In a message dated 9/1/2019 9:31:27 AM Central Standard Time,jghoeschler@gmail.com writes:
Please take me off your list. I am trying to reduce emails since I seldom check them. JGHLegal Notice to Lawyer John Hoeschler et al
Affiant will delete your e address pr your request.
Sicko-City StPaul
Sicko-City StPaul
HOWEVER: Electronic Commerce prevails.
Civil and RICO Charges vs. now Justice David Lillhaug
Disparity of Cases published.
Sorry about that altho your case is public Mill Overlay
Pelham may affect Propertys of interest.
I see your cases re Fees Taxes are laid over to
Sept 18
City Council | Saint Paul, Minnesota or 25 2019
City Council | Saint Paul, Minnesota or 25 2019
Affiants Candidate Widow,Whistleblower interests are the Disparity of Private Lawyer David Lillhaug given Judgship in MN Supreme Court.
then Ruling on Fees,Taxes,Row vs. City St. Paul.
David Lillhaug making Dirty Deals with City St. Paul re USSC 10-1032
AS a Private Lawyer complicit with DFL Nat.Chair Tom Perez
In early February 2012, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez made a secret deal behind closed doors with St. Paul, Minnesota, Mayor Christopher Coleman and St. Paul’s outside counsel, David Lillehaug. Perez agreed to commit the Department of Justice to declining intervention in a False Claims Act qui tam complaint filed by whistleblower Fredrick Newell against the City of St. Paul, as well as a second qui tam complaint pending against the City, in exchange for the City’s commitment to withdraw its appeal in Magner v. Gallagher from the Supreme Court, an appeal involving the validity of disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act. Perez sought, facilitated, and consummated this deal because he feared that the Court would find disparate impact unsupported by the text of the Fair Housing Act. Calling disparate impact theory the “lynchpin” of civil rights enforcement, Perez simply could not allow the Court to rule. Perez sought leverage to stop the City from pressing its appeal. His search led him to David Lillehaug and then to Newell’s lawsuit against the City. Fredrick Newell, a minister and small-business owner in St. Paul, had
When the presumption of validity afforded the assessment is rebutted, a district court has a duty as fact-finder to independently determine whether the amount of an assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property. Ewert, 278 N.W.2d at 548, 552; In re Vill. of Burnsville, 310 Minn. at 41, 245 N.W.2d at 451; Nyquist v. Town of Center, Crow Wing Cty., 312 Minn. 266, 270, 251 N.W.2d 695, 697 (1977), overruled on other grounds by Downtown Dev. Project, Marshall City Council Resolution No. 57 v. City of Marshall, 281 N.W.2d 161, 163 n.3 (Minn. 1979). Therefore, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In the ruling, Justice David Lillehaug wrote for the court that the right-of-way charges are taxes aimed at benefiting the public as a whole, and not fees issued in exchange for special benefits awarded to individual property owners. http://citizenery-mncourts.blogspot.com
If accidently email goes thro just delete.
FURTHER;
it is prudent to use
Jack Hoeschler, an attorney who has been representing two churches and Minnesota Public Radio in legal appeals filed in Ramsey County District Court, said he expects to file a parallel lawsuit on behalf of Krinkie and other commercial owners.
St. Paul right-of-way fees are taxes, Minnesota high court rules
https://www.twincities.com › 2016/08/24 › st-paul-minnesota-right-of-way...
Aug 24, 2016 - As a result, Lillehaug said, the charges are subject to a city's constitutional limits on taxing authority. ... “With today's Minnesota Supreme Court decision, the city has maintained its ability to collect assessments through its right-of-way program,” Clark said.
xx
31stAug2019
Fred I know your busy, Candidates.Lawyers,Media
WRATH OF GOD TURBULENCE OF NATURE
TRUMP4TRUTH SHARON4SAFETY,SANITY,SEXUALITY
In the interest of Public Policy, Citys Records based on Fraud,Deceptive Billings, triggers Anti Trust Issues.
Snail Mail Ed smith should be fired Forensic Files of Closed
Affiant paid out over $2,000 in Assessments, to prevent Forclosure
Evidence mandates Big Time Refunds. http://taxthemax.blogspot.com
To the Above named; Look at Mailing Address City website down.
Did Mpls. buy out St. Paul, Haha 4.5%interest
Show [10 \/] entries
Search:[ ]
PROCESS
|
PROCESS STATUS
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Open
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
Current Permit / File
Status:Under Review
Permit / File #:20 16 037125 EXT 00 CS
Permit / File Type:CSO Complaint
Sub Type:Exterior
Work Type:Complaint
Issued:2016-05-17
Address:697 SURREY AVE ST PAUL
Additional Information
Processes
Show [10 \/] entries
Search:[ ]
PROCESS
|
PROCESS STATUS
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Reinspection
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI Code Enforcement Response
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
DSI CS Complaint Admin
|
Open
|
Process Detail
|
DSI CS Review
|
Closed
|
Process Detail
|
Showing page 3
Process Details
Process NameDSI CS Complaint Admin
Assigned UserCSOCOMPL
Baseline Start Date:22-06-2016
Baseline End Date22-06-2016
StatusOpen
Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.com
LEGAL 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's
proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies
recipients 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
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's
proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies
recipients 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