Custom Search

Friday, September 21, 2007

Mike Hatch is a hero...

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the post.


Anonymous Nancy Lazaryan said...

Who would have figured Mike Hatch as a Hero?

In a story only reported HERE on "A Democracy", the true underpinnings of the conflict between former Attorney General Mike Hatch and the Minnesota Judiciary are exposed.

As people may remember, Mike Hatch, Minnesota’s former Attorney General is not a fan of the Minnesota Judicial Branch. Mr. Hatch has good reason. In the explosive story that virtually collapsed Hatch’s campaign for Minnesota governor, Hatch was accused by Ramsey County district court Judge Leary of improper ex parte communication with the court.

What has been kept secret from the public, is that case that was before Judge Leary involved Mike Hatch as the Attorney General suing the law firm of Messerli and Kramer. Messerli and Kramer work FOR the judges in Minnesota.

The judges of Minnesota have their own private union known as the Minnesota District Judges Association (MDJA). That’s right, the judges are part of a union. The MDJA is a rather unique organization. Try a “Google search” and you will find the MDJA does not have a website. Call the phone number for their offices, and you are likely to reach an answering machine.

Only by calling the state court administrator’s office was this reporter able to be “patched through” to Mr. Stephen Forestell, a representative for the MDJA. Mr. Forestell said the MDJA is a “voluntary trade association” of the Minnesota judges, and in his own words, described the MDJA as a “union”.

Messerli and Kramer is hired by the MDJA to lobby for the judges with the Minnesota legislature. Messerli and Kramer works for the judges.

Mike Hatch was suing Messerli and Kramer, and Mike Hatch was very outspoken about the problems with corruption in the Minnesota Judicial branch. The cards where stacked against Hatch. He was suing one of the “protected people”, a law firm that works for the Minnesota judges.

The Minnesota Judiciary pounced on the opportunity to destroy Hatch’s credibility, based upon a rather routine call to the judge that was in the middle of negotiations between Hatch’s office and Messerli Kramer.

"Mr. Hatch improperly contacted this court, accused it of improper conduct and attempted to influence it by apparently false threats to take the matter to the media," Leary wrote in a court order. This statement by Judge Leary was carried across the wires…inferring “Hatch is unethical”.

The saga played out in the local media, with none the wiser of the consorted effort to silence Hatch’s exposure of the corruption.

What a great ploy, staged by the Minnesota Judiciary.

Instead of playing fair, it was, in fact, the Minnesota Judiciary that used the media to blast Hatch for a phone call made to Judge Leary, who was presiding over the mediation on the case. Hatch told the St. Paul Pioneer Press that he believed the mediation was still under way when he phoned Leary, and said he wanted to assure Leary that the lawsuits were not politically motivated.

According to Hatch, “I called him thinking the mediation was on," Hatch said of Leary. "He said it was over, and the call was terminated."

And so, the Minnesota Judiciary used the media to discredit Hatch who was outspoken about the corruption of the Minnesota Judiciary….when Hatch was prosecuting “one of the Judiciaries protected people”, Messerli and Kramer.

One must wonder, where Mike Hatch is today.

Nancy Lazaryan

10:13 AM  
Blogger Eric said...

I know where he is, I just talked to him a few weeks ago.

The question is, where were you in November of last year? I was working to get him and others elected.

Eric M.

10:17 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric, will you notify Hatch of the conversation here?

I think it is time to send out invitations to all concerned.

"We are on a truth seeking mission" at-

"A Democracy Town Hall Meeting"

11:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy, it is old news that Judges
have always stuck together.

Didnt the Chief Judge rule against
Hatch to ?

However, Mike Hatch is what he is,
he is out, and his complaints about the Judiciary have nothing to do with you or I.

He was crying because he didnt get his way.

What did he ever do for you ?

1:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike Hatch is no hero !

Please tell me why he is
a hero ?

1:40 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:18 PM  
Blogger Sharon Anderson said...

NannyOO, your sounding more like a Lawyer, when you sued Judge Margaret Marrinam, Pro Se, who defended her: HATCH OF COURSE

THANKS FOR HANGING TOUGH: YOUR CASES MUST BE USED TO PROVE JUDICIAL MALPRACTICE ie:, click search engine Judge Margaret Marrinam,Nancy C. Lazaryan, Appellant, Evelyn C. Wallace, Plaintiff, vs. Judge Marrinan of the ...
Appeals from the district court's dismissal of her suit for failure to state a claim. opa050028-0906.htm- 16.5KB This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).




Nancy C. Lazaryan,


Evelyn C. Wallace,



Judge Marrinan of the Ramsey County District Court

in her Capacity Personally,


Ronald Riach,


Filed September 6, 2005


Parker, Judge*

Ramsey County District Court

File No. C6-04-6622

Nancy C. Lazaryan, 10734 West Lake Road, Rice, MN 56367 (pro se appellant)

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, John S. Garry, Assistant Attorney General, 1100 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2128 (for respondent Judge Marrinan)

Richard J. Thomas, Bryon G. Ascheman, Burke & Thomas, PLLP, 3900 Northwoods Drive, Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55112 (for respondent Ronald Riach)

Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge; Willis, Judge; and Parker, Judge.



Appellant Nancy C. Lazaryan raised numerous objections to probate proceedings concerning her father’s estate before respondent Judge Margaret Marrinan. Following several adverse rulings, appellant brought suit against Marrinan personally and the estate’s special administrator, respondent Ronald Riach, alleging, respectively, violation of various constitutional rights and fraud. Respondent now appeals from the district court’s dismissal of that suit for failure to state a claim as to both respondents. We affirm.

When reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e), we consider de novo whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief. Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., 663 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Minn. 2003). We consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving parties. Id.

1. Appellant argues that the district court erred by dismissing her claims against respondent Judge Marrinan as barred by judicial immunity. The applicability of an immunity defense is a question of law. Johnson v. State, 553 N.W.2d 40, 45 (Minn. 1996). Judicial immunity provides that a judge cannot be held liable to anyone in a civil action for “acts done in the exercise of judicial authority.” Linder v. Foster, 209 Minn. 43, 45, 295 N.W. 299, 300 (1940) (quotation omitted).

Appellant’s allegations against respondent Judge Marrinan are exclusively concerned with actions taken in the exercise of the judiciary’s statutory authority to administer the estate. See Minn. Stat. § 524.1-302(a) (2004) (providing a district court hearing a probate matter “has full power to make orders, judgments and decrees and take all other action necessary and proper to administer justice in the matters which come before it”). Those actions are protected by judicial immunity. Appellant’s contention that her challenge to the constitutionality of the doctrine of judicial immunity must be decided by a jury has no legal support and is without merit.

2. Appellant argues that the district court erred by dismissing her claim that Riach made fraudulent statements to the court. The district court concluded that the statements had legal support and that Riach believed them to be true. See Specialized Tours, Inc. v. Hagen, 392 N.W.2d 520, 532 (Minn. 1986) (holding that elements of fraud include a false statement concerning a past or existing material fact susceptible of knowledge and knowledge of the falsity of the statement or uncertainty as to its truth).

Appellant argues that the district court was bound to accept as true, for the purposes of the motion to dismiss, her assertions concerning the joint-tenancy ownership she claims her father and mother exercised over certain disputed testamentary property. The existence of a joint tenancy is a legal question not entitled to a presumption of truth in the context of a motion to dismiss. See Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 2944 (1986) (observing that in considering a motion to dismiss, the court will consider “all the factual allegations in the complaint as true, [but is] not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).

As to appellant’s argument alleging that her mother, defendant Wallace, was a victim of Riach’s fraud, we observe that a special term panel of this court denied a motion filed by Lazaryan and Wallace requesting that Wallace be made a party to this matter. The fraud claim concerning Wallace therefore fails for lack of standing. Appellant did not state a fraud claim upon which relief could be granted.

As to the claim that Riach violated appellant’s constitutional rights, because Riach is not a state actor, he is not susceptible to suit for depriving others of their constitutional rights. See Coller v. Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Church of Chaska, 294 N.W.2d 712, 716-17 (Minn. 1980) (holding that claims for constitutional deprivations only extend to state actions). Finally, appellant’s claim that Riach defamed her in his testimony is also without merit. “[P]articipants in judicial and legislative proceedings are entitled to an absolute privilege, a grant of total immunity for false and defamatory statements regardless of the nature or intent of the speaker.” Johnson v. Dirkswager, 315 N.W.2d 215, 220 (Minn. 1982).


* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

3:37 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:59 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home