Custom Search

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Lantry Letter/ Dear Nancy :-)

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

78 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

Dear Ms. Lazaryan,



I am hoping this correspondence can bring some closure to your visits to the Public hearings of the St. Paul City Council.



First, I acknowledge that regarding 1-33 Colne you have has on-going legal issues with the city of St. Paul and that this interaction makes it difficult for you to be anything other than defensive and suspicious on all city issues. However, as Council President I also have an obligation to run meetings efficiently and fairly. Your recent behavior of trying to testify on matters unrelated to 1033 Colne has made for some contentious interactions and I would like to clarify the city's position regarding public hearings.



In the belief you may misunderstand the purpose and procedures for a public hearing before the St. Paul City Council I want to take this opportunity to clarify things.



Public hearings on broad policy issues are indeed open to anyone that would like to comment on them as long as they are germane to the issue before us and so long as they abide by the time limits imposed. For instance, during a discussion on a new taxi cab ordinance, someone who wanted to talk about historic preservation would be asked to keep their comments on point about taxi cabs, not preservation.



For public hearings related to matters of someone's specific address, we are not required to hear from everyone about anything they want. We are only required to hear from parities with some sort of legal interest in the specific address, again subject to germaneness and time limits. Given the time limits we have, giving time to those with no legal interest in the address necessarily and unfairly takes time from those who do have a legal interest. Also, due to timing issues there are many times when the council hears dozens of items set for public hearing. I try to run the meetings being cognizant that others have been waiting for hours to be heard on their issue. I do not want to waste anyone's time in dealing with issues that are not before us.



There is a distinction between holding a meeting in public versus inviting the public to comment on broad policy issues. St. Paul does not provide an open forum for public comment on any and all issues.



I am hoping that this clarification will solve our problem of having you trying to testify on matters not related to your or a property you have a vested interest in. As I have said to you before, this is also a matter of politeness for me and your behavior has been very disruptive and impolite.



If you would like to discuss this matter with me, I would be happy to meet with you.



Sincerely,



Kathy Lantry

St. Paul City Council President



cc: Councilmembers

John Choi, City Attorney

11:28 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Sounds like a nice letter to me. What's wrong with this Nancy?

11:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy, let me give you a "clue".

This letter could have ended like this.

SOoooo, Ms. Lazaryan if you continue this behavior you will be arrested.

cc duly noted >

City Attorney John Choi

1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy, we are waiting for the papers to be filed. lol

1:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kathy Lantry again shows why she is one the best public servants around.

Nancy,
You are not a constituent of her ward or of the city. The house in question is not in her ward. You have been disruptive, you've admitted this yourself, and rude as we can see on your videos. Yet, she not only takes the time to offer you an explanation but extends an offer for a meeting with you.

That's huge but, I am starting to get to know you and am prepared to read how you dismiss this.


Eric

1:29 PM  
Anonymous city employee said...

Just some food for thought Nancy, if the court put you on probation for your antics at DSI, if you get arrested or charged with a same or similar at council meetings, you will have to do the time the court gave you for your guilty conviction.
My advise, get out of town and worry about issues in your community.






city employee

1:40 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Going up ht eladder? WTF does that mean?

2:21 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi Nancy,

Sort of seems like Kathy is extending an "olive branch" to you.

Under the circumstances I would consider this a great oppurtunity to find some common ground over some of these housing issues.

2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lantry is putting sugar on doggy doo.

2:40 PM  
Anonymous danno the spelling nazi said...

the funny thing is that the city of Maplewood is struggling with the same issues. their solution was to move the public comment portion of the meeting to a time prior to when the TV cameras get turned on...

what would make Kathy Lantry a much more effective politician is if she would have been able to articulate the essence of this letter when Nancy was up there trying to speak...

4:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy screeched:
"I have (as you have)the RIGHT to speak at ANY public hearing ANYWHERE in this state."
----
No you do not. We've been waiting a week for you to show us a state statute you made up.

The Council member explained to you:

"Public hearings on broad policy issues are indeed open to anyone that would like to comment on them as long as they are germane to the issue before us and so long as they abide by the time limits imposed."
-----
and:

"For public hearings related to matters of someone's specific address, we are not required to hear from everyone about anything they want. We are only required to hear from parities with some sort of legal interest in the specific address, again subject to germaneness and time limits. Given the time limits we have, giving time to those with no legal interest in the address necessarily and unfairly takes time from those who do have a legal interest. Also, due to timing issues there are many times when the council hears dozens of items set for public hearing."
----

And, if that wasn't enough:

"There is a distinction between holding a meeting in public versus inviting the public to comment on broad policy issues. St. Paul does not provide an open forum for public comment on any and all issues."

Did you not understand that? Like most cities in the country, I have out in the last two days that all council meetings are not 'free-for-all' open forums.

What is your end-goal Nancy?


Eric

4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What Eric is trying to say is that Nancy is keeping the pigs from their "trough time."

5:38 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Give some credit to Bob for letting us know that the anals of justice remove the innocent from their homes.

See 535 U.S. 125 (2002) United States Supreme Court ( Rucker ).



Jeff Matiatos

6:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy, let me give you a "clue".

This letter could have ended like this.

SOoooo, Ms. Lazaryan if you continue this behavior you will be arrested.

cc duly noted >

City Attorney John Choi

1:18 PM



Mr.John Choi, you just used a threat to control Nancy.

If Nancy was a Hmong she would be heard, but she is a whittle and has no rights in this Nazi type St.Paul City Council.

Others over the year tried to speak up for their rights, they were threaten with arrest when they have something to say.
There have been many people over the years that used the law to fight the city and that make the city council outrage.
That is why a city attorney sits by President Lantry, to advise her if she gets to out of hand.
Lantry "doesn't know the law, she sure try's to tell people her idea of it.
Give some of these council people a little authority and they turn into Hitler's, then they use threats against us to control our right to FREE SPEECH.
Fight these dog eaters Nancy.

Mr Choi, what is your plan about these Hmongs that were arrested for "cock fighting"?

7:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lantryis wrong about what a public hearing is about.

The city council job is to listning to the people and decide on what actions should be done.

Not to tell people to stop talking and leave the council area.

You are Wrong MS Lantry. Face the facts that you screw up. And you are going to pay for it.

8:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any neighbor gets to speak concdrning these properties and so should Nancy L.

9:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:11 said;

Anonymous said...
Nancy, let me give you a "clue".

This letter could have ended like this.

SOoooo, Ms. Lazaryan if you continue this behavior you will be arrested.

cc duly noted >

City Attorney John Choi

1:18 PM



Mr.John Choi, you just used a threat to control Nancy.

7:11, boy are you dumb! Learn how to read, Choi didn't threaten Lazaryan. Somebody was poking fun at Nancy.

10:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 7:11PM you are a racist. Mr. Choi by the way is not Hmong. Choi is a Korean or Chinese name. I'm sure he doesn't eat dogs, he would not condone cock fighting, and would never favor someone over another just because of their race. And as the prior post pointed out you need to learn how to read. I doubt the City Attorney would post something like that on a blog.

11:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Kathy tried to spell out what I have been saying here. A "public hearing" doesn't mean that everyone in the public gets to testify that wants to testify.

The governing body can restrict the time and the speakers. At the state legislature this happens all of the time.

The "public hearing" on these housing demo orders is to make sure that the City is taking its actions in public after hearing from the staff and the effected party. There is nothing that says that it is open to every member in the public to make a comment.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

chuck,

You are wrong. Look at law and read it.

When a public hearing is there you all can talk. READ the LAW.

4:20 AM  
Anonymous Lantrys Letter-Pandering Lazaryan said...

Lantry- Letter is pandering to Lazaryan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandering
Citys legislative branch is to make law via ordinance's
DFL Lantry has chilled "free speech" specifically in the Budget, Ratifications of False Statements by DSI.
Nancy is exposing the FACT that wehn DSI cuts your grass at $240.00 pr hour, or vacant bldg. fee's at $1,000.00 yrly is Extortion

4:36 AM  
Anonymous 535 U.S. 125 (2002) United States Supreme Court ( Rucker ). said...

Thanks to Jeff the legal-beagle, you must be the lawyer on the blog

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=See+535+U.S.+125+%282002%29+United+States+Supreme+Court+%28+Rucker+&btnG=Google+Search

Title 42 U.S. C. §1437d(l)(6) provides that each “public housing agency shall utilize leases … provid[ing] that … any drug-related criminal activity on or off [federally assisted low-income housing] premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant’s household, or any guest or other person under the tenant’s control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy.” Respondents are four such tenants of the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA). Paragraph 9(m) of their leases obligates them to “assure that the tenant, any member of the household, a guest, or another person under the tenant’s control, shall not engage in … any drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises.” Pursuant to United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations authorizing local public housing authorities to evict for drug-related activity even if the tenant did not know, could not foresee, or could not control behavior by other occupants, OHA instituted state-court eviction proceedings against respondents, alleging violations

4:43 AM  
Anonymous Agreement_RNC Security Pay said...

Lazaryan et al exposing Citys Secret Meetings, read the Secret Doc. obtained by Scoop

Lantrys Letter is Bogus at Best
http://blogs.twincities.com/city_hall_scoop/upload/2008/07/JPA_original.pdf

4:59 AM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

Is a public hearing a place where the public is guaranteed a place to speak or a place where business is conducted in public?

I always thought it was the latter... Nancy seems to believe it is the former. If I am wrong, what is the statute?

Bill Cullen.

6:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ity's the former when Queen Lantry says it's a public discussion and invites people to talk.

8:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me try this again. These are "public HEARINGS" that we are talking about. Go to your thesausus and look up "hearing." It is like a trial or an inquiry.

So, the City Council is hold in an INQUIRY in public concern a property. People speak at a trial who have evidence to present to the judge. They are invited to speak by either the defence of the prosecutor. At a "HEARING" in "public" in front of the City Council concerning a property, the people invited to give evidence are either the land owner or DSI.

GET IT?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cullen, you are right. Nancy has had several days to produce a statute. She has done nothing but talk shit.
I went and checked in on this by reading the law and getting opinion on it and she has nothing. Nancy has no understanding of government, constitution or even meeting procedures and terms. She does have a penchant for creating drama and firing up the masses of ignorants.

Something as easy as this shouldn't have two viewpoints. There is ordinance and precedence and nothing has been presented to counter that.

She's a phony who seems to be either a genius at anarchy or mentally disturbed with a sever learning disorder.



Eric

11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:11

Minnesota’s law allows for those participating in cockfighting or those in possession of birds used for cockfighting to be charged with a felony and sentenced to at least 1 year and 1 day in jail. Spectators are charged with a misdemeanor and charged up to $1,000 and/or 90 days in jail. Ramsey County Attorney handles felonies not the City Attorney.

Choi is a friend of mine. He is of Korean heritage born and raised in St Paul you dumbass. He's got more education that your entire inbred family and the only one eating domestic animals is your broke ass.

You have proven yourself to be stupid, just plain stupid and if you would just run off and disappear you would save your family from further embarrassment, save us from your uniformed rants, and raise the overall intellect of St Paul.

Go away Racist.



Eric

11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

by conducting an internet search of Minnesota "Open Public Meetings Act"

The MN Supreme Court defined the purposes of public meetings:

1. To prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed about a public board’s decisions or to detect improper influences
• To assure the public’s right to be informed
• To afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body

It appears the city has violated all three purposes. The city has changed its method of operation and has put a high priority on its new housing policies. Changing the status quo for any public policy I have ever seen involves clear public discussion as well as a vote that is above 50%. By keeping to a hidden agenda (in this case apparently socialism) the public is not fully informed. Nancy was denied the opportunity to present her views to the public body (apparent violation of Morris v. Sax as well as other things).

11:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:59
You'll have to try again. This is what I have been waiting for Nancy to cite for a week and I knew she would do what you just did.

The last point that Supreme Court believes is the purpose of this is:
• To afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body.

You are being dishonest by posting that and excluding the cite from that. There was a little number '2' there.

Let's see what it says and why you left it out:
" Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002) (citing St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)). While the courts consistently say that the open meeting law is to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body, there is no general right for members of the public to speak at a meeting. Some statutes, and perhaps some home rule charters, specify that a hearing on a particular matter must be held at which anyone who wishes to address the public body may do so."
---------------
It has been decided by Prior Lake American v. Mader (2002) that "there is no general right for members of the public to speak at a meeting".

Reading is fundamental. Try it.


Eric

2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

Human rights and honesty are fundamental. The public has the opportunity to present its views to the public body (there was no footnote). Accusing people of dishonesty when they are not is wrong!

The city following a hidden agenda, and causing damage to peoples' lives is just plain wrong.

Keep your fanaticism to yourself.

2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're now reposition to another argument. You want to talk Human Rights and honesty. I'm ready to be informed and exchange ideas. That's not what this whole thread was about.

This was about Nancy stating (in the sixth post on this thread), and I quote: "I have (as you have)the RIGHT to speak at ANY public hearing ANYWHERE in this state...Lantry hopes this letter will keep me from exercising my rights under the first amendment."

She doesn't.
The courts have ruled on that and it was the footnote cited next to the purpose you posted.

Here's a link,Click Here and a copy of the entire page:

INFORMATION BRIEF
Minnesota House of Representatives
Research Department
600 State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
Deborah A. Dyson, Legislative Analyst
651-296-8291 Revised: September 2006
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
The Minnesota Open Meeting Law1 requires that meetings of governmental bodies generally be open to the public. The Minnesota Supreme Court has articulated three purposes of the law:
• To prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed about a public board’s decisions or to detect improper influences
• To assure the public’s right to be informed
• To afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body2
This information brief discusses the groups and types of meetings covered by the open meeting law, and then reviews the requirements of and exceptions to the law and the penalties for its violation.
Contents
Page
Groups and Meetings Governed by the Open Meeting Law...........................2
Requirements of the Open Meeting Law.........................................................5
Exceptions to the Open Meeting Law..............................................................6
Penalties.........................................................................................................10
Advice............................................................................................................11
This publication can be made available in alternative formats upon request. Please call 651-296-6753 (voice);
or the Minnesota State Relay Service at 1-800-627-3529 (TTY) for assistance. Many House Research
Department publications are also available on the Internet at: www.house.mn/hrd/hrd.htm.
1 Minn. Stat. ch. 13D (recoded from Minn. Stat. § 471.705 in 2000). The Minnesota Open Meeting Law was originally enacted in Laws 1957, chapter 773, section 1.
2 Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002) (citing St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)). While the courts consistently say that the open meeting law is to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body, there is no general right for members of the public to speak at a meeting. Some statutes, and perhaps some home rule charters, specify that a hearing on a particular matter must be held at which anyone who wishes to address the public.
---------------

Lantry's right. Chuck's right. I'm right. Nancy is wrong yet again. Unless you think we somehow stacked the court in that one. It appears that Prior Lake may go on your cities to avoid too.



Eric

2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

What you are saying does not make sense.

to quote, "The Minnesota Supreme Court "has articulated three purposes of the law."

Having a hidden agenda of sleaze and socialism contradicts "or to detect improper improper influences."

as far as your footnote goes, you contend that it completely negates the main point, that " To afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body2".

Then why write it if it is meaningless? I would like clarification of the footnote, but you are just looking for loopholes.

3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:00
I'm not saying it, the courts and legislature have said it. I'm repeating it. Question on whether laws are just or make sense should be directed to the lawmakers and the courts.
However, in this case, both have spoken pretty damn clear.
--
As far as some hidden agenda. You'll have to talk with someone else in your conspiracy club. I am not a member and do not have a decoder ring.

I'm am growing bored of kicking your tail on this thread. My suggestion is that you chalk this up as a lost, put your tinfoil cap back on, and search on for more conspiracy theories.

This one is over.


Eric

3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Geez, I've been on here too long and the grammar and spelling in my posts are starting to reflect the style of my adversaries.


Eric

3:26 PM  
Anonymous Prior Lake American v. Model, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002 said...

Thanks /Eric for your research
It Great to Agree to Disagree
Have a great weekend
Google is Great re: Open Meeting Prior Lake
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Prior+Lake+American+v.+Mader%2C+642+N.W.2d+729%2C+735+%28Minn.+2002%29&btnG=Google+Search

4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Geez, I've been on here too long and the grammar and spelling in my posts are starting to reflect the style of my adversaries."

It's much more than style Eric. You're starting to become "one of us."

Oh.....and don't worry about that inteligence thing and that DFL shit that you've been indoctrinated with, we'll help you along!

Welcome aboard friend.

6:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

All you've done is raise a question about your moral character since you have admitted waiting in ambush for a week on this footnote issue.

If you are correct, than any public meeting anywhere in the state is unaccountable.

Judging from Kathy Lantry's letter (she never writes letters to me), the supposed "John Choi" comment, which looks slick, and your extreme reactions, it looks like Nancy hit a nerve.

6:49 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:10 PM  
Anonymous city employee said...

Nancy, tell us if you brought the lawsuit against the council.
You said you would so tell us about it !








city employee

11:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric is a friend of Choi's.That explains why he fights tooth and nail against the ricomen.


Eric do you think for one minute you'd give the ricomen a fair shake?You'd be kicked off the jury in a heartbeat.

Folks Eric has been sent here to put water on the fire the ricomen have started.You my friend are another mouthpice like Chuck Repke.




Linda

11:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric is a friend of Choi's.That explains why he fights tooth and nail against the ricomen.


Eric do you think for one minute you'd give the ricomen a fair shake?You'd be kicked off the jury in a heartbeat.

Folks Eric has been sent here to put water on the fire the ricomen have started.You my friend are another mouthpice like Chuck Repke.




Linda

11:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Linda, Linda, Linda,
I wasn't sent here by anyone. I was invited by Bob and lured away from E-democracy. He was clear that these people are not fans of anything they don't understand and believe the whole world is against them. I come here post under my real name. I post my own thoughts.

Saint Paul is a town where if you don't know someone who works for the city, you know someone's close relative who does. We have people who have for generations worked to keep this city moving along. Regular hard working people who get up and get the water cleaned, fire trucks ready, criminals arrested, parks clean, streets maintained and streets plowed. You and your friends come on here and piss and moan over your perceived wrongs and blame everybody. You don't single out possible bad individuals you blame the whole city. Well, the hell with that and you. I don't know why you hate these people you don't know so much but, its tired and old. As a leisure hobby, I write on here to poke holes in your wild accusations and conspiracy theories.

You don't Choi, all you know is that he has the job of city attorney. If he's doing a bad job then lets discuss that. Some asshole comes on here and spew racist shit about him- I'm going to speak up. If they spew racist shit about the owner of the Luxor, I'm going to speak up. You need to know something about me, i will speak up and out. Critics be damned.

When I was more involved in my neighborhood I saw how some of this property was maintained on the Lower East Side. I also saw the reluctance of landlords to interact and even come to some understanding with the people who lived on the same block as their property. I also had at least a dozen conversations with surrounding burbs discussing their rental issues and how they handle problem properties. Total control over rental licenses, which are way more strict than the the certificate of occupancy. So, tell the ricomen to keep pushing this line of crap. People are tired of their properties more than they are sick of the way the city conducts business.

We have a mayoral election next year, if you think running against slum lords is not a winner, try again. As a matter of fact, I'm thinking a separate rally of Saint Paulites for rental registration of single family and duplexes would be a winner among the citizens too.

I'm not quite the mouthpeice that Chuck is, but I'm working on it. Wish me luck.


Eric

1:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy,
Your still full of it and can't peddle your way out of this. I hope the Ricomen hire you to represent them.

A public hearing is not a part of an Open Meeting. All meetings with a few exceptions are open meetings. Anyway, you fail to show any statute mentioning public hearing let alone guideline for them. You found what I found and know.

Let me know where you read or interpret public hearing in the statute on open meetings below:
OPEN MEETING STATUE MN 13D1

MEETINGS MUST BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC; EXCEPTIONS.
Subdivision 1. In executive branch, local government. All meetings, including executive
sessions, must be open to the public
(a) of a state
(1) agency,
(2) board,
(3) commission, or
(4) department,
when required or permitted by law to transact public business in a meeting;
(b) of the governing body of a
(1) school district however organized,
(2) unorganized territory,
(3) county,
(4) statutory or home rule charter city,
(5) town, or
(6) other public body;
(c) of any
(1) committee,
(2) subcommittee,
(3) board,
(4) department, or
(5) commission,
of a public body; and
(d) of the governing body or a committee of:
(1) a statewide public pension plan defined in section 356A.01, subdivision 24; or
(2) a local public pension plan governed by section 69.77, sections 69.771 to 69.775,
or chapter 354A, 422A, or 423B.
Subd. 2. Exceptions. This chapter does not apply
(1) to meetings of the commissioner of corrections;
(2) to a state agency, board, or commission when it is exercising quasi-judicial functions
involving disciplinary proceedings; or
(3) as otherwise expressly provided by statute.
Subd. 3. Subject of and grounds for closed meeting. Before closing a meeting, a public
body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and
describe the subject to be discussed.
Subd. 4. Votes to be kept in journal. (a) The votes of the members of the state agency,
board, commission, or department; or of the governing body, committee, subcommittee, board,
department, or commission on an action taken in a meeting required by this section to be open to
the public must be recorded in a journal kept for that purpose.
(b) The vote of each member must be recorded on each appropriation of money, except for
payments of judgments, claims, and amounts fixed by statute.
Subd. 5. Public access to journal. The journal must be open to the public during all normal
business hours where records of the public body are kept.
Subd. 6. Public copy of members' materials. (a) In any meeting which under subdivisions
1, 2, 4, and 5, and section 13D.02 must be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed
materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction
of the governing body or its employees and:
(1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body;
(2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or
(3) available in the meeting room to all members;
shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body
considers their subject matter.
(b) This subdivision does not apply to materials classified by law as other than public as
defined in chapter 13, or to materials relating to the agenda items of a closed meeting held in
accordance with the procedures in section 13D.03 or other law permitting the closing of meetings.
History: 1957 c 773 s 1; 1967 c 462 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 654 s 15; 1973 c 680 s
1,3; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1981 c 174 s 1; 1983 c 137 s 1; 1983 c 274 s 18; 1984 c 462 s 27; 1987 c
313 s 1; 1990 c 550 s 2,3; 1991 c 292 art 8 s 12; 1991 c 319 s 22; 1994 c 618 art 1 s 39; 1997
c 154 s 2; 1Sp2001 c 10 art 4 s 1
---------
You can't because there isn't any. If there isn't any, then what did the legislature find out? They found out that the courts ruled that you do not have a right to speak at open meetings. Please show us you are not a kook.
Cite the statute that was violated.

Also, what happened to your suit against the Secretary of State for not letting you file for Judge (Sharon figured out and will be on the ballot). You promised to have your suit in this week against the council. You are a busy lady.

Your audience is waiting.

Eric

1:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:35
I'll never be one of you. See, i'll never sit back and not be involved to the point that I at least know who the players are and how to get my voice heard.
DFL has nothing to do with this. We're talking about laws, ordinances and procedures. Why is everything political with some of you?

6:39
Wrong. On all accounts. You don't know me. You don't Choi, you don't know Lantry. I'm the n'er do well of that bunch and still have more integrity today in me, then you have accumulated in your 80 years. Seriously, Choi is one the most decent guys I know. not characteristic for him to make rash comments or belittle or even threaten people. That's why I reacted like that. Besides, he;s an appointed official, not an elected one. The mayor, council, county board, county attorney and sheriff are elected and suffering fools is part of the job they campaigned for.

Nancy couldn't hit a nerve on me if I gave her a brick and stood five feet from her.

I lost any respect I had for her when I saw that she cared more about creating drama than solving her daughter's problem. So, now that I have pulled her card, I'm going to stick it to her every chance I get.


Eric

1:32 AM  
Anonymous Manoucher Rostamkhani v. City St. Paul c7-01-1757 said...

Nancy will win based on Published Opinion

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0206/c7011757.htm
Lantry Letter is coersion

1. When a city admits that material evidence on the issue for decision was received by a city council member before a meeting, but was not mentioned at the meeting, this court may, on its own initiative, correct the omission under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.05, and view the evidence as a supplement to the record.

2. A city’s decision to abate a nuisance property is arbitrary and capricious if it fails to consider evidence presented to it that the property owner was prepared to take the appropriate remedial action immediately.

3. Under St. Paul City Code, a party to a nuisance abatement proceeding is not entitled to an informal meeting with a legislative hearing officer before an official meeting with that legislative hearing officer.

8:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:16
So now this is about the abatement procedures not the open meeting - public hearing discussion that's been going on for 46 posts?

You're wrong there too but, stick to the issue.

You guys don't try to move the goal posts for justification, you try to change the entire game.

One Nancy mess at a time. This thread is about the nature of open meetings and public hearings.

For the record Nancy, Lantry didn't shut the meeting down, she called for a recess and tried to talk with you. Very procedural. You went screaming like a fool and wouldn't even shut for ten seconds.

The video is so telling about you.


Eric

11:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So why wouldn't people blame the whole city Eric? There's more than eough evidence presented to prove ricomen's case and the city tries to cover it up instead of even try to so a sham investigation. Who are people supposed to blame?

12:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, if Eric knew John Choi, who's appointed, I'm wondering if he is part of the ultraliberal socialist sleaze clique attempting to hijack St. Paul.

As far as Eric goes, many of us here believe keeping our souls is more important than being a motormouth.

3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:24
Because no matter how big your conspiracy is, you mind can't be so feeble to include thousands of employees in compliance but not one, not one piece of evidence supporting your conspiracy. All of these people are brainwashed?

3:21
Do you even know what you're talking about? This has been a Democratic town since 1952. Like most major cities in America that are doing better, Democrats hold high majorities. You don't like it? Move to Mora.

There has been turnover in the Mayor's Administration and the city council over the last few years, so what clique is it that you whine against?

My soul is fine and moral compass is working great. You, however, really need help casting malicious deeds behind policy procedures and judge others morality that you know very little of. Let me guess, you're a fan of the 700 club and voted Quist for Governor.

Your answers are weak and off-topic. Time to move on to another topic or let Nancy continue to make asses out of you followers who can't think or research for themselves.

Eric

3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No Eric,

What the city is doing is unprecedented. It has been democratic but not ultraliberal.
Time you learn to think for yourself, rather than parrot back everything.

4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

As far as my moral beliefs go, I have never been politically religious. It is just deeply personal values that I learned in a couple of the many churches in St. Paul (the city was named after a saint).

These deeply personal values include such things as "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not bear false witness". Love thy neighbor as thyself."

These values are deeply imbedded in the fabric of St. Paul. The lies and disrupted families and deaths associated with the city's current policies make me nauseated.

4:37 PM  
Anonymous Scoop Data Practices said...

Nancy is not the only one seeking Dicuments, when denied MS 13 kicks in

Even Dave Orrick pp reporter by Open Meeting is seeking Documents
http://blogs.twincities.com/city_hall_scoop/upload/2008/07/RNCJPADPAfollow.pdf

http://cityhallscoop.com/

4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:37
Policies are not people. They affect people but they are not people. Over the years there has been mass murder such as the conquests of the Crusades that was Church policy but, not really Christian. What the Islamic extremists are doing today does not line up with Islamic teachings.

You want to talk about policy lets do it. You want to sit back and decide on peoples morality, you're on your own. That's above my pay grade.

4:01
I'm the only one not parroting some official line. People like you always put the burden on people like me. Everything i have said i have backed up with direct support from the courts and the legislature. You know the law and ordinance.

Nancy and the rest of you are writing about what you think and inference but, don't feel the need to back up your accusations. However there seems to be the strong desire to further marginalize and trivialize me. Big Deal.

So far, this has nothing to do with politics as state has been tempered by both Republicans and Democrats. That was what we were talking about.

So, please stick to the topic and stop trying to hi-jack the thread. Somebody out of all of you were going to explain how Nancy has a basis for a suit and Lantry broke any laws, ordinances or rules.

Anyone?


Eric

9:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will someone answer Eric with an intelligent response?

Alex Wendt

East Side

11:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like it or not Eric, the issues of importance, I believe, to many of those in opposition to the city's policy are: a betrayal of values; a betrayal of trust; and the city arbitrarily changing the status quo without proper process.

These are the same values which built the city, and were critical to the success of Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement, of which you benefitted. As Benjamin Franklin said in a speech critical to the establishment of the United States (his motion for prayer at the Constitutional Convention), "If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His knowledge, is it likely that an empire can arise without His approval?"

Values are an important part of this discussion, and Kathy Lantry does not appear to respect them in her treatment of Nancy. Our entire system is based on human and moral values, whatever their limitations.

I am certainly aware of the Crusades started by Pope Urban. I have yet to find scholars in the mainstream churches which strongly defend them. They were of mixed intent, and probably used to help manage the home situation as much as anything. I'd attribute them more to the barbarian culture (the West) than the incomplete influences of the Christian Churches. One would have to go way back into the medieval mindset to fully explain them.

The actions of the city to me resemble the original crusades. I expect the fallout will be very long lasting as well.

It is you who keeps trying to hijack discussion away from the important issues.

8:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:46
"Kathy Lantry does not appear to respect them in her treatment of Nancy."

Really?
Nancy has repeatedly disrupted meetings and has proven herself to be unreasonable. Yet, she recessed the meeting and asked to speak with her- Nancy freaks. She sends a letter of explanation and further extends her time for a meeting (which could possible result in some kind of understanding between the two if not an agreement), Nancy balks and threatens to sue.

Since you are so good at insight on intent and malice, join me in dissecting Nancy. She has proven herself to be nothing but trouble. She has disrupted and been removed from city meeting, county hearings, the legislature at the capitol, the secretary of states office for innocently trying to file for candidacy, the public defenders office, not to mention her antics in the LEIP Office.

She is not a good symbol for your cause.

And, before you continue to preach about how this city has changed for the worse and MLK would be disappointed, tell me how he would have felt about the city as it tore up the black neighborhoods, refuse to fairly hire blacks, fairly house them, fairly educate them- though their level of support in taxes and military service seemed to be on par?


Alex, don't hold your breath for real answer from anyone.


Eric

12:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

As I see Nancy, she is an intelligent woman who has stood up for what she thinks is right. I am concerned that she will be ganged up on by people in city government who want to silence her, because they see her as a threat.

Regarding Dr. King, I am a fan. He stood up for what he thought was right and ended up with a lot of problems with the corrupt authorities, (you may remember the letters from the Birmingham city jail).

I am sure he saw the long-standing racial problems exacerbated by the flight to the suburbs, where the suburbs often excluded the African American community. This concentrated problems such as poverty in the core cities, creating a much more difficult situation. He was able to accurately see both good and bad things, and lead in setting a positive direction. He would be concerned about the plight of the poorer African Americans, and see this time as critically important for their futures, and the country's future. He would want all people to be bigger than the situation, and work towards obtaining justice.

I think he would be on exact opposite sides of this issue from you.

2:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2:11
Dr King was an advocate for public housing. The housing that competes with your buddys on here. King also would have ran your buddys out of town with the complaints from the tenants. Use your head. Stick the subject and I won't continue to pwned you on your ridiculous and over-reaching assumptions.

As I see Nancy, she is an intelligent woman who has stood up for what she thinks is right. I am concerned that she will be ganged up on by people in city government who want to silence her, because they see her as a threat.

Here's where you go silent Mr Anonymous.

What exactly is she standing up for?
Who in the government is trying to silence her?
Who is she a threat to?

On feeble minded fear this woman who can't keep her story straight or mellow her rhetoric if only temporarily to help her self.

Like I said, Nancy has proven herself to actually follow through on some of the simplest tasks because she can't take her focus away from being a self made martyr for small.

Her intelligence is still in question.

You've set a double standard here and this is the thread where I even the field and again, ask that Nancy or someone post the Law or Ordinance on Public Hearings that was broken.

Surely a parroting mouthpiece such as myself can't puzzle the lot of you reading on here and cheering for Nancy. Can't one of you, post anything close to showing she is right on her accusation and supposed suit (funny she can find and attorney for this but, couldn't get a public defender for her daughter, when any traffic scofflaw can get one)?


Eric

7:04 PM  
Anonymous Bill Cullen said...

I have been gone for the week-end; sorry for the slow response.

It seems like Eric’s 2:16 PM post answered the key question on this thread. He cites a Mn State supreme court ruling that says “there is no general right for members of the public to speak at a [public] meeting.”

That is what I thought. Public meetings are for business to be conducted in public, not a guarantee for the public to be heard. I don’t care for the conclusion either, but I have butt up against it in other public forums myself. It is my understanding of the law, and I wish someone would find a different conclusion.

Bill Cullen.

8:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy, quit pretending to know the law. You make Eric look inteligent.

froggy

10:29 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:24 AM  
Anonymous City St. Paul Public Hearings Notice said...

Any interested person can testify, meaning we all can testify on propertys in St. Paul, taken from citys web site:
http://mn-stpaul.civicplus.com/DocumentView.asp?DID=3818

Public Hearings. The City Council holds its public hearings on the 1 and 3 Wednesdays of the month. Hearings start at 5:30 PM and are held in the Council Chambers, Room 300 at City Hall. Public hearings are required for ordinances, public improvements, property acquisitions and zoning actions, assessments, utility charges, budget matters, licensing, and receiving recommendations from the Legislative Hearing Officer.
Testifying at a Hearing. Through the public hearing process, interested persons have an opportunity to comment to the City Council before it makes a decision on certain topics. The opportunity to be heard comes when the Council President announces that the hearing has begun.Âß½E

8:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

Dr. King was far too big of a man to define himself in terms of a particular tactic for all time. He would evaluate the current situation, and I believe he would question whether there is a systematic effort to eliminate the poor, with no plan for rectifying the situation.
I remain anonymous ffor reasons related to the situation, and also remain concerned about what is taking place.

8:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:31
Yeah, yeah, you stay anonymous because you're so important and people will get you if they knew your opinion. How little control you have over your life that you cannot express an opinion without fear?

Anyway, last history lesson of the day. You're so representative its fun to use you as an example who someone who thinks they are so righteous that they can pass judgment. Whenever guys like you have to back it up, you stumble and stammer and try to change the subject or we end up arguing hypotheticals.

Fact is after the Watts Riots in 1965, King sought to address urban issues through a campaign starting in Chicago. It focused on housing, seeking to strengthen the rights of renters through tenant unions and to challenge racially segregated neighborhoods. Chicago was (and still is) one of the most racially segregated cities in America. He failed in Chicago where his people were met with angry mob after angry mob determined to sustain segregation.

What did work was that by late 1966 he had a housing policy that became the basis for the Fair Housing Act contained in Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. In 1988, COngress enacted amendments to the Fair Housing Act that gave the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development a large role in enforcing the law. The Department of Justice litigates Fair Housing cases in court, while the Department of Housing and Urban Development investigates and attempts to resolve complaints of housing discrimination.

The City is saying that you have to have a certain checklist of standards even if you are housing people with little or no income. The landlords are fighting against that. You really believe that Dr King would be supporting the landlords on this one?

Maybe Dr. John King over in the UK.

Eric

9:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry folks,
I've been in NYC since last week and I won't be back until later this week.
I will get all your questions, insults and idiotic statements answered later in the week when I get back.

Nancy Lazaryan


So, you've been there since you got the letter from Kathy and promised to deliver 'papers' to the council? That was a couple of days ago, yet you can't cite the statute you're basing this on?

Since the other thread with the video and this one, I've been in Chicago, Iowa and now am in Virginia on the Iron Range. I've had internet access at every stop. What's New York's problem?

You've had enough time to respond that you will respond, how about next time you give us the statute?


Eric

9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like you backed Nancy into a corner Eric. I am anxious to see if she can wiggle out of this one.

Alex Wendt
East Side

10:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if Nancy is in New York because she's on the lam from St. Paul. Maybe there's warrants out for her. Maybe Lantry put a hit out on her. Maybe Humphrey is stalking her. I wonder what trouble she's stirring up in New York? Probably trying to talk and disrupt a meeting there citing her U.S. citizenship as a basis to stick her nose in.

10:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy is thriving for attention, my guess is that she grew up without getting much attention and this is the only way she knows how to get attention, by causing disruptive conflicts. Nancy has shown behavior that represents psychological disorders, this would put her in the protected class.

11:11 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's going to e pretty hard for the city to say they didn't know when they have a law ofice with 100 attorneys advising them, but from what I've seen so far, nothing would suprise me from this bunch!

12:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy.

What you have presented as a response are very narrow statutes on Eminent Domain. Not on the rights and procedures of a public hearing.

Even if the city is using eminent domain which would be news to us, its still in line with the statutes you've attached.

The part you claim that iterates how a public hearing should conducted says this:

(b) Any interested person must be allowed reasonable time to present relevant testimony at
the public hearing. The proceedings of the hearing must be recorded and available to the public
for review and comment at reasonable times and a reasonable place. At the next regular meeting
of the local government that is at least 30 days after the public hearing, the local government must
vote on the question of whether to authorize the local government or local government agency to
use eminent domain to acquire the property.


Again, if this was a law stating that you have right to speak at a public hearing (which it is not) and the hearing you were at was that public hearing indeed(which according to the agenda YOU provided it was not), you'd still have to show where your testimony was relevant. The video you provide clearly shows that you were speaking to a different issue after you were recognized, the Chair tried to explain to you and you kept talking and then she called a recess to talk to you (probably to explain what 'relevant' means to you).

In the letter we see that you have had your time in front of the council and the Council President was extending more time to you.

You have not provided statute that guarantees you the right to speak in any hearing at any time, as you put it.

I know have to go to your Honor Chambers for berating you. You just got the 'A Few Good Men' treatment Did you order the code red? and you responded You goddam right I did!

Leave it alone Nancy. You lost this round and you're just embarrassing yourself grasping at straws.



Eric

ps- I you were my secretary or LA, I would probably have to fire you. Nothing personal.

4:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy answers to a "higher order" Eric so she's not bound by your silly litle rules and definitions of what's relevent, so why don't you just give it up buster?

5:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

Despite your dismissive answer, you have not addressed the fact that the city's policy systematically forces out the poorer segments without anyplace for them to go.

Your version of Dr. King's dream appears revised and conditional - someone has to go into political slavery to inherit the dream. Where is the justice and values?

6:47 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Any interested person must be allowed reasonable time to present relevant testimony at
the public hearing."

The problem here is that some people just don't understand what they don't understand.

An "interested person" is not just someone who is "curious" it means someone who has an interest, a stake in, who is involved with. That is an "interested person."

As I already said and the words "public hearing" does not mean that the elected officials have gathered around to "hear the public."

It means that there is a "hearing" in front of the public where the City Council is to hold in an INQUIRY in public concerning a property. People speak at a trial who have evidence to present to the judge. They are invited to speak by either the defence of the prosecutor. At a "HEARING" in "public" in front of the City Council concerning a property.

Learn what the heck you are talking about.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

1:45 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5:23 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home