Wednesday, September 16, 2015

697SurreyTaxespaid16Sept2015

Skip Navigation

Confirmation

Please keep a record of your Confirmation Number, or print this page for your records.

Confirmation Number RC1RR4000223609

Payment Details

DescriptionRamsey County
Property Taxes for Ramsey County
http://www.rrinfo.co.ramsey.mn.us

Payment Amount$395.00

Service Fee$1.00

Total Amount$396.00

Payment Date09/16/2015

StatusSCHEDULED

PIN #322922410053

Property Address697 Surrey Ave , St. Paul

Payment Purpose1. Current Tax Year Payment

First Half Due Amount395

First Half Due Date05-15-2015

Second Half Due Amount395

Second Half Due Date10-15-2015

Payment Method

Bank Routing Numberxxxxxx

Bank NameAMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL

Bank Account Number*495

Bank Account TypeChecking

Bank Account CategoryConsumer

Confirmation EmailSharon4Anderson@aol.com

Saturday, August 8, 2015

Chris Coleman: 'Oh, God, you didn't just say that'

Friday, June 26, 2015

CandidateWard2SharonAnderson Blocked by Hometown Paper 2015 exposing FairHousing

News Local Sports Business Entertainment Life Multimedia Blogs Opinion

Obituaries Jobs Cars Homes Classifieds Shop Pets

St. Paul landlords, take note: Supreme Court upholds Fair Housing law’s “disparate impact” arguments

25 June, 2015 //
City Hall Scoop //
Tags : city housing inspections, Fair Housing Act, Magner v. Gallagher, Mondale,slumlords, St. Paul landlords, U.S. Supreme Court

Once upon a time, a group of landlords sued the city of St. Paul, arguing that city housing inspections had overreached and forced them — and thus their low-income, predominantly minority tenants — from livable properties. That’s an illegal taking, they said, and a direct violation of the federal 1968 Fair Housing Act, which protects minorities and other protected classes of individuals from housing discrimination.

The city argued otherwise. Pointing to low-cost apartment rentals with holes in the interior and exterior walls that allowed in the elements, faulty wiring, units without heat, and rat infestations, city officials effectively called these property owners slumlords. The lawsuits went to court, and in some cases were bundled together. The legal process, begun in 2004 and 2005 and expected by some to take months, has taken more than a decade, roping in top officials in the Obama administration. And it’s still not over.

Finally, the Supreme Court has ruled on something…

The irony of alleged slumlords accusing the city of racism for forcing them (and their minority tenants) from low-cost, low-value properties has not been lost on legal observers, who have weighed in on every side of the dispute — but perhaps none more so than a blogger named Bob.

The most famous of these landlord-vs-St. Paul legal fights — Magner v. Gallagher — nearly made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, Magner v. Gallagher was scheduled to be argued before the nation’s highest court justices in February 2012,but St. Paul changed course and chose to withdraw it as a result of intense legal pressure from housing advocates. That’s practically unheard of.

Leading plaintiffs, Thomas Gallagher and Joseph Collins, have since settled their case with the city of St. Paul, but other legal challenges wrapped up in the suit remain in the federal trial court pipeline, awaiting a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on similar Fair Housing Act cases. (And, as Bob points out, other cases are out there.)

That decision has finally come down. On Thursday, SCOTUS weighed in on Texas v. The Inclusive Communities Project, which also rested on Fair Housing Act claims. In a 5-4 decision, the court’s more liberal justices prevailed in upholding that the “disparate impact” of a housing policy is a measure of discrimination, as opposed to forcing housing advocates to prove a discriminatory intent (which is much harder to do).

The Texas case focused on the impact of housing tax credits, which had been distributed by the state to developers building affordable housing. The Inclusive Communities Project alleged that regardless of intent, the impact was discriminatory — a heavy concentration of affordable housing in poor minority neighborhoods. As in Magner v. Gallagher, housing advocates worried that the conservative Supreme Court justices would use the case to gut “disparate impact” as a legal argument entirely, raising the bar for housing discrimination cases and forcing advocates to prove intent. (That, in turn, could have a spillover effect, and undermine federal legal cases against predatory lending and discriminatory financial practices).

Another Fair Housing Act case — Mount Holly Citizens in Action v. Township of Mount Holly — was previously settled before reaching the Supreme Court.

The Magner v. Gallagher case has led down all sorts of legal and political rabbit holes. In a 68-page report, Republican lawmakers seized on efforts by U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez — back when he was assistant U.S. Attorney General in the civil rights division — to convince the city of St. Paul not to take Magner v. Gallagher to the Supreme Court. Perez reportedly flew into St. Paul for an in-person heart-to-heart with the mayor. Former U.S. Vice President Walter Mondale, who authored the Fair Housing Act, was no less persuasive. So were dozens of rights groups, from the NAACP to national housing advocates. St. Paul agreed, and withdrew the case with 20 days to go.

The alleged quid-pro-quo was brokered thusly, said the GOP lawmakers: St. Paul would agree to withdraw Magner v. Gallagher from the Supreme Court calendar, and Perez would agree not to review two other housing cases against the city of St. Paul — Newell and Ellis — both of which alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act.

Says this Wall Street Journal editorial from March 2013:

“On February 3, 2012, Mr. Perez and his deputy, special counsel for fair lending Eric Halperin, met in St. Paul with Mayor Coleman, Deputy Mayor Paul Williams, City Attorney Grewing and Mr. Lillehaug. Our sources say that Mr. Lillehaug and Ms. Grewing told Congressional investigators that Mr. Perez talked about the importance of disparate impact, mentioned Mr. Mondale’s concern and proposed another deal: Justice would decline to intervene in Newell, the city would withdraw its Supreme Court case, and then the feds would also decline to intervene inEllis. The mayor agreed.”

Was Bob the blogger the first to call it?

City officials have not denied discussing the three cases — Magner v. Gallagher, Ellis, and Newell — with Perez, but they did defend their legal right to do so. Some media observers called the Wall Street Journal’s analysis overblown. The accusations threatened to derail Perez’ confirmation as U.S. Labor Secretary,. But they didn’t, and Perez was confirmed anyway.

HUD has since clarified what it means to further “fair housing.”

Whatever the political ramifications or near-ramifications of the legal battles to date, housing advocates appear delighted with the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Texas v. The Inclusive Communities Project, and are letting the world know. The Obama administration appears equally pleased.

A selection from published statements:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 25, 2015

Statement by the Press Secretary on the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc.

The Court’s decision affirms that the Fair Housing Act enables Americans to challenge not only laws, policies, and practices that are intentionally discriminatory, but also those that have an unjustified discriminatory effect.

Too many Americans are victims of more subtle forms of discrimination, such as predatory lending, exclusionary zoning, and development policies that limit affordable housing. This decision reflects the reality that discrimination often operates not just out in the open, but in more hidden forms. And, it preserves a longstanding and important method for challenging and eliminating those practices and continuing the work to end discrimination in housing.

Civil and Human Rights Coalition Applauds Supreme Court Decisions on Fair Housing and Health Care
Decisions Maintain the Integrity of Bedrock Civil Rights Protections

WASHINGTON – Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, issued the following statement following Supreme Court decisions in Texas v. The Inclusive Communities Project, which was a challenge to the use of disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act, and in King v. Burwell, which was a challenge to the Affordable Care Act:

“In a time when bedrock civil rights protections are slowly receding in the areas of voting, education, and elsewhere, today’s two Supreme Court decisions preserving the integrity of the Fair Housing Act and the Affordable Care Act are a welcome relief for the most vulnerable Americans.

In the Texas case, the Supreme Court’s decision ensures that millions of Americans will still be protected from housing discrimination and upholds the important principle that, as a nation, we value the diversity of the communities in which we live. When Americans are denied equal opportunity to housing, they are denied access to good jobs, quality education, safe streets, transit, and a clean and healthy environment, all of which are critical to leading healthy and prosperous lives. As the Court acknowledged, ‘much progress remains to be made in our Nation’s continuing struggle against racial isolation.’ At a time of heightened concern across the country over threats to racial justice, as seen in places like Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, a fully functioning and effective Fair Housing Act is more important than ever, and we applaud the Court’s recognition that the Fair Housing Act has a ‘continuing role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society.’

…. Wade Henderson is president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the rights of all persons in the United States. The Leadership Conference works toward an America as good as its ideals. For more information on The Leadership Conference, visit www.civilrights.org.

So what does the latest Supreme Court decision in Texas v. The Inclusive Communities Project mean for the remaining landlord lawsuits against St. Paul?

Time will tell. That’s a Scoop blog for another time… But you might ask Bob.

ADDENDUM:
Jerry Hendrickson, deputy St. Paul City Attorney and a 40-year veteran of the office, said Thursday that the SCOTUS decision is

‘We think it helps,” Hendrickson said. “The city is supportive of the Fair Housing Act. This case specifically talks about our case in a couple of places, and is critical of the 8th Circuit Court decision. The idea that the Fair Housing Act and decent housing were in conflict is troubling to a lot of people.”

Magner v. Gallagher, the multi-landlord suit against St. Paul which no longer includes Gallagher, remains in federal district court in Minneapolis. The judge assigned to the case, Michael Davis, is retiring soon, so expect no rush to trial.

As for how the Scotus decision will impact additional housing cases filed by Raven Financial and other landlords, “It’s too early to tell,” Hendrickson said. “Each case is different. Like Raven, it could. We think this decision is favorable for the city.”

Posted By City Hall Scoop

Next Post: >>

<< Previous Post: 2700 University — a touch of Uptown MPLS in St. Paul?

SharonQuidProQuo2019City

Sun20Oct2019 TO THE ABOVE NAMED;SERVICE ELECTRONICALLY,EMAIL,SOCIAL MEDIA AND BLOGS CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS RICO RE QUID PRO QUO NO FILING FEE4WHISTLEBLOWER ATTORNEY PRO SE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE QUITAM STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A19-0916Minnesota Judicial Branch - BioChief Justice Lorie Skjerven GildeaSupreme CourtSend an email via our contact formState Court Administrator's Office(651) 296-2474 (phone)(651) 297-5636 (fax)Minnesota Judicial Center (MJC) Suite #: 13525 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.St. Paul, MN 55155 Sharon Anderson Ward 2 QuiTam Relator White,Widow,WhistleblowerName: Sharon AndersonPublic Office Sought: Saint Paul City Council Email: Sharon4Anderson@aol.comPhone: 651-776-5835Website: sharon4council.blogspot.comTwitter Handle: @sharon4andersonFacebook: Sharon Anderson2019 Saint paul Voter Guide City St.Paul QuidProQuo unabated by Chief Justice Lorie Gildea QUESTIONS 1. Citys Trash/Garbarge Contract 11Nov2017 techinally must be voided, basedon Asst. City Attorney Rachael Tierney, Sarah Grewing, then and today giving legal Advise to past and present Council to Malign, usurp City Charter, triggeHouse Committee on Oversight and Government Reformrs Ineffective Assistance of City Council's Resolutions Ord 18-39 further Quid Pro Quo. VoteNo Save our Charter. 2. Has Chief Justice Lorie S.Gildea Covertly by Published Order indirectly,directlOPA190916-101619.pd pg 3 further over 6,000 signed signatures mandates Investigations over and above the 5Nov2019 Ballot and Elections. a. City Attorneys simulating legal process's for Citys Pecuniary Gain.? Cash Cow 4 Lawyers.Quid Pro QuoAlmanac - Twin Cities PBS .ATTY GENERAL ELLISON, ST PAUL TRASH FIGHT, DAYTON’S PORTRAITMN Attorney General Ellison, Hazelden’s Mark Mishek, Former Gov Dayton portrait More 3. Legal Notice re Separation of Powers, the Landlord Case and now Trash Casewithout MN Attorney General Mike Hatch,Lory Swanson and now Current MNAG Keith Ellison, intervention to Protect the State Laws, Constitution State and Federal as mentioned, 4. Has Justice Lorie Gildea in her Official Capacity looked the other way on other Lawsuits vs. City St. Paul, specifically USSC10-1032 Titled Magner vs. GallagherHouse Committee on Oversight and Government Reform The quid pro quo between the Department of Justice and the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, is largely the result of the machinations of one man: Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez. Yet the consequences of his actions will negatively affect not only Fredrick Newell and the lowincome residents of St. Paul who he championed. The effects of this quid pro quo will be felt by future whistleblowers who act courageously, and often at great personal risk, to fight fraud and identify waste on behalf of federal taxpayers. The effects of withdrawing Magner will be felt by the minority tenants in St. Paul who, due to the case’s challenge to the City’s housing code, continue to live with rampant rodent infestations and inadequate plumbing. The effects of sacrificing Newell’s case will cost American taxpayers the opportunity to recover up to $200 million and allow St. Paul’s misdeeds to go unpunished. Far more troubling, however, is the fundamental damage that this quid pro quo has done to the rule of law in the United States and to the reputation of the Department of Justice as a fair and impartial arbiter of justice 5, Has Chief Justice Lorie Gildea overreached her Personal and Official Duties, re; Committment Panel is Cap knowing appointment of members ie Knutson,Gearin,Smith,Metzen,Asphaug, etal knowing Public Distaste,Distrust of these Judges b. 59 yr Restraining Orders, Restraint of Free Speech, by Gearin Ordering Web Sites taken down or Criminal Charges. BIZZARE. see Memorandum below. re Dede Evavald, Sharon Anderson re Concern Darlene Winters Trust Acct. Sandra Grazzini et alOpinions-Unpublished?Archives https://opinions-unpublished.blogspot.com/2013/Sharons-CourtRecords: In the Matter Darlene WinterPO62-14-696_HS1113StPaulAveElmer MackSocWorker postconviction court’s factual findings, not only does the majority depart from our precedent, but it also places Minnesota out of step with courts across the country. See, e.g., Bennett v. United States, 663 F.3d 71, 85 (2d Cir. 2011) (explaining that its deference to the findings made by district court in the course of deciding an ineffectiveness claim reflected “the superiority of the trial judge’s position to make determinations of credibility since only the trial judge can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding of and belief in what is said” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marked omitted)); Ahmed v. Redman, 782 F.2d 409, 412 (3d Cir. 1986) (explaining that the statutory presumption of correctness attaches to the subsidiary findings of historical fact that are relevant to the resolution of mixed questions of fact and law raised by a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); United States v. Auerbach, 745 F.2d 1157, 1161 (8th Cir. 1984) (explaining that, “[w]e will affirm a district court’s finding that a habeas petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel where the district court’s findings of fact which support the conclusion of law are not clearly erroneous”); Gaines v. Comm’r of Corr., 51 A.3d 948, 959-60, 966 (Conn. 2012) (explaining that the postconviction Complaints vs. Justice Lorie Gildea Lorie Skjerven Gildea - Wikipedia Because of Gildea's discrimination to favor women, the men have been left homeless, destroyed livelihoods, forced into squalor, and, most importantly, damaged their families. Gildea has condoned these smear campaigns that are OPA091641-0531.pdfused to prevent the men from speaking. postconviction court’s factual findings, not only does the majority depart from our precedent, but it also places Minnesota out of step with courts across the country. See, e.g., Bennett v. United States, 663 F.3d 71, 85 (2d Cir. 2011) (explaining that its deference to the findings made by district court in the course of deciding an ineffectiveness claim reflected “the superiority of the trial judge’s position to make determinations of credibility since only the trial judge can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding of and belief in what is said” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marked omitted)); Ahmed v. Redman, 782 F.2d 409, 412 (3d Cir. 1986) (explaining that the statutory presumption of correctness attaches to the subsidiary findings of historical fact that are relevant to the resolution of mixed questions of fact and law raised by a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); United States v. Auerbach, 745 F.2d 1157, 1161 (8th Cir. 1984) (explaining that, “[w]e will affirm a district court’s finding that a habeas petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel where the district court’s findings of fact which support the conclusion of law are not clearly erroneous”); Gaines v. Comm’r of Corr., 51 A.3d 948, 959-60, 966 (Conn. 2012) (explaining that the postconviction OPINIONS OF THESUPREME COURTFILED WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2019NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.A19-0916 Bruce Clark, et al., Respondents, vs. City of Saint Paul, et al., Appellants. Ramsey County. 1. A referendum on a Saint Paul ordinance that establishes organized waste collection services does not conflict with the requirements in Minn. Stat. §§ 115A.94–.941 (2018), that municipalities ensure that residents have waste collection services including through appropriate local controls, because ordinances that are not subject to the referendum fulfill those requirements and the Legislature intended that municipalities have broad authority in the process for establishing organized waste collection. 2. A referendum on an ordinance that establishes organized waste collection services in the City does not impair the City’s contract obligations under the Contract Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. Affirmed. Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea.OPA190916-101619.pdfA18-0121 Ambree Getz, Respondent, vs. Eila Kaarina Peace, et al., Appellants. Court of Appeals.Email Please note: your email will become part of the public record. Phone: 651-266-8560Fax: 651-266-8574Dai Thao, Ward 1 | Jane L. Prince, Ward 7 | Chris Tolbert, Ward 3 | Amy Brendmoen, Ward 5 and Council President | Kassim Busuri, Ward 6| Mitra Jalali Nelson, Ward 4 | Rebecca Noecker, Ward 2Coordinated Collection | Saint Paul, Minnesota City Attorney | Saint Paul, MinnesotaCoordinated Collection | Saint Paul, MinnesotaThis contract provides a solid base to transition the city to Coordinated Collection and meets the priorities that the Council laid out for the negotiating team. See Final Contract, Final Contract Exhibits, and First Amendment.52 Organizer Ramac Franklin OrganizePageRight-click here to select Foth Office Search | Saint Paul, Minnesota| Code of Ordinances | St. Paul, MN | Municode LibrarySec. 14.01. - Power to levy assessments.Sec. 14.01.1. - Preliminary assessment.Sec. 14.01.2. - Charge for services.Sec. 14.01.3. - Reassessment.Sec. 14.01.4. - Appeal.Sec. 14.01.5. - Trial.Sec. 14.01.6. - Collection.Sec. 14.02. - Special assessment—Alternative procedure.City of Saint Paul - Meeting of City Council on 10/23/2019 at 3:30 PMRES 19-186417Authorizing the City of Saint Paul to enter into an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Revenue for the collection of Local Sales, Use Tax, and a Lodging Tax.ResolutionAuthorizing the City of Saint Paul to enter into an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Revenue for the collection of Local Sales, Use Tax, and a Lodging Tax.Ord 19-67117OrdinanceAmending section 220.05 of the Legislative Code to set rates for base level garbage service to be effective January 1, 2020.Businesses | Minnesota Department of RevenueAlcoholic Beverage TaxCigarette and Tobacco TaxesCorporation Franchise TaxEnergy Production TaxesEnvironmental Taxes and FeesEstate TaxFiduciary TaxGambling TaxesInsurance TaxesMining and Mineral Taxes MinnesotaCare TaxesMortgage Registry and Deed TaxPartnership TaxPetroleum TaxProperty TaxesS Corporation TaxSales and Use TaxUnrelated Business Income TaxWithholding Taxxx DetailsReportsFile #:Ord 19-67 Version: 1Name:Type:OrdinanceStatus:Second ReadingIn control:City CouncilFinal action:Title:Amending section 220.05 of the Legislative Code to set rates for base level garbage service to be effective January 1, 2020.Sponsors:Amy BrendmoenHistory (1)TextPublic Comments (2) Add New Comment2 recordsGroupExportDate NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction10/17/2019 6:51 PMCandidateSharonAndersonAgainstPlease read http://sharons-fraudupdate.blogspot.comForensic Files http://sharon4anderson.orgViolation of Charter,Ballot Vote No now Rate Setting Ponzi Taxing Scheme10/17/2019 10:24 AMCandidateSharonAndersonAgainstFor years Council has set Rates for NonProfit District Heating, now setting Rates for Trash a for Profit Business creates Contract Impairment, contrary to Private Citizens to do Business http://taxthemax.blogspot.comtherefore creating a Monoply,AntiTrustxxIN RE: Vanessa Yolanda REW | FindLaw Thomas A. Gilligan, Jr., Murnane Brandt, Saint Paul, MN, for respondent. James Allen Bergstrom, Roseville, MN, pro se. Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Alan I. Gilbert, Solicitor General, Michael Everson, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota Attorney General MEMORANDUM JUSTICE LORIE GILDEA'S50yrRestraining Orders 2019 - The Provocateurhttp://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2019/theeprovocateur.blogspot.com › ...The Minnesota Supreme Court, led by Judge Lorie Gildea, has to twist itself into ..... granted David Rucki a fifty (50) year restraining order against Dede Evavold. Now What Sharons latest http://sharonvcitystpaul.blogspot.com and http://citizenery-mncourts.blogspot.com651) 291-5297 (CAP) is defined by Minn. Stat. § 253B.19. Panel One - Judge AsphaugPanel Two - Judge RancourtPanel Three – Judge TilsenMinnesota Judicial Branch - Clerk of Appellate Courts Fri.18Oct2019 Tracking Opinions via Justice Lori GildeaMinnesota Judicial Branch - Clerk of Appellate CourtsBlogItBabeSandraGrazzini-Rucki,Pauper,ChildSupportviaJusticeLorieGildeahttps://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2019/09/sandra-grazzini-rucki-pauper-who-should.ht Just a Note re Kathleen Gearin Tolbert served as a law clerk for Ramsey County Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin, and then became an assistant attorney for Hennepin County. Other experience includes serving on the League of Minnesota Cities Board ofhttps://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/affidavit-prejudicejudge-kathleen-gearinhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4417581-19AVCV171950Order03212018.html re Dede EvavaldThursday, September 26, 2019Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, A Pauper Who Should Pay Child SupportThe Provocateur: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, A Pauper Who Should Pay Child Supporthttps://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2019/09/sandra-grazzini-rucki-pauper-who-should.html?fbclid=IwAR2jTKIsegFHNzLh-mS5anl14m5aNneGU2cgYPTpZREsNTcVSqxZhDF52pcSharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.comhttp://blogitbabe.blogspot.com http://sharon4council.blogspot.comLEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, www.taxthemax.blogspot.com The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Ch.119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this "Message," including attachments, may contain the originator'sproprietary information. The originator hereby notifiesrecipients Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based actions. Authorized carriers of this message shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients. See: Quon v. Arch

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

697SurreyTaxespaid16Sept2015

Confirmation

Payment Details

Payment Method

Saturday, August 8, 2015

Chris Coleman: 'Oh, God, you didn't just say that'

Friday, June 26, 2015

CandidateWard2SharonAnderson Blocked by Hometown Paper 2015 exposing FairHousing

SEARCH THIS BLOG

POPULAR TAGS

RECENT POSTS

PAST POSTS

St. Paul landlords, take note: Supreme Court upholds Fair Housing law’s “disparate impact” arguments

Posted By City Hall Scoop

SharonSearch

TellMyPolitican

Sharons Memorys

SharonsStrictScrunity

Sharon4Mayor2010 2

SharonsSodaHead

The Political Animal

Blog Archive

SharonsSlideshare

SharonsFacebookStory