Sunday, July 19, 2020
BaptistChurchvsCitySt.PaulSecretCashCow4LawyersvsSharon4AndersonSen64Republican
Sun19Jul2020 Will transpose to http://taxthemax.blogspot.com
TO THE ABOVE NAMED
| Remote Meeting Remote Closed Door session immediately following the HRA, to discuss pending litigation in First Baptist v. City, Christina Anderson v. City, Arvold Properties v. City and 475
|
D; THANK GOD 4 BUSINESSMAN PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, HUD DR. BEN CARSON,JUDICIAL WATCH TOM FITTEN ET AL.
AFFIANTS SHARON4USA AKA BLOGIN BABE STATE RE PENALTY OF PERJURY .
Article X :: Minnesota Constitution :: Minnesota Law :: US Law :: Justia
Article X :: Minnesota Constitution :: Minnesota Law :: US Law :: Justia
Taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects and shall be levied and collected for public purposes, but public burying grounds, public school houses, public hospitals, academies, colleges, universities, all seminaries of learning, all churches, church property, houses of worship, institutions of purely public charity, and public property used exclusively for any public purpose, shall be exempt from taxation except as provided in this section. There may be exempted from taxation personal property not exceeding in value $200 for each household, individual or head of a family, and household goods and farm machinery as the legislature determines. The legislature may authorize municipal corporations to levy and collect assessments for local improvements upon property benefited thereby without regard to cash valuation. The legislature by law may define or limit the property exempt under this section other than churches, houses of worship, and property solely used for educational purposes by academies, colleges, universities and seminaries of learning.
Three California churches sue Newsom over singing ban - Los Angeles Times
Three California churches sue Newsom over singing ban - Los Angeles Times
Three churches in Northern California have filed a federal lawsuit against Gov. Gavin Newsom, claiming a ban on singing in places of worship — implemented to help stem the spread of the coronvirus — violates their 1st Amendment rights.
mn Separation Powers Art. III - Google Search
Malicious Magner sends Affiant Bogus Bill 2 times a month every month since 2017 122.00 I plus interedt,costs
The district court upheld the assessments after applying a reasonableness test, concluding that the ROW was not a tax imposed under the City’s taxing power but was a fee imposed under the City’s police power and, therefore, was not subject to constitutional restrictions on taxation. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the ROW assessment was imposed as an exercise of the City’s taxing power rather than its police power; and (2) summary judgment was inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the extent of special benefits to the Churches’ properties attributable to the right-of-way services.
therefore; iF row assessments are taxes, then in Sharons Fight of Bogus Excessive Consumptions,Inspections,Abatements 2006,2007 Citys
Sharon4Anderson
Sharon4Anderson
Theft of Sharons Car,trailer,water,fraudulenty assessed to property at 697 Surrey Ave St. Paul,MN techinally taxing PROPERTYS
Started again 2017,2018,2019,2020 without Valid Complaints,Warrants, Roof is Grandfathered in with 2 sets of Shingles, Tarped to Conserve Heat Bills etc.
Covert Conspiracy of DFL, Complicit with former US Attry David Lillhaug, Current Justice,now suffering with Parkinson and Retired, re Baptist Church Row is Taxes
THEREFORE; AFFIANT Widow, Current http://sharonsenate64.blogspot.com
must expose the Council Clowns illegally Taxing the Public vis Fraud by DSI, Steve Magner who lives in Stillwater,
Sharon seeking Refundments approx since 2006 up to and including 2002 Excessive Consumption/Inspections, w
697SurFiles07+005.jpg (image)ell over 10,000.00 plus interest, damages exploiting Sharons Blindness etc.
697SurFiles07+005.jpg (image)ell over 10,000.00 plus interest, damages exploiting Sharons Blindness etc.
and the Criminal Investigation/Prosecution of Steve
Anderson+Advocates,
Anderson+Advocates,
Magner Manager of Code Enforcements.Vacant Buildings etc.
Magner v. Gallagher
Magner v. Gallagher
;
| City Council | first baptist church vs city st paul minnesota - Google Search7/22/2020 |  | 2:00 PM |
| Meeting details |  Agenda |
Property Code Enforcement | Saint Paul, Minnesota
Sec. 34.24. - Excessive consumption of city services. | Code of Ordinances | St. Paul, MN | Municode Library
| Chapter 34. | Minimum Property Maintenance Standards For All Structures and Premises |
- Sec. 34.24. - Excessive consumption of city services.
Email: Sharon4Anderson@aol.comCampaign Phone: 651-776-5835
Campaign Website: http://sharonsenate64.blogspot.comDisqus PageCouncil findings. The city council finds that some property owners take little or no responsibility for the maintenance of their property until the city, through its various inspections programs, has repeatedly ordered them to remedy violations of the property maintenance chapters of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Such property owners create excessive costs for the city which are over and above the normal cost of providing inspection services city-wide. Property owners who must repeatedly be ordered to remedy code violations on their property consume an unacceptable and disproportionate share of limited city resources. Therefore, it is the intent of the city council, by the adoption of this section, to impose and collect the costs associated with reinspections and the excessive consumption of city inspection services. The collection of such costs for certain properties shall be by assessment against the real property requiring such excessive inspection or reinspection services, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101, and chapter 14 of the Saint Paul City Charter.(2)Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the terms defined in this section shall have the meanings ascribed to them:Excessive initial inspection means an inspection and observation of a new violation by an enforcement officer at a specific property address after an enforcement officer has conducted two (2) prior initial inspections within a twelve-month period and found violations of the Saint Paul Legislative Code under the jurisdiction of the department of safety and inspections, where the owner was notified in writing pursuant to section 34.24(3).Excessive inspection services fee means the fee to be imposed for a reinspection or excessive initial inspection. The fee shall include, but not be limited to: the pro rata salaries of enforcement officers performing inspections of the subject property; the pro rata cost of equipment, materials and all other overhead costs used during inspection of the subject property, including ownership searches and administrative and clerical costs; and the costs of any medical treatment of enforcement officers injured as a result of these inspections.Reinspection means that an enforcement officer has conducted an inspection of the premises based upon a complaint or otherwise had occasion to view the premises and observed a violation of any provision of the St. Paul Legislative Code under the jurisdiction of the department of safety and inspections issued a written notice of the violation(s), and reinspected the premises to determine compliance with the notice and found noncompliance.(3)Initial inspection by enforcement officer; written notice.a.Written notice of violations. When an enforcement officer conducts an initial inspection of a premises and determines that violations of the provisions of the legislative code under the jurisdiction of the department of safety and inspections exist, the enforcement officer shall, in addition to any other action the enforcement officer may undertake, serve written notice of the violation in conformance with the requirements set forth in section 34.21 of this chapter.b.Notice for collection of reinspection costs and excessive initial inspection costs. If the enforcement officer intends to collect the city costs for reinspections and excessive initial inspections, then the written notice provided for in sections 34.24.(3)(a) and 34.21 must also:1.State that if the violations are not corrected within the time period or periods required in the notice, the city's costs in conducting a reinspection after the due date for compliance will be collected from the owner or owners rather than being paid by the taxpayers of the city; and2.State that if additional new violations of the legislative code under the jurisdiction of the department of safety and inspections are discovered by enforcement officers within the next following twelve (12) months, the city's costs in conducting any additional inspections at the same location within such twelve (12) months will be collected from the owner or owners rather than being paid by the taxpayers of the city; and3.State that such future costs will be collected by assessment against the real property.(4)Excessive consumption of inspection services, fee and liability.a.The city shall be entitled to collect its costs of enforcement from a property owner who consumes either reinspection services or excessive initial inspection services. An excessive consumption of either reinspections or excessive initial inspection services occurs after:1.Written notice of a violation is served under section 34.24.(3) following an initial inspection; and2.One additional initial inspection is performed at the same location within a consecutive twelve-month period after the first initial inspection for which a notice of violation was served; and3.During each of the two initial inspections under subparagraph (3), the enforcement officer finds violations of the Saint Paul Legislative Code under the jurisdiction of the department of safety and inspections which are new violations; or4.Written notice of a violation is served under section 34.24.(3) following an initial inspection; and5.The enforcement officer conducts an inspection after the due date for compliance on the notice and determines that the violation still exists.b.A flat fee of one hundred twenty two dollars ($122.00) may be charged for each inspection under the circumstances described under section 34.24(4).c.No fee under section 34.24.(4)(a) shall be charged where the city has issued a written notice pursuant to section 34.24.(3) but has abated the violation under section 45.10 or 45.11 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code and assessed the costs of such abatement under section 45.11.1 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.d.The amount of the excessive consumption of inspection services fee shall be a debt owed to the city and shall be collected by special assessment under the authority in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 and the Charter by the procedure outlined in Chapter 60 of the Saint Paul Administrative Code.e.Action under this section does not preclude any other civil or criminal enforcement procedure.(C.F. No. 05-740, § 1, 9-14-05; C.F. No. 07-149, § 9, 3-28-07; C.F. No. 09-678, § 1, 7-22-09; Ord 12-58, § 1, 10-24-12; Ord 16-58, § 1, 1-4-17) - Sec. 34.25. - Stay of enforcement/penalty.(1)Voluntary vacation of premises. No penalty shall be imposed upon any owner who serves written notice upon the legislative hearing officer stating an intent to permanently vacate the premises within thirty (30) days. Written notice must be filed with the hearing officer within ten (10) days from the date on which the placard was placed on the property and shall include proof that notice of eviction was served upon the occupants of the condemned premises.(2)Stay pending appeal. Enforcement proceedings or orders to correct violations shall be held in abeyance if the owner shall file an appeal to the legislative hearing officer within ten (10) days of receiving the written order issued by the enforcement officer, except in the case of an order to vacate a structure which is deemed to be in an unsafe condition and dangerous to life or limb, the enforcement officer shall proceed to order the building vacated until it is made safe or a final determination is made by the legislative hearing officer allowing reoccupancy of the building. Abeyance of enforcement proceedings shall continue until such time as the hearing officer or building official shall have issued a determination or in the event the owner should not prosecute the appeal in a timely fashion.(C.F. No. 05-740, § 1, 9-14-05; Ord 16-58, § 1, 1-4-17)
- Sec. 34.26. - Conflict with other ordinances.In any case where a provision of this chapter is found to be in conflict with a provision of any zoning, building, fire, safety or health ordinance, chapter or code of this city, the provision which establishes the higher standard for the promotion and protection of the health and safety of the people shall prevail provided that the regulation is consistent with the State Building Code.(C.F. No. 05-740, § 1, 9-14-05; Ord 16-58, § 1, 1-4-17)
- Sec. 34.27. - Administrative liability.No officer, agent or employee of the city shall be rendered personally liable for any damage that may accrue to persons or property as a result of any act required or permitted in the discharge of their duties under this chapter. No person who institutes, or assists in the prosecution of, a criminal proceeding under this Code shall be liable in damages therefor unless they have acted with actual malice and without reasonable grounds for believing that the person accused or prosecuted was guilty of an unlawful act or omission. Any suit brought against any officer, agent or employee of the city as a result of any act required or permitted in the discharge of their duties under this chapter shall be defended by the city attorney until the final determination of the proceedings therein.(C.F. No. 05-740, § 1, 9-14-05)
- Sec. 34.28. - Procedure.In addition to the punishments provided in this chapter, the city, through the officer charged with the enforcement of the various provisions of this chapter, or any other person, may seek enforcement thereof in any court of competent jurisdiction by any appropriate form of civil action and may seek to enjoin any continued violation thereof and seek to compel obedience thereto by mandatory orders and writs.(C.F. No. 05-740, § 1, 9-14-05)
- Sec. 34.29. - Termination of tenancy.No tenancy of a residential structure or dwelling unit covered by this Code may be terminated because of the commencement of an action pursuant to this chapter or because of the report to the proper code enforcement authorities of a condition believed to be in violation of this Code.(C.F. No. 05-740, § 1, 9-14-05)
- Sec. 34.31. - Nonresidential, industrial, commercial and institutional u
Cop- Corruption-Minnesotases.xxSharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.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'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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
TellMyPolitican
Sharons Memorys
SharonsStrictScrunity
SharonsSodaHead
