Custom Search

Saturday, May 03, 2008

Nancy Lazaryan gets a "fake" jury trial

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.


Anonymous Nancy Lazaryan said...

Well, folks, judicial tyranny is alive and well in Minnesota.

All week long I went through my "jury" trial in St. Paul for my doing a Citizen's arrest of a public employee (Bob Humphrey) for Misconduct in Office.

Because I did the Citizen's arrest, I was charged with disorderly conduct and trespassing.

My SOLE defense was that I did a Citizen's arrest (and immediately called the police for assistance). The person that I arrested fled the arrest and I followed him, into a secure office area.

When you do a Citizen's arrest, you are allowed, under the law, to follow the person you arrested, ANYWHERE if the person tries to flee the arrest.

I did not actually get a jury trial.

Judge Van De North was the presiding judge.

The judge decided that allowing the jury to have the statutes that defined the criminal actions of the person that I arrested would be too confusing for the jury, so the jury did not have these statutes with them when they deliberated.

Five (5) times during the trial, because of the actions of the prosecutor or the judge, my attorney called for a Mistrial, and was denied.

After my defense was rested, which means there is no more to be said, the judge decided that the jury could NOT consider my only defense, that I was doing a Citizen's arrest.

He told this to the jury three times, and put it in the written jury instructions, that the jury was not allowed to consider the Citizen's arrest as a valid defense.

So, the jury was first presented my defense, that I had been doing a Citizen's arrest, and then the judge instructed the jury that it was not a valid defense.

The jury was left with only my making some noise and entering a secured area, for "no apparent reason".

Of course, the jury had to find me guilty.

I was denied my due process rights.
I was denied making my defense to the jury.
I was denied a TRUE jury trial.

Long road...appeal is being written this weekend.

Stay strong.

Nancy Lazaryan

8:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go get em Girl
Judges that deny Constitutional Issues, Due Process's
must be removed from their tax supported, elected employmet.

5. Prosecutorial Misconduct
A district court’s denial of a new trial motion based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct will be reversed only “when the misconduct, considered in the context of the trial as a whole, was so serious and prejudicial that the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial was impaired.” State v. Johnson, 616 N.W.2d 720, 727-28 (Minn. 2000).

There are two distinct standards for determining whether prosecutorial misconduct is harmless error; serious misconduct will be found “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the verdict rendered was surely unattributable to the error,” while for less serious misconduct, the standard is “whether the misconduct likely played a substantial part in influencing the jury to convict.” State v. Powers, 654 N.W.2d 667, 678 (Minn. 2003) (citing State v. Hunt, 615 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Minn. 2000)); but see State v. Mayhorn, 720 N.W.2d 776, 785 (Minn. 2006) (stating that supreme court has more recently applied “streamlined approach,” applying only the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard).

“If the defendant failed to object to the misconduct at trial, he forfeits the right to have the issue considered on appeal, but if the error is sufficient, this court may review.” State v. Powers, 654 N.W.2d 667, 678 (Minn. 2003) (citing State v. Sanders, 598 N.W.2d 650, 656 (Minn. 1999)). Only when the misconduct is unduly prejudicial will relief be granted absent a trial objection or request for instruction. State v. Whittaker, 568 N.W.2d 440, 450 (Minn. 1997). When the defendant fails to object, prosecutorial misconduct is reviewed under the plain-error standard announced in State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998). On the third, or “prejudice” prong, the state now bears the burden of proving that there is no reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct would have a significant effect on the jury's verdict. State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006).

The general rule that a party must object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct or waive the issue does not apply to a criminal defendant appearing pro se. State v. Reed, 398 N.W.2d 614, 617 (Minn. App. 1986) (citing State v. Stufflebean, 329 N.W.2d 314, 318 (Minn. 1983)), review denied (Minn. Feb. 13, 1987).

6. Juror Misconduct
“The standard of review for denial of a Schwartz hearing is abuse of discretion.” State v. Church, 577 N.W.2d 715, 721 (Minn. 1998). “The granting of a Schwartz hearing is generally a matter of discretion for the trial court.” State v. Rainer, 411 N.W.2d 490, 498 (Minn. 1987).

Judge Profile
Principal Campaign Committee Registration Information

JSTOR: California Law Review, Vol. 75, No. 3, (1987 ), pp. 1071-1092
Judicial Misconduct and Politics in the Federal System: A Proposal for Revising the Judicial Councils Act
Drew E. Edwards

9:49 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Sharon you forgot to sign your previous post. :-)

9:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having sat on a jury, you are given instructions based on the judge's rulings.

We made our decision on the facts that were presented. We let the guy go.

After the trial the judge informed us what was not allowed. We were sucker big time. At that moment I lost all faith in our justice system.

10:15 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

I was at the trial and I summized that their was more error
( or better yet an intentional refusal of the Judge to permit the admission of critical statutes to be published to the jury ) as well as not granting a mistrial on several grounds..

I didnt see prosecutorial misconduct but occasionally the prosecution was overuled on objections and many objections by the defence were sustained.

Court rules require that the jury be instructed on the law and the Judges refusal to permit a total instruction on the law would seem to be the critical element of the appeal as well as the courts refusal to permit Nancy to use a citizens arrest as a mitigating circumstance for her conduct that day.

Jeff Matiatos

10:45 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

I should add that somehow, a majority of the jurrors were Government employees.

Even weeding out some jurrors, the jury was stacked with goverenment employees so Nancy was forced to select from total pool of government employees.

Could this have some affect ?

Jeff Matiatos

10:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, I'm curious, how did you hear before most of us, Nancy had lost her case?

Chuck, is there anyone with the city you aren't connected to?

11:22 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Anyone seeing a police or parking enforcement officer violating the law while issuing parking citations ( Say for instance when one time I witnessed and photographed a parking enforcement officer writing citations on selby avenue while parked in a cross walk ) here is how you can issue them a ticket .

See Minnesota statute 169.346 subdivision 4.

Get your pens out !

Jeff Matiatos

11:35 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

If Judges wont instruct jurys on the law, we will instruct the citizens before they get on the jurys.

Jeff Matiatos

11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like Judge Roy Bean type of justice. This adds support to your belief Nancy that the judges allow the city officials to do what they dam well please.

Jeff, thanks for your insignts.

11:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy, what was the judge's justification for denying your defense.

Was the citizen's arrest taken up at a pre-trial hearing?

Was the citizen's arrest discussed during the trial?

We are given extra-ordinary powers as citizens when performing a *lawful* arrest. We can detain, and use force to detain another citizen in the act of committing a crime.

The problem is that most citizens haven't been trained in law enforcement. What *you* think is illegal, or what constitutes a crime may not be correct.

Having said that, it seems to me that the only was the judge could have dismissed your defense is to have ruled it null before hand.

What's the scoop?

1:10 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One more thing. Nancy says she attempted to arrest a guy for "Misconduct in Office".

By what standards did you come to that conclusion?

Trust me here, I'm no friend of cops, lawyers or judges...most all are crooked to one degree or another. And I'd love nothing more than to see a public employee smacked down for misuse of authority.

But I have had enough experience with the legal system to know that you're defense has to fit within tightly drawn boundries.

That doesn't always seem fair to lay people, and sometimes it's not. But it is usually (not always) consistent within written law and But it is usually consistent within written law and precedent.

1:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having corrupt courts is nothing new in Ramsey Ccounty. The landlords suing the city had proof that the city rigged the courts before they railroaded the landlords through it. Your odds of winning are ebtter at the casinos than at the court in Ramsey.

1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What happened in my case was as if the judge told the jury, "All you can consider is that a man was stabbed. The defendant admits to doing the stabbing. You, the jury cannot consider that the defendant was stopping an attack that was being done on him. You cannot consider his argument of self-defense."

This sounds like the judge rejected your claim to a lawful citizens arrest.

If he ruled that the arrest wasn't lawful, your defense isn't valid.

To take your example, if you claim that you stabbed someone in self defense, but the facts show that you stabbed because the guy's cologne was making you want to puke...well, you're not going to win that one.

You have to be able to prove necessity and lawfullness.

I'm on your side here, girl. But if that's what happened, you're going to have to fight the judges ruling vis-a-vis the citizen's arrest first.

1:38 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Swiftee, the Judge believed and stated outside the presence of the Jury that he didnt think that Mr.Humphrey had committed a crime and then the defence argued that
Nancy believed their was probable cause to arrest and the Judge replied that he had the sole decision to rule on probable cause, then the defence argued that only the Jury could determine probable cause.

This point should be argued vigorously on appeal.

I believe because Nancy had a reasonable suspicion that a law was broken, she had the right to proceed to arrest Humphrey.

The probable cause element could be well understood by any lay person but the Judge took out of context a case he was explaining to the defence and added words to it when addressing the defence outside the jurys presence.

The Judge mistated the case on probable cause.

Nancy should get the transcripts and point this out.

Jeff Matiatos

1:52 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2:01 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

" Probable cause to arrest exists where the objective facts are such that under the circumstances a person of ordinary care and prudence [would] entertain an honest and strong SUSPICION that a crime has been committed "

Folks this is the probable cause Nancy should have been able to assert at trial but the Judge wouldnt permit it.

State vs. Horner 617 N.W. 2d 789 at 795.

Jeff Matiatos

2:02 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Something you folks should understand and be shocked at is the fact that the police responding to the incident led Nancy to believe she could have a citizens arrest form and escorted her to the squad for a form.

Then the cops chickened out and sped off with Nancy just standing outside.

The police lied to her.

The police are protecting DSI.

Jeff Matiatos

2:13 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Here is a fun case to read regarding a citizens arrest.

State of Minnesota vs. Susan Mary Evans Appeal case number A04-213.

Jeff Matiatos

2:19 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

People, defendants can make a rule 20 motion claiming that the commision of the crime should be excused based on mental capacity.

In otherwords, sanity defence.

Jeff Matiatos

2:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I am adjudicating the facts that happened prior to the assault. I find they are not irrelevant."

That's what I though had happened.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure that a judge can make an adjudication of facts that concern legal definitions during a trial.

You said you based your arrest on the belief that this guy was "misusing his office".

Maybe he was, but you're going to have to prove that you knew what constituted "misuse", as defined by law (your definition won't work) before hand, and that the misuse you witnessed would have caused irrevocable harm if you hadn't taken action at that moment to stop it.

Gonna be a tough row, hon. I wish you all the luck in the world...but if you are footing the tab for all of this legal work, I hope you can justify the expense as a learning experience.

2:37 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Humphreys misused his authority by claiming he was the designee with authority to deny Nancy the right to see public data.

Humphreys lied on the stand to this effect.

Nancys knowledge of the Data practices was the basis for her understanding that once Humphreys denied access, he had committed a crime.

Therefore Nancy had a reasonable suspicion a crime was committed.

Right Nancy ?

Jeff Matiatos

2:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now it's a conspiracy! I think an arrest warrant should be issues immediately for Humphrey and also the Judge.

3:12 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Every one please go down to DSI and tell them you want to view all files on vacant homes etc.

Lets keep them very very busy !!!!!!

Jeff Matiatos

3:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff, if you cited that case to help Nancy, you've done her no kindness.

The complaintant lost this case.

In addition, there sre these uncomfortable facts:

This was a case of a cop working outside his jurisdiction. The cop can show that he's had training in the law and in law enforcement. Unless I've missed something, Nancy can't do that.

From the decision...

A private person may arrest another:

(1)for a public offense committed or attempted in the arresting person's presence;

(2)when the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the arresting person's presence; or

(3)when a felony has in fact been committed, and the arresting person has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

Minn. Stat. § 629.37 (2000). Whether there is probable cause for a citizen's arrest depends on findings of fact that are reviewed for clear error, but it is ultimately a question of law to be reviewed de novo. State v. Horner, 617 N.W.2d 789, 795 (Minn. 2000).

As I understand it, Nancy is claiming the first point. But as I say, the burden to show that she knew a crime when she saw it is on her.

The judge is gong to say that he reviewed the circumstances and made an adjudication of erro on Nancy's version of what constituted a crime.

As I said, maybe he's wrong but Nancy is going to have to resolve some pretty tough issues.

I wish it were a different story, Nancy. But I hate to see anyone throw money down a lawyers black hole for nothing.

6:08 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7:53 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Swiftee, your reference that the complainant lost the case may or may not be a relevant factor because the circumstances are different.

Its the point of law that matters.

There is nothing in the citizens arrest statute that requires a private citizen to have formal police training.

You have the right to detain for arrest someone on your property for tresspassing and hold them for the police.

It seems odd that the arrest statute gives a private citizen the right to arrest using his or her own judgment and does not mention the extent of probable cause a private citizen should use.

So if only the court can determine probable cause, what should Nancy have done, called a Judge instead of 911 like she did ?

That defeats the bald language of the statute that simply says a private person may make an arrest .

What did I miss ?

Jeff Matiatos

8:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Had the police gave Nancy the citizens arrest form, This Judge would have had at least some evidence that Nancy was justified in what she did, but the cops took off for obvious reasons.

I dont know what a citizens arrest form looks like but i am sure the police must sign off on or not.

The absence of the arrest form denied the court the opprotunity to judge the probable cause factor.

Nancy, you need to get a copy of that form to see what it entails.

I think the citizens arrest form is so important here and should not be a focal point on appeal.

8:20 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

That last post at 8:21 was mine.

Jeff Matiatos

8:21 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

I mean 8:20

8:22 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Should be a focal point on appeal.

Think I will get that beer now.

Jeff Matiatos

8:24 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:16 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

If its true that the city has its own policy for dealing with the citizens arrest form and it exceeds Minnesota Statutes, the ordinance is illegal.

Jeff Matiatos

10:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I mean the policy is illegal.

Jeff Matiatos

10:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The issue of Nancy's "Citizen's arrest" is that citizen's arrests occur when someone has committed a "public offence" "(1)for a public offense committed or attempted in the arresting person's presence;"

How in the heck does "Misconduct in Office AND Data Practices" happen in "public." How does Nancy "see" anyone perform Misconduct in office. It isn't a "public offence."

If Nancy could do that then anyone who disagreed politically with any elected or appointed official could have them arrested every time they did something they disagreed with.

Its a convictable offence, but I don't see how it can be charged in a citizens arrest.

Never had a chance... buy a clue.


Chuck Repke

11:13 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatod said...

May sound strange to you Chuck but here goes :

Nancy has a right to public data.

The designee from the city clerk can asign the head of government departments to set the policys on the manner that the publicwill get to see the data.

Robert Humphrey with DSI was an administrative assistant to Bob Kessler the department head at DSI.

Mr.Humphrey abused his job title by going over Bob Kesslers head and telling Nancy she couldnt view the data according to terms Humphrey made up.

When Nancy went to DSI to get access to the date, Humphrey turned her down and Nancy proceeded to arrest him for violating the data privacy act and
exceeding his authority as a public official.

Both misdemeanors and arrestable offences.

Jeff Matiatos

11:31 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Chuck, The city clerk assigns government department heads the designee title of overseeing the data practices rules for persons requesting to see data.

I had it mixed up there.

Jeff Matiatos

11:35 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So if only the court can determine probable cause, what should Nancy have done, called a Judge instead of 911 like she did ?

Now here's a man that's onto something. Every day we all see things that we could make citizens arrests for. Maybe we should all start calling the Judge every day for verification of "probable cause" in contempation of making this arrest!

11:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Humphrey committed the offense in a city office which is open to the public then it is a public offense isn't it Chuck? Or do you think they can proclaim our city offices as private places for them to hatch their little criminal schemes all day long?

11:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm wondering if Mr. Humphry had the proper training and authority to handle a Data Practices Act request.

7:19 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read my post again folks. Nancy believes that Humphrey is violating the law, but she doesn't SEE him violating the law. She is disputing if he can do what he is doing that is something that a judge could sort out, but it just flat out anything that you could do a citizens arrest of. The facts aren't clear or visable.

Citizens arrest occur when someone robs a store, or steals something and you hold them for the police. The offence is public.


chuck Repke

11:46 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Humphrey violated the law before Nancy even got to DSI.

He put unlawful restrictions on Nancy regarding Nancys right to see data and misrepresented his position as having authority he wasnt assigned.

Imagine being fired by a person who had no authority to fire !

It is a misdemeanor to deprive citizens data the public is entitled to see.

Chuck, were not used to seeing the types of citizens arrests for the crimes Nancy alleged occured .

There are not many citizens arrests cases that get to the higher courts so we dont get a clear picture of what circumstances give rise to a
valid citizens arrest.

However, I am surprised at you Chuck because corruption by Public Officials is so rampant that we should really call on the National Guard to start making arrests .

You work closley with government officials Chuck.

You know what their up to more than the common citizen but I don't expect you would EVER think of them as being corrupt.
I think we have military police (MPs).

Jeff Matiatos

7:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK so what part of:

(1)for a public offense committed or attempted in the arresting person's presence;

that don't you understand?

It has to be "public" and a "presence" is needed for a citizens arrest. She only "saw" what was in her mind. You can't "see" misconduct in office only the consequences of it.

Words have meaning.


Chuck Repke

8:11 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Did the stock holders and Enron employees that got shafted see the official corruption there Chuck ?

Like most official corruption, its done outside the presence of any one.

In case you haven't heard, Enron officials are in prison for the kinds of corruption not done in the emmediate presence of the public.

Ken Lay is dead. To bad.

Folks, Chuck believes that unless you get consequences, means you havn't comitted any crime.

Typical public official mentality Chuck.
( I did it but I haven't committed a crime until I get conquences ! ).

Jeff Matiatos

8:24 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Chuck, the presence element of just about any crime could take the form of a tape recording of a harassing phone call or a threatening letter to the victim.

Jeff Matiatos

8:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This sutiation deserves close attention, as it has the appearance of impropriety.

Robert Humphrey's apparently illegal handling of Data Practices Act requests, can provide information to direct defendants in major racketeering lawsuits. His critical position can allow him to collude in other ways and provide false information to key city officials.

11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems to me that if Humphreys refused to honor the Data Practices Act, and that evidence exists, a complaint may still be lodged.

Now would be an excellent time to do so.

3:00 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

You hit it right on.

DSI ( code enforcement ) knows of the rico claims and it doesnt want Nancy digging around.

They want to sanatize the data not protect its integrity.

Jeff Matiatos

3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I almost feel sorry for Swiftee. He really wants to help you all but, you can't stay on track.

You got evidence or a complaint for individual corruption, file it.

What's happening is that the bar-talk is meeting the low-bar of credibility and there is till a gulf between the two.

Humphreys should file assault for Nancy grabbing him. Taking a job as a public employee doesn't mean any nutcase can come and assault you.


3:45 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds to me like this hit a nerve with both Eric and Chuck.

9:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff - don't say that I believe something that I didn't say. I can't help it that you can't read or understand what I wrote.

I said nothing about the merrits of "misconduct" or not, only that it isn't something you can do a citizens arrest for, because it isn't a "public offence" that occurs in anyone's presence.

Even Swiftee gets it. Nancy could have filed a complaint. She can't do a citizens arrest on the interpritation of a statute.


chuck repke

11:28 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Chuck, the statute speaks for itself and does not clearly define every kind of corruptable offence that could ever be committed.

Nancy can do a citizens arrest for any crime that is an arrestable !

Minnesota even has a statute that allows cities and counties to permit its citizens to issue parking tickets.

I gave the statute in another posting here.

Come on man, you know that nancys complaint will go right in the trash or will be held up until Hell freezes over.

Police may arrest based on a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been commited and must use the statutes in order to effectuate a proper arrest.

A citizen conducting an arrest may be held to the same standard.

Usually a pre trial evidentiary hearing or Rassmusman hearing determines whether the arresting officer or citizen had cause to arrest.

The Court makes that determination after the arrest and the defendant is in front of the court.

So, all that Nancy needed was a reasonable basis or suspicion that a violation of a crime may have been committed.

Your not going to stand around waiting for some stranger on your private property with a gun to shoot you when you know he shouldnt be there in the first place, while you ponder the thought of whether he is in violation of the statute for being on your property.

Your dead man !

Try to arrest him before he shoots you.

Better yet, while he is running at you ready to blow your ass away, call the Judge and ask him if its ok to defend yourself.

Get some heads up on criminal procedure !

Have a good night .

Jeff Matiatos

12:03 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

One more thing, how many cops get the tables turned on them for arresting someone only to have the Judge drop the charges for lack of probable cause ?

If that happens, then the wrongly accused and arrested files a suit against the cop for false arrest,
false imprisionment, and maybe malicious prosecution if he is found not guilty.

Nancy should claim the same kind of immunities that police use when they are sued.

There is a double standard here.

Jeff Matiatos

12:14 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This thinjg with Nancy and Jeff is getting interesting. Just as with the city of St. Paul, you can't count on Chuck or Eric to be intellectually honest, or fair, or stick to facts. They keep coming up with all htis BS and Nancy and Jeff have to do all the digging and literally debate and correct the subject sentence by sentence.....and then we see how the Repke crowd tries to mislead people with half truths and BS. Kepp talking Chuck. I'm enjoying seeing you get your clock cleaned.

3:19 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Citing State v. Evans A04-213 unpublished opinion:

" Here, Ellenbecker observed the vehicle driven by Evans weave back and forth in the traffic lanes and cross the centerline. He also observed Evans pull into a left-hand turn lane and then quickly pull out of the turn lane,cross lanes of traffic, and travel forward in the right hand lane.

Under these circumstances, a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that Evans was driving while impaired.
Horner, 617 N.W.2d at 795 .

Thus Ellenbecker was empowered as a private citizen to make a citizens arrest ".

Eric, the assault charges were dropped against Nancy for detaining
Humphrey, and unfairly Nancy was charged with trespassing when she had an affirmative defence that
" Nancy needed police assistance because Humphrey had fled and Nancy dialed 911 for police back up " .

See Minnesota Statute 609.605 Subdivision 1 (4).

The Judge would not alow the Jury in Nancys case to see this statute.

Jeff Matiatos

7:53 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

We need to pass a law that says when a judge abuses their discretion 3 times, they must resign their terms as a judge and go back to law school.

Jeff Matiatos

7:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, it doesn't matter how many A-Democracy readers you win over, you have to convince the judge and jury. You have failed at that and yuo are bringing nothing to the table new for an appeal.

Chuck and I are proven to be correct month after month on here. In over a year- what has gone your way? Nothing. Why? Is everyone you run across corrupt? It seems to me that somewhere along the way you have to decide if you are going to use the system, what part of it is in tact to get some resolution? If its all corrupt, then why are you wasting your time and money?


10:03 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Something Eric doesn't want to accept, is that corruption in our society exists at all.

It is most prevelant in Government and buisness.

I expect Eric to pat his and Chucks back and take full credit for the Ricomens failure to get sanctions and every other point or issue that didn't go the way some of us hopefuls who thought it would.

We are all lay persons Eric
same as you and we are all surprised when things we don't expect go our way do and sometimes they don't.

You need to come down off your high horse and think about that.

People can be right in the facts of there lawsuits and be deprived of their rights to be compensated because of immunity, statute of limitations, not having the money to fight government or a rich adveresary.

Your just a leech Eric, sucking of the trivial denials and shortcomings of the A-Democracy readers here involved in suits against government.

We know who's side your on and we know what to expect from you when something doesn't go the way we thought it would.

Nancys case is not over and neither are the RICO suits.

Don't hurt youself coming down off that horse.

Jeff Matiatos

Like any trial, does it ever go totally one way or the other ?

No it doesn't.

I have one case in the court of appeals where I sued the state for malicious prosecution and beat the state on judicial immunity.

Very hard to do !

My case was reversed and dismissed.

I was not broken up over it and they did offer me a cash settlement which I turned down.

11:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When you start off with a lie:
"Something Eric doesn't want to accept, is that corruption in our society exists at all.", you'll excuse the lack of credibility I find in your words.

Look it up yourself, I have said over and over, I can believe that there is corrupt individuals who work for the city and when people have proof or suspension, file a complaint, make a record of it even if you think it goes nowhere.

Now, I have been saying that for over a year.

Nobody including me, Chuck and the judge said that corruption, incompetence or stupidity does not exist in the ranks of the city.

What we have been clear on proving that does not exist is a Conspiracy between parties. No RICO.

You and others have failed to prove anything resembling RICO, beyonf gross speculation and conspiracy theories on here.

I call bs on most of your crap because if you really cared about the city screwing over minorities, you would be filing federal charges of violations of civil rights. You would got the Human Rights as well. After those case play out there, you'd then do your civil litigation suits and see what kind of money you can get.

Naw, you went ass backwards on this one and now you look like a bunch of loons (unfortunate for the landlords who were wronged and got caught up in this RICO suit).

Nancy is a different story. Nancy is not 'learned' in the law so you'll have to take her interpretation as that of someone who is not an expert. She is a nice and energetic person but foolish to take the leaps that she does on issues that she's not clear on.

It doesn't take three years of law school and a couple of more months of studying to pass the bar if all it took was a cup of Chamomile and a reading lamp. After that, you facing people that have practiced and studied the law for decades- and Nancy wants to argue with them about what they don't know?

So, to you and others on here that may sound like normal good common sense actions. To me it sounds like a kamikaze mission of someone who is partially detached. I say partially because she does have some points sometimes.


2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your not going to stand around waiting for some stranger on your private property with a gun to shoot you when you know he shouldnt be there in the first place, while you ponder the thought of whether he is in violation of the statute for being on your property."

The law regarding the use of deadly force is real clear when it comes to our right to react to felonies being committed *inside* your house; but "on private property" gets real dicey if you mean your yard.

I'm licensed to carry a firearm in 37 states. I've attended countless classes on concealed carry, use of deadly force and the law & etc., and I'm telling you that tough talk is all well and good; but when it comes to the reality of taking a life things get complicated real fast.

What if the guy standing in your yard at 3:00 a.m. is an undercover cop looking for a rapist?

What if it's your neighbor chasing an armed intruder from *his* house?

Displaying a gun in public, justified or not, will get you arrested in most cases.

Even willingly participating in a heated verbal argument while carrying will be considered an armed conflict if it comes to light you've got a gun, whether you produce it or not.


Well, if you had any idea about what you're talking about, you'd be singing a different tune, trust me.

4:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I call bs on most of your crap because if you really cared about the city screwing over minorities, you would be filing federal charges of violations of civil rights."

Who are you trying to kid with the above statement? File these charges where" With another regulatory group appointed by government officials who expect the people on that board do favors for the corrupt ones that appoint them? You'r crazy.

5:15 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...


Interesting the way you responded to that swiftee.

I was at Nancys trial when Humphrey was testifying and he claimed he was in fear for his life when Nancy was attempting to arrest him.

Humphrey said all that crap on the stand but never told that to the police prior to that to my knowledge .

Cry me a river man, Nancy had no weapons clearly.

Humphreys weighed 270 pounds according to his testimony.

I am not going to dispute your knowledge of fire arms or the training you recieved that probably
makes you more responcible with a gun than I .

I dont own one yet.

I guess you react to someone on your property with caution and at least attempt to determine why that person is there.

I would think twice about attempting to arrest a person with a gun so maybe I gave a bad example.

What my argument boils down to was that only Nancy could make that enitial determnation based on her knowledge of the law whether she had cause to arrest Humphreys.

Should she be convicted of trespassing and disordley conduct for attempting a citizens arrest ?

When the cops arrest and later the court throws out the charges do the cops get charged with trespess and disorderly conduct ?

Hell no.

What kind of firearm do you own ?

I have fired a 357 and 44 at a firing range.

Jeff Matiatos

5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank You for biting the bait 5:15 and making my point.

Jeff, you want a sandwich? It appears that Swiftee has eaten your lunch and crapped on your reasoning.

You've based your conclusion Nancy is adequately learned in the law. She's smart, but she's not even close to being able to recite let alone practice the law.

Like I said earlier, she has you all convinced but, real lawyers and judges disagree. Juries also disagree.


5:48 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

And you crapped on your own statement.

Thats why we have a Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.

Nobody but you have crapped on my reasoning and I am not convinced by your reasonong either.

I would stack Nancys knowledge ( and mine) of the law over yours in a new York Minute.

Jeff Matiatos

5:56 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Oh, just incase you want to rip on my grammer, I admit I could use a little work there so find someone and something else to crap on but when it comes to knowing the law, your lost.

Jeff Matiatos

6:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know the Law?

Um, OK.

The law must know you because you've been beaten by it every step of the way.


8:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I also heard that Humphrey said on the witness stand that Nancy grabbed and shoved him in the beginning when she came in, but then they played a video tape that showed the whole thing and she never laid a hand on the guy. Humphrey's a sissy. These Government pricks talk shit to you until you lose your cool and then they're all afraid. The reason they're afraid is that they know what they would do to someone who treated them the way they treat others. Go for it Nancy! Next time beat the living shit out of him to make his lies worth while.

10:51 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So tell me honey....just how many names do you go by? I'd like to "get wit" ya, but not sure what name to look up the phone book.

2:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Humphreys is not a sissy, its just stupid for someone to get physical at work.

10:51 sounds like the kind of guy who beats his wife because she was 'lipping off' to him.

Nancy- I'm glad you brought this up. We are going to leave me out of this because I could very well ask how many district court proceeding have you prevailed over. Zero. How many cases have the judges presided over? Hundreds. And you think that you know better. How many cases have the attorneys won you're up against? Hundreds.
You? One.

Yes, it appears you are well-learned. Why must you be so unreasonable? Listen to Swiftee and follow that advice.


8:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric how many court cases have you presided over ?
Not one.
How many times have you represented your self in court Not at all. And won, never ?
Nancy is way ahead of you and she doesn't need you or swiftee telling her what she needs or how to work the legal systym.
You want to jump on swiftees band wagon whenever it gets to hot for you here and let me tell you, your not scoring points with him either.
Your all alone Eric here and nobody but Bob Johnson seems to give a rats ass if not for the fact that he feels he needs you for this blog to even survive.
I can't for the life of me figure out why Bob feels he needs the likes of you except for the fact that your brain thinking is one directional.

See ya later goat roaper.

9:43 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swiftee's Bandwagon?!?!
I against 99% of what he stands for. I think he is extreme, so when he offers a viewpoint that seems reasonable, it just an example of how much off you all are on this one. I don't want to 'score' points with him, I'm just amazed that there is a group of people more extreme than him. Hell, aside from a couple of comments on here, the only things he's ever done positive was fix Paul Wellstone's bus teach self-defense to young 'uns.

Seeing that you're not close to being aware of what I do for a living- I assure you I'm clear as a fucking bell on the legal system and the statutes. If I wasn't, I'd be broke and bitching about the government holding me down.

I post here to break up the mutual mental masturbation that goes on here. You are welcome to dispute what I write.

You can't be on a truth seeking mission with just one perspective, then you're only on the self congratulatory road to continued ignorance and frustration.

Now go back to work- I'm gonna want my fries hot when I get there.


10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy, one question.

If its assumed that everything you say is absolutely correct:

Is it criminal to be incompetent when no harm has been done?

If Humphreys was ignorant or incompetent in refusing your request, how does that make it criminal?

How are you proving that it was criminal?

If that's the case, I'd be arresting every fucking customer service rep I deal with, except the ones in India. I'd have Interpol get them.

C'mon!?! Shouldn't we be going after the governor for raising fees? What about the legislature and there inability to finish the job on time in past sessions? Can we arrest the leadership?
What about public works who effed-up my yard and left it? That wasn't in the job description.

Where do you draw the line Nancy between criminal actions and normal incompetence?


10:38 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

9:43 said, Your all alone Eric here and nobody but Bob Johnson seems to give a rats ass if not for the fact that he feels he needs you for this blog to even survive.
I can't for the life of me figure out why Bob feels he needs the likes of you except for the fact that your brain thinking is one directional.

my response-

Hi All,

I know what I am doing 9:43. IF, I rid the blog of everybody who didn't think like Bob Johnson, we would have a few folks here all agreeing with each other and a very small reader base if "any" at all. Also, somewhere in all that agreeing we will have lost our quest for the truth.

I value each and every poster here GREATLY! ESPECIALLY, those who disagree with me. I pray for more folks with differing opinions to join us. This is what makes this blog interesting.

Who in the hell wants to go to a FIGHT and see the boxers kissing up to each other. :-)

7:20 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was harm done Eric. City officials were activly trying to deny acess to public records....and at a time I might add when they are destroying evidence in an unrelated case so people cannot see the truth. The publics trust in governemnt has been seriously eroded by these actions and that is a huge "harm" that you fail to see.

5:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

His world is BLACK and dark.
Thats all he sees.

7:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


This is the problem with all of you, you have your own legal definition.

Nancy will have to prove some harm was done AND there was malice on Humphreys behalf.

Inconvenience is not harm.
What evidence that can be imputed to Humphreys and inferred as malice?

The law says you can follow the person you attempt to arrest. Humphreys went into his office or an office, why didn't you wait outside of the restricted area for the cops to get there?

Why did you try to apprehend him?

He couldn't go anywhere and you had his name, where he worked, and what the concern was about already.

Seems to me that you pushed a situation to a point where its a mess. Seems to be something I suggested you do a while ago.

Remember the whole discussion on the national guard?

That would indicate that I'm negative. In actuality, I'm fighting with all of you negative people that do nothing but bitch and complain on here. You then complain about me because I won't join in your bitchfest.


9:58 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home