Custom Search

Friday, June 06, 2008

Saint Paul/ US and THEM. City officials above the law! UPDATE

Please click onto the TITLE of this post to see Nancy Lazaryan on the Inside Insight T.V. Show telling this story.

29 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had to watch it twice! the more that gets exposed here the more I am starting to believe anything anyone says about St. Paul.

6:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the scoop on the poop, Scoop.

After years of mediocre leadership, Dawkins and Kelley decided to clean up the city. Of itself, this was a good idea, because it needed it for years, especially considering the hovels of "leaders" such as Andy Dawkins and David Thune.

Unfortunately, the inspections department was populated with too many dead asses, and they were too inept to be able to accomplish it. The leaders then responded with customary lack of brilliance, and also started listening to the wrong people. The inspections department went out of control and in the vacuum, became led with dipshits. The "leadership" was then sold on the idea of ridding the city of the "parasites" supposedly causing the problems, rather than deal with their own foulups.

Now we come to the city's sordid saga of mishandling the Nancy Lazaryan case, as well as many others. Also the city is being deluged with lawsuites.

I don't know what is worse, the bumbling inspectors, or the alibi artists and motormouths who defend the city for their own personal gain.

7:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seeing the condition of some of these homes the city claims is so bad is really enlightening. Now I understand it all. The city should have settled with these people suing them a long time ago. In fact, had they done just that they could've put the blame on Dakeins and Kelly, but now the blame is going to be on them like they are the ones responsible. Real smart move!

8:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i'm fairly new here, and one of the "starter" issues in Nancy's case seems to be whether the seller informed her that the house was on the vacant building list. it's on the list (setting aside all the list issues for the moment...) as of 5/6/06, well before the purchase.

My question for Nancy, I see two possibilities here, either the city changed the date of the list, or the seller misled you as to the status. Can you tell is which of these is the case, and if it's the latter, have you made any effort to redress this issue with the seller?

BD

9:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The city changes dates and falsifies documents all the time to achieve whatever ends they need. Don't know if they did it in this case, but they've done regularly in the past on other cases.

9:59 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can see why people get annoyed by you, Nancy, because you can't seem to answer a straightforward question. Morris v. Sax was decided last month. Your property, oops, I'm sorry, "the property in question" was sold in 2007. The property has a date on "the list" in 2006. So, the simple person, me, sees two things that could have happened back in 2007 when the property was purchased. Either the seller misled you as to the status of the property regarding "the list", or the city falsified "the list" after the fact. I'm pretty sure you've figured out what happened AT THAT TIME, I'm just wondering if you'd care to share that with me.

BD

2:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2:58

I am curious how come Nancy did not admit on the show that the property is hers too. When I watched the video I thought that Nancy was deceptive to her audience because she seemed to imply that she is an advocate for the person living in the property and that she does not have a financial interest in the property. And I thought it was tacky for her to make a sarcastic donut remark about those deputies who were standing in the hallway trying to figure out what her rights are. They seemed like they really wanted to help her. But she seemed like she was more interested in challenging everybody than she was in listening. If she got screwed by the city I understand her wanting to fight. I would too. But I think she is going about things in the wrong way.

3:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to 3:52

after the city scrcews you enough, that's all there is left is the desire to fight. I've dealt with the city and know how dirty and crooked they are when you get to see what's really going on underneath the false facade they put on. How were they trying to help her? I saw the tape too, and what I saw was cops trying to use a policy that clearly didn't apply to tell her she could not be somewhere that she had a perfect right to be. Then they won't let her get out of the elevator on a floor where she had another perfect right to be. What they did in the elevator could be liberaly construed as kidnapping. If you were to stop someone from getting off an elavator and forced them to go to a floor they didn't want to go to, you'd be charged with kidnapping in a heartbeat. The city of St. Paul is the one who has set the rules, and they like to fight. There is no talking to them or trying to compromise or work anything out, so I am on Nancy's side. They wanted a fight and they picked the wrong person to bully.

10:17 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy, thank you for the explanation, it makes more sense now. As I said, I'm fairly new around here, just trying to get a grasp on some of the issues...

BD

1:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To BD

Try reading some of the Federal Complaints posted on this site and you'll get a real good feel for the way the City of St Paul does business with people.

6:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:18 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-11007
ROY DEARMORE, Individually and as Representative of all
Owners of Single Family Residential Property in Garland,
Texas; A C BLAIR, Individually and as Representative of all
Property Managers in Garland, Texas; MARIE COMBS,
Individually and as Representative of all Tenants of Single
Family Residential Property in Garland, TX
Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
CITY OF GARLAND
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge:
Defendant-Appellant City of Garland (“the City”) appeals from the district
court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to Plaintiffs-Appellees Roy Dearmore, A.C.
Blair, and Marie Combs (collectively “Dearmore”), under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
This statute authorizes an award of attorney’s fees to a “prevailing party” in an
action to enforce the provisions of certain federal statutes, including 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The City also appeals from the district court’s order denying its motion
to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Because

7:44 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

Dearmore v. City of Garland
From Landlordpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Inspections and searches of unoccupied property would clearly infringe on the property owner's right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. In these limited situations, where the property is unoccupied, the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution outweigh any interest that the government has in protecting the health, safety or welfare of the public. If it becomes necessary to inspect unoccupied properties, the City could readily, with a modicum of effort, obtain an administrative search warrant to inspect any property that may pose a danger to the public."
--Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Dearmore v. City of Garland

7:48 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

An other bad day for the city of St.Paul. Whats ups Chuck??

7:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:50 PM,

Chuck is AWOL and is waiting for instructions from Dave Thune.

6:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, those were the Ramsey county Sherifs not the City. So, it wasn't the City it was the County.

Nancy, are they saying that the City Attorney is an officer of the court and therefore you can't film there without permission? Other thatn that, I don't get it.

As long as you are quiet I assume you should be able to stand in the lobby of any public space at City Hall and film all day if you want to.

Now, of course there is nothing that requires the City to have anyone actually speek to someone who is filming. They can chose not to tallk. But, I don't see why you can't be there.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She can't be there cause she's got them by the balls Repke and the city knows it. St. Paul and Ramsey County is nothing but a cesspool, they'll do anything each other wants. The city ttorney feels threatened so they get the Gesthapo to throw her out. WHat's not to get about that?

10:46 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy, you didn't answer my question, did they say they were an officer of the court and that was why you couldn't film?

Chuck

12:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy is not allowed to film there because she is not a " Member of the press " !
Also, no cameras are allowed in the courthouse as it is in the court rules !

12:44 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck
12:13 AM

Why Does
The city makes their own rules.

5:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again, I am with you Nancy, as long as you sit down and shut up, I think you should be able to be in the City Attorney's office and film to your heart's content.

Now, I also think that there is no particular obligation for the City to have to meet with you. Even when you are acting as a member of the press. I turn down interviews all of the time. The press is a business and I don't have to supply them quotes if I don't want to.

But, when you transition from the press to a protestor demanding to be seen, then the cops can throw your ass out of an office for being an annoyance.

The problem you appear to have is that you want to keep changing hats and the cops can't keep up with which one you are wearing.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:01 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Nancy Chuck. The City Attorney is a public servant even though the sound of that is demeaning and they think they are elitests, but the simple truth is tht they have an obligation to act like public servants. That means answer questions from the public and the press who wnt to inquire about shady goings on by city officials. Your different because you're a private business so you can refuse all you want. It makes me wonder though why you would want to field questions from the press. What are you trying to hide? Is your house in shambles again?

4:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the simple truth is tht they have an obligation to act like public servants."

Yes, yes they do. But, the problem with Nancy is that one minute she is "the press" wanting an interview and the next minute she is an agreived citizen demanding an answer as to why some incident occured. And, from the City Attorney's view she is a party to a current action in front of the City. She is a litigant in a law suit.

Again, I agree with Nancy that I think people ought to be able to film in City Hall as long as they are not harrassing either the employees or other citizens. But, no one is under any particular obligation to speak to the press EVER. "The press" is just a private business that makes it money by selling ads. You are no more or less impowered by having a camera in your hands.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:22 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home