Antonio Padilla v. Sally Hulse, Osage County Treasurer, et al.

QUESTION NO. 1: Did the county treasurer – following the return of a pre-sale, tax resale notice statutorily mailed by certified mail, and then following up with merely a subsequent first class mailing – fail to meet the “additional reasonable steps” standard of Jones v. Flowers, 126 S. Ct. 1708 (2006) for providing minimum constitutional notice by failing to post said notice to the entrance to the premises accessible only by a readily discoverable gate, when the treasurer testified that there were no impediments relative to manpower or costs for posting a notice to the gate, and when the treasurer knew, or had reason to know, that the premises was being used for business activities? QUESTION NO. 2: Did the trial court fail to meet the “additional reasonable steps” standard of Jones v. Flowers, 126 S. Ct. 1708 (2006) for providing minimum constitutional notice by emphatically and insistently relying on a non-existent fact for in support of its ruling? QUESTION NO. 3: Did the trial court violate the minimum constitutional notice requirements set forth in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 70 S.Ct. 652 (1950) by affirming service by first class mail upon the Petitioner at an address of his ex-wife following the return of a pre-sale, tax resale notice statutorily mailed by certified mail?