Custom Search

Friday, August 22, 2008

Nancy Lazaryan's Housing Battles With The City Of Saint Paul/ PETITION TO CERTIFY A QUESTION

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the motion.

14 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

Les Lucht requested this post.

Thank you Les.

Ramsey County District Court file number: 62-CV-07-1960

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN THE
SUPREME COURT


Nancy Lazaryan, et al
(and other similarly situated persons)
in propria persona, in sumo jure

v.

The City of St. Paul, et al

Ramsey County District Court file number: 62-CV-07-1960
________________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled concerning the limitations of Home Rule Charter cities in the recent Morris v. Sax case, and

WHEREAS the City of St. Paul submitted an amicus brief in support of the City of Morris in said case which was rejected by this Minnesota Supreme Court, and

WHEREAS the City of Sat. Paul is attempting to enforce ordinances under its Home Rule Charter that are in direct conflict with Morris v. Sax, and

WHEREAS your petitioner is a party in the above named district court case and said case has raised the authority of Morris v. Sax as controlling, and further

WHEREAS said case names as parties “other similarly situated persons” and your petitioner is thereby appearing a private attorney general,
Now comes Nancy Lazaryan, in propria persona, in sumo jure, petitioning this Minnesota Supreme Court to certify (answer) certain question(s). Notice having been given to the district court as to this petition.


FACTS

In May of 2008 this Minnesota Supreme Court issued an opinion in City of Morris v. Sax. The City of St. Paul participated in said case as an amicus, submitting arguments and brief in support of the City of Morris.

This Minnesota Supreme court held for the appellant (Sax) and rejected the arguments of the City of Morris (and the arguments of the City of St. Paul).

Almost immediately following the ruling of this Minnesota Supreme Court many members of the public appeared at the public hearing at the St. Paul city council meeting on May 30, 2008. These members of the public adamantly objected to actions being taken by the St. Paul city council to condemn and/or demolish certain private properties.

These Citizens specifically cited the recent Morris v. Sax case. Without exception, the city council gaveled down each member of the public, speaking at public hearing and objecting to the actions of the council (pursuant to Morris v. Sax). Your petitioner was one of the Citizens attempting to raise Morris v. Sax.

On July 2, 2008, at public hearing, another member of the public again raised the matter of Morris v Sax being ignored by the St. Paul city council. Again, the city council refused the Citizen to argue the controlling law of Morris v. Sax and the council demanded the Citizen stop speaking and sit down.

On July 16, 2008 your petitioner again appeared before the St. Paul city council at public hearing. As your petitioner began to make a record of objecting (pursuant to Morris v. Sax) to the condemnation actions against a property, your petitioner was gaveled down and the council meeting was adjourned. Two St. Paul police officers approached your petitioner and indicated that your petitioner was to be escorted off the public property (council chambers).

QUESTIONS

1.Pursuant to Morris v. Sax, the state building code and M.S. Sec. 117 the city of St. Paul is required to follow specific procedures when the city “takes”, condemns and/or demolishes a (private) property. If the city council openly and blatantly violates any or all of the above, does said action constitute the offense of “Misconduct of Office”?

2.Does denying the public an opportunity to speak at a public hearing constitute a violation of the “open meeting law”? (M.S. Chap. 13)

3.Is violating a Minnesota Supreme Court Order a malfeasance that constitutes violation of a public official’s oath of office?


Petitioner rests.

August 20, 2008


____________________________
Nancy Lazaryan, in propria persona in sumo jure
10734 West Lake Road
Rice, MN 56367

9:02 PM  
Anonymous bill cullen said...

Nancy (or Les),

For folk like myself, can you translate this to english? I understand the petition... But does this mean you have asked the Supreme Court of Minnesota to answer a few questions? I (in my honest lack of knowledge of the law) did not realize one could make such a motion...

Or have you done something else and I don't understand?

Bill Cullen.

9:21 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

chuck,

What does your buddy say to this??

The informations you get is from Dave T..

Pat Harris refused to recieved this doc. . Lee h. Asked me to give it to the clerk. But they
try to tell us what to do with
ourd rentals. And we can not refused their orders.

Or we will put in jail or lose everything.

city laws should be fair to all its people. Not just a few.

City is still used the old unfair
system. And they cond. your housr one day.

The next day its is reg. as vacant.
And cat 2.

Its is the way the St.Paul code said.

Its need to vacant for 365 days and had many complains to.

Only the shut off rule is different.

So, Chuck whats up this stuff?
Maybe you should ask your buddy
dave T..

The court day is coming soon.

The word on the street. that are many more lawsuits waiting.

A couple of them with Dave t. name
listed beside the the city of St.Paul.

9:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Les

Fuck you.

I sign my posts

Just My Opinion Not Those Of My Employers Past Present Or Future

I haven't worked for Thune for ten years. What I write here I my comments and only mine.

As to this silliness, it is clear that you and Nancy still have no idea what is meant by public hearing.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:22 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

We the People created our government. And we did so with checks and balances.

In Morris v. Sax, the MN Supreme court "checked" a home rule charter city, and stood with the Citizens defending certain property rights we secured in our constitutions.

Bill Cullen---
The court rules provide for something called "CERTIFY A QUESTION" when there is an open case in the district court.

Plus, the federal constitution secures our right to PETITION our government.

What has been served upon the city council, district court judge and the MN Supreme court is PETITION to clarify the application of law upon the facts surrounding the actions of the city council.

Basically...."let me know if what the city council is doing violates the law"...CRIMINAL law.

Nancy Lazaryan

9:51 AM  
Anonymous sec.95.05 Debarment said...

City's "Debarment" may mean Steve Magner ?

Sec. 95.05. Causes for debarment.

(a) Debarment or suspension may be imposed upon any person or participant in accordance with the provisions of this chapter for:

(1) Conviction of or civil judgement for the commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain or performing a public or private agreement or transaction; violation of federal or state antitrust statutes, including those proscribing price fixing between competitors, allocation of customers between competitors, and bid rigging; commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, receiving stolen property, making false claims, or obstruction of justice; a violation of Minnesota consumer protection statutes, or commission of any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty that seriously and directly affects the present responsibility of a person.
t" works both ways

10:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ADA-EEO Employer
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.
If you wish to testify:

Make comments only from the podium after the Council President recognizes you

Begin by telling the Council your name and address

Comments should be addressed to the Council President first and then the Councilmembers.

Respect the time limit; when the timer flashes yellow, you have 45 seconds to sum up your remarks and when the light flashes red, you must leave the podium
Sign-In Sheet. Please complete the sign-in sheet after you testify. This information is needed for the public record.
Testimony. To ensure that public hearings are conducted in a fair and equitable manner, the City Council provides each side in a disputed matter the same amount of time to present verbal testimony and arguments. The Council President determines the total amount of time for public testimony based on the topics, number of speakers, and the volume of the Council’s agenda. Parties may use this time before the City Council in whatever manner they believe most effectively presents their case. If there is more than one interested party on any side of a disputed matter, these parties may either agree to a division of the time or select a spokesperson to represent all of their interests.
The typical time allotted for testimony for public hearings issues is:

Legislative Hearing 5 minutes

License Matters 5 minutes

Zoning Matters 5 minutes

Complex and Controversial Matters 15 minutes
Decisions of the City Council. Almost all items before the Council require a vote. Councilmembers vote when there is a roll call on a motion. On a roll call vote, those in favor vote yes aye or are silent and if opposed to the motion, Councilmembers vote no or nay. When the voting is complete, the Council’s reader will indicate if the motion passed or failed, and the vote tally.

6:12 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

chuck,

It does not say that it is hearing or trial. Likes that are looking input from the people of St.Paul.

It falls under the open meeting law.

You need to check with dave

6:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

like I said the city has one code and the state has different one.

So, who do you go with??

10:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read this again!

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

You are not an INTERESTED PERSON unless you have an interest, stake in, ecconomic interest, in the question.

So, when it is a policy issue they let anyone speak, but they aren't going to let you run your mouth off about a piece of property you know nothing about.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:02 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

chuck,

You may think that. But I pay $10,000.00 in taxes and I buy things in the city.

I think that I have interest in the
city of St.Paul. When come to my taxes Of $2500.00 that goes to the city.

I have right to to tell want I think at any public hearing.

Because I pay them. And If they do not like I say so f---K them.

5:11 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

" Generally, municipalities have no inherent powers except for those expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have been expressly conferred " State vs. Kuhlman 729 N.W.2d 577 at 580 (MINN.2007).

The determination of whether an ordinance is preempted by state law is also a question of law reviewed de novo. id. Kuhlman.


So I guess folks what it comes down to, is it is possible for some ordinances to supersede statutes if the intent of the legislature gives the municipilaty the right to do so.




Jeff Matiatos

8:22 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

See also Beckius vs. City of Canby A07-1497.




Jeff Matiatos

8:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The amazing thing with this place is that ignorance isn't just bliss it is rewarded...

Cities of the first class have the responsibility to protect the public health and safety. It is just a fact. You can't go looking for some other piece of legislation where health or safety is mentioned and then determine that means that the cities don't have the power to protect the public health and safety.

Vacant structures are a potential public health and safety issue. They can burn down and hurt your house. They can attract someone else that migh hurt themselves.

Cities have the ability to abate the health hazard and bill the property owner.

What the Supreme court said in Morris is that the city couldn't have its own code separate from the state's code. I have asked over and over again, what in the city code is diferent than the state's?

Any of these buildings that are being demo'ed have multiple STATE building code issues as well as STATE fire code issues. That is why they are a hazard. That is why they are abated.

And Les you pay for every court room in the state too.

Please Les walk into some court room and demand to have the right to testify. Oh please Les...please, please... just barge into the court room and testify I am begging you!

You are all private attorney generals just walk into any old court room that you like.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:21 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home