Sunday, September 30, 2012

CitySt.Paul_Ponzi Misuse FederalHousingFunds_2012

On the Graves of our Heritage Semper Fi Cpl.James R. Anderson, Sharons 2nd Husband of 22 years. Currently Hon Bill Windsor exposing Heinous Judicial Malpractice in the USA www.lawlessamerica.com www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica


 http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_21656260/st-pauls-affordable-housing-deals-draw-fire?source=rss  Taking our Homestead at 1058 Summit Ave. St.Paul,MN 55105 Taxes Paid, No Mortgage without Just Compensation by Lesbian Judge Kathleen Gearin.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cca-associates-v
-united-states/
http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_21656260/st-pauls-affordable-housing-deals-draw-fire?source=rss

St. Paul's affordable-housing deals draw fire






Updated: 09/29/2012 10:18:56 PM CDT
 
A slew of St. Paul deals with a private, for-profit developer to fix up several properties has a few neighbors grumbling. For years, the city has mostly relied on nonprofits to handle affordable housing partnerships and rehab projects. But the city recently sold three East Side duplexes and a 12-unit apartment building to BB Housing Associates for $1 apiece. The city then helped provide the developer $1.8 million to fix up the properties to be rented out as affordable housing. Over two years, BB Housing has acquired 18 properties and millions of dollars in federal rehab funds from St. Paul. East Side resident Bob Schmidt told the St. Paul Housing and Redevelopment Authority on Aug. 8 he would have been happy to buy the duplexes -- at 732 Jessamine, 697 Cook, and 696-698 Hawthorne -- for the $1 price. And he would have put his own cash into rehabbing them, saving taxpayers the money. Two other critics also spoke out against the uptick in rentals on their street before the housing authority -- composed of the seven members of the St. Paul City Council -- approved the sale and funding agreements. The Payne-Phalen District 5 Planning Council also supported the sale. "It's been extensive staff time to put this together," Cecile Bedor, director of Planning and Economic Development for the city, told the Housing and Redevelopment Authority recently. "BB Housing has done an excellent job for us in the past." Al Carlson, director of housing for the

Advertisement


city's Planning and Economic Development Department, says there's solid reasoning behind the city's strategy with BB Housing, a partnership between Loren Brueggemann's Phoenix Development and Michael Buelow's general contracting company, Clinton Company Builders. Using federal stimulus money, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority has bought dozens of vacant, foreclosed properties and either rehabbed them for sale or demolished them. The goal of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program is to help the housing market recover in distressed neighborhoods. Using federal money, the city offers a subsidy to cover the gap between the rehab costs and sale value. "With the properties that we're rehabbing for ownership, the difference between what it costs us to purchase and rehab the house, less what we sell the properties for, is about $75,000," Carlson said. Most of the homes under this section of the Stabilization Program become rentals. Carlson said Brueggemann and Buelow have a good reputation in the community and approached the city with the idea of using their expertise in rehabbing and managing the rentals. Brueggemann said he has been developing low-income housing for a dozen years in the Twin Cities. The challenge of the Stabilization Program comes from working on projects scattered throughout a community, as opposed to large complexes. "We've also found in this area a lot of our tenant population is single working moms with children," Brueggemann continued. "It's really rewarding, because our tenant base has been really good. ... Our philosophy is you give somebody a really nice place to live in, so their home is a sound, safe place, that really goes a long way to stabilizing the community. These people become really good residents." To get Stabilization Program homes into the hands of lower-income tenants, the city recently sold houses to BB Housing and the groups Frogtown Community Development Corp., Project for Pride in Living, Hmong American Partnership and Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services. Each received a "forgivable" loan requiring that the properties remain affordable for 15 years. If the properties are resold before the loan term ends, the developers must pay 50 percent of the appraised value to the city. Stricter rules apply in the case of BB Housing, which must pay 75 percent of the appraised value if they sell within 15 years, Carlson said. In addition, BB Housing will set up expense accounts for the low-income residents, helping them earn savings. To skeptics, Brueggemann says, "They have to understand that this is a federal program. ... This is how it's set up. And then we have to monitor their incomes. We will go through an audit every year. We have to comply with HUD, and if we don't comply with renting to families at 50 percent or less of area median income, we will lose the property to the city." Fifty percent of median income for a family of four in St. Paul is about $42,000 a year, Brueggemann said. Betty Revoir, who lives near the duplex at 696 Hawthorne Ave., said the site was a former sober house. But turning the duplex into rental property would add relatively transient residents and population density into a community eager to see permanent residents, she said. "I just think that's a lot of money to be putting into a house -- each one of them is going to be about $350,000 to rehab," Revoir told the authority Aug. 8. "Houses in our block are only worth $100,000 and something, if that. ... We wish it was owner-occupied on one of the floors." Frederick Melo can be reached at 651-228-2172. Follow him at

twitter.com/FrederickMelo.
RECENT DEALS BB Housing Associates has acquired 18 properties and millions of dollars in federal rehab funds from St. Paul. -- Aug. 8: City sold three duplexes in Payne-Phalen neighborhood, and gave $1.06 million in rehab funds. The city also sold a 12-unit building at 754 Payne Ave., to be converted into four two-bedroom apartments, with $741,000 in rehab funds. -- May 9: City sold 242-244 Maria Ave. in lower Dayton's Bluff, and gave $420,000 in federal rehab funds. -- March 14: City sold five duplexes in Dayton's Bluff and Payne-Phalen, helped give $1.44 million in federal funds toward rehab. -- March 9, 2011: City sold five duplexes in Dayton's Buff and Payne-Phalen and gave $1.15 million in rehab funds. -- June 23, 2010: City sold three duplexes in the North End and gave $542,000 in federal rehab funds.


CCA Associates v. United States

Pending petition
Docket No.Op. BelowArgumentOpinionVoteAuthorTerm
11-1352Fed. Cir.TBD TBD TBDTBDTBD

Issue: (1) Whether the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 and the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 effected a taking of petitioner’s property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution because the legislation required petitioner to house qualifying tenants for a period of years and otherwise unfairly compelled petitioner, rather than the public as a whole, to bear the societal cost of low-income housing; (2) whether the government breached its contractual obligations to petitioner when it outlawed prepayment because the prepayment right formed part of the overall agreement among petitioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the lender.

SCOTUSblog Coverage



Briefs and Documents

Certiorari-stage documents



Monday, September 10, 2012

Sharon_697Surrey_Taxes2ndHalfPaid_

  • 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
 

   Payment Confirmation - Property Taxes for Ramsey County

Please keep a record of your Confirmation Number, or print this page for your records.
Confirmation Number:
RC1RR4000139107

Your Payment Detail

Payment Amount:
$293.50
Convenience Fee:
$1.00
Total Amount:
$294.50
Payment Date:
Sep-17-2012
PIN #:
322922410053
Property Address:
697 Surrey Ave , St. Paul
Payment Purpose:
1. Current Tax Year Payment
First Half Due Amount:
292
First Half Due Date:
05-15-2012
Second Half Due Amount:
292
Second Half Due Date:
10-15-2012

Your Account Detail

Bank Routing Number:
096000603
Bank Name:
AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL
Bank Account Number:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX4495
Bank Account Type:
Checking
Bank Account Category:
Consumer

Email Address:
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
PIN (Property ID#) Number Street Address City
32.29.22.41.0053 697Surrey  Ave  St. Paul

Assessment Date 01-02-2011 01-02-2012  
Tax Payable Year 2012 2013  
Total Estimated Market Value   $33,600  $33,900 
Total Taxable Market Value   $26,900  $27,100 
Total Estimated Land Value   $14,800  $12,200 
Total Estimated Building Value   $18,800  $21,700 
Property Tax   $335.82 
Special Assessments   $248.18 
Total Property Tax + Special Assessments   $584.00   
Property Class Description Dis Res Hstd
Res Non-Hstd
Dis Res Hstd
Res Non-Hstd
 

 
Year Built
# of Stories
Residential Finished SQ Feet/Comm, Ind, Apt Bldg Area
Foundation Size
 1888
 1.00
 840
 840
The Plat or Section / Township / Range and Legal Description listed below may be an abbreviated legal description - Do not use to prepare legal documents
Section / Township / Range
32-29-22
Plat  Lyman Dayton Addition
Legal Description
To determine whether your property is
Abstract or Torrens, call (651)266-2000
Lot 5 Blk 46

Most Recent Sale
Sale Date
Sale Price
Certificate of Real Estate Value Number
Sale Status
Sale Description
 04-01-1992
 $5,000
 185686
 Non-qualified Sale
 

Ramsey County R logoDatabase Last Refreshed 09-10-2012 05:32:00
Copyright 2003 Ramsey County
Email: AskPropertyTaxandRecords@co.ramsey.mn.us

Property Identification Number (PIN)  32.29.22.41.0053
Property Address
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
201205-23-2012     Payment0.007,164.00
201205-23-2012     Payment0.00-7,164.00
201204-10-2012     Payment0.00292.00
201203-10-2012     Original Charge584.000.00
201109-07-2011     Payment0.00353.00
201104-25-2011     Payment0.0045.29
201104-14-2011     Payment0.00353.00
201102-26-2011     Original Charge706.000.00
201010-12-2010     Payment0.00322.00
201005-18-2010     Payment0.00406.00
201004-17-2010     Original Charge728.000.00

Thursday, September 6, 2012

LawlessAmerica_BillWindsor

  http://www.change.org/members/me
Edit Profile

Sharon Anderson Vote6Nov2012

                 www.sharonsenate64.blogspot.com   www.sharon4anderson.org
St.Paul, MN
http://sharons-mn-id.blogspot.com/2012/08/sharonslawlessamericaminnesota.html
Property taxes were paid at NonHomestead Rate, Judges are Criminally Indicted re: RICO triggering Death,Disability,Disparagment of Titles

Recent Activity

More Activity

Monday, April 9, 2012

Sharon4Anderson paid 1sthalf697Surrey_$292_TaxCourt_

  Sharon has paid 1st half 697 Surrey for 2012 triggering Tax Court,City St.Paul
cannot Tax via Fees_Assessments_based on Theft of Sharons Car,Trailer
Trespass on Private Property's, Treason o Deny Homestead Credits, Disability
Credits now in 2013 Forclosure via Corrupt Judiciary. http://www.sharon4anderson.org/

   Payment Confirmation - Property Taxes for Ramsey County

Please keep a record of your Confirmation Number, or print this page for your records.
Confirmation Number:
RC1RR4000128722

Your Payment Detail

Payment Amount:
$292.00
Convenience Fee:
$1.00
Total Amount:
$293.00
Payment Date:
Apr-09-2012
PIN #:
322922410053
Property Address:
697 Surrey Ave , St. Paul
Payment Purpose:
1. Current Tax Year Payment
First Half Due Amount:
292
First Half Due Date:
05-15-2012
Second Half Due Amount:
292
Second Half Due Date:
10-15-2012

Your Account Detail

Bank Routing Number:
096000603
Bank Name:
AMERICAN BANK OF ST. PAUL
Bank Account Number:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX4495
Bank Account Type:
Checking
Bank Account Category:
Consumer

Email Address:
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com

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

www.sharon4anderson.org

http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/900-2007-02-27T034409Z/WritProA06-1150_30Jun06.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.taxthemax.blogspot.com

www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson

www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Magner v. Gallagher : SCOTUSblog#.TvhGAvHEu9Q.blogger

Magner v. GallagMagner 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 her : SCOTUSblog#.TvhGAvHEu9Q.blogger

Newt Gingrich v. The Nine: Can POTUS Ignore SCOTUS? - People and Events - U.S. Supreme Court

Newt Gingrich v. The Nine: Can POTUS Ignore SCOTUS? - People and Events - U.S. Supreme Court

USSC:10-1032CitySt.Paul,Magner_vs_LandLords,Gallagher

Blog


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

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Sunday, September 4, 2011

697 Surrey Taxespaid_ProtestFees_ROW_Theft Cars,trailers Forclosure2013

*** PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL *** Thank you for your payment. This email is to confirm your payment submitted on Sep-04-2011 for Property Taxes for Ramsey County. Confirmation Number: RC1RR4000116835 Payment Amount: $353.00 Convenience Fee: $1.00 Total Amount: $354.00 Scheduled Payment Date: Sep-05-2011 Account Nickname: N/A Routing Transit Number: 096000603 Account Number: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX4495 Account Type: Checking Account Category: Consumer If you have questions about this payment or need assistance, please view the payment online at http://www.rrinfo.co.ramsey.mn.us , or call Customer Service at (651)266-2000. Thank you for using the Ramsey County Property Tax electronic payment system

SharonSearch

TellMyPolitican

TellMyPolitician

Sharons Memorys


SharonsStrictScrunity

SharonsStrictScrunity

Sharon4Mayor2010 2

SharonsSodaHead

Bookmark and Share

The Political Animal

Blog Archive