonald’s complaint alleges that site repeatedly has made “false and defamatory” references to her as a “person of interest” in the Grazzini-Rucki case. It also alleges that the site keeps publishing what MacDonald calls a “false image” of herself.
A third count involves a 2013 traffic stop that she says Brodkorb has misrepresented publicly.
‘Person of interest’
MacDonald’s complaint says Brodkorb’s site perpetuates “a lie” when it repeatedly labels her a onetime “person of interest” in the 2013 disappearance of Grazzini-Rucki’s two daughters.
MacDonald alleges that Brodkorb has ignored demands to stop using the descriptor. She was never a person of interest in the case, she insists.
“It’s defamation at this point,” the complaint says, quoting a text message from MacDonald to Brodkorb. “Pull it. These are your words. You labeled me, not them. It’s you. Take it down.”
By “them,” MacDonald means the Lakeville Police Department, which initiated the investigation into the kids’ disappearance. The complaint says MacDonald later contacted the department and was told that she was never considered a “person of interest” in the case.
She also claims that Star Tribune reporter Brandon Stahl, who first used that phrase in his reporting on April 29, 2015, stopped after she contacted him. She said the Star Tribune never again used the phrase.
Neither assertion appears to be true. The Star Tribune — both in Stahl’s reporting and in that of least one other beat writer, Karen Zamora — continued using the phrase long after April 29, 2015. One reference, in a Zamora story, was published as recently as July 29, 2016.
Meanwhile, a Lakeville Police investigator confirmed Thursday morning that investigators initially did consider MacDonald a “person of interest” in the children’s disappearance.
“We believed that she was in the know,” said Lakeville Police Lt. Jason Polinski. Investigators based that suspicion on MacDonald’s “statements and actions” at the time, believing she wasn’t “upfront” about what she knew.
“We believed she was involved and knew what was going on,” Polinski said Thursday. “However, we could never prove that. So she was never a suspect. But, yes, she was a person of interest.”
In an interview Wednesday, Brodkorb said he has been told the same thing by Lakeville police officials somewhere between six and 12 times while reporting the story.
“It’s the reality,” Brodkorb said. “What Michelle, I think, is doing here is she is trying to obfuscate from those underlying facts.”
False image
MacDonald’s suit also charges Brodkorb and his co-author Allison Mann with repeatedly posting a “false image” that she says inaccurately gets depicted as her booking photo.
The photo was taken after a bizarre incident in a Dakota County courtroom on Sept. 12, 2013, during a child custody hearing. MacDonald said she was there representing Grazzini-Rucki, several months after the girls went missing.
In court that day, MacDonald got arrested and was led away by deputies after she took photos in the courtroom against court rules. Video shows that, about a half hour later, she was brought back into court in a wheelchair — she had reportedly refused to stand up and walk back into court on a judge’s order. She was also handcuffed.
MacDonald admits a photo was taken after that incident, but that she was never “booked” into custody, despite spending the night in jail. Therefore, Brodkorb and his site defame her reputation by repeatedly calling it a “booking photo” or “mug shot,” she says.
“I would check into that a little bit,” MacDonald said Wednesday. “Because I am telling you that’s a lie.”
She appears to be incorrect. On Thursday morning, a Dakota County Sheriff’s Department spokesperson found the same image on the county jail’s booking photo database. The image, which the county spokesperson confirmed is a booking shot, was forwarded to Minnesota Lawyer.
“The photograph is not a mug shot,” MacDonald insists. “[Brodkorb] had that surface. It had never surfaced before.”
That leads to a weird twist in the story. On May 25, MacDonald filed a complaint against Brodkorb with Eagan police in connection with the photo.
An officer’s report of that incident, obtained by Minnesota Lawyer, says MacDonald told the cop that Brodkorb himself took the photo, then uploaded it to a public mugshot website, arrestedinminnesota.com—a site that can no longer be found online.
From there, she told the officer, Brodkorb posted the picture to his own website and began misrepresenting it as a booking photo, according to the police report.
But Lakeville Police Officer Mike Reuss said in that report that he found the image on a law enforcement database and judged it to be public-record booking photo. In that report, however, he mislabeled it as a DUI booking photo.
MacDonald’s “criminal defamation” complaint was never investigated.
MacDonald said Wednesday that Reuss misrepresented what she told him. “I never said that to the police officer, I never said it to Brodkorb,” MacDonald said. “It’s a lie.”
That’s “classic Michelle MacDonald,” said blogger Mann. “Everything gets so tangled into this web that she weaves,” Mann said.
Traffic stop
MacDonald’s lawsuit also asserts that Brodkorb falsely alleged in a 2016 tweet that she was once convicted for driving while intoxicated. She was charged with DUI following a 2013 traffic stop in Rosemount, but was never convicted on that charge.
She was, however, convicted on a gross misdemeanor count of refusing to submit to a sobriety test and two misdemeanor counts—obstructing the legal process and speeding—in connection with that traffic stop.
Minnesota Lawyer could not find the Brodkorb tweet she alludes to and he says he has never made that claim. “I can find no record whatsoever that I ever said in my reporting that she was convicted of DUI,” he said.
MacDonald is a candidate for Minnesota Supreme Court who was conditionally reinstated as an attorney in April following disciplinary action in January. Her suit against Brodkorb and his MissingInMinnesota.com website charges “defamation per se” and “defamation by implication.”
MacDonald said she thinks that Brodkorb’s website has a vendetta against her and Grazzini-Rucki, one that is financed by David Rucki. She notes that Mann is a paralegal in the office of Lisa Elliott, an attorney who represents David Rucki. Mann confirms that.
However, Brodkorb and Mann both insist that they get no financing from Elliot’s client. “This is all an independent endeavor,” Brodkorb said.
MacDonald seeks damages in excess of $50,000, removal of the photo and an order directing Mann and Brodkorb to “cease their wrongful conduct,” among other remedies.
The case was initially filed in both Dakota County and Ramsey County. The Dakota County case, which MacDonald said was filed in error, was dismissed on Aug. 20.
It will proceed in Ramsey County District Court on Sept. 10 in the courtroom of Judge Richard H. Kyle.
Like this article? Gain access to all of our great content with a month-to-month subscription. Start your subscription for as little as $32.
2 COMMENTS