Friday, August 23, 2019

St.PaulCouncilBadFaithreJohnHoeschlerreLegalOpinionAug2019

                            Wed.28Aug2019
                    Sharon also requesting Legal Opinions in her Quiet Title Actions. Is the St.Paul City Council use of their personal Facebook pages in the
Budget process's an Unfair Campaign Issue?
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/211B

 Apparantly 28Aug2019 Consent Agenda MITRA IS RATIFYING MILL OVERLAY
Title: Ratifying the assessment for the 2018 Street Maintenance Service Program-Mill and Overlay: Franklin Avenue from TH 280 to Pelham. (File No. MO1812, Assessment No. 185509)
Sponsors: Mitra Jalali Nelson
Attachments: 1. MO1812 Assessment Roll, 2. Hoeschler Letter, 3. 2nd Hoeschler Letter, 4. 3rd Hoeschler Letter, 5. Taghioff email - Mill & Overlay Executive Summary, 6. Hoeschler email - 190809 Millenacker decision


                  John Thanks4speaking out,  Using your letter to force Council re Fees/Public Sub or Tax Tiff etc.
                   for Legal Opinions.
                        Apparantly will be in Bad Faith ratified again on the 28Aug2019.
Sponsor Muslin Mitra J. Nelson former Clerk Muslin Keith Ellison when in Congress.

                    Please note Lawyers Jane Prince, Chris Tolbert also Asst. Hennp Co Attorney with boss Mike Freeman, looked Mummified with Hoeschler Testimony.
                  Counsel lawyer Rachael Tierney Guderson DAAAAAAAAAAA.

                  In Sharons Fight Excessive Inspections, hustled via Consent Agenda.
                 or in Steinhausers Case's https://www.nationalbcc.org/images/stories/DOJ-St-Paul.pdf

                      
              To the Above Named; Mayor,CityAttorney,Council and Candidates,Media et al
MN Supreme Court: St. Pa
St. Paulite gets dinged for city services never performedul 'assessments' are really taxes | MPR News
https://www.mprnews.org › story › 2016/08/24 › stpaul-assessments-count...

Aug 24, 2016 - MN Supreme Court: St. Paul 'assessments' are really taxes ... Attorney Jack Hoeschler, who took the case against the city, said the key test of an ... ignoring these special assessments that appear on your tax statement below the line. ... Check out MPR News podcasts from the award-winning 74 Seconds to
                Video Testimony Item60 19-207 scrool to time 126 at Wed.21Aug2019


relative to
Republican state Treasurer Eric Schmitt, who sponsored the legislation when he was a state senator, said the state’s municipal court system — especially in the St. Louis County-area — was “a safe haven for overgrown local governments that treated citizens like ATMs rather than trimming their budgets.”


File #:RES PH 19-206    Version: Name:Ratifying Asmts - M&O Franklin from TH280 to Pelham
Type:Resolution-Public HearingStatus:For Discussion
In control:City Council
Final action:
Title:Ratifying the assessment for the 2018 Street Maintenance Service Program-Mill and Overlay: Franklin Avenue from TH 280 to Pelham. (File No. MO1812, Assessment No. 185509)
File #:RES PH 19-206    Version: Name:Ratifying Asmts - M&O Franklin from TH280 to Pelham
Type:Resolution-Public HearingStatus:For Discussion
In control:City Council
Final action:
Title:Ratifying the assessment for the 2018 Street Maintenance Service Program-Mill and Overlay: Franklin Avenue from TH 280 to Pelham. (File No. MO1812, Assessment No. 185509)
Sponsors:Mitra Jalali Nelson
Attachments:1. MO1812 Assessment Roll, 2. Hoeschler Letter, 3. 2nd Hoeschler Letter, 4. 3rd Hoeschler Letter
Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
8/23/2019 7:37 AMCandidateSharonAndersonAgainstWhen Legal opinions are requested, before any Ratifying ***essmets are signed off by City Attorney and Mayor, Mitra former Clerk4 then Congressman Keith Ellison must know the state and federal Laws and must not act in Bad Faith such as this council did recent Trash Ballot https://mailchi.mp/48101a249efb/november-5-citizens-will-vote-on-citys-trash-plan?e=6b88bf099b Hoeschler letter must be acted on, Legal Opinions must be in writing for Public Scruinty.
Sponsors:Mitra Jalali Nelson
Attachments:1. MO1812 Assessment Roll, 2. Hoeschler Letter
 Add New Comment
RES PH 19-206161Ratifying Asmts - M&O Franklin from TH280 to PelhamResolution-Public HearingRatifying the assessment for the 2018 Street Maintenance Service Program-Mill and Overlay: Franklin Avenue from TH 280 to Pelham. (File No. MO1812, Assessment No. 185509)Not availableVideo Video

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
Posted by at

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

NEW: Ethics Complaint Filed against Rep. Ilhan Omar--Marriage, Immigrati...

Posted by at

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

CandidateWard2SharonAndersonObjectstoMarkBradfordFeesClarkvsCitySt.Paul2019

Cc: mbradford@bassford.com, sharon4anderson@aol.com, john.choi@co.ramsey.mn.us
Sent: 6/24/2019 12:27:46 PM Central Standard Time
Subject: AffiantSharonObjects to OutsideCounsilMarkBradford,Fees,Justice for Rose: USSC property rights claims | PLF
                                           Mon.24June2019
                TO THE ABOVE NAMED, JOINTLY,SEVERALLY, OFFICIAL CAPACITYS AND PERSONAL.
                       This Doc. must be added to the Objection of Outside Counsels. Res. 19-1082
06/24/2019 -- Accelerated review (of City of St. Paul's appeal) is GRANTED.
08/20/2019, 11:00 AM -- Oral arguments MN Supreme Court. (Members of the public can attend in person at the State Capitol, or watch the video online.)
...See More

                        Affiant re Penalty of Perjury, also Victimized by Mayor Melvin Carter, DSI Inspector Ed Smith et al
                       Till Death do us Part must Expose the Ponzi Taxing Scheme of City St. Paul,MN
Citys Withdrawal of Ord 19-18 Penaltys.


Judicial Watch separately obtained documents under the Minnesota Data Practices Act, showing that St. Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing arranged a meeting between the chief of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, Tom Perez, and Mayor Chris Coleman a week before the city’s withdrawal from the case, captioned Magner v. Gallagher. Following Perez’s visit, the city withdrew its case and thanked DOJ and officials at HUD for their involvement.

                                        When Private Lawyer David Lillhaug and former City Attorney Sara Grewing were appointed to Judships to further demise USSC 10-1032 titled Magner vs. Gallagher
complicit with now DFL Nat.Chair Tom Perez and now MNAG Keith Ellison and now Ken Martin Co DFL Chair with
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reformhis DFL Wife Orouke working in Ramsey Co.
In January 2012, Perez began leading negotiations with Lillehaug, offering him a “roadmap” to a global settlement. Once negotiations appeared to break down, Perez boarded a plane and flew to Minnesota to meet face-to-face with Mayor Coleman. At that early February meeting, Perez pleaded for the fate of disparate impact and reiterated the Justice Department’s willingness to strike a deal. His lobbying paid off when Lillehaug accepted the deal on Mayor

                     Cemetarys are Land Property Right
OPA140429-083115.pdfs,Ownership likened to HS Propertys.
                            Trash Lawsuits if fee not paid, then added to Property taxes with 4.5 % interest.
RES 19-108213Appointment of Bassford Remele as Special Counsel in matter of Bruce Clark, et al. v. City of Saint PaulResolutionAppointing the firm of Bassford Remele under the direction of Mark R. Bradford as special counsel representing the City of Saint Paul in the matter of Bruce Clark, et al. v. City of Saint Paul.

Appointing the firm of Bassford Remele under the direction of Mark R. Bradford as special counsel representing the City of Saint Paul in the matter of Bruce Clark, et al. v. City of Saint Paul.
Sponsors:Amy Brendmoen
Attachments:
HR Rate $400,Shareholder $400,AssAtt $175.Paralegal$125.00 plus Salarys of Meghan Hafner, Portia, At all times Material Affiant alleges Rachael Tierney Gunderson Ineffective Assistance of Council to Advise Amy Brendmoen aka Neske aka Hahn Council Enbanc to Contract Trash Hauling.
 Add New Comment
Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
6/22/2019 8:56 PMYour liberal conscienceAgainstWhy not hire a woman-, minority- or veteran-owned law firm based in St. Paul?   
6/21/2019 9:43 AMCandidateSharonAndersonAgainstNotice of Objection to any outside Council, Fees are outrageous, City is self insured, therefore either eliminate City Attorneys http://lying-lawyers.blogspot.com


              Please take legal Notice

Charles E. Lundberg, Mark R. Bradford, Christine E. Hinrichs, Bassford Remele, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association. Thomas D. Jensen, William L. Davidson, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Professional Liability Defense Federation

IN SUPREME COURT A14-0429 Court of Appeals Anderson, J. Concurring, Lillehaug and Page, JJ. Timothy Guzick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George J. Nyberg and as Trustee of the George Nyberg Trust, Respondent


From: sharon4anderson@aol.c

Sharon Anderson 2019 Candidate Ward 2 Council
Sharon Anderson Ward 2

Sharon AndersonPicture
    • St.Paul, United States
  • Hobby_RealEstate Entreprenuer,Advocate/Activist
  • www.sharon4mnag.blogspot.com
  • Sharon's Hobby is Politics,Blogging,Current Republican Candidate for MN Attorney General
om
Cc: CMartin@pacificlegal.org
Sent: 6/22/2019 8:05:41 AM Central Standard Time
Subject: Justice for Rose: Landmark Supreme Court decision opens federal courts to property rights claims | Pacific Legal Foundation
        Sat.22ndJun2019
SASC1988Briefs9    http://lying-lawyers.blogspot.com

Affiant Mrs. Sharon Scarrella Anderson QuiTam, Whistleblower has filed Numerous Legal Briefs, since 1976 suing Midwest Fed S&l Homestead at 1058 Summit ave St.Paul,MN None Abated by Government Officials, Heinous, repugnant Denial of Due Process, Over 100 Blogs with thousands of pic,pdf files,Forensic Files http://sharons-courtrecords.blogspot.com
Copyright: © All Rights Reserved
Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
      NEVER GIVE UP OR GIVE IN ON THE GRAVES OF TENANTS IN COMMON

                       

                will challenge Bradford outside counsel fees etc using USSC 10-1032 titled Magner vs. Gallagher re Frank Steinhauser and Sharons cases http://lying-lawyers.blogspot.com
                          Taking my home on Summit  without just compensation etc. reducing to Poverty  http://sharon4anderson.org







From: sharon4anderson@aol.com
To: sharon4anderson@aol.com
Sent: 6/22/2019 7:35:39 AM Central Standard Time
Subject: Check out Justice for Rose: Landmark Supreme Court decision opens federal courts to property rights claims | Pacific Legal Foundation

Justice for Rose: Landmark Supreme Court decision opens federal courts to property rights claims | Pacific Legal Foundation
Today, the Supreme Court gave property owners everywhere a major victory, overturning a 34-year precedent that has robbed countless individuals of their property rights. And you have an unassuming woman in rural Pennsylvania to thank.
In a 5-4 opinion on Knick v. Township of Scott written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Justices held that the government violates the Constitution when it takes an individual’s private property without paying for it first. The Court ruled that “[f]idelity to the Takings Clause and our cases construing it requires overruling” [the Court’s 34-year-old decision] “and restoring takings claims to the full-fledged constitutional status the Framers envisioned when they included the Clause among the other protections in the Bill of Rights.”
The assault on Rose Knick’s rights began in 2013 when officials from the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, walked on her farm without permission, and—based on the presence of a few loose, unmarked stones—declared part of Rose’s property a gravesite and demanded she open it to the public.
Under a newly passed local ordinance, Rose would be forced to open her private property to strangers, and trim grass and prune shrubs regularly to keep the area as if it were really a public cemetery. If she failed to comply, she would face fines of $300 to $1,200 a day, and town officials refused to compensate Rose for any of these demands.
After years of legal battles with the Township of Scott, and two Supreme Court oral arguments earlier this year, the Court has finally acknowledged that she has a right to defend her property rights in federal court.
The Court’s decision opens up federal courthouse doors to Fifth Amendment property rights claims and overturns a 34-year-old Supreme Court decision called Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City that has ultimately robbed many landowners of their property rights. Today’s ruling means that property owners can file their constitutional property rights claims against local governments in federal court.
The court recognized that Congress intended to open federal courthouses to suc
Filter
BLOG > ISSUES > PROPERTY RIGHTS > JUSTICE FOR ROSE: LANDMARK SUPREME COURT DECISION OPENS FEDERAL COURTS TO PROPERTY RIGHTS CLAIMS

Justice for Rose: Landmark Supreme Court decision opens federal courts to property rights claims

June 21, 2019 I By CHRISTINA MARTIN


Today, the Supreme Court gave property owners everywhere a major victory, overturning a 34-year precedent that has robbed countless individuals of their property rights. And you have an unassuming woman in rural Pennsylvania to thank.
In a 5-4 opinion on Knick v. Township of Scott written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Justices held that the government violates the Constitution when it takes an individual’s private property without paying for it first. The Court ruled that “[f]idelity to the Takings Clause and our cases construing it requires overruling” [the Court’s 34-year-old decision] “and restoring takings claims to the full-fledged constitutional status the Framers envisioned when they included the Clause among the other protections in the Bill of Rights.”
The assault on Rose Knick’s rights began in 2013 when officials from the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, walked on her farm without permission, and—based on the presence of a few loose, unmarked stones—declared part of Rose’s property a gravesite and demanded she open it to the public.
Under a newly passed local ordinance, Rose would be forced to open her private property to strangers, and trim grass and prune shrubs regularly to keep the area as if it were really a public cemetery. If she failed to comply, she would face fines of $300 to $1,200 a day, and town officials refused to compensate Rose for any of these demands.
After years of legal battles with the Township of Scott, and two Supreme Court oral arguments earlier this year, the Court has finally acknowledged that she has a right to defend her property rights in federal court.
The Court’s decision opens up federal courthouse doors to Fifth Amendment property rights claims and overturns a 34-year-old Supreme Court decision called Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City that has ultimately robbed many landowners of their property rights. Today’s ruling means that property owners can file their constitutional property rights claims against local governments in federal court.
The court recognized that Congress intended to open federal courthouses to such claims to ensure that constitutional rights are fully protected.
“Contrary to Williamson County, a property owner has a claim for a violation of the Takings Clause as soon as a government takes his property for public use without paying for it.” The Constitution allows government to take private property and make it public, like the Township did to Rose, but only if it pays “just compensation.” And the township refused to pay anything.
When Rose sued to enforce her constitutional property rights in state court, the state court claimed it could not hear her case until the town actually followed through with its threats. Having lost faith in the state court, she went to federal court to enforce her federal rights.
But the federal courts could not hear her claim either, because of the 1985 Williamson County Supreme Court decision. That decision held that constitutional property rights claims against local governments must be filed in state court, even though federal law explicitly allows such claims to be heard in federal court.
In other words, Rose would have to file her claim in state court—the same state court that had already turned her away.
For more than a decade, PLF has fought to get the Williamson County decision overturned. Senior Attorney Dave Breemer—who argued Rose Knick’s case before the Supreme Court— filed a dozen such petitions before the court finally granted review in Knick’s case. We have enjoyed many incremental wins and we have also lost many times. But PLF’s perseverance has finally paid off.
With their ruling on Rose’s case today, the Supreme Court recognized that Williamson County was wrongly decided. And as the Chief Justice explains in his decision, “Williamson County was not just wrong. Its reasoning was exceptionally ill founded and conflicted with much of our takings jurisprudence.”
Williamson County wrongly held that the government does not violate the constitutional right to be paid when government takes property, so long as a wronged property owner can later go to state court and win a lawsuit paying him for the property that was taken. The Chief Justice today explained, “A later payment of compensation may remedy the constitutional violation that occurred at the time of the taking, but that does not mean the violation never took place. The violation is the only reason compensation was owed in the first place. A bank robber might give the loot back, but he still robbed the bank.”
The court made clear that Williamson County has created needless hurdles for individuals seeking to enforce their rights. Chief Justice Roberts explained that Williamson County’s “state-litigation requirement relegates the Takings Clause ‘to the status of a poor relation’ among the provisions of the Bill of Rights.” Congress opened federal courts to such claims and the Supreme Court should never have closed that door.
Today’s decision is a win for Rose Knick and property owners everywhere, and for PLF and our supporters who have joined with us to defend property rights from government overreach.  Today we restored some of those rights.
https://www.nationalbcc.org/images/stories/DOJ-St-Paul.pdf
In the Saint Paul City Council Agenda thurs,July5,2007 Items 35 Resolution Assessments 07-601“from May17 to June12 th ,2007 public hearing Aug.15 th ,07 (GS3041156) Notice to combine with Item 51 Res.Ratifying Assessments 07-609 from 12Apr to 27Apr07 (J0707A Notice to remove from Agenda refer To City or County Attorneys Notice of Damages over ½ Million Dollars State of Minnesota, County of Ramsey, City of St. Paul Owner- Taxpayer Co Dist.File#J0707AJ0708A:A
Anderson+Advocates,http://www.msnusers.com/AndersonAdvocatesssm.#8337 697 Surrey ID 32-29-22-41-0053





Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.com
Sharons another Default J
Anderson+Advocates,http://www.msnusers.com/AndersonAdvocatesuly 5th2007
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
Posted by at

Thursday, May 23, 2019

Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt/Stare Decisis/ and Reliancevia/VikramDavidAmar

What emFranchise Tax Board v. Hyatt/em Adds to the Discussion of emStare Decisis/em and Reliance

TRENDING

What Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt Adds to the Discussion of Stare Decisis and Reliance
What Franchise Tax Board v. HyattAdds to the Discussion of Stare Decisis and Reliance
By 

Last week’s 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court in Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt—a closely watched case that extended so-called state sovereign immunity to protect states from being sued in the courts of other states—was noteworthy not only for its discussion of sovereign immunity (which is helpfully analyzed by my Verdict colleague Mike Dorf’s column on the decision), but also for its back-and-forth on the question of horizontal stare decisis, the notion that prior Court rulings are entitled to respect in the Court today.
To be sure, the majority opinion (authored by Justice Thomas and joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) diverges from Justice Breyer’s dissent (in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined) on the first principles of state sovereign immunity; the two camps interpret the constitutional text (or absence thereof), founding history and structural precepts quite differently. But the two opinions also express seemingly sharp disagreement on stare decisis. In order to reach its result, the majority had to overrule Nevada v. Hall, a 1979 ruling in which the Court had flatly rejected the notion that states enjoy constitutional immunity from suits in the courts of other states. Justice 

Sent: 5/24/2019 3:56:49 PM Central Standard Time
Subject: Re: Mayor's Staff | AffiantWidowSharonScarrellaAndersonWhistleblowervsCitySt.PaulFraudInvoices4.5%interest

                  HAVE A SAFE MEMORIAL DAY
                   ON THE/ GRAVES OF OUR HERITAGE

City Attorneys-Cop Corruption

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
In a message dated 5/23/2019 3:04:55 PM Central Standard Time,sharon4anderson@aol.com writes:

To the Above Named,Mayor,CityAttorney,Council enbanc,Media et al
                RULING CASES,NOTICES,FORE
Anderson+Advocates,http://www.msnusers.com/AndersonAdvocatesNSIC FILES

xxx
Posted by at

Thursday, April 25, 2019

ConstitutionalityCharterChangeOrd19-17Taxeswith4.5%19-18PenaltysSt.Paul,MN2019




1. The Democrat Party, with its newfound control of the U.S. House of Representatives, has declared all-out political war against President Donald J. Trump. Subpoenas are their weapon of choice.
2. Democrats are using their new control of congressional committees to investigate every aspect of President Trump’s personal finances, businesses, and even his family. Instead of working with the President to pass bipartisan legislation that would actually benefit Americans, House Democrats are singularly obsessed with finding something they can use to damage the President politically. They have issued more than 100 subpoenas and requests to anyone with even the most tangential connection to the President
. 3. This case involves one of those subpoenas. Last week, Defendant Elijah E. Cummings invoked his authority as Chairman of the House Oversight Committee to subpoena Mazars USA LLP—the longtime accountant for President Trump and several Trump entities (all Plaintiffs here)

From: sharo
Subject: Re: CityPenaltyOrd19-17-18UnconstitutionalCharterChangeAgenda24Apr2019

Complaint President Donald Trump et al vs. Eli Cummings et al in Official Capacity

In a message dated 4/22/2019 12:45:00 PM Central Standard Time, sharon4anderson@aol.com writes:

              City St. Paul via City Attorney must post ALL Fines,Assessments, vs All Propertys.          City is Acting as Judge,Prosecutor,  Irs,Banker in all Cases. Contrary to Separation of Powers,
         Marcia Mormond is NOT A NUT-ERAL PERSON.WITH NARRISSTIC PERSONALTY.
                                Wed.22Apr2019Cover Photo, Image may contain: 3 people, people sittinghttp://sharia4law.blogspot.com
                      UNTIL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARE RESOLVED CITY ST.PAUL,MN CHARTER MUST NOT BE AMENDED AT THIS TIME.
                                   VOTE NO ORD.19-17-18
                    FURTHER UNTIL DFL CHAIR TOM PEREZ IS BROUGHT AGAIN BEFORE CONGRESS https://www.nationalbcc.org/images/stories/DOJ-St-Paul.pdf
info@stpaultrash.com writes:

Penaltys

Taxes

Council Penalty Amendment

Just a reminder that the council is due to vote on its charter amendment Ord 19-18 at tomorrow's April 24, 2019, 3:30 pm meeting.  Many oppose this ordinance because:

1) Such a broad penalty power could be abused; and
2) No clear or compelling reason has been offered as support.


Ord 19-16137Charter amendment ch 8 signature & petition  VideoOrdinanceAmending Saint Paul City Charter Chapter 8.02 and 8.03 to clarify signature and petition
requirements.		Not availableVideo Video
Ord 19-18138charter amendment 6.03.1 civil penalties  Video VideoOrdinanceAmending Chapter 6.03.1 of the Saint Paul City Charter pertaining to the imposition of civil penalties for violations of city ordinances.Not availableVideo
Ord 19-17139charter amendment 11.03 property tax authorityVideoOrdinanceAmending Saint Paul City Charter Section 11.03 regarding the City of Saint Paul’s Property Tax Authority.Not availableVideo 
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

SharonSearch

TellMyPolitican

TellMyPolitician

Sharons Memorys


SharonsStrictScrunity

SharonsStrictScrunity

Sharon4Mayor2010 2

SharonsSodaHead

Bookmark and Share

The Political Animal

Blog Archive