- PRIVACY Sharon paid 2nd Half Taxes Early to challenge certain Judges,City,County Attorneys for Property Taxes Paid 2008 triggering Mortgage Forclosure via Theft of Sharons Car,Trailer,Basic Neccities of Life
- Scrool below as the Ponzi Schemes of Mark Oswald and County Attorney Jean Steffan to Add $7,164 Tax Payment ,then "take out" is Mish Mash Accounting.
- CUSTOMER SERVICE
- HELP
- EXIT
Monday, September 10, 2012
Sharon_697Surrey_Taxes2ndHalfPaid_
Thursday, September 6, 2012
LawlessAmerica_BillWindsor
Property taxes were paid at NonHomestead Rate, Judges are Criminally Indicted re: RICO triggering Death,Disability,Disparagment of Titles
Recent Activity
- Sharon commented on the petition|4 days agox
www.lawlessamerica.com Fight4Freedom,Family,Faith,
- Sharon signed the petition|4 days agox
- Sharon signed the petition|8 days agox
- Sharon commented on the petition|about 1 month agox
http://www.sharons-mn-id.blogspot.com/
- Sharon signed the petition|about 1 month agox
- Sharon commented on the petition|about 1 month agox
http://sharons-mn-id.blogspot.com/2012/08/sharonslawlessamericaminnesota.html HusbandMarine
- Sharon signed the petition|about 1 month agox
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
CitySt.PaulBudget 2012 TaxactionWithoutRepresentation
http://stpaul.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?event_id=403
| City Council | 8/8/2012 | 3:30 PM | Council Chambers - 3rd Floor | Meeting details | Not available | Not available | |
| Housing & Redevelopment Authority | 8/8/2012 | 2:00 PM | Council Chambers, City Hall Housing & Redevelopment Affordable Housing Work Session | Meeting details | Not available | Not available | |
| Housing & Redevelopment Authority | 8/8/2012 | 2:00 PM | Council Chambers, City Hall | Meeting details | Not available | Not available | |
| Budget Committee | 8/8/2012 | 10:00 AM | Council Chambers | Meeting details | Not available | ||
| Legislative Hearings | 8/7/2012 | 9:00 AM | Room 330 City Hall & Court House | Meeting details | Not available | Not |
Monday, April 9, 2012
Sharon4Anderson paid 1sthalf697Surrey_$292_TaxCourt_
Payment Confirmation - Property Taxes for Ramsey County
Thursday, February 2, 2012
USSC 10-1032: ScotusBlog re: CityST.Paul,Magner
Wed. 1Feb2012 LEGAL NOTICE LETTER DOCUMENT RE: PENALITYS OF PERJURY AFFIDAVIT OF SHARON4ANDERSON re: USSC:10-1032 title CitySt.Paul,Magner vs. LandLords Gallagher et al. http://stpaul.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
City Council 2/1/2012 3:30 PM Council Chambers - 3rd Floor Meeting details Agenda Affiant Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Chergosky aka 1st Husband Scarrella, re: Scarrella4Justice221NW2nd562 www.sharon4judge.blogspot.com published without Royalitys and Sharons Permission. Hereby request that the City St.Paul estopp "terrorizing" the Citizenery and until final disposition of the above entitled case, that any all Condemnations be stayed. FUTHER: http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profile/SharonScarrellaAnderson
Until the Homestead of the Disabled and Decedants are made WHOLE 1058 Summit http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file8.pdf
http://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com/
Water Shutoff to harm,injure Sharon 2004 Sharon's 97 Blogs with thousand's of forensic evidence "takings" Car's,Trailers triggering Forclosure without due process. http://www2.blogger.com/home
Taking Drivers License, Car,Trailer etc. terrorizing Sharon a Senior, Disabled, Candidate for Public Office. http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file1.pdf
THEREFORE: CitySt.Paul cannot go further until all the Respondants briefs are read and analyzed. Sharon4Anderson@aol.com AttorneyProSe_Private AG, ECF:165913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel: 651-776-5835 -----Original Message----- From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:38:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: USSC:10-1032 CitySt.Paul,Magner et al vs. LandLords,Gallagher et al 29Feb2012 To: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com CC: a9696b@msn.com, kaardal@mklaw.com, jrgraham@oricom.ca, rcbarden@mac.com, nancylazaryan@yahoo.com, mami2fine2004@yahoo.com Magner v. Gallagher Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term 10-1032 8th Cir. Feb 29, 2012 TBD TBD TBD OT 2011 Disclaimer: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. serves as counsel to the respondents in this case. Issue: (1) Whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act; and, if so (2) what test should be used to analyze them. Plain English Issue: (1) Whether a lawsuit can be brought for a violation of the Fair Housing Act based on a practice that is not discriminatory on its own, but has a discriminatory effect; and, if so, (2) how should courts determine whether a practice has a discriminatory effect and violates the Act? 2012 SCOTUSblog (click for license) This work by SCOTUSblog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
AttorneyProSe_Private AG, ECF:165913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel: 651-776-5835 http://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com/2007/03/foia-06cv-permission-to.html http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Magner_Respondents_Brief_Jan23-Final-To-Print.pdf http://mpls.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/profiles/26222.html
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file4.pdf
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file6.pdf
http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/google-lawmen-cases-mn-62cv09-1163/POA
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/PDFcorr/SADPA4172006.pdf
http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profile/SharonScarrellaAnderson
www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson
www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson
www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson
www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
USSC:10-1032CitySt.Paul,Magner_vs_LandLords,Gallagher
Community
Merits Cases
October Term 2011
October Term 2010
October Term 2009
Term Archive
Petitions
Statistics
Special Features
Affordable Care Act in depth
Health Care
Arbitration
Class Actions
Same-Sex Marriage
More
Plain English
Resources
Admin
OT11 Merits Cases Arizona v. United StatesArmour v. IndianapolisAstrue v. CapatoBlueford v. ArkansasCaraco v. Novo NordiskCavazos v. WilliamsChristopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.Coleman v. Maryland Court of AppealsCompuCredit v. GreenwoodCredit Suisse Securities v. SimmondsDorsey v. United StatesDouglas v. Cal. Pharm. Ass'nDouglas v. In. Liv'g Ctr. of S. Cal.Douglas v. S.R. M. HospitalElgin v. Dep't of the TreasuryFAA v. CooperFCC v. FoxFilarsky v. DeliaFirst Am. Financial Corp. v. EdwardsFlorence v. Board of FreeholdersFla. v. Dept. Health and Human ServicesFlorida v. JardinesFreeman v. Quicken Loans Inc.Golan v. HolderGonzalez v. ThalerGreene v. FisherHall v. United StatesHill v. United StatesHolder v. GutierrezHolder v. SawyersHosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOCHowes v. FieldsJackson v. HobbsJudulang v. HolderKappos v. HyattKawashima v. HolderKiobel v. Royal Dutch PetroleumKloeckner v. SolisKnox v. SEIUKurns v. Railroad Friction ProductsLafler v. CooperM.B.Z. v. ClintonMagner v. GallagherMaples v. ThomasMartel v. ClairMartinez v. RyanMatch-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish v. PatchakMayo v. Prometheus LaboratoriesMesserschmidt v. MillenderMiller v. AlabamaMims v. Arrow Financial ServicesMinneci v. PollardMissouri v. FryeMohamad v. RajoubNat'l Fed. of Ind. Business v. SebeliusNational Meat Association v. HarrisPacific Operators v. ValladolidPerry v. DavisPerry v. New HampshirePerry v. PerezPerry v. PerezPPL Montana, LLC v. MontanaRadLAX v. Amalgamated BankRehberg v. PaulkReichle v. HowardsReynolds v. United StatesRoberts v. Sea-Land ServicesSackett v. EPASalazar v. PatchakSalazar v. Ramah Navajo ChapterSetser v. United StatesSmith v. CainSouthern Union Company v. United StatesTaniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd.H.H.S. v. Fla.United States v. AlvarezUnited States v. BormesUnited States v. Home Concrete & SupplyUnited States v. JonesVartelas v. HolderVasquez v. United StatesWilliams v. IllinoisWood v. Milyard Why Jones is still less of a pro-privacy decision than most thought (Conclusion slightly revised Jan. 31) – Tom GoldsteinOpinion analysis: An exercise in statutory construction – Steven SchwinnJones confounds the press – Tom Goldstein
Magner v. Gallagher
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
10-1032 8th Cir. Feb 29, 2012
TBD TBD TBD OT 2011
Disclaimer: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. serves as counsel to the respondents in this case.
Issue: (1) Whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act; and, if so (2) what test should be used to analyze them.
Plain English Issue: (1) Whether a lawsuit can be brought for a violation of the Fair Housing Act based on a practice that is not discriminatory on its own, but has a discriminatory effect; and, if so, (2) how should courts determine whether a practice has a discriminatory effect and violates the Act?
SCOTUSblog Coverage
Petition of the day
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs for the Petitioners
Brief for Steve Magner et al.
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners
Brief of the International Municipal Lawyers Association et al.
Brief of the Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey
Brief of the Pacific Legal Foundation et al.
Brief of the Independent Community Bankers of America et al.
Brief of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
Brief of the American Bankers Association et al.
Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither Party
Brief of the United States
Merits Briefs for the Respondents
Brief of Thomas Gallagher et al.
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents
Brief of the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund
Brief of the Lawyer's Committee on Civil Rights et al.
Brief of the Housing Advocates, Inc., and Buckeye Community Hope Foundation
Brief of the National Fair Housing Alliance et al.
Brief of the Opportunity Agenda et al.
Brief of the ACLU
Brief of Massachusetts et al.
Brief of Henry G. Cisneros
Brief of AARP and Mount Holly Gardens Citizens In Action
Certiorari-stage documents
Opinion below (8th Cir.)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition of respondents Thomas J. Gallagher et al.
Petitioners' reply
Most Recent Posts
Petition of the day 4:36pm on 1/31
SCOTUSblog internships 10:12am on 1/31
Tuesday round-up 9:23am on 1/31
Petition of the day 5:30pm on 1/30
Relist (and hold) watch 4:03pm on 1/30
Calendar: February 2012
Full Calendar Submit Event
Feb. 2012
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1Mock moot of health care case
2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10Pro bono panel
11
12 13 14 15 16 17Conference
18
19 20Holiday
21Freeman v. Quicken Loans (10-1042)
Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan (10-1472)
Orders
22United States v. Alvarez (11-210)
Blueford v. Arkansas (11-1320)
23 24Conference
25
26 27Elgin v. U.S. Treasury Dept. (11-45)
Wood v. Milyard (10-9995)
Orders
28Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (10-1491)
Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority (11-88)
29Magner v . Gallagher (10-1032)
Armour v. City of Indianapolis (11-161)
Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences
Events
Holidays
Multiple
Sponsored by Bloomberg Law
Recently Decided Cases
National Meat Association v. Harris
Preemption by Federal Meat Inspection Act
Perry v. Perez
Texas redistricting
Reynolds v. United States
Standing to challenge sex offender rule
United States v. Jones
Constitutionality of use of GPS tracking device
Community Discusssions
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s Legacy
The lasting impact of a key Justice.
FCC v. Fox
Constitutionality of indecency ban in broadcast media
The Texas redistricting cases
Texas's new, legislatively enacted district maps, court-ordered interim maps, and the Voting Rights Act
Christmas and the Court
The Court's traditions and holdings regarding church and state.
Sackett v. EPA
Governmental enforcement of federal environmental laws against private property owners
Recent Community Comments
REVISED REPLY- I apologize for the typos in the first version. There aren’t plaintiffs in these cases in no small part because...
Rick Nagel on 1/23 at 5:38 pm
Rick Nagel – 1 Promoted Comment There aren’t, no doubt, because those displaced by racial preferences lack either the courage,...
Rick Nagel on 1/23 at 5:33 pm
There aren't, no doubt, because those displaced by racial preferences lack either courage,conviction or,perhaps, both. In Parents...
Rick Nagel on 1/23 at 3:59 pm
I wish there were more of these cases, too, Mr. Nagel -- but the point is that there aren't, even though the underlying discrimination...
Roger Clegg on 1/23 at 10:43 am
I thank the staff at Scotusblog for permitting this exchange to continue and moving Roger Clegg's surrebuttal to the right spot. What...
roxanne friedman on 1/21 at 11:02 am
This Week at the Court
The Court is on winter recess until the Justices reconvene for the Conference of February 17. Our “Petitions to watch” for that Conference will be available soon.
The February sitting begins February 21.
See allUpcoming Oral Arguments
2/21Freeman v. Quicken Loans Inc.
Unearned fees in real estate
2/21Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd.
Losing party’s duty to pay winner’s costs of translating foreign-language documents for use at trial.
2/22United States v. Alvarez
Stolen Valor Act
See allUpcoming Petitions
Conference of February 17
Bogan v. City of Chicago
Warrantless searches of residences
Cannella v. Florida
Use of defendant’s pre-arrest silence
E.R.G. v. E.H.G.
Grandparent visitation
Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories
Patent written description
Peninsula School District v. D.P.
IDEA exhaustion
Term Snapshot
Cases argued 47
Cases decided 16
Summary reversals 5
Merits cases granted to date 76
FollowTwitter Feed
SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog
JoanBiskupic Lucky in Supreme Court jobs, even luckier with colleagues: I’ve been fortunate as a reporter to have had three t... http://t.co/pmidMKH2 yesterday · reply · retweet · favorite
SCOTUSblog Tom: I've tripled down on my view of the Jones GPS decision: http://t.co/b3rhcWN4 yesterday · reply · retweet · favorite
Join the conversation
ABA Silver Gavel Award Winner
Awarded for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
Special Features
Blog Archives
By Month Jan 2012 Dec 2011 Nov 2011 Oct 2011 Sept 2011 Aug 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 Apr 2011 Mar 2011 Feb 2011 Jan 2011 Dec 2010 Nov 2010 Oct 2010 Sept 2010 Aug 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 Apr 2010 Mar 2010 Feb 2010 Jan 2010 Dec 2009 Nov 2009 Oct 2009 Sept 2009 Aug 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 Apr 2009 Mar 2009 Feb 2009 Jan 2009 Dec 2008 Nov 2008 Oct 2008 Sept 2008 Aug 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 Apr 2008 Mar 2008 Feb 2008 Jan 2008 Dec 2007 Nov 2007 Oct 2007 Sept 2007 Aug 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 Apr 2007 Mar 2007 Feb 2007 Jan 2007 Dec 2006 Nov 2006 Oct 2006 Sept 2006 Aug 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 Apr 2006 Mar 2006 Feb 2006 Jan 2006 Dec 2005 Nov 2005 Oct 2005 Sept 2005 Aug 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 Apr 2005 Mar 2005 Feb 2005 or By Category Academic Round-up Analysis Book Reviews Cases in the Pipeline Community Corrections Detainee Litigation Everything Else Featured Headline Live Merits Cases Plain English Round-upSpecial Features SCOTUS for law students This Week at the Court What’s Happening Now
Open Links in New Windows
Check to activate on this page
© 2012 SCOTUSblog (click for license) This work by SCOTUSblog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Switch to our mobile site
Monday, December 26, 2011
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
BORDC: Bill of Rights Day Events 2011
|
|
Take actionStay informedSign up for updates from the Bill of Rights Defense Committee. Our monthly newsletter and timely action alerts will let you know when and how to raise your voice. If you want even more news, subscribe to our daily news digest and get the day's civil liberties headlines in your inbox every weekday afternoon. If you are concerned about your civil rights, it's time to take action! |
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Sunday, September 4, 2011
697 Surrey Taxespaid_ProtestFees_ROW_Theft Cars,trailers Forclosure2013
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Coleman's St. Paul budget would hike fees on top of property taxes - TwinCities.com
Coleman's St. Paul budget would hike fees on top of property taxes
On top of tax hikes, St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman's 2012 budget proposal Monday mentioned "non-property tax revenue" - in other words, fee increases - to help make up for cuts to state aid and other fiscal pressures.
The proposed fee increases would add up to as much as $79 in new costs for the typical homeowner next year. That's nearly double the impact of Coleman's proposed 6.5 percent increase in the city's property tax levy.
It's not likely to be a popular idea at a time when many homeowners say they're hurting because of unemployment and the lingering effects of the recession. Nevertheless, snowplows need replacing, and employee health care costs are going up. Without funding, core services such as roadwork and public
| Yes. |
|
|
| No. |
|
|
| I'm not sure. |
|
|
"Given all the challenges at the state Legislature and other things that are happening in the economy, this is a budget that is not without pain," city budget manager Steve Cordes told the St. Paul City Council on Wednesday, "but (it) is a fiscally prudent and forward-looking budget."
Residents owning homes valued at $155,000 today - the citywide median - would see their housing values drop 4 percent to $149,000 next year. Under the mayor's budget, those homeowners can expect to pay $1,235 in taxes and fees to St. Paul next year, compared with $1,110 this year.
The city's share of property taxes for those homeowners would go up $44, from $524 to
$568.Water rates likely would rise from $204 to between $217 and $231.
A storm sewer charge would increase from $74 to $80. A sanitary sewer charge would go up $10.
And the city's recycling fee would increase from $32 to $54, with $18 of the $22 increase dedicated to curbside pickup of composting and clean organic materials. That program has been proposed by Eureka Recycling, the city's recycling contractor, but not finalized with St. Paul Public Works.
Some fees are specific to homes bordering particular types of street work. The typical street maintenance assessment - which applies to homes with street, sidewalk, streetlight maintenance and ash tree removal - would go up from $210 to $224.
City officials say homeowners and businesses won't be the only ones to foot the bill. The increased assessments apply to non-taxpaying properties such as colleges, nonprofits and tax-exempt businesses, as well.
Other increases are likely. For instance, all downtown parking meters could soon accept credit cards, an upgrade that could potentially be paid for by parking rate increases of 25 cents per hour.
The city council met Wednesday morning with Cordes to go over the mayor's proposal.
"The highlight of the budget is no
Spending won't increase significantly, but employee health care costs are going up, while state aid - so-called Local Government Aid and reimbursements for a state-funded housing tax credit - are going down. Local Government Aid in 2002 comprised 40 percent of the city budget; it will now be 23 percent of the budget.
Most city employees will receive no cost-of-living-adjustment increases in 2012, but $800,000 in annual step increases in union salaries will occur as scheduled. Overall salary expenditures would go down from $124.3 million to $122.4 million because of a reduction in personnel.
Employee benefit costs would still go up from $51.6 million to $52.5 million, largely because of $2 million in health care increases.
The city's total 2012 budget would be $493.1 million, up from $491.7 million in 2011. The 2012 general fund budget of about $229 million drops $1.5 million, down 0.65 percent from this year's general fund budget of about $230.6 million.
In all, 56 positions would be reduced under the proposal, largely through vacancies and attrition.
"Right now, it's estimated that the layoff number would be under 20. That's going to shift a lot in the next few months," Cordes said. "People find new jobs. People leave city employment. It shifts the whole mix, and people end up bumping around each time that happens."
The proposed changes include a reduction of four civilian employees between the police and fire departments and a reduction of $500,000 in overtime for the fire department. Animal Control would lose two workers. Council members expressed concern that the Department of Safety and Inspections has been understaffed and would remain so for the foreseeable future.
The city maintains a AAA bond rating with Standard & Poor's and Aa1+ with Moody's, two of the largest credit-rating agencies.
That's "better credit than the federal government," Cordes said.
The city council and mayor have until the end of the year to approve a 2012 budget.
The council's budget committee meets at 10 a.m. Wednesdays in Room 330 of City Hall.
Frederick Melo can be reached at 651-228-2172.
Monday, August 15, 2011
CitySt.PaulBudget_Sharon DemandsTaxReform_ChrisSamuels_LantrysLarceny
SharonSearch
TellMyPolitican
SharonsStrictScrunity
