Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Files of Nancy lazaryan
i'm done watching this
UTube,Video,NancyLazaryan,Courts,Constitution,Judge Joanne Smith,Probate
 |  |  |  | ||
| |||||
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Sharon Anderson, Candidate for St. Paul City Council hereby submith's legal, financial documents of Nancy Lazaryan, Heir of Evelyn C. Wallace, Quiet Title Action,
City of Maplewood Pltf v. Evelyn C. Wallace, et al Court file #62-C4-06-010365
statement specifically that a Title CompanyCapital Title Corporation Chad Lemmons is forging Probate& Realestate Documents with the understanding that it may affect action by the Federal TradeFTC consumerfraud
Commission or
a federal court. We have used our best efforts to obtain the information requested in this statement. The responses I have provided to the items above are true and contain all the requested facts and information of which I have notice or knowledge. I have provided all requested documents in my custody, possession, or control. Blogger Sharon4Anderson@aol.com know of the penalties for false statements under 18 U.S.C. 5 100 1, 18 U.S.C. $ 162 1, and 18 U.S.C. Q 1623 (five years imprisonmentandlor fines). I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct and as published on www.ademocracy.blogspot.com
Executed on:27Aug07
(Date) Signature /s/ Sharon Anderson ECF: P165913 Pacer:sa1299
Disclaimer: Published at www.ademocracy.blogspot.com re:HOT LINKS:FTC consumerfraud
Okay folks,
You don't understand. The MN legislature, according to our constitution, is given the authority to discipline judges for "misconduct in office"
In the 1970s the legislature enacted a statute that created the "Judicial Board of Standards"..in response to Article 6, Sec. 9 of the MN constitution
...except the legislature "gave" the power to discipline judges over to the judges. www.mncourts.gov
You don't understand. The MN legislature, according to our constitution, is given the authority to discipline judges for "misconduct in office"
In the 1970s the legislature enacted a statute that created the "Judicial Board of Standards"..in response to Article 6, Sec. 9 of the MN constitution
...except the legislature "gave" the power to discipline judges over to the judges. www.mncourts.gov
The legislature also passed laws that said, "the rules of the court, created by the Supreme Court can eliminate the statutes"
...and "whenever the court decides an issue, that matter is LAW..ABOVE the statutes."
Isn't that great? The judges are now writing our laws, even though we hired the legislature to do that jo.
One of the "rules" that the judges made, is that judges can take "tips"...I would rather call it BRIBES.
Another rule that the judges made
...and I mean this, I'm not kidding
...is that the judges do not have to obey the rules.
What has been posted is a complaint against two judges, made to the "Judicial Board of Standards"...that reports to the Supreme Court (and is made up of mostly attorneys and judges)
...instead of reporting to the LEGISLATURE
....some little thing that our constitution says should be done...oh, but don't worry about that, it's just our constitution, right?
One of the judges, Judge Cleary is in a committee that is currently "over" the Judicial Board of Standards...so this Board must figure out if their boss is corrupt.
To "anonymous" that did not have the courage to post his/her name...I am not a "nutball"...I am fighting to make certain that when your butt is hauled into court, you will be afforded a fair and impartial trial.
There are HUNDREDS of people that have had their rights violated by corrupt judges...and we have organized...to STOP the corruption...and introduced a bill in the MN House of Reps and the MN Senate that requires our government to comply with our constitution.
Oh, just something minor...don't worry about it, enjoy your weekend...this "nutball" will fight for your rights, screaming down the streets, with a beanie, shouting, "Judges that are Criminals need to be put in Jail."
In the meantime, enjoy your SUV and cable TV....and hope that you never end up in court before I get my work done.
Chuck, you are wrong.
I don't own the land.
The judge ruled in her Order that I had brought four (4) motions...but I only brought one (1)
....Nancy was charged with public nuisance for posting signs, but it was dismissed, upon Nancy's motion that it was not a park, but that it was private property.
The person that is bringing the quiet title admitted, in front of the judge that he had altered a document and created a deed (forgery).
The judge has been "talking around the water cooler", and decided certain issues based upon information OUTSIDE of the hearing...a violation of due process
...oh, but it is Chuck that is speaking
..he does not understand the concept of due process.
..sorry Chuck, didn't mean to make you THINK.
(and by the way, a current Ramsey County district court judge will be called to testify concerning his personal involvement in a real estate scam....I would suggest people do a "google" search on Bruce Nedegaard...his name was in the paper yesterday...his is one of the "players" in this case...supposedly dead...but maybe Chuck can make certain that Bruce gets properly noticed).
Nancy Lazaryan
nancylazaryan@gmail.com
In a nutshell, I want these judges removed for violating the constitutions of MN and the U.S.
You are reading something that the Supreme Court of Minnesota wants to keep SECRET!!!
This is the FIRST time in the history of Minnesota that an official complaint against a judge, made to the Judicial Board of Standards, has EVER been posted on a website.
The Judicial Board of Standards is supposed to remove judges that have violated the rights of Citizens...but, in over 35 years, they have never done this...and they have DESTROYED the record of the complaints made by Citizens against the judges.
What you are reading is supposed to be "secret"... the Citizens, according to our government, cannot know that a complaint has been made against a judge....
Thank you, Bob, for posting this. www.ademocracy.blogspot.com
Nancy Lazaryan
nancylazaryan@gmail.com
Judge Smiths Bio;
Appointed/Elected:
Appointed by Governor Rudy Perpich on November 10, 1983. Elected in 1986, 1992, 1998, and 2004. Current term expires in January of 2011.
Education:
J.D., honors, Hamline University School of Law, 1977
M.A., highest honors, University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1972
B.A., cum laude, University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1968
Employment:
Assistant Public Defender- Ramsey County, 1979-1983
Law Clerk (Hon. Allen Oleisky)- Hennepin County Court, 1978-1979
Professional Memberships:
Minnesota Women Elected Officials
Minnesota District Judges Association
National Association of Women Judges
Minnesota State Bar Association
Ramsey County Bar Associations
Community Activities:
Board Member- St. Paul Domestic Abuse Project and Crime Victim-Witness Advisory Board
Volunteer Attorney Advisor- For domestic abuse cases
Former Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor
Assistant Director- Dayton Halfway House
Board Member- St. Paul Youth Service Bureau
Professional Activities:
Chief Judge- Second Judicial District Court, 1989-1992
Assistant Chief Judge- Second Judicial District Court, 1987-1988
Chair- Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, 1991-present
Lecturing and Teaching Experience:
From 1979-1981, Judge Smith was an adjunct professor at William Mitchell College of Law. Since then, she has lectured frequently at local high schools on topics such as, the judicial system, the legal process, and women in law.
Additional Information:
Judge Smith was the first woman ever to be elected Chief Judge of a judicial district in the state of Minnesota. http://www.mncourts.gov/
After reading everything that has been posted here I can only comment on my own past experiences with judge Smith and the hundreds of other cases I have personally witnessed in the past 3 and 1/2 years where I sat in her courtroom.
My experience with judge Smith has been excellent, I have sat in her courtroom more than 50 afternoons and heard the cases. I can only speak for what I have observed myself not for the situation Nancy L. has encountered. From my own experience I am very grateful for judge Smith and feel I owe her my life although judge Smith states that I deserve all the credit for where I am at today...But without the help and support I recieved from judge Smith I would most likely still be either in prison or suffering from my addiction. I have personally seen judge Smith help so many others (male & female) put their lifes back together, help them with getting sobriety, getting their children back in a stable environment, jobs, drivers license, taking care of fines, housing, medical whether it be treatment or phychological help or whatever the need may be.
I have also witnessed this particular judge show so much care and concern for offenders to the point when she has been in tears when an offender fails and she has no choice but to send the individual to jail whether it be for the weekend or longer as a consequence for the relapse or whatever the issue may be.
I am not saying that judge Smith may not of made a mistake here, but I cannnot say anything other than gratefulness for what she has done for many of us addicts and/or offenders.
Ok...now you all can attack me for supporting her, but if you had ever been in my position of having lost your children, your home basically taken due to code compliance and facing 10 years in prison then you have this judge appear in your life that offers you the help and support you need when no one else in the system has given you the time of day I think you would feel the same as I do about her. Judge Smith helped me get my freedom, my life and my children back through the court of appeals after my rights had been terminated, she also tried to help with the Jessamine situation but by the time I had brought it to her attention I feel it was to late.
Nancy O.
While Judge Smith may have been good to you Nancy, she is obviously not good to everyone, nor is the city for that matter, and that is why they have these lawsuits against them. We all have the right to be treated the same, and we are not. When people do not agree with you Nancy, theya re not saying they are against you or don't like you, they are saying they don't like the corruption. Because this one judge helped you does not give the right to hurt others who come after you.
The "behind the scenes happenings" with the Ramsey County Court is dirt dirty dirty.
The city of St Paul "rigged" the court with the landlords and now it appears they have again "rigged the court" with Nancy L.
These are not the only times this has happened either, they do it all the time.
Well Bob to call that a summery and then say you don't have a position is interesting. Basicly, you say the City of Maplewood stole the land a repitable law firm forged documents, everybody knows it, they are all in another conspiracy in another town to get the same innocent victim that is being attacked in Saint Paul.
She isn't crazy - its a world wide conspiracy....
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck - waiting on the black helicopters - Repke
Chuck the summary was provided to me. I will not take a position on this until I see how it
The post below is one I deleted and neglected to put back up. Just found it. I think this is "A Democracy's Town Hall drunk". :-) He seems harmless but sure has an obsession with Chuck. Excuse me if I am wrong sir but I am not the first member here wondering if you have a drinking problem.
Bob
Anonymous said;
To sum it up Repke, you are history.............history as inold news my man. Are you trying to be a judge now? I'm afraid that's not your forte Chuck.....tyr lawn service work in one of those flooded out counties around here, I think you'll be more sucessful. I've had about all of your good meaning advice I can stand Repke. You are alway wrong. Good god man , how do you even get the time of day correct? I see a lot of work going on down there by your other building on Payne and Wells. I suppose you are going to turn that whole block into some fancy no selling and no renting condo in the sky conbobalation. Well I got news for ya pal. they ain't gonna sell and there will be no more subsudy from the city so you might as well resign your self to the fact that your going to lose em anyways when you get em dome. Pack in it Chuck, it's allo over for you and all these non profit taxapyer funded overly generous adn ill coneeved nothings that get built the people don't want it. You hear me Repke.....fill those holes in and turn it into a hunting preserve where you can turn a profit. I have a little bit of time and I could help you put up a business model if you like, but in the absense of that, I';m afraid its all over for you. Your extinked Repke. Your hear me RPeke.....;done finishsed over adn out to bed. If i woere you i would find a new line of work. Just some good advice form one froeind ot another.
The city of Maplewood has had some issues lately. Passing laws and other city business in the middle of the night like the appointment of the city manager Greg Coopland is a good example. The police department does an investigation of Mr. Coopland and discovers many things that he is unfit for office. What does Mr. Coopland do, he eliminates the guy that investigated him, it happened to be the deputy chief. This deputy chief had over 20 years of service. He was highly decorated and did not have any citizen complaints against him. The city did not even offer him a lesser job; they just wanted his head for investigating Mr. Coopland. What finally happened was is this deputy chief was let go at the end of last year and he had to go to court to get his job back. The court agreed with the deputy chief and he got his job back with back pay.
The mayor of Maplewood is NUTS. You may think St. Paul is bad, just watch one Maplewood city council meeting. These guys are NUTS, well at least two are ok.
What Nancy is saying fits into the pattern of behavior that is going on down at city hall. In fact Chuck, I believe her because of what I know is happing at many different levels of city government. I can just about name the people who would have no problem in drawing up a fake deed. Some of the people Greg Coopland and the mayor hang around with are very questionable. Chuck just google and you will find out lots of interesting stuff of the mad house Maplewood has become. Chuck, Greg Coopland is a Republican and this should be good reading you.
Below is a web site that has been tracking these individuals and their activities since they took over power three years ago. What is posted there is from the local papers or from the city council minutes. The St. Paul Pioneer Press and Minneapolis papers have done many stories on these crazy Maplewood City folks.
http://www.barkbay.com/voices/summary.asp
It is called Maplewood Voices.
I have first hand knowledge of the goings on in Maplewood and you could fill several blogs with all the dirty stuff that is going on.
Here is some more Maplewood info:
Greg Copeland appointed in the middle of the night
http://www.barkbay.com/coord/storyDetail.asp?story=249&league=voices
Report by WCCO about Maplewood
http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_352081340.html
Another story on Greg Copeland and his management style
http://www.review-news.com/main.asp?SectionID=57&SubSectionID=123&ArticleID=1381
Deputy Chief John Banick incident, city of Maplewood
http://www.barkbay.com/coord/storyDetail.asp?story=309&league=voices
Follow up:
City of Crystal is moving forward in its police chief search. The city has offered the job to former Maplewood Police Deputy Chief John Banick.
http://www.barkbay.com/coord/storyDetail.asp?story=740&league=voices
To consolidate power the new city manager, Greg Copeland changes the Personnel Manual after the difficulty he had trying to get rid of Deputy Chief John Banick because Banick investigated Copeland and found many things that would make him unfit for office.
http://www.barkbay.com/coord/storyDetail.asp?story=306&league=voices
I am waiting for your annoucement Bob. You know? The invitation here to A Democracy to these maplewood City officials. :) it's been a policy around here to let people know we's talkin about them!
Anyone take any bets there isn't one person out there in maplewood with epididymitis like eric and chuck that will come here and say these things ain't true?
Bob said...
I sent out an invitation to the City of Maplewood folks.. Here is a copy of the message left on their city web site.
Hello, to whom it may concern,
My name is Bob Johnson. I am the host of one of the most popular blogs in the metro area. An average of 125,000 readers daily. The name of the blog is-
"A Democracy Town Hall Meeting"
We are currently discussing a case brought against the City of Maplewood by a Nancy Lazaryan.
This notice is to inform you of this discussion that concerns your city council. Some very serious accusations against the City of Maplewood are being cast.Please forward this message to the Mayor and City Council.Please come join us to address these accusations.
http://www.ademocracy.blogspot.com/
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Thanks for inviting Maplewood officials to this blog.
Greg Copeland lived in Florida before he came to Minnesota. He joined the Democratic Party and then Mr. Copeland left the Minnesota DFL Party when he could not be the star he envisioned of himself. Mr. Copeland then joined the Independent Party of Minnesota. After Mr. Copeland saw he was not getting anyplace he joined the Republican Party. Later ran as a Republican for state senator against Mee Moua and lost. Mr. Copeland has also run for a number of offices. The mayor of Maplewood, her husband is a close friend of Mr. Copeland and he also runs a community cable channel show that covers Maplewood issues. The mayor’s husband has been in trouble with the police several times for his behavior. When she became mayor she took out her wrath on these police officers for just doing their job. The mayor is very vindictive. You think Kathy Lantry is bad, Kathy is a saint compared to the mayor of Maplewood. The mayor is also vice chair of the Republican 4th District Congressional Republican Committee. She and Mr. Copeland have fired or forced almost all of the department heads to quit because they would not follow their bizarre ideas or challenged them on their illegal activities. They got rid of the city attorney because he would not do their dirty work. This city attorney had been with the city for over 20 years. He resigned because he had morals.
You talk about the Nazi’s running things, these two Nazis that run Maplewood are pure evil. I do not know Nancy or her case, but I do know who is running city hall and these are very bad people. If Chuck lived in Maplewood he would have enough information to be mayor himself. In fact it would be a wonderful change to have Chuck as mayor of Maplewood. In fact if Chuck moved out here, I would work day and night to get him elected. That is saying a lot because I side with Timmy C. and Bob on the property rights issue. Chuck at least has some brains and Mr. Copeland is a hick from the sticks. In fact he does not even live in Maplewood.
Chuck, not trying to put you down here, but you, Dave Thune and Kathy Lantry look like a white knights compared to Mr. Copeland and the mayor or Maplewood.
Sharon Anderson said...
Issues: Courts of Equity, ie: Judge Joanne Smith, an unmarried woman with NO CHILDREN,also SCAP a Committment Court,has misapplied,overlooked the State & Federal Probate and Realestate Laws, apparantly relying on conflicts of Lawyer,Title Examiner,City Attorney for Maplewood, Chad Lemmons of Capitol Title, MS8.01 mandates the State Attorney General must come in on these serious Judicial Malpractice, having nothing to do with "John Patrick Murphy " at this time, However Judge Joanne Smith's Criminal Conduct to violate our/your Constitutional Rights. Former Police Chief Finneys son out on paid leave as a cop from altercations at Lucy's Bar for over 1 year now is strange, Both Nancy's are victims of the System, unabated by the Judges who apparantly with intent have ruled selectively?
Got my blog back http://sicko-citystpaul.blogspot.com More to come against these Judges before 9/11/07 Primary http://sharon4council.blogspot.com
Friday, August 24, 2007
Separation of Powers Judge Smith v MN Legislature?
E Mail nancylazaryan@gmail.com Notice to the State of Minnesota: All branch's government We the people must hold our government accountable Judge Joanne Smith St.Paul - Google Search chad lemmons minnesota - Google SearchClick here: Minnesota Court Reform Click here: Minnesota Court Reform PETITION to the Minnesota Judicial Board of Standards for Disciplinary Action against Ramsey County District Court Judge Joann Smith and Ramsey County District Court Judge Edward Cleary Now here comes sovereign state Citizen Nancy C. Lazaryan, in propria persona, in summon jure, petitioning this Minnesota Judicial Board of Standards for: The determination that Ramsey County District Court Judge Joann Smith has violated her Oath of Office by denying Petitioner her right of due process, secured by the Minnesota and United States constitutions, and is disciplined by removal from the state office of district court judge, without pension. Alternatively, that Judge Joann Smith be removed from the office of district court judge due to mental disability. ---and--- The determination that Ramsey County District Court Judge Edward Cleary has violated his Oath of Office by engaging in ex parte communication with Judge Joann Smith, and thereby violated of the secured due process rights of the Petitioner, and is disciplined by removal from the state office of district court judge, without pension. Petitioner makes her complaint before this Minnesota Judicial Board of Standards under protest, and reserves her right to bring her complaint before a subsequent Board that is in compliance with the Minnesota constitution. PETITIONER COMPLAINS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Judge Joann Smith, while in the office of district court judge did violate her Oath of Office, by violating a Citizen’s due process rights, when she engaged in ex parte communication with a party to an action, and then used said ex parte communication in making an adverse ruling against the opposing party. Judge Smith’s actions are a violation of Canon 3(A)(7) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. 2. Judge Joann Smith, while in the office of district court judge did violate her Oath of Office, by violating a Citizen’s due process rights, when she engaged in ex parte communication with Ramsey County District Court Judge Edward Cleary and received a letter from Judge Cleary referring to matters in the Petitioner’s case before Judge Smith, and Judge Smith did not immediately recuse herself for bias. Judge Smith’s actions are a violation of Canon 3(A)(7) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. 3. Judge Joann Smith, while in the office of district court judge is unable to properly determine the real property that is the subject matter of a quiet title action, and has made adverse rulings against Petitioner because of this so stated mental disability. 4. Judge Joann Smith, while in the office of district court judge is unable to understand the simple concepts of time, and this so stated mental disability of the judge has violated Petitioner’s right to a fair and impartial trial, said right secured by the Minnesota and United States constitutions. 5. Judge Joann Smith, while in the office of district court judge is to unable to determine what parties are bringing what motions in the action currently before the judge, in which Petitioner is a party. Judge Smith has ruled on several Motions (of Petitioner), which Petitioner never brought.
Petitioner’s right to a fair and impartial trial, said right secured by the Minnesota and
United States constitutions.
6. Judge Edward Cleary, while in the office of district court judge did violate his
Oath of Office, by violating a Citizen’s due process rights, when he engaged in sending
ex parte communication to Judge Smith. In said communication, Judge Cleary attempted
to influence the decisions made by Judge Smith. Said actions by Judge Cleary are a
violation of the Petitioner’s secured rights to a fair and impartial trial and due process,
secured by the Minnesota and United States constitutions. As well, the actions of Judge
Cleary are a violation of Canon 3(A)(7) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct.
FACTS
The facts supporting this Petition are upon the public record in the Ramsey
County district court case file number 62-C4-06-010365.
On August 12, 2007, Petitioner served a Motion upon the opposing parties in said
court case. Petitioner attaches and incorporates said Motion into this Petition and makes
record of the FACTS stated in said Motion. (See attached Exhibit A).
ARGUMENT
A judge of the district court is a public official, required to swear an Oath of
Office. In said Oath of Office, the public official must swear that, while holding said
office, the judge will not violate the Minnesota and United States constitutions.
Evidence has been brought before this Board of Judicial Standards that the so
stated judges have violated their Oaths of Office, in that they have violated the
Petitioner’s rights secured by these constitutions.
The legislature is considering a bill that would require the Board to report the
legislature. Pursuant to the Minnesota constitution, the legislature has the authority to
discipline judges, not the judicial branch.
In this Petition before the Board, the necessity for the Board to report to the
legislature is clear. One of the judges Petitioner complains of, Judge Cleary, sits on the
“special advisory committee” created by the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the
operations of the Minnesota Judicial Board of Standards.
For this current Board to review and consider the Complaint against Judge Cleary
is an enormous conflict of interest, and denial of Petitioner’s constitutionally secured
right of redress.
This Board was established to consider complaints of injuries or wrongs done by
judges, against Citizens; as such, to secure that the Citizens have an ability to bring
complaint, redress, against judges. Because of the conflict of interest, in this Board
considering the complaint against Judge Cleary, Petitioner is denied her right of redress,
and a fair and impartial tribunal to bring her complaint.
Accordingly, Petitioner demands that the current Board recuse itself from hearing
this petition and complaint; and that this petition and complaint be heard in a different
state, or be heard, directly, by the legislature.
Petitioner rests.
August 20, 2007
_______________________
Nancy C. Lazaryan, in propria persona, in summon jure
10734 West Lake Road
Rice, MN 56367
Friday, August 17, 2007
Lazaryan Change of Venue
Disclaimer: Title 26 501(c)3 Public Education
Fiduciary WatchDogs for St. Paul's Finances /Eminent Domain
Judicial Ethics:RepParty v.White_JudicialBrd99- 80pdf
Just Compensations42 USC 3631 Judges As Criminals?
Historic Saint Paul Home
Post a Comment On: A Democracy
Millions-Winnipeg Apts-1033Colne
 | |||
 | |||
Public Notices • City of St. Paul • Private Notices • Foreclosures  • Search Notices • Summary of First Public Notices |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
City St. Paul Malfeasance
Post a Comment On: A Democracy
Disclaimer: Post is transcribed from www.ademocracy.blogspot.com
for Public Education/Scrunity re: Title 26 501(c)3
"Another lawsuit against code enforcement/ More lies & skullduggery from the gestapo housing police force."
130 Comments -
Show Original Post
Collapse comments
- Bob said...
*
**
***
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPEAL
of determination of
LEGISLATIVE
HEARING OFFICER
and
COMPLAINT AT LAW
for DAMAGES
Nancy C. Lazaryan,
Victoria C. Marchetti, and
Evelyn C. Wallace,
and “Other Similarly Situated Persons”
all proceeding in propria persona, in summo jure
Plaintiffs,
v.
The City of St. Paul, a municipal corporation
Mike Kalis, individually and as a code enforcement officer
for the City of St. Paul,
Steve Magner, individually and as a supervisor for the
City of St. Paul department of
Neighborhood Housing and Improvement,
Robert (Bob) Kessler, individually and as director for
the City of St. Paul department of
Neighborhood Housing and Improvement,
ReMax Resources, of Stillwater, Minnesota,
Phad Rich, individually and as broker for ReMax Resources,
Thomas (Tom) Sawyer, individually and as agent for ReMax Resources,
Wells Fargo Mortgage, an Iowa corporation, doing business in the state of Minnesota,
Marcia Moermond, individually, and as Legislative Hearing officer for the City of St. Paul
Defendants Case type: Civil
Court file #______________
______________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: Plaintiffs bring their Complaint at Law pursuant to the
authority of the Minnesota Constitution, whereby this district court has original jurisdiction to
hear this controversy, and Plaintiffs bring their Appeal of the St. Paul Legislative Hearing
Officer pursuant to 18.03 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
10:56 AM
Bob said...
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs are the fee owner (Evelyn C. Wallace) and equitable interest owners (Nancy C.
Lazaryan and Victoria C. Marchetti) of property known as 1033 Colne St, located in the city of
Saint Paul, county of Ramsey, state of Minnesota. Victoria Marchetti is currently residing at said
property.
Evelyn C. Wallace purchased said property as an investment. Nancy C. Lazaryan is the
daughter of Wallace and Marchetti is the daughter of Lazaryan. Wallace purchased the property
at the end of May, 2007. Wallace purchased the property from Wells Fargo. The listing agent
for Wells Fargo was Thomas (Tom) Sawyer. Sawyer is an agent for ReMax Resources in
Stillwater, MN. Phad Rich is the broker/employer of Sawyer.
Sawyer represented the property by listing said property on the “MLS” (Multiple Listing
Service). In said listing, Sawyer included a “Truth in Sale of Housing” inspection report, dated
February 2, 2007. Said report indicated that the property was NOT a “Registered Vacant
Building”.
The sellers, Wells Fargo, required the buyer to hire the title company that the seller had
chosen. Said Title Company did not disclose that the property was a “Registered Vacant
Building.”
4
Wallace lives in Phoenix, AZ. Wallace had Lazaryan inspect the property with her
buyer’s agent, Shannon Lindstrom. Lazaryan and Lindstrom inspected the property, twice,
before the closing. At no time, when Lindstrom and Lazaryan inspected the property, was there
posted a placard that declared the house was a “Registered Vacant Building”.
The house was posted with a notice that the house had been “winterized”, meaning the
plumbing fixtures and traps had been filled with anti-freeze and the water service had been shutoff.
Lazaryan has, in the past, purchased several houses that had been “winterized” and
appreciated the steps taken so that the plumbing system would not be ruined by frozen, burst
pipes.
Marchetti moved into the house at 1033 Colne on or about June 1, 2007. Immediately,
Lazaryan and Wallace invested monies into what are considered “cosmetic” repairs to the
property. Lazaryan and Marchetti used their own labor in making these repairs.
On July 10, 2007, Defendant Mike Kalis approached Plaintiff Marchetti outside of the
house at 1033 Colne St. Kalis informed Marchetti that 1033 Colne St. was a “Registered Vacant
Building” and that Marchetti could not occupy the house. Marchetti called Lazaryan, and
Lazaryan then spoke with Kalis on the phone. Lazaryan told Kalis that they had not been
informed, prior to purchasing and occupying the property, that the house was a “Registered
Vacant Building”. Kalis informed Lazaryan that the “Truth in Sale of Housing” report indicated
that the house was a “Registered Vacant Building”. Under threat of the police removing her
from her home, Marchetti left the premises.
On July 11, 2007, Lazaryan went to the office of the “Neighborhood Housing and
Property Improvement”, on White Bear Avenue, and asked to see the file on 1033 Colne St.
5
Lazaryan copied the file, and noticed serious problems concerning the handling of the procedure
in which 1033 Colne St. was determined to be a “Registered Vacant Building”.
First, the only basis for the determination is an “Inspection Request” form dated May 23,
2006. This inspection request was made because there had been complaints, in May of 2006, of
tall grass and of debris in the driveway.
Second, the “Inspection Request” form, created by Mike Kalis states, “1 story wood
frame single family, house is vacant and secure, house is in fair shape roof needs some work,
elect. off, TG & W Owner Died.” (emphasis added)
Third, three days after making the May 23, 2007 “Inspection Request” document, on May
26, 2007, Defendant Kalis mailed a letter to the DEAD owner, stating, in part: “1033 Colne St is
a Registered Vacant Building that requires a Code Compliance Inspection….The Vacant
Building Registration Form and Registration Fee Must Be received By the Vacant Building
Program Before LIEP May Issue Permits.”
The file that Lazaryan copied on July 11, 2007 shows that this so-stated letter was
returned to Defendant Mike Kalis as undeliverable.
Defendant Kalis then sent another letter to the DEAD owner on June 26, 2006. Said
letter is noticing the DEAD owner that the fee for the vacant building at 1033 Colne is past due.
The June 26, 2006 letter was also returned to Defendant Kalis as undeliverable.
Fourth, the file on 1033 Colne St. is absent ANY housing and/or building code violations
being made against the property.
Fifth, the file on 1033 Colne St. is absent ANY notification being made to Wells Fargo,
the holder of the mortgage (and thereby an owner of equitable interest), by the Defendants Kalis
and the City of Saint Paul.
6
Upon reviewing the file on 1033 Colne, and making copies, Lazaryan, on July 11, 2007,
immediately drove to downtown Saint Paul to meet with Defendants Steve Magner and Robert
(Bob) Kessler. Lazaryan reviewed with Magner and Kessler the copies of the file of 1033 Colne
St. Lazaryan expressed her concerns about notice and due process. Magner informed Lazaryan
that the property had multiple housing/building violations. Lazaryan asked Magner to show
Lazaryan where, in the file, these violations existed. Magner and Kessler simply responded that
they could not assist Lazaryan.
Lazaryan then went to the office of Saint Paul City Council member Helgen. Lazaryan
met with Helgen and voiced her concerns about violations of due process. Lazaryan asked to
meet with the Saint Paul City Council. Helgen denied Lazaryan’s request and told Lazaryan to
file an appeal with the Legislative Hearing Officer.
Lazaryan then filed an appeal of the “Vacant Building Registration” with the city clerk of
Saint Paul, and scheduled an appeal to be made before Defendant Moermond, the Legislative
Hearing Officer. After filing her Appeal, Lazaryan contacted the buyer’s agent, Shannon
Lindstrom and asked Lindstrom to read the “Truth in Sale of Housing” report that was provided
by the seller, Defendants Wells Fargo and Thomas (Tom) Sawyer. The box for “Vacant
Building” was NOT checked.
Lazaryan then went back to the office of the City of St. Paul department of Neighborhood
Housing and Improvement, located on White Bear Avenue. Lazaryan asked for a “certified
copy” of the “Truth in Sale of Housing” report from the file of 1033 Colne St., stating that
Lazaryan’s records showed that “vacant building” was NOT checked.
7
The office staff said, “oh yes, the vacant building box was checked.” Defendant Kalis
was standing in the lobby next to Lazaryan and said, “No, give her the report that was NOT
checked.” Lazaryan then acquired a certified copy of the report, and the box next to vacant
building was not checked.
On July 24, 2007, Lazaryan appeared before Defendant Marcia Moermond, Legislative
Hearing Officer for the City of Saint Paul. Lazaryan went through the above stated problems
with the file concerning 1033 Colne St. Lazaryan stated the mortgage company had not been
noticed. Lazaryan asked what was the basis, under the ordinance for the “Registered Vacant
Building” status. Defendant Moermond stated, “It is right there, in your hand.” The “Inspection
Request” form dated May 23, 2006 was in Lazaryan’s hand. Lazaryan raised the document and
showed it to Defendant Moermond, stating, “Where on this document does it say anything about
multiple building or housing violations?” Defendant refused to answer and summarily denied
Lazaryan’s appeal.
On August 10, 2007, Lazaryan appeared before the Saint Paul City Council in an attempt
to convince the council to reverse the determination of Defendant Moermond. Lazaryan
reviewed the matters that had been presented to Moermond, including the violation of due
process, secured by the Minnesota and U.S. States constitutions. Lazaryan asked for the council
to look at the documents in the file for 1033 Colne St. The city council did not have the file on
1033 Colne St., as such, there was no evidence before the council. The Saint Paul City Council
denied Lazaryan’s request to reverse the determination of Defendant Moermond.
At said council meeting on August 1, 2007, Lazaryan made a request to the city clerk for
public documents, pursuant to the Minnesota Data Practices Act, and sought to review ALL files
of the “Registered Vacant Buildings” in the city of Saint Paul.
8
Lazaryan has since begun communication with the city clerk for Saint Paul, concerning
inspection of other similarly situated “registered vacant buildings”. This case has named “Other
Similarly Situated Persons” as Plaintiffs in this action. As evidence becomes available of
tortuous actions by the Defendants against “Other Similarly Situated Persons”, these so stated
persons will be enjoined as additional, named Plaintiffs.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Defendant City of Saint Paul is a “charter city” as defined by Minnesota statutes.
2. Defendant City of Saint Paul has established a “legislative code” defining certain
functions of the government of the City of Saint Paul.
3. Chapter 43 of said legislative code concerns the matter of “vacant buildings” within the
City of Saint Paul.
4. In said Chapter 43, Sec. 43.02 “Definitions” states:
“(7) Vacant building: A building or portion of a building which is:
a. Unoccupied and unsecured;
b. Unoccupied and secured by other than normal means;
c. Unoccupied and a dangerous structure;
d. Unoccupied and condemned;
e. Unoccupied and has multiple housing or building code violations;
f. Condemned and illegally occupied; or
g. Unoccupied for a period of time over three hundred and sixty-five (365)
days and during which time the enforcement officer has issued an order to
correct nuisance conditions.
(8) Code violation: violations of any code adopted and/or enforce by the city,
which may include but not be limited to the St. Paul Legislative Code, codes
covering plumbing, electrical, mechanical or building construction, installation or
maintenance standards, zoning or fire codes.”
5. Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, Sec. 43.08 states, in part:
“Nothing is in this chapter shall be deemed to abolish or impair existing
remedies of the city authorized under Chapter 33, 34, 45 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code or Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 through 463.26.”
(emphasis added)
9
6. M.S. Sec. 463. defines and proscribes the necessary steps for the Defendant City of Saint
Paul to take. See the law as follows:
“M.S Sec. 463.15 DEFINITIONS.
Subd. 3. Hazardous building or hazardous property. "Hazardous building or
hazardous property" means any building or property, which because of inadequate
maintenance, dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary condition, or
abandonment, constitutes a fire hazard or a hazard to public safety or health.
Subd. 4. Owner, owner of record, and lien holder of record. "Owner," "owner
of record," and “lien holder of record" means a person having a right or interest
in property described in subdivision 3 and evidence of which is recorded in the
office of the county recorder or registrar of titles in the county in which the
property is situated.
M.S. Sec. 463.17 THE ORDER.
Subdivision 1. Contents. The order shall be in writing; recite the grounds
therefor; specify the necessary repairs, if any, and provide a reasonable time
for compliance; and shall state that a motion for summary enforcement of the
order will be made to the district court of the county in which the hazardous
building or property is situated unless corrective action is taken, or unless an
answer is filed within the time specified in section 463.18.
Subd. 2. Service. The order shall be served upon the owner of record, or the
owner's agent if an agent is in charge of the building or property, and upon the
occupying tenant, if there is one, and upon all lien holders of record, in the
manner provided for service of a summons in a civil action. If the owner cannot
be found, the order shall be served upon the owner by posting it at the main
entrance to the building or, if there is no building, in a conspicuous place on the
property, and by four weeks' publication in the official newspaper of the
municipality if it has one, otherwise in a legal newspaper in the county.
Subd. 3. Filing. A copy of the order with proof of service shall be filed with the
court administrator of district court of the county in which the hazardous building
or property is located not less than five days prior to the filing of a motion
pursuant to section 463.19 to enforce the order. At the time of filing such order
the municipality shall file for record with the county recorder or registrar of
titles a notice of the pendency of the proceeding, describing with reasonable
certainty the lands affected and the nature of the order. If the proceeding be
abandoned the municipality shall within ten days thereafter file with the county
recorder a notice to that effect.” (emphasis added)
7. The Saint Paul Legislative Code defines “Owner” in Chapter 43 as follows:
“Sec. 43.02 Definitions
(3) Owner. Those shown to be the owner or owners on the records of the Ramsey
County Department of Property Taxation, those identified as the owner or owners
on a vacant building registration form, holder of an unrecorded contract for deed,
10
a mortgagee or vendee in possession, a mortgagor or vendor in possession,
assignee of rents, receiver, executor. Trustee lessee, other person, firm or
corporation in control of the freehold of the premises or lesser state therein.”
(emphasis added)
8. In May of 2006, Defendants City of Saint Paul and Mike Kalis knew that the “owner”
had died. The record is clear that said Defendants did not contact the “other owners of record”,
specifically the mortgage owner of record, concerning the “Registered Vacant Building”
determination made by these Defendants.
9. The record is clear that Defendants City of Saint Paul, Mike Kalis, Steve Magner and
Bob Kessler failed to make a public record at the Ramsey County Recorder’s Office of the
“Registered Vacant Building” determination.
10. On May 23, 2006, Defendant Mike Kalis created the document entitled “Inspection
Request” on the property known as 1033 Colne St. (See Exhibit “A” Documents from
Lazaryan’s appeal to the St. Paul Legislative Hearing Officer)
11. In said document, Defendant Kalis states: “1 story wood frame single family, house is
vacant and secure, house is in fair shape roof needs some work, elect. off, TG & W Owner
Died.”
12. Defendant Kalis never issued any “Housing and/or Building” code violations on the
property known as 1033 Colne St.
13. On May 26, 2006 Defendant Kalis determined the property at 1033 Colne St. was a
“Registered Vacant Building”, and sent notice of his determination to the DEAD owner of the
property. (See Exhibit “A” Documents from Lazaryan’s appeal to the St. Paul Legislative
Hearing Officer)
14. Said May 26, 2006 letter was returned to Defendant Kalis as undeliverable. (See Exhibit
“A” Documents from Lazaryan’s appeal to the St. Paul Legislative Hearing Officer)
11
15. On June 26, 2006 Defendant Kalis sent an additional letter to the DEAD owner stating
that the fee for the vacant building at 1033 Colne St. is past due. (See Exhibit “A” Documents
from Lazaryan’s appeal to the St. Paul Legislative Hearing Officer)
16. Said June 26, 2006 letter was also returned to Defendant Kalis as undeliverable. (See
Exhibit “A” Documents from Lazaryan’s appeal to the St. Paul Legislative Hearing Officer)
17. Defendant Kalis never noticed the mortgage holder, an owner of the property at 1033
Colne St. of the “Registered Vacant Building” determination.
18. Defendant City of Saint Paul never filed a Notice with the Ramsey County Recorder of
the “Registered Vacant Building” determination on 1033 Colne St.
19. Defendant City of Saint Paul and Defendant Moermond failed to prove by evidence that
the City taken the steps proscribed by law to determine the property at 1033 Colne St. conformed
to the legal definition of a “Registered Vacant Building”.
20. Defendant City of Saint Paul failed to provide the Saint Paul City Council the record of
the file on the property at 1033 when Lazaryan appeared before council on August 1, 2007. Said
appearance by Lazaryan, was an attempt by Lazaryan to have said council remove the
“Registered Vacant Building” determination from the property.
21. On May 23, 2006 the building at 1033 was vacant and secure. The Owner had died.
There is nothing in the record that shows HOW long the building had been vacant.
22. Plaintiffs have invested substantial amounts of monies and labor into the property at 1033
Colne St. Said property was purchased, as an investment, to improve and to sell. Plaintiffs are
experiencing considerable financial losses because of the actions of the Defendants.
12
ARGUMENT
Based upon the above evidence, Plaintiffs bring before the court their Argument for
Appeal of the Saint Paul Legislative Hearing Officer, pursuant to Sec 18.03 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code. Following this argument Plaintiffs will raise their complaint against
Defendants for damages.
1. Defendants City of Saint Paul, Kalis, Magner and Kessler failed to follow the
proscribed law in making the determination that 1033 Colne St. would be put into the
status as a “Registered Vacant Building”.
The Legislative Code for the City of Saint Paul is clear. There must be multiple housing
and/or building code violations on a vacant building to determine the property is defined as
“Vacant”. Alternatively, there must be “nuisance violations” over a period of 365 days. In this
case there were TWO nuisance complaints prior to the property being determined “Vacant”. The
actual “summary abatements” did not occur until AFTER the building was deemed “Vacant”.
Thereby, Defendants failed to meet the legal criteria required to determine that the house
on 1033 Colne St. is a “Registered Vacant Building”.
2. Defendants City of Saint Paul, Kalis, Magner and Kessler failed to follow the
proscribed law in noticing the owners of record that 1033 Colne St. was put into the status
as a “Registered Vacant Building”.
Notice was NEVER sent to Wells Fargo, a mortgage holder, duly recorded with the
Ramsey County Recorder, and thereby an “owner” by definition. Wells Fargo received NO
notice of the nuisance complaints, determination that the property was a “Registered Vacant
Building”, or the “summary abatements”. (See Exhibit “A” Documents from Lazaryan’s appeal
to the St. Paul Legislative Hearing Officer, “Stamp-Activities” page)
As such, Defendants failure to properly notice the owners of the property, renders the
determination by the administrative agency null and void.
13
3. Defendants City of Saint Paul, Kalis, Magner and Kessler failed to follow the
proscribed law in noticing the public of the record that 1033 Colne St. was put into the
status as a “Registered Vacant Building”.
Notice was never recorded in the Ramsey County Recorders Office of ANY action that
was taken by the City of Saint Paul, against 1033 Colne St.
See the law as follows:
“Requirement of notice and fair opportunity to be heard is basic to administrative law.”
Chocolate Mfrs Assn. of U.S. v. Block, 755 F.2d 1096
Absent the required public notice, Plaintiffs were unaware of the Defendants
determination that the property was a “Registered Vacant Building”. As such, said
determination cannot be “used against” Plaintiffs, as they had no notice.
4. Defendants City of Saint Paul, Kalis, Magner and Kessler noncompliance with the
law establishes the determination that 1033 Colne St. is a “Registered Vacant Building”
was issued without authority of law, and is thereby void on its face.
The courts are well-settled that pubic officials must proceed in accordance with the law.
See as follows:
“The authority of public officers to proceed in a particular way and only upon specific
conditions as to such manners implies a duty to not proceed in any manner other that that
which is authorized by the law.” First Nat. Bank v. Flier, 107 Fla. 526, 148 So 204, 67
ALR 267.
“When the right to do a thing depends upon legislative authority, and the legislature has
failed to authorize it, or has forbidden it, no amount of acquiescence or consent or
approval of the doing of it by a ministerial officer can create a right to do the thing which
is unauthorized or forbidden.” Department of Insurance v. Church Members Relief Assoc.
217 Ind 58, 26 NE(2d) 51, 128 ALR 635.
“Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such powers as the
statute confers on them. Their powers must be exercised in accordance with the statute
bestowing such powers, and they can act only in the mode prescribed by statute.” United
States ex. rel Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm. 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187.
“Agency action is ultra virus when agency has acted beyond scope of its defined
authority.” Kenda Rubber Indus. Co,, Ltd. v. U. S., 630 F. Supp. 354.
14
“Administrative actions taken in violation of statutory authorization or requirement are of
no effect.” U.S. v. Amdahl Corp., 786 F. 2d 387.
“Agencies must respect statutory limits on their discretion, and agency deviation from its
own regulations and procedures may justify judicial relief in case otherwise properly
before the court.” 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 551 et seq., 551(4), 553(a)(1), (b) (A,B), (c), Jean v.
Nelson, 727 F. 2d 957, rehearing denied 733 F.2d 908, certiorari granted 105 S.Ct. 563,
469 U.S. 1071, 83 Led.2d 504, affirmed 105 S. Ct. 2992, 472 U.S. 846, 86 L ed.2d 664.
Defendants City of Saint Paul, Kalis, Kessler and Magner all failed in their ministerial
duties to perform in accordance with the Saint Paul Legislative Code and the Minnesota Statutes.
The building at 1033 Colne St. did not meet the established criteria necessary to
designate the building as a “Registered Vacant Building.”
The so-stated above Defendants did not properly notice the owner(s) of the building of
ANY violations…nuisance, building or housing code violations.
There have NEVER been any building and/or housing code violations on the property
known as 1033 Colne St.
The so-stated above Defendants disregarded the law, and, without authority of law,
designated the property at 1033 Colne as a “Registered Vacant Building”.
As such, it is the duty of this court to remove the “Registered Vacant Building”
determination from the property known as 1033 Colne St., Saint Paul, Minnesota.
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AT LAW FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiffs incorporate the evidence and arguments in the foregoing “appeal” into this
Complaint at Law for Damages, and state as follows:
15
COUNT ONE
Defendants City of Saint Paul; Defendants Kalis, Magner and Kessler, in their capacity as agents
for the City of Saint Paul, and individually, did knowingly deprive Plaintiffs of their
constitutionally secured right to property when they unlawfully designated the property known as
1033 Colne St., Saint Paul, Minnesota, as a “Registered Vacant Building”.
COUNT TWO
Defendants City of Saint Paul; Defendants Kalis, Magner and Kessler, in their capacity as agents
for the City of Saint Paul, and individually, did knowingly violate their duty to properly notice
the owners of said property of their designation of “Registered Vacant Building”, and by their
failure to properly notice said owners, Plaintiffs have been deprived use and enjoyment of the
property, without due process of law.
COUNT THREE
Defendant City of Saint Paul, in their agent Defendant Kalis, as well as Defendant Kalis in his
individual capacity, after having knowingly failed to notice the owners of 1033 Colne of the
“Registered Vacant Building” determination, did threaten Plaintiff Victoria Marchetti and did
force her from the property, denying her full use and enjoyment of the property.
COUNT FOUR
Defendants Magner and Kessler, in their capacity as agents for Defendant City of Saint Paul, and
in their individual capacities, did violate Plaintiffs right of due process, secured by the Minnesota
and U.S. constitutions, when said Defendants asserted to Plaintiff Lazaryan, on July 11, 2007,
that the property at 1033 Colne St. had multiple housing/building code violations, when, in fact
no such violations existed. And, that based upon these false assertions, said Defendants refused
to retract the “Registered Vacant Building” determination on said property.
16
COUNT FIVE
Defendant Moermond, in her capacity as agent for the City of Saint Paul and in her individual
capacity, did violate Plaintiff Lazaryan’s due process rights, secured by the Minnesota and U.S.
constitutions, when Moermond, on July 24, 2007, falsely determined that the document
“Inspection Request” contained multiple building/housing violations.
COUNT SIX
Defendant Moermond, in her capacity as agent for the City of Saint Paul and in her individual
capacity, did violate Plaintiff Lazaryan’s due process rights, secured by the Minnesota and U.S.
constitutions, when Moermond, on July 24, 2007, denied Lazaryan’s appeal to remove the
“Registered Vacant Building” determination on 1033 Colne St.
COUNT SEVEN
Defendant City of Saint Paul failed to provide to the Saint Paul City Council the file on 1033
Colne St., when Plaintiff Lazaryan appeared before said council on August 1, 2007. Failure of
the Defendant to provide said file, to said council, violated the Plaintiff’s right of due process,
secured by the Minnesota and U.S. constitutions.
COUNT EIGHT
Defendants Wells Fargo, Phad Rich and Thomas (Tom) Sawyer failed in their responsibility,
under the law, to fully disclose to Plaintiffs any restrictions against the full use and enjoyment of
the property they sold to Plaintiff Evelyn Wallace, and that Plaintiffs Lazaryan and Marchetti
took possession of.
17
ARGUMENT
Defendants City of Saint Paul, Kalis, Magner, Kessler and Moermond have, by their
actions, systematically, individually and jointly deprived Plaintiffs of full use and enjoyment of
the property known as 1033 Colne St., Saint Paul, Minnesota.
As fully argued in Plaintiffs’ above Appeal, these so-stated Defendants have complete
disregard for the Saint Paul Legislative Code, the Minnesota Statutes and the Minnesota and U.S.
constitutions. Public officers who so flagrantly disregard the law and inflict injury and harm
upon the Citizens can be sued for the damages they cause. See the law as follows:
“If a public officer authorizes the doing of an act not within the scope of his authority, he
will be held liable.” Bailey v. New York, 3 Hill (NY) 531, 38 Am Dec 669, affirmed in 2
Denio 433.
“It is a general rule that good faith and absence of malice constitute no defense in an
action to hold a ministerial officer liable for damages caused by his nonfeasances or
misfeasances. Amy v. Supervisors (Amy v. Barkholder) 11 Wall. (US) 138, 20 L ed 101;
“for an officer is under a constant obligation to discharge the duties of his office, and it is
not necessary to show that his failure to act was willful or malicious, 95 Am St Rep 74.
“And this is likewise the rule in respect of officers with discretionary powers who have
exceeded their jurisdiction and have acted without authority of law.” Stiles v Lowell
(Stiles v. Morse) 233 Mass 174, 123 NE 615, 4 ALR 1365.
“The officers of the law, in the execution process, are obligated to know the requirements
of the law, and when they mistake them, whether through ignorance or design, and
anyone is harmed by their error, they must respond in damages.” Roger v. Marshal
(United States use of Rogers v. Conklin) 1 Wall. (US) 644, 17 L ed. 714.
It is a general rule that an officer---executive, administrative, quasi-judicial, ministerial,
or otherwise---who acts outside the scope of his jurisdiction and without authority of law
may thereby render himself amenable to personal liability in a civil lawsuit.” Cooper v.
O’Connor, 69 App DC 100, 99 F 2d 135, 118 ALR 1440; Chamberlain v. Clayton, 56
Iowa 331, 9 NW 237, 41 Am Rep 101.
“If he exceeds the power conferred on him by law, he cannot shelter himself by the plea
that he is a public agent acting under the color of his office”, Nelson v. Babcock, 188
Minn 584, 248 NW 49, 90 ALR 1472; “or that the damage was caused by an act done or
omitted under color of office, and not personally.” First Bank v. Flier, 107 Fla 526, 145
So 204, 87 ALR 267.
18
Defendants City of Saint Paul, Kalis, Magner, Kessler and Moermond all acted outside of
the scope of their jurisdiction, and thereby, without authority of law, when said Defendants
blatantly ignored the restraints placed upon them by the Saint Paul Legislative Code, the
Minnesota statutes and the Minnesota and U.S. constitutions. As such, as a matter of law, they
are liable to the Plaintiffs for the damages they caused.
Defendants Wells Fargo, Phad Rich and Thomas (Tom) Sawyer were required, as owner
of the property and agent sellers of the property, to fully disclose any problems the purchaser
would have in the full use and quiet enjoyment of the property that they sold. Had said
Defendants exercised due diligence and examined the records of the City of Saint Paul, they may
have found the “Registered Vacant Building” determination.
Instead, said Defendants presented to the Plaintiffs a “Truth in Sale of Housing”
document that stated, clearly, that the property at 1033 Colne St. was NOT a “Registered Vacant
Building.” It was upon the information contained within this document, that the Plaintiffs
purchased and occupied the property.
Defendants Wells Fargo, Phad Rich and Thomas (Tom) Sawyer committed fraud upon
the Plaintiffs by representing to the Plaintiffs that the property was NOT a “Registered Vacant
Building.”
Plaintiffs are 99% complete in the repairs to the property. Three potential buyers have
are no longer interested in the property, because of the “Registered Vacant Building” status. The
actions of the Defendants have severely damaged Plaintiffs, in that Plaintiffs are unable to
recover the monies invested in the property.
19
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs respectfully seek an Order from the court as follows:
1. Dismissing the agency determination that the property at 1033 Colne is a
“Registered Vacant Building”.
2. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count One
3. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count Two
4. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count Three
5. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count Four
6. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count Five
7. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count Six
8. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count Seven
9. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count Eight
10. Punitive Damages in excess of $1,000,000.00 against Defendant City of St. Paul.
Plaintiffs rest.
August_____, 2007
_____________________
Nancy C. Lazaryan, proceeding in propria person, in summo jure
10734 West Lake Road
Rice, MN 56367
____________________
Victoria C. Marchetti, proceeding in propria person, in summo jure
1033 Colne St.
Saint Paul, MN 55103
_______________________
Nancy C. Lazaryan, attorney-in-fact for Evelyn C. Wallace,
proceeding in propria person, in summo jure
9613 Glenside Court
Sun Lakes, AZ 85248
Friday, August 10, 2007
Nancy Lazaryan Video1Aug07
Blogger: A Democracy - Post a Comment
Forensic Evidence from Blogger Bob Johnson sometimes confused with
www.co.anoka.mn.us County Attorney Robert Johnson
Hi All,
I have linked a video of Nancy Lazaryan addressing the City Council on this issue.
Please click above for the video.
Nancy Lazaryan Attorney-in-Fact
With great respect for Nancy Lazaryan Propria person and Attorney in Fact: This Blog is Legal Reference to Unpublished Opinions-Judicial Malpractice:Nancy Lazaryan Minnesota - Google Search
AGENDA
|
AGENDA
COMMITTEE ON RULES OF
THE BOARD ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS
Friday, June 8, 2007
10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Room 144, Freeman Building
I. Welcome and Introductions
- Hon. Gary Pagliacetti, Committee Chair
II. Statement of the Charge
- Hon. Gary Pagliacetti, Committee Chair
III. Historical Overview of the Board on Judicial Standards
- Justice Paul Anderson
- DePaul Willette
IV. Overview of the Rules of the Board on Judicial Standards
- Kelly Mitchell
V. Suggestions for Change in the Rules from the Board on Judicial Standards
- David S. Paull, Executive Secretary
VI. Notes and Suggestions from the Office of the Supreme Court Commissioner
- Rick Slowes, Supreme Court Commissioner
VII. Minnesota District Judges Association Recommendations
- Hon. Charles Porter
VIII. Citizen Comments
- Tim Kinley
- Greg Wersal
- Jill Clark
- Nancy Lazaryan
IX. Committee Members Comments and Suggestions for Changes in the Rules
X. Agenda for Future Meetings
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
"Ramsey County Court Corrupted by St Paul City Officials"
2 Comments -
Show Original Post
Collapse comments
Hi All,
Here is a motion for change of venue from Nancy Lazaryans case against the city. If you are new here you can find Nancys story a few topics down the list titled "Another Lawsuit Against code enforcement/more lies and skullduggery from the gestapo housing police force".
The motion is telling of what the RICO plaintiffs have been up against.
The courts are FIXED! There is no justice for the citizens of Saint Paul unless you can get into federal court.
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Nancy C. Lazaryan,
Victoria C. Marchetti, and
Evelyn C. Wallace,
and “Other Similarly Situated Persons”
all proceeding in propria persona, in summo jure
Plaintiffs,
v.
The City of St. Paul, a municipal corporation
Mike Kalis, individually and as a code enforcement officer
for the City of St. Paul,
Steve Magner, individually and as a supervisor for the
City of St. Paul department of
Neighborhood Housing and Improvement,
Robert (Bob) Kessler, individually and as director for
the City of St. Paul department of
Neighborhood Housing and Improvement,
ReMax Resources, of Stillwater, Minnesota,
Phad Rich, individually and as broker for ReMax Resources,
Thomas (Tom) Sawyer, individually and as agent for ReMax Resources,
Wells Fargo Mortgage, an Iowa corporation, doing business in the state of Minnesota,
Marcia Moermond, individually, and as Legislative Hearing officer for the City of St. Paul,
Defendants Case type: Civil
Court file #______________
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs hereby move the court for a CHANGE OF VENUE.
FACTS
Plaintiffs are in possession of certain evidence that has been used in the federal RICO
lawsuit against Defendant City of Saint Paul and the employees of said Defendant (also named in
this case).
MOTION
for
Change of Venue
2
Said evidence proves that Defendant City of Saint Paul manipulated the Ramsey County
district court by meeting and conspiring with former Chief Judge Mott of the Ramsey County
district court. In said meetings with Judge Mott, the City of Saint Paul convinced Judge Mott to
assign only a certain judge and certain alternate judges to cases that concerned the City of Saint
Paul. Judge Mott also agreed that a list of particular judges would never be assigned to hear
cases involving the City of Saint Paul.
The City of Saint Paul then conducted private “seminars” with the “selected” judges, and
instructed said judges on how the judges would rule in the cases brought before them.
This so-stated evidence is currently on the public record in the federal RICO case that has
been brought against the City of Saint Paul.
Given the fact that the City of Saint Paul has effectively manipulated the Ramsey County
district court, Plaintiffs’ right to a fair and impartial trial would be violated by having Plaintiffs’
case heard in the Ramsey County district court.
As such, Plaintiffs move for a Change of Venue…preferably at a location that is very far
away from Saint Paul, Minnesota.
In the alternative, Plaintiffs ask that they can “choose a judge” from the list of judges that
the City of Saint Paul had agreed with Judge Mott, “would never hear a case concerning the City
of Saint Paul.”
Plaintiffs rest.
August_____, 2007
11:29 AM