Unfortunately, some credit blunders may be out of your hands. Unfairly reported or inaccurate information can plague an otherwise clean credit score. Protect yourself by staying up-to-date. Order a free copy of your credit report and review its contents. Check to verify your correct name, address, and other basic information. Look closely at your accounts to make sure your balances are accurate and there is no duplicate reporting. If you need help, contact one of our legal experts for a free credit repair consultation and analysis. False reporting is illegal, and your credit health depends on action.
The intro offers, coupled with the rewards program make The Amex EveryDay® Credit Card from American Express the frontrunner among balance transfer cards, outpacing competitors. This card presents cardholders with the unique opportunity to transfer a balance and make a large purchase during the intro period, all while earning rewards on new purchases. To qualify for this card, you need Excellent/Good credit.
That is for you to decide. You do have to weigh the certainty that your credit score would take a hit (and some time to rebuild) against the advantage of a program that will allow you to make progress and pay off your debts. A bank loan is another option. You could check on the interest rate . . . but you should do this knowing you will not run up credit card balances again. Otherwise, you end up in an even worse situation than you are in now.
If your credit score is pretty good, but not good enough to get you the interest rate you want, you may be able to improve it by taking out a small loan and repaying it as promised – in other words, by adding some positive activity to your credit history. Also, because installment loans add to your mix of credit, obtaining one might improve your score.
At this point, you will need to continue following the advice of the credit counseling agency you hired to help and remember the benefits of being debt-free. Life is a lot more difficult when you’re juggling credit card bills and other payments each month. If you want to avoid winding up back in debt, it’s crucial to remember how far you’ve come and how wonderful freedom feels.
Millions of Americans are suffering from dinged-up credit: the lingering result of the recession, the lack (until recently) of real increase in wages, the economy's sluggish growth. But a strong credit score is the backbone of an individual's financial health, and its importance goes beyond simply getting a low interest rate on a loan. A driver's credit score, for instance, is a major factor in pricing auto insurance.
It’s been only a year since I opened my first card last September, and I already have a solid FICO score – 720, the last time I checked. That’s not a perfect score by any means, but it lands me safely in the “good” credit range, meaning I probably won’t have trouble getting approved for new credit in the future. I still have work to do if I want to get into the “very good” credit category, which starts at 740, according to MyFICO, but for a credit card newbie I’m not disappointed in my progress so far.
At Pinnacle Credit Management we bring to you fast credit repair services unlike any other company around. We know how hard the search for the right credit repair company can be. We are a trusted company and have local offices in the San Francisco Bay Area, New Jersey, and New York City. We want to prove that we are the best in the business so we offer a totally risk-free, no obligation guarantee! If we are not able to improve your credit we will refund all of your money no questions asked! Your relationship and our reputation are important to us. We strive to build your credit score fast so you can achieve your financial goals. We want to be remembered as the company that changed your life!
It’s likely that the debt collector has the incorrect amount for your debt or has tacked on high fees — Rheingold said you may owe $500, but a third-party debt collector may inflate that number to $2,500 with fees. Both of these practices are illegal. Third-party debt collectors cannot misrepresent the amount you owe or collect fees or interest above what’s stated in your original contract.

First Republic Eagle Gold. The interest rates are great, but this option is not for everyone. Fixed rates range from 1.95% – 4.45% APR. You need to visit a branch and open a checking account (which has a $3,500 minimum balance to avoid fees). Branches are located in San Francisco, Palo Alto, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Newport Beach, San Diego, Portland (Oregon), Boston, Palm Beach (Florida), Greenwich or New York City. Loans must be $60,000 – $300,000. First Republic wants to recruit their future high net worth clients with this product.

Before you consolidate credit cards, make sure you have a clear payment plan that can help you tackle your debt. Beware of simply moving your debt from credit cards to another form of debt; it may feel like you’re suddenly debt-free but you are definitely not. You’ve simply reorganized your debt and it should become more manageable now. If you fail to make sizeable, consistent payments toward your debt, you could find yourself back in the same cycle of debt. Also, when selecting your consolidation method — for example, an intro 0% APR credit card, personal loan, etc. — be sure to look closely at the fees you may be charged. The fees are typically outweighed by the amount you save in interest, but it’s a good idea to review them.
Your loan balances also affect your credit score in a similar way. The credit score calculation compares your loan current loan balance to the original loan amount. The closer your loan balances are to the original amount you borrowed, the more it hurts your credit score. Focus first on paying down credit card balances because they have more impact on your credit score.
We saw probably the most amazing show on the planet at the Robot Restuarant (I won't spoil it for you.), ate at vending machine restuarants, slept in 5 star hotels and in cool tiny manga cafes. We got kimonos for pajamas, song karaoke where we made a couple of Japanese friends, shopped at the 100 yen shop, rode the most fun metro system around and saw the Tokyo Tower. We had the most amazing time of our lives for free!
Personal information – Make sure the names and addresses reported match your personal history. As noted above, sometimes the reports of people with the same or similar names get combined incorrectly; having your report tied to that of someone with bad credit can lower your score. To correct an error you need to document, in writing, what is wrong. This can be a quick fix if all the negative information belongs to someone other than you, but proving that may take some time.
I have found myself in a debt loop. I got a loan to payoff my credit card debt and then something happened with our house and I racked it back up. So now I’m in this constant loop of trying to get it all paid off but have to use my credit cards because I have used my whole paycheck to pay my bills. I tried doing another little loan but it didn’t help much and now I have that debt too. Where can I go to get a personal loan that will give me the amount I need without telling me I have too much credit card debt when thats the purpose of the loan!
Before you consolidate credit cards, make sure you have a clear payment plan that can help you tackle your debt. Beware of simply moving your debt from credit cards to another form of debt; it may feel like you’re suddenly debt-free but you are definitely not. You’ve simply reorganized your debt and it should become more manageable now. If you fail to make sizeable, consistent payments toward your debt, you could find yourself back in the same cycle of debt. Also, when selecting your consolidation method — for example, an intro 0% APR credit card, personal loan, etc. — be sure to look closely at the fees you may be charged. The fees are typically outweighed by the amount you save in interest, but it’s a good idea to review them.
If I shop around for a balance transfer credit card, my score will get crushed: FALSE! If your score does decline, it probably will not decline by much. You can expect 10-20 points per credit application. But, remember: you apply for a balance transfer to help reduce your balance faster. When you open a new credit card and transfer your balance, then you will be able to:
While many consumers struggle to pay unsecured debts, bankruptcy is a solution intended for the most extreme cases — cases where families cannot get out of debt any other way. If a debtor has the financial means to repay their debts and gain a fresh start on their own, bankruptcy attorneys would likely counsel them on other options, such as meeting with a credit counselor and starting a debt management plan.
To have a good credit score, you need to have positive information reported into your credit report on a monthly basis. The easiest way to do that is with a credit card. Just try to keep your utilization low (although there is no magic number, VantageScore released data showing that people with excellent credit scores tend to have utilization below 10%). And make sure you pay your statement balance in full and on time every month. If you repeat this, over time your score will improve.
You can start to resolve identity theft issues by visiting www.identitytheft.gov to report identity theft and get a recovery plan. This is an excellent, free website created by the Federal Trade Commission. In addition to reporting identity theft, you will receive a free action plan, and you’ll gain free access to people who can guide you through the identity resolution process.

Education Loan Finance:This is a student loan refinancing option that is offered through SouthEast Bank. They have competitive rates with variable rates ranging from 2.55% – 6.01% APR and fixed rates ranging from 3.09% – 6.69% APR. Education Loan Finance also offers a “Fast Track Bonus”, so if you accept your offer within 30 days of your application date, you can earn $100 bonus cash.

You’ll have a choice to apply for the Visa Platinum Cash Back Card from andigo, Visa Platinum Rewards Card from andigo, or Visa Platinum Card from andigo. The Visa Platinum Card from andigo has a lower ongoing APR at 11.99% - 20.99% Variable, compared to 11.99% - 20.99% Variable for the Visa Platinum Cash Back Card from andigo and 13.40% - 22.40% Variable for the Visa Platinum Rewards Card from andigo. So, if you’re not sure you’ll pay it all off in 6 months, the Visa Platinum Card from andigo is a better bet.
Loan repayment is expected to be funded by your income, so lenders want to verify your ability to hold a job. Some will dig deeper into your employment history than others. In many cases, a steady employment history will be enough, but some financial institutions prefer applicants who have worked for the same company for several years or at least have a long track record in their current industry.
Since debt management plans are individually tailored to each consumer, one plan can be wildly different than the next. McClary said your plan can vary depending on how much debt you owe, your current interest rates and payments and how your interest rates and fees are negotiated down. This is a huge benefit for consumers since debt management plans come with specific advice instead of blanket solutions that may or may not work.
Hello Your response was very informative. I have poor credit is well and want to get into my first home. I want to pay off on my creditors I was with a credit company that helps build your credit and I was paying 80 dollars a month. Not sure if you know but I wanted to ask is there away that I can just pay the creditors directly and just pay it. It would be from three years ago
There are two main ways to dispute errors on your credit reports – you can either do it yourself, or you can hire a professional credit repair firm to handle it for you. If you’re situation is such that you’re in need of quick credit repair, the credit repair firm is probably the way to go. They would have in place procedures for effectively challenging, communicating, and monitoring the removal of incorrect information. If you were to do it yourself, you would have to go through the learning curve of putting that all in place, and knowing how to get the results you desire.
Sometimes in life, you can take your sweet time, like when you’re taking a Sunday drive, getting to know someone before getting married, or putting together Ikea furniture. However, there are plenty of other instances where time is of the essence. Shopping at the mall on Christmas Eve? You’ll probably want to get in and get out. Have a big project at work and the boss is flying in tomorrow? It behooves you to have it done if you want that raise.
Most employer-provided retirement plans permit participants to borrow from their own savings. Since it's your money, there's no credit check or qualifying hoops to jump through. You can generally borrow up to half of your vested retirement balance, up to $50,000. The interest rate may be one or two percentage points higher than the Prime Rate, which recently was around 4%. You usually have up to five years to pay back money used for consolidating credit card debt. Miss that deadline and you may owe income tax and potentially a 10% fee on the remaining balance.
Presently, there’s more and more consumer struggling to pay off their debt, some collection agencies are opting for unfair means to collect payments from debt-ridden consumers ignoring the debt collection laws. However, to stop such malpractices and help debtors combat such illegal collection agency harassment, the FTC has come forward with the FDCPA, which gives debtors legal rights to sue those debt collectors who illegally threaten, intimidate or harass them.
Although the number of bankruptcy filings since 2005 seems high, not everyone decides to file bankruptcy to deal with their financial issues. There are other options for consumers who find themselves unable to pay off their debts and facing multiple collections actions, and those other options might be a better choice for some consumers. These options include:
While attorney fees can run into the thousands of dollars, they generally have installment plans that make it easier for filers to get the expert help they need on a payment plan they can afford. Attorneys also generally offer a free consultation for the initial meeting, which allows you to get to know several attorneys and find the one that you think will get you the best results at a price you can afford.
FICO, myFICO, Score Watch, The score lenders use, and The Score That Matters are trademarks or registered trademarks of Fair Isaac Corporation. Equifax Credit Report is a trademark of Equifax, Inc. and its affiliated companies. Many factors affect your FICO Score and the interest rates you may receive. Fair Isaac is not a credit repair organization as defined under federal or state law, including the Credit Repair Organizations Act. Fair Isaac does not provide "credit repair" services or advice or assistance regarding "rebuilding" or "improving" your credit record, credit history or credit rating. FTC's website on credit.

Disclaimer: NerdWallet strives to keep its information accurate and up to date. This information may be different than what you see when you visit a financial institution, service provider or specific product’s site. All financial products, shopping products and services are presented without warranty. When evaluating offers, please review the financial institution’s Terms and Conditions. Pre-qualified offers are not binding. If you find discrepancies with your credit score or information from your credit report, please contact TransUnion® directly.

People typically consolidate credit card debt if they have debt on high-interest credit cards and are incurring high-interest charges. By consolidating credit card debt, they can potentially save a great deal of money on interest payments and get out of debt sooner than if they left their debt on high-interest credit cards since more of their payment will go toward their principal balance.

Check what your monthly payment on a debt consolidation loan would be. Are you at least paying that much towards your credit cards now? If the loan payment is more than you pay towards your debts (and it fits into your budget), it might be time to up the ante and just put more money to your credit cards. If the loan payment is less than you pay to your cards, you'll likely wind up paying way more interest over time, since your loan term will probably be long.

my credit is 631, I finally got approved for a credit card. I am in school , with 2 kids and need my own house as well as a car ! I cant get approved for a loan based off my credit. I need the increase FAST ! I don't have much in my name, I have 2 student loans, one paid off fully one doesn't start payments for 6 months.. I have one bank account that went to collections for identity theft. I have 8 hard credits from past and present ): I don't know where to turn but I need HELP!
When you work with a bank or other for-profit debt consolidation firm, you will pay fees in the form of interest and loan origination charges to secure and maintain a debt consolidation loan. If you work with a nonprofit organization, like InCharge Debt Solutions, you will pay a set-up fee (on average, $40) and a monthly fee to maintain it (average $25). It’s important when you consider debt relief solutions that you compare interest rates and fees. Before pursuing any credit card consolidation program, ask your the following questions:

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), a federal law that was passed in 1978, provides guidelines on the actions that debt collectors can take when they try to get consumers to make payments on their debts. It prohibits abusive, deceptive or unfair practices and puts limits on when and how third-party debt collectors can contact people who owe money.

Become familiar with the information contained in each of your credit reports. They'll all look very similar, even if you've ordered them from different bureaus. Each credit report contains your personal identifying information, detailed history for each of your accounts, any items that have been listed in public record like a bankruptcy, and the inquiries that have been made to your credit report.

If you have unsecured debts that qualify for a debt management plan and secured debts that don’t qualify, a debt management plan can still work. When you sign up for a debt management plan with a nonprofit agency, the credit counselor assigned to your case will offer comprehensive financial advice that can help you pay down all your debts — not just debts governed by your debt management plan.

Many homeowners are relieved to find out that they may be able to save a home that’s in foreclosure by declaring Chapter 13. But at what point in the foreclosure process must you file before it’s too late? As it turns out, you can file for bankruptcy protection well into the foreclosure process and still save your home, according to Florida attorney Ryan Albaugh.
She’s been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Money Magazine, The New York Times, Kiplinger, Washington Post, Cosmopolitan, Chicago Tribune, Consumer's Digest, Boston Globe, Miami Herald, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, CNNMoney.com, Real Simple, Time.com, Family Circle, Fitness, Women’s Health, Marie Claire, Woman’s Day, Redbook, Women’s Health, Fitness, and much more.
They may be willing to waive some of the late penalties or spread the past due balance over few payments. Let them know you're anxious to avoid charge-off, but need some help. Your creditor may even be willing to re-age your account to show your payments as current rather than delinquent, but you'll have to actually talk to your creditors to negotiate.

As newer debt weighs more heavily on your credit report than older debt, your score can drop when you make an effort to pay, whether in part or in full. While the payment will make the debt show as settled in full, it may show on your report as new debt. Regardless of how it shows on your report, ensure that the lender removes the charged-off status on your old debt and shows it as paid in full.

It still could take a little time. I started from zero with a touch of bad but mostly no credit. I got a rediculous card at first with high interest and monthly and yearly fees. Soon as my credit built up with some payments, yours isnt terrible, mine was in the 5's, I was able to get a better card. Dont spend much of your available credit. REALLY try and keep it lower than 30% and your uliliztion will look better and help your score rather quickly. im my case opening a new account with a higher ballance and transfering my debt to it (15 months 0% interest but was a 3% fee to do it) saved a lot of money over paying a couple of cards at 20-24% interest. If you have a good utilization % then you might even close the old account but if you are looking at a big purchase soon then it may be better to keep it open. Either way, my closing that horrible card actually made my score rise because of the newer better replacement card showing up. Again mine was in the 5's so it took a bit for new expanded credit acceptance but once it did it is currently going up very quick and am almost 700's. Id plan on a year though if you have negative stuff but you are ahead of me with your starting score already.
I had a $10,000 surgery when my medical insurance lapsed. I had to fill out a form with the hospital that stated I could not afford to pay it and they forgave it/never went on my credit. If you make under a certain income, the hospital should help you get those off, call the hospital and ask. It may be too late since it’s in collections already, if that’s the case, don’t pay it because it won’t change the negative impact since it’s already in collections. Wait for it to fall off.


642 N.W.2d 91 (2002)
In re Application for RELOCATION BENEFITS OF JAMES BROTHERS FURNITURE, INC.
No. C6-01-1359.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
April 16, 2002.
*94 Kirk A. Schnitker, Jon W. Morphew, Schnitker & Associates, P.A., Minneapolis, for relator James Brothers Furniture, Inc.
Thomas M. Scott, Campbell Knutson, P.A., Eagan, for respondent Robbinsdale Economic Development Authority.
Considered and decided by HARTEN, Presiding Judge, G. BARRY ANDERSON, Judge, and STONEBURNER, Judge.

OPINION
G. BARRY ANDERSON, Judge.
Respondent terminated relator's month-to-month lease. Relator applied for relocation benefits under Minn.Stat. §§ 117.50-56 (1998). Respondent denied relator relocation benefits. A hearing officer determined relator was entitled to relocation benefits. After consulting with relator, a relocation-benefits consultant determined that respondent was liable for $12,433 in relocation benefits. At a subsequent hearing, relator contested the $12,433 determination. The hearing officer denied relator's claims for benefits in excess of $12,433. Respondent subsequently adopted a resolution denying that it was liable for any relocation benefits; but, respondent agreed that if it was liable for any such benefits, those benefits should be limited to $12,433. We reverse and remand.

FACTS
James Brothers Furniture, Inc., (relator) occupied retail property owned by Minneapolis Gold and Silver Corporation (MG & S), in Robbinsdale, Minnesota. It is unclear whether relator and MG & S ever entered into a formal lease agreement.[1] In April 1990, an adjacent McDonald's restaurant informed respondent Robbinsdale Economic Development Authority (REDA) that it planned to raze its existing building and partially re-locate and re-build its restaurant. REDA contemplated re-development of the immediate area in conjunction with the McDonald's project. Between April 1990 and September 1992, REDA held several meetings where redevelopment of the immediate area was discussed. REDA contemplated either purchasing or condemning the MG & S property and subsequently entered into a one-year option contract with MG & S that allowed REDA to purchase the property, but that also allowed MG & S to remain on the property for one year rent-free if REDA exercised its option to purchase.
REDA exercised its option to purchase the property and closed on the property in late June 1993. REDA concedes that part of the MG & S property was used to accommodate the McDonald's project. MG & S and relator, however, continued to occupy the remaining REDA property for one year thereafter under the rent-free occupancy agreement. One year later, the occupancy agreement expired and relator and REDA subsequently entered into a written month-to-month lease agreement that required 90 days' notice to terminate the lease and vacate the property.
*95 In May 1999, REDA granted development rights to a business to re-develop the area adjacent to and including the remaining REDA property. On May 12, 1999, to prepare for the re-development, REDA gave relator 90-days' notice to vacate the property.
In response to REDA's 90-days' notice, relator initially contemplated moving its business to another retail location, but ultimately decided to liquidate most of its inventory and terminate its operations. Relator contracted with Monk Enterprises, Inc. (Monk), an inventory broker, to liquidate its inventory. Relator sold most of its inventory to Monk, and Monk conducted an inventory-liquidation sale at the property; James Senden, relator's president, moved the balance of the unsold inventory to the homes of family and friends. In late October 1999, relator vacated the property.
By letters dated November 22 and December 30, 1999, relator requested relocation benefits from REDA. REDA denied relator benefits concluding that relator was not a "displaced person" as defined by Minn.Stat. § 117.50, subd. 3 (1998). Relator requested an administrative appeal and a hearing was held on the eligibility issue. The hearing officer concluded relator was a "displaced person" under the statute and, therefore, concluded that relator was entitled to relocation benefits. The hearing officer also concluded that MG & S did not waive relator's right to relocation benefits as part of its purchase agreement with REDA.
REDA subsequently hired Conworth, Inc. (Conworth), a relocation-benefits consultant, to assist relator in preparing its relocation claims. After consulting with relator, Conworth determined relator was entitled to $12,433 in relocation benefits. Relator disputed that amount and alleged that it was entitled to additional relocation benefits.
On March 8 and May 15, 2001, another administrative hearing was held focusing on the amount of relator's claims. By letter dated June 25, 2001, the same hearing officer denied relator's claims in excess of $12,433. On July 10, 2001, REDA adopted a resolution that accepted the hearing officer's factual findings made after the first hearing, but rejected the hearing officer's legal conclusion that relator was a "displaced person" entitled to relocation benefits. In the alternative, REDA concluded that if relator is a "displaced person," it is entitled to no more than $12,433 in relocation benefits. This appeal followed.

ISSUES
I. What is the final administrative decision?
II. Is relator a displaced person?
III. Is relator entitled to additional relocation benefits?
IV. Were relator's procedural due-process rights violated because the hearing officer was the city manager of a neighboring city, which was also represented by respondent's attorney's law firm?

ANALYSIS
In 1973, the legislature enacted the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act (MURA). See generally Minn.Stat. § 117.50-56 (2000). The act intended to make public funds available to reimburse relocation costs incurred by households and businesses displaced by public acquisitions of property where there is no federal financial participation. See Minn.Stat. *96 § 117.52. Under MURA, an "acquiring authority"[2] must
as a cost of acquisition, * * * provide all relocation assistance, services, payments and benefits required by the [federal] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 * * * and those regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
Id.

I.
Relator argues that the only decision that may be reviewed by this court is the hearing officer's June 25, 2001 decision concerning the amount of relocation benefits due relator. Relator argues that the hearing officer's June 5, 2000 decision concerning relator's eligibility for relocation benefits may not be reviewed because it was a final decision and the time for appeal of that decision has expired. Moreover, relator argues that this court may not review REDA's July 10, 2001 resolution because the hearing officer's decision is the only final decision under MURA.
The Code of Federal Regulations discusses the procedure for appealing initial agency decisions denying certain relocation benefits under the federal act:
Any aggrieved person may file a written appeal with the Agency in any case in which the person believes that the Agency has failed to properly consider the person's application for [relocation] assistance * * *.
49 C.F.R. § 24.10(b) (2000). In addition, an agency or other appointing authority has broad discretion in selecting an official to consider the appeal:
The Agency official conducting the review of the appeal shall be either the head of the Agency or his or her authorized designee. However, the official shall not have been directly involved in the action appealed.
49 C.F.R. § 24.10(h). If the official conducting the appeal does not grant the full relief requested, "the Agency shall advise the person of his or her right to seek judicial review." 49 C.F.R. § 24.10(g).[3]
A final administrative decision under MURA may only be reviewed by certiorari to this court as provided by Minn.Stat. § 606.01 (2000). Naegele Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency, 551 N.W.2d 235, 237 (Minn.App.1996).[4]
There is no published Minnesota case law directly on point that addresses what constitutes the final administrative decision under MURA. It is unclear, moreover, whether it would be proper for the federal act to serve as the basis for MURA's appeal procedure in this case.[5]
We conclude that the proper appeal procedure in this case, where the acquiring authority does not have statewide *97 jurisdiction, must be dictated by common-law and constitutional procedural dueprocess principles.[6] We also conclude that the hearing officer's decisions are the final administrative decisions in this case, and the hearing officer's initial eligibility determination may also be reviewed by this court because relator's rights were not finally determined until after the second hearing.
In Naegele, the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA) awarded Naegele certain relocation benefits under MURA; but Naegele disputed the amount of the benefits. Id. at 236. MCDA appointed a hearing officer to conduct Naegele's appeal. Id. The hearing officer decided Naegele was not entitled to the amount of benefits he requested, and "notified the parties of the `right to seek judicial review of th[e] decision.'" Id. MCDA did not independently review the hearing officer's decision. The Naegele court noted, "Both parties concede that the hearing officer's decision was quasi-judicial," and concluded that "[j]udicial review of an administrative body's quasi-judicial decision must be invoked by writ of certiorari * * *." Id. (citations omitted). Therefore, the Naegele court implicitly recognized that the hearing officer's decision was the "administrative body's quasi-judicial decision" and subsequent review of that decision could only lie with this court and not with the agency. Id. at 236-37.
Therefore, we conclude that a party that is denied relocation benefits by a hearing officer or other appointed agency official on review from an initial agency decision is entitled to judicial review of that hearing officer's or official's decision by certiorari to this court, and subsequent independent review within the agency may not occur.[7]Cf. Wax`N Works v. City of St. Paul, 213 F.3d 1016, 1019-20 (2000) (noting in dictum that "[u]nder the [MURA] * * * the source of relief subsequent to the administrative agency appeal is review by a court").
The hearing officer's initial eligibility determination may also be reviewed by this court because "certiorari will not ordinarily lie unless there is a final determination of rights." State ex. rel. Mosloski v. County of Martin, 248 Minn. 503, 506, 80 N.W.2d 637, 639 (1957); see also Mowry v. Young, 565 N.W.2d 717, 719 (Minn.App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Sept. 18, 1997); cf. Overseas Commodities Corp. v. Dockman, 389 N.W.2d 254, 256 (Minn.App. 1986) (noting that "certiorari will not ordinarily lie unless the order is a final determination of the parties' rights, rather than an interlocutory or intermediate order" (citations omitted)). The hearing officer did not finally determine relator's rights under MURA until the amount of relator's relocation claims were determined after the second hearing.
We therefore conclude that certiorari appeals under MURA must be construed from the hearing officer's or other appointed agency official's final decision, and not from an acquiring authority's subsequent resolution. We also conclude that relator's rights under MURA were not *98 finally determined until the hearing officer made her decision concerning the amount of benefits. It therefore follows that the hearing officer's initial eligibility determination was not a final determination of relator's rights, and may be reviewed by this court on appeal.

II.
Although REDA concedes that it initially used part of the MG & S property to accommodate the McDonald's project in the early 1990s, this project did not require relator to relocate its business. Consequently, REDA argues relator is not a "displaced person" under MURA because REDA's 1993 acquisition of the MG & S property did not directly result in the termination of relator's month-to-month lease in 1999. Relator responds that there is nothing in MURA that suggests a business is not entitled to relocation benefits if a certain amount of time elapses before it is required to vacate property.
Relocation benefits are available for any "displaced person," which is defined as
any person who moves from real property, or moves personal property from real property, as a result of acquisition undertaken by an acquiring authority or as a result of voluntary rehabilitation carried out by a person pursuant to acquisition or as a consequence thereof.
Minn.Stat. § 117.50, subd. 3. "Acquisitions" include eminent domain actions and acquisitions by negotiation. Minn.Stat. § 117.50, subd. 4. There is no Minnesota case law analyzing this statutory definition. Under the federal act, "displaced person" is defined in both the United States Code and in the Code of Federal Regulations. The federal act's definition, however, does not mirror the Minn.Stat. § 117.50, subd. 3 definition of "displaced person."[8]
The statutory provision in question here, Minn.Stat. § 117.50, subd. 3, is not technical and there is no consistent longstanding agency interpretation of the provision. See, e.g., Lolling v. Midwest Patrol, 545 N.W.2d 372, 375 (Minn.1996) (suggesting that where a statute is technical in nature, an agency's longstanding interpretation of the statutory language may be entitled some interpretive weight). Therefore, in considering this question of statutory interpretation and law, we are "not bound by the decision of the agency and need not defer to agency expertise." St. Otto's Home v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs., 437 N.W.2d 35, 39-40 (Minn.1989) (citations omitted); see also Naegele, 551 N.W.2d at 237 ("Certiorari * * * is certainly appropriate to review questions of law." (citation omitted)).
The hearing officer, in her June 5, 2000 decision, concluded that relator was a displaced person entitled to receive relocation benefits because REDA acquired the building in which relator was a tenant and REDA was an acquiring authority under Minn.Stat. § 117.50, subd. 5. The hearing officer also concluded that MG & S did not waive relator's right to relocation benefits in the 1992 purchase agreement with REDA.
It is undisputed that REDA purchased the property through negotiation. See Gilliland v. Port Auth. of St. Paul, 270 N.W.2d 743, 746 (Minn.1978) (stating that "acquisition" under MURA means to get *99 or obtain as one's own). REDA concedes that it needed part of the MG & S property to accommodate the McDonald's project and purchased the MG & S property to effect this purpose. The dispositive question, therefore, is whether relator's displacement six years later for a different project than was planned at the time of acquisition was "a result of acquisition undertaken by an acquiring authority." Minn.Stat. § 117.50, subd. 3.
We decline to construe MURA to mirror the federal act, which generally requires a displacement to be a direct result of an acquisition for a project or program. See generally Alexander v. HUD, 441 U.S. 39, 51-52, 99 S.Ct. 1572, 1581, 60 L.Ed.2d 28 (1979) (noting that there is "little doubt that Congress' concern was * * * with displacements caused by the acquisition of property for a Government program or project"); Highway Pavers, Inc. v. Sec. of Interior, 650 F.Supp. 559, 562 (1986) (suggesting "that the relocation or discontinuance of the business [must be] a direct result of the government acquiring the land upon which the business is located" (citation omitted)); Day v. City of Dayton, 604 F.Supp. 191, 197 (S.D.Ohio 1984) (noting that "for someone to be a displaced person, there must be some present nexus between a * * * program or project and the acquisition of that person's property").
We conclude that the MURA definition of "displaced person" should be construed to be broader than the federal act's definition because the MURA definition does not include "direct result" and "project or program" requirements. Cf. Beaty v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., 186 Cal.App.3d 897, 231 Cal.Rptr. 128, 136 (1986) (listing several states, including Minnesota, that have expressly adopted definitions of "displaced person" that are broader than the federal definition).[9]
The record suggests REDA's acquisition of the MG & S property in 1993 proceeded after several REDA meetings where redevelopment of the immediate area was at least discussed. The record does not suggest that REDA contemplated an immediate re-development of the entire area adjacent to and including the MG & S property in 1993. Although relator remained at the property for nearly six years after the acquisition, with the exception of the first year, relator never had more than a month-to-month lease. REDA contemplated additional redevelopment, and, ultimately terminated relator's month-to-month lease to proceed with this redevelopment. As California appellate courts have noted when interpreting California's similar relocation-assistance law:
We cannot accept the [acquiring authority's] contention that its leasing of the property to [the displaced person] for an interim [six-year] period could change [a displaced person's entitlement to relocation assistance]. * * * To accept the [acquiring authority's] interpretation * * * would mean that the vast proportion of tenants who are required to move due to acquisition of real property for public use, would be ineligible for relocation benefits simply because they continued *100 to rent from the [acquiring authority] in the interim.
Superior Strut & Hanger Co. v. Port of Oakland, 72 Cal.App.3d 987, 140 Cal.Rptr. 515, 519 (1977), superseded by statute on other grounds, Melamed v. City of Long Beach, 15 Cal.App.4th 70, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 729 (1993); cf. Albright v. State, 101 Cal. App.3d 14, 161 Cal.Rptr. 317, 320-21 (1979).
Here, where there was temporary use of the acquiring authority's property by the relocation-benefits applicant and continuing efforts by the acquiring authority to redevelop the property, we conclude that relator is a displaced person under MURA and is entitled to relocation benefits because the relocation resulted from an acquisition. Nevertheless, we decline to adopt relator's argument that the passage of time and changed circumstances are irrelevant to a relator's status as a "displaced person," and that a "displaced person" has an indefinite, open-ended claim for relocation benefits. We leave for another day circumstances which might demonstrate that a particular relocation did not result from a chapter 117 acquisition.

III.
After the hearing officer's initial determination that relator was entitled to relocation benefits as a "displaced person," REDA hired Conworth to assist relator in documenting its claims for relocation benefits. Conworth recommended relator be paid $11,433 for its moving expenses[10] and $1,000 for its replacement-site-search costs. Relator disputed this amount and the hearing to determine the proper amount of relator's claims was held.
Relator argues the hearing officer's decision to deny it relocation benefits in excess of $12,433 was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, and decided under an erroneous theory of law. Relator argues the hearing officer's decision was unreasonable because it disregards certain costs incurred during Monk's inventory-liquidation sale and costs associated with storing its remaining property not liquidated at the sale. Relator also argues the hearing officer erred by denying relator payment in lieu of its actual cost claim.
On appeal, this court is to determine whether the agency kept within its jurisdiction and then decide whether the decision of the agency was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of the law or without evidence to support it.
In re Application of Wilkins Pontiac, Inc. for Relocation Benefits, 530 N.W.2d 571, 574 (1995) (citing Markwardt v. State Water Res. Bd., 254 N.W.2d 371, 374 (1977)), review denied (Minn. June 23, 1995).
We conclude the hearing officer's decision to deny relator relocation benefits for hypothetical storage costs was not arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, or decided under an erroneous theory of law. But we conclude the hearing officer's decision to deny relator relocation benefits for possible extraordinary advertising and administrative costs associated with the sale of its inventory at Monk's inventory-liquidation sale was unreasonable because such costs should be considered as actual costs of selling property not to be relocated. Therefore, we remand for additional proceedings to determine the reasonable amount of these costs, if any, and to determine whether relator is entitled *101 to payment in lieu of its actual cost claim.

A. Hypothetical Storage Costs
49 C.F.R. § 24.303(a) (2000) provides that any "displaced person * * * is entitled to payment for such actual moving and related expenses, as the Agency determines to be reasonable and necessary." Expenses for the "[s]torage of * * * personal property for a period not to exceed 12 months, unless the Agency determines that a longer period is necessary," are reimbursable under the federal act. 49 C.F.R. § 24.303(a)(4). Nevertheless, a displaced person is not entitled to "[c]osts for storage of personal property on real property already owned or leased by the displaced person." 49 C.F.R. § 24.305(k) (2000).
The hearing officer concluded relator was not entitled to storage costs for the inventory not sold at Monk's inventory-liquidation sale because the unliquidated property was stored at the homes of family and friends. Therefore, because relator did not actually incur any costs by storing its property at these locations, the hearing officer concluded that these hypothetical storage costs were not "expenses incurred."
Relator's president admitted at the second hearing that he did not incur any actual storage costs by storing the unliquidated inventory at his home and at the homes of family and friends. The federal regulations ensure that an acquisition does not impose any direct financial costs on the property owner. Therefore, we conclude that the hearing officer's decision not to find REDA liable for relator's hypothetical storage costs was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

B. Costs of Selling Inventory Not Relocated
"The reasonable cost incurred in attempting to sell an item that is not to be relocated" is also a reimbursable expense. 49 C.F.R. § 24.303(a)(11). "A displaced person is not entitled to payment for * * * [l]oss of profits," however. 49 C.F.R. § 24.305(d).
The hearing officer rejected relator's claim that it was entitled to reimbursement for certain costs associated with selling its inventory to Monk. The hearing officer found that the only actual cost in selling the inventory to Monk was incurred when relator obtained a going-out-of-business-sale license from the City of Robbinsdale. The hearing officer rejected relator's argument that it was required to pay a pro rata share of the costs associated with selling the inventory not to be relocated because the contract with Monk obligated Monk to absorb these costs. The hearing officer concluded that 49 C.F.R. § 24.303(a)(11) ensures assistance to displaced businesses attempting to relocate permanent fixture-type or immovable items, not inventory or office equipment, which can be relocated. The hearing officer also concluded that 49 C.F.R. § 24.305(d) provides that lost profits are not eligible moving expenses.
We first recognize that, contrary to the hearing officer's conclusion otherwise, there is no authority for the proposition that costs reimbursable under 49 C.F.R. § 24.303(a)(11) are limited to costs incurred to sell fixtures or other immovable items.
We also recognize that relator, no matter how it attempts to construe its agreement with Monk, sold its property to Monk as part of the inventory-liquidation sale. The hearing officer was technically correct that the only obvious identifiable cost of liquidating relator's inventory was *102 incurred when relator obtained the going-out-of-business-sale license. Relator is also correct, however, that Monk must have incurred certain advertising and administrative expenses when it conducted the sale. Elementary economic principles dictate that a rational, profit-maximizing business will not usually engage in commerce without the expectation of compensation. But it is unclear, based on the record, whether a share of these advertising and administrative expenses was imputed in the purchase price of the inventory relator sold to Monk (as relator apparently alleges), whether they were later paid by relator when a final accounting of the sale was conducted, or whether relator was liable for any of these expenses at all (as REDA alleges).
Therefore, we conclude that the hearing officer's decision not to address the actual advertising and administrative expenses possibly incurred by relator was unreasonable and we therefore remand for additional proceedings to determine the reasonable amount, if any, of these actual expenses.
We, however, do not adopt or endorse any particular method of calculating these apparent actual costs, including appellant's calculation methodology on appeal. Relator's total claim for expenses exceeds $130,000 and is more than half of what Monk paid relator for the inventory.[11] Moreover, the "sales-management fee" relator allegedly paid Monk to conduct the sale apparently constituted the remaining net profits from the sale, which indisputably included inventory solely owned by Monk and not involved in the present controversy in any way. Thus, it seems that this was not an actual cost incurred by relator because the net profits generated by Monk's unrelated inventory also contributed to this figure.
Therefore, whether any of these expenses claimed by relator are actually reasonable costs eligible for reimbursement cannot be determined on this record. We must reiterate, however, that on remand the hearing officer's inquiry should focus on those reasonable costs associated with selling relator's inventory on short-notice; for example, any extraordinary business expenses relator incurred by liquidating its inventory at the inventory-liquidation sale, above and beyond those expenses relator would have incurred by selling its remaining inventory in the ordinary course of business. See 49 C.F.R. § 24.1 (2000) (stating that the purpose of the federal act is to treat displaced persons "fairly, consistently, and equitably so that such persons will not suffer disproportionate injuries" (emphasis added)).

C. Payment-in-Lieu Claim
If an agency determines certain criteria are present,
[a] displaced business may be eligible to choose a fixed payment in lieu of the payments for actual moving and related expenses, and actual reasonable reestablishment expenses * * *. Such fixed payment * * * shall equal the average *103 annual net earnings of the business * * * but not less than $1,000 nor more than $20,000.
49 C.F.R. § 24.306 (2000). A payment in lieu of an actual cost claim, however, is subject to several conditions precedent enumerated in 49 C.F.R. § 24.306(a)(1)-(6), (b).
The hearing officer did not make any findings or conclusions about whether relator was entitled to payment in lieu of its actual-cost claim, although relator did raise the issue through correspondence with REDA and at the second hearing. We cannot determine, based on the record before us, whether relator is entitled to payment in lieu of its actual-cost claim. See Lickteig v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 356 N.W.2d 205, 209-10 (Iowa 1984) (noting that a business seeking relocation benefits under Iowa and federal law "must [either] elect between an actual moving expense payment [or] an in lieu payment"). Indeed, it was not until the hearing officer made her second decision regarding the amount of benefits that relator recognized that a payment-in-lieu claim could result in greater compensation for its relocation costs. Therefore, we remand for further proceedings to allow the hearing officer to address relator's payment-in-lieu claim under 49 C.F.R. § 24.306.

IV.
Relator argues that because the hearing officer was the city manager of a neighboring city and because the law firm representing REDA also represents that city, relator's procedural due-process rights were violated. Relator argues this conflict created a situation where REDA's "attorneys were arguing its case to one of its own clients." Relator objected to the hearing officer at the second hearing and the hearing officer admitted that she believed there was some conflict of interest. The hearing officer noted, however, that she did not interact with REDA's attorneys in this case; rather, she explained that she worked with other members of REDA's attorneys' firm.
49 C.F.R. § 24.10(a) provides that appeals should be reviewed "in accordance with the requirements of applicable law and this part."
In deciding an appeal, the Agency shall consider all pertinent justification and other material submitted by the person, and all other available information that is needed to ensure a fair and full review of the appeal.
49 C.F.R. § 24.10(f). The only additional requirement under the federal regulations is that the "official [conducting the appeal] shall not have been directly involved in the action appealed." 49 C.F.R. § 24.10(h).
Constitutional procedural due-process protections protect an individual who is deprived of a property interest.
These protections include reasonable notice, a timely opportunity for a hearing, the right to be represented by counsel, an opportunity to present evidence and argument, the right to an impartial decisionmaker, and the right to a reasonable decision based solely on the record.
Humenansky v. Minn. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 525 N.W.2d 559, 565 (Minn.App. 1994) (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb. 14, 1995); see also CUP Foods, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 633 N.W.2d 557, 562-63 (Minn.App.2001), review denied (Minn. Nov. 13, 2001).
Relator's objection to the hearing officer at the second hearing apparently arose from relator's belief that the hearing officer was biased against relator because she noted in her initial eligibility determination that "it is * * * apparent to me that [relator] is taking advantage of a situation in which REDA acted in good faith, but failed *104 to follow the letter of the law." This statement was made, however, after the hearing officer decided that relator was a displaced person under MURA. The hearing officer's comments detailed the factual history of the case, including the fact that relator and MG & S were initially treated, perhaps innocently and justifiably, as interchangeable business entities by REDA. A thorough review of the record suggests the hearing officer made every attempt to understand the admittedly confusing sequence of events in this case and attempted to fairly apply equally confusing relocation-benefits law to those facts.
We conclude relator's procedural due-process rights were not violated by the hearing officer's conflict of interest (if any) in this case. We direct REDA, however, to appoint a different hearing officer or agency official to conduct the additional proceedings on remand.
As a final matter, we also should note that on several occasions throughout the proceedings and on appeal before this court, relator claimed that REDA was acting in bad faith by denying relator relocation benefits. Not only are these bad-faith allegations unsupported by the record, they border on the absurd. MURA is hardly a model of legislative clarity, and has only been infrequently interpreted by Minnesota appellate courts. REDA's legal arguments were clearly not frivolous and were not inconsistent with either state or federal law.

DECISION
Under MURA, certiorari appeals to this court must be construed from a hearing officer's or other agency official's final decision, and not a subsequent agency action. Relator is a displaced person under MURA because it was displaced as a result of an acquisition by REDA. It was reasonable for the hearing officer to conclude that hypothetical storage costs that were not actually incurred by relator were not reimbursable under MURA. The hearing officer's decision that advertising and other administrative costs that were possibly incurred by relator as part of the inventory-liquidation sale were not reimbursable was unreasonable. Therefore, remand is appropriate for a different hearing officer to determine the proper amount of these extraordinary costs, if any. Remand proceedings should also address relator's payment-in-lieu claim.
Reversed and remanded.
NOTES
[1]  James Senden was relator's president and James Willard was apparently an original shareholder. James Willard also owned MG & S. Although the record is not entirely clear, it appears relator and MG & S were initially treated as the same business entity by respondent. The record also suggests relator and MG & S never attempted to demarcate the differences between the two entities until it served their purposes in this matter.
[2]  "Acquiring authority" is defined as "the state and every public and private body and agency thereof which has the power of eminent domain." Minn.Stat. § 117.50, subd. 5(a) (2000). The parties do not dispute that REDA is an acquiring authority.
[3]  "Judicial review" is not defined in the Code of Federal Regulations.
[4]  Writs of certiorari under Minn.Stat. § 606.01 must be issued within 60 days after the applying party receives notice of the final administrative decision.
[5]  MURA only references the federal act's substantive provisions; it does not expressly incorporate the federal act's procedural provisions, including the federal act's appeal procedure. Although MURA references the "regulations adopted pursuant" to the federal act, it only alludes to the regulations when mandating that the acquiring authority provide the substantive "relocation assistance, services, payments and benefits required by the" federal act. Minn.Stat. § 117.52.
[6]  The Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act (APA) cannot apply because REDA does not have "statewide jurisdiction," Minn.Stat. § 14.02, subd. 2 (2000); State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin, 495 N.W.2d 416, 420 (Minn.1993), and the parties did not elect to be bound by the APA's appeal procedure. See, e.g., Hard Times Café, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 625 N.W.2d 165, 173-74 (Minn. App.2001).
[7]  By so concluding, we adopt the reasoning found in In re Application of Wax`N Works for Relocation Benefits v. City of St. Paul, No. C5-98-1602, 1999 WL 185174 (Minn.App. Apr. 6, 1999).
[8]  For example, the federal act defines "displaced person," in relevant part, as "any person who moves from real property, or moves his personal property from real property * * * as a direct result of * * * the acquisition of such real property in whole or in part for a program or project." 42 U.S.C. § 4601(6)(A) (1994) (emphases added). The MURA definition of "displaced person" neither requires "direct" causation, nor does it require the acquisition be "for a program or project." See Minn.Stat. § 117.50, subds. 3, 4.
[9]  For general background material that discusses the federal act and the interplay between it and its state counterparts, see generally 27 Am.Jur.2d Eminent Domain §§ 942-1046 (1996 & Supp.2001); 7 Fed. Proc. Relocation Assistance and Real-Property Acquisition Proceedings for Federal and Federally Funded Assisted Programs §§ 14:326-439, at 483-544 (1991 & Supp.2001); James Timothy Payne, Annotation, Validity, Construction, and Application of State Relocation Assistance Laws, 49 A.L.R.4th 491 (1986); Catherine R. Lazuran, Annotation, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 33 A.L.R. Fed. 9 (1977).
[10]  The $11,433 included $8,774 for the actual moving of relator's general personal property, $1,284 for the disconnection and removal of relator's alarm system, and $1,375 for the disconnection and removal of relator's telephone system.
[11]  Indeed, if we were to accept relator's argument that it should be reimbursed for all of its claimed expenses associated with the inventory-liquidation sale, relator would reap a total windfall of $374,882.87. This windfall is calculated by adding together the amount Monk paid relator for its inventory ($191,820), relator's share of the net profits from the sale ($48,147.38), relator's claimed pro rata share of the advertising and administrative expenses ($87,461.22), and Monk's "sales-management fee" ($47,454.27). Relator's total windfall would result in a 95% profit over the inventory's $191,820 cost basis. This would be plainly unreasonable. Also, the amount of overdue rent relator owed REDA at the time of its displacement should be deducted from any damage award. See 49 C.F.R. § 24.207(f) (2000).


Republicans going 'whole nine yards' to suppress vote in OH, says former President in advance of DNC speech

UPDATE: Clinton cites GOP voter suppression during DNC speech...

Brad Friedman Byon 9/5/2012, 11:16am PT

"Do you really want to live in a country where one party is so desperate to win the White House that they go around trying to make it harder for people to vote if they’re people of color, poor people or first generation immigrants?," Bill Clinton asked rhetorically on Tuesday night during an event organized by the Arkansas Democratic Party.

In what The Nation's Ari Berman highlighted as a possible "preview" of the former President's remarks tonight in Charlotte, where he'll be headlining at the DNC, Clinton savaged the Republican efforts, particularly in Pennsylvania and Ohio, to suppress the Democratic vote:

“Do you really want to live in a country where one party is so desperate to win the White House that they go around trying to make it harder for people to vote if they’re people of color, poor people or first generation immigrants? “In Pennsylvania, where they passed all these voter ID requirements, the House Republican leader who passed it said it was one of the most important achievements because it will enable Governor Romney to defeat the president in Pennsylvania. “In Ohio, they passed the whole nine yards. The problem was in Ohio you can actually put this stuff on the ballot pretty easily to overturn it. So they went back in—you gotta give it to Republicans, they’re good. They vetoed it, then they snuck in an end to advance voting. Then they allowed the counties—and every county in Ohio has an election commission of three Democrats and three Republicans [Ed Note: actually it's two and two]—to decide if they were going to go around advance voting. The Democrats, we were for it. So in every county that was Republican, Democrats said ‘OK, we’ll have advance voting.’ And in every single county that is overwhelming Democratic, the Republicans voted against allowing advance voting.

Berman goes on to note that Clinton offered similar sentiments during a speech he made last year, when he decried the "Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today":

In last year's speech, a clip of which we'll post again below, Clinton said:

I can’t help thinking, since we just celebrated the Fourth of July and we’re supposed to be a country dedicated to liberty, that one of the most pervasive political movements going on outside Washington today is the disciplined, passionate, determined effort of Republican governors and legislators to keep most of you from voting next time. There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the other Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today.

...

Why is all this going on? This is not rocket science. They are trying to make the 2012 electorate look more like the 2010 electorate than the 2008 electorate.

Will Clinton offer similar sentiments tonight during his speech in Charlotte?

UPDATE 9:10pm PT: In fact, Clinton did give a shout out against GOP voter suppression during his rousing convention speech tonight: "If you want ever American to vote and you think it is wrong to change voting procedures just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority, and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama!"

* * *

The short clip from President Bill Clinton's 7/6/2011 speech to student voters, in which he slammed Republicans for their voter suppression efforts follows below.

* * *

Please support The BRAD BLOG's fiercely independent, award-winning coverage of your electoral system, as available from no other media outlet in the nation, with a donation to help us keep going (Snail mail, more options here). If you like, we'll send you some great, award-winning election integrity documentary films in return! Details right here...


Topically applied products, regardless of their use, usually contain water as one of the primary components. This water provides a medium in which microorganisms can survive or grow. Other ingredients in these formulations can also create a viable growth medium for these organisms, hence such formulations usually contain a preservative system. Preservative systems can be either a single agent or a combination of agents.
An ideal preservative system has a broad-spectrum of activity against all types of microorganisms, including yeast and mold, and gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. The preservative is also ideally effective at low concentrations, to minimize expense and avoid irritation and/or sensitization reactions. The preservative should also be somewhat soluble in an aqueous portion of the formulation, but may also possess a limited solubility in an oleaginous portion of the formulation. Since microorganisms grow in water but fail to grow in media where water is absent, the preservative should be present in that portion of the product where it can be effectively assimilated by the microorganisms.
The preservative should also be compatible with the other ingredients in the formulation, and not react with or otherwise be inactivated by those ingredients. The preservative is ideally colorless and odorless, and remains so throughout the intended shelf-life of the product. It should also be stable throughout the expected life of the product, because many microorganisms can lay dormant in the composition until conditions are later appropriate for growth. If a preservative was unstable and degraded over the shelf-life of the product, contamination could occur once the preservative concentration fell below the threshold necessary to inhibit the growth of the microorganisms. Furthermore, the preservative is ideally stable to any changes in temperature and/or pH encountered during the manufacturing and packaging process, as well as the storage conditions encountered both prior to and after sale to the end user.
The preservative should also be safe, without exerting undesired biological effects on human skin cells. Even at typical use concentrations, many preservatives have the capacity to cause irritation and/or sensitization when in contact with human skin. Furthermore, since the concentrated preservative agents must be handled and incorporated into the product during the manufacturing process, these materials must not present an insurmountable hazard to the production workers making the product.
It is also helpful if the efficacy of the preservative can be assessed by an assay. Although preservative agents can be evaluated by conducting conventional preservative efficacy tests, such testing is slow and worker intensive. Therefore, it is often important to have a agent whose activity can be correlated to more conventional analytical methods for preservatives. Given the complexity of topical formulations and their respective preservative agents, it is unusual for a correlated analytical method to exist. Additionally, the preservative agents must be analyzable in order to ensure the quality of the material as it is received from the manufacturer.
The individual preservative agents are preferably easy to handle in their bulk state, prior to incorporation into a topical formulation, and inexpensive to use. More expensive preservatives are ideally effective at low concentrations to keep costs low.
No single preservative agent fulfills all of these criteria, and the requirements become even more complex when regulatory requirements are added to the criteria. Formulation scientists working in collaboration with microbiologists and analytical chemists expend a significant amount of effort in developing adequate preservative systems for topically applied products in an attempt to satisfy both practical and regulatory requirements.
Emulsion systems [for example, oil-in-water (o/w), water-in-oil (w/o), multiple emulsions including water-in-oil-in-water (w/o/w) and oil-in-water-in-oil (o/w/o) systems], liposomal systems and aqueous-based liquid, gel or suspension systems are the major product forms used for topical delivery systems in cosmetic, skincare, personal care, OTC pharmaceutical, ophthalmic, otic, dermatological and other prescription pharmaceutical products. All of these topical delivery systems contain water, as well as ingredients that support and/or sustain the growth of microorganisms such as bacteria, yeast and molds. Theses products therefore contain preservatives to kill or at least inhibit the growth of microorganisms, usually in low amounts to avoid affecting human skin cells to which they are applied. Government regulatory agencies also may regulate the concentrations of preservatives used, to protect the consumer by reducing the potential for irritation and/or allergic sensitization from topical application.
Some of the more commonly used preservatives in topically applied products include the following materials listed according to their International Nomenclature for Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) name:
______________________________________ Benzoic Acid (and salts) Benzyl Alcohol 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol Chlorhexidine Chloroxylenol Dehydroacetic Acid (and salts) Diazolidinyl Urea DMDM Hydantion Ethyl Alcohol Imidazolidinyl Urea Isothazolinones Paraben Esters Phenethyl Alcohol Phenoxyethanol Quaternim-15 Sorbic Acid (and salts) ______________________________________
The esters of p-hydrobenzoic acid are known as parabens, and include methyl, ethyl, propyl and butyl esters. Higher esters are even more active then the butyl esters, but decreasing solubility makes them less desirable to use. Alcohols that have been used as preservatives include ethyl and isopropyl alcohol, but benzyl and phenylethyl alcohol may also be used. Benzoic acid may be used either as the acid, or as a salt such as sodium benzoate.
Many of the topically applied products use either imidazolidinyl urea (Germall 115.RTM. from Sutton Labs) or diazolidinyl urea (Germall II.RTM. from Sutton Labs), in combination with parabens. However the inventors have found that this commonly used combination causes stinging and burning in many people.
Formaldehyde has been another prominent and potent antimicrobial agent; other agents gradually donate or release formaldehyde. Some countries, such as Japan, restrict the use of "formaldehyde-donating" preservative agents, such as imidazolidinyl urea and diazolidinyl urea, and prohibit the use of "formaldehyde-releasing" preservative agents such as Quaternium-15 and DMDM Hydantoin. Other countries, such as the European Union, are not as restrictive about the types of preservative agents that can be employed, however, they limit the concentration of each agent included in a product.
Which preservative agents to incorporate in a product formulation, and the amount of each agent needed, typically varies from one formulation to another. They may be determined empirically by preservative efficacy testing. Despite the expertise and knowledge in the art of formulation, a formulator often must test each combination of preservative agents and adjuvants used in a particular formulation for its effectiveness against a broad range of microorganisms. This is because it is often not well understood why a particular combination of preservative agents and adjuvants is effective. Moreover, given the potential for irritation and sensitization from preservative agents, an additional objective of the formulator is to create a preservative system that does not cause adverse reactions.
Developing a unique, safe and internationally acceptable preservative system is a complex problem that has been addressed by the present invention. The following description of the preservative system is meant to be representative of the overall technology. Anyone skilled in the art of formulation and/or microbiology will see variations and potential applications for this technology beyond the examples listed. Therefore, the invention is not limited to the formulations represented by these examples, but instead covers a variety of formulations.


Q:

CDI error: Ambiguous dependencies trying to inject EntityManager

I'm facing a strange error while trying to deploy my EJB 3.1 application in a JBoss 7.1.1 application server: WELD-001409 Ambiguous dependencies for type [EntityManager] with qualifiers [@Default] at injection point [[parameter 1] of [constructor] @Inject public br.com.sigga.siot.dao.masterdata.impl.ProfileDAOImpl(EntityManager)]. Possible dependencies [[Resource Producer Field [EntityManager] with qualifiers [@Any @Default] declared as [[field] @PersistenceContext @Produces private br.com.sigga.siot.cdi.JPAProducer.entityManager], Resource Producer Field [EntityManager] with qualifiers [@Any @Default] declared as [[field] @PersistenceContext @Produces private br.com.sigga.siot.cdi.JPAProducer.entityManager]]]
As you can see, the "possible dependencies" points twice to the same EntityManager producer: br.com.sigga.siot.cdi.JPAProducer.entityManager. This field is declared as follows:
@PersistenceContext(unitName = "siotMobility")
@Produces
private EntityManager entityManager;

A similar case was related in WELD-001409 Ambiguous dependencies but I cannot change my application server to Glassfish 4.1. :-)
My development environment: Eclipse Luna, Java 7, Maven 3.x (eclipse's embedded version). I have one Maven project (siot-mobility) with 3 modules (siot-mobility-[ear|ejb|web]).
The EAR module's POM declares the following dependencies:
<dependencies>
    <dependency>
        <groupId>br.com.sigga</groupId>
        <artifactId>siot-mobility-web</artifactId>
        <version>${project.version}</version>
        <type>war</type>
    </dependency>
    <dependency>
        <groupId>br.com.sigga</groupId>
        <artifactId>siot-mobility-ejb</artifactId>
        <version>${project.version}</version>
        <type>ejb</type>
    </dependency>
</dependencies>

Maven EAR plugin configuration:
<plugin>
    <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
    <artifactId>maven-ear-plugin</artifactId>
    <configuration>
        <version>6</version>
        <defaultLibBundleDir>lib</defaultLibBundleDir>
        <modules>
            <webModule>
                <groupId>br.com.sigga</groupId>
                <artifactId>siot-mobility-web</artifactId>
            </webModule>
            <ejbModule>
                <groupId>br.com.sigga</groupId>
                <artifactId>siot-mobility-ejb</artifactId>
            </ejbModule>
        </modules>
    </configuration>
</plugin>

Feel free to ask me about any more info that could help you help me. :-) Thanks in advance.

A:

Error found: the EJB module was present twice in the generated EAR, once on the root path of the EAR file and a second time in the WEB-INF/lib folder of the WAR file.
I changed the dependency declaration in the WAR project's POM file from:
<dependency>
    <groupId>br.com.sigga</groupId>
    <artifactId>siot-mobility-ejb</artifactId>
</dependency>

to:
<dependency>
    <groupId>br.com.sigga</groupId>
    <artifactId>siot-mobility-ejb</artifactId>
    <scope>provided</scope>
</dependency>

This way, the EJB module is not copied to the WEB-INF/lib folder of the WAR file and I have only one EntityManager producer in the generated EAR file.


John Sutherell

Major-General John Christopher Blake Sutherell CB CBE DL (born 23 October 1947) is a former British Army officer who became Commandant of the Royal Military College of Science.

Military career
Educated at Christ's Hospital and Grey College, Durham, Sutherell was commissioned into the Royal Anglian Regiment in 1968. He was made Commanding Officer of 1st Bn Royal Anglian Regiment in 1987 and became Commander of 8th Infantry Brigade in Northern Ireland in 1990. He went on to be Deputy Military Secretary in 1994, Director Special Forces in 1996 and Commandant of the Royal Military College of Science in 1999 before retiring in 2002.

In retirement he has become General Secretary of the Officers' Association. He is also a Deputy Lieutenant of Suffolk.

References

Category:1947 births
Category:Living people
Category:British Army generals
Category:Companions of the Order of the Bath
Category:Commanders of the Order of the British Empire
Category:Royal Anglian Regiment officers
Category:Deputy Lieutenants of Suffolk
Category:Alumni of Grey College, Durham


The analysis reveals a malicious file delivering Hancitor[1]. It's the same kind of document that the one analyzed by Brad a few days ago[2]. Besides the malicious code, what was interesting is this case is the fact that the attacker failed to properly protect his files and allowed directory indexing on the web server:

The file visitor.txt contains lines with the following format:

email|filename|ip

The filename is based on the email address (ex: firstname@domain.tld and UPS_firstname.doc). This is confirmed by VirusTotal where the same hash is referenced with multiple names:

It looks that the file visitor.txt contains all the victims who clicked on the link because the file was growing during my investigations. While redacting this diary, the file contains 11587 lines:

The second interesting file is called block.txt and contains IP addresses (1833 lines). It looks to be addresses used by major companies like Google or Amazon. I presume that visitors coming from one of these IP addresses won't be infected and redirected to a safe page.

What about the victims? They are mainly based in the United States:

Here are the top-20 targeted domains:

The most scaring fact is that such attack remains successful and people still visit suspicious websites. For the last 12 hours, I grabbed the file visitor.txt every 5 minutes and the number of victims what continuously growing (187 new lines):

I'll now have a deeper look at the list of blocked IP addresses and see if the content could be useful for another diary.