DISCUSSIONS ON POLITICS, CIVIL RIGHTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND ANYTHING THAT TICKLES OUR FANCY "HOST BOB JOHNSON" CONTACT Us at A_DEMOCRACY@YAHOO.COM Please stay on topic and no personal attacks.
posted by Bob at Wednesday, August 08, 2007
A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL HOME
Do you have a topic you want to discuss at the Town Hall? Email your request to A_Democracy@yahoo.com
“A DEMOCRACY” Disclaimer- While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to this forum express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned
THE ROOF GUYS
Mickey's Diner 1950 7th Street West, St Paul, MN
(651) 698-8387
AX-MAN SURPLUS
1639 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel:(651)646-8653
LANDLORD.COM LINK HERE
SHHHH! While we listen to words of wisdom from a wise man.
Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to the righteousness. Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong. A virtuous and courageous person can alone use the instrument of conscience. He or she can alone hear the inner voice of the soul clearly. In a wicked person this faculty is absent. The sensitive nature of his / her conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he or she is unable to discriminate right from wrong. Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and governments should develop this virtue of the ability to use their own conscience. This wisdom of using the clean conscience will enable them to enjoy the freedom.
Dr APJ Kalam, President of India given during the inauguration of the seminar on “THE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
167 Comments:
*
**
***
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
Well well well.....here we go again. Same old story with a different person. Could there really be this many liars willing to spend money just to harrass the city and have fun? I wonder how many it will take before people like the Repkes of the world realize there is sonething wrong going on in the city?
I like the part where she went to the city and they had changed the documents to match their story
"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."
Nice, real nice City of St. Paul.
Did Manger have his eyes on this property as well?
The interesting thing on this of course is who did the Truth in Housing Report? Can you rely on the Truth in Housing Report for the information concerning if a building is a registered vacant building? And is the person and or company that did the THR liable if the information isn't accurate? Because I think all of that has nothing to do with the City.
The City issue is is the building a Registered Vacant building or not? It is going to be pretty easy for the court to review the record to determine when the City declared the building vacant and if they followed proper proceedures. I'm guessing that is pretty simple.
And I am sure if the courts rule in favor of the city it will be declared here that it was a crooked judge...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
The judges are all crooked in Ramsey COunty Chuck and the landlords ahve the proof of it. The city met with the chief Judge and fixed the court before they started their assault on the property owners.
Once again the city vioaltes the constitutional rights of a citizen, and the thing that is important to Chuck is who did the inspection!
The city lies about code violations (where have we heard that before?) and Chuck is worried about the inspection!
The city keeps 2 sets of documents to use depending on the agenda they want to follow and Chuck is still singing the company song. I have a news flash for you Chuck......you are hitting a lot of sour notes.
Ha Ha, you live in a slum
..."The city keeps 2 sets of documents to use depending on the agenda they want to follow..."
OK what is alledged is that the City had two truth in housing reports, one with the box check and one with out. Folks the Truth in Housing reports are done by private contractors. They aren't "city documents."
The City has no liability for what ever is writen on a THR because the City doesn't write them. That is why the accusation that when she wanted a certified copy of the THR that they would have one with the box checked and one with out it is so much bull shit because the THR isn't a City document.
THRs are required by the City of Saint Paul for sellers to give to buyers to assist buyers in knowing what is wrong with a house. The City registers people who do THRs to protect sellers from having known rapists show up in their house and walk through it with them. The City doesn't guaruntee one word in the THR. It is only there to help the buyer. Not to protect them from having to do due dilegence in finding out about what they are purchasing.
So, again it is an interesting case but I am not sure that there is much there there.
The only question is was it a registered vacant building when she purchased it?
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
This city sure likes to fight with people and spend our money in court. Why don't they just let the lady fix her house and stay otu of her business?
So are you in a way saying the city would have some liability for the false things that they do enter into the records that they do write Chuck? Or would those just be mistakes?
Hi All,
The process server was at NHPI looking to serve a few people and Mike Kalis was one of them.
They recognized him pulling into the lot, so they went up to him when he got out of the car and asked if he was Mike Kalis. He responded that he was not and continued to go inside the building.
The process server followed him inside and immediately asked the receptionist for Mike Kalis. She pointed at Kalis and said "that is him right there." He was served on the spot!
Hi All,
I have linked a video of Nancy Lazaryan addressing the City Council on this issue.
Please click above for the video.
I'm speechless after watching the council hearing. Time for a change.
I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see it.
Magner and these "idiots on the council" believe a deceased person can be in control of his property. Magner himself said it.
You won't find any justice in district court Nancy. Bob posted an official city document months ago showing the city judge shops to get their favor in court.
It's no wonder the landlords ae suing the city. How many more people have to sue the city before they get it through their heads that they cannot violate peoples rights? Diva's will surely sue the city also. Maybe if we were not spending all of the money fighting court cases, we wouldn't have a 17 million dollar budget gap.
Legal Notice to all Another Law suit,Great Job Bobby at A-Democracy http://sharon4council.blogspot.com
Some official must Audit the Vacant Bldg etc. Service on the DEAD is not legal
Submitted by Candidate and Fiduicary Watchdog
On the Graves of Sharons Husband http://cpljimanderson.blogspot.com
www.msnusers.com/AndersonAdvocates Deceased Tenants in Common
never legally served at
1058SummitSharonLegalDomicile Sharon is further seeking the indictments of DF Lesbian Judge Kathleen Gearin for embellzment of "government takings" over $1hundred and ten thousand File no 495722( 1988) during DFL Mike Hatch State Commerce Commissioner, 82-1292 Doris Huspeni and her Law clerk Christopher Brien Coleman now Restricted St. Paul Mayor.
StPaul-Code-Cops http://sicko-citystpaul.blogspot.com
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: Document's are based on SEC
City of Saint Paul, Kalis, Magner, Kessler and Moermond, Helgen.
They should do a movie about St Paul inspections as a sequel to the "Three Stooges", only now there are a lot more than three.
Just another liar with another story.
Pretty much folks if you die and your grass doesn't get cut you're going to leave your family a vacant building. Thanks St.Paul for looking out for our elders and giving them a real screw job when they die.
it is only a matter of time before a code enforcement officer or Moermond or a city council member falls victim to violence from an unstable citizen they violated.
It has happened in the past and I wouldn't be surprized with the way things are going if it happened again.
I guess I am missing something here when it comes to the city and their code enforcements.... Ok an elderly person dies, in most cases the property will sit in probate court for some time and vacant. So now just because the home is vacant is just cause for a complete code compliance not allowing the electrical, the plumbing, the heating and etc... to be grandfathered in? I don't understand how as long as the person were to stay alive the home would of been safe, but if you become deceased the home is no longer safe to live in because it was vacant for a few months?
The other issue is just as I have in my line of work doing property management, there is a certain criteria that must be meet to be able to rent to a tenant safely... especially in St.Paul, ok so if it takes you 7 months to find a good tenant you are also putting yourself at risk of having a code compliance issued as well because your property may sit vacant? How does a property owner win in St.Paul? It appears landlords are also being forced to take what ever renter you can or your building will be added to the vacant list.
Sounds like rental property has really become a tough business in St.Paul to me... Guess I should consider myself fortunate that the city chased me out... I think there are some good businesses to invest in opening up in St.Paul those would be plumbing & heating or a electrical company to perform all these code compliances, at last glance there was well over a 1000 vacant buildings waiting for someone to attempt satisfying these inspectors.
Nancy
Wow - She went to the same law school as Sharon Anderson!!! She is making arguements that has nothing to do with what was the issue in front of the council.
She bought the house, the house at the time she bought it was on the regestered vacant building list. The truth in housing report that she says was in the house at the time didn't have the box checked that said it was a registered vacant building, so her daughter moved in, the City showed up and made her daughter move out saying that there has to be a code inspection to come off of the vacant building list.
So, she is trying to argue that the building should have never been put on the list. She is making statements about issues that would have been of concern before she was the owner of the house but have nothing to do with if the building was a registered vacant building.
She is talking about due process but not for her, for the former owners family???
I don't even know what it is that she wanted the council to do pretend the building wasn't on the vacant building list???
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
For people that don't get it the Nancy post was Nancy Osterman not Nancy Lazaryan.
To Nancy O., they have all their bases covered.
Union jobs will be created.
The new Home Depot and the old Menards will supply the goods. Bet Home Depot excutives were sold on the fact there is GENTRIFICATION in progress and the city council promised thousands of homes would need upgrading.
Actually, these "jackels" look for vunerable properties. They thought this one would be an easy target dead owner and all.
We have bureaucrats regulating themselves, with sham hearings to boot. This is a case of government mismanagement, that reflects poorly on all public servants.
I just hate it when I have to say "I told you so". Chuck is the credibility of this forum.
Ms. Lazaryan did not present herself well. She was angry and had threatened the council with a legislator. She claimed she wrote laws with a smirk on her face like it was some big threat to the esteemed council people. She was screaming in the back ground while another hearing was being announced. I think the council showed restraint in not having her arrested.
"Words of Wisdom" don't be nasty to me. I enjoy humour if it's fun.
If you are mean to me, you will "Suffer a Woman's Wrath"!
Chuck we all know your rental property has code violations, right? And that same property has been vacant, right? So be honest for once, how would you feel if your rental was slapped on the vacant list when you were doing a turn to get new renters in? If you believe code compliances are good for the public then why don't you offer your rental up for one. Come on you got 50 G'S in the bag. If you think a 10,000 paint job was bad go through a code compliance. Get a clue and some common sense, BUDDY!!!!
Tim Ciani
Tim - Empty isn't vacant! All rental is from time to time empty. A vacant building is when there is water shut off. Done, closed, vacant.
Believe it or not folks there is a reason why the City does what it does. On one or two unit buildings in the City there has been no ongoing inspections of property like there is with multi-unit buildings. That basicly means that houses that were built in the 1800's and self wired in the 1920's are able to continue to be used as they are for as long as the owner wants... until the building becomes vacant, not empty vacant.
Then the City steps in and says before you put people in this structure you need to bring it up to code. It is a public safety issue. When else would the City be able to bring these buildings to code?
What the landlord group says is that the City shouldn't be able to require the owners to ever bring them up to code. Right now there are tons of vacant buildings in Saint Paul and the cheep ass speculators see this as a great time to bargain shop and house people in unsafe buildings. It is the City's job to protect the public safety.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
I have reviewed the City Council hearing and I have only a few things to say:
Who the hell do these City Council Members think they are? You can hear it in the tone of their voices that they are arrogant, ego maniacs. Kathy Lantry is the biggest of them all. She truly believes her shi_ does not smell. Dave Thune had his folder shut and ready to go get dinner before the last item was complete. Dave, you can wait, trust me. I think we need new blood on this council. Harris and Montgomery just sit there and say nothing. Get your ass in gear Harris, you know this Magner is a "bad apple" within the city-figure out how to get rid of him. He will continue to be a liability to the city. Oh, I forgot, you can't get rid of him now, it will make the city look guilty right. Bostrom, you must find a new profession, do you even know what is going on here? You seem like you are sleeping through these preceedings, are you alive? Chuck, you don't need to respond to this posting, I already know you are and idiot. I don't want to have to waste my time reading you b/s one sided crap you post. As for Amanda- don't threaten people on this site about getting the wrath of women from you- You are probably Chuck's girlfriend Gloria in costume.
The city insider.................
The other side on this has nothing but wild accusations and personal insults.
In this case for all of the council it has to be pretty simple, was the house on the vacant building list when she bought it? Yes
As to putting the house on the vacant building list back when it was done (her big arguement), did the City send notice to the owner of record? Yes
Does it matter that the owner had died? NO Propper notice is to the owner of record and the person in charge of the estate can deal with those issues. And is this an issue in some future owners case? Her big arguement... Of course not.
If the Council was to buy this one they just might not as well do any enforcement at all. Just close it down. The City did what was required.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
The old man....
A city of St.Paul employee (Magner)stopped at a home and talked with an old man.
He told the old man, "I need to inspect your property/home for possible code violations."
The old man said, "OK, but don't go in that field."
The city employee (Magner)said, "I have the authority of the city of St.Paul to go where I want. See this card? I am allowed to go wherever I wish on private land and homes."
So the old man went about his daily household chores.
Later, he heard loud screams and saw the city of St.Paul employee (Magner)running for the fence and close behind was the old mans prize pitbull. The pitbull was madder than a nest full of hornets and the pitbull was gaining on the employee (Magner) at every step.
The old man called out, "Show him your card, "dummy"!
You all better watch out for that Amanda or you will suffer her curse of self-righeousness. She has pronounced herself God. How deluded would someone be to think they have that much power. What a trip she must be on! No wonder she "admires" repke. And oh, yeah she does not represent herself very well. Get some class Amanda.
Since Repke mentioned my name ie: LawSchool really is the College of Hard Knocks:check Sharons Affidavit of prejudice against Marcia Moermond at the Bogus Hearing today 9Aug07 at to be submitted to City Council 5Sept07 http://sharon4council.blogspot.com re: Title 18USC1961 if Repke even knows its the RICO-
You little boys were told to watch your mouth.
Now you must be punished for being disobedient.
I searched the Internet using Nancy Lararyan name. I found information she had been arrested in Maplewood for disrupting a city council meeting.
Next time you won't be sent to the corner! I will turn you over my knee!
This Amanda has changed her spots. She started out as a doe-eyed admirer of chuck. Then she gives detailed insider information about a city council hearing.
Isn't this being a P-H-o-N-E-Y?
Just wondering if this is another case of homeowners after the housing police started playing excessive stress games with them.
The city has a data base named "Amanda"..
6:20, do you think I have the big scoop or something? Try watching the video linked above, then you can considered yourself on the inside with the rest of us!
Good work Amanda... Interesting on Nancy L. with the connections to the land lord group I was wondering if this was some kind of a set up and if she may have some "assistance" in the purchase of the property to set up a case.
Seems she has been involved in confrontations with city government before. Interesting, very interesting....
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
6:02 Amanda said:
You little boys were told to watch your mouth.
Now you must be punished for being disobedient.
I searched the Internet using Nancy Lararyan name. I found information she had been arrested in Maplewood for disrupting a city council meeting.
Next time you won't be sent to the corner! I will turn you over my knee!
What is the site. I checked Google, and all I found was a past case dismissed due to immunity.
Also Amanda, it sounds like you need to go onto the Jerry Springer Show with the perversions you name.
Tim - Empty isn't vacant! All rental is from time to time empty. A vacant building is when there is water shut off. Done, closed, vacant.
**Oh so Chuck no water - code compliance. I understand, no water is dangerous to everybody on the block. What are they drinking it?
What does no water have to do with getting new electrical,plumbng,structural work? If the problem is no water remedy the problem--PAY THE BILL and BANG water again. See I'm pretty smart. No code compliance just pay the bill.
Believe it or not folks there is a reason why the City does what it does. On one or two unit buildings in the City there has been no ongoing inspections of property like there is with multi-unit buildings. That basicly means that houses that were built in the 1800's and self wired in the 1920's are able to continue to be used as they are for as long as the owner wants... until the building becomes vacant, not empty vacant.
**So Chuck how about you do the citizens of Saint Paul a favor and call Mr. Seiger, get a code compliance for the sum of 5o g's. This way the whole City, especially your neighborhood can be safe. Don't be a slumlord. When was your duplex built and are your tennants safe?
*****Oh and one last thing Chuck.......How come you homestead your rental when you don't even live their? Is this honest to the bank roll of this city?
Tim Ciani
**I'm watching this city!!Because if I don't, who will?
Hi All,
I edited an address below from a comment Amanda posted. A note to anyone new here and thinking about posting. Please do not post addresses.
Thank You!
[PDF] MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Nancy Lazaryan, ***** West **** Road, *****, MN, asked who ordered her recent arrest. When Ms. Lazaryan did not respect the meeting rules of conduct during ...
www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/.../uploads/%7BB2F33558-1553-43B8-92D3-F1AC17A60F25%7D.PDF - Similar pages - Note this
9:59 PM
Tim its my legal residence and I don't own any other properties anywhere on the planet. That qualifies me for the homestead Tim. Are you following me at night to find out where I sleep?
See what happens when when speaks out against a bunch of chicken shit bullies like these land lords, they have some little prick following me, watching where I a sleeping at night.
Good work Tim.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck so let me get this straight. If you don't live at a place you can homestead it as long as its your only property? Is that what your saying?
Time Ciani
**TRUSTED IN ST.PAUL TO TELL THE TRUTH**
Well Amanda, I happened to see your photo when Bob had it posted, and if it's not being too rude, I certainly don't mind saying that I would love to be the first to be turned over on your knee. So....should I insult you a little first, or should we just take it from here?
Tim - you could do that - it would be legal.
Chuck Repke
So you'd at least need an inspection by the fire department to make sure your tenants are safe, right?
Tim Ciani
The city is safe again.......Ciani is on the job!
Steve Z. of the fire dept. has stated publicaly one of the city's top priority was to get unregistered rental properties registered.
You better take care of that Chuck.
Chuck,
I'll be forwarding this information on to the fire department so we can get an inspection scheduled to insure safety to your tenants. Or if you don't think code compliance are bad why don't ya schedule one of those? I'm sure your house hasn't been updated to trhe new building standards. And maybe while your at it get your buddy THUNE to get on done on his Irvine house.
Tim Ciani
Coming out of hiding!!
Oops. I missed a word in an earlier post. The city has been playing games and causing unnecessary stresses. People have died because of it, and it has driven suicide. With the dead homeowner, did the city cause this death also?
Note to Chuck:
The only cheap thugs I see are you and your friends. This never happended in the past, when the city acted like human beings.
Chauck said- You exploit the poor and cry when the City requires you to maintain minimum standards.
No Chucky we didn't exploit the poor. We gave them a home and they city took it away from them.
We maintained our homes and the city used illegal tactics to take our homes from us just because we rented to a protected class.
"You exploit the poor and cry when the City requires you to maintain minimum standards."
Are you really serious Chuck? A code complaince is much different than just maintaining the "minimum standards." A code compliance demands that the building be brought up to the current day bilding code like it was built yesterday, and it costs around $50,000.00 most of the time. Are you nuts of what?
Funny Chuck is everything in a landlord he complains about.
Chuck left a burned out car sit for months in the driveway of his rental property.
Chuck claims to homestead the property when in fact he lives with Gloria. Unregistered rental properties are a priority of the city.
Chucks house needed paint and repairs REAL bad and thanks to a good citizen who believes in maintaining property, code enforcement was called to see to it Chuck done these much needed repairs and painting. Chucks neighbors shouldn't have to put up with the things Chuck harps about here. Now that Chuck has done a light code compliance and he registers his rental property he won't have to feel like a hypocrite anymore.
Tim Ciani is the ICON of what the city wants to see from it citizens. He snitched on Chucks dilapidated unregistered rental property to code enforcement. He snitched to code enforcement on Dave Thunes house which looked like the most dilapidated house in Saint Paul.
Tim even informs people of these bureaucrats criminal behavior.
Good work Tim, you are a model citizen. You are exactly what the leadership of Saint paul looks for in a citizen.
Maybe everyone doesn't rtemember, but it was Tim Ciani who brought us the photograpphic proof of the slums these city officials maintain, all while the city and its supporters bitch about slumlords which was obviously an attempt at misdirecting the attention as people often accuse others of what they themselves do. This was the photographic proof that these supporters always want to deny, just as they deny the ever growing mountain of evidence against the city with respect to the lawsuits presently ongoing. Judgement day is coming folks and it is not going to be kind to all the nay sayers who have consistently tried to support, minimize and dismiss the civil rights vioaltions this city carries out against its citizens every day they come to work.
I love this place... I urge you all to go to City Hall Scoop and see what the county assesses Thune for his "slum." They have it appraised at just under $500,000.00! Yup Tim C sure found a blighted building to write up. How much do they appraise your place for Tim? Maybe since it is so much better than Thune's you should ask to have your taxes raised.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck,
What do you do for a living?
I see that you post on several blogs daily. Where do you find time to do this?
I am starting to wonder if you are a paid staffer for the city of St. Paul to give a response to these allegations. I know you used to work for Thune, but didn't that employement ended a long time ago?
Where do you find the time participate in so many Blogs? At work I have to work hard and do not have time to answer these blogs. I just do not understand your defense of Dave Thune and other pals is really something. I would like to see you do some real work for a change.
Do they pay you to sit and write this stuff or what?
Chuck,
I know you hate me because you know I'm right. I'm by the book. The Pioneer Press took my story and ran with it. They see the double standard as we all do.
I still ask the question:would you and Thune the stand up guys as you are offer your old code built houses up for code compliances?
And Chuck I'm not rich or poor but I know when the City of St.Paul is out of control. The city has over stepped itself.
Chuck what do you Think of this Magner guy? The city sure left their pants down by keeping him on payroll. Just wait until you see what I have on him. His bank records look like childs play compared to the dirt and hard evidence I have on him. WOW!!!
And code inspector Schiller its never to late to tell all you know.
Contact me at city_watchman@yahoo.com.
Thanks,
Tim Ciani
*Keeping two eyes on this city.
Thank you Tim. You are doing an important service.
Hello,
This is Nancy Lazaryan. I attempted to post a comment earlier, but what I previously wrote hasn't appeared on the blog.
Citizens have the responsibility to control their government. And unless Citizens exercise their control over the government, we end up with tyranny.
If the people that have been criticizing the efforts of the Citizens, actually spent the time to understand Our Law... especially Our Constitutions...state and federal...they may learn to fight with us instead of against us.
We have rights...and RESPONSIILITIES...and the only rights you have are the ones that you are PERSONALLY willing to fight and die for.
Many of the comments made on this blog were from small, immature, selfish people. People that benefit from MY fighting for THEIR rights.
To these people I say: You are the reason this government is in the condition that it is.
Nancy Lazaryan
Yeah!!!!!!!!!you go girl!
Hi Nancy
It was good to see you at SPNN with Leslie Davis, doing a show.
When you were taking about Andy Dawkins and the corruption in city government, at that point I remember you being on a news talk show filmed at the Maplewood TV station about how you were cheated.
Leslie said you liked the Book he wrote.
As you see, I take the
" ALWAYS CHEAT" THE PHILOSOPHY OF
JESSE VENTURA BOOK,
EVERWHERE I GO.
You have the guts and the ability to face the different crooks that run this fine town.
I told you that I was running for St.Paul City Council Ward 2 against Dave Thune.
I was fighting city government
sense 1996, at first they scared me and use the police to intimidate me.
But that was then, now I can use the law and the Leslie Davis Book to show how dirty this city, county,state,and federal government are.
We the people of the United State have rights !
BULL SHIT.
We have NO right when the lying lawyers, judges, mayors, council people, police, politicians of all types have control.
They think of us as Do Do on their shoes,
We are the people that pay taxes,
so we are the people that pay their salaries.
Keep up the gppd work, tell your brother Willian hi from Bill Dahn.
Bill Dahn
For Councilman
Ward 2
"Because I Can" !
www.billdahn.com
B
Chuck Repke is a licensed realator, he must be ethical, http://nancylazaryan.blogspot.com
correlation with http://opinions-unpublished.blogspot.com with http://freedom-4you.blogspot.com
HOWEVER:Nancy O Grad of Crim Justice, Nancy L Attorney properia
and http://sharon4council.blogspot.com Private Attorney General are victims of UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS, Pleas to Repke, keep your Realestate Ethics to a high Standard, We all have our ISSUES, to expidete www Just spell the Name Right Go http://divas1.blogspot.com 3 White Women, heinously discriminated against, Repke please act in your capacity with your lawyer girlfrind in the Public Trust Good Will for all
Hi all,
Nancy L., No comments have been deleted and I do not hold comments before posting them. Very light moderation here.
Comments appear instantly when you post them. If you don't see your comment right away when you published it to the blog you must of made an error.
To Eric Mitchell
Well Mr. Self Rightous, it seems after all your BS and "doublespeak," that someone has called your bluff and decided to actually use thier name in post here.
Step on up to the plate here now tough guy and tell this Nancy woman how she deserves what she gets because she doesn't go to some of these stupid neighborhood meetings you always talk about.
Somehow I have an idea that she's not gonna think her civil rights are trumped by neighborhood meetings filled with double talking idiots like you.
We're waiting Eric.
Maybe Magner had a liking for these 3 women,
Nancy O. - Nancy L. - and Debbie J. from Diva's Bar.
They all are Beautiful Gail's with "Blond Hair" and all are "Big Busted".
Maybe he just has a yen for power.
Nancy L. Thanks for stepping up. You have a lot of support from people as apalled as you are.
This used to be a good town, and it can be again once the creeps are removed and it can be rebuilt.
For the most part, you can ignore Chuck's endless talk, as it's similar to pro rassling hype.
How refreshing to see someone who has been hurt by the city to level the charges and not be afraid to use their name. I saw this woman on TV when I watched the City Council meeting, and she's nothing to mess around with. She knows what the law says, and more importantly where the city is violating the law and she cetainly didn't mind pointing it out to the Council. Not that they cared, but I have an idea that they may care in the future! Thanks for being an inspiration Nancy. Maybe your efforts will inspire more people to take legal action against the city for their actions.
I always consider it fascinating when men are too lazy to use their brains and resort to making comments about the size of a woman's breast.
If anyone is interested, look up the case of Johnson v. Murray..in the Supreme Court of Minnesota...my former name was Johnson..and without an attorney, I won this case...the "Bench and Bar" of MN uses this case to instruct lawyers.
I also know my constitutions...both the Minnesota and the U.S.
And the St. Paul City Council, and the City of St. Paul is restrained by these constitutions. They MUST provide DUE PROCESS. Noticing a DEAD owner of a "Registered Vacant Building" status does NOT comply with DUE PROCESS. The City is required, by law, to ALSO notice the mortgage holder. Because the City failed to follow the law, the "Registered Vacant Building" status is VOID on its face.
As well, the City did not comply with the law in CREATING the building a "Registered Vacant Building". The City's noncompliance with the law also renders the "status" NULL and VOID.
I guess those men that were too busy looking at my breasts didn't have time to actually educate themselves in OUR law.
If anyone noticed, the Plaintiffs include "Other Simliarly Situated Persons". If you are one of these people, that has a "Registered Vacant Building", and you feel that your rights were violated, you are welcome to join the lawsuit.
You can email me at: nancylazaryan@gmail.com
If you are just a man looking for a big breasted woman, don't try to contact me at that email, unless you have more to offer than your genitals.
Nancy Lazaryan
Nancy you acknowledge that the City sent the notice to the legal address of the owner that they had, that is due process. Are you saying that no action can be taken on the property while it is in the hands of the estate? The estate was the owner.
The estate took no action and now a later owner is saying that the prior owner, the estate, should have taken action to stop the property being put on the vacant building list and some how its the City's fault because they didn't.
Amazing...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck,
With all due respect wouldn't the estate have to be notified?
Repke is kind of like the rest of the City Council.....if there's a back door way to circumvent someone's civil rights, and what they want to do in their minds benifets the city or their political ambitions, then they think the civil rights just don't exist. I think the city made the mistake of picking on the wrong person when they found this woman.
Chuck,
You end your comment with "amazing". What I find "amazing" is how dense you are.
Have you read Chap. 43 of the St. Paul Legislative Code? Or Chap. 35?
If you had, I doubt that you would be asking such "amazingly" stupid questions.
Said code states, owners include mortgage holders. St. Paul never noticed the mortgage owner, an owner, defined, by LAW.
St. Paul KNOWINGLY send the ONLY notice to a "vacant and secure building"...addressed to a person they KNEW was dead. They did NOT check the records in the Ramsey County Recorder to notice the "other" owners...the estate and the mortgage holder. When an estate is in probate, the estate must record the name and address of executor with the county recorder.
As well, St. Paul is required, by LAW to record ANY actions taken against a property with the Ramsey County Recorder...St. Paul failed to record ANY notice of their actions with the Ramsey County Recorder.
Sending a notice to the "vacant and secure building", addressed to the dead owner (who they knew was dead)...and after the first letter was returned they sent another letter to the same address and same dead owner...does NOT satisfy DUE PROCESS.
Because St. Paul failed to comply with the law, in creating the "Resgistered Vacant Building" status...and in failing to properly notice...both the owners AND the public (thru the county recorder)...the agency action has NO AUTHORITY OF LAW.
DUE PROCESS is defined in the St. Paul Legislative Code and the MN Statutes, regarding the steps required by the government in matters concerning vacant buildings. Before you open you mouth again, I would suggest you read and educate yourself.
Chuck, do you work for the City of St. Paul? Is your real name Steve Magner?
Nancy Lazaryan
It's high noon and the gig is up Repke. This woman is gonna give ya a run for your money you fool. Your all washed up my friend....finished as in a flat tire. After the next election, you'll be stamped, packed, and shipped by the voters. They ain't havin your crap any more. Ya hear me Repke? You're done. After the elections, you'll ne sitting in the greyhound bus station with a one way ticket to Worthington. No more city money for you ya little munchkin. I heard plenty about you at the bar tonight and I don't think your gonna like it my friend. Not everyone around here is as pro gobernment as you think they are. Time to pack her up and move on rEPKE. The resources for you around here have been depleted. This new person gonna give you a damm good whoopin when you start all this BS that you talk. I'm gonna start checkin in more often now. I'm watchin Repke and thing ain't lookin so good.
First Nancy, I am not Magner, nor am I an employee of the City of Saint Paul. (In fact in all of my years around the government I'm not even sure if I have met Magner, if I have I couldn't pick him out of a line up.) Actually it is part of the reason why I post on these sites about some of these "property rights" issues is because of the nature of law suits the City Attorney's office doesn't allow their client (any City employee) to comment on these issues. So, I do my best to try and tell the public what the government is doing, because I don't think the government are aliens from a strange planet. I think the government is us and that these are the codes we have asked them to enforce.
Someone asked what I do in an earlier post, I am an independent contractor with four clients (two of them are small nonprofits on the East Side where I am their executive director, one energy company where I am a lobbiest and then as Sharon notes I have a real estate license).
So, back to the issue. The City has the obligation to give notice to whoever is the owner of the property. The owner is determind by whoever shows up on the Ramsey County records. Its not the City's job to get the estate or the mortgage company to file the proper paper work with the County. Nor is it the City's job (if the paper work was filed) to make the County process it correctly. So, they will keep mailing it to the address shown on the Ramsey County records; it is the estates problem to get the mail forwarded not the City's.
The language you reffer to is simply an expansion of the term "owner" to show who might all be responsible to do certain tasks under the vacant building ordinance. It does not require the City to notify those additional people since their legal requirement is to notify the owner of record (the dead person). In fact the refference to the mortgage company notes that it is the "owner" when it is in possession. So, it spells out who might show as the owner at the county.
As far as the determining the status, any code violation even tall weeds and grass can put a building on the list if the owner doesn't fight it.
And 2:06 what bar are you drinking at that people have nothing better to do than talk about me? Sad life.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Repke,
Don't you think inspectors in the city have better things to do then run around town and put houses on the vacant list when they die. Elders of our city should be worried because when they die the house they leave their family will be worth half as much as they thought when it needs a code compliance. And Chuck how is they city keeping us safe by putting a dead mans house on the vacant list?
And another thing Chuckie if you knew as much as you thought you did you would have known your development was going to be a failure. Should have listened to me before you started!!!!
Yours truely,
Tim Ciani
Hey Timmy! See this where this stuff gets so silly. The inspectors just wrote up the house like any other old house. The notice gets sent and nobody does anything aobut it. The City mows the lawn and sends a notice that the building is going on the vacant building list. The letter comes back.
The estate and the mortgage company or no one challanges anything. The house sits on the VBL for a while. Then someone buys the house and moves in. Then the City figures out that someone is living in a building on the VBL, so it tells them to get out until a code compliance is done.
If the City WAS to cut these folks some slack then the folks who are suing in the RICO suits would say their was favortism and unfair treatment... so I guess we are getting what you guys asked for...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Well, well chucky,I was told these code inspectors read the obituaries looking for elderly people who have died, if the deceased was a home owner they go out and check on the house.
Scavengers!
Thee was no one complaining about this house other than Magner and crew. I watched the city coucnil meeting and at the end, Magner stated the reason they were out there was because "we had an office complaint." I think that's not right. They don't have enough to do so they sit around and make their own complaints and then justify their actions by making you think it is other people that are complaining.
Magner wanted to get his GRUBBY little hands on this property.
I think you are wrong Chuck. While you are correct in your statements about it not being the citys job ot make sure the estate and mortgage company file the correct paperwork, or to make the county process it correctly, it is the job of the city to follow the law and due process requirements. Perhaps instead of trying to cut every corner they can, the city should go over to the county and do a search of the records just like everyone else has to do when it comes to real estate matters. Had they done that, the proper notice probably would have been given and we would not be having this discussion now. It seems to me that this whole thing from the landlords to this latest matter is not about getting any rpoperites fixed up, it's about a city and its leadership that is high on power, so lazy they cut every corner they can, and have zero respect for the rights of anyone who can't help them politically. We have a huge budget problem and all these guys want to do is fight with people. Watch the city council meetings. The way they treat people makes the people appearing before them feel like they have no option but to bring lawsuits.
After seeing this latest fiasco, I am wholeheartedly on the side of the landlords, property owners and all other that are sick and tired of this kind of treatment. We have better things to spend our tax money on!
When is it going to stop? When the city is bankrupt from legal costs?
Been reading here for quite some time and to me it seems like there are way too many people all saying the same things for these accusations not to be true.
I hope the upcoming elections bring about a meaningful change in leadership.
The city has found the surest way to self destruct. Nothing they do surprised me any more.
Looks to me like you have about abou 12 people- maybe speaking on the same thing and 284,793 people in St Paul not interested.
How long is Chuck's gig going to be up? Every week its the same thing.
I read here lots of accusations with nothing being substantiated either through the courts or the media or the activists of Saint Paul.
This Ciani guy is another one with a history of hating the city because he got caught in the cookie jar.
I must be part of the city's corrupt machine.
3:11, nope don't think you are part of the city corrupt machine.
Your just a dumb ignorant fool that knows nothing about the internet and public forums.
On a good day this blog has had 125,000 readers. The googles page rank out ranks the Tribune & the Pioneer Press. Don't believe me look at the top of the screen at the googles rank if you have the googles tool bar.
GOOGLES "PAGE RANK" ratings-
98% A Democracy
54% Trib and Pioneer Press.
Maybe part of the problem is that there are only 12 smart people in the city and the other 284,793 jsu don't give a hoot about anything but themselves.
What???? This is incredible!
I am opining about 3:11s statements as follows:
"I read here lots of accusations with nothing being substantiated either through the courts or the media or the activists of Saint Paul."
I am completely speechless. While this gentleman speaks of things not being substantiated, I am wondering what he calls "Affidavits" sworn to under oath, "Deposition Tesitmony" sworn to under oath, and a "Federal Court" who for years has not beem willing to dismiss these claims, which is usually the norm early on in most cases.
Media? Would you actually believe what you read in either the pf the two newspapers in this city?
Activists? What do you consider an activist? Is Bob Johnson and his band of followers "defined as activist", or is "activist" in your eyes just the people who praise the Government with no respect to whether they are right or wrong?
What about this woman that is suning for her rights, is she just another wealthy and bored person looking to entertain herself with the city?
If your statements are indicative of your true thoughts and feelings, I really feel sorry for you. With this kind of outlook, has it ever ocurred to you that you may be living in the wrong Country?
1:33 I get it we could hire a few hundred people to track every vacant property or property with a complaint and make personal visits to their family clan and sib. And then we can stand outside each one of them and explain the status of the building to each potential owner.
This woman bought a house on the vacant building list and she wants it undone. The City followed all proceedures it isn't there fault that she didn't get the right info.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck the law says the city will notify the owners as listed in the Ramsey County Tax Records. That only means one thing. If the city chooses to hire a couple hundred people to stand around notifying potential buyers, that's their business, the law does not address that, but it does address what is proper notice and the city has not followed it. And while we at the subject of proper notices, I seem to remember something in the landlords lawsuit when I read it about the city not giving proper notices. Maybe Bob would know for sure if I am correct or not, but if I am, it looks to me like the city has a problem following their own rules and laws. We the public are entitled to the proper notification from Government are we not?
Some people, including those working at the City of St. Paul, have NO CONCEPT of the law.
The "owner of record" is ANYONE that has recorded an interest in the property at the county recorder's office...this includes, but is not limited to...private persons, mortgage companies, lien holders.
If a person dies, and a death certificate on the person is recorded at the county recorder, the dead person is no longer an "owner of record".
It seems that the St. Paul City officials believe that the term "owner of record" is the name that THEY have on record as being the owner. But, the LAW says "owner" is what the COUNTY has recorded....and St. Paul MUST notice ALL owners that have been recorded at the Ramsey County Recorder...not just about "Registered Vacant Building"...but also "summary abatements" and citations that have been written for code violations....everytime a code violation/summary abatement is written, ALL owners recorded at the Ramsey County Recorder MUST be noticed.
This is actually a GOOD thing. If the mortgage holder is noticed that the property is not being maintained (citations, code violations), the mortgage holder has the legal right to step in and require the person that got the mortgage to FIX the property....It is under the mortgage contract.
When a public official abuses the power that we, the Citizens, gave to this person...by taking someone's property (or affecting the right to use the property) without following the "due process of law"...that person MUST respond in damages. Which means, the public official is PERSONALLY liable for the harm he/she inflicted on the Citizen.
Folks, these people work for US, the CITIZENS. We are the employers and they are the employees. The constitutions, statutes and ordinances are the "employment contract" that they are legally bound to.
If your employee came to your house and denied you the use of your house, you would make sure that the employee was following YOUR RULES in doing this act TO YOU.
And if your employee was NOT following YOUR RULES, then I am quite certain that you would fire this person, and make him/her pay for any damages he/she did to you and your house.
There are many public officials that are destroying "our house"...our house being our state, our city, our homes.
They can do this to us because they have educated us in "their" public schools....so that we will be ignorant of our law, and just do as we are told. (How many of you were taught in public high school that there is a MINNESOTA constitution? I wasn't taught this at Tartan High School.)
So, to the "Chuck's" of this world, I will have a bit of patience, because I know Chuck was specifically educated to be ignorant of the law. People like Chuck won't want the TRUTH, until they are personally damaged by corrupt public officials.
Nancy Lazaryan
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, that just came out. There is only one "owner of record" that is the person whose name is on the title or abstract. It is not all of the parties who may have an interest in the property. I am not a lawyer, but I am a real estate agent and any real estate agent would tell you that much.
No, it would not be a "good thing" if our banks were kept informed by the government of any situation that was occurring with the property they had a loan on.
I understand that the philosophy of the "property rights" group is that all power comes from money and therefore all rights must go to money. But, I was unaware that they wanted to make sure that the banks and our creditors were kept informed of personal problems.
Banks loan people money. The property is just collateral. The debt one owes on the property extends beyond ones ownership... ask any guy who has been divorced, the wife gets the house but you never get out of the loan. So, if some action was taken against the exwifes house, you think the City should notice the bank and the exhusband? Come on folks this is pretty crazy thinking and not by any stretch of the imagination the law.
Try following the things that you think you want the City to do in specific case out until their natural occurance in the real world.
That is what people do when they write the laws. They don't just think about how it would take care of one problem but how it would play out in multiple situations. So, from a notice of your business, who all would you want the government talking to? Just you or everyone who has an interest in your property?
I don't want the government talking to my bank about tall weeds and grass at the house, thank you very much.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Ummm.....in your case Chuck they would be talking about more than just tall grass and weeds. Did you ever get rid of that burned out jalopy in your back yard?
Hi All,
Chuck Repke is an honored guest of this forum. Most of the statements directed at Chuck lately are personal attacks and mean spirited. The same can be said about Amanda.
Chuck, is a private citizen and his home and personal life shouldn't be an issue here.
Please do not attack Chuck or anyone else on a personal level.
WHO, will participate here and disagree with us if they thought they would have problems in their personal life?
Please be considerate of others. We all want what is best for our city. We can talk and work these differences out without being mean to each other.
Nancy L.,
You didn't learn about the state constitutions because you blanked out on Unit 1 of 12th grade Political Science at Tartan High School. That unit identifies the four common characteristics of a state, discussions on citizenship, and an overview of the US Constitution. Ms Fellows is teaching the course this year- you may want to go back for a refresher.
One characteristic of a state is that it has its own governing document. A constitution. The U.S. Constitution still overrides the state ones and city charters.
Eric M.
Hi All,
Ya know this whole issue is a "mole hill". It is turning into a mountain because "arrogance" has replaced "common sense" in City Hall and code enforcement.
Folks, I just may have a shot at Kesslers job in the future. Very slim shot but the possibility exsist. Can't fill you in on the details now.:-)
Here is what I would do if I was Kessler. I'd fire MAGNER! I wouldn't give a hoot what the union said. In fact I would take great pleasure in telling him get the "f" out of here pal, you are a stain on this city.
It would be cheaper to fight any lawsuit the union brought against the city for firing Magner versus cleaning up after Magners mess he is making with the citizens of this city.
I'd give this Nancy L. her house. It is less of a safety concern occupied. The home is not a dump. Why waste tax payers money fighting a lawsuit when the city is standing on shaky ground? Think about this. The city and Chuck claims the DEAD owner has an interest in the property. How silly does this sound?
If I was heading code enforcement, Tony, Nancy O. Nancy L., Betty Speaker, the RICO plaintiffs, Louis Jacobs, Bob Gausman, and many many more citizens of Saint Paul would not have a case against the city. They would have been dealt with fairly and honestly.
I would not require code enforcement officers to do illegal searchs of homes. Civil Rights would once again be in the front seat and not the back seat of our lives in this city.
These lawsuits are only the tip of the iceberg. The city has this attitude that creates adversarial positions with everyone they deal with and watching the Council meetings is all the proof one needs to verify that. Lantry and Helgen get so upset about giving anyone a break their faces turn red. They can be tough guys right now because they are only fioghting a few people in court. We'll see how tough they are when there are a hundred of these types of people bringing lawsuits against them, and that will happen. When it looks as if the RIco GUYS are going to win, everyone who has ever had the same problem with the city is going to be lined up at the courthouse door, and they'll all have free Attorneys. If they think they have budget problems now, just wait. Start saving your money Eric.....you'll be one of the unlucky ones paying the judgement and legal fees, and you'll have it comimg because according to your own twisted logic, you didn't get involved when you should have!
Folks, friends advocates of one's freedom and liberty, Nancy bought a house that was on the vacant building list. There is a requirement of what one must do before a vacant building can be occupied. What Nancy is saying is that because her real estate agent didn't find that out for her the City should step in and fix the problem by pretending it didn't happen. But, she isn't asking them to just pretend, she is instead blaming her and her agents mistake on the City. She is claiming that the City should develop some new notification system that would violate your right to privacy.
Listen to me - SHE WANTS THE CITY TO TELL YOUR BANK EVERYTIME MAGNER WRITES YOU UP!!
You can not sit here and agree with her logic. Do you want Magner to be sending letters to your bank?
Help me here people, that is exactly what she said in the last post. So, I know that it might make your fingers bleed if you had to type something in agreement but, think about it anyway...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
I decided I would not post here again. Then this evening I read Mr. Johnson statement to the forum. And I had a change of heart.
I thought it is about time Mr. Johnson take some responsibility. This forum has potential only if Mr. Johnson is looking out for everybody's right to participate here.
Posting here was fun until lately when this nasty attempt started to get Chuck, Eric and I to quit posting. I was wondering where your moderation was Mr. Johnson. You have it printed at the top of the front page "no Personal attacks" and yet you let this Mr. Anonymous guy attack Chuck, Eric and I in a vicious way.
It doesn't bother me when someone disagrees with me. It is irresponsible to "attack" a poster in his or her personal life just because you feel this person maybe winning the debate.
I am not the only one who feels this way. The girls in the office read here too. They enjoy the forum. They were also very discouraged with the nasty trend here over the last week and a half.
I hope you have learned from this Mr. Johnson.
The girls in my office happen to like the occasional "nasty."
Some of the posters here at A Democracy have lost a lot with the tactics the city is currently using on property owners, that not only includes materials items and dollars but also the trust for the government. So I understand when some of the posters get frustrated to this point when they hear a view of opposition, some of these views are not even realistic but instead just show favortism as being connected to the city for the persons own self interest. Some of the tactics the city is using may be necessary but when it gets to the point that the power and control by the cities employees is getting out of control the city does have an obligation to investigate these allegations not ignore them.
I also know people say and write things when they are upset without thinking it out clearly first, many of us are guilty of that whether we want to admit it or not. When we have city employees that will not give a property owner a fair chance to even discuss a situation there is going to be problems. There have been several instances were it has been proven that these code inspectors have been wrong with there reportings of the condition of these homes, they do not have an education in building structures so they have falsely documented the condition of homes, whether it be because of their lack of knowledge or deliberately. Yet people are accepting that as being ok, its not ok. If they are going to be inspecting homes they should have a college degree or at least minimal education in building structures.
I find it difficult to believe that some posters can not find at least some agreement with the plaintiffs or other individuals that have posted there stories here. Some of these stories are very sad stories that involve the elderly, if a complete code compliance is necessary on older homes maybe it would be fair to bring all homes in the city up to date to make all homes safe. I would bet everyone of you would be complaining here then.
Amanda,
You would change your mind rapidly if you personally experienced the things the Housing Police are doing.
This is far out of the ordinary.
The real story, the whole story has not even begun to be told here. When it is, I think a lot of people are going to be very suprised. I also think a lot of political careers are going to be ruined.
I think it amazing that Chuck can so easily twist the words that I have said.
It is the LAW that defines the mortgage holder as one of the "owners of record"...read the St. Paul Legislative Code and the MN Statutes.
It is the LAW, OUR law, that requires the city to notice the mortgage holder of code violations AND registered vacant building determinations.
And it is the RIGHT UNDER CONTRACT for the mortgage holder to know of these "propblems" with the property that is being used for the collateral for the loan that they gave....and to demand that the person that got the mortgage, repair the property.
It is the RIGHT UNDER CONTRACT for the mortgage holder to foreclose on a property if the property is not "properly maintained"...violations of housing/building codes is defined as "not properly maintained".
When you get a mortgage, you are not the "sole owner" of the property, you have obligations under the contract that you signed to get somone else's money. That "someone else" has the right to insist the the property, that was used as collateral for THEIR money, is maintained.
To the person that said
"You didn't learn about the state constitutions because you blanked out on Unit 1 of 12th grade Political Science at Tartan High School. That unit identifies the four common characteristics of a state, discussions on citizenship, and an overview of the US Constitution. Ms Fellows is teaching the course this year- you may want to go back for a refresher.
One characteristic of a state is that it has its own governing document. A constitution. The U.S. Constitution still overrides the state ones and city charters."
I graduated from Tartan High School 31 years ago. I was a member of the national honor society, the debate team, president of the foreign language club and had my own undergraound newspaper. I did not "blank out on Unit 1 of Political Science"...there was NO SUCH class.
You should read the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers and the Minnesota Constitutional Convention Debates before you parrot what Ms. Fellows has taught you...I doubt if she has read these documents...
A constitution is a CONTRACT...to be more precise...a COMPACT, by which the PRINCIPLE (the sovereign Citizens) define the relationship with the AGENT...those in public SERVICE.
Try watching Bob Zick's Inside Insight...I co-host the program, every Wednesday night at 8:30 PM.. Leslie Davis has also had me on his program and will be running an episode next week whereby you can listen and LEARN about who, you, the Citizen really is...and what your responsibilities are.
Nancy Lazaryan
Nancy
I have a tip for you.
The city used to give notice to the other people having an interest in the property. The proof is in their own records. Whne your lawsuit gets into the discovery phase, make the city give you copies of all past housing code violations orders and you will those people being notified.
The reason they do not do it now is brecause they know they are worng and breaking the law with some of the things they are doing and they don't want to notify these Mortgage ompanies because they have the money to take the city to court and fight them. The city only likes to pick on the weak, helpless, and ones they percieve to not hve the money to fight. The odds of sucess are much better that way.
OK here is the language from the City code chapter 43 Vacant Buildings... (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, 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. Any such person shall have a joint and several obligation for compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
......... If you read the language above you will find that there is one owner of record and owners of record are the person or people who own title of the property. All of the other people that may or may not have an interest in the property are treated as owners by the City for purposes of the Vacant Buildin ordinance if they have possession of the property.
Nancy, you can make up anything you want but the LAW is the Law.
As to the contract relationship between the property owner and the mortgage company, that is exactly the reason why I and just about everybody else on this list should want to fight your goal TO HAVE MAGNER CONTACT THE BANK EVERYTIME THERE IS A VIOLATION!
Yes the bank has the right to foreclose on the mortgage if the property isn't being taken care of, but to this point the bank has to get up off of there duff and make that determination. Why would YOU WANT MAGNER TO SEND VIOLATIONS TO THE BANK?
So, as if people who write on this list don't have enough problems now Nancy wants the City (MAGNER) to contact the bank everytime there is a write up for tall weeds and grass.
It would be very bad City policy. We all better hope she loses that case.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Personally, I like the contact with the city, the more the better because sooner or later they will slip up and I can sue them too.
3:27 learn how to spell.
Apparently Chuck believed that he could give advise to Thune about what is the law, and from what I have seen Chuck post in this blog, I understand why he no longer that "position".
For those Citizens that would like to know HOW to read the law:
Chp. 43 of the St. Paul Leg. Code defines certain terms, such as "owner". As you can read, an OWNER includes the mortgage lien holder.
Then the code says what the OWNER must do. "The owner shall register with the enforcement officer not later than thirty (30) days after any building in the city becomes a vacant building, as defined in section 43.02(7)."
Now, look at the end of the code, it states:"Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to abolish or impair existing remedies of the city authorized under Chapters 33, 34, 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code or Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 through 463.26. Any conflicts between this chapter and Chapters 33 and 45 will be superseded by the provisions of Chapters 33 and 45."
Hmmmm...so WHAT is M.S. Sec. 463.15 through 463.26? and Chapters 33 and 45?
"Sec. 33.02. State building code--Adoption.
(a) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 16B.59 through 16B.75, the state building code, as adopted pursuant to laws of the state, is hereby adopted by reference."
Sec. 45.02. Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply to this chapter:
Interested party: Any owner of record, occupying tenant or lien holder of record.
Last known address: The address shown on the records of the Ramsey County Department of Property Taxation or a more recent address known to the enforcement officer. In the case of parties not listed in these records, the last known address shall be that address obtained by the officer after a reasonable search.
Owner: Those shown to be owner or owners on the records of the Ramsey County Department of Property Taxation.
(lots more to read at Chapter 45...things like NOTICE to the Owner(s)..and HOW the notice is to be done.)
Well, well...now we need to go over to the MN statutes..
Sec. 463.15 through 463.26..and sections 16B.59 through 16B.75...
St. Paul is a "charter city", and the city could have literally ignored the statutes and written all of their own law concerning the management of the city...but St. Paul incorporated these statutes..so you need to know what the statutes say:
463.15 DEFINITIONS.
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. (the mortgage is ALWAYS recorded at the county...so the mortgage holder is an owner of record..they have an equitable interest in the property because of the mortgage)
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.
463.251 SECURING VACANT BUILDINGS.
Subd. 2. Order; notice. If in any city a building becomes vacant or unoccupied and is deemed
hazardous due to the fact that the building is open to trespass and has not been secured and the
building could be made safe by securing the building, the governing body may order the building
secured and shall cause notice of the order to be served upon the owner of record of the premises
or the owner's agent, the taxpayer identified in the property tax records for that parcel, the holder
of the mortgage or sheriff's certificate, and any neighborhood association for the neighborhood in
which the building is located that has requested notice, by delivering or mailing a copy to the
owner or agent, the identified taxpayer, the holder of the mortgage or sheriff's certificate, and the neighborhood association, at the last known address. Service by mail is complete upon mailing.
(Wow,they have go "track down" the owners and notice them)
16B.62 STATE BUILDING CODE; APPLICATION.
Subdivision 1. Municipal enforcement. The State Building Code applies statewide and supersedes the building code of any municipality. A municipality must not by ordinance or through development agreement require building code provisions regulating components or systems of any residential structure that are different from any provision of the State Building Code. A municipality may, with the approval of the state building official, adopt an ordinance that is more restrictive than the State Building Code where geological conditions warrant a more restrictive ordinance.
(but read the "rest of the story"...of how that more restrictive code must happen)
(Here's a GOOD one...):
Subd. 2. Enforcement by state building official. If the commissioner determines that a municipality is not properly administering and enforcing the State Building Code as provided in section 16B.71, the commissioner may have the administration and enforcement in the involved
municipality undertaken by the state building official.
16B.63 STATE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
Subd. 5. Interpretative authority. To achieve uniform and consistent application of the State
Building Code, the state building official has final interpretative authority applicable to all codes
adopted as part of the State Building Code except for the Plumbing Code and the Electrical Code
when enforced by the State Board of Electricity.
(I've worked with the state building official when I had problems with a building official in another city...amazing how "nice" the city official was after I talked with the state building official...because the state building official can remove the city's authority to oversee the code, if the state official has proof that the city official is not obeying the law)
16B.65 BUILDING OFFICIALS.
Subd. 5. Oversight committee. (a) The commissioner shall establish a Code Administration
Oversight Committee to evaluate, mediate, and recommend to the commissioner any
administrative action, penalty, suspension, or revocation with respect to complaints filed with or
information received by the commissioner alleging or indicating the unauthorized performance of official duties or unauthorized use of the title certified building official, or a violation of statute,
rule, or order that the commissioner has issued or is empowered to enforce.
Subd. 5b. Suspension; revocation. Except as otherwise provided for by law, the commissioner may, upon notice and hearing, revoke or suspend or refuse to issue or reissue a
building official certification if the applicant, building official, or certification holder:
(1) violates a provision of sections 16B.59 to 16B.75 or a rule adopted under those sections;
(2) engages in fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation while performing the duties of a certified building official;
(3) makes a false statement in an application submitted to the commissioner or in a document required to be submitted to the commissioner; or
(4) violates an order of the commissioner.
Now folks, I haven't included all of the wonderful RESTRICTIONS placed upon the government in these Minnesota Statutes, but I do suggest you give them a LONG, hard read....because their are CRIMINAL penalites for the goverment officials that violate the Citizens' rights.
I think its about time we all get together and head over to that state building official. He was really great to work with when I talked to him a few months ago...the city building official even apologized to me for the problems he had caused me (after he got an ear full from the state building official).
So, folks, the big bad City of St. Paul has to obey the Minnesota Statutes...and the state has been very careful to protect our property rights...requiring NOTICE of what the city is doing against our properties...and providing a CRIMINAL penalty for those city employees that violate the statutes.
Even better, and look really close...where does it say, anywhere, that the city can "create" a "Registered Vacant building"...unless the building is UNSECURE and an IMMEDIATE hazard.
Really? Yep...because the St. Paul code has incorporated the MN statute that RESTRICTS the actions of the city.
Sec. 43.08. Alternative procedures.
"Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to abolish or impair existing remedies of the city authorized under Chapters 33, 34, 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code or Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 through 463.26"
The best weapon you have against the city is knowledge of our law.
Anyone interested in going with me to the state building official, email me at nancylazaryan@gmail.com
Nancy Lazaryan
Nancy
I saw your previous response and I want to join the lawsuit with you. I am in North Dakota for my mothers funeral right now, but I will contact your email in a few days when I return. The city has done the same things to me that have been described on this blog by so many people. I thought it was just me.
Till then,
Karen
Nancy, I am amazed you clearly show in writing that the City and the State view owner and/or owners of record as being different than other interested parties and then proceed to say they are the same thing. I am sorry Nancy but they are not.
I can not imagine that the people on this list that are upset with government interference in their property would ever advocate in favor of your position that the City should notify all interested parties.
Come on Bob weigh in here... Do you want Magner to send a letter to the bank of every property that he writes up letting them know that there are tall weeds and grass? Do you want that kind of goevernment involvement in private citizens relationships with their banks?
Because that is the essence of Nancy L's case that the City should have notified the bank as well as the owner of record and that they should do that every time they take an action on the building. (In fact she is saying the bank has the same right to info as the owner does.)
I don't know how many are still following this thread but, if you are you should be seeing the problem that government has in writing laws. If you want to be nice to Nancy and try to read the law the way she does then you are telling Magner to send notice to the bank everytime he writes up a property. Good luck on your refi after the bank has seen a few of Magner's letters.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Again this is the language Nancy has above...
Interested party: Any owner of record, occupying tenant or lien holder of record.
and
Owner: Those shown to be owner or owners on the records of the Ramsey County Department of Property Taxation.
Can one else see that interested party has the lean holder listed and owner does not?
Sorry, Nancy you have no case.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck,
I hope that the City of St. Paul calls witnesses that are as inept at understanding the law as you are.
I did not post the ENTIRE language of the statutes and the code, and told people to READ it.
Chuck, just like when the preacher takes a single verse out of the Bible and then attempts to "make it fit" his sermon, you are doing the same with the law.
One must look at the DEFINITIONS and then see how these words are used within the requirements and penalty portion of the law.
Obviously, Chuck, you are too lazy to actually read and understand an entire page of the English language. Apparently, so are the public officials at the City of St. Paul.
Concerning NOTICE to the mortgage lien holders....
YES, I support the city being required to follow the law and NOTICE the mortgage company.
I have been having discussions with Wells Fargo about the fact that they were not noticed. And, even though I have them listed as a defendant in my case, I have talked with them about doing a CROSS-CLAIM against the City of St. Paul. Basically, the mortgage company puts the blame onto the city, because the city failed to notice them.
I simply cannot understand how Chuck can actually argue that the mortgage holder, that gave money for a property, and has a contract that states the property will be properly maintained, does not have the right to know when orders are being written against the collateral that was used for the loan.
What? Mortgage compnaies are just supposed to give out money and then just let the people that borrowed the money "trash the place"?The mortgage company requires you to carry insurance in case the place is damaged. The mortgage compay requires the title to be clear, and that there are no liens or assessments on the property. Chuck, do you think that the mortgage companies shouldn't demand these requirements?
By the way, in my case, the mortgage lien holder was IN POSSESSION...it was a foreclosed property. Chuck, do I need to explain to you what that means, I understand that you are a licensed real estate agent. You had to pass a test to get your license and I am certain that questions about ownership interests were part of that test.
Nancy Lazaryan
Owner: Those shown to be owner or owners on the records of the Ramsey County Department of Property Taxation.
That's it Nancy and you aren't going to find anything in case law where the City was required to notify one's creditors about their property. Interested parties are not given notification for a simple reason, private citizens have a right to privacy. It is a protection in the constitution.
I know there are many of you that think that the constitution was writen by Adam Smith and that the amount of wealth one has should determine what rights they have and that banks and other creditors should hold power over the comman man, but our founding fathers didn't think that way. We do have the fourth and the fourteenth amendments that give us a certain degree of privacy.
If the City writes you up for tall weeds and grass you have the right to dispute it and not have the City notify your creditors about those actions. Yes, when I sign a contract with the bank I agree to keep the property up, but I didn't agree to allow the City to tell the bank about my business. Those things that are public record the bank has access to but nobody OK'd the City to be the banks eyes and ears.
To turn the power of the state into a watch dog for lending institutions to attack private citizens and to have the banks act as muscle for the government would have Madison and Hamilton spinning in their graves.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck,
People have value. You and the inspections personnel you defend demonstrait a complete lack of sensitivity and human understanding. Look at the way these people have been treated.
It is time you take a sensitivity training course.
Chuck,
If you don't like the law, then act like a Citizen, talk with your legislators, organize and get the law changed.
Here is the law:
St. Paul Leg. Code
Nuisance Abatement
Sec. 45.02. Definitions
Interested party: Any owner of record, occupying tenant or lien holder of record.
Sec. 45.11. Substantial abatement procedure.
When the enforcement officer determines that a nuisance exists on a property and the cost of abatement of the nuisance is estimated to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or the abatement involves demolition of a building other than a structure accessory to a residential building, or the abatement substantially diminishes the value of the property, and except in the case of an emergency as provided for in section 45.12, the city shall abate the nuisance by the procedure described below. A good faith estimate of the abatement costs, not the actual cost calculated after the abatement is completed, shall be the basis which determines whether this abatement procedure shall be used.
(1) Orders. The enforcement officer shall serve a written order upon the owner, all interested parties and any responsible party known to the officer. The order shall contain the following:
a. A description of the real estate which is sufficient for identification and which shall include the legal description;
b. The location of the nuisance on the property;
c. A description of the nuisance and the basis upon which it is declared to be a nuisance;
d. The remedial action required to abate the nuisance;
e. The abatement deadline, to be determined by the enforcement officer, allowing a reasonable time for the completion of any act required;
In my case, the notice was required because the determination of the "Registered Vacant Building" status substantially diminished the value of the property.
If your "tall grass", or abandoned car, or other nuisance substantially reduces the value of the property, then the mortgage holder has the RIGHT to notice.
Apparently, you have no concept of contract law. You think that if a person buys property with a mortgage, that they are free to do whatever they want with the property.
The person that buys the property is not the "free holder" because of the contract (note) and the mortgage.
Our constitutions protect the right to contract...and the legislators have acknowledged the equitable interest a mortgage holder has in the property, by virtue of the contract.
Chuck, you make it appear that the government is the watchdog for the lending institutions...do you have something to hide?
Actually,since we are a self-governed people, we decided, through our legislators, to PROTECT the parties in a CONTRACT.
You say:"Those things that are public record the bank has access to"...accept the problem is...the city did NOT make a public record, at the county recorder's office...as the law requires them to do.
Any which way you look at this case, St. Paul failed to perform the actions that law requires of them...
No notice to the mortgage holder, the building did not meet the criteria for being a "registered vacant building", knowingly sending the notice to a dead person, then after getting the first notice back in the mail, sending another notice to the dead person, failing to do due diligence in finding the "other owners of record", failing to record their actions with the county recorder, failing to post the property,failing to provide the file to the city council when the appeal was made(big no-no), threatening the occupant of the property.
...and then messing with me, a sovereign state Citizen that will require the public officials to obey the law.
Nancy Lazaryan
WOW!!
Sure is nice to be blessed here with another outspoken woman like Nancy O. and Amanda.
Nancy L. very informative.
Don't you guys just love a strong outspoken woman!
This gal remind you of anyone Chuck?
tell gloria I said hi.. :-)
so does this now mean that anyone who been denied their "due process" in the past Nancy can "pile on" so to speak with their own lawsuit against the city? Sure would be nice if all the people injured by the cities tactics would sue them for it.
In response to the last post:
DUE PROCESS is a right secured by the Minnesota and U.S. constitutions.
When the government "breaks the contract" (compact)that is defined by the constitutions, and denies a Citizen their due process rights, the Citizen has the OBLIGATION to HOLD THE people in government accountable.
Unless WE THE PEOPLE hold OUR government accountable for their actions...we end up with TYRANNY.
I haved moved for a "change of venue" in my case because of the evidence that the Ramsey County District Court has been manipulated by the St. Paul city officials.
The Ramsey County District Court cannot, BY LAW, hear my complaint against the city of St. Paul. Actions are already being taken against the "public officials" that manipulated the Ramsey County Distict Court.
I am also actively pushing for "judicial reform" in the state...with legislation that has been introduced to "hold the judges accountable" when they violate our rights.
I'm not "playing".
Bob has offered to me the opportunity to post information on this blog that would educate the Citizens...and give the people the information they need..so that they understand the limits of the government that WE established.
In the next week or so, look for this information...you will be surprised at what "they" have kept from you.
Nancy Lazaryan
Nancy what you sited is the section of the code where the City demos the building -
Sec. 45.11. Substantial abatement procedure.
This is not the section of the code where your building was put on the vacant building list.
The reason why the City would notify all interested parties before they demoed a building is because they were actually demoing the asset that the bank has an interest in. This is not at all the situation that the prior owner of your property had. The City didn't touch the building it wrote it up for an infraction and then declared it vacant.
The City did not deminish the value of the building by declaring it vacant.
You have the laws entirely mixed up. Get a lawyer you don't have a clue!!!
Never mind it costs nothing to do these silly cases with no basis and people on this list will think you are a hero...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Thank you for being here Nancy
Thank you so much!
Chuck if you look at the situations where the city has demolished homes you will find that the banks/mortgage companies were not notified in those situations either. According to your last statement in a case as such were the city is about to tear a home down they MUST notify all interested parties of the home. Thank you for clarifying that issue.
And Nancy L. thank you for being so kind as to offer your help to the many citizens that have had their rights violated.
Chuck,
The ONLY place in the Code that authorizes the City to declare a building as "vacant" is chapter 45.
So, if the City was NOT operating under Chapter 45, they had NO AUTHORITY OF LAW to declare the house a "registered vacant buildling".
Under Chapter 43...it is THE OWNER that registers the building...under Chapter 43...the City has NO AUTHORITY to declare the building a "registered vacant building".
So, Chuck, you are saying that Chapter 45 has to do with demo of the building, and the City did not write any orders to demo the building..yet the City declared the building "registered vacant"...and the ONLY law that allows them to do this is Chap. 45.
In other words, Chuck, you agree with me..the City had NO AUTHORITY OF LAW to decalre the building a registered vacant building...because they did not order demo of the house.
Nancy LAzaryan
8:14 I would agree if the City didn't give all interested parties on file at Ramsey County info as to an abatement where the building would be substantially altered or removed in an non-emergency situatinon (didn't knocked it down after a fire... building was falling down) that the mortgage company would have a case. The bank or lien holder could sue the City and it would mean the City would have to pay damages.
Of course that would have nothing to do with the world wide conspiracy to abuse the tin foil hat people or our favorite group of problem land lords... it would mean that City staff didn't follow procedure and the City would have to pay. And shit happens. I never said the world was perfect only that there isn't an international conspiracy to steal houses by the City.
...and that was not what Nancy says her situation was...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
OK Help me Nancy, I don't get the question. The City has Chapter 43 where it deals with vacant buildings and the procedures around vacant building and then it has the more serious buildings under Chapter 45 where the City is prepared to substancially abate the property demo/remove a portion.
Are you saying that you think that the City has to declare that they are going to demo the building before they can put it on the vacant building list?
I think they are do seperate issues one is a simple list of buildings that appear to be not in use and the other is buildings that are a public health risk.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Nancy, I just read through Chapter 45 again and you can't even find the words "Vacant Building" anywhere in the Chapter. If the City had to use Chapter 45 to put a building under Chapter 43 don't you think the words would appear there somewhere?
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Words mean nothing to the city Chuck. They just make it up as they go knowing fullwell that 99% of the people do not have the money to sue them.
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
Chuck did you know that the mortgage company listed on the property tax statement for the last sale of 14 Jessamine was never notified? Did you ever read the foot notes from the judge on the last order the day the home was demolished? It clearly stated that the order in no way was meant to grant the city permission to demo the structure without proper time allowed for the counsel to seek further action... meaning the property owner had a right to contest the order and file another motion. Yet Magner and associates followed through with the threat of tearing the home down before the attoneys for plaintiffs even recieved the US mail that morning.
Nancy O.
And now we finally know why the city won that court case on Jessamine. The court was fixed ahead of time. The city hqd the bulldozers there waiting for the instant the judge signed the order. I thought a person had a couple of weeks to file an appeal or something if you did not agree? This doesn't smell like "due process" to me!
Okay Chuck,
One more time, since you were not paying attention earlier...
Chapter 43 Vacant Buildings
...if you READ the OWNER is the party that registers the building as vacant...NOT the city.
...BUT Chapter 43 INCORPORATES Chap 45 and 33...see:
Sec. 43.08. Alternative procedures.
Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to abolish or impair existing remedies of the city authorized under Chapters 33, 34, 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code or Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 through 463.26. Any conflicts between this chapter and Chapters 33 and 45 will be superseded by the provisions of Chapters 33 and 45.
Since you are unable to READ, here is part of Chapter 45 that talks about vacant buildings:
Attractive nuisance: A condition such as a dangerous structure, an unsecured vacant or condemned building, or other condition which in the opinion of the enforcement officer may attract nonowner(s) or other unauthorized person(s) and which would expose them to risk, peril or danger.
Nuisance building: A vacant building or portion of a vacant building as defined in section 43.02 which has multiple housing code or building code violations or has been ordered vacated by the city and which has conditions constituting material endangerment as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code section 34.23(g), or which has a documented and confirmed history as a blighting influence on the community.
Now, do you see the part that says
"has been ordered vacated by the city" ??
Here is where the City of St.Paul is violating people's due process rights. When the ordinance says, "has been ordered vacated by the city"...there MUST be a procedure within the ordinance for the city to "order the property vacated".
Guess what...I couldn't find the procedure.
And...I made a demand... weeks ago, to the St. Paul City Clerk for the city's "policies and procedures" used in determining the order that the property is a "registered vacant building"...the city clerk has failed to provide me the policies and procedures.
Without enacting the policies and procedures, and just saying, "the city can order the building vacated"...that's a violation of our constitutions because it violates the secured right of DUE PROCESS.
So folks, do you understand DUE PROCESS...there must be "policies and PROCEDURES"..enacted by the people that represent us, our elected officials.
St. Paul fails to follow their legislative code, and fails to follow the MN statutes. And when a public official's actions violate a person's substantive rights (like due process), the public official must respond, personally, by paying damages.
So, if you ever choose to work for me, to work for us, the Citizens... you had better understand our LAW and our constitutions..your employment is "Privileged" and you serve at "the pleasure" of the Citizens.
Nancy Lazaryan
Apples and oranges Nancy. The building was unocupied. The City did not declare it a nuisance they simply informed the owner that they needed to pay the registration fee to register it at as a vacant building. The entire process was done under Chapter 43 nothing was done under Chapter 45.
The owner was sent the notice that is not in dispute. What you are saying is somehow the City needs to declare a building ready for demo (and inform all interested parties) before they can say, hey its empty.
It is an interesting arguement it doesn't have anything to do with the City code but its an interesting arguement.
Chapter 43 is how buildings are determined vacant. Chapter 45 is how the City abates propety.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck,
The city did not "just simply inform the (dead) owner that they needed to register the building as vacant".
The city made the determination that the building was vacant and placed the building into the vacant building status.
The only authority of law that the city has to place the building a "vacant building status" is Chapter 45...Chapter 43 does not give the city ANY authority in "creating" the staus of vacant building over a property.
Chcuk, you ask, "Are you saying that you think that the City has to declare that they are going to demo the building before they can put it on the vacant building list?"
Good question...the ONLY authority given to the city, to declare a building vacant is in Chapter 45. If the building does not meet the criteria set forth in Chapter 45, then the City has no authority to declare the building vacant.
Chapter 43 ...has no authority of law contained within it for the city to take an action against a "potentially" vacant building. In chapter 43 there is a directive to the owner, not authority given to the city.
The public officials at the City of St. Paul have taken actions against this building without authority of law.
This is the basic, primary question that needs to be answered whenever a government agency takes action against you....WHAT IS THEIR AUTHORITY OF LAW?
If the law does not give them SPECIFIC power to do an action against you, and if they do not follow the EXACT procedures necessary in the law, then they are operating without authority of law...you can sue them...and they will have to pay you, out of their own personal pockets.
Nancy Lazaryan
Nancy,
I think Chuck is trying to get you to lay all your cards on the table because it might work to the city Attorney's advantage.
My cards are already on the table. Read from the complaint that I served:
"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."
The St. Paul City Attorney knows EXACTLY what I am arguing....I have been psoting on this blog so that the Citizens understand the restraints that are upon the public officials in St. Paul.
Actually, I enjoy hearing from Chuck...it just supports my legal arguments
...that the City does not know the law that they are supposedly enforcing.
Citizens can contact me at nancylazaryan@gmail.com
Nancy
I have had experience with the city and the courts, and I'll give you a good word of advice. The City Attorney is not rnning the show the City Council is. The City Attorney does what the Council tells him to do. These people have too big of egos to look at anything objectivly or be able to resolve anything.
Everything they say to you you will be a lie.
Everything they do will be a trick.
Every strategy and response will be the stupid tactic to use for them.
Bet the farm on the above and you'll be a winner.
These people are incaplable of thinking out side of the box. They are stuck in their little cookie cutter mentality. They are not that hard to beat, just stick to the law and have good facts.
A friend
I get Chapter 43 doesn't exist because Nancy says so...
Nancy, you are saying that the action of noticing that the building is vacant is an adverse action. Is that your point?
Your saying that listing the building is a penalty over $5,000.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck,
Where does it SAY in Chapter 43 that the CITY has the authority to deem a building a "registered vacant building"? Where? What are the words? Chapter 43 is directive to OWNERS of property.
The only chapter that gives the City authority to classify the building as "vacant" is Chapter 45.
Wow, you are really unable to read the English language.
Nancy Lazaryan
What the city's inspections staff lacks in comprehension, they make up in creativity. I suppose Chuck has been talking to them too much.
I told you so Repke! When this new Nancy person came on the line here, I told you that you would get a good old fashioned ass whoopin, and she seems to be giving to you good my man. Your finished Repke. No more non profit money for projects like your, and you want to know why? Because in no time at all Repke the lanldords going to take over the city and your kinds of projects will be cut off. The trial started today Repke and the city is going to lose when it is over, and then when they get that light rail train built, they'll be shipping your political cronies out of here like sacks of potatoes. They'll be shipping them out one way Repke. All trains will jsut leave the city, non will come back and all your political buddies will be down in Albert Lee screwing lids onto cans of green bean. You can't fool everyone all the time Chuck. I'm afraid you're done around here....no more money, no more building projects. There's going to be brownfields sprouting up Repke. Maybe you can get a job cutting the grass on them, but more non profit money....no I'm afraid not, you're finished up and expired here pal.
OK Nancy, now we are on the same page. You do view the determination of a building being vacant as an adverse action by the City. That is not how the City views it and that is going to be the case.
This is my guess as to what the City will say in response....
The City will say that vacant buildings are deemed vacant by definition in Chapter 43.
Chapter 43.02 Definitions
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 sixty-five (365) days and during which time the enforcement officer has issued an order to correct nuisance conditions.
--------
If the building meets any of those above conditions the building is vacant and the owner then has an obligation to register the building.
That's their case Nancy. The building while in the hands of the old owner became vacant, they were informed that it needed to be registered (if they paid the registration fee, then you realy don't have a case...). The City did the proper notice to the owner of record on file with Ramsey County.
Case closed...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
At the end, Repke should have said "mouth closed" instead.
Well, Chuck, if the people at the City attorney's office are as IGNORANT of the law as you are, then this WILL be a "slam dunk".
ONE MORE TIME:
Chap 43 defines the criteria necessary for an OWNER to register a building as vacent. The building DID NOT meet the criteria.
Chap 45 defines the criteria necessary for the CITY to register the builidng as vacant...AND the requirements of NOTICE.
The building DID NOT MEET the criteria under Chap 45...AND the CITY failed to properly notice ALL of the owners.
So...duh...the City had NO AUTHORITY OF LAW to place the building on the registered vacant building list. Duh.
Folks, the government cannot operate without authority of law...when they do so, they MUST respond in damages (money) to the person that they harmed.
Period. End of sentence.
Chuck, do you need further education?
Nancy Lazaryan
nancylazaryan@gmail.com
Sorry Nancy back to the facts...
Sec. 43.01. Declaration of policy.
The purpose of this chapter is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by enactment of this ordinance which:
(1) Establishes a program for identification and registration of vacant buildings.
(2) Determines the responsibilities of owners of vacant buildings and structures.
(3) Provides for administration, enforcement and penalties.
-----------
It isn't..."Chap 43 defines the criteria necessary for an OWNER to register a building as vacent. The building DID NOT meet the criteria."
The building was determind to be vacant by definition in 43.02. The old owner then has an obligation under Chapter 43 to register it. The City doesn't need to use Chapter 45 to "force" a registration.
Chapter 43 has the force of law and the old owner was given due process.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck,
You are saying that the building was
"determined vacant" by definition of Chap 43.
WHERE in Chap 43 does it say that the CITY has the POWER to determine the building as vacant?
WHERE?
The law says the OWNER is to register the building as vacant when the building meets the definition of a vacant building.
You say, "The building was determined to be vacant by definition in 43.02"
The building DID NOT MEET the definition of "vacant" under 43.02...the CRITERIA.
You say,"The old owner then has an obligation under Chapter 43 to register it." The owner has NO obligation to register a building as vacant when the building does not meet the definition of a vacant building.
Then you say, "Chapter 43 has the force of law and the old owner was given due process."
Which "old owner"...the DEAD guy? The DEAD guy was given due process? Dead people do not have due process rights...Duh, duh.
So you must mean the MORTGAGE holder was the owner and that the mortgage holder was given due process.
It is an established FACT that the OWNER was NOT noticed. (you cannot NOTICE a DEAD person, and the OTHER owner, the mortgage holder was not noticed).
Boy, I certainly hope that you are called as an "expert witness" for the defendants.
Nancy Lazaryan
nancylazaryan@gmail.com
Nancy, this is insane you don't even have the basic consept of the law. The City has the power to write ordinances - what are you saying in your world the City can't write an ordinance?
In this world the City wrote an ordinance it is a part of the housing code in that is Chapter 43. In Chapter 43 they define what is a vacant building is. It is the power of that ability to write the charter that allows them to do that... they define a vacant building. They then go on to explain what is the obligation fo an owner of a vacant building. Its the Law.
I'm sorry the dead guy does get due process duh - DUH - DUH
The only person that the City was ever required to give notice to was the owner of record. The name and address at the county it is not the City's job to go on a fucking search.
So, my turn for a question did the bank when they took possesion ever pay the vacant building fee?
Did they register the building as vacant?
If they did just shut the F up.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck,
The BANK was the OWNER of RECORD, in May of 2006.
The house did not meet the definition of a "Vacant Building" under chap 43.
So the owner was NOT required to register the house as a "registered vacnat building".
You say, "The City has the power to write ordinances - what are you saying in your world the City can't write an ordinance?"
When have I said that?
I'm saying that the City has to follow the law, the ordinance.
You ask,
"So, my turn for a question did the bank when they took possesion ever pay the vacant building fee?
Did they register the building as vacant?"
Chap 43 requires that the OWNER declare the building as vacant...IF it MEETS the definition of a vacant building. The house did not meet the definition of a vacant building, so the owner (the bank) was under no obligation to register the building as vacant.
The bank DID NOT register the building as vacant because it was not vacant, pursuant to the definition of a vacant building in Chap 43.
The house was vacant and SECURE...according to the inspector's report.
There were NO code violation...none...not even a nuisance violation on May 26, 2006 when the CITY declared the house a "registered vacant building". The nuisance violations were written AFTER the determination that the house was a registered vacant building. Regardless, two nuisance violations do not give the CITY the authority of law to declare the house a "registered vacant building".
The CITY declared the building as vacant...and the ONLY authority that the CITY has to declare a building as vacant is in Chap 45!
The City can create ordinances, but then they must actually follow the ordinances.
Chapter 43 gives NO POWER to the City to register a building as vacant.
Chuck, here's a hint:
Let's just say there is this building, and it looks like there could be multiple housing or code violations. It is empty. The doors are wide open so the building is not secure. The City is required to first inspect the property then the City must send out NOTICE to the OWNER that there are code violations, and that the building is empty and not secure....AND a timeframe for the owner to correct these problems. The owner then has an opportunity to correct the problems.
Now, lets say this owner does not correct the problems.
And the building now meets the definition of a vacant building under Chap 43.
The owner fails to register the building as he/she is required under Chap 43.
What is the City to do?
The City can write the owner up for violating the owner's duty under Chap 43...or if the criterias are met, can deem the building as vacant under Chap. 45.
Chapter 43 does not give the City the authority to register building as vacant...in Chap 43, ONLY the owner is given that authority.
If the City had authority, under Chap 43 to register a building as vacant
...now listen really good...
then Chap 43 MUST state, within the language of the ordinance...that the City has this authority
....guess what Chap 43 does not give the City that authority...
Evidently YOU, Chuck, think that the City has this immense power, and that the City can do whatever it wants.
The City cannot take an action against someone...without the authority of law...without it being WRITTEN, specifically within the law, that the City has this power. Chap 43 does NOT give ANY power to the City to register a building as vacant....
You only find that "authority of law" in Chap 45.
IN MY CASE...the CITY registered the building as vacant...and the ONLY ordinance that gives the City that power is Chap 45.
The house did not meet the criteria (definition) under Chap 45 to be a vacant building.
The house did not meet the criteria under Chap 43 as a vacant building, and thereby the owner (the bank) was under no obligation to register the house with the City as a "registered vacant building".
So....ALL of those
"registered vacant buildings" in St. Paul
...if these buildings were deemed by St. Paul as being "registered vacant"
...and NOT by the owners as such, then each and every building MUST have met the criteria of a vacant building under Chap 45.
How much you want to bet that the City did that same things to other property owners, as they did in my case, and that many of these buildings do not meet the criteria under Chap 45?
Nancy Lazaryan
nancylazaryan@gmail.com
Nancy,
Speaking as a city official, you are right. We and Chuck have been fools.
DEE, DEE, DEE, DEE, DAH, DAH, DAH, DAH....DAAAAAHHHH
Its the twilight zone again.
Nancy please find me in Chapter 45 where the City registers vacant buildings. The City declares buildings to be nuisances in Chapter 45 there is a diference.
Somewhere in your universe you don't get the notion that the City in one fell swoop declares all buildings that are vacant to be vacant in the definition section of Chapter 43. They are therefore vacant, by law, by definition.
When the City comes upon a vacant building they inform an owner that they need to register it and pay the fee. It is at that point that the owner could dispute if it is or isn't vacant. The origanal owner did not dispute it, the second owner, the bank did not dispute it. But...you now dispute it.
The City doesn't make something a "Registered Vacant Building" it notices that a building is vacant and informs the ownere of the obligation to register it. Now words or phrases might be used interchangably in the public, but that is all that the City does by law. Failure to pay the fee on a vacant building does not make it any less of a vacant building nor does it release it from any obligation of maintenance that would be required under the chapter.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Nancy,
You have a gift with navigating this legalese. For me and most people, it makes my head spin and I run for cover.
Despite Chuck's Twilight Zone arguments, are you saying that the city has been declaring building vacant and causing all this damage without the legal right to do so?
What do you see of Chuck's role in these arguments. Is he genuinely concerned, or is he trying to cover it up?
Watch yourself nancy, chuck is an extention of the city.
When a law is enacted, the WORDS contained within the law are CONTROLLING.
If NO AUTHORITY is given to the government to "enact a penalty" then there is NO PENALTY.
READ Chap 43 of the St. Paul Legislative Code...
WHERE is there a penalty??
WHERE in Chap 43 is there the AUTHORITY of LAW for the City to take an action against an owner of a "vacant building"?
It is NOT there. And if it is NOT there, then there is NO AUTHORITY OF LAW.
Chapter 43 requires the OWNER to register a building as vacant, if the building meets certain definitions of a "vacant building".
BUT there is NO PENALTY against the owner for NOT REGISTERING.
There is NO AUTHORITY under Chap 43 for the City to deem the building as "registered vacant".
Isn't this great? Laws that have no penalties for violating them.
Stupid, really stupid.
Chuck says, "The City doesn't make something a "Registered Vacant Building" it notices that a building is vacant and informs the owner of the obligation to register it."
Really, under what AUTHORITY of LAW does the CITY "notice the building is vacant"?
....hmmmm...that would be Chapter 45, not chap. 43.
How can the City "notice the building is vacant"...unless the City has made a determination that the building is vacant?
Oh, and they can only do that under Chap 45.
As far as Chuck's role in all of this...I truly hope that he is running to the city attorney, and then coming back here and posting all of the City's ridiculous arguments.
I have NO PROBLEM with the City, or anyone else, knowing "my arguments".
My arguments are based upon the constitution, our statutes and U.S. Supreme Court decisions concerning the actions of municipalities.
My butt is covered, thank you.
Nancy Lazaryan
nancylazaryan@gmail.com
Nancy if you understood anything at all about the law this would be so much more interesting.
Nancy said, "Really, under what AUTHORITY of LAW does the CITY "notice the building is vacant"
Nancy the City defined what is a vacant building in Chapter 43 and nowhere else
Chapter 43.02 Definitions
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 sixty-five (365) days and during which time the enforcement officer has issued an order to correct nuisance conditions.
That is the force of law. The City doesn't need anything else. It has the authority to declare all buildings in that condition vacant and then to require the owner to register them. That is the law. You may not like it, but that is what it is. There is no mention of vacant buildings in Chapter 45 so that arguement is just insane.
I understand that you want your day in court to pretend that you are a big shot and then blame the judge for being a part of a conspiracy or some damn thing, but the public needs to know that though you sound good you know nothing of the law.
And no I don't work for the City and I don't talk to the City Attorny.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck states all this talk is meaningless, insane, no case, etc, etc, etc.
In his responses to "nothing", he has taken over 650 lines of twext.
Nancy, you've really got him worried.
Chuck,
Just because Chap 43 lists a definition of a "vacant building" does not mean the oridiance gives the City the power to declare the building as "registered vacant".
The ordinance, must state, on its face, any authority given to the City for enforcement. Chap 43 does not state any authority to the City for enforcement.
The Law must state the procedures the City must take to declare the building as vacant under Chap 43...it does not.
You say, "this is the force of law".
The law has no force unless the law specifically grants the force. Chap 43 grants NO FORCE to the City.
On another blog I challenged you, Chuck, to meet me face to face, and that we would "bring our evidence".
If I am right, then you change your position. If I am wrong, then I change mine.
Are you up for it? Or do you just want me to prove you wrong on this blog?
Nancy Lazaryan
nancylazaryan@gmail.com
Fine Nancy, let me check my schedule at the office and we will set up a time.
But... I don't get what in the heck you mean by the city making the building "registered vacant." They may keep a list of buildings that the owners have registered as vacant, and they might keep a list of buildings that they are aware of being vacant that the owners have not yet paid the registration fee, but it doesn't make any diference they are all "Vacant" buildings and handled by the rules of Chapter 43.
Any vacant building is required to be registered and it is required to have a cope compliance before it is occupied. It is not the registration that causes the need for the code compliance it is the fact that it is vacant.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck,
I have tried to explain it so many times...but here goes...again.
The City of St. Paul took an ACTION AGAINST the property. The City registered the property as vacant.
Now, we both agree, that under Chap 43, only the OWNER can register the building as vacant, right?
If the CITY wants to take an ACTION against a property, then they have to use Chap 45, see?
The CITY has ONLY the authority to take an ACTION that, by law, it is given...and the law must be SPECIFIC what the action is and the steps that are to be taken.
In my case, the only wat the CITY would have any power to take an ACTION AGAINST the property, is if they took the steps required in Chap 45....Chap 43 GIVES THE CITY NO POWER.
The City placed the property on the "registered vacant building list". By doing so, the City took and ACTION AGAINST the property.
Placement on the "registered vacant building list" now requires an action by the property owner to remove the property from the list, and to occupy the building.
The ACTION AGAINST the property, taken by the City, denies use and enjoyment of the property...and the City did this WITHOUT DUE PROCESS of LAW...because they did not follow the steps necessary in Chap 45...Chapter 45...one more time...Chap 45...because Chap 43 DOES NOT GIVE THE CITY ANY AUTHORITY to take an ACTION AGAINST the property.
Do you finally get it?
Oh, and by the way...this is the REAL Nancy Lazaryan...someone has been posting, using my name, on other A Democracy blogs.
Nancy Lazaryan
By triangulation, we have finally gotten to the crux of the issue...
Nancy believes that "listing" the property is an action of the City and should occur under Chapter 45. Now nowhere in Chapter 45 is there any discussion about the power to "list," but since being on a list in a drawer is in Nancy's mind an adverse action, then Nancy believes it should be an activity covered in Chapter 45.
Nancy, I am pasting here what I would show you if/when we meet:
Sec. 43.02. Definitions.
(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 sixty-five (365) days and during which time the enforcement officer has issued an order to correct nuisance conditions.
Sec. 33.03. Permits--When required.
(f) Work done on dangerous structures, nuisance buildings and vacant buildings.
(1) No persons shall be issued a permit pursuant to this chapter, excluding a demolition permit, for any building determined to be a dangerous structure under chapter 43 or nuisance building under chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, or a vacant building as defined under section 43.02(7)(c), (d), (e) or (f) without first filing for and receiving a certificate of code compliance inspection under section 33.06 or filing for and receiving a certificate of occupancy inspection under this chapter. Any application for a permit issued under this chapter, with the exception of a demolition permit, for work to be done on a building determined to be a dangerous structure or nuisance building must be accompanied by a deposit of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). Such monies shall be deposited with the office of license, inspections and environmental protection to be held at an interest rate to be established by that department until such time as the monies are refunded to the permittee or forfeited to the city under the provisions of this section. In lieu of the five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) deposit, a performance bond in the same amount running in favor of the city may be submitted with the application for the permit.
(5) No building subject to the restrictions of this section shall be used for occupancy until such time as the certificate of compliance and/or certificate of occupancy relating to that building has been issued. Rehabilitation undertaken by the department of planning and economic development shall be exempt from the requirement for a cash deposit.
-------
OK, these are the relevent chapters to your case. The building was vacant, by definition, the owner of record was noticed, the owner did not object or respond to the notice, the requirements of Chapter 43 and chapter 33 then applied.
There is no need for the City to take any adverse action on the property nor did they. They are simply tracking a building that should be registered under chapter 43. There is nowhere in any City code where the act of being registered or the City putting the building on a list triggers any consequence the issue is that the building is VACANT.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck,
Please, oh, please, be a witness in my case, for the City.
You have no concept of adminstrative law, and what you state is so ignorant of the law, that I could win everything if ou can before a judge that was not biased.
If the City is not taking an action against the property, then they would not be able to FORCE compliance.
The City must hve "authority of law"
..meaning the ordiance must state the ACTIONS that can be taken by the City.
The ordiance does not state that the City can register the building as vancant.
If the ordicance does not state that the City has the "authority of law" to register the building as vacant, then the City cannot be the "party" that registers the building as vavcant.
In my case, the CITY registered the building as vacant, NOT the owner.
Under WHAT authority
...MEANING where does the LAW state that the CITY has the authority to register the building as vacant?
Chuck...where does the LAW state the CITY has this power?
NANCY LAZARYAN
Nancy, WHAT IN THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!!
Only in your mind is the issue of registration important to the actions of the City. The issue is that the building is VACANT.
If a building is VACANT the City requires it to be registered in Chapter 43. There is no new status that the building recieves by being regestered! The City may or may not create lists for administrative purposes of buildings that are vacant and regestered or are vacant and should be regestered, but FIND ME ANY SECTION IN THE LAW WHERE BEING REGESTERED HAS A CONSEQUENCE!!!
The building is vacant by definition in Chapter 43, the City has the power under the Charter to determine a definition of a term, can we at least agree to that?
If the City has determind that vacant buildings are vacant then Chapter 33 applies...
Sec. 33.03. Permits--When required.
(f) Work done on dangerous structures, nuisance buildings and vacant buildings.
(1) No persons shall be issued a permit pursuant to this chapter, excluding a demolition permit, for any building determined to be a dangerous structure under chapter 43 or nuisance building under chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, or a vacant building as defined under section 43.02(7)(c), (d), (e) or (f) without first filing for and receiving a certificate of code compliance inspection under section 33.06 or filing for and receiving a certificate of occupancy inspection under this chapter. (snip)
and ...
(5) No building subject to the restrictions of this section shall be used for occupancy until such time as the certificate of compliance and/or certificate of occupancy relating to that building has been issued.
(snip)
Do you notice in NONE OF THESE SECTIONS is REGISTRATION mentioned. It is meangingless to the requirements. The registration fee is simply their for monitoring purposes it does not change or add to the code compliance issues.
I am sorry Nancy, but you are just wrong.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck, you state:
"The building is vacant by definition in Chapter 43, the City has the power under the Charter to determine a definition of a term, can we at least agree to that?"
Let's look at "definitions" in the code:
"Identification"---
Sec. 43.05. Inspections.
"The enforcement officer shall inspect any premises in the city for the purpose of enforcing and assuring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Upon the request of the enforcement officer, an owner shall provide access to all interior portions of an unoccupied building in order to permit a complete inspection."
(now, this is interesting, we have a change of terms here..."unoccupied"...
inspect unoccupied, not vacnt buildings..what does Chap 43 define as unoccupied?
(5) Unoccupied: A building which is not being used for a legal occupancy as defined in the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
What does the Legislative code define as "legal occupancy"? There is no definition of "legal occupany, so one must assume that "not being used for legal occupancy" means "illegal occupancy."
Well, then you need to go to Chap 34 for the definition of "Illegal Occupancy".
Sec. 34.23. Structures unfit for occupancy. (Guess what, a secured vacant building, without written code violations does not fit into the definition.)
So..."an owner shall provide access to all interior portions of an unoccupied building in order to permit a complete inspection."
An "unoccupied building", by definition of Chap 43, is "not being used for legal occupancy"...thereby illegal occupancy.
The only definition of "illiegal occupancy" (other than the fire code, which does not apply in my case)DOES NOT APPLY TO a "vacant and secure building", a building that does not have building or health code violations.
So let's agree with the definition, set out by the City of a "vacant building".
And let's agree that the house my family purchased did not meet that definition.
Chuck, then you state:
"If the City has determined that vacant buildings are vacant then Chapter 33 applies..."
First, where in the Chap 43 does it give the City the authority to determine that a building is "vacant"?
Chap 43 gives authority to inspect "unoccupied" buildings...and we went over that definition.
Where, in the entire code does the City of the specific authority to determine a building is vacant? Try Chap 45.
You refer to the application of Chap 33
..which applies to vacant buildings as defined by 43.02(7)(c),(d),(e)or(f).
Sec. 43.02.
Definitions
(7)
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
Chuck, how can you explain this...the house we purchased did not meet the definition of 43.02 (7)(c), (d),(e)or(f)...so how can the City apply Chap 33 to this property?
Oh, the City was WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW...duh.
There is a City Ordinance that is extremely troubling, and that I feel is in violation of the Citizens' constituionally secured right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.
See as follows:
Sec. 34.19. Inspections.
Enforcement officers shall be authorized to make or cause to be made inspections to determine the condition of buildings, dwelling units, guest rooms, habitable rooms, premises, residential structures, rooming houses, rooming units, commercial structures and other structures or premises at any reasonable time in order to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the public and to perform their duties under this chapter. Access during reasonable times shall not be denied by any owner, occupant or other person in charge of the premises. The enforcement officer may obtain a search warrant where probable cause exists to believe that the premises are in violation of this chapter.
Provided, however, that no search warrant is needed for entry where an emergency condition exists and sufficient time to obtain a warrant is unavailable.
Here's the problem:
Look at Chap 34 as what is defined as an emergency
...an imminent health or safety hazard or danger to the public.
What is a health or safety hazard to the public?
...Read Chap 34...
a cracked sidewalk is a hazard to the public, the railing missing on your porch (some member of the public could come over and fall off your porch), you don't have the right plants in your yard and when it rains soil washes out of your yard...this is a hazard to the public....the list goes on...
....and these "hazards to the public" are the reasons that an inspector can come into your home, without a warrant?
Boy, I sure hope the City of St. Paul listens to Chuck and uses Chap 34 as their "authority of law". The attorney general will be immediately getting my notice that Chap 34 violates the MN and US constitutions.
Then I'll turn this lawsuit into a challenge of the City of St. Paul's authority to enforce Chap 34, because the ordinance violates the constitutions.
NANCY LAZARYAN
Nancy - I am not the City and I have no fight with you. I am only attempting to explain logically what the City is doing. Courts will decide what is right or wrong, but like I have said...
1. The City in one feld swoop declared all buildings that meet the definition of vacant as vacant when they wrote chapter 43. Cities have the ability to write ordinances concerning the public health.
2. I am not going to try and figure out who did what when Nancy, but there are multiple housing code violations on the property and the City inspector noted the building was vacant... so it appears that the building meets the definition (E).
So, there is nothing else that that the City needs. Now you can argue that the old owner could've, should've, would've disputed it being vacant and I don't know when the City noticed the building was vacant, but the code is clear as to what law they are applying to your case.
It is vacant by definition in 43 and it can not be occupied by 33.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck,
There are NOT multiple code violation on the building.
Do you have a file on the property that I do not have access to?
If the building does not meet the definition of vacnat under Chap 43...and this building DOES NOT meet that definition, then Chap 33 cannot be applied.
Nancy Lazaryan
This is from the public record...
10/16/2006: Grass/Weeds (Abated)
VB Monitoring (Recheck)
10/11/2006: Grass/Weeds (Work Order)
VB Monitoring (Recheck)
10/03/2006: Grass/Weeds (Summary Abatement)
VB Monitoring (Recheck)
09/18/2006: Grass/Weeds (Unaddressed)
VB Monitoring (Recheck)
08/31/2006: Grass/Weeds (Work Order)
VB Monitoring (Recheck)
08/24/2006: Grass/Weeds (Summary Abatement)
VB Monitoring (Recheck)
07/26/2006: Grass/Weeds (Unaddressed)
VB Monitoring (Recheck)
07/18/2006: Grass/Weeds (Work Order)
VB Monitoring (Recheck)
07/07/2006: Grass/Weeds (Summary Abatement)
VB Monitoring (Recheck)
06/21/2006: VB Monitoring (Recheck)
06/07/2006: Garbage/Rubbish (Abated)
Grass/Weeds (Abated)
VB Monitoring (Recheck)
05/30/2006: Garbage/Rubbish (Work Order)
Grass/Weeds (Work Order)
VB Monitoring (Recheck-Comply By: 05/31/06)
05/23/2006: Garbage/Rubbish (Summary Abatement)
Grass/Weeds (Summary Abatement)
VB Monitoring (Recheck)
So, maybe that isn't multiple code violations to you...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck,
When did the City determine the building qualified as a "registered vacant building'?
Ahhh... oops...you forgot to post that....
MAY 23? 26? of 2006
Tell me...anyone...do YOU see "multiple code violations" before May of 2006???
I'm sorry, Chuck, I CAN'T HEAR YOU...cat got your tongue?
Nancy Lazaryan
Now...were are those MULTIPLE housing/building code violations BEFORE May 23 of 2006????
Oh, and by the way...the OWNER of RECORD was NEVER notified of ANY of these violations that you posted.
Nancy Lazaryan
Nancy, like I said, I am not the City and I don't know the details of your case. I have only been trying to show that the City has some grounds for the actions . A court will determine if they were right or wrong, I just laid out the case on the other side.
1. The building on May 23 had "multiple housing code violations."
2. As far as they are concerned they noticed the owner of record of the requirements of Chapter 43 (the need to regester the building).
3. They continued to monitor the building and deal with additional code violations.
4. The building can't be occupied until the conditions of Chapter 33 are met.
You can argue something else, and I wish you the best in court (from the MLS it looks like a cute house).
But, my only point in any of this is to make sure the public sees that the City has a side in this and that they are out there on a wim attacking private citizens.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
ooopss "NOT" ON A WIM
LOL
Chuck
Chuck you say:
1. The building on May 23 had "multiple housing code violations."
2. As far as they are concerned they noticed the owner of record of the requirements of Chapter 43 (the need to register the building).
3. They continued to monitor the building and deal with additional code violations.
4. The building can't be occupied until the conditions of Chapter 33 are met.
In answer:
1. On May 23 there were NO housing code violations. Grass and Garbage were written as ONE NUISANCE violation.
2. "According to the LAW" the owner was not noticed.
3. There was no lawful notice to the owner of the
"additional" violations.
4. Chap 33 cannot be enforced because the building did not meet the definition of a vacant building.
I agree that the City is not out there on a whim
...I think they are very calculated in their actions.
Nancy Lazaryan
Post a Comment
<< Home