Custom Search

Saturday, January 12, 2008

UPDATE/ Nancy Lazaryan -vs- City of Saint Paul

FOLKS, the city is attempting to get Nancy's case against them dismissed! Please click onto the COMMENTS for Nancy's response.


Blogger Bob said...

There maybe copy errors. I deleted some addresses.

Nancy C. Lazaryan, et al
The City of St. Paul, et al
Defendants Case type: Civil
Court file # 62-CV-07-1960
Judge David Higgs presiding
Plaintiffs Nancy Lazaryan, Victoria Marchetti and Evelyn Wallace herein respond to “City Defendants” and “ReMax Defendants” Motions to Dismiss as follows:
Response to “City Defendants” Motion to Dismiss
There are many disputed facts.
Defendants assert that:
1. Plaintiffs are claiming Defendant Mike Kalis assaulted Plaintiff Victoria Marchetti. (Memo. of Law in Support of City Defendants’ Motion, pg. 2, line 18)
2. The determination of Mike Kalis that the “roof needs some work” is a housing or building violation. (Memo. of Law in Support of City Defendants’ Motion, pg. 4, lines 10-12)
3. The voluntary suspension of electrical service is a housing or building violation. (Memo. of Law in Support of City Defendants’ Motion, pg. 4, lines 11-12)
4. On May 26, 2006 Arthur D. Jones (deceased) was the listed property owner as recorded with the Ramsey County Department of Property Taxation. (Memo. of Law in Support of City Defendants’ Motion, pg. 4, lines 19-22)
5. Victoria Marchetti removed the “vacant building” placard from the house. (Memo. of Law in Support of City Defendants’ Motion, pg. 5, lines 12-14)
6. On July 24, 2007, Lazaryan appeared before Defendant Moermond and asked what was the basis, under the ordinance for the “Registered Vacant Building” status. Defendant Moermond stated, “It is right there, in your hand.” The “Inspection Request” form, dated May 23, 2006, was in Lazaryan’s hand. Moermond denied Lazaryan’s appeal. (Memo. of Law in Support of City Defendants’ Motion, pg. 6, lines 13-17)
Plaintiffs dispute these so stated facts as follows:
1. Plaintiff Victoria Marchetti was unlawfully removed, in effect evicted, by Mike Kalis, under the color of law.
2. Plaintiffs assert that the determination by Mike Kalis that a “roof needs some work” is not a housing or building violation.
The St. Paul Code Sec. 34.09. (e) states:
“The roof shall be tight and kept in a professional state of maintenance and repair, impervious to water and have no defects which admit water or dampness to the interior of the building. No building roof shall be used for storage of any materials or objects unless approved by the enforcement officer.”
At the time Defendant Kalis inspected the house, he made no determination that the roof had defects that admitted water or dampness to the interior of the building. The phrase “roof needs some work” is ambiguous, and could mean anything, such as a shingle is missing or flashing appears defective.
The roof at the house was secure and impervious to water at the time the house was purchased. As this court is fully aware, Plaintiff Lazaryan sought an emergency restraining order from the court, to secure a building permit for replacement of the roof. Subsequent to the
purchase of the house, the roof sustained damage from the severe storm that occurred in the Como Park area. Repairs to the roof were made (instead of replacement) and the roof is, again, keeping the house impervious to water and moisture. (See affidavits of Lazaryan and Marchetti.)
3. Defendants state that the electrical service being suspended is a housing or building violation. Defendants fail to cite any authority of law that an owner of a building is required to purchase electricity.
Many people occupy their homes in Minnesota during the warmer months, and then “go south”. And, many of these people “winterize” their Minnesota homes and voluntarily suspend the electric and/or gas service. When Plaintiffs called the utility companies to “restore” services, Plaintiffs were told that the owner, Wells Fargo had voluntarily suspended these services. If the court holds the assertion by the Defendants as fact, the court would be violating the constitutionally secured rights of hundreds, if not thousands of Citizens. (See affidavit of Lazaryan.)
4. Wells Fargo was the owner of record at Ramsey County in May of 2006. (See Ramsey County Record attached to affidavit of Lazaryan.
5. Victoria Marchetti removed from the house a torn piece of paper, not a complete placard. It is unknown exactly what was on this torn piece of paper. (See affidavit of Marchetti.)
6. Defendants fail to state the “entire record” of Lazaryan’s appearance before Defendant Moermond. In response to Moermond stating, “It is right there, in your hand.” Lazaryan raised the document and showed it to Moermond, stating, “Where on this document does it say anything about multiple building or code violations?” Defendant refused to answer and summarily denied Lazaryan’s appeal.
It is important for this court to take note of fact that Defendant Moermond was unable and/or unwilling to identify any building or code violations on the “Inspection Request” form.
If there were code violations, law would have bound the inspector,, to state specifically what codes were violated by the property.
There are NO specific code violations stated on said form.
1. There are numerous disputed facts.
As proven above, there are numerous disputed facts in this case. The “facts” asserted by City Defendants are in contradiction to the record and affidavits of the Plaintiffs. These disputed facts are substantive in determining both the standing of the Plaintiffs and the applicable law. Accordingly, the City Defendants have not met the standard necessary for this court to grant their Motion to Dismiss.
2. The City Defendants have made a regulatory taking of the property.
From the City Defendants’ own argument: “A regulatory takings claim must establish that the government regulation has gone “too far” and that any proffered compensation is unjust. Macdonald v. County of Yolo, 477 U.S. 340, 348 (1986) and “A regulation goes “too far” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment when it denies all economically beneficial or productive use of the land” Green brier v. United States, 193 F.3d. 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The City of St. Paul is restricting the “productive use” of the property, because the house can not be occupied absent a code compliance inspection and the house be “brought up to code”. Pursuant to the St. Paul Legislative Code, the house cannot be occupied during the time the “repairs” are made to the house. According to the Minnesota State Building Code, occupants can perform repairs to plumbing, structure and electrical. Because the City will not allow
occupancy, the City requires that licensed contractors, at the rate of $50 to $100 per hour perform this work.
The City has “taken” the house, because it cannot be occupied, which is the “productive use” of the property. The City has offered NO compensation for this “taking”.
Ownership is defined as the owner being able to use something for which it is intended. This is a house, and the purpose of a house is for the owner (or her granddaughter) to occupy the house. Because the City has restricted the ability of the owner to use the house for the purpose it was intended, the City has “taken” the house, and evicted the Plaintiffs from occupancy of the house.
3. The Plaintiffs have standing to appear before this court.
In the case of Terrill, Director St. Paul Department of Human Rights v. The Court Apartments, Ramsey County Human Rights Commission, OAH No. 8-2111-12468-3, the City of St. Paul argued that an eviction is clearly an actual (as opposed to theoretical) injury. And, that it is settled in Minnesota law that possession of a leasehold by a family member of the lessee will be construed to be the possession of the lessee. (citing Bagley v. Sternber, 26 N.W. 602 (Minn. 1886) and Mercantile State Bank v. Vogt, 226 N.W. 847 (Minn. 1929.) The rule stated in Bagley v. Sternberg, 34 Minn. 470, 472, 26 N.W. 602, 603, is that
“the occupation or possession of the family, servants, or agents of the tenant will, of course, be construed to be the possession of the tenant."
The court in Terrill ruled in favor of the City of St. Paul. A family member has standing in a cause of action in response to an eviction.
The actions of Defendant Kalis were an eviction from occupancy of the house. Kalis’ eviction of Marchetti was based upon his previous unlawful act of designating the house as a “registered vacant building”.
On July 24, 2007 Lazaryan appeared before Defendant Moermond, the St. Paul Legislative Hearing Officer. The City did not object at this time to Lazaryan’s standing.
Sec. 18.02 of the St. Paul Legislative Code is clear,
“Any person aggrieved by the final decision of the legislative hearing officer may obtain judicial review by timely filing of an action seeking review of such decision as provided by law in district court.”
Apparently, the City Defendants are attempting a “shell game” with the court. Said Defendants “allowed” Lazaryan standing to appear before the Legislative Hearing Officer and the St. Paul City Council. Yet, said Defendants are now arguing that Lazaryan has no standing to bring this appeal. Since Lazaryan had standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the Legislative Hearing Officer and the City Council, Lazaryan now, as a matter of law, has jurisdiction to invoke the power of this district court under Sec. 18.02 of the St. Paul Legislative Code.
4. The City Defendants violated the Minnesota and United States Constitutions.
In this, arguably the most interesting controversy in this case; the City Defendants assert that the due process rights of the Plaintiffs were not violated, purportedly, because said Defendants noticed the deceased owner of the property.
It is well settled that dead people possess no rights, and notice or service to a dead person is ineffective. On May 23, 2006 the City was fully informed that Arthur Jones was deceased. Yet, said on May 26, 2006 Defendants sent notice of the “vacant building status” to a dead person, to the address of a purported “vacant building”. And, sent a subsequent notice which in effect stated, “Hey, dead guy, you didn’t pay the vacant building fee.”
The Ramsey County Record shows that the “dead guy” was NOT the owner of the property in May of 2006. (See Affidavit of Lazaryan) The City Defendants never noticed the actual owner of the property, and Wallace purchased the property, unaware of the “vacant
building status” placed upon the property by the City Defendants. Minnesota statutes and the St. Paul Legislative Code define any mortgage holder on a property is as an “owner”.
It appears that the City Defendants are asserting that the Plaintiffs have no cause of action against them, but rather, only Wells Fargo, the actual owner of the property (at the time of the “vacant building status”) has standing to assert that their due process rights were violated.
This is a perplexing question of law now placed before this court. Do violations of due process perpetrated upon Wells Fargo and the ReMax Defendants now constitute a violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs?
The actions of Defendant Mike Kalis, in “evicting” Plaintiff Marchetti (under the color of law), and the City of St. Paul denying Plaintiffs a building permit for replacement of the roof bring the previous actions of the City Defendants into current and direct violations of the Plaintiffs rights. The City Defendants unlawfully created the “registered vacant building status” of the property, and their subsequent actions against the Plaintiffs were done by abuse of power and absent any authority of law.
The City Defendants had no authority of law to designate the house as a “vacant building”. First and foremost, there is NO authority for the City to “place a building on the vacant building list”. Plaintiffs direct the court to the plain language of Chap. 43 of the St. Paul Code, which states,
St. Paul Legislative Code Sec. 43.03. Vacant building registration.
The owner shall register with the enforcement officer not later than thirty (30) days after any building in the city becomes a vacant building, as defined in section 43.02(7). (emphasis added)
There is NO LANGUAGE within the St. Paul Legislative Code that authorizes the City of St. Paul to designate a building as vacant. According to the St. Paul Legislative Code, only an
owner may designate the building as vacant. There is no language establishing a penalty for the owner failing to register the building as vacant.
In the recent case of In the Matter of the Disposition of Molly, a German Shorthaired Pointer Owned by William Frederick Klumpp, Jr. Minnesota Court of Appeals, A05-1130 (May 2, 2006) the Court held:
“A city lacks authority to bring an action to enforce a non-self-executing statutory provision if the city has not adopted a procedure for the provision’s implementation.”
Disposition of Molly is instructive concerning the facts surrounding the case before this court, having made the following ruling:
See Davis v. Burke, 179 U.S. 399, 403, 21 S. Ct. 210, 212 (1900) (observing that self-executing provisions supply “a sufficient rule by means of which the right given may be enjoyed and protected, or the duty imposed may be enforced” and that provisions that “merely indicate[] principles, without laying down rules by means of which those principles may be given the force of law,” are not self-executing (quotation omitted)).
By application of Disposition of Molly and Davis v. Burke it is clear that the City Defendants acted, absent any authority of law, in designating the house on 1033 Colne (as well as nearly 2000 other homes) as a “registered vacant building”. The is no provision within the St. Paul Legislative Code for anyone, other than the owner of the property, to register the building as vacant. Thereby, the City Defendants were acting without authority of law when they designated 1033 Colne (and hundreds of other buildings) as “registered vacant buildings”.
The St. Paul Legislative Code also states:
St. Paul Legislative Code
Sec. 43.08. Alternative procedures.
Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to abolish or impair existing remedies of the city authorized under Chapters 33, 34, 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code or Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 through 463.26. Any conflicts between this chapter and Chapters 33 and 45 will be superseded by the provisions of Chapters 33 and 45.
Sec. 34.07. Definitions.
Owner. Owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate therein, holder of an unrecorded contract for deed, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee, other person, firm or corporation in control of the premises. (emphasis added)
Sec. 34.21. Notice to correct violations.
(1) Notification of violation. Whenever an enforcement officer determines that there has been a violation of this chapter, notice may be provided to the owner or occupant to take the appropriate steps to correct the violations. The notice shall:
(a) Be in writing; and
(b) Include a description of the real estate sufficient for identification;
(c) Specify the violation which exists and the remedial action required; and
(d) Include a statement that the order may be appealed to the legislative hearing officer in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 34.23.
Sec. 34.23. Structures unfit for occupancy.
(1) Action authorized to condemn structures or units as unfit for occupancy. Whenever an enforcement officer finds that any dwelling unit, structure or portion thereof constitutes a hazard to the health, safety or welfare of the occupants or to the public for any of the reasons enumerated in this chapter, including those violations defined herein as constituting material endangerment, but which structure does not constitute a dangerous structure, the officer may take action to condemn the unit or structure as being unfit for occupancy.
The City of St. Paul did NOT condemn the house as being unfit for occupancy. The record is absent a showing of any condemnation proceedings. The City did NOT notice the mortgagee, Wells Fargo.
The City cannot argue that its actions complied with Minnesota law. See as follows:
Subd. 2. Order; notice. If in any city a building becomes vacant or unoccupied and is deemed hazardous due to the fact that the building is open to trespass and has not been secured and the building could be made safe by securing the building, the governing body may order the building secured and shall cause notice of the order to be served upon the owner of record of the premises or the owner's agent, the taxpayer identified in the property tax records for that parcel, the holder of the mortgage or sheriff's certificate, and any neighborhood association for the neighborhood in which the building is located that has requested notice, by delivering or mailing a copy to the owner or agent, the identified taxpayer, the holder of the mortgage or sheriff's certificate, and the neighborhood association, at the last known address. Service by mail is complete upon mailing. (emphasis added).
The house was secure. Additionally, if the house was not secure, the City was required, under the law, to notice the holder of the mortgage, Wells Fargo. The City did not notice Wells Fargo, as required by the statute.
The City Defendants acted without authority of law in their actions against the property rights of the owner of 1033 Colne, and every other property owner that the City has designated as a “registered vacant building”.
The City’s actions against the property at 1033 Colne, unauthorized by law, subsequently violated the secured rights of the Plaintiffs to their liberty and enjoyment of the property.
5. The owner of 1033 Colne was under no obligation to register the house as vacant since the building did not meet the criteria as a vacant building under Chap. 43 of the St. Paul Code.
Even if the City had implemented a method for the City to register a building a vacant when the owner fails to register the vacant building, the house did not meet the criteria as a vacant building under the St. Paul Legislative Code.
The house was secure. Defendant Kalis made an ambiguous comment that the “roof needs some work”, yet did not specify that the roof was a hazard and water was entering the house due to a faulty roof. Thereby, the roof cannot, by law, be determined a “code violation”.
Defendants argue that the “electricity being off” is a code violation. In fact, the owner (Wells Fargo) had voluntarily suspended the electrical service.
It is the right of any Citizen to choose whether they will purchase a product or service. The City Defendants cannot force someone to purchase a product or service that they do not use. This is not a matter of requiring a dog license or restricting parking during snow emergencies. The City is arguing that Citizens must purchase a product from a third-party (Xcel Energy) or risk loosing use of their property due to a “registered vacant building status”.
The City of St. Paul has incorporated Chap. 34 of the St. Paul Legislative Code within Chap. 43 (the Vacant Building Code). Said Chap 34 states in part:
Sec. 34.23. Structures unfit for occupancy.
(1) Action authorized to condemn structures or units as unfit for occupancy. Whenever an enforcement officer finds that any dwelling unit, structure or portion thereof constitutes a hazard to the health, safety or welfare of the occupants or to the public for any of the reasons enumerated in this chapter, including those violations defined herein as constituting material endangerment, but which structure does not constitute a dangerous structure, the officer may take action to condemn the unit or structure as being unfit for occupancy.
(7) Material endangerment violations. The following violations may constitute material endangerment if in combination or alone the conditions are substantial and expose the occupants or the public to danger or peril:
(e) Lack of basic facilities. Whenever the dwelling unit, structure or any portion thereof lacks water, hot water, approved electrical, heating or sewage disposal systems, or where the existing systems are unsafe for continued operation.
The City Defendants failed to prove by evidence that the house at 1033 Colne “lacked basic facilities”. In fact, the plumbing, hot water, heating and electricity are all functioning. The fact that Wells Fargo “winterized” the house and merely suspended the purchase of utilities does not meet the definition of “lacking basic facilities”. The “winterizing” of the house is actually a benefit to the public, as suspension of the utilities deters vagrants from breaking into the property and living in it during the winter months.
When Defendant Mike Kalis inspected the house at 1033 Colne, on May 23, 2006 said property had no housing or building violations, as defined by law. The Defendants fail to prove by evidence that the house was unoccupied for 365 days and had multiple nuisance violations during the course of these 365 days. The house did not meet the criteria necessary for the owner, Wells Fargo, to register the building as vacant with the City.
6. Defendant Moermond is not a judge.
Defendant Moermond, as the Legislative Hearing Officer, is a city employee that serves at the pleasure of the city council president. Sec. 18.01 of the St. Paul Legislative Code.
The City Defendants offer no authority of law that a city employee is afforded the same immunities as that of a judge, who is a duly elected constitutional officer. As a city employee, Moermond acts as an agent of the City, and her actions against the secured rights of the Plaintiffs are not protected by any immunity. Plaintiffs have fully argued the case law supporting their claims against the City Defendants on page 17 of their Complaint.
The evidence is compelling that Defendant Moermond and the City Defendants have no concept of administrative law or of the rights of Citizens secured by the Minnesota and United States constitutions. Plaintiffs direct the court to the Affidavit of James Jerskey in support of the City Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit B, page 6 (last line) and page 7 lines 1-2, in which Magner states in front of Moermond:
“This as an unoccupied structure with one or more violations in this case and all violations as noted by the vacant building registration form would be detailed once a full code compliance inspection has been obtained.”
Magner made this above comment in the appeal to the Legislative Hearing officer, after Lazaryan questioned what specific code violations where on the house at 1033 Colne on May 23, 2006.
No specific code violations are cited in the “Inspection Request” form. The City is asserting that the actual code violations that are the basis for the “vacant building status” would be detailed once the City searches the house during a “full code compliance inspection.”
The City is demanding a full code compliance inspection (search) to establish evidence that the house has code violations, code violations that are necessary to create the “registered vacant building status”, a status that requires the code compliance inspection.
This position by the City is no different from the police coming to a judge and asking for a search warrant, so that the police can establish evidence needed for the search warrant.
If Defendant Moermond was actually qualified to “act as a judge” she would have easily determined that Magner’s (and thereby the City’s) position was a violation of the constitutionally secured right against illegal searches.
Response to “ReMax Defendants” Motion to Dismiss
1. The ReMax Defendants are asserting that they were unaware of the “registered vacant building status” of the property. Lazaryan had a phone conversation with Defendant Tom Sawyer subsequent to Marchetti being evicted by Defendant Mike Kalis. (See Affidavit of Lazaryan)
In said conversation, Lazaryan asked if Sawyer took the photo of the house on Colne, which was used in the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) as advertisement for the sale of the property. Sawyer admitted having taken the picture. Lazaryan, who does not reside in St. Paul, and is unfamiliar with “blue placard postings”, asked Sawyer what was the meaning of the (tiny) blue color on the front door of the MLS photo. Sawyer replied, “Oh, I guess it actually was posted as a vacant building.” Lazaryan asked if Sawyer had removed the blue placard, because when Lazaryan and her real estate agent inspected the property, the placard was not on the front door. Sawyer denied removing the placard.
ReMax Defendants argue that they were never noticed of the “registered vacant building status” of the house at 1033 Colne. It is a disputed fact as to whether these Defendants were aware of the vacant building restriction placed upon the property by the City. If said Defendants had actual notice of the vacant building status, then said Defendants perpetrated a fraud upon Wallace.
ReMax Defendants argue that Lazaryan lacks standing to pursue a claim against them and to represent the interests of Wallace. Lazaryan has fully argued her rights under the power of attorney granted to her by Wallace in her response to Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss, and Lazaryan’s standing in this court in the response to the City Defendants motion to dismiss.
Because there is a disputed fact, as to whether the ReMax Defendants were noticed of the “registered vacant building status” the motion to dismiss should be denied.
There are numerous disputed facts in this case, and Defendants Motions to Dismiss should be denied.
And, the law is clear. The City Defendants have no authority of law to designate any building in St. Paul as a “registered vacant building”. It is ONLY the owner of the building that is the allowed, by law, to register a building as vacant, additionally there is no penalty authorized by law for the owner failing to register the building as vacant.
The building at 1033 Colne never met the criteria necessary for the owner of the building to register said property as vacant with the City of St. Paul. The City cannot force a code compliance inspection on the current owner, to justify its actions taken in May of 2006.
All of the actions of all the City Defendants were without authority of law, and as such, there is no immunity granted to them. Defendant Moermond does not hold the constitutional office of a judge, but rather, she is a city employee. Plaintiffs fully noticed the City Defendants that their actions violated the secured rights of the Plaintiffs. Said Defendants refused to comply with the restraints of the St. Paul City Code, the Minnesota Statutes and the Minnesota and United States constitutions.
The Plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims to this district court, under Sec. 18.02 of the St. Paul Legislative Code, and more importantly standing afforded by their right of redress secured by the Minnesota and United States constitutions.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motions to dismiss should be denied, and this matter set on the calendar for trial.
Plaintiffs rest
Nancy C. Lazaryan, proceeding in propria person, in sumo jure
**** **** **** Road
****, MN 56367
Victoria C. Marchetti, proceeding in propria person, in sumo jure
1033 Colne St.
Saint Paul, MN 55103
Nancy C. Lazaryan, attorney-in-fact for Evelyn C. Wallace,
proceeding in propria person, in sumo jure
**** ******** Court
*** ****, AZ 85248

8:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This city sure seems to have a lot of lawsuits about housing issues. Maybe they need to try a different leadership style like maybe being a little less confrontational with people. How about trying to work with people?

9:01 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

This is a good place to break the following NEWS!

There will be another federal lawsuit filed this week against the City of Saint Paul.

There is a "number" of lawsuits in the works against the City of Saint Paul over housing issues.

Many of us feel the only way to get city leadership to respect civil rights is to sue the city into submission.

Maybe, once ALL these average JOE'S have to start paying out of their pockets they will demand change.The thought that this is only happening to my neighbor and not me who cares, is going to hit home real fast with the voters of this city when the lawsuits begin to over whelm the city attorneys office. I sure wouldn't want your job Mr. Choi.

When ANYONE of us has their civil rights violated it opens the pandora's box for "ALL of US" to be violated!

We all want safe communities. This isn't about dumpy buildings and bad landlords, it never has been. This is about a FAILED crime strategy that violates innocent peoples rights. "Get rid of the nest, get rid of the critter mentality DOES NOT work! People need to be arrested and held accountable for their actions. The days of blaming landlords and business owners for our social ills is coming to an end!

The city has bought themselves a fight THEY CANNOT win.

Nancy, I for one don't think you can find justice in a Ramsey county court, especially since evidence has come to light of the courts being "fixed" in favor of the city over housing issues.I'm sure we will see this case in federal court also.

9:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who's bringing the lawsuits? Is is landlords again?

9:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy, my heart goes out to you, simply buying a house through a realtor, and having all this dumped on you.

You are doing a real service to everyone to bring the actions to the light of day of these petty bureaucrats who have adapted hitlerian attitudes.

The only thing you are guilty of is trying to get Moermond to use her brane.

Hopefully, when these suits are decided, it will be like a bucket of cold water and help these idiots snap out of it. More likely, it will be the first step to get rid of them.

10:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With as many victims and as much money is going to get paid out on this crap, at the end, and as they usually do, the Justice Department will come in, do an investigation, and someone is going to get charged with Federal Civil Rights Violations. My guess would be the lowest ones on the totem pole are the ones that are going to be going to jail and the city council will pretned they have done no wrong.

1:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy and everyone else,

I have lived in Public Housing in St.Paul for three years now,and I have,along with other PHA tenants, encountered and experienced retaliatory eviction practices by PHA management and have tried to sue them at least four times.

I have had some sucess in winning some of my motions, but the result is always the same, Ramsey County Judges pretend to hear you in court, then turn around and dismiss your action as frivolous or that you failed to state a claim.

Jonn Gutzman is the nazi ruler of the PHA eviction squad and has done nothing to curb the extensive
corruption he seems to condone.

I have since compiled a dozen names of PHA tenants who have
been victims of PHA corruption in PHAS attempts to evict tenants who speak out .

Here are the names of the Judges involved in handing the PHA a free
pass when it comes to PHAs corrupt activities :

Judge Lindman
Judge Mott
Judge Stephenson.

I give Judge Some credit for at least granting some of my motions, one where the PHA attorney Mike Driscoll ( now retired ) pretended not to get interrogatories served upon them.

Judge Decourcy ordered them to answer.

I still have an open case and have to use the court of appeals now thanks to some biased Judges.


8:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, where are you in all of this? Do you still maintain that the city is acting responsibly?

8:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its seems that the city is just
wasting the taxprayer money.

They pass laws and requirements for lordlands. And now the city is fightting more lawsuites and problems.

Just today My family went to church.

The 8:00 A.M. Mass as for the 12 years. Park at the same place.

And now today I got a ticket for
parking there. I saw about 20 other cars that got tickets. That
$25.00 per ticket. So, the city is so hard up to get money to fight all these lawsuits.

The city needs to send out park enforcement offices out on sunday
to get more money. There is a
problem with the city council and the mayor office.

What will be next home inspection for homeowner? $300.00 per inspection.

Maybe Judge Higgs will have call from the city council and the mayor office to throw out the caes.

Why does not the news people report on this stuff. Maybe cause
they had a little talk with the city council and the mayor office.

People of St.Paul needs to stand up tell them just stop all this bull shit. Now or will have recall
on all of them.

10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All of these lawsuits being filed- but nothing being paid out by the city.

Seems to me the city is doing just fine. They are proving the frivolousness of the current lawsuits. These landlords are so lucky that this is not in a court where they can be counter-sued for filing a frivolous suit. Wait, yes it is.

Keep smoking the pipe dream that you're going to break the city and get rich. Or, you can get a job like the rest of us.

10:30 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

10:30, let me give you some insight. All the plaintiffs and other litigants with lawsuits against the City of Saint Paul have JOBS and INVESTMENTS. They are using their hard earned CASH to hold this city responsible for civil rights violations. These citizens are as patriotic as one can get.

One more thing before I go. The Current 3 RICO cases will go to the Supreme Court if need be. The city attorneys office has a LONG road ahead of them and their staff is going to be stretched razor thin.

10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:30 A.M.

You must see the budget hearing at city hall last month. The city attoney said that this budget is busted because of the Landlord

And now there is new one being file next week. With more details
and proof.

You tell me why city is trying everything to raise money. from parkinf tickets too high fee for building permits and others fees.

How much money does the city needs?

Its you people that back the city are crazy ones. The city council and mayor office is so screw up.

We need to take back the city.
from the brink.

11:39 AM  
Blogger Sharon Anderson said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Jam

The reason you got nowhere in the Ramsey County Courts is because the city of St Paul met with the court and rigged all the cases involving housing issues in the citys favor. You'll never get anywhere in that court as long as you are a landlord or tenant looking for redress of any wrongs done by the city.

11:56 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Seems to me the city is doing just fine. They are proving the frivolousness of the current lawsuits"


You have got to be one of the biggest fools in the city!

12:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy, are you working with the RICO plaintiffs?

12:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People that are doing just fine DO NOT destroy evidence and try to hide the ball!

12:08 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Seems to me the city is doing just fine. They are proving the frivolousness of the current lawsuits"


You have got to be one of the biggest fools in the city!

12:07 PM

12:07, the city has been getting spanked in federal court. You are a ignorant fool to this issue. Stick around you might learn something.

12:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I second what Nancy said at 12:12pm.

A lot of us citizens are feed UP! It is a blessing we have "A Democracy" to come together for a common GOOD!

Kudos to the RICO plaintiffs, the Nancy's O & L., Bob, Jeff M., the unknowns who work to investigate all this stuff, and all the people who come here and tell their stories of injustice. I can only hope something good will come of all of this.

12:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you guys are on the up and up about another court action being started, then I have some news for you. There are more than one because my neighbor is working with an attorney and another landlord on getting the complaint written up to sue St Paul, nad they have not told anyone about it. So are you guys on the level about the coming lawsuit or are you just blowing off steam?

12:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WOW! they noticed a dead guy..

That is either malicious or insane.

12:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah they notice dead people.

isn't the first time either. bob posted a story of a home on saint clair avenue about 3 weeks ago samething. they noticed a dead person in this case too. another law suit against the city.

that inspection chump magner probably reads the obituaries so he can swoop in like a buzzard and steal the home away to the city so it can be sold to his pal wally nelson. magner, bubbas waiting for you in prison boy!

12:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

malicious or insane?

Actually, it niether. The city's actions are well thought out and predatory. They go after the poorest of the poor, the ones who they know cannot fight back.

12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The home on St Clair belongs to Rita Tessmer. She's suing the city too. Check out the 12-26 City Council agenda.

Maybe sometime soon the city will have an "Attorney Day" where all the different plaintiffs can come down with their Attorneys and file lawusits huh?

1:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone ever watch Magner address the city council? He's so fuill of himself ytou get sick watching it. He's almost as bad as Kathy Lantry, and that's quite an accomplishment.

1:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


1:09 PM  
Anonymous henry said...

Yes, I can see the Headlines now."City of St. Paul pays out millions, KEY officials are found guilty and sent to Jail"

1:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lots of lawsues. How much has st paul paid so far?

Where's my cut?

2:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy, have you ever spoken with shoemakker or Engel?

5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good to see you back Jeff.

5:54 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where is my cut? Has the city paid any money out yet?

6:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As we discussed this case once before Nancy has no case. The City is only required to notice the owner of record. They did.

The fact that the estate of that owner and later the bank, (the next owner) did nothing is not the City's fault.

Nancy then buys a house that has been noticed as being vacant and is required to have a code compliance. She is trying to go backward and time and say that the City should have done something other than what the law requires it to do.

This one for sure is going nowhere.


Chuck Repke

9:01 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...,GGLJ:2006-34,GGLJ:en&q=nancy+lazaryan+minnesota>Nancy Lazaryan Googles Search

10:56 PM  
Anonymous Ralph said...

Nancy, you are a one smart lady. i am really impressed with the googles search link.

i have a good heart but poor genetics, any possibility we could get together and produce off spring?

11:18 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Name of the game now is "High Stakes Litigation" Repke and your side is getting thier ass kicked.

3:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy, you are the one determining that "registration" is some new catagory for vacant buildings.

The code compliance issues is for any vacant buiding. The City has created a list of buildings that it knows to be vacant that it calls "registered." They could call them "listed," or "noted" or "noticed" and it wouldn't be any different.

You are saying that the City has taken some action against the property when it has writen the address on a list. That the act is the writing of an address. The acts that the City has said makes a building vacant and in need of a code compliance is the disconnection of electricity or the disconnection of water/sewer. Both of those actions are actions taken by the home owner not the City. It is after one of those actions occurs that the City gives notice to the owner about the consequences of a building going vacant. If the owner lets the power or water go off the City then is aware that the building is now vacant and puts it on the "Nancy and Bob List," or the "Please be Aware this building needs a Code Compliance List," or the "Registered Vacant Building List." Same list kids...


Chuck Repke

10:00 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what your saying Chuck is that if the pwner cannot afford to have the electric on, that the city will require him to bring the house up to the modern day building code. That makes a lot of sense. If the person cannot afford the eloectric, how the heck is he going to afford the code complaince? It's just another way to thin out the poor areas of town, and everyone knows it.

12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy said:

"There is NO PENALTY against the Owner for failing to register the building as vacant. AND there is NO AUTHORITY for the City to register the building as vacant."

Sometimes there is a penalty, when it offends the egos of city dipshits, and the city decides to tear down the building on their whim.

12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy - now you are making it seem like it is a priviledge to register your building.

The City requires an owner to register their vacant building with the City under the language you read. It doesn't make the building any more or less vacant by being "registered."

Read the language about the code compliance requirement, it doesn't say the building has to be "registered." You are making the LIST the issue. A list is just a list. Show me somewhere where some power or status change occurs because the building is registered.

So, again from the City's view. They would like all buildings to be up to code, but it isn't possible to order that to happen. So, instead what the City has done is said that if/when a building goes vacant, then it is no longer someone's residence and at that point before it is made a residence again it has to be brought up to code. You may think that is a bad idea, but that is the law.

The list means nothing Nancy. Its just a list.


Chuck Repke

3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Rpke maybe the city should pass a law that says all properties in the city have to have this code complaince and be brought up to the present day code. No more maintaining the place aqccording to the codes it was built under. While they are at it, they can put in a clause that says every singfle time the code changes which is every few months or so, then the owner has to tear out all the old stuff that was put in last year and do it over to the new code. Then everyone in the city would be "safe" as the city likes to say they are so concerned about. So how about it Chuck? YOUR HOUSE COULD BE THE FIRST TO UNDERGO THE CODE COMPLAINCE. Or just maybe the city is really not that concerned about the saftey of all residents.....maybe it's just the poor they want to chase out.....I mean protect.

3:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey 3:52 one of you guys just sent them by last month... thank you very much!

The issue is that when the building goes vacant it isn't housing anyone. Get it? Its like new. So, the put the code requirement then.

To avoid that, you never turn the water or electricity off and you never have to do it.


Chuck Repke

3:59 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Chuck your analysis, I better not go to work any more because the house will not be used for housing while I am gone and might need a code compliance when I get home.

7:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the calm before the storm Chuck. A reliable source tells me your favorite city is going to get served with another lawsuit in the next few days for Racketeering. So guess what Chuck? If the city ever had any hopes of settling these things and keeping them quite, now they have to settle with the new guy and they have to do it now before the existing lawsuits get too far and the flood gates open up with all kinds of plaintiffs suing the city for their corrupt practices. Where are you going to get your funding from Chuck if all the money is going to the landlords?

8:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

St Paul has a lot of old housing. Large numbers of them do not meet these draconian code compliance demands.

The city might have to condemn every house once the lawswuit results start coming in. Then they can pay for them with code compliance fees.

8:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy its like arguing with a brick wall. It is not the action of registering the buildng that creates the need for the code compliance it is the act of the building being vacant.


Chuck Repke

12:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well thank you very much 8:48 for summing things up so nicely. I'll take it from here. See I have a lot of expierience with this Repke. Your probably not happy to see me back Chuck, but if 8:48 is right, I'm afraid that is a huge problem, and here's why. With moeny in short supply, all the programs in the city are going to be cut to some degree, and when we talk about cutting programs, well.....I'm afraid that brings us right to your front door my man becuase your non profit money will be the very forst to go. With no money, well you know what that mean Repke? It mean no paycheck for you unless those cheapskate neighbors you stick up for wanna pony up with their money and I don't thinks that's going to be the case. So it looks to me like you'r estill washed up and finished even thow all your buddies won thier elextions. Didn't help you much did it Rpek. No money = no non profit money= you being flat ass broke, and you know what that means Chuck? It means ypou won't be living in the fishing shack you call a house, it means you'll be camped out in tent on harriet island looking for handouts. I'm sorry to see you go like this Chuck. I wish you would have taken the job frying bergers at Mickeys dinner when I had ity for you but who knows, maybe you like being broke and destitute. Your finished here Repke. The city ain''t gonna pay you and neighbors won;t wither so it's curtains for you my friend. I told you so Repke.

1:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow! Another RICO lawsuit coming after all the dynamite information that has publicly come to light on this website.

Good lawyers will be able to take the best arguments, and weave them into an unbeatable case.

The people who defend the city no matter what have actually done a real service. All the lawyers have to do is the exact opposite and will be right on target.

The wooden stake is about to be driven through the heart of the vampire, with the help from the villagers.

8:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to 1:41

Are you crazy or what?

3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is this 1:41 guy Bob?

6:33 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like you have been put in your place Repke!

3:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy - you must have been good at track and field because you take some of the longest jumps I have ever seen!

IF you buy your first premmis it still wouldn't matter as to the owners ability to move into the property. Because if it is vacant, then he is required to register it and he is required to get the code compliance.

He can't avoid the law by not complying with the law.

He can't just "throw away the ripped piece of paper" off of the door.


Chuck Repke

2:35 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy - In this country the government maintains the basic police powers including those of public safety over all of the land.

That is just a fact. Number 3 is just flat out wrong. It is part of the "Big Lie," that the wealthy and powerful want people to belive are true but it is not true.

The land in this country is regulated by US the citizens that elect a government to represent us. And we have the power to Zone the land and we have the power to insure basic safety.

All of the lies that you and other "property rights" or "very rich and wealthy" advocates make up don't change the basic rights that we as citizens have.

You may want the wealthy to have the power over the poor. You may want the land barons to control the country, but to this point the constitution protects us from you.


Chuck Repke

9:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


That was just Chuck spouting off on his grand conspiracy theory of the land barons trying to control the city and the country.

Then he continually tries to twist it as the citizens have a grand conspiracy therory against the city.

Elsewhere, you commented that you thought of St. Paul was the next Detroit. I think its a significant possibility. The huge court cases are nearing an end, and the landlords might win. If so, the inevitable follow-up court cases and civil rights actions by the government will destroy the trust that many people have placed in the city. Another source of destabilization to the city is all the people who have been damaged by the city's reckless and excessive demands. It doesn't stop there. Most of those people have a network of connections in the city. I expect huge and unknown consequences from that.

Given the intricacy and delicacy of the huge system that is the city, I think it might crash.

8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Repkes statements are alarming. I'm not wealthy and don't favor landlords, but he makes it sound as if the government has the power and the government gives us whatever meager rights they think we deserve. I have news for you Chuck. The government is required by law to operate within the rights given to us as specified in the constitution and when they go outside of that, they are not only violating the law and not insuring public sfatey, but the governemnt then becomes the threat to public saftey. The only thing the government in St Paul insures is more corruption. There's enough evidence been brought forth concerning the landlord lawsuits on this blog alone that if it was the government acting as a plaintiff, they would be able to get immediate criminal indictments against the people being sued. Where's your head Chuck?

10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:12 The court case aren't "nearing and end," the plaintiffs haven't even made a case. They started the depositions, realized they had no case and then turned this into a "find the missing email" case. With the sole idea being that they have no case but if they had every email ever writen, somewhere in there they might find something that would have helped them, they don't know what, but they are sure it is in there.

This isn't the citizens against the city. This is a group of investors that have been spurred on by the national movement largely funded by Mobile/Exon to restrict the public's right to police private land. This comes back to Eminent Domain issues and the general understanding that in this country "we the people" are sovreign.

Nancy and the landlords, and Mobile/Exon don't like the notion that the citizens as a group are the country and that you only own as much of your land as "we the people" agree that you own of your land. The 5th Amendment of the constitution is very clear as to that assumption. No man is his own principality. You do not control the fate of your land. It is a part of the United States weather you like it or not.

All of this crap in these law suits basicly boil down to that idea and these fights are occuring all over the country. The wealthy land barons and right wing radio are convincing the gulible that the country will be better off if the land barons are able to do what they want when they want to. This isn't just happening in Saint Paul it is a national effort to take power away from the people.

Read the Kelo Case.


Chuck Repke

10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think there's enough evidence at this point to indict ther City Counil as well on conspiracy charges. They know what's going on. People have been telling them for years. They refuse to do anything about it in the way of even an investigation, but choose rather to sit back and benifet from the illegal actions of the city employees. These people's wages have been nothng short of unjust enrichment and all the money they have made in the last few years should be disgorged and returned to the public.

10:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your in for a huge suprise Repke. I know some of the people in the lawsuits personally and I know for a fact they already have the emails that damage the city. They have had them for a long time. They are not looking for what's in the emails you fool, they are documenting what's NOT in the emails. I think you'll be suprised at how much information has been supplied to them from people on the inside. Are you ever going to be in for a suprise when this is over!

11:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like I keep saying folks, its insane...conspiracy to do what to whom? That is the issue in this thing. Someone has to make something out of the deal for it to be a RICO case and you guys after all of this time have never been able to say who is getting something out of it.

People talking are not a conspiracy. People agreeing to step up the enforcement on a particular problem property is neither a conspiracy nor an unlawful act. The government using its police powers to protect the public safety is a part of its job and the discussion between management and employees as to how to enforce the law aint a conspiracy either.

Like I said, there is no case and we wait on all of the emails being recreated by the outside IT firm before this thing can come to an end.


Chuck Repke

12:34 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy why do you make up this stuff or where do you get it? We have gone through what you think Allodial title means in your mind and what it actually means (the state voids out all other governments or princes claims on the land).

READ the 5th amendment to the constitution. It is clear that the founding fathers wanted any owner to be reimbursed when the collective citizen exercised their "RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN."

The founders viewed it as a RIGHT of we the people to control the land and not the land barons. We the people were never going to let this country fall into the Fudal state that had been the European countries we had come from.

But Mobil/Exon and groups like these land lords and you continue to advocate for the rich and powerful at the expense of the average citizen.


Chuck Repke

1:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know what to think.
Chuck saids one thing I believe him. Nancy saids another thing I start believeing her. Does anyone else out there know anything about this stuff?


2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck and Nancy are both a point. Nancy is right first. Chuck is right second, but where Chuck misses the point is that the city has acted WITHOUT due process, and for that they are going to pay. Why would the landlords let the cat out of the bag about who is benefiting Chuck? That would only tip off the city to put an end to it when they are in fact still doing it. I would think it would be in the lanldords interest to have the city continue their illegal actions all the way to trial.

2:57 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But Mobil/Exon and groups like these land lords and you continue to advocate for the rich and powerful at the expense of the average citizen."

Put in plain language so the common person can understand it, the above statement by Chuck means:

The landlords and Nancy advocate fro the "hard working, law abiding and successful people," at the expense of the "Handout crowd" also know as the DFL Liberals.

10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kelo case 58 pages
pdf format:

2:36 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's up with all these posts you are deleting Bob?

1:13 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Nancy deleted ALL her post through out the blog. A strange protest of sorts that hurts her more than anyone here.

She is upset I will no longer allow Bill Dahn to infringe upon OTHERS right to free speech.

DO NOT comment here on this subject.

I will post a topic on it tomarrow.

8:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But how can we resist not posting here on it Bob. For weeks we have read about how she knows it all and I must admit, she did! It would appear that her beliefs and convictions in the war she wants to fight are something less than genuine if she's willing to sacrifice this part of it for someone like Bill who continually distracts and disrupts.

2:22 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home