Here’s my Facebook movie. Find yours at #FacebookIs10

Posted by Sharon Anderson on Monday, February 10, 2014

Steinhauser vs CitySt.Paul et al


Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Sharons_City,Co,BudgetFight A09-2031_Jessie_Seagal_truTV

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 3:30 p.m.
IRV_Repke e-demo308-2009-12-01T154 $5,000 Fine triggers Criminal Charges
Mandating Susan Gaertner Charge:
Chat Tonight at 11pm!
Chat Tonight at 11pm! Not Reality. Actuality.
Talk to Jesse Ventura, host of Conspiracy Theory.
Submit Questions Now »
Title 18s1001 - Google Search Conspiracy Theorys Jessie Ventura The New Steven Seagal

Sent: 12/1/2009 1:19:23 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: Court Forms,SharonvCitySt.Paul,CoRamsey BudgetChallenge
Someone has to make Government Accountable
Sharon4Anderson Budget_Fights « Sharon4anderson’s Weblog

Sent: 12/1/2009 12:20:38 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: Court Forms,SharonvCitySt.Paul,CoRamsey BudgetChallenge
At all times Material the City of St. Paul has wilfully failed to Answer,
Wed. 2Dec09 at the City Council Budget hearings below
CASE TITLE: General,Civil,Criminal Eminent Domain,Taxes,Forfeiture,Constitutionality MS 429.061
COURT CASE NUMBER:62cv09-1163 (Vandenorth)Reporter(Martinez)
TO Ramsey Co. District Court Clerk: Lynae.Olson Tel: 651-266-8255,FX:266-8263
Larry.Dease 2nd Judicial Administrator Tel:651-266-8266FX:266-8278
MN Ramsey County - Court Calendars Room 1700, 15 W. Kellogg Blvd, St. Paul, MN 55102
Phone: (651) 266-8300
Fred Grittner
State Court Administrator's Office
(651) 296-2474 (phone)
(651) 297-5636 (fax)
Sheriff Bob.Fletcher Tel: 651-266-9333 Fax 266-9301
Ramsey County Sheriff Law Enforcement Center
425 Grove Street St. Paul, MN 55101
RamseyCo.Attorney Susan Gaertner 651-266-3222 Fax:266-3010
Ramsey County Attorney 560 RCGC W. 50 W. Kellogg Blvd.St.Paul,MN 55102
Rule 24.04 State AG Lori Swanson Tel: 651-296-3353 Fax: 282-2155
Office of Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson Minnesota Attorney General's Office
1400 Bremer Tower 445 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (651) 296-3353
(800) 657-3787
TTY:(651) 297-7206 TTY:(800) 366-4812
Julie Kleindschmidt:
Ramsey County Online Ramsey Co. Manager 651-266-8000 Fax 266-8039. Ramsey County Court House 15 W. Kellogg Blvd., Room 250 Saint Paul, MN 55102.
Mark Oswald Taxes/Elections Phone:
Ramsey County Elections Home 651-266-2171 651-266-2177 Fax90 West Plato Boulevard, St. Paul, MN Ramsey County Elections P.O. Box 64098 St. Paul, MN 55164-0098
Shari Moore St.Paul City Clerk: City of St. Paul, MN - Official Website - City Clerk Contact
Email 310 City Hall 15 Kellogg Blvd., West Saint Paul, MN 55102
Ph: (651) 266-8688 Fx: (651) 266-8574
At all times Material,Affiant Sharon Anderson aka Peterson-Chergosky-Scarrella, Attorney Pro Se,
Private Attorney General, and as Republican Candidate for State AG
did by Legal Notice perfect service on all of the above. Electronically,pdf format,Blogs,Fax
Affiants Affidavit (42) pgs re: 697 Surrey $2,499.52 pg 53
Affiants Service by Fax on all of the Above pgs from 651-776-5835

From: Sharon4Anderson
Sent: 12/1/2009 7:33:39 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Court Forms District of Minnesota,CitySt.Paul,CoRamsey BudgetLIEN
Tues. 1Dec09
Why the State of MN has not kept up with Word or pdf filings of any all documents. re:
via EF ie: Electronic Filings, Title 18 Case Fixing by Auditor Mark Oswald,complicity with Lynn Moser and Judge John Vandenorth. re: complicit with the Ponzi Scheme by Student Lawyer
John Edison who wilfully failed to research that Taxes were paid re: 2008, Exemptions of the "taking" Homestead Credit, Exemption of Disabled, Senior, Death,Disability,Disparagment of Titles, Complicity County
Attorney DFL Susan Gaertner aka Mrs. John Wodele aka Mrs. James B. Froehle 5505 Porland White Bear Town, MN 55110 and the Gaertner Family (TRUST) 1179 Summit Ave. St. Paul MN 55104
Dm 1399 23 exploiting the Anderson Family to Death,Disability,Disparagment of Titles in a "Patterened Enterprise" in the Office of County Attorney.
The Tax Payer pays for this re: Ramsey Dist. Crt. 62c09-1163 Appeal A09-2031 Any all Forensic Doc are Filed, Any all Jurisdiction has been met
with Answers Cross, since 1974 , current 1/2 million Default Judgment against the City St. Paul Published on File with Risk Manager Ron Guilfole
Good Faith intent to Challenge the City of St.Paul and County of Ramsey's Budget, with Affiants Default Claims, Damages since 1974 In the Matter of Sharon Scarrella Associate Justice 221NW2nd562
when current Chief Justice Eric Magnuson was clerk for Decedant Justice Sheran.
23. 2010 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy. (Public hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m.)
Public Hearing

Public Hearing and Open House-Nov. 30th, 6:30 pm

Ramsey County invites you to attend its Public Hearing/Open House regarding its Proposed 2010 Budget and Levy, Monday, Nov. 30th, 6:30 p.m. in the Roseville Area High School Cafeteria, 1240 County Road B2, Roseville. (map)

Hear a presentation on the proposed 2010 budget and levy and how property taxes are determined, have a chance to address the County Board and visit the many informational booths on County programs.

For detailed information on the Ramsey County budget.

For more information on property taxes.

To view a video on property taxes.

At all times material: the Heinous, Repugnant Deprivation of Affiants 91 Chrysler, Answer CrossComplant

LEGAL NOTICE: /s/ ECF_P165913Pacersa1299
telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower,
Sharon4 Anderson - Google Profile Candidate AG2010 User Profile: Sharon Anderson SharonsYahoo! iGoogle

Homestead Act of 1862 Twitter / Sharon4Anderson Shar1058's Buzz Activity Page - My Buzz Activity - Yahoo! Buzz - Pro Se Dec Action Litigation Pack Sharon4Anderson Scribd Document's are based on SEC filings, Blogger: Dashboard Home

FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of whistleblower protection issues, MY FindLaw SharonsWritProA06_1150_30Jun06_26
The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers
Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption 3Apr0 Sharon4Council: DLJ Management v. City St. Paul A06-2118,Money LaunderinNo direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)
g andFCC Complaints - gained as financial journalists , securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade Public domain recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting Google Search Times v. Sullvian Libel with malice - on that recommendations, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these or other Public Office documents expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in Google Search BlogItBabe2007 Candidate profile Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefs Sharon4And

From: Sharon4Anderson
To:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Bonnuge,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Chuckrepke,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Mkashmore,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, CircleMPLS,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, rcwcodebuster,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ELYECHO,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Sharon4Anderson,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CC:,, Sharia4Law,,,,,,,,,,,,, EagleEyeSharon,,,,,,,,,,,
Sent: 12/1/2009 7:53:18 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Court Forms,SharonvCitySt.Paul,CoRamsey BudgetChallenge

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

States Embrace Electronic Discovery - Eric Sinrod - Technologist

Technologist - The FindLaw Legal Technology Blog

States Embrace Electronic Discovery

No TrackBacks

FindLaw columnist Eric Sinrod writes regularly in this section on legal developments surrounding technology and the internet.

If you were under the misguided impression that attorneys and their litigant clients only need to deal expressly with electronic discovery in federal court, you need to wake up and smell the e-discovery coffee. In the wake of the 2006 e-discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, state legislatures have been getting into the act, adopting e-discovery rules for state court cases. Indeed, more than half of our 50 states have gone this route so far.

California is such a state. At the end of June, Govenor Schwarzenegger signed into law the California Electronic Discovery Act. This law closely resembles the federal e-discovery rules in key respects, and is applicable to cases in the California state court system.

The California Act provides specific procedures for demanding as well as objecting to the manner in which electronic information is produced. Electronic information is to be produced in the way it ordinarily is maintained or in a reasonably usable form when the requested party does not request a particular format for production.

When a dispute arises as to the production of electronic information, the California Act entitles a judge to weigh the burdens and benefits of the electronic discovery at issue. Even if the electronic information sought is reasonably available for production, a judge may confine the scope of the production if the benefit of the production is outweighed by the burden. Long story short: the higher the probative value of the electronic information and the lower the production burden, the more likely the information will be ordered for production; the lower the probative value of the electronic information and the higher the production burden, the less likely the information will be ordered for production.

Producing electronic information from various sources can be burdensome and expensive. For that reason, the California Act does allow a responding party to object on that basis and if electronic information is not reasonably accessible. Nevertheless, if the requesting party demonstrates good cause for the production of the subject electronic information, a court still can order production notwithstanding the objection.

This, of course, raises the question of which party should pay the freight for production of electronic information, especially when the information sought is not reasonably accessible and it will be burdensome and expensive to produce the information. Here, the California Act allows a judge to set conditions relating to the production of electronic information on a showing of good cause, "including allocation of the expense of discovery."

Lawyers and their litigant clients often are worried about arguments of "spoliation" of evidence. Namely, they are concerned about electronic information that is sought for production but that no longer is accessible or that has been destroyed. Perhaps a collective sigh of relief can be felt in California, as the California Act creates a safe harbor for the failure to maintain and produce electronic information based on "the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system." Still, once a prospective or actual litigant knows of potential or actual legal claims, a litigation hold should be put in place and care must be taken to preserve electronic information that relates to those claims, notwithstanding existing retention and destruction policies.

When large quantities of electronic information are produced in litigation, there can be concerns about the inadvertent production of privileged materials. Here, under the California Act, when a producing party notifies the receiving party that it believes that it inadvertently produced privileged information, the receiving party must separate and return the subject information, or it must present the information to the court for resolution of the privilege assertion.

The California e-discovery features are not revolutionary and do not really deviate much from the federal e-discovery amendments. However, lawyers and their litigant clients in California and other state courts no longer can operate under the mistaken belief that e-discovery rules only apply in federal court.

Because electronic discovery can be extremely onerous in certain cases, counsel are smart on the front-end to meet and confer in good faith in an effort to get at the electronic information that truly matters, and to streamline the process in as an efficient and economical manner as possible.

Eric Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP ( where he focuses on litigation matters of various types, including information technology and intellectual property disputes. His Web site is and he can be reached at To receive a weekly email link to Mr. Sinrod's columns, please send an email to him with Subscribe in the Subject line. ,

Web of Debt by Ellen Brown re: Sharons 62cv09-1163MN

A landmark ruling in a recent Kansas Supreme Court case may have given millions of distressed homeowners the legal wedge they need to avoid foreclosure. In Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834, the Kansas Supreme Court held that a nominee company called MERS has no right or standing to bring an action for foreclosure. MERS is an acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, a private company that registers mortgages electronically and tracks changes in ownership. The significance of the holding is that if MERS has no standing to foreclose, then nobody has standing to foreclose – on 60 million mortgages. That is the number of American mortgages currently reported to be held by MERS. Over half of all new U.S. residential mortgage loans are registered with MERS and recorded in its name. Holdings of the Kansas Supreme Court are not binding on the rest of the country, but they are dicta of which other courts take note; and the reasoning behind the decision is sound.

Eliminating the “Straw Man” Shielding Lenders and Investors from Liability

The development of “electronic” mortgages managed by MERS went hand in hand with the “securitization” of mortgage loans – chopping them into pieces and selling them off to investors. In the heyday of mortgage securitizations, before investors got wise to their risks, lenders would slice up loans, bundle them into “financial products” called “collateralized debt obligations” (CDOs), ostensibly insure them against default by wrapping them in derivatives called “credit default swaps,” and sell them to pension funds, municipal funds, foreign investment funds, and so forth. There were many secured parties, and the pieces kept changing hands; but MERS supposedly kept track of all these changes electronically. MERS would register and record mortgage loans in its name, and it would bring foreclosure actions in its name. MERS not only facilitated the rapid turnover of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, but it has served as a sort of “corporate shield” that protects investors from claims by borrowers concerning predatory lending practices. California attorney Timothy McCandless describes the problem like this:

“[MERS] has reduced transparency in the mortgage market in two ways. First, consumers and their counsel can no longer turn to the public recording systems to learn the identity of the holder of their note. Today, county recording systems are increasingly full of one meaningless name, MERS, repeated over and over again. But more importantly, all across the country, MERS now brings foreclosure proceedings in its own name – even though it is not the financial party in interest. This is problematic because MERS is not prepared for or equipped to provide responses to consumers’ discovery requests with respect to predatory lending claims and defenses. In effect, the securitization conduit attempts to use a faceless and seemingly innocent proxy with no knowledge of predatory origination or servicing behavior to do the dirty work of seizing the consumer’s home. . . . So imposing is this opaque corporate wall, that in a “vast” number of foreclosures, MERS actually succeeds in foreclosing without producing the original note – the legal sine qua non of foreclosure – much less documentation that could support predatory lending defenses.”

The real parties in interest concealed behind MERS have been made so faceless, however, that there is now no party with standing to foreclose. The Kansas Supreme Court stated that MERS’ relationship “is more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer.” The court opined:

“By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt. . . . Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the deed of trust, with the deed of trust lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become unenforceable. The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in the event of default. The person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust.” [Citations omitted; emphasis added.]

MERS as straw man lacks standing to foreclose, but so does original lender, although it was a signatory to the deal. The lender lacks standing because title had to pass to the secured parties for the arrangement to legally qualify as a “security.” The lender has been paid in full and has no further legal interest in the claim. Only the securities holders have skin in the game; but they have no standing to foreclose, because they were not signatories to the original agreement. They cannot satisfy the basic requirement of contract law that a plaintiff suing on a written contract must produce a signed contract proving he is entitled to relief.

The Potential Impact of 60 Million Fatally Flawed Mortgages

The banks arranging these mortgage-backed securities have typically served as trustees for the investors. When the trustees could not present timely written proof of ownership entitling them to foreclose, they would in the past file “lost-note affidavits” with the court; and judges usually let these foreclosures proceed without objection. But in October 2007, an intrepid federal judge in Cleveland put a halt to the practice. U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Boyko ruled that Deutsche Bank had not filed the proper paperwork to establish its right to foreclose on fourteen homes it was suing to repossess as trustee. Judges in many other states then came out with similar rulings.

Following the Boyko decision, in December 2007 attorney Sean Olender suggested in an article in The San Francisco Chronicle that the real reason for the bailout schemes being proposed by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was not to keep strapped borrowers in their homes so much as to stave off a spate of lawsuits against the banks. Olender wrote:

“The sole goal of the [bailout schemes] is to prevent owners of mortgage-backed securities, many of them foreigners, from suing U.S. banks and forcing them to buy back worthless mortgage securities at face value – right now almost 10 times their market worth. The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.

“. . . The catastrophic consequences of bond investors forcing originators to buy back loans at face value are beyond the current media discussion. The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, and even FDIC . . . .

“What would be prudent and logical is for the banks that sold this toxic waste to buy it back and for a lot of people to go to prison. If they knew about the fraud, they should have to buy the bonds back.”

Needless to say, however, the banks did not buy back their toxic waste, and no bank officials went to jail. As Olender predicted, in the fall of 2008, massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie were pushed through by Henry Paulson, whose former firm Goldman Sachs was an active player in creating CDOs when he was at its helm as CEO. Paulson also hastily engineered the $85 billion bailout of insurer American International Group (AIG), a major counterparty to Goldmans’ massive holdings of CDOs. The insolvency of AIG was a huge crisis for Goldman, a principal beneficiary of the AIG bailout.

In a December 2007 New York Times article titled “The Long and Short of It at Goldman Sachs,” Ben Stein wrote:

“For decades now, . . . I have been receiving letters [warning] me about the dangers of a secret government running the world . . . . [T]he closest I have recently seen to such a world-running body would have to be a certain large investment bank, whose alums are routinely Treasury secretaries, high advisers to presidents, and occasionally a governor or United States senator.”

The pirates seem to have captured the ship, and until now there has been no one to stop them. But 60 million mortgages with fatal defects in title could give aggrieved homeowners and securities holders the crowbar they need to exert some serious leverage on Congress – serious enough perhaps even to pry the legislature loose from the powerful banking lobbies that now hold it in thrall.

Friday, September 4, 2009

Sharon StateFair WCCO_V&Rosey

Best things in Life are Free. WEPOWER-2009 Thanks Guys from this VA Widow
Political Activist, Sharon4Anderson Hey Great Site:

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Don't leave your HOMES_Sewer Bates,Surrey St.PaulMN

YouTube - Don't Leave Your Homes Stay Put!! (see details)

YouTube -
Don't Leave Your Homes Stay Put!! (see details)
Don't Leave Your Homes Stay Put!! (see details)
OneDollar Homes,Sewer's

CitySt.Paul AntiTrust Homesteads, Dollar Home Bates and Surrey,26Aug09Sewer Waste Removal contracted with Firm in Missouri, instead of Minnesota: Cash4Clunkers give way to Cash4Condemnations.Betty Speaker had her Home Condemned when City broke the Water Main.


Added: August 26, 2009, 11:08 PM
Time: 1:25
Views: 10
Rating: 0.0
Comments: 0

Monday, August 24, 2009

From the Graves of Jim Anderson,Jim Casci,BarbWinn, Lubins,Targeted 4thSt.PreservationProject

275 Bates Avenue, (in foreground) in the Dayton's Bluff neighborhood of St. Paul, can be purchased for $1 from the St.Paul Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and 279 Bates (in distance) is on the market for $5000. (Pioneer Press: Scott Takushi)
Topic requested...Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

4th Street Preservation Project


Saint Paul Minnesota The most livable city in America.

Site Search

4th Street Preservation Project

About the 4th Street Preservation Project
The 4th Street Preservation Project will strengthen the Heritage Preservation District in the Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood by directing rehabilitation resources and technical assistance toward a targeted area in the neighborhood in order to preserve the housing stock and encourage home ownership.

A neighborhood planning process convened with the assistance of the Dayton's Bluff Community Council, the Dayton's Bluff Urban Partnership, and other community partners created development principles that will be used to inform proposals for rehabilitation and other community development.

To date, the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has acquired 11 single-family homes and duplexes within the Dayton's Bluff neighborhood that are available for purchase.

Properties for Sale
All properties available through the project are strictly for homeowner occupancy. Consideration will be given to developers who are working with home buyers who will purchase the home upon completion.
693 East 4th Street photo$40,00030 x 107Insp.Report
Guidance Sheet
695 East 4th Street photo$ 5,00030 x 107Insp. Report
Guidance Sheet
314 Bates Avenue photo$ 5,00040 x 108Insp. Report
Guidance Sheet
326 Maria Avenue photo$50,00058 x 120Insp. Report
Guidance Sheet
688 East 4th Street photo$10,00040 x 120Insp. Report
Guidance Sheet
700 East 4th Street photo$10,00040 x 120Insp. Report
Guidance Sheet
336 Maple Street photo$5,00040 x 123Insp. Report
Guidance Sheet
275 Bates Avenue photo$1.0040 x 54Insp. Report
Guidance Sheet
279 Bates Avenue photo$5,00036 x 40Insp. Report
Guidance Sheet
689 East 4th Street photo$1.0040 x 107Insp. Report
Guidance Sheet
868 Fremont Avenue photo$35,00040 x 124Insp. Report
Guidance Sheet

Qualifying Applicants
  • Must demonstrate the financial resources needed to undertake successful rehabilitation of the property and should be able to qualify for a mortgage in the range of $140,000 - $190,000.
      • Are required to incorporate the development principals and historic preservation goals created through the neighborhood planning process described in the application.
          • Will become homeowner occupants or will work with home buyers to purchase and occupy the property upon completion.
              • Will receive technical assistance from the HRA to complete the rehabilitation.

              Open Houses
              Tuesday August 25, 2009
              4:00 pm - 8:00 pm
              Featuring Properties: 688 E 4th, 689 E 4th, 693 E 4th, 695 E 4th, 700 E 4th, and 326 Maria

              Thursday, August 27, 2009
              4:00 pm - 7:00 pm
              Featuring Properties: 275 Bates, 279 Bates, 314 Bates, 336 Maple, and 868 Fremont

              Request for Purchase Application and Appendices
              Prospective home buyers interested in purchasing a home from the HRA must complete a Request for Purchase Application.

              Request for Purchase Application

              Project Application for Individuals
              B. Sample Proposal and Sample Drawings
              C. Historic Preservation Guidelines
              D. East 4th Street Preservation Project Development Principles and Assets and Opportunities Map
              E. Personal Financial Statement Form
              F. Statement of General Contractor Qualifications
              G. Residential Rehab Guidelines: Standards for Developing a Scope of Work for Rehabilitation

              Compliance Requirements

              1. Affirmative Action Opportunity/Equal Employment Opportunity
              2. Vendor Outreach
              3. Two Bid Requirement
              4. Interim HRA Sustainability Policy
              5. Rehabilitation Standards
              6. Compliance with Lead Rule (Lead Disclosure Rule (24CFR part 45, subpart A) and the Lead Safe Housing Rule’s provisions for rehabilitation (subpart j)
              7. HUD “Healthy Homes” Interventions – Rules
              8. Home Buyer Counseling Requirement (may be waived)

              Contact Information
              For more information contact Tom Sanchez at 651-266-6617 email
              or Sheri Pemberton-Hoiby at 651-266-6615



              SharonsSocratiesMethod TruthTrust4YOU

              JURIST Paper Chase

              Dayton's MN ShutDown Costs

              2007 Sharon StPaul Ward(2) Election


              Blog Directory for St Paul, MN

              Snap Shots

              Get Free Shots from


              Sharon4Council: Empower Ethics Empathize Energize Educate:

              Sharon4Council: Empower  Ethics Empathize Energize Educate: