Custom Search

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

House File 49

Please click onto the comments for the post.

11 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

File Number: H.F. 49
Date: February 21, 2007
Version: As Introduced
Status: Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee
Authors: Lesch
Subject: Public nuisance/criminal gang activity
Analyst: Matt Gehring, 651-296-5052
This publication can be made available in alternative formats upon request. Please call 651-296-6753
(voice); or the Minnesota State Relay Service at 1-800-627-3529 (TTY) for assistance. Summaries are
also available on our website at: www.house.mn/hrd/hrd.htm.
Overview
This bill classifies certain gang activities and the habitual use of particular
places for gang activity as a public nuisance. A county or city attorney, the
attorney general, or any Minnesota resident may file a suit to stop the nuisancecreating
activity or accommodation of the activity. A court may additionally
order reasonable requirements to prevent future gang activities. Penalties for
violation of a court order are punishable by a fine, jail time, or both.
Legislature Home | Links to the World | Help | Advanced Search
House | Senate | Joint Departments and Commissions | Bill Search and Status | Statutes, Laws, and Rules
Section
1 Definitions.
2 Public Nuisance Activities. Classifies as a public nuisance a criminal gang that engages in
gang activity at least five times over the course of a 12-month period, and the habitual use
of a particular place by a criminal gang for the purpose of engaging in gang activity.
3 Lawsuit for Abatement. Permits a county or city attorney, the attorney general, or any
Minnesota resident to seek an injunction against the continued nuisance activity. The suit
may be brought against the gang members, and against any person who owns or is
responsible for maintaining a particular place that is habitually used for gang activities.
4 Court Orders. A court may issue a temporary or permanent injunction preventing the
particular defendants from engaging in the gang activity, and imposing other reasonable
requirements to prevent the entire gang from engaging in future gang activities, so long as
the requirements do not violate the First Amendment right of association. The court may
also order reasonable requirements against a particular place, if the court finds that it is
habitually used to create a public nuisance.
5 Penalty for Violation. An individual violating a court order issued under section 4 of the
House Research Bill Summary Page 1 of 2
http://ww3.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/bs/85/HF0049.html 3/6/2007
bill is subject to a fine (ranging between $1,000 and $10,000), jail time (ranging between 10
and 30 days), or both.
6 Attorney's Fees. Permits the court to award attorney's fees to a prevailing party for suits
brought under section 3 of the bill.
7 Evidence. Proof that criminal gang activity frequently occurs at a particular place creates a
presumption that the owner or person responsible for maintaining the particular place
knowingly allowed the activity to occur.
House Research Bill Summary Page 2 of 2

12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the looks of number 3 and 7, this is just another tool to screw landlords with, as it will be them who get sued not the gangs. I find it interesting that they are concerned more about the rights of the gang members than they are the innocent property owner they are trying to set up to be the fall guy. It doesn't suprise me that St. Paul would support this type of law.

12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YES YES YES YES, finally we are going to screw you landlords right into the ground for your criminal association with these gangbangers. I can't wait.

6:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You lawmakers are totally out of line. You are making laws that will open up more giant lawsuits and the people that are going to pay are the citizens.

7:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just like gov't. Go after the money by punishing the property owners and ignore the problem

7:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There isn't going to be any money left. When the current bunch of landlords get a jury verdict, that is going to open up a claim for everyone who ever had to do one of the city's croked "code compliances" on their property. They'll be fighting lawsuits for the next 10 years down the road and everyone of the plaintiffs will be an instant winner.

12:34 AM  
Blogger Sharon4Anderson said...

Are you aware JOHN LESCH is also St. Paul City Attorney, double dipping pension funds: rumor has it he's divorced and trying to get funds for his restaurant on Rice & University? RUMORS START SOMEWHERE Whistleblower Jane Turner won: www.rico-whistleblowers.blogspot.com
update www.sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com US Attorney Rachael Paulose was clerk for 8th Circuit Judge Lokken These Lawyers are all over the place for FEES

8:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:34 PM: It isn't as simple as getting money out of them for what they did. I will never feel like an instant winner. I feel like part of my life has been ripped out of my soul and spat back at me on the sidewalk for the vultures to come and trample. It has invaded my life and put years on it. It has intruded in my innermost soul and spiritual being. Even if I took the blood sucking money, I could never, never get back what they took from me!

8:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't it interesting that he is a city attorney for St Paul. He is also the author of the bill at the legislature to further screw the lqndlords ny holding them responsible for the acts of the gangs. What a small world

2:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey idiots! John Lesch is also a landlord with about eight properties around the city. He makes 33,000 at the legislature and about 45,000 with the city. He just got divorced and has a nice collection of suits and vehicles. His public income post taxes and alimony is probably what you can make at Wal Mart full-time.
I don't think he would be supporting something that cuts into the bulk of his worth- rental property.

You may think that he is so dumb that he's cutting his own throat but, that's not very likely.

Thanks for showing us all how a little bit of information in the wrong hands is dangerous (like Bush and WMDs).

I've got questions on this myself but to think that its targeting landlords is just self serving and stupid.

10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can talk all you want, but we will see whether it is the gangs or the landlords who are "targeted" and prosecuted with this new law. My money is on the landlords.....government ALWAYS goes afetr the money, and the gangs have none!

And to answer your statement about Johnny boy's law cutting into the "bulk of his worth" is rediculous and insulting. Any person with a brain knows that he will not be any of the people made examples of with this law because he is not only connected, he probably has a ton of lawyer friends who would defend him for free.

Daah....do you relly think we are that stupid that we would buy your shallow argument?

12:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home