A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL: Petition for disciplinary action against Ramsey County Judges

Custom Search

Friday, August 24, 2007

Petition for disciplinary action against Ramsey County Judges

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the post.

102 Comments:

Anonymous said...: There is a very complicated real estate case brought in the Ramsey County district court, between the City of Maplewood and Nancy Lazaryan (and other family members).

One of the "players" in this case was Bruce Nedegaard, now deceased, who had been convicted on federal criminal charges concerning real estate scams.

A few years ago, Nancy's father was approached by Nedegaard, who wanted some of her father's property. Her father entered into a purchase agreement, but cancelled the agreement when Nedegaard did not fulfill his end of the deal.

At this same time, Nedegaard was at the City of Maplewood, and offered to GIVE to Maplewood two-thirds of Nancy's father's property. Maplewood actually created and printed a map, showing people that Nancy's father's property was part of a park, before ever "getting" the property.

Shortly after Nancy's father cancelled the deal with Nedegaard, he went to the hospital with severe itching. The attending physician told Nancy that her father was dying, and there was nothing the doctor could do. The doctor said there needed to be a police autopsy because there were strange "markers" in her father's blood.

To make a very long story short, Nancy's family ended up in probate court, and had a long battle. Bruce Nedegaard and a person from the City of Maplewood attended many of the proceedings. Judge Marrinan presided over the case, and would raise herself out of her seat and scream at Nancy in the courtroom. Many people attended the proceedings, and at one point, when Nancy challenged the judge for the judge not obeying the law, the people in the courtroom stood up and applauded.

Nancy tried to talk with the City of Maplewood concerning the problems with the ownership of the property. Kelly and Fawcett were the attorneys for the City of Maplewood, and Chad Lemmons works for Kelly and Fawcett. Instead of trying work things out, Chad Lemmons forged a deed and recorded it at the Ramsey County Recorder.

Nancy posted "no trespassing" signs on the property, was kidnapped by the police (never arrested), brought to jail and put in solitary confinement. The charges against Nancy were dismissed upon her motion that the property was not a park, but rather private property.

Chad Lemmons, the person that forged the deed, then brought a quiet title action against Nancy (and others), on behalf of the City of Maplewood...without Maplewood voting at a city council meeting to bring a lawsuit against Nancy (and others). Nancy brought a Counterclaim against Maplewood for the kidnapping and false imprisonment. Maplewood did not respond to the Counterclaim.

Judge Joanne Smith is presiding over the quiet title action. On May 21, 2007, there were multiple motions heard. Nancy brought ONE motion for Default, because Maplewood did not respond to her Counterclaim.

Judge Smith issued an Order on July 13, 2007. In her order, she is greatly confused, does not understand what property is being brought in the quiet title, and admits to having communication with Maplewood, outside of the courtroom (and basing her decision on this " ex parte" communication). ..and Judge Smith says that Nancy brought FOUR motions, when Nancy brought only one motion.

Nancy recieved an amended scheduling order from Judge Smith on August 5, 2007. But, Judge Smith hand-dates the order for... August 21, 2007...and the order is bizarre. First there is going to be a jury trial, then at the end there is not going to be a jury trial...and they are going to trial in February....2007!

Nancy also discovered that another judge (Judge Cleary) has been having communication with Judge Smith, attempting to influence Judge Smith in this case.

The actions of Judge Smith and Judge Cleary violate certain secured rights...the right to due process and the right to a fair and impartial trial.

Evidently, these types of actions are "normal" in our courts. Even though it is "normal", that does not mean that it is lawful. We hire judges to do a specific job. And we require that they do not violate our rights when they do this job.

For years, Nancy has fought against the corruption in the courts. She is working with the legislature, and hundreds of Citizens, to require that the judges obey our laws.

This Petition to the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards is just one aspect of the work that she is doing.

According to the MN constitution, the Board is supposed to be under the control of the legislature. The Board is controlled by the judges. There is a "special committee" over the Board, and Judge Cleary, one of the judges named for corruption, is on this committee.

Nancy is working with the legislature so that the Board members will be Citizens (not judges and attorneys) and that the Board will report to the legislature.; 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...: PETITION
to the Minnesota Judicial Board of Standards
for Disciplinary Action against
Ramsey County District Court Judge Joann Smith
and
Ramsey County District Court Judge Edward Cleary
Now here comes sovereign state Citizen Nancy C. Lazaryan, in propria persona, in
summon jure, petitioning this Minnesota Judicial Board of Standards for:
The determination that Ramsey County District Court Judge Joann Smith has violated her
Oath of Office by denying Petitioner her right of due process, secured by the Minnesota
and United States constitutions, and is disciplined by removal from the state office of
district court judge, without pension. Alternatively, that Judge Joann Smith be removed
from the office of district court judge due to mental disability.
---and---
The determination that Ramsey County District Court Judge Edward Cleary has violated
his Oath of Office by engaging in ex parte communication with Judge Joann Smith, and
thereby violated of the secured due process rights of the Petitioner, and is disciplined by
removal from the state office of district court judge, without pension.
Petitioner makes her complaint before this Minnesota Judicial Board of Standards under
protest, and reserves her right to bring her complaint before a subsequent Board that is in
compliance with the Minnesota constitution.
PETITIONER COMPLAINS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Judge Joann Smith, while in the office of district court judge did violate her Oath
of Office, by violating a Citizen’s due process rights, when she engaged in ex parte
communication with a party to an action, and then used said ex parte communication in
making an adverse ruling against the opposing party. Judge Smith’s actions are a
violation of Canon 3(A)(7) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct.
2. Judge Joann Smith, while in the office of district court judge did violate her Oath
of Office, by violating a Citizen’s due process rights, when she engaged in ex parte
communication with Ramsey County District Court Judge Edward Cleary and received a
letter from Judge Cleary referring to matters in the Petitioner’s case before Judge Smith,
and Judge Smith did not immediately recuse herself for bias. Judge Smith’s actions are a
violation of Canon 3(A)(7) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct.
3. Judge Joann Smith, while in the office of district court judge is unable to properly
determine the real property that is the subject matter of a quiet title action, and has made
adverse rulings against Petitioner because of this so stated mental disability.
4. Judge Joann Smith, while in the office of district court judge is unable to
understand the simple concepts of time, and this so stated mental disability of the judge
has violated Petitioner’s right to a fair and impartial trial, said right secured by the
Minnesota and United States constitutions.
5. Judge Joann Smith, while in the office of district court judge is to unable to
determine what parties are bringing what motions in the action currently before the judge,
in which Petitioner is a party. Judge Smith has ruled on several Motions (of Petitioner),
which Petitioner never brought. This so stated mental disability of the judge has violated
Petitioner’s right to a fair and impartial trial, said right secured by the Minnesota and
United States constitutions.
6. Judge Edward Cleary, while in the office of district court judge did violate his
Oath of Office, by violating a Citizen’s due process rights, when he engaged in sending
ex parte communication to Judge Smith. In said communication, Judge Cleary attempted
to influence the decisions made by Judge Smith. Said actions by Judge Cleary are a
violation of the Petitioner’s secured rights to a fair and impartial trial and due process,
secured by the Minnesota and United States constitutions. As well, the actions of Judge
Cleary are a violation of Canon 3(A)(7) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct.
FACTS
The facts supporting this Petition are upon the public record in the Ramsey
County district court case file number 62-C4-06-010365.
On August 12, 2007, Petitioner served a Motion upon the opposing parties in said
court case. Petitioner attaches and incorporates said Motion into this Petition and makes
record of the FACTS stated in said Motion. (See attached Exhibit A).
ARGUMENT
A judge of the district court is a public official, required to swear an Oath of
Office. In said Oath of Office, the public official must swear that, while holding said
office, the judge will not violate the Minnesota and United States constitutions.
Evidence has been brought before this Board of Judicial Standards that the so
stated judges have violated their Oaths of Office, in that they have violated the
Petitioner’s rights secured by these constitutions.
The legislature is considering a bill that would require the Board to report the
legislature. Pursuant to the Minnesota constitution, the legislature has the authority to
discipline judges, not the judicial branch.
In this Petition before the Board, the necessity for the Board to report to the
legislature is clear. One of the judges Petitioner complains of, Judge Cleary, sits on the
“special advisory committee” created by the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the
operations of the Minnesota Judicial Board of Standards.
For this current Board to review and consider the Complaint against Judge Cleary
is an enormous conflict of interest, and denial of Petitioner’s constitutionally secured
right of redress.
This Board was established to consider complaints of injuries or wrongs done by
judges, against Citizens; as such, to secure that the Citizens have an ability to bring
complaint, redress, against judges. Because of the conflict of interest, in this Board
considering the complaint against Judge Cleary, Petitioner is denied her right of redress,
and a fair and impartial tribunal to bring her complaint.
Accordingly, Petitioner demands that the current Board recuse itself from hearing
this petition and complaint; and that this petition and complaint be heard in a different
state, or be heard, directly, by the legislature.
Petitioner rests.
August 20, 2007
_______________________
Nancy C. Lazaryan, in propria persona, in summon jure
10734 West Lake Road
Rice, MN 56367

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT
COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL
DISTRICT
City of Maplewood
Plaintiff,
v.
Evelyn C. Wallace, et al Defendants
Case type: Quiet Title
Court file #62-C4-06-
010365
Judge: Joanne Smith
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 21, 2007 before the honorable Judge
Joanne Smith at 11:00 AM at the Ramsey County Courthouse, 15 West Kellogg, St. Paul,
Minnesota, in Courtroom 1530, Defendant Nancy C. Lazryan will move the court as
follows:
1. For an Order to Amend Findings in its July 13, 2007 Order denying
Lazaryan’s Motion for Default, pursuant to Rule 59 and Rule 60.02(f) of
the Minn. Rules of Civ. Proc., and/or alternatively:
2. For an Order giving Lazaryan leave to supplement/amend her responsive
pleading by adding her Counterclaim, pursuant to Rules 13.01, 13.06 and
15.04 of the Minn. Rules of Civ. Proc., and/or alternatively:
3. To Remove Judge Joanne Smith for Bias and/or Mental Disability, pursuant to
Rules 63.01, 63.02 and 63.03 of the Minn. Rules of Civ. Proc.
MOTION TO AMEND FINDINGS
On May 21, 2007, multiple Motions were brought before the court. Lazaryan sole
Motion before that court on May 21, 2007 was a Motion for DEFAULT. In this court’s
Order, the court states:
“Kayser also brought a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and is requesting a
default judgment against Plaintiff. Defendant Nancy Lazaryan has brought a
motion to dismiss and requests a default judgment. In their motions to dismiss,
Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint based upon
the arguments already raised and addressed by Defendant Evelyn Wallace’s
attorney. The Court’s ruling applies equally as well to these Defendants.” (page
13 of this court’s Memorandum, dated July 13, 2007.)
The court also found: “Defendants Kayser and Lazaryan both have also brought
motions to compel and for sanctions.” (page 14).
On May 21, 2007, neither Lazaryan nor Kayser had brought Motions to Dismiss.
Lazaryan never brought a motion to compel or a motion for sanctions. These findings by
the court are unsupported by the record.
The court, on page 14 of said Memorandum, finds, “Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P.
15.01, that Defendants missed the 20-day deadline under the rule….Because the deadline
was missed, a party must obtain permission from the opposing party, or the moving party
must obtain leave of the Court to serve and file the amended Counterclaim.”
Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.01 states, “A party may amend a pleading once as a matter of
course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to
which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the
trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served.
Otherwise a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of
the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires…” The court
misstates the law by requiring Lazaryan to get leave of the court to file the amended
Counterclaim. In fact, the law states leave of the court is necessary to amend pleadings.
Thus, the so stated finding by the court is unsupported by the law.
As well, the court failed to address the arguments made by Lazaryan concerning
the operation of Rule 13.01 of the M.R.C.P. Under rule 13.01, Lazaryan has the right to
serve a counterclaim, at a time other than with her responsive pleading. See the law as
follows:
“Rule 13.01 of the M.R.C.P.
A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of
serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises
out of the transaction that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s
claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties
over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction, except that such a claim
need not be so stated if, at the time the action was commenced, the claim
was the subject of another pending action.” (emphasis added)
When a party argues the facts and the law, it is upon the court to address those
arguments in complete findings of fact and conclusions of law. See the law as follows:
“Practice by district judge of announcing decision and requesting
prevailing party to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law which
are adopted nearly word-for-word in support of courts previously
announced decision is disapproved because fair compliance with Rule 52
(a) requires trial court to find facts on every material issue, including
relevant subsidiary issue and to state separately its conclusions
thereon with clarity. EEOC v Federal Reserve Bank (1983, CA4) 698
F2d 633, 30 BNA FEP Cas 1137, 30 CCH EPD ¶ 33269, 12 Fed Rules
Evid Serv 279, 35 FR Serv 2d 976, revd on other grounds 467 US 867, 81
L Ed 2d 718, 104 S Ct 2794, 35 BNA FEP Cas 1, 34 CCH EPD ¶ 34445,
39 FR Serv 2d 301;
Fair compliance with Rule 52(a) requiring trial court to find facts specially
and state separately its conclusions of law thereon is mandatory; findings
of fact on every material issue are statutory requirement. Kweskin v
Finkelstein (1955, CA7 Ill) 223 F2d 677.
Fair compliance with Rule 52(a) requires trial court to find facts on
every material issue, including relevant subsidiary issues and to state
separately its conclusions thereon with clarity. Kruger v Purcel (1962,
CA3 VI) 300 F2d 830, 5 FR Serv 2d 802”
The court (also on page 13) finds, “It should be noted that the Court has
thoroughly reviewed Defendants’ Amended Counterclaim, and of the twenty-four counts,
it appears that only two have to do with this Quiet Title action and the property which is
the subject of that action. Therefore, if permission from the Court had been sought, it
would have been denied on that basis.”
The Quiet Title action before this court was commenced because of Lazaryan and
Jonathan Kayser’s actions of July 13, 2006, in which they posted the property, which is
the subject matter of this case, with “no trespassing signs”.
Plaintiff, in their formal criminal complaint against Lazaryan and Jonathan
Kayser, for the posting of the signs on July 13, 2006, as well as in open, public city
council meetings, described the property that was posted with the “no trespassing” signs
as “2516 Linwood”.
Accordingly, Lazaryan in her Amended Counterclaim, refers to the property by
the same description that the Plaintiff refers to the property, “2516 Linwood”.
“2516 Linwood” was the proper description of the property, prior to 1995, when
the City began asserting an interest in the approximately 2/3 southern portion of 2516
Linwood.
“2516 Linwood” has ALWAYS been private property. Plaintiff’s assertion, in the
formal complaint and at open, public city council meetings, that Lazaryan and Jonathan
Kayser were posting “no trespassing signs” on “2516 Linwood” is a declaration against
interest, made by the city. It is a “declaration against interest” because 2516 Linwood has
only been private property, never a “public park”.
This court found that, “only two of counts in Lazaryan’s Amended Counterclaim
have to do with this Quiet Title action and the property that is the subject matter of this
action.”
On July 13, 2006, Lazaryan was on the property, that is the subject matter of this
lawsuit, and posted said property with “no trespassing” signs. Twenty-two of the twentyfour
counts brought by Lazaryan have to do with the actions of Plaintiff, made against
Lazaryan, on July 13, 2006, while Lazaryan was on the property that is the subject matter
of this lawsuit.
If this court does not amend this so stated finding, then what property is the
subject matter of this lawsuit? The evidence upon the record does not support the finding
by the court, that, only two counts of Lazaryan’s Amended Counterclaim have to do with
the property that is the subject mater of this lawsuit .
The court finds, on page 8, “Subsequent to this motion being heard by the Court,
on June 27, 2007, the court received from Mr. Kantrud a certified City of Maplewood
Resolution Ratifying Actions Taken and Approving Further Action.” The court made the
finding that the resolution adopted by the Maplewood City Council (on June 11, 2007)
renders the issue raised by Defendant Wallace now moot. (Said issue being that the city
council is required, by M.S. Sec. 412.221 to authorize lawsuits that are commenced in the
name of the city.)
The action of this court, considering “evidence outside the record”…said evidence
being the June 27, 2007 ex parte communication from Mr. Kantrud to the court, is a gross
violation of the Defendants’ secured right of due process. This court was wholly absent
jurisdiction to consider the ex parte communication from Mr. Kantrud. Plaintiff, upon
creating the “resolution” could have moved the court for a re-hearing, in which the
Defendants would have been given the full opportunity to argue against this “evidence”.
Plaintiff, instead, unlawfully communicated with the court and this court used evidence,
outside the court record, to make its findings.
The finding by the court, that, “The resolution adopted by the Maplewood City
Council renders the issue raised by Defendant Wallace now moot,” must, as a matter of
law, be amended because said finding is based upon facts not properly upon the court
record.
As such, this court must now amend its findings, without “interference” by the
Plaintiff’s improperly brought “evidence”. The court must make findings that reflect the
record of properly brought evidence. Failure of the court to amend its findings to reflect
the actual court record of properly brought evidence, is a violation of the Defendants’
right of due process, secured by the Minnesota and United States constitutions.
The court, by law, cannot consider the ex parte communication received from Mr.
Kantrud on June 27, 2007. Absent this so stated communication, the court is restrained to
look only upon the facts, properly admitted and upon the record.
As such, the City of Maplewood is not a proper Plaintiff in this action. Chad
Lemmons cannot represent a Plaintiff that has failed to take the necessary steps to invoke
the jurisdiction of the court.
Accordingly, Chad Lemmons was without authority of law to invoke the
jurisdiction of the court on May 21, 2007, when he purportedly represented the interests
of the City of Maplewood. By law, there was no “Plaintiff City of Maplewood” properly
before the court on May 21, 2007. The Maplewood City Council, on or before May 21,
2007, had not passed a resolution authorizing this action.
The City of Maplewood had been properly served Lazaryan’s Counterclaim and
Amended Counterclaim. Lemmons, who was absent the authority of law to respond to
said Counterclaims, responded by letter to Lazaryan. This so stated response by
Lemmons is moot, as Lemmons had no authority of law to respond to Lazaryan.
Accordingly, the City of Maplewood failed to properly respond to Lazaryan’s
Counterclaim and/or Amended Counterclaim. Lazaryan should be granted her Default.
Lazaryan moves this court to make “proper, lawful findings of fact”; findings of
fact that reflect the record of the evidence that is properly before the court.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO INCLUDE
AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM
In the alternative, if this court refuses to amend its findings to comply with the
properly admitted evidence upon the record, Lazaryan moves this court for leave to
Amend her Responsive Pleading to include her Amended Counterclaim.
As fully argued in the previous pages, Lazaryan, on July 13, 2006, was posting
“no trespassing” signs on the property that is the subject matter of this lawsuit. In fact, it
was Lazaryan’s actions on July 13, 2006, that compelled Plaintiff to bring this action for
Quiet Title.
On July 13, 2006, Plaintiff took Lazaryan’s person, and without placing her under
arrest, transported her to the Ramsey county jail. Plaintiff then proceeded to prosecute
Lazaryan, originally, for “disorderly conduct”, and then later changed the charge to
“public nuisance”. These charges were brought against Lazaryan for Lazaryan posting the
property, that is the subject matter of this lawsuit, with “no trespassing” signs.
As previously argued, the City of Maplewood, in their criminal complaint was
required to prove an interest in the property, or face malicious prosecution charges from
Lazaryan.
The criminal matter was finally adjudicated at the end of December 2006.
Lazaryan moved the district court to dismiss the charges, based upon the property being
“private property” (and, thereby not a “public park). The City of Maplewood failed to
answer Lazaryan’s Motion to dismiss and the criminal action against Lazaryan was
dismissed. The City of Maplewood did not appeal the dismissal of the charges, a
dismissal based upon the fact that the property was private property.
In Lazaryan’s Response to Plaintiff’s Amended Summons and Complaint,
Lazaryan argues that issue of the ownership of the property was to be determined in the
pending criminal action. Thereby, Lazaryan reserved her right, under Rule 13.01, to bring
her Counterclaim at a time other than in her Responsive pleadings.
Subsequent to the final determination by the Ramsey county district court, that the
criminal matter against Lazaryan was dismissed because the property was private
property, Plaintiff failed to appeal the determination by the district court. After the time
tolled for Plaintiff to appeal the determination that criminal charges were dismissed
because the property was private property, Lazaryan brought her Counterclaim and
Amended Counterclaim.
Lazaryan has a right, under M.R.C.P. 13.01 to bring her counterclaim, if the claim
before this court was the subject of another pending action. If Lazaryan’s Motion to
Dismiss had not been granted by the district court, Lazaryan would have sought a writ of
prohibition against this court, restraining the court from hearing the matter (of ownership
of the property), that was properly before another judge, in the criminal case against
Lazaryan.
Plaintiff has agreed that the property that Lazaryan was posting was “private
property”. Plaintiff’s actions of not responding to Lazaryan’s Motion to Dismiss (based
upon the fact the property is private property), and Plaintiff’s failure to appeal the
dismissal of the criminal charges are prima facia evidence of the “declaration against
interest” the Plaintiff has made concerning ownership of the property that is the subject
matter of this lawsuit.
As such, pursuant to Rule 13.01 of the M.R.C.P. this court should grant
Lazaryan’s Motion to Amend her Responsive Pleadings to include Lazaryan’s Amended
Counterclaim.
NOTICE TO REMOVE JUDGE FOR BIAS and/or MENTAL DISABILITY
In the alternative, if this court denies either or both of Lazaryan’s previous two
Motions, Lazaryan, pursuant to Rule 63 of the M.R.C.P., makes the following argument:
Minn. R. Civ. P. 63.03 provides that a judge may not be removed “except upon an
affirmative showing of prejudice on the part of the judge.” Generally, this prejudice must
arise from an extrajudicial source prompting the judge to make a decision based on
knowledge acquired outside the judge’s participation in the case. In re Estate of Lange,
398 N.W.2d 569, 573 (Minn. App. 1986). But “pervasive bias” is an exception to the
“extrajudicial source” rule, which occurs when the bias stems from events at trial that are
“so extreme as to display [a] clear inability to render fair judgment.” Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 551, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1155 (1994) (quotation omitted).
AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING OF “PERVASIVE BIAS” or MENTAL DISABILITY
The actions of Judge Joanne Smith in this case are clearly against logic and the
facts on the record.
FACTS UPON THE RECORD
a. Lazaryan posted the property, that is the subject matter of this case, with “no
trespassing signs” on July 13, 2006, and then again on May 23, 2007.
b. Lazaryan has served and filed a Counterclaim and Amended Counterclaim against
the Plaintiff. Twenty-two of the counts in Lazaryan’s Amended Counterclaim concern the
actions of Plaintiff in response to Lazaryan posting the property with “no trespassing”
signs on July 13, 2006.
c. Plaintiff moved the court and was granted a TRO and temporary injunction, based
upon Lazaryan’s actions of posting “no trespassing” signs on the property.
d. In Judge Smith’s Order of July 16, 2007, granting the temporary restraining order,
Judge Smith states in part:
“Defendant Lazaryan previously posted “no trespassing” signs at the park
July 13, 2006. In that matter, the City of Maplewood charged her with
criminal trespass. The charge was later amended to public nuisance and
subsequently dismissed by the Honorable Michael Fetsch, with no
objection from the Maplewood City Attorney.” (page 5)
e. On July 13, 2007, Judge Smith made a finding in her Order, concerning
Lazaryan’s Amended Counterclaim. Judge Smith states:
concerning Lazaryan’s Amended Counterclaim:, “of the twenty-four
counts, it appears that only two have to do with this Quiet Title action and
the property which is the subject of that action.”
Judge Smith actions are clearly against logic and the facts on the
record:
It is against logic and the facts on the record to issue a TRO and temporary
injunction against Lazaryan for posting signs on the property, and then to
rule that the property in twenty-two counts of Lazaryan’s Amended
Counterclaim (counts based upon Lazaryan being forcibly removed from
the same property for her action of posting signs) is not the very same
property of this lawsuit.
The property that is the subject matter of this lawsuit is the property that
Lazaryan was posting in July of 2006. Twenty-two counts of Lazaryan’s
Amended Counterclaim concern the actions taken by Plaintiff, against
Lazaryan, concerning the ownership issues of said property.
Chad Lemmons, attorney for Plaintiff, argued that twenty-two counts in
Lazaryan’s Amended Counterclaim have nothing to do with the property
that is the subject matter of this lawsuit. In fact, Judge Smith’s “finding”
is a mere parroting of the argument presented by the Plaintiff.
f. Plaintiff moved the court and was granted a TRO and temporary injunction, based
upon Lazaryan’s actions of posting “no trespassing” signs on the property. At the hearing
for the temporary injunction, Lazaryan objected, arguing that the Plaintiff had failed to
post a bond for either the TRO or temporary injunction.
g. Judge Smith issued both orders, without requiring the Plaintiff to post a bond.
Judge Smith actions that are clearly against the law and are an
affirmative showing of bias:
The law is clear, and as a judge, Judge Smith is required to know the law.
Lazaryan even noticed Judge Smith of the law, yet Judge Smith ignored
the law. See the law as follows:
“M.R.C.P. 65.03 Security
(a) No temporary restraining order or temporary injunction shall be
granted except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such
sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and
damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found
to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”
h. On May 21, 2007, Lazaryan brought a Motion for Default at a hearing before
Judge Smith. There were multiple other motions by other parties, yet this was the only
Motion brought by Lazaryan.
i. On July 13, 2007, Judge Smith issued her Order concerning said hearing. Judge
Smith finds, “Defendant Nancy Lazaryan has brought a motion to dismiss and requests a
default judgment.” (page 13) “Defendants Kayser and Lazaryan both have also brought
motions to compel and for sanctions.” (page 14).
Judge Smith actions are clearly against logic and the facts on the
record:
Lazaryan had brought only a motion for default.
It is clear that Judge Smith is unable to determine what parties are bringing
what motions.
By her actions, Judge Smith has proven that she has no concept of either
the property that is involved in this case, or of the parties that are
involved.
She is clearly biased, or does not have the mental capacity to handle this
case.
j. On May 21, 2007, a hearing, upon multiple motions was heard before Judge
Smith. Defendant Wallace, through her attorney, argued that the Maplewood City
Council had failed to comply with M.S. Sec. 412.221, in that the council had not
approved the lawsuit.
k. The Maplewood City Council, since the commencement of this lawsuit in October
of 2006, has been repeatedly noticed, by various Defendants, that it would be necessary,
under the law, for the council to approve the lawsuit.
l. On June 11, 2007, after the May 21, 2007 hearing, whereby Defendant Wallace
moved to dismiss based upon Plaintiff’s noncompliance with M.S. Sec. 412.221, the
Maplewood City Council passed a resolution which states, in part, “That the Maplewood
City Council does hereby approve of the ongoing efforts to quiet title to the property
known as Applewood Park and specifically authorizes the use of the courts to settle the
matter”.
m. On June 27, 2007, Judge Smith received ex parte communication from Mr.
Kantrud (city attorney for Maplewood). Said ex parte communication contained the
above-mentioned resolution. It is unknown what other information and/or arguments
were contained within said ex parte communication.
n. In Judge Smith’s July 13, 2007 Order (page 8), Judge Smith acknowledges the ex
parte communication with the Plaintiff, and then makes a ruling against Defendant
Wallace, based upon the ex parte communication.
o. On July 31, 2007 Lazaryan sent, pursuant to Rule 115.11 of the M.R.G.P, Judge
Smith (and the other parties) a letter requesting reconsideration of Judge Smith’s July 13,
2007 Order. In said letter, Lazaryan argued the actions of Judge Smith accepting and
considering the “new evidence” of the Plaintiff (the resolution), without a motion for rehearing
by the Plaintiff, was a violation of the Defendants’ secured right of due process.
p. Judge Smith denied Lazaryan’s request for permission for a motion to reconsider.
Judge Smith actions are clearly against the law and are an affirmative
showing of bias:
When a judge shows favoritism to one party, that is a clear showing of
bias.
And, when a judge acts completely outside the law, violating a defendant’s
due process rights, so that the plaintiff no longer needs to obey the rules of
procedure, that judge must be removed from the bench.
Such are the actions of Judge Smith. Judge Smith clearly violated
Defendants secured right to due process when she accepted ex parte
communication from the Plaintiff, after the hearing, and used said
communication to make her ruling against the Defendants.
Defendant Lazaryan noticed Judge Smith of her violations of Defendants’
secured due process rights, in Lazaryan’s letter requesting permission to
bring a motion to reconsider. Lazaryan’s letter was, in fact, a demand that
Judge Smith comply with the law. Judge Smith refused.
Judge Smith’s actions are a violation of the Minnesota Code of Judicial
Conduct, which states, in part:
“Canon 3(A)(7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a
legal interest in a proceeding, or person's lawyer, the right to be
heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit or
consider ex parte communications, or consider other
communications made to the judge outside the presence of the
parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding, except
that:
(a) Where circumstances require, ex parte communications for
scheduling, administrative purposes or emergencies that do not
deal with substantive matters or issues on the merits are
authorized; provided:
(i) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a
procedural or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte
communication, and
(ii) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all
other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication
and allows an opportunity to respond.
The ex parte communication between Judge Smith and the Plaintiff dealt
with substantive matters and issues on the merits. Judge Smith allowed
said ex parte communication, and used said ex parte communication in
making her ruling. Judge Smith did not notice the Defendants of said ex
parte communication and allowed no opportunity for the Defendants to
respond.
q. Judge Smith has had communication with at least one other judge, concerning the
matters involved in this case. Judge Cleary of the Ramsey county district court sent
Judge Smith communication, concerning this case, in an attempt to bias Judge Smith.
Judge Smith actions that are clearly against the law and are an
affirmative showing of bias:
Judge Smith’s actions are a violation of Canon 3(A)(7) of the Minnesota
Code of Judicial Conduct.
Judge Smith failed to inform Defendants of the ex parte communication
between herself and Judge Cleary. The ex parte communication between
Judge Smith and the Judge Cleary dealt with substantive matters and
issues on the merits. Judge Smith allowed said ex parte communication.
Judge Smith did not notice the Defendants of said ex parte communication
and allowed no opportunity for the Defendants to respond.
r. On or about August 5, 2007 Lazaryan received in the mail an Order from Judge
Smith. Said Order states in part:
a. “2. That the Amended Scheduling Order is hereby incorporated by
reference.
Dated this 21 day of August 2007.”
b. “2. This case is hereby placed on the standard jury trial calendar….
11. If necessary, at the conclusion of the pre-trial/settlement conference, a
date certain may be set during the three week trial block
commencing February 4, 2007 and ending February 22, 2007.
The estimated length of trial is 1-2 days. A jury trial has not been
requested and fees have not been paid.”
Judge Smith is unable to comprehend the simple concepts of TIME.
The Order Lazaryan received, on or about August 5, 2007 is dated, by
Judge Smith, for August 21, 2007. Judge Smith orders the matter placed
on the standard jury trial calendar, but then states a jury trial has not been
requested. In then, apparently, according to her Order, the trial has already
commenced, back in February of 2007.
The case before the court is complicated. It is fully apparent by the actions
of Judge Smith that she is unable to properly issue a scheduling order,
much less handle the intricate details of this case.
s. Judge Smith has a pattern of abusing the rights of the Citizens that appear before
her.
It is common knowledge that Lazaryan is active in the reform of the judicial branch
through legislation that was introduced through her state representative and state senator.
Judge Smith is the topic of many conversations with the legislators, including, but not
limited to State v. Hudspeth, 535 N.W. 2d 292 (Minn. 1995), where it is reported that
during a criminal proceeding Judge Smith communicated with jurors outside the presence
of the defendant, in violation of the defendant’s right to be present. And, in the case of
Cich v. Cich, 428 N.W. 2d 446 (Minn. App. 1988), Judge Smith was found to have
abused her discretion by issuing an order that was “clearly erroneous and against logic
and the facts on the record.”
ARGUMENT
The case before Judge Smith involves multiple parties, over the course of many
years.
Chad Lemmons, the purported attorney for the purported Plaintiff, has admitted in
open court, to altering deeds concerning the property that is the subject matter of this
case. Chad Lemmons is a key witness in the case, yet he is the attorney for the Plaintiff.
Lemmons moved and was granted a protective order. In Lemmons motion, Lemmons
sought protection from the court so that current and former members of the Kelly Fawcett
law firm would not be required to testify. Lemmons is a member of the Kelly Fawcett
law firm, as is Patrick Kelly, another key witness. Current Ramsey county Judge Bastian
is also a key witness in this case.
This case is a political powder keg.
Judge Edward J. Cleary, author of The Obligation to Report and Retaliatory
Ethics Complaints breached his own ethical constraints and sent ex parte communication
to Judge Smith in an attempt to influence Judge Smith in this case.
Whereas Lazaryan brings this Motion to Remove Judge Smith for Bias and/or
Mental Disability, the facts surrounding the Plaintiff’s influence in this case is actual
cause for great concern for the integrity of jurisprudence within the Ramsey county
district court.
Judge Smith has repeatedly violated the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct,
having ex parte communication with the Plaintiff, and at least one other judge of the
Ramsey county district court. Judge Smith’s conduct, in making rulings based upon
unsupported findings, and upon ex parte communication, is a violation of her oath of
office. Her actions have violated Defendants’ right of due process, secured by the
Minnesota and U.S. constitutions.
A district court judge’s lawful authority is limited by Article VI of the United
States Constitution, which provides, in pertinent part, that “This Constitution...shall be
the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby....[A]
ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”
Either Judge Smith is biased, or is suffering from a mental disability. Judge
Smith is unable to determine what parties are bringing what motions. She is unable to
ascertain what property is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Judge Smith is unable to
handle the concepts of time, as proven by her Amended Scheduling Order. She allowed
substantive ex parte communications with the Plaintiff, then she used said
communication in her rulings. She granted injunctive relief without requiring the Plaintiff
to post a bond, as proscribed by law.
Judge Smith, through her actions, has acted in a manner that is biased against the
Defendants, and has proven by her actions that she is not mentally capable to handle this
case. As a matter of law, she should be removed.
Our Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must
satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038
(1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a
requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition
Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or
prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985)
Until such time that Lazaryan’s Motion to Remove Judge Smith for Bias and/or
mental disability is heard, considered, and finally adjudicated (by the appellate court, if
necessary), Judge Smith, as a matter of law, loses all power and authority over this case.
See as follows:
“The trial judge loses all power and authority over the case once a motion
for substitution is brought except to make those orders necessary to bring
about the change. People v Banks (4th Dist) 213 Ill App 3d 205, 156 Ill
Dec 955, 571 NE2d 935.”
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Defendant Nancy Lazaryan hereby moves the court for an Order as follows:
1. Amending the court’s findings in its July 13, 2007 to reflect the facts and
evidence that are properly upon the court record, including, but not limited
to:
a. Finding that the Plaintiff, City of Maplewood failed to comply with
M.S. Sec. 412.221, and the action by Plaintiff is Dismissed.
b. Finding that Chad Lemmons was not authorized to represent the
Plaintiff, pursuant to M.S. Sec. 412.221, and thereby, the City of
Maplewood failed to respond the Lazaryan Amended Counterclaim.
c. Finding that Rule 13.01 of the M.R.C.P. authorizes Lazaryan to bring
her Amended Counterclaim at a time other that in her responsive
pleadings.
d. Finding in favor of Lazaryan in her Motion for Default.
If the court denies Lazaryan’s Motion to Amend Findings, Lazaryan moves the court, in
the alternative, to grant an Order that:
a. Allows Lazaryan to Amend her responsive pleadings to include
Lazaryan’s Amended Counterclaim.
If the court denies either or both of these two motions, Lazaryan brings Notice of Bias
and/or Mental Disability of Judge before the court and demands a determination by the
court of Lazaryan’s Affirmative Showing of Bias or Mental Disability before the court
proceeds with this case.
Movant Lazaryan rests.
August 12, 2007
_____________________
Nancy C. Lazaryan, in propria persona, in summo jure
10734 West Lake Road
Rice, MN 56367; 1:05 PM
Bob said...: Hi All,

I am not taking a position on this issue one way or the other. I have heard good things about judge Smith from a long time member here.; 1:09 PM
Anonymous said...: OK to sum it up Nancy owns some property in Maplewood. It must be next to some land that the City considers a park. Nancy claims that some or part of that Park is her land. Nancy put no tresspassing sings on the land that is in dispute. Maplewood charged Nancy with being a public nuisance for putting up the signs. Both sides are going to court to determine who's land it is. The court dismissed some or part of Nancy's motion. Nancy has determined that a judge that ruled against her must either be corrupt or crazy if she ruled against her. She is trying to get the judge removed and have disciplinary action taken against her for having ruled against Nancy.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 1:10 PM
Anonymous said...: I thought it was bad when the landlords got the proof that the city of St Paul fixed the court in the landlords deal. Now we have this! How is anyone supposed to have faith in anything any more?; 1:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Okay folks,
You don't understand. The MN legislature, according to our constitution, is given the authority to discipline judges for "misconduct in office"

In the 1970s the legislature enacted a statute that created the "Judicial Board of Standards"..in response to Article 6, Sec. 9 of the MN constitution

...except the legislature "gave" the power to discipline judges over to the judges.

The legislature also passed laws that said, "the rules of the court, created by the Supreme Court can eliminate the statutes"

...and "whenever the court decides an issue, that matter is LAW..ABOVE the statutes."

Isn't that great? The judges are now writing our laws, even though we hired the legislature to do that jo.

One of the "rules" that the judges made, is that judges can take "tips"...I would rather call it BRIBES.

Another rule that the judges made
...and I mean this, I'm not kidding
...is that the judges do not have to obey the rules.

What has been posted is a complaint against two judges, made to the "Judicial Board of Standards"...that reports to the Supreme Court (and is made up of mostly attorneys and judges)

...instead of reporting to the LEGISLATURE
....some little thing that our constitution says should be done...oh, but don't worry about that, it's just our constitution, right?

One of the judges, Judge Cleary is in a committee that is currently "over" the Judicial Board of Standards...so this Board must figure out if their boss is corrupt.

To "anonymous" that did not have the courage to post his/her name...I am not a "nutball"...I am fighting to make certain that when your butt is hauled into court, you will be afforded a fair and impartial trial.

There are HUNDREDS of people that have had their rights violated by corrupt judges...and we have organized...to STOP the corruption...and introduced a bill in the MN House of Reps and the MN Senate that requires our government to comply with our constitution.

Oh, just something minor...don't worry about it, enjoy your weekend...this "nutball" will fight for your rights, screaming down the streets, with a beanie, shouting, "Judges that are Criminals need to be put in Jail."

In the meantime, enjoy your SUV and cable TV....and hope that you never end up in court before I get my work done.

Chuck, you are wrong.
I don't own the land.
The judge ruled in her Order that I had brought four (4) motions...but I only brought one (1)
....Nancy was charged with public nuisance for posting signs, but it was dismissed, upon Nancy's motion that it was not a park, but that it was private property.
The person that is bringing the quiet title admitted, in front of the judge that he had altered a document and created a deed (forgery).
The judge has been "talking around the water cooler", and decided certain issues based upon information OUTSIDE of the hearing...a violation of due process
...oh, but it is Chuck that is speaking
..he does not understand the concept of due process.
..sorry Chuck, didn't mean to make you THINK.

(and by the way, a current Ramsey County district court judge will be called to testify concerning his personal involvement in a real estate scam....I would suggest people do a "google" search on Bruce Nedegaard...his name was in the paper yesterday...his is one of the "players" in this case...supposedly dead...but maybe Chuck can make certain that Bruce gets properly noticed).

Nancy Lazaryan
nancylazaryan@gmail.com; 1:13 PM
Anonymous said...: What deos it all mean Repke? Is it bad?; 1:15 PM
Anonymous said...: In a nutshell, I want these judges removed for violating the constitutions of MN and the U.S.

You are reading something that the Supreme Court of Minnesota wants to keep SECRET!!!

This is the FIRST time in the history of Minnesota that an official complaint against a judge, made to the Judicial Board of Standards, has EVER been posted on a website.

The Judicial Board of Standards is supposed to remove judges that have violated the rights of Citizens...but, in over 35 years, they have never done this...and they have DESTROYED the record of the complaints made by Citizens against the judges.

What you are reading is supposed to be "secret"... the Citizens, according to our government, cannot know that a complaint has been made against a judge....

Thank you, Bob, for posting this.

Nancy Lazaryan
nancylazaryan@gmail.com; 1:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Judge Smiths Bio;

Appointed/Elected:
Appointed by Governor Rudy Perpich on November 10, 1983. Elected in 1986, 1992, 1998, and 2004. Current term expires in January of 2011.
Education:
J.D., honors, Hamline University School of Law, 1977
M.A., highest honors, University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1972
B.A., cum laude, University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1968
Employment:
Assistant Public Defender- Ramsey County, 1979-1983
Law Clerk (Hon. Allen Oleisky)- Hennepin County Court, 1978-1979
Professional Memberships:
Minnesota Women Elected Officials
Minnesota District Judges Association
National Association of Women Judges
Minnesota State Bar Association
Ramsey County Bar Associations
Community Activities:
Board Member- St. Paul Domestic Abuse Project and Crime Victim-Witness Advisory Board
Volunteer Attorney Advisor- For domestic abuse cases
Former Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor
Assistant Director- Dayton Halfway House
Board Member- St. Paul Youth Service Bureau
Professional Activities:
Chief Judge- Second Judicial District Court, 1989-1992
Assistant Chief Judge- Second Judicial District Court, 1987-1988
Chair- Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, 1991-present
Lecturing and Teaching Experience:
From 1979-1981, Judge Smith was an adjunct professor at William Mitchell College of Law. Since then, she has lectured frequently at local high schools on topics such as, the judicial system, the legal process, and women in law.
Additional Information:
Judge Smith was the first woman ever to be elected Chief Judge of a judicial district in the state of Minnesota.

Posted by Anonymous to A Democracy at 10:37 PM; 1:19 PM
Anonymous said...: No comment for this topic, when you start accusing people in every area of the the system it takes away from the accusers credibility.

Posted by Anonymous to A Democracy at 10:28 PM; 1:20 PM
Anonymous said...: This is a remarkable woman who is bright enough to see through the BS, and concerned enough to stand up for her (and our) rights.

I feel very saddened that in the August 8 posting, chuck was using the "F" word with her. I think Chuck owes her an apology.; 1:22 PM
Bob said...: Hi All,

I posted a summary at the top of the page. The only way of doing this was to delete all the comments and repost them. I left out the comments that wouldn't make any sense now.; 1:28 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm amazed at people like 1:20 and the statements they make. There's been one charge after another posted here, and now when these allegations start getting backed up with facts, evidence, and sworn testimony, this person is questioning the credibiltiy of it all just on the basis that there are too many people being accused!; 1:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Court is in seesion ___Judge Repke presiding!; 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: After reading everything that has been posted here I can only comment on my own past experiences with judge Smith and the hundreds of other cases I have personally witnessed in the past 3 and 1/2 years where I sat in her courtroom.

My experience with judge Smith has been excellent, I have sat in her courtroom more than 50 afternoons and heard the cases. I can only speak for what I have observed myself not for the situation Nancy L. has encountered. From my own experience I am very grateful for judge Smith and feel I owe her my life although judge Smith states that I deserve all the credit for where I am at today...But without the help and support I recieved from judge Smith I would most likely still be either in prison or suffering from my addiction. I have personally seen judge Smith help so many others (male & female) put their lifes back together, help them with getting sobriety, getting their children back in a stable environment, jobs, drivers license, taking care of fines, housing, medical whether it be treatment or phychological help or whatever the need may be.

I have also witnessed this particular judge show so much care and concern for offenders to the point when she has been in tears when an offender fails and she has no choice but to send the individual to jail whether it be for the weekend or longer as a consequence for the relapse or whatever the issue may be.

I am not saying that judge Smith may not of made a mistake here, but I cannnot say anything other than gratefulness for what she has done for many of us addicts and/or offenders.

Ok...now you all can attack me for supporting her, but if you had ever been in my position of having lost your children, your home basically taken due to code compliance and facing 10 years in prison then you have this judge appear in your life that offers you the help and support you need when no one else in the system has given you the time of day I think you would feel the same as I do about her. Judge Smith helped me get my freedom, my life and my children back through the court of appeals after my rights had been terminated, she also tried to help with the Jessamine situation but by the time I had brought it to her attention I feel it was to late.

Nancy O.; 6:45 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8:24 PM
Anonymous said...: While Judge Smith may have been good to you Nancy, she is obviously not good to everyone, nor is the city for that matter, and that is why they have these lawsuits against them. We all have the right to be treated the same, and we are not. When people do not agree with you Nancy, theya re not saying they are against you or don't like you, they are saying they don't like the corruption. Because this one judge helped you does not give the right to hurt others who come after you.; 9:33 PM
Anonymous said...: The "behind the scenes happenings" with the Ramsey County Court is dirt dirty dirty.

The city of St Paul "rigged" the court with the landlords and now it appears they have again "rigged the court" with Nancy L.

These are not the only times this has happened either, they do it all the time.; 9:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Well Bob to call that a summery and then say you don't have a position is interesting. Basicly, you say the City of Maplewood stole the land a repitable law firm forged documents, everybody knows it, they are all in another conspiracy in another town to get the same innocent victim that is being attacked in Saint Paul.

She isn't crazy - its a world wide conspiracy....

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck - waiting on the black helicopters - Repke; 10:54 PM
Bob said...: Chuck the summary was provided to me. I will not take a position on this until I see how it unfolds.; 11:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Hi All,

The post below is one I deleted and neglected to put back up. Just found it. I think this is "A Democracy's Town Hall drunk". :-) He seems harmless but sure has an obsession with Chuck. Excuse me if I am wrong sir but I am not the first member here wondering if you have a drinking problem.

Bob

Anonymous said;

To sum it up Repke, you are history.............history as inold news my man. Are you trying to be a judge now? I'm afraid that's not your forte Chuck.....tyr lawn service work in one of those flooded out counties around here, I think you'll be more sucessful. I've had about all of your good meaning advice I can stand Repke. You are alway wrong. Good god man , how do you even get the time of day correct? I see a lot of work going on down there by your other building on Payne and Wells. I suppose you are going to turn that whole block into some fancy no selling and no renting condo in the sky conbobalation. Well I got news for ya pal. they ain't gonna sell and there will be no more subsudy from the city so you might as well resign your self to the fact that your going to lose em anyways when you get em dome. Pack in it Chuck, it's allo over for you and all these non profit taxapyer funded overly generous adn ill coneeved nothings that get built the people don't want it. You hear me Repke.....fill those holes in and turn it into a hunting preserve where you can turn a profit. I have a little bit of time and I could help you put up a business model if you like, but in the absense of that, I';m afraid its all over for you. Your extinked Repke. Your hear me RPeke.....;done finishsed over adn out to bed. If i woere you i would find a new line of work. Just some good advice form one froeind ot another.

Posted by Anonymous to A Democracy at 10:21 AM DeleteReplyForwardSpamMove...; 11:26 PM
Anonymous said...: I think Chuck is starting to join our side.....he seems to have uncovered another conspiracy. It's good that he's here as we might have missed it.; 11:48 PM
Anonymous said...: I have to comment here.

The city of Maplewood has had some issues lately. Passing laws and other city business in the middle of the night like the appointment of the city manager Greg Coopland is a good example. The police department does an investigation of Mr. Coopland and discovers many things that he is unfit for office. What does Mr. Coopland do, he eliminates the guy that investigated him, it happened to be the deputy chief. This deputy chief had over 20 years of service. He was highly decorated and did not have any citizen complaints against him. The city did not even offer him a lesser job; they just wanted his head for investigating Mr. Coopland. What finally happened was is this deputy chief was let go at the end of last year and he had to go to court to get his job back. The court agreed with the deputy chief and he got his job back with back pay.

The mayor of Maplewood is NUTS. You may think St. Paul is bad, just watch one Maplewood city council meeting. These guys are NUTS, well at least two are ok.

What Nancy is saying fits into the pattern of behavior that is going on down at city hall. In fact Chuck, I believe her because of what I know is happing at many different levels of city government. I can just about name the people who would have no problem in drawing up a fake deed. Some of the people Greg Coopland and the mayor hang around with are very questionable. Chuck just google and you will find out lots of interesting stuff of the mad house Maplewood has become. Chuck, Greg Coopland is a Republican and this should be good reading you.

Below is a web site that has been tracking these individuals and their activities since they took over power three years ago. What is posted there is from the local papers or from the city council minutes. The St. Paul Pioneer Press and Minneapolis papers have done many stories on these crazy Maplewood City folks.

http://www.barkbay.com/voices/summary.asp

It is called Maplewood Voices.

I have first hand knowledge of the goings on in Maplewood and you could fill several blogs with all the dirty stuff that is going on.; 1:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey 1:24 AM

Here is some more Maplewood info:

Greg Copeland appointed in the middle of the night

http://www.barkbay.com/coord/storyDetail.asp?story=222&league=voices

http://www.barkbay.com/coord/storyDetail.asp?story=249&league=voices

Report by WCCO about Maplewood

http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_352081340.html

Another story on Greg Copeland and his management style
http://www.review-news.com/main.asp?SectionID=57&SubSectionID=123&ArticleID=1381

Deputy Chief John Banick incident, city of Maplewood

http://www.barkbay.com/coord/storyDetail.asp?story=309&league=voices

Follow up:

City of Crystal is moving forward in its police chief search. The city has offered the job to former Maplewood Police Deputy Chief John Banick.

http://www.barkbay.com/coord/storyDetail.asp?story=740&league=voices; 1:57 AM
Anonymous said...: To consolidate power the new city manager, Greg Copeland changes the Personnel Manual after the difficulty he had trying to get rid of Deputy Chief John Banick because Banick investigated Copeland and found many things that would make him unfit for office.

http://www.barkbay.com/coord/storyDetail.asp?story=306&league=voices; 2:07 AM
Anonymous said...: I am waiting for your annoucement Bob. You know? The invitation here to A Democracy to these maplewood City officials. :) it's been a policy around here to let people know we's talkin about them!

Anyone take any bets there isn't one person out there in maplewood with epididymitis like eric and chuck that will come here and say these things ain't true?; 2:58 AM
Anonymous said...: I have heard comments about Maplewood about upheval and unhealthy change. Is there something going on there?; 7:30 AM
Bob said...: I sent out an invitation to the City of Maplewood folks.. Here is a copy of the message left on their city web site.

Hello, to whom it may concern,

My name is Bob Johnson. I am the host of one of the most popular blogs in the metro area. An average of 125,000 readers daily. The name of the blog is-

"A Democracy Town Hall Meeting"

We are currently discussing a case brought against the City of Maplewood by a Nancy Lazaryan.

This notice is to inform you of this discussion that concerns your city council. Some very serious accusations against the City of Maplewood are being cast.Please forward this message to the Mayor and City Council.Please come join us to address these accusations.

http://www.ademocracy.blogspot.com/

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Bob Johnson; 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Bob,

Thanks for inviting Maplewood officials to this blog.

Greg Copeland lived in Florida before he came to Minnesota. He joined the Democratic Party and then Mr. Copeland left the Minnesota DFL Party when he could not be the star he envisioned of himself. Mr. Copeland then joined the Independent Party of Minnesota. After Mr. Copeland saw he was not getting anyplace he joined the Republican Party. Later ran as a Republican for state senator against Mee Moua and lost. Mr. Copeland has also run for a number of offices. The mayor of Maplewood, her husband is a close friend of Mr. Copeland and he also runs a community cable channel show that covers Maplewood issues. The mayor’s husband has been in trouble with the police several times for his behavior. When she became mayor she took out her wrath on these police officers for just doing their job. The mayor is very vindictive. You think Kathy Lantry is bad, Kathy is a saint compared to the mayor of Maplewood. The mayor is also vice chair of the Republican 4th District Congressional Republican Committee. She and Mr. Copeland have fired or forced almost all of the department heads to quit because they would not follow their bizarre ideas or challenged them on their illegal activities. They got rid of the city attorney because he would not do their dirty work. This city attorney had been with the city for over 20 years. He resigned because he had morals.

You talk about the Nazi’s running things, these two Nazis that run Maplewood are pure evil. I do not know Nancy or her case, but I do know who is running city hall and these are very bad people. If Chuck lived in Maplewood he would have enough information to be mayor himself. In fact it would be a wonderful change to have Chuck as mayor of Maplewood. In fact if Chuck moved out here, I would work day and night to get him elected. That is saying a lot because I side with Timmy C. and Bob on the property rights issue. Chuck at least has some brains and Mr. Copeland is a hick from the sticks. In fact he does not even live in Maplewood.

Chuck, not trying to put you down here, but you, Dave Thune and Kathy Lantry look like a white knights compared to Mr. Copeland and the mayor or Maplewood.; 12:24 PM
Sharon4Anderson said...: Issues: Courts of Equity, ie: Judge Joanne Smith, an unmarried woman with NO CHILDREN,also SCAP a Committment Court,has misapplied,overlooked the State & Federal Probate and Realestate Laws, apparantly relying on conflicts of Lawyer,Title Examiner,City Attorney for Maplewood, Chad Lemmons of Capitol Title, MS8.01 mandates the State Attorney General must come in on these serious Judicial Malpractice, having nothing to do with "John Patrick Murphy " at this time, However Judge Joanne Smith's Criminal Conduct to violate our/your Constitutional Rights. Former Police Chief Finneys son out on paid leave as a cop from altercations at Lucy's Bar for over 1 year now is strange, Both Nancy's are victims of the System, unabated by the Judges who apparantly with intent have ruled selectively?
Got my blog back http://sicko-citystpaul.blogspot.com More to come against these Judges before 9/11/07 Primary http://sharon4council.blogspot.com; 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: 12:24 said:

She and Mr. Copeland have fired or forced almost all of the department heads to quit because they would not follow their bizarre ideas or challenged them on their illegal activities. They got rid of the city attorney because he would not do their dirty work. This city attorney had been with the city for over 20 years. He resigned because he had morals.

I think with the St. Paul issue, there are a number of people who have started acting unethically to keep their jobs, and satisfy people abusing power.

Judge Smith might be similar to the St. Paul people. She will betray her morals to satisfy the power brokers.; 4:11 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: The Maplewood city attorney quit after I publically exposed Chad Lemmons, one of his staff, had forged a deed on behalf of Maplewood.

Nancy Lazaryan; 10:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear Nancy,

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but the city attorney; Patrick Kelly quit because of the conduct of the appointed city manager Greg Copeland not Chad as you contend. It seems the city manager Greg Copeland took public records from the city clerks office when she was on vacation because they contained unfavorable information about him and the mayor.

Nancy I feel like Chuck here in trying to explain this to you. The city attorney, Patrick Kelly resigned because of Greg Copeland and the mayor’s shady way they ran and are still running city hall, not because of your deed.

Please see below:

1. St. Paul Pioneer Press and council minutes 7-13-2006
2. St. Paul Pioneer Press 7-12-2006: Mayor's Access to Records
3. Letter of resignation 7-06-2006 from Patrick Kellt to Greg Copeland

Sincerely,

Maplewood Mouse

-----------------------------------
1. St. Paul Pioneer Press and council minutes 7-13-2006
Pioneer Press 7/13- Records dispute (from Public Statements) published on 7/13/2006

Steve Scott focuses on the removal of confidential records from the City Clerk's office in his article summarizing the 7/12 continuation of the 7/10 council meeting. The untelevised meeting included a lengthy statement from the City Clerk and her lawyer describing the event. Scott highlghts this from the statement:
...Copeland removed all files that were subject to public-records requests in the past six months, and 'put me in a vulnerable position. He stated that he hadn't since the documents were public information. I told him that they weren't all public because he had taken records that were both redacted and those not redacted.'.

Scott reports the view of city attorneys on the matter:
Ramberg [of Kelly & Faucett that resigned last Friday: ed.] suggested to the council last week that the removal of records from the clerk's office was a breach of confidentiality of public records. Interim city attorney H. Alan Kantrud [hired by Mr. Copeland sometime between Friday and Monday night's council meeting: ed.] said Wednesday he didn't believe such a breach occurred.

-----------------------------------
2. St. Paul Pioneer Press 7-12-2006: Mayor's Access to Records ( from Public Statements) published on 7/12/2006

Steve Scott's 7/12 Pioneer Press story Mayor's access to records at issue fills in details of last week's events leading to the resignation of Patrick Kelly, representing his law firm which acts as the city attorney.

The story centers on Dave Ramberg, one of the firm's attorneys, and his assertion that "...Copeland circumvented a system of 'checks and balances' regarding public records."

-----------------------------------
3. Letter of resignation 7-06-2006 from Patrick Kellt to Greg Copeland

Kelly & Fawcett. P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
OF COUNSEL: • Patrick J. Kelly
McGUIGAN & HOLLY, PLC Licensed in Minnesota and Wisconsin

July 7,2006

Mr. Greg Copeland
Interim City Manager
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109

RE: Resignation

Dear Mr. Copeland:

Our firm has proudly represented the City of Maplewood for more than 30 years. In the past several months, issues have arisen that have strained the relationship between our office and the City Council and Administration. Accordingly, we believe it is appropriate that we resign from our position as City Attorney (both civil and criminal).

We previously expressed our concerns and frustration of the communication regarding our legal opinions. We are greatly troubled, as it has the potential of resulting in both ethical and legal violations, that may expose the City, its leaders, and even this firm to liability. Specifically, recent actions have made it impossible for us to fulfill our ethical obligations to represent the City to the standards required by our profession.

We are willing to assist the City in its transition, while it seeks to obtain new legal counsel. We remain open to any ideas the City may have and welcome discussion on the matter. Please understand that this decision is not a direct reflection on you and your office. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Patrick J. Kelly; 12:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Some Sad News

With all the sadness and trauma going on in the world at the moment, it is worth reflecting on the death of a very important person, which almost went unnoticed last week.

Larry LaPrise, the man who wrote "The Hokey Pokey", died peacefully at the age of 93. The most traumatic part for his family was getting him into the coffin. They put his left leg in. And then the trouble started.

Shut up. . . You know it's funny . . .

and well, I felt you needed some humor.; 8:03 AM
Anonymous said...: No 10:09. Just people concerned about the abuse of power spreading to the judiciary.; 12:30 PM
Anonymous said...: 10:09
In all fairness, they've been saying that the judges are corrupt too. Along with the city and county employees as well as those who work for non-profits, and those who question anything of legitimacy about these landlords.

The sanity is representative in the favorite son politico, Bill Dahn.

Sanity, reason and logic are not welcome here.; 1:47 PM
Bob said...: 1:47, your statement was right out of elementary school.

Anyone who reads here knows-

"We are on a truth seeking mission"!

The truth of many terrible stories of injustice have come out here. We will see if Nancy L.'s case has merit or not.

Just a reminder there has been consquences for denying the credibility of this forum. :-); 2:06 PM
Anonymous said...: To 1:47

Tread lightly sir, there is already sworn tesimony and affidavits that the city of St Paul rigged the Ramsey County District Court and then proceeded to railroad property owners through that court.

While you may think the sanity here is representitve of Bill Dahn, I think it will be interesting as to what your opinion is when the trial is over and the taxpayers are stuck with the bill.

In all fairness (to use your own words) I don't think you fully understand the issue at hand.; 2:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Nancy is either a flake, OR she has the knowledge and ability to stand up to some major misconduct. Time will tell.; 5:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Time will tell indeed. In the mean time, I will reveal a little gem of what I have coming up next.

Have you ever wondered why people without children have to pay taxes to a school board that they don't use?

So far, this arm of government have gotten away with murder.How many of you can name the school board members?

My suit will outline how they are an arm of government with powers of taxation and we get no representation.

Still think I'm just a nut job with time on my hands?

Nancy Lazaryan; 5:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Well so far I like what I have been hearing Nancy. I wish you had more "time on your hands." Between you and the landlords, it sounds like a lot of things may may have a chance to get straightened out around here.; 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes Nancy you are a nutjob.

Every single school board member in the state has to run for office in the district that they represent. These are offices in which you vote directly for the person who can raise your property taxes.

Oh, and the Judicial Review Board was put together not by judges, but by your elected state legislature. Its a little checks and balances. You seem well-read on the Constitution but, not well-educated on it. The Courts are the third equal branch of government.

You take up a lot of space to say that this honorable woman disagrees with me and now I want her job. When that's thrown out, you'll accuse the committee of being corrupt.

Just wait and see people.; 7:52 PM
Anonymous said...: The courts are an equal third huh? What were they after the city of St Paul came calling on them and rigged the court before they brought any cases against lanldords?; 8:50 PM
Anonymous said...: I think there has been an organized attack on Nancy hear.

The Maplewood issue involves her family's land, and mistreatment by Maplewood. Her other issue involved a house she bought through a realtor, where she was never advised of the vacant house status.

Her actions appear to be fully appropriate, a woman who stands up for her rights and refuses to take crap.; 9:55 PM
Anonymous said...: She could not have picked a better city (either city) to stand up and take swing at!; 10:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't try and hold the legislature up to some level of respect. They created the committee so that they could appoint their friends and control the Judiciary. Yes, I have plans for them too, starting with a unicameral body and greater accountability to the citizens.

The city of Maplewood is quite aware of what I can do and if the mayor and her cronies don't pull it together, they'll be following the city attorney.

Like I said, I'm a busy beaver and you can thank me later after the clean-up.

Busy, busy, busy...

Nancy Lazaryan; 10:30 PM
Anonymous said...: This little "Hottie" is going to take some poeple to the woodshed! I can't wait. It's so long overdue.; 10:59 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: Bob,
Someone is posting on this blog, using my name. I have NOT posted anything today...what's up????
Nancy Lazaryan; 11:17 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: I DID NOT POST THIS:
Nancy Lazaryan said...

Time will tell indeed. In the mean time, I will reveal a little gem of what I have coming up next.

Have you ever wondered why people without children have to pay taxes to a school board that they don't use?

So far, this arm of government have gotten away with murder.How many of you can name the school board members?

My suit will outline how they are an arm of government with powers of taxation and we get no representation.

Still think I'm just a nut job with time on my hands?

Nancy Lazaryan

5:40 PM

AND I DID NOT POST THIS:

Nancy Lazaryan said...

Don't try and hold the legislature up to some level of respect. They created the committee so that they could appoint their friends and control the Judiciary. Yes, I have plans for them too, starting with a unicameral body and greater accountability to the citizens.

The city of Maplewood is quite aware of what I can do and if the mayor and her cronies don't pull it together, they'll be following the city attorney.

Like I said, I'm a busy beaver and you can thank me later after the clean-up.

Busy, busy, busy...

Nancy Lazaryan

10:30 PM

HOW IS IT THAT SOMEONE CAN GET ON THIS BLOG AND USE MY NAME????

I am checking the other blogs to see if someone is posting, using my name.

What a bunch of chicken shits!
Use your own name...coward!

Nancy Lazaryan; 11:25 PM
Anonymous said...: LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!; 11:28 PM
Bob said...: IT IS A CRIME TO FALSELY REPRESENT ONES SELF AS SOMEBODY ELSE!

I will give a $1000 reward for the identity of the person who is misrepresenting Nancy. I want to see this person prosecuted.

Don't play those games here!; 11:36 PM
Anonymous said...: It might be Repke.

When can I get the grand?; 11:39 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: I'd like to know how they get my name , since I have it registered with the "blogger"?

I do want to say that I knew about Pat Kelly resignation, before he even sent the leter of resignation.
..I called the newspaper with the story, and the paper did not beleive me...and then the resignation letter hit...and the blah, blah, blah about Copeland getting the data out of Guilfoile's office.

You folks have NO IDEA about the "lost data" at Maplewood.

I'm in court tomorrow, Tuesday, in a lawsuit against Maplewood for failing to release public data to me.

The "last one left holding the bag" is city attorney Kantrud.

Nancy Lazaryan
the "real one"...at least the last time I checked.; 11:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Good luck Nancy.; 12:02 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't believe for one minute it is Chuck. He has more class than that.; 12:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear Nancy,

A few thoughts about the poster that is using your name.

1. This false posting under Nancy’s name stuff started happening AFTER Bob wrote Maplewood officials (Copeland and the mayor) asking them to participate in this forum.

2. They are messing with you Nancy.

3. City Attorney Kantrud is a pal of the mayor and Copeland. He is as bad as the rest of them.

4. I have known Chuck for years and have been on the opposite end of the arena, doing battle against his candidates for over fifteen years now. Chuck is not responsible for this posting under your name.

5. Greg Copeland and the mayor and many others they have brought in are hicks in the sticks like Greg Copeland.

6. Hint for the day, do a google on Greg Copeland and you will be surprised what you will find. Chuck, you may have access to the state DFL computers and their opposition research, very interesting stuff I might add.

Maplewood Mouse; 9:15 AM
Eric said...: Greg Copeland has the distinction of being the only President of the Payne Phalen District Council to be removed from the board. He's also been a republican candidate for the legislature. He seems to creep people out.

That's what I know about Copeland. I think he still lives on the East Side.

Eric M.; 9:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Probably was Copeland or one of his cronies stealing peoples idenities here. Eric is to in your face for these kinds of tactics.; 10:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear Eric,

Yes, he still lives of the East Side.

By the way, Greg Copeland is no Republican. He has claimed to be many things and belonged to many different Parties. Greg is a want-to-be something, what that something is we don't know.

I knew there was something I liked about you Eric. We both dislike Greg Copeland and like 24.

Now if you like beer?

The Radical Republican; 11:26 AM
Eric said...: I love beer.
I have the Homer Simpson philosophy when it comes to beer:
"Its the reason and solution to all of our problems."

Throw in some of Savoy's pizza (or Romolo's or Mama's), and it don't get better than that.

Eric M.; 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Eric

Do you know when Mama's is going to be finished? I drove by there and they were renovating. It was cool to see actual 2 x 4s with square nails.

I love Savoy's pizza, but once you have Mama's... Both are wonderful!!

The Radical Republican; 3:22 PM
Anonymous said...: The fake Nancy poster is:

Colonel Musturd, he did it in the library with the candlestick; 4:50 PM
Anonymous said...: 4:50 PM Anonymous said...
The fake Nancy poster

This person is always cutting down some one that will speak out about the crooks her in St.Paul, Ramsey County, and Minnesota.
These Crooks look as if they are always Democrats.
I think these judges are influenced to much by others in the system.
So Judge Larry Cohen, Judge Mike Fetch, Susan Geartner Ramsey County Attorney are all as crooked as spaghetti noodles.
So if they have a bone to pick with me now that others have their eye on these lower then life lawyers.
So here is a spit in their eye.
Bill Dahn; 9:59 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10:22 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Shut up Bill; 11:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear Bob,

I found this in the St. Paul Pioneer Press today under Letters to the Editor.

The Maplewood Mouse

Get out and vote in Maplewood

If you are unhappy with the way Maplewood has been moving in the past year, it's time to get out and vote (the primary election is Sept. 11; the general election is Nov. 6). In the past year Maplewood has become the laughingstock of the metro area with the dealings of Mayor Diana Longrie, Council Members Rebecca Cave and Erik Hjelle, and City Manager Greg Copeland.

They have disregarded rules and protocol of city government and written their own rules dealing with city employees, firing and hiring, construing the city budget, etc.

We have two very qualified people running for the council: Will Rossbach is running for re-election to his council seat and has many years of experience in the business community; and John Nephew, who is a first-time candidate for the council and has the betterment of Maplewood as his goal.

We need fiscal responsibility and good government so we can become a first-class city again. Remember, your vote does count.

ROSE ANN BAUER
Maplewood; 5:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Atlas Games is a company which publishes role-playing games, board games and card games. Its current president is John Nephew.

John Nephew is running for the Maplewood City Council.

Here is the website:
http://www.atlas-games.com

and descriptions of the games he sells, words directly off his website:

Let's Kill

A bloody little card game ...

Have you ever had the urge to start beating some know-it-all who really deserved it, but were held back by those frustrating social boundaries? Ever wanted to go psycho on a bunch of bleached-blonde cheerleaders, or the pretentious beatnick at the corner coffee shop? Ever wanted to achieve fame through your horrifying actions?

Let's Kill: A Pretty Corpse

An Expansion Deck for Let's Kill

"Live fast, die young, make a PRETTY CORPSE"

Sporks and weed whackers just not enough for to slake your bloodlust anymore? Looking for a little more madness in your mayhem? Just mix the 55 cards from A Pretty Corpse into your Let’s Kill deck and add even more distinctive stick figure art and gruesome humor to your next game... because the great thing about dead bodies is that you can make your own.

Lunch Money:
Sticks & Stones

Come out, come out where ever you are ...

Lunch Money is an exciting, fast-paced, multi-player card game that combines dark, psychological images with the raw dynamics of a merciless street fight. Lunch Money: Sticks & Stones adds even more pain and mayhem to the dark, frenetic world of Lunch Money. This long-anticipated 55-card expansion set is designed to be mixed in with the original Lunch Money card game. New weapons like Chunk, basic attacks like Spank and Evil Eye, defenses like Backlash and Hide, and specialty cards like Tantrum, Cooties, and Wedgy make Lunch Money: Sticks & Stones a necessity for every Lunch Money fan.

Corruption:
The Card Game of Discreet Bribery

You've got to spend money to make money.

In Corruption, you discreetly fork over bribes to the powers that be -- specifically, the powers that award lucrative construction contracts.

If your bribes are sufficient, your firm will get good contracts and its bottom line will swell. If your competitors' lucre shines brighter, though, you've lost opportunities, profits, and the satisfaction that some bureaucrat's Caribbean tour on your dime was at least good for something.

Roase Ann Bauer of Maplewood posts:
"We have two very qualified people running for the council: Will Rossbach is running for re-election to his council seat and has many years of experience in the business community; and John Nephew, who is a first-time candidate for the council and has the betterment of Maplewood as his goal."

I have to wonder about John Nephew...through his publishing, selling and making money off these disgusting role-playing games...I don't believe he would represent the "voice of the people"

...unless the people think the type of behavior John Nephew promotes in his role playing games is reflective of how Mr. Nephew should represent them.

If that is the case...then I don't know my neighbors.

Another Maplewood Resident; 9:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Hi Another Maplewood Resident 9:43 AM,

I was wondering when cronies of the mayor of Maplewood or Greg Copeland would comment. This is the way Mayor Diana Longrie, Council Members Rebecca Cave and Erik Hjelle, and City Manager Greg Copeland work. They trash anyone who opposes them. The former mayor, Bob Cardinal is livid with what they are doing.

Take for example John Banick, a highly decorated Deputy Chief of Police. He was given as assignment to investigate Copeland as part of the vetting process for his consideration for city manager. During and after the investigation Mr. Copeland and Mayor Longrie tried to trash John Banick’s good name. Mr. Copeland even tried to eliminate his position at the police department and refuse to let him have another position. The courts and police commission saw through this game by the Mayor Longrie and Mr. Copeland. Now, John Banick is the Chief of Police for the city of Crystal.

In fact anyone Mr. Copeland, the mayor or her husband did not like they either fired, let go or eliminated their job. These were good people who really cared about Maplewood.

You good folks on A Democracy have just witnessed what Maplewood city employees have been going through under Mayor Diana Longrie, Council Members Rebecca Cave and Erik Hjelle, and City Manager Greg Copeland’s reign of terror.

The Maplewood Mouse; 11:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Greg Copeland shall we talk about what happened down in Florida or why you were the only President in the history of the Payne-Phalen District Council to be removed from the board.

Ms. Mayor Longrie, lets talk about your husband and his cable show. How many times has he been arrested? Shall we talk about your abuse of employees like the city attorney for your own personal attorney at city expense?; 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Maplewood is certainly fascinating. City pages did a story on the whole mess (I've been following it in the East Side Review) back in March. They titled it the most dysfunctional suburb in the Twin Cities:

http://citypages.com/databank/28/1371/article15218.asp
I wonder if that photo on the cover is supposed to be the Mayor. Too Funny.

(if the link doesn't work, click on my name at the top of this post for the direct link)
Eric M.; 12:40 PM
Anonymous said...: I believe I am scheduled for a frontal lobotomy

Bill Bong
The Bong of New Era
For Ward 8 City Council; 1:21 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Note to Greg Copeland:

You might consider a possible opening for a new job. It is the City of St. Paul, Kommandant of Vacant Housing. Contact Lee Helgen.; 8:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear Nancy,

You have lost my support by your FALSE statements about John Banick and Dave Thomalla. I feel like Chuck Repke here. I really respect Bob and this blog and your inaccurate statements are distracting from the truth here.

The Mayor’s husband Kevin Berglund is a notorious figure in Maplewood politics. Mr. Berglund has covered many city events in Maplewood with his video camera in-hand, for his local community access cable television show, "Inside Insight," a public affairs program. Mr. Greg Copeland has been the guest host many times along with Bob Zick on Mr. Berglund's cable show. Mr. Berglund has received many complaints from putting his camera in people’s face when they are testifying before the city council and school board.

On December 28, 1999, Mr. Berglund was arrested after trying to get into a PRIVATE party without paying. You stated it was a public event and this is not correct. Mr. Berglund and Bob Zick were asked to leave this private party by city employees who told Mr. Berglund and Mr. Zick it was a ``private'' gathering for those who paid $15 for a meal and gifts for the departing officials. After many attempts by security officers for Mr. Berglund and Mr. Zick to either pay or leave, Mr. Berglund became combative with the police officers and he refused to comply with their directions. Mr. Berglund was arrested and he was charged with trespassing, fifth-degree assault and disorderly conduct. All of this could have been avoided if Mr. Berglund had either paid or left the party. Mr. Berglund was a party crasher; he refused to follow directions from a police officer and he assaulted a police officer. This was not a wise thing to do. Maplewood Police Chief Don Winger at the time said. ``I think his (Berglund’s) intent was to make a scene, to get arrested.'' (St. Paul Pioneer Press, Lucy Quinlivan, December 30, 1999, Local, 1-B).

I know former Maplewood Police Chief Don Winger from when he was with the St. Paul Police Department. Dave Thomalla was not chief of police at that time of Mr. Berglund’s arrest. I personally know the records of John Banick and Dave Thomalla. John Banick has NO complaints from citizens for behavior that is inappropriate; in fact he has numerous commendations. Dave Thomalla is also a stellar police officer. Mr. Berglund on the other hand is abusive, in your face and a very angry individual. Mr. Berglund has a reputation for being disruptive and in your face. Many city employees are afraid of Mr. Berglund and they are afraid of his inappropriate and unpredictable behavior.

County Commissioner Victoria Reinhardt, who represents the Maplewood area, said friends have called her to say they're appalled by Zick and Berglund's comments. Scott Wasiluk, school board president, said Berglund often jams his video camera in the faces of members of the public speaking at open sessions. ``We've had complaints from people who say they won't come back because of this,'' Wasiluk said, (St. Paul Pioneer Press, Karl Karlson, January 17-2000, Local, 1-B).

Since her election as mayor of Maplewood, Mayor Diana Longrie and her city manager, Greg Copeland has dismissed some very respected leaders in Maplewood. Mayor Longrie has an agenda to get rid of anybody who has crossed paths with her husband, Kevin Berglund, and city manager Greg Copeland.

Nancy did you forget about the restraining order against Kevin Berglund, signed in September 2003 that barred Mr. Berglund from speaking to nearly all Maplewood city employees, their families or friends because of his abusive actions. Do you want me to post some of the letters to the court of Mr. Berglund’s inappropriate behavior?

Nancy you have lost my support by your incorrect statements about some very good people in the city of Maplewood (Banick and Thomalla and Winger). Next you are going to accuse former Chief Ryan of something too.

Lastly, you think you are the person depicted on the cover of the City Pages article Eric talks about well keep dreaming.

The Maplewood Mouse; 10:13 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Nancy,

You just put your foot in your mouth this time.

Chuck and Eric, I just do not how you do this day after day.

Nancy, the people you are trashing here is incorrect, unwarranted.

Chief Thomalla and former Deputy Chief John Banick were enforcing the laws. Just because you, Berglund or Zick can not follow simple laws like we all have to or you do not get your way, you think everyone is out to get you. That is not the case. GROW UP!

If Berglund and Zick were unwilling to pay for the $15.00 cover for the private party, then were asked to leave. They refused. After many attempts to get them to pay or leave and they refused, the police intervened, as they should have. If Mr. Breglund resisted a police officer then he should have been put in cuffs and taken away.

I have been doing some research on you as at first I thought you were doing good work. What I have found out was very interesting. You are on the same level of two others that post here. One had difficulty with his home insulation and the other runs for every office from mayor to city council member.

I am a property owner who has had to deal with the city and what Bob is doing here is very good. What I find you doing is abusing the system because they said NO to you. Well get used to it. In life people do say NO. There is not a grand plan to mess with you Nancy. Judge Smith may have said NO to you and then you turn on her. I think Nancy O. stated just the opposite of what you reported about Judge Smith. People around the office here are still afraid of Berglund. He is crazy and the mayor is no better.

Your misplaced priorities are selfish and you only care about winning your case and not cleaning up Maplewood. Bob, wants to clean up St. Paul and I commend him for that. What you are doing is trashing everyone who says NO to you and you feel there is a grand conspiracy against you. GROW UP! Thomalla and Banick and Winger are good people. If the cop that pulls you over and gives you and 50 other people a ticket for speeding, is he conspiring against you? I think not. You were speeding and you got caught. Stop trying to make it out that everyone is out to get you.

Nancy I am respecting Bob here by holding my words. I think you are only out for your self-benefit and do not care who you trash, just so you get your way.

Mayor Diana Longrie, Council Members Rebecca Cave and Erik Hjelle, and City Manager Greg Copeland are the real crooks in Maplewood and if you were truly gave a darn about cleaning up Maplewood you would focus on the above mentioned people. Instead you focus on only promoting your cause for selfish reasons.

Bob, you have let this phony overtake this blog for her self gain in her lawsuit. She is not concerned with cleaning up Maplewood like the landlords are doing in St. Paul.

Bob, I am going to get my foil hat when I read Nancy's posts in the future. What a fake she is.

The Maplewood Mouse; 9:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Nancy,

Another thing, you challenged me to no longer identify myself as a timid animal.

I have to after the reign of terror by Mayor Diana Longrie, Council Members Rebecca Cave and Erik Hjelle, and City Manager Greg Copeland. I have a family to feed. I have tried to publish information about these above-mentioned individuals based on public information and from information from the newspapers.

I do not get into wild conspiracy scenarios like you do. Just the facts, just the facts, not as I see them, but as printed in the newspaper. You twist the facts to suit your own selfish needs. You are a fake that is for sure.

Bob, FYI – I am exercising much restraint here as to what I actually think of Nancy and her game she is playing here on your blog.

The Maplewood Mouse; 9:27 AM
Bob said...: Hi All,

Maplewood Mouse, maybe you should change your screen name to "Maplewood Mighty Mouse".:-)

Underdog and Mighty Mouse were one of my favorite cartoons when I was a kid.These shows gave a sense to people that even the little guy can make a difference.

I appreciate your opinion greatly! I am not choosing sides on this issue yet. I just don't know enough about any of this to chose sides.

One thing I have learned for sure is, something isn't right in MAPLEWOOD.

I long for the day A Democracy is big enough to target entire communities with printed information addressing these serious allegations concerning so many public officials.

I promise we are going to achieve this objective in the future.

Mighty Mouse, obviously you believe whole heartily in what you are saying about Nancy. As long as you believe these things and you speak your mind, the credibility of seeking the truth at this forum is alive and well.; 1:00 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Nancy said...

St. Paul does not allow the Citizens access to the city council...whether by petition, or by "open microphone"
...I tried..Helgen told me there is NO METHOD by which I, a Citizen, can directly petition the St. Paul City Council.

By the way, that is a violation of our right to petition the government
(snip)

Nancy, there are very few levels of government that allow for "open microphones" and that in no way violates the right to petition the government. All that does is not allow somebody camera time to pretend the are important.

The Saint Paul City Council terminated the practice when they went from full-time to part-time over 13 years ago (Jan 94). The County board has never had it in my lifetime nor could anyone show where the State of Federal government has the opportunity for any individual to speak to the entire body by simply showing up.

City Councils once had the time to allow it, but with the advent of televised council meetings it was getting pretty crazy even in the early 90's (Sharon use to get plenty of camera time).

Saint Paul has a referendum process, so, not only can an individual petition the government you can put your own issue on the ballot for a public vote. You can't have any better way of petitioning the government than that.

When I was staff to the Council President we would remind all of the department heads in the City that the top of the Agenda says "Agenda of the City Council," not "Agenda of the Mayor" or "Agenda of Public Works Dept." Only a City Council Member can put something on the Agenda of the City Council.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 1:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Nancy, I really like what you are saying here except for one thing.

A big part of the success of this forum has been the ability for citizens who have fears and concerns of corruption to come here anonymously and tell their story.

If Bob didn't provide this layer of protection this forum would not be successful because citizens have been retaliated against.

Maplewood mouse is not a lesser man or woman for posting anonymously here. Big strong law enforcement officers have posted here anonymously.

Please don't give people the impression it is less than honorable to post anonymously here. Many of us are protecting our financial interest and families.

I do find your comments very interesting. I hope you take into consideration what I have just said.

Thanks..; 1:49 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Nancy, you can't protect anyone dear.

Deputy Sheriffs have been here spilling the beans on Sheriff Fletcher, scary stuff. Bob invited Sheriff Fletcher here to dispute the allegations. No reply.

We seen the Finney Fletcher groups slinging mud back and forth here and the allegations from either side were not disputed. These guys posted anonymously but it wasn't hard to see they were law enforcement officers.

I am not stupid, I will not use my name here knowing what I know about this forum.; 5:34 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Nancy said- Am I the only one that is willing to stand next to another Citizen and fight, with them, for ALL of our rights?

I certainly hope not.

Anonymous- Nancy, I think you are a little full of yourself. I have been with Bob since day one August 20th. last year, and I take offense to your statement.

What Bob, myself,and others have been doing here for a very long time is "standing up against corruption for over a year now".
and you ride up as if you can save the day and you are the only answer and where has everybody been this whole time you have been on this crusade. Woman, we have been fighting the good fight right here!Where have you been? I know defending yourself someplace else.
You get astage here and you grab the mic and off you go. listen, we do not think clintons community
policing is a good idea. The block clubs have become an instrument of the democratic party. These blogs are becoming the voice of the unheard masses.

Think twice before you walk into a brawl and ask others why aren't you fighting?

We tried working these issues out with the city. It did not workout.

The city council and this Mayor need to be taught a lesson at the voting booth.

I have given this some thought. THIS FORUM and others like it. Will be the Town Hall Meetings of the future. People do not have time for these block clubs it is real easy for me to voice my opinion here. If this city wasn't so hostile and retalitory I could use my name here and get real credit for my opinion.

I appreciate your enthusiaism, but I think most of us here are on the page we need to stand together here as a electronic town hall group contribute to the growth of this forum to the point we gain recognition for effecting elections.

THIS IS THE ONLY ANSWER TO THIS TOTALATARISM THAT IS GOING ON NOW!; 9:07 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Nancy, our ANONYMOUS VOICES, will be heard with credit at the voting booth!

I put my money on this blog to oust Helgen. I am the guy who mailed you the hundred bucks Bob with the the message God Bless on it in red ink.

I believe we can do it. If more people donate, we can take others down too.

This forum has empowered me!

And Bob said, the next bunch gets in there and they don't hear our voices we will take them out in four years too. They will come to learn this forum is the voice of citizens that do not have the time or desire to partiscipate in a block club or a district council.; 10:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Nancy said- I stand corrected.

"Am I the only one that is WILLING TO USE MY NAME in this fight"?

Bob, I am sorry, I just can't let her get away with this. I have great respect for you and I feel she is discing you and us here.

Nancy, nancy, nancy.... Bob has been the most outspoken public advocate against corruption I know of in the last 2 years. At great personal cost too. You storm in here and preach to the choir like we are all a bunch of couch potatoes doing nothing.

You have no idea what effort goes on behind the scenes in this fight for civil rights. Lengthy investigations into everything under the sun. This is an effort of a very large group of people who dedicate countless hours of their time.

Others have used their name here too Nancy. Like I said I think your are great, however, you are full of yourself.

You haven't been here long enough to see the big picture and you are making assumptions.; 10:36 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Nancy, you didn't hear me!

Our unified anonymous voices will be heard in the voting booth.

I don't have to come here exposing myself to the indignities of this city to have my voice heard or "count".; 11:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Hmmm....so many lawsuits left to charge and such little time left. I hope I can live to see a lot of them. I am a senior who was treated wrong by the city of St Paul. I want to see them get their "just due."; 11:39 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1:22 AM
Anonymous said...: The citizens were made to feel this way by design Nancy. Everyone knows that is you try to assert your rights, the city just makes it worse on you. You have one builkding and there is nothing else they can do to you. Most people do nto have the legal brains that you do. Some people still own businesses in the city. Others live in the city. Most of them are not rich and cannot afford a legal fight with the city, and they don't want the code enforcement attention at their homes for every little petty thing. In the landlords lawsuit, the city came after witnesses and laintiffs alike with false criminal and civil charges as a way of retaliation. People post anonymous because they do not want to lose everything they have at the hands of the city. When you say people should stand up, let me tell you something. People have went to the Ramsey County Attorney, the FBI, the United States, Attorney, the St Paul Police, the St Paul City Council members, The Urabn Leauge, the Mpls NAACP, and no one wants to veen even listen to anything about it. The U.S. Attorney's remarks were "I don't want to hear about your sour grapes." The city of St Paul is corrupt and it has been from the beginning of its existence. These people are going to protect their own no matter what, everyone knows it and no one with the power to do anything cares because it is not politically popular or to their benifet. That is why epople post anonymously. While we are at the "anonymous" subject, people on the other side have also made the charge that because people post anonymously, thet there is no credibility to what they are saying. To them I say: when was there ever any corruption in the history of this country where someone stepped up to the plate and spilled the beans and gave their names? They haven't!; 12:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey 12:51, great comments.

I disagree that St. Paul has always been corrupt. But this bawdy river town has always had a tendancy to corruption and has to be watched constantly.

It was founded by a whiskey trader. When the Indians had an uprising and killed some cows, they blamed Pigs Eye Parrant's whiskey. It was a hidout for gangsters. Dillinger shot it out with police here a week before he was killed in Chicago. Alvin Karpis became public enemy No. 1 here. They even did an archaleogical dig on Nina Clifford's hore house to see if there was a tunnel to police headquarters.

In spite of a quaint history, there has also been a lot of good. Today's saga is really creepy, just as you describe.; 5:09 AM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11:29 AM
Anonymous said...: I think the true cowards are the citizens of the city of St. Paul.

People know what is right but they go with the flow - and shit always flows downhill. Many hide behind excuses and apathy.

Community council people won't stand up to what's right. City council people hide. The city's defenders hide behind an enormous amount of rhetoric.

It is they who failed to stand up, and it is they who are going to pay the ultimate price, even though in their self-created smog, they can't see it yet.

People who've been caught in this are often very effective. They shoot from cover, much as the patriots did during the revolutionary war. They have bushwacked their mark many times. I don't see what they would gain from coming out from cover.; 9:37 PM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9:54 PM
Anonymous said...: All this talk about cowardice is starting to sound like a broken record.

Certainly responsibility for this mess runs deep, and includes many failings of personal character from many sources. "Anonymous" is a complex issue, but it has its place.

There is also a lot of good. Positive results can only come from positive methods.; 6:32 AM
Eric said...: Did you really think you had to explain what 'drawn and quartered' means?

Eric M.; 8:06 AM
Nancy Lazaryan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Nancy,

Just exactly does drawing and quartering have to do with the price of eggs anyway or this topic. I thought this topic was on Ramsey County Judges that ruled against you and you could not accept that.

Nancy, I am getting a very tired of this blah, blah, and blah.

I wish you well in your court cases, but I am tired of this Blah blah, blah.

Yes, Nancy I am posting this "ANONYMOUSLY" so you do not take me to court because you do not like my response.; 12:30 PM

A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL

Friday, August 24, 2007

Petition for disciplinary action against Ramsey County Judges

102 Comments:

Previous Posts