Freedom-4You

St.PaulBudget_SharonDemandsReform_vs_LantrysLarceny_ChrisSamuels

2011-08-15T06:25:00.000-07:00

http://stpaul.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=

Microsoft Silverlight. Get it now »

Budget Committee

Case of injustice ie: Franco St.Paul MN

2011-01-10T06:17:00.000-08:00

A Case Of Injustice www.caseofinjustice.net

December 31, 2010

Dear viewers of my website:

I am a protected class person, being of minority derivation. As such, I wish to make it known that I have been subjected to harassment by neighbors and discriminatory treatment by the St. Paul, Minnesota police force. I own a home located at 832 Hague, St. Paul, Minnesota. Residents of property across the street from my home (837 Hague Avenue, 55104) have deliberately and maliciously created a nuisance, interfering with my quiet and peaceable enjoyment of my residential property. Since September 2005 the people occupying the property at 837 Hague have used this property for commercial use contrary to the residential zoning in this neighborhood. This consisted primarily of parking large commercial trucks, sometimes loaded with hazardous waste, in front of my house, sometimes for weeks at a time. When I complained to the police department the residents at 837 Hague retaliated by parking trucks in the no-parking zone or on the wrong side of the street, parking on the boulevard and blocking my driveway. This situation is made worse by the fact that the street is quite narrow. Examples of this harassment are as follows:

1. On my complaint, police would talk to the residents at 837 Hague and shake their hands and then come accuse me of calling for no reason.
2. On April 29, 2007 I called the police because I could not pull out of my driveway since there was a large white colored van blocking the driveway and blocking part of the street. I called police, but the van was moved before police arrived. Upon arrival, the police officer commenced to yell at my son in a hostile way and ordered him to silence telling him to listen to her in a high pitched hostile voice. This was the same police officer who on November 14, 2006, was hostile against me when I experienced a similar incident of abuse, and claimed I called for no reason.

3. This officer claimed that she drove by on several occasions and never saw anything wrong. She further stated that if she did see a van blocking my vehicle she was not going to do anything about it.

4. When I attempted to show the officer photographs of damage to my driveway, she yelled at me and refused to look at the photograph. Rather she commenced questioning me about personal information and writing down my answers.

5. All the while she was talking to the people at 837 Hague in a friendly and congenial manner.

6. I have been told that the LEAP'S inspectors form the Department of Safety & Inspections have stated that the neighbors are not breaking any laws. The new commander in the Western District also stated recently that she has drove many times to the block and has seen no problem, regardless of my photographs showing the contrary. Further she said in a meeting that if the neighbors block the driveway with huge trucks, they are not violating the law.

7. This is clearly dishonest and not true, as evidenced by the fact that several neighbors including myself have received tickets for similar parking infractions.
8. I have solicited the assistance of St. Paul city authorities, including the city council and have been cavalierly dismissed. I personally have been most affected by this situation because my home is directly across the street. Police disregard the problem by saying it is just a matter of neighbors not getting along. The police say that if I want to get in or out of my driveway, I should just go talk to the people at 837 Hague. This is preposterous. Why should I have to go ask their permission every time I want to access my driveway? It is clear that police are acting directly contrary to law and are subjecting me to discriminatory harassment. This must be remedied.
Website Photos and Descriptions
The photos posted in my website, are just a few selected depictions of the nuisances created in my block from my neighbors who live across the street from me on 837 Hague Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104. They do not own the property at 837 Hague Ave, and have been operating an unlicensed commercial vehicle dealership in that property for more than five years. The photos posted on this website were captured between September, 2005 and December, 2010. There still remains hundreds of photos that are not posted on this website. Despite their importance, many photos were excluded in order to post the most critical pictures that best represent the past incidents of neighborhood nuisances in in my block. While browsing through the site and looking over the photos please notice the unusual number of vehicles, construction machines, campers, trailers, boats, vans, and other belongings, which the neighbors operated, stored, advertised and sold within the premise of 837 Hague Avenue. Also, notice that the construction equipment in the backyard of the house is seldom used for building, home remodeling, or for any other construction related purpose.
On May of 2007, I received a letter from the Department of Safety & Inspections director who stated that my complaints regarding the nuisances of 837 Hague were “unfounded, based on the inspectors observations and the photos we [Department of Safety and Inspections] have on file.” Please scroll down to the last page for more details of the Director's letter. The Director of the DSI finalized his letter by stating, “It is my opinion that all the activities [in regards to the activities at 837 Hague Ave] are within acceptable norms." Based on the photos that you will see in this website, you can be the judge of whether the activities at 837 Hague are, "within acceptable norms," as the Department of Safety and Inspections had asserted.
For whatever reason, the Department of Safety and Inspections and Saint Paul Police Department have refused to enforce Federal, State, and Local laws on the residents of 837 Hague. The Saint Paul Police Department, in particular, must be investigated for "looking the other way," when they see clear violations of the law at 837 Hague.
Magdalena Franco

Motor Vehicle Dealers License et. al.
~Zoning: A dealership of any type is considered to be a commercial operation. Generally, zoning authorities do not approve commercial activity in areas that are zoned residential...... In any case, the applicant must review their intentions with the local zoning officials and obtain their written consent t of the type of business the applicant wishes to conduct.

June 30, 2007
The resident's clients of 837 Hague parked this truck on the opposite side of the road.

Vehicle for Sale June 30, 2007

169.79 Vehicle registration; displaying license plates.
Sub. 6. one plate must be displayed on the front and one on the rear of the vehicle.

Since 2005, the Residents of 837 Hague have been driving and selling vehicles without license plates for more than 90 days. Despite this clear violation of the law, the Saint Paul Police Department have not issued citations to the residents of 837 Hague.

Vehicle for Sale July 14, 2007

169.79 Vehicle registration; displaying license plates.
Sub. 6. Other motor vehicles. If the motor vehicle is any kind of motor vehicle other than those provided for in subdivisions 2 to 4, one plate must be displayed on the front and one on the rear of the vehicle.

July 14, 2007
Neighborhood Nuisances Saint Paul Resident Handbook
Common Nuisances (page 9)
"All Vehicles must be parked on improved surfaces (concrete, asphalt or crushed rock). Vehicles cannot be parked on dirt, mud or grass."

June 08, 2007
Sec. 157.02. Stopping or parking prohibited in certain places.
No person shall park a vehicle (1) In front of or within five (5) feet of either side of any public or private driveway measured from the sides of the alley or driveway perpendicular to the public street.
The blue truck and the white truck do not have license plates.

June 08, 2007
Sec. 157.04. Miscellaneous parking restrictions and vehicle definitions.
No vehicle shall be parked in violation of any of the following provisions:
(4) No vehicle shall be parked on lawn or grass plot.
The neighbor usually parks his truck loaded with a tractor or a bob cat on the grass for several days.
June 08, 2007
Sec. 157.01. Removal of illegally stopped vehicles.
b) When any police officer finds a vehicle unattended upon any street where such vehicle constitutes on obstruction to traffic.

As shown in the photo on the right, the resident of 837 Hague parked in the middle of the road and restricted the free flow of traffic for more than an hour.

June 09, 2007
Sec. 157.02. Stopping or parking prohibited in certain places.
"No person shall park a vehicle in front of or within five (5) feet of either side of any public or private driveway".

Camper for Sale May 29, 2007

Camper for Sale June 30, 2007
Notice the gray vehicle to the right of the photo driving in the wrong direction of the street. The driver inside the gray vehicle was dealing with the neighbor who lives in 837 Hague Avenue. The white vehicle could not get through, so its driver had to wait until the 837 neighbor finished conducting business with the gray vehicle's driver. The street, as you can see, is too narrow.

Vehicle for Sale October 17, 2007
For the past four years the Saint Paul Police department has allowed the residents of 837 Hague to drive vehicles without license plates or permits.
December 02, 2007

Sec. 157.04. Miscellaneous parking restrictions and vehicle definitions.
(b 9.) No vehicle or combination of vehicles except those registered as recreational vehicles pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 168.013, subdivision 1g(1988), twenty-two (22) feet or more in length and seven (7) feet or more in width, measured between the two (2) most widely separated points or proportions on either side of such vehicle or combination of vehicles, shall be parked on any street or alley for more than (30) minutes, or for a time longer than reasonably necessary to load or unload such vehicle or combination of vehicles.

Camper for Sale August 07- August, 20 2006

Camper for Sale April 15- April 20, 2006
Sec. 157.12. Manner of parking.
(b) One-way streets. Vehicles parked on one-way streets shall face in the same direction in which traffic is permitted to move on said streets.

Vehicle for Sale May 31, 2006
Sec. 157.04. Miscellaneous parking restrictions and vehicle definitions. (b 9.) No vehicle or twenty-two (22) feet or more in length and seven (7) feet or more in width, measured between the two (2) most widely separated points or proportions on either side of such vehicle or combination of vehicles, shall be parked on any street or alley for more than thirty (30) minutes.

August 28, 2006

September-October 2005
Sec. 106.01. Obstruction.
(a) Encumbrances or obstructions prohibited. No person shall encumber or obstruct any sidewalk.

September 20, 2005
Sec. 45.04. Violations. (b) No owner of any truck, trailer, railroad car or flat, or other vehicle shall leave the vehicle standing on or along any street, highway, freeway or railroad track, or other property within the city, carrying or containing any refuse, noxious substance or hazardous waste, except as otherwise permitted by this Legislative Code.
See a truck containing hazardous waste. It was left in front of my house for a week by the 837 Hague Avenue Residents.

June 02, 2007
The excess number of minivans, commercial trucks, boats, campers, cars, construction equipment, haulers, and dump-trucks brought to the block by the residents of 837 Hague did not give my neighbors enough space to park in the street. As a result, they had to tightly compact their vehicles into their driveways.

Camper for Sale May 2007
Sec. 106.01. Obstruction.
(a) Encumbrances or obstructions prohibited. No person shall encumber or obstruct any sidewalk.
169.79 Vehicle registration; displaying license plates.

April 20, 2006
Sec. 106.01. Obstruction.
(a) Encumbrances or obstructions prohibited. No person shall encumber or obstruct any sidewalk.
Deliberate Defiance of the law
May 14, 2007
Sec. 157.02. Stopping or parking prohibited in certain places.
"No person shall park a vehicle in front of or within five (5) feet of either side of any public or private driveway".

Vehicles for Sale May 14, 2007
Sec. 157.07. Blocking traffic.
(a) No vehicle shall occupy any street or highway so as to interfere with or interrupt the passage of other vehicles.
The faces and bodies of the people in the photo were smudged in order to conceal their identity.

Boat and Vehicles for Sale September 14, 2007

Boat for Sale September 15, 2007

September 2007

September 6, 2007
The white square block in the left photo was necessary to conceal the identity of the 837 Hague residents.
Summit University Neighborhood
(District 8 Plan) "Zero tolerance for crime and other activity that diminishes the quality the quality of life for neighbors"
Provision 7, pg.32

More Unlicensed Vehicles for Sale
October 2006-March 2007
169.79 Vehicle registration; displaying license plates.
Sub. 6. One plate must be displayed on the front and one on the rear of the vehicle.

To learn more about temporary permit laws in Minnesota, please click [Here] to visit the Minnesota Department of Public Safety's website.

November 2006-May 2007
Neighborhood Nuisances Saint Paul Resident Handbook
Common Nuisances (page 9)
Vehicles which are not in a garage must be licensed with current plates and tabs.

The residents of 837 Hague drove this vehicle without license plates for more than 90 days.

February 24, 2007

169.79 Vehicle registration; displaying license plates.
One plate must be displayed on the front and one on the rear of the vehicle.

Unlicensed Vehicle for Sale
October 4, 2007

Vehicle for Sale
169.79 Vehicle registration; displaying license plates.
Sub. 6. One plate must be displayed on the front and one on the rear of the vehicle.

June 22, 2006 The residents of 837 Hague regularly block my driveway to harass me.
Sec. 157.02. Stopping or parking prohibited in certain places. "No person shall park a vehicle in front of or within five (5) feet of either side of any public or private driveway".

July 26, 2006

More evidence that my neighbors regularly block my driveway.

October 28, 2006
Sec. 157.02. Stopping or parking prohibited in certain places.
"No person shall park a vehicle in front of or within five (5) feet of either side of any public or private driveway".

May 28, 2007

Sec. 157.02. Stopping or parking prohibited in certain places.
"No person shall park a vehicle in front of or within five (5) feet of either side of any public or private driveway".
Photo of the butchered animal found hanging in my front fence at 832 Hague Avenue.
The killer viciously cut off the squirrel's hind legs and slaughtered its head.
Whoever placed this decapitated animal on my fence was trying to intimidate me.

Year 2008

Vehicle for Sale April 11, 2008

169.79 Vehicle registration; displaying license plates.
Sub. 6. One plate must be displayed on the front and one on the rear of the vehicle.

April 11, 2008
This truck did not have one plate displayed on the front and on the rear of the vehicle.
See a child inside the six wheel vehicle below
April 14, 2008

Sec. 157.04. Miscellaneous parking restrictions and vehicle definitions.
(b 9.) No vehicle or combination of vehicles except those registered as recreational vehicles pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 168.013, subdivision 1g(1988), twenty-two (22) feet or more in length and seven (7) feet or more in width, measured between the two (2) most widely separated points or proportions on either side of such vehicle or combination of vehicles, shall be parked on any street or alley for more than (30) minutes, or for a time longer than reasonably necessary to load or unload such vehicle or combination of vehicles.

April 17, 2008 at 4:25 pm
The 837 resident's relative is a police officer and he frequently visits her and her family.

Driving an unlicensed vehicle April 29, 2008

When I was coming from work, the adult male resident of 837 Hague drove close to my house to harass me. He hurled obscenities at me and made verbal threats.

May 31, 2008
Sec. 106.01. Obstruction.
(a) Encumbrances or obstructions prohibited. No person shall encumber or obstruct any sidewalk.

Unlicensed Vehicle for Sale July 7, 2008
Sec. 157.02. Stopping or parking prohibited in certain places.
"No person shall park a vehicle in front of or within five (5) feet of either side of any public or private driveway".

Unlicensed Vehicle for Sale July 22, 2008
Sec. 106.01. Obstruction.
(a) Encumbrances or obstructions prohibited. No person shall encumber or obstruct any sidewalk.

Unlicensed Vehicle for Sale July 28, 2008
169.79 Vehicle registration; displaying license plates.
Sub. 6. One plate must be displayed on the front and one on the rear of the vehicle.

Vehicles for Sale July 28, 2008
A customer coming to purchase a vehicle at 837 Hague Avenue

More Campers for Sale August 6, 2008

The 837 Hague residents brought another large camper into the neighborhood for business purposes.

Camper for Sale August 13, 2008
The 837 Hague residents were selling the camper to an unknown man (see the customer) who parked a truck without license plates in front of the 823 Hague house.

Year 2009

Yard Sale May 7, 2009

The neighbors at 837 Hague not only sell vehicles, but they also run yard sales several times per year creating nuisance problems in the block.

Vehicle for Sale May 15, 2009

169.79 Vehicle registration; displaying license plates.
Sub. 6. One plate must be displayed on the front and one on the rear of the vehicle.

Since 2005, the Residents of 837 Hague have been driving vehicles without license plates for more than 90 days. Despite this clear violation of the law, the Saint Paul Police Department have not issued citations to the residents of 837 Hague.

Camper for Sale May 23, 2009

*Notice that the 837 Hague resident's red truck was blocking his neighbor's driveway.
Sec. 157.04. Miscellaneous parking restrictions and vehicle definitions.
(b 9.) No vehicle or combination of vehicles except those registered as recreational vehicles pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 168.013, subdivision 1g(1988), twenty-two (22) feet or more in length and seven (7) feet or more in width, measured between the two (2) most widely separated points or proportions on either side of such vehicle or combination of vehicles, shall be parked on any street or alley for more than (30) minutes, or for a time longer than reasonably necessary to load or unload such vehicle or combination of vehicles.

Illegal Advertisement May 22, 2009
Chapter 286.01 - Signs and Advertising Materials
"Please notify the City's general complaint line (651)266-8989 if the signs are on public property" Senior inspector at the Department of Safety and Inspection. Thursday March 27, 2008.

May 22, 2009

Sec. 355.01. License required.
(a) No person shall be engaged in the business of buying or selling secondhand goods or antiques of any kind in Saint Paul without a license to do so.
According to a senior inspector at the Department of Safety and Inspection, the residents of 837 Hague are only allowed by State law to sell personal belongings. The residents of 837 Hague, on the other hand, sell merchandise for a third party to gain profit.

Camper for Sale July 04, 2009

The gold color truck had scratched numbers and it only showed three digits 551. The Fire Department stated that it was illegal to store gas propane on the camper's front side.

Camper for Sale July 6, 2009
The adult male resident at 837 Hague selling a camper at 10:30 PM

Boat for Sale July 14, 2009

A customer assessing a boat for sale.
Boat for Sale July 14, 2009
A customer purchased the boat at 837 Hague Avenue and then drove off.

More evidence that the neighbors are operating a car dealership at 837 Hague Avenue. Unlicensed Vehicle for Sale
169.79 Vehicle registration; displaying license plates.
Sub. 6. One plate must be displayed on the front and one on the rear of the vehicle.

Unlicensed and Unregistered Vehicles at 837 Hague Ave., Saint Paul, MN 55104

Vehicle for Sale August 1, 2009
Sec. 157.12. Manner of parking.
(b) One-way streets. Vehicles parked on one-way streets shall face in the same direction in which traffic is permitted to move on said streets

Another vehicle for sale. It was parked in the wrong direction facing against traffic.

August 31, 2009 The adult male resident of 837 constantly drives his large truck into my driveway, and after five years, has caused considerable damage to the pavement.

August 31, 2009
My neighbor's son playing on the rig at 837 Hague.
Construction machinery in the street without City approval or Work Zone Signs

December 26, 2009

The residents of 837 Hague often uses a bobcat and other heavy-duty vehicles, designed for executing construction tasks, to remove snow from their property. The photo above shows an instance when the residents of 837 Hague parked their truck and hauling equipment in the middle of the street and obstructed traffic flow. They spent hours plowing the street without city authorization and carelessly prevented vehicles from passing through the block. The Saint Paul Police Department refused to take action and claimed that the residents of 837 Hague had not, in this instance, violated any laws. On the contrary, the two photographs above clearly show the following MN State statute violations:
MN Statute Violations
Sec. 157.01. Removal of illegally stopped vehicles.
b) When any police officer finds a vehicle unattended upon any street or highway or upon any bridge or causeway or in any tunnel where such vehicle constitutes on obstruction to traffic, such officer is hereby authorized to provide for the removal of such vehicle and remove the same to a place of safekeeping established by law.
Sec. 157.04. Miscellaneous parking restrictions and vehicle definitions.
(b 9.) No vehicle or combination of vehicles except those registered as recreational vehicles pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 168.013, subdivision 1g(1988), twenty-two (22) feet or more in length and seven (7) feet or more in width, measured between the two (2) most widely separated points or proportions on either side of such vehicle or combination of vehicles, shall be parked on any street or alley for more than (30) minutes, or for a time longer than reasonably necessary to load or unload such vehicle or combination of vehicles.
Sec. 157.12. Manner of Parking (b) One-way streets. Vehicles parked on one-way streets shall face in the same direction in which traffic is permitted to move on said streets, and vehicles when so parked may be placed with either the right-hand or left-hand wheels parallel to the curb, but not more than twelve (12) inches there from with at least four (4) feet between parked vehicles.
Sec. 169.522. Slow-moving Vehicle, Sign Required (a) All animal-drawn vehicles, motorized golf carts when operated on designated roadways pursuant to section 169.045, implements of husbandry, and other machinery, including all road construction machinery, which are designed for operation at a speed of 30 miles per hour or less, must display a triangular slow-moving vehicle emblem.

Year 2010
January 10, 2010
Sec. 157.07. Blocking traffic.
(a) No vehicle shall occupy any street or highway so as to interfere with or interrupt the passage of other vehicles.

Snowmobiles for Sale February 2, 2010

The neighbor displays three snowmobiles for sale on his driveway.

Yard Sale April 15, 2010 Sec. 355.01. License required. a) No person shall be engaged in the business of buying or selling secondhand goods or antiques of any kind in Saint Paul without a license to do so. The neighbors display goods for sale on City property.

Yard Sale April 15, 2010
See the yellow vehicle for sale without a license plate in the front. They display goods on public sidewalks and boulevards.

837 Hague Yard Sale sign on city property
Chapter 286.01 - Signs and Advertising Materials
It is unlawful for any person or persons, firm, corporation or association of individuals to, in any manner, exhibit or advertise any kind of business, entertainment, meeting or other matter or thing whatsoever by posting, pasting or affixing in any manner any card, handbill, picture, engraving, lithograph, show bill or advertisement of any kind or description, either printed or in writing, or any picture, representation or other method of advertising anything whatsoever on or upon any lamp post, electric light pole, telegraph pole or telephone pole, or upon any post or fence, or on or upon any building or structure, or window of any building of structure, or upon any billboard, signboard or advertising display of any kind within the limits of the City of Saint Paul, unless the building or object upon which the same may be placed is the property or under the control of the person, firm, corporation or association of individuals so doing, or unless the consent of such owner or the person in control thereof shall be first obtained.

June 04, 201
The neighbor’s customer testing a motorcycle that is making a lot of noise, and blocking my driveway. See the dog without a leash.

June 13, 2010
169.79 Vehicle registration; displaying license plates.
Sub. 6. One plate must be displayed on the front and one on the rear of the vehicle.

Car Dealership at 837 Hague July 06, 2010

My neighbors usually floods the street with vehicles. The City of Saint Paul should regulate the number of vehicles permitted per house.

July 10, 2010

The adult female resident of 837 Hague often parks her vehicle in the middle of the street to prevent me from leaving or entering my driveway. This was intentional because notice that there was plenty of space to park her vehicle in her driveway.

October 07, 2010
Chapter 286.01 - Signs and Advertising Materials
It is unlawful for any person or persons to, in any manner, exhibit or advertise any kind of business, entertainment, meeting or other matter or thing whatsoever by posting, pasting or affixing in any manner a on or upon any lamp post or upon any post within the limits of the City of Saint Paul.

Yard Sale October 09, 2010

October 07, 2010 The neighbors displayed goods on Saint Paul City property.

October 08, 2010

The residents of 837 continue to block my driveway to harass and intimidate me. Whenever I call the police, they say the issue involves not "getting along" and suggest mediation.

October 09, 2010

October 10, 2010 After the yard sale is over, the neighbors litter the boulevard by dumping trash on it. On Dec 22, 2010, Assistant Robert Humphrey (DSI) told me that they are in compliance

October 31, 2010
169.79 Vehicle registration; displaying license plates.
Sub. 6. Other motor vehicles. If the motor vehicle is any kind of motor vehicle other than those provided for in subdivisions 2 to 4, one plate must be displayed on the front and one on the rear of the vehicle.

December 4, 2010
169.79 Vehicle registration; displaying license plates.
Sub. 6. Other motor vehicles. If the motor vehicle is any kind of motor vehicle other than those provided for in subdivisions 2 to 4, one plate must be displayed on the front and one on the rear of the vehicle.

Threats and Harassment

December 16, 2010 at 3:20 PM On December 16, 2010 at 3:20 PM, the 41-year old male resident of 837 Hague and his brother were waiting for me in front of my property.

December 16, 2010 at 3:21 PM I struggled to pull my vehicle into my driveway because the large truck was parked close by my driveway.

December 16, 2010 at 3:25 PM

December 16, 2010 at 3:25 PM As I walked to my house, I noticed that the 41-year old male resident of 837 Hague and his brother were using an electric saw to cut wooden boards. When my neighbor saw me, he lifted the electric saw, as it was powered on, and then began making threatening gestures at me with the saw. My neighbor and his brother also yelled at me using vulgar language as I rushed inside my house.

Threats, Harassment and Stalking

December 21, 2010 at 7:33 AM

On December 21, 2010 at 7:33 in the morning, the 41-year old male resident of 837 Hague waited for me as I left the front door of my house at 832 Hague Avenue. As I walked out of my house, my neighbor parked his tan colored minivan in the middle of the street, opened the driver's side of the door, and then began to shout obscenities at me (see above photo). I was afraid that he was going to attack me so I immediately took out my cell phone camera and began taking photographs as he swore at me.

December 21, 2010 at around 7:40 AM

I did not reply to any of his remarks. Instead, I tried to avoid confrontation by remaining silent and walking away as quickly as possible. When my neighbor saw me walk away, he rushed to park his tan minivan and then got on his white colored snow plow, which was parked in front of my house at 7:33 AM, and then began to follow me. My neighbor made a few circular turns around the block. When he saw me walking on Victoria and Hague Street, he opened the window to shout more obscenities at me. Fortunately, I had my cell phone on hand to take more photographs.

The left photo above shows my neighbor's plow truck as he drove towards me on Hague Avenue and North Victoria Street, 55104. The right photo above shows his vehicle driving north on Victoria soon after he passed me.
Construction machinery in the street without City approval or Work Zone Signs
December 23, 2010 at around 10:00 AM Bobcat being operated by the adult male resident of 837 Hague Avenue.

December 23, 2010

December 23, 2010

December 23, 2010

On December 23, 2010 at around 10:00 AM, the male resident of 837 Hague came with his brother. He parked a truck with a rig attached to it in front of my house. The rig was loaded with a bobcat. They unloaded the bobcat and then began plowing the street. The neighbor blocked the North and South side of the street as he drove his bobcat back and forth towards my property.
The man operating the bobcat lives in the yellow house shown in the picture above, yet he decided to park his white colored truck in front of my house and drive his bobcat towards my driveway to harass and intimidate me.

I saw the adult male resident of 837 Hague lift the bobcat’s lever and throw snow into my driveway. The neighbor does not work for the city and does not have a permit to plow the street and transfer snow to public boulevards.

The adult male resident of 837 Hague maliciously plowed snow into my driveway on 12/23/10

Shortly after this incident occurred, I called the Saint Paul Police Department to report what the male resident of 837 Hague had done against me. The police officer who was dispatched was a white male and he was driving vehicle squad number 1928. When the police officer arrived he went to talk to the white male resident of 837 Hague and greeted him. The police officer was going to leave soon after talking to my neighbor but I asked him to stay and see the pile of snow that my neighbor had plowed into my driveway. When the officer went to see my driveway he said "I do not see anything" and "you do not have any proof." I explained to him that I had photos, but the officer was extremely hostile towards me. Because the police officer was not taking my complaint seriously and treating me in an unnecessarily harsh manner, I decided to walk away and told him that I was going to call the Chief of Police. The officer said, "Call the Chief of Police, I do not care!" When the police officer left, the male resident of 837 Hague, his brother and his wife came out of their house to ridicule and laugh at me.
Letter from the former Director of the Department of Safety and Inspections. 5/18/07

Don Mashak Fight4FreeSpeech

2010-12-30T08:01:00.001-08:00

What is this source?

Thank you for your time.

In liberty,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
612-723-7780
http://twitter.com/dmashak

-----Original Message-----
From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
To: DMashak@aol.com
Cc: rcbarden@mac.com; jrgraham@oricom.ca; Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 29, 2010 5:50 pm
Subject: Fwd: [COURTWATCHERS_OF_AMERICA] Digest Number 1243[1 Attachment]

Don I see you have a Jury Trial Right on Red Cardinal

Civil, Family & Probate Case Records Search Results
Logout My Account Search Menu New Civil Search Refine Search
Location : All MNCIS Sites - Case Search Help

Record Count: 1
Search By: Case Exact Name: on Case Search Mode: Number Case Number: 30cv09429 Case Status: All Sort By: Filed Date

Case Number Style Filed/Location/Judicial Officer Type/Status
30-CV-09-429 DON MASHAK, 1st NATIONAL REPOSSESSORS, INC. vs Dannette L Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull 04/14/2009
Isanti
Yunker, Mary A. Conciliation Appeal
Open

Logout My Account Search Menu New Civil Search Refine Search Back
Location : All MNCIS Sites - Case Search Help

Register of Actions
Case No. 30-CV-09-429
DON MASHAK, 1st NATIONAL REPOSSESSORS, INC. vs Dannette L Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull §
§
§
§
§
§
Case Type: Conciliation Appeal
Date Filed: 04/14/2009
Location: Isanti
Judicial Officer: Yunker, Mary A.

Related Case Information
Related Cases
30-CO-08-405 (Companion Case)

Party Information

Lead Attorneys
Defendant Hull, Michael
Isanti, MN 55040

ZACHARY BRANCA SMITH

Retained

612-331-3449(W)

Defendant Meeks-Hull, Dannette L
Also Known As Meeks-Krenzolok-Hull, Dannette
Isanti, MN 55040

DOB: 02/12/1969 ZACHARY BRANCA SMITH

Retained

612-331-3449(W)

Plaintiff 1st NATIONAL REPOSSESSORS, INC.
Doing Business As FIRST NATIONAL REPOSSESSORS, INC.
ALBERTVILLE, MN 55301

LEE ROGER WOLFGRAM

Retained

612-529-9653(W)

Plaintiff MASHAK, DON
ALBERTVILLE, MN 55301

LEE ROGER WOLFGRAM

Retained

612-529-9653(W)

Events & Orders of the Court
OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
04/14/2009 Demand for Removal to District Court

04/14/2009 Affidavit of Service
04/14/2009 Amended Petition
04/14/2009 Statement of Claim and Summons
04/14/2009 Order for Judgment (Judicial Officer: Anderson, P. Hunter )
04/14/2009 Order Vacating Judgment (Judicial Officer: Anderson, P. Hunter )
04/14/2009 Order-Change of Venue (Judicial Officer: Sullivan, Barry A. )
04/21/2009 Notice to Remove (Judicial Officer: Dehn, James )

06/01/2009 Certificate of Representation

06/08/2009 Informational Statement

06/15/2009 Certificate of Representation

06/19/2009 Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Hoffman,John C. , )
06/24/2009 Informational Statement

06/24/2009 Affidavit of Service
06/26/2009 Notice of Filing of Order
08/19/2009 CANCELED Motion Summary Judgment (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Yunker, Mary A.)
Other

12/31/2009 Joint Informational Statement
01/08/2010 CANCELED Scheduling Conference (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Yunker, Mary A.)
Other

02/19/2010 Substitution of Counsel

05/05/2010 Scheduling Order
05/07/2010 CANCELED Motion Hearing (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Yunker, Mary A.)
Other
05/07/2010 Reset by Court to 05/07/2010

05/26/2010 Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel

06/25/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion
06/25/2010 Affidavit-Other

06/25/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion

06/25/2010 Affidavit-Other
06/25/2010 Affidavit of Service
06/25/2010 Notice-Other
07/02/2010 Affidavit-Other
07/02/2010 Other Document
07/09/2010 Hearing (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Yunker, Mary A.) Result: Held
07/27/2010 Certificate of Representation

08/06/2010 Correspondence

09/03/2010 Motion

09/03/2010 Affidavit-Other
09/03/2010 Affidavit of Service
09/03/2010 Memorandum
09/07/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion

09/07/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion

09/10/2010 Affidavit-Other

09/13/2010 Affidavit-Other

09/14/2010 Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Yunker, Mary A. )
09/14/2010 Notice of Filing of Order
09/15/2010 Transcript
09/16/2010 Other Document

09/16/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion
09/16/2010 Affidavit-Other
09/16/2010 Memorandum
09/16/2010 Affidavit of Service
09/20/2010 Affidavit of Service

09/21/2010 Correspondence

09/24/2010 Affidavit-Other

09/24/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion

09/24/2010 Motion

09/24/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion

09/24/2010 Affidavit of Service
09/27/2010 Responsive Motion

09/27/2010 Affidavit-Other
09/27/2010 Affidavit of Service
09/28/2010 Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel

09/28/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion

09/28/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion

09/28/2010 Affidavit of Service
09/29/2010 Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel
09/29/2010 Affidavit of Service
09/29/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion
09/29/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion
09/30/2010 Pre-trial (1:00 PM) (Judicial Officer Yunker, Mary A.) 09/16/2010 Reset by Court to 09/30/2010
Result: Held
10/18/2010 Scheduling Order (Judicial Officer: Yunker, Mary A. )
10/18/2010 Notice of Filing of Order
11/04/2010 Motion and Affidavit

11/04/2010 Affidavit of Service
11/10/2010 Certificate of Representation
11/10/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion

11/10/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion

11/10/2010 Affidavit-Other
11/10/2010 Affidavit of Service
12/14/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion

12/17/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion

12/17/2010 Other Document
12/20/2010 Correspondence

12/23/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion

12/23/2010 Affidavit-Other
12/27/2010 Notice of Motion and Motion

12/27/2010 Affidavit-Other
12/27/2010 Affidavit of Service
12/29/2010 Motion Hearing (2:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Yunker, Mary A.)
01/07/2011 Motion Summary Judgment (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Yunker, Mary A.)
02/28/2011 Jury Trial (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Yunker, Mary A.)

Financial Information

Attorney WOLFGRAM, LEE ROGER
Total Financial Assessment 158.00
Total Payments and Credits 158.00
Balance Due as of 12/29/2010 0.00

11/17/2010 Transaction Assessment 8.00
11/17/2010 Mail Payment Receipt # 0030-2010-06063 WOLFGRAM, LEE ROGER (8.00)
12/17/2010 Transaction Assessment 150.00
12/17/2010 Mail Payment Receipt # 0030-2010-06485 WOLFGRAM, LEE ROGER (125.00)

Defendant Hull, Michael
Total Financial Assessment 450.00
Total Payments and Credits 450.00
Balance Due as of 12/29/2010 0.00

06/15/2009 Transaction Assessment 250.00
06/15/2009 Counter Payment Receipt # 0030-2009-03458 Hull, Michael (250.00)
09/07/2010 Transaction Assessment 100.00
09/07/2010 Credit-Joint Filing (100.00)
12/28/2010 Transaction Assessment 100.00
12/28/2010 Credit-Joint Filing (100.00)

Defendant Meeks-Hull, Dannette L
Total Financial Assessment 476.50
Total Payments and Credits 476.50
Balance Due as of 12/29/2010 0.00

03/16/2010 Transaction Assessment 320.00
03/16/2010 Credit-Joint Filing (250.00)
07/22/2010 Transaction Assessment 26.50
07/22/2010 Counter Payment Receipt # 0030-2010-04068 Meeks-Hull, Dannette L (26.50)
09/07/2010 Transaction Assessment 100.00
09/07/2010 Mail Payment Receipt # 0030-2010-04861 SMITH, ZACHARY BRANCA (100.00)
12/28/2010 Transaction Assessment 100.00
12/28/2010 Mail Payment Receipt # 0030-2010-06593 Meeks-Hull, Dannette L (100.00)

Plaintiff 1st NATIONAL REPOSSESSORS, INC.
Total Financial Assessment 175.00
Total Payments and Credits 175.00
Balance Due as of 12/29/2010 0.00

06/03/2009 Transaction Assessment 75.00
06/03/2009 Credit-Joint Filing (75.00)
09/20/2010 Transaction Assessment 100.00
09/20/2010 Credit-Joint Filing (100.00)

Plaintiff MASHAK, DON
Total Financial Assessment 798.00
Total Payments and Credits 798.00
Balance Due as of 12/29/2010 0.00

04/20/2009 Transaction Assessment 275.00
04/20/2009 Mail Payment Receipt # 0030-2009-02313 Diana Longrie (275.00)
06/03/2009 Transaction Assessment 75.00
06/03/2009 Mail Payment Receipt # 0030-2009-03176 LONGRIE, DIANA LYNN (75.00)
06/25/2010 Transaction Assessment 48.00
06/25/2010 Phone Payment Receipt # 0030-2010-03573 MASHAK, DON (48.00)
09/20/2010 Transaction Assessment 100.00
09/20/2010 Counter Payment Receipt # 0030-2010-05052 MASHAK, DON (100.00)
12/20/2010 Transaction Assessment 150.00
12/20/2010 Credit-Joint Filing (150.00)
12/20/2010 Transaction Assessment 125.00
12/20/2010 Mail Payment Receipt # 0030-2010-06513 MASHAK, DON (125.00)
12/28/2010 Transaction Assessment 25.00
12/28/2010 Mail Payment Receipt # 0030-2010-06592 MASHAK, DON (25.00)

,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: COURTWATCHERS_OF_AMERICA@yahoogroups.com
Reply-to: notify-dg-COURTWATCHERS_OF_AMERICA@yahoogroups.com
To: COURTWATCHERS_OF_AMERICA@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 12/29/2010 8:34:15 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: [COURTWATCHERS_OF_AMERICA] Digest Number 1243[1 Attachment]

COURT WATCHERS OF AMERICA
Messages In This Digest (1 Message)
1. Fwd: Don Mashak:PLEA2 ATTENDCOURT HEARING.Wed29th JudicialReformDueP From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
View All Topics | Create New Topic Message
1. Fwd: Don Mashak:PLEA2 ATTENDCOURT HEARING.Wed29th JudicialReformDueP
Posted by: "Sharon4Anderson@aol.com" Sharon4Anderson@aol.com sharon4mayor
Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:40 am (PST)
[Attachment(s) from Sharon4Anderson@aol.com included below]

____________________________________
From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
To: DMashak@aol.com
CC: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
Sent: 12/28/2010 11:36:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: Don Mashak:PLEA2 ATTENDCOURT HEARING.Wed29th
JudicialReformDueProcessJury

Going Public is all we can do Demand Jury Trial

____________________________________
From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
To: greg@wersalforjustice.com, tim@affordablerentalsmilwaukee.com,
tim@highesthill.com, info@ronjohnsonforsenate.com, info@amyklobuchar.com,
a_democracy@yahoo.com, kaardal@mklaw.com, paul@shoemakerlaw.com,
john@countryfirstpac.com, john@lakehomes.com, jragsdale@pioneerpress.com,
bsalisbury@pioneerpress.com, randy.furst@startribune.com, watch@watchmn.org,
watchdog@pioneerpress.com, news@citypages.com, news@albertleatribune.com,
news@brainarddispatch.com, news@cookcountystar.com, news@driscollgroup.com, news@kare11.com,
news@lillienews.com, tim@politalk.com
CC: AngelsAdvocates@aol.com, age@aitkinage.com
Sent: 12/28/2010 11:33:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: Don Mashak:PLEA2 ATTENDCOURT HEARING.Wed29th
JudicialReformDueProcessJury

____________________________________
From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
To: fred.grittner@courts.state.mn.us, lori.gildea@courts.state.mn.us,
mary.yunker@courts.state.mn.us, timothy.bloomquist@courts.state.mn.us,
john.hoffman@courts.state.mn.us, sheriff@co.sherburne.mn.us,
admin.info@state.mn.us, admin@co.sherburne.mn.us, attorney.general@state.mn.us,
attorney@co.sherburne.mn.us, randy.furst@startribune.com, whistleblower@startribune.com,
assessor@co.sherburne.mn.us, auditor@co.sherburne.mn.us,
kathleen.heaney@co.sherburne.mn.us, patricia.kuka@courts.state.mn.us,
larry.farber@co.sherburne.mn.us, ewald.petersen@co.sherburne.mn.us, john.riebel@co.sherburne.mn.us,
felix.schmiesing@co.sherburne.mn.us, rachael.leonard@co.sherburne.mn.us,
aitkinpz@co.aitkin.mn.us, achhs@co.aitkin.mn.us, acac@mlecmn.net,
age@aitkinage.com, acld@co.aitkin.mn.us, lgrams@co.aitkin.mn.us,
janice.bare@courts.state.mn.us, ltibbetts@co.aitkin.mn.us, dale.lueck@co.aitkin.mn.us,
irwi0009@umn.edu, central.services@co.aitkin.mn.us, sbennett@co.aitkin.mn.us,
auditor@co.aitkin.mn.us, marta.swanson@courts.state.mn.us,
license@co.aitkin.mn.us, kladd@co.aitkin.mn.us, sheriff2@co.aitkin.mn.us,
chills@co.aitkin.mn.us, dselander@co.aitkin.mn.us, jratz@co.aitkin.mn.us,
brian.napstad@co.aitkin.mn.us, diane.lafferty@co.aitkin.mn.us, assessor@co.aitkin.mn.us,
reid.amborn@co.aitkin.mn.us, dboyer@co.aitkin.mn.us,
ruth.bender@courts.state.mn.us, treas@co.aitkin.mn.us, dniemi@co.aitkin.mn.us,
mark.wedel@co.aitkin.mn.us, janze003@umn.edu, tburke@co.aitkin.mn.us, mis@co.aitkin.mn.us,
kpeysar@co.aitkin.mn.us, bonnie.lecocq@courts.state.mn.us, plandg@co.aitkin.mn.us,
jhicks@co.aitkin.mn.us, russ.wagner@co.aitkin.mn.us,
nancy.lebland@courts.state.mn.us, mbos@co.aitkin.mn.us, tsanbeck@co.aitkin.mn.us,
paul.bailey@co.aitkin.mn.us, tveenker@co.aitkin.mn.us, bill.thompson@co.aitkin.mn.us,
csutch@co.aitkin.mn.us, jblomberg@co.aitkin.mn.us,
michelle.cosgriff@courts.state.mn.us, lori.grams@co.aitkin.mn.us, dmoore@co.aitkin.mn.us,
mnext-aitkin@umn.edu, tgustin@co.aitkin.mn.us, rmnelson@co.aitkin.mn.us,
coatty@co.aitkin.mn.us, galen.tveit@co.aitkin.mn.us, llcc@mlecmn.net,
tburman@co.aitkin.mn.us, tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us, carol.molnau@state.mn.us,
steve.sviggum@state.mn.us, dli.commissioner@state.mn.us, general.commerce@state.mn.us,
cal.ludeman@state.mn.us, dorweb.comm@state.mn.us, data.center@metc.state.mn.us,
christie.calvin@state.mn.us, webmaster@doc.state.mn.us,
webmaster@pca.state.mn.us, deed.customerservice@state.mn.us, dhs.info@state.mn.us,
info@dot.state.mn.us, webinfo@mda.state.mn.us, webmaster@mn-arng.ngb.army.mil,
alice.seagren@state.mn.us, dan.salomone@state.mn.us, oet.web@state.mn.us,
ward.einess@state.mn.us, mhfa@state.mn.us, bruce.gordon@state.mn.us,
mdva.webmaster@mdva.state.mn.us, mde.webmaster@state.mn.us, info@dnr.state.mn.us,
michael.pugliese@state.mn.us, sanne.magnan@state.mn.us,
info@IronRangeResources.org, peter.bell@metc.state.mn.us, glenn.wilson@state.mn.us,
michael.campion@state.mn.us, Dps.webmaster@state.mn.us, neil.melton@state.mn.us,
mary.bjornberg@state.mn.us, kwilkening@co.nobles.mn.us, terry.sandbeck@state.mn.us,
mitch.lee@state.mn.us, mylan.masson@minneapolis.edu,
paul.monteen@state.mn.us, tracey.a.martin@co.hennepin.mn.us, mark.letexier@co.polk.mn.us,
dan.glass@state.mn.us, brent.richter@state.mn.us, debra.soderbeck@state.mn.us,
mdohman@ci.maple-grove.mn.us, sheryl.waddick@state.mn.us,
junstad@yahoo.com, carol.j.hall@state.mn.us, mike.ardolf@state.mn.us,
bill.martinez@ci.stpaul.mn.us, michael.young@ci.minneapolis.mn.us, peggy.strand@state.mn.us,
timbildsoe@visi.com, starr.suggs@state.mn.us, harr@csp.edu,
diverson@pioneerpress.com, mhopp@pioneerpress.com, rhubbard@pioneerpress.com,
twebb@pioneerpress.com, jforster@pioneerpress.com, jkrocheski@pioneerpress.com,
khubbard@pioneerpress.com, aharrington@pioneerpress.com, lsuzukamo@pioneerpress.com,
dfondler@pioneerpress.com
CC: askdoj@usdoj.gov, b.todd.jones@usdoj.gov, james.lackner@usdoj.gov,
frank.magill@usdoj.gov, DMashak@aol.com, wcconewstips@wcco.com,
thauser@kstp.com, Dateline@NBCUNI.com
Sent: 12/28/2010 11:25:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Don Mashak:PLEA2 ATTENDCOURT HEARING.Wed29th
JudicialReformDueProcessJury

Tues. 28 Dec.2010
Note to Judge Mary Yunker: Request 4 Camera's in
your Court Room, with full Public Access to Public Records.

The Power of 87 County's Commissioners must be Apprised
4 Budgetary Concerns', further to assist Governor Mark Dayton .

If in fact the Courts are deny "due diligence" to
inflate the Courts Budget. We the People must estopp these Fidicuary_Trust
re: _www.mnccc.org_ (http://www.mnccc.org/)

Anderson_Advocate_Access Affiant having been duly Shafted, Tenant Steve
Monroe Quale Sr. "Murdered" in the Sherburne Jail, Illegal Restraining
"Orders" via Barb Anderson _Stringfellow_ Armstrong v. Sharon Anderson to
STEAL Property Rights _www.sharonvbarbarmstrong.blogspot.com_
(http://www.sharonvbarbarmstrong.blogspot.com/) without Quiet Titles.

Barb's Bizzare Behavior to "take her Father OUT at the VA Hospital,
When Hospice was Promised.

Affiant Sharon4Anderson is duly concerned re: Don Mashak be given his Day
in Court with Jury Trial etc.

Please take legal Notice that Chief Judge
Tim Bloomquist re: Robert Beale Sceniero given Tickets driving to Court
Hearings Google Bob Beale
_http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=Bob+Beale+Sherbu
rne+Co+MN&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Bob+Beale+Sherburne+Co+MN&gs_
rfai=&psj=1&fp=c341562a61b59af3_
(http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=Bob+Beale+Sherburne+Co+MN&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=
&oq=Bob+Beale+Sherburne+Co+MN&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=c341562a61b59af3)

____________________________________
From: dmashak@aol.com
To: dmashak@aol.com
BCC: Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
Sent: 12/28/2010 8:16:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: PLEA FOR ACTION BY SIMPLE ATTENDANCE OF A COURT HEARING.

Hello

At 2:30PM on Wednesday December 29th 2010 I have a court hearing in
Sherburne County Courthouse. 13880 Highway 10
Elk River, MN 55330-1787 [ _trip map_
(http://maps.google.com/maps?q=13880+Highway+10,+Elk+River,+MN&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=fi
refox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=13880+U.S.+10,+Elk+River,+MN+55330&gl=us&ei=
vNcZTeHgC4ugngeG_O2YDg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ8gE
wAA) ] [ _local area map_
(http://maps.google.com/maps?q=13880+Highway+10,+Elk+River,+MN&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1
&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=13880+U.S.+10,+Elk+River,+MN+55330&gl=us&ei=EtgZTcusOKHe
nQeo7bWNDg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ8gEwAA) ]
just west of downtown Elk River on Hwy 10, North side of road

Simply, The Government is trying to fix this case.

This is a case of me suing 2 former employees who stole and embezzled from
my company.
This occurred while I was out of the Country on vacation.
As a defense she claimed that I made sexual advances towards her and worse.
I have taken and passed a polygraph (lie detector test) but the attorneys
refuse to put this on the record.

I allege that my former employee is just being used by the Government to
demonize and discredit me
because it does not want judicial reform nor does it want there to be
fiscal transparency. My former employees
are simply dupes and pawns in a far greater saga. They did not even show
up at the pretrial on 7/9/2010 because
they knew they were wrong.

I am on my 4th 4 attorney because they refused to serve discovery and
enter documents into evidence.

The judge canceled a court hearing in September and blamed it on my 3rd
attorney.
In response to my complaint to the Lawyers Board, the 3rd attorney
maintains that the Court canceled the hearing.

And now with my fourth attorney, the Court would not let attorney have a
hearing before the December 17 2010 hearing.
For 6 weeks my attorney requested a date and was refused.

I need witnesses to this event to be able to testify when we get before
the MN House and Senate to testify as to what happened.

These events are occurring because of my efforts in exercising my 1st
Amendment Right to Petition the Government for redress
of grievances. The two primary complaints being judicial corruption and
lack of financial transparency by the government.
You can learn about my efforts on behalf of we the people by reading my
articles at _Examiner.com _
(http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-minneapolis/don-mashak)

_1st amendment right to petition the government for redress of their
grievances without retaliation nor the threat thereof_
(http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/petition/overview.aspx) .
_http://bit.ly/g15JLQ _ (http://bit.ly/g15JLQ)

In The former USSR, dissent was dealt with at gun point by marching
dissenters to reeducation, hard labor or execution.
In the USA, the standard tactic of government to _demonize_
(http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/DemonizingDissentNLG.html) and _discredit_
(http://www.newformulation.org/4fernandez.htm) voices of _political dissent_
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19951) . Read about Rev. Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr., the _FBI_ (http://foia.fbi.gov/king/mkl1a.pdf) and
operation _COINTEL_
(http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIb.htm) to know this is a real strategy of our government.

IF you want _judicial reform_
(http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-minneapolis/proposed-minnesota-judicial-reform-1-of-2) , please attend this
hearing. I do not expect to win, but I expect to document the corruption.

And, if for no other reason, if you are into Schadenfreude, this hearing
should prove entertaining.

My life is essentially over if I lose this case, Please do not let my
sacrifice be for naught.

Please attend to if for no other reason to make yourself aware of the the
extent of the
corruption in our Minnesota Judiciary.

Thank you for your time.

In liberty,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
612-723-7780
http://twitter.com/dmashak

Sharon4Anderson@aol.com _www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson_
(http://www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson) _www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson_
(http://www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson)
ECF 165913Pacer sa1299 _www.taxthemax.blogspot.com_
(http://www.taxthemax.blogspot.com/) Tel: 651-776-5835 _www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson_
(http://www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson) _www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson_
(http://www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson)

Attachment(s) from Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
1 of 1 Photo(s)
0photoofIsanticomputerscreensayingreasoncourtdatechanged.jpgBack to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity

Carrie Underwood - Mama's Song

2010-12-30T08:01:00.000-08:00

Freedom Fighters Sharon4Anderson_Don Mashak

2010-12-30T07:38:00.000-08:00

HelloUnfortunately, my business is destroyed...I don't know what i am going to do.
Thank you for your time.In liberty,Don MashakThe Cynical Patriot612-723-7780http://twitter.com/dmashak
-----Original Message-----From: Sharon4Anderson@aol.comTo: DMashak@aol.comCc: AngelsAdvocates@aol.comSent: Thu, Dec 30, 2010 7:46 amSubject: Fwd: [COURTWATCHERS_OF_AMERICA] Digest Number 1244[2 Attachments]

Don a Friend who is helping me with www.sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com Peterbilt,property etc. Kyle Crandall who does Scrapping etc. Christian could be a great Process Server 763-413-3493 I Think?
http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/google-lawmen-cases-mn-62cv09-1163/

Don your a great Blogger: If you copy and paste the File it will go on Search Engines Immediately: such as www.freedom-4you.blogspot.com as your a public figure now I will put on Blog.

Sharons Tax File transposed with pdf files:

Home
About
Sharon4anderson’s Weblog
Just another WordPress.com weblog
Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« SharonsScrunityStateSupreme Courts
Sharon Vist St.Paul Vets Rose Garden »
Google Lawmen Cases MN 62cv09-1163
September 23, 2009 by sharon4anderson
Lawmen Google Groups http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/quowarranto-a06-1150-30-jun06 ApplBlog5Apr07_71 SharonvCitySt.Paul, Car,Insurance,TitledTheft

http://www.rockyou.com/show_my_gallery2.php?instanceid=133464503
MN Courts www.mncourts.gov Re: Ramsey Dist.Crt. 62cv09-1163 2008 697 Sur reyTax ThreatJudge VandeNorth SharonScarrellaAnderson Attorney Pro Se Appeals based on Fraud,Abuse of Disgression Judges As Criminals? Financial Institution Recovery Reform Enforcement Act – Google Financial Institution Anti Fraud Enforcement Act – Google Regulation Z – Google Search Search Search http://taxthemax.blogspot.com All Files @ www.slideshare.net/sharon4anderson and www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson MS 363AHumanRights Forfeiture Cars etc. Trilogy Impeach1992 35 Copaitkbgs ALL DOCUMENTS 76 total to Sat.7Nov09 Sharon Anderson’s Presentations on SlideShare
Logout Search Menu New Civil Search Back

Location : All MNCIS Sites – Case Search
Help
Register of Actions www.mncourts.gov Sharons_Medicare_Ramsey Co.#670295 Aff6 Apr07indit Coleman 20 Lantry Stalking19 Apr07
Case No. 62-CV-09-1163 Related Case: WritProA06-1150 30Jun06 Answer/Cross/1/2MillionClaim v.CitySt.Paul
Delinquent Real Property Taxes for 2008 EastSideRevies DelTaxesI_73pgs pg.53Forfeiture Cars etc.42 USC 3631 MS555DeclaratoryJudgmentAct
§§§§§§
Case Type:
Administrative File
Date Filed:
02/12/2009
Location:
Ramsey Civil
Judicial Officer:
VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.
john.vandenorth@courts.state.mn.us
Party Information LeadAttorneys jean.@stepan@co.ramsey.mn.us john.edison@co.ramsey.mn.us
Topic Delinquent Real Property Taxes for Legal Notice TaxLetter 62cv09-1163(VandeNorth)2008 EastSideReviewnews 2008TaxDelpg53
Events & Orders of the Court Sa 62cv09 1163 1 Apr09

DISPOSITIONS
02/12/2009

Closed administratively
09/10/2009

Judgment (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/62cv091163vandenorthsumjudg8sept09

Sa 62cv09 1163 1 Apr09

OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
02/12/2009

Notice-Other http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sa-tax-del62cv09-1163-18 pg.7 proof taxes pd $449.93 and $449.13
03/31/2009

Affidavit for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis Sa Tax Del62cv09 1163 18 84
03/31/2009

Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Lindman, Dale B. )
03/31/2009

Affidavit-Other http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sa-tax-del62cv09-1163-18-84-1252842
04/02/2009

Other Document Sa Tax Del62cv09 1163 18 84
04/06/2009

Affidavit of Service
04/06/2009

Correspondence Sa 62cv09 1163 1 Apr09
04/06/2009

Other Document Sa Affid Hud Hra Fair Ho45pdf
04/06/2009

Other Document 435 – PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, OTHER PROCEEDINGS, 2009 Minnesota Statutes
04/06/2009

Other DocumentTamar N. GronvallMNAG_DenyService did not serve all Parties,Refused Rule 24.04 Constitutionality of Fees/Assessments
04/07/2009

Order to Remove (Judicial Officer: Johnson, Gregg E. )Dm 1399 23
04/09/2009

Notice of Case Reassignment Edward Cleary
04/10/2009

Correspondence
06/26/2009

Affidavit of PublicationTamar N. GronvallMNAG_DenyService
06/26/2009

Other Document
07/06/2009

Publicly Viewable Note to File
07/15/2009

Motion Sa62cv09 1163 Stephan Ans 15
07/15/2009

Memorandum
07/15/2009

Affidavit-Other Auditor Mark Oswald Affidavit 62cv09-1163
07/15/2009

Affidavit-OtherSa 62cv09 1163 Aff Lynn Moser Dtd.8 Jul09 13
07/15/2009

Affidavit of Service
08/10/2009

Affidavit of Prejudice AffidavitPrejudice Kathleen Gearin Judge
08/12/2009

Notice of Motion and MotionSharons FactFinding 62cv09-1163 Taxes/Elections
08/13/2009

Other DocumentMotion to Continue 62cv09-1163Judge John Vandenorth
08/17/2009

Motion http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sharon4andersonwebnair-20aug09
08/19/2009

Other Document SharonsSanction Attorneys_Fraud on Court pg26Sharons Letter Motion 62cv09-1163
08/20/2009

Motion Summary Judgment
Result: Heldhttp://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/62cv091163vandenorthsumjudg8sept09
09/09/2009

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
09/10/2009

Judgment
09/10/2009

Notice of Entry of Judgment http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/62cv091163vandenorthsumjudg8sept09
09/11/2009

Other Document
09/11/2009

Other Document
09/14/2009

Notice of Appeal
09/14/2009

Other Document
09/14/2009

Supplemental Affidavit for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis
09/15/2009

Supplemental Affidavit for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis 15 Sept09 Ifp Implement ECF http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sharonsifp62cv091163appeal 24pgs
09/18/2009

Supplemental Order for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
09/18/2009

Correspondence http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/sharonsifp62cv091163appeal 24pgs.
09/21/2009

Affidavit of Service LetterMotionRequestCourtReporter ECF 36pgs
10/20/2009Sa Statement MNAppeal62cv09-1163

Other Document
10/27/2009

Notice of Appealhttp://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/shariaaffidavitsappealricomarkoswald
10/30/2009

Affidavit of Service
10/20/2009 SharonsFEES ASSESSMENTS_ROW Objects

Other Document
10/27/2009 SharonsAppeal 62cv09-1163(VAndenorth)

Notice of Appeal
10/30/2009 http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/shariaaffidavitsappealricomarkoswald

Affidavit of Service
11/02/2009 Sa Statement MNAppeal62cv09-1163

Statement of Case
11/05/2009 Aff Ser4 Nov09 Ifp Tit18 6

Affidavit-Other
11/02/2009Aff Ser4 Nov09 Ifp Tit18 6

Statement of Case My Presentations on SlideShare
Sharon Anderson’s Documents on SlideShare
RElated Briefs:aff6apr07inditcoleman_20 1058 Wa rrant 34 St.Paul,MN Tax_ElectionAssessor MarkOswald Handbook for Electronic Filers VA-1345 Declaration for Electronic Filing VA-8453 sharon4anderson v. judge john vandenorth mn – Google Search
APPENDIX OF FORMS File4[1]Shar Thune 22 Aitkin Ans0332 27
Trilogy Impeach1992 35 Jrsa 88 Homeless 17 Sharons-DL-07 10

1058 Warrant 34 Trilogy Impeach1992 35

Posted in Blogroll Tagged 62cv09-1163, Appeals, CaseFixing, CitySt.Paul, Clerks, Constitution, CoRamsey, Courts, Felony, Forms, Fred Grittner, Google, Judge John Vandenorth, lawmen, MN, sharon4anderson Leave a Comment

Be the first to like this post.
Archives
August 2010 (2)
July 2010 (1)
June 2010 (4)
February 2010 (3)
January 2010 (7)
December 2009 (5)
November 2009 (2)
October 2009 (5)
September 2009 (3)
September 2007 (1)
Categories
Blogroll (2)
Sharons Tax/Election Files (4)
Uncategorized (31)
Pages
About
Blog at WordPress.com.
Theme: MistyLook by Sadish.

From: COURTWATCHERS_OF_AMERICA@yahoogroups.comReply-to: notify-dg-COURTWATCHERS_OF_AMERICA@yahoogroups.comTo: COURTWATCHERS_OF_AMERICA@yahoogroups.comSent: 12/30/2010 8:32:32 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeSubj: [COURTWATCHERS_OF_AMERICA] Digest Number 1244[2 Attachments]

COURT WATCHERS OF AMERICA
Messages In This Digest (1 Message)

1.
[Lawmen: 4059] A New Concept in the War Against Judicial Supremacy? From: d b
View All Topics Create New Topic
Message
1.
[Lawmen: 4059] A New Concept in the War Against Judicial Supremacy?
Posted by: "d b" afeb1099@yahoo.com afeb1099
Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:50 am (PST)
[Attachment(s) from d b included below] Law Philosopher Dr. John Wolfgram has asked me to distribute his message below and the associated attachments to you for review and comment, and further distribution. Please send your comments directly to him. Feel free to CC me at bob at bobhurt dot com. ----------------------------------------------------------Bob Hurt • 2460 Persian Drive #70 • Clearwater, FL 33763 USA • (727) 669-5511Lawmen • Files • Archive • Scholarship • Jurisdictionary • 3+G Free---------------------------------------------------------- From: On Behalf Of JohnWolfgram@hotmail.comSent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 10:41 AMSubject: A New Concept in the War Against Judicial Supremacy? To All Concerned about Judicial Supremacy and its Creation, Sovereign and Judicial Immunity: Attached is a four page letter and a copy of the President's Memo on Transparency in Government, to the DoJ Tax Appeals Attorney opposite me in our tax case now before the Ninth Circuit. It is an attempt to get the DoJ to clean up its administrative act, which might also be called "an exercise in futility". Yet, the President did promise a new era of transparency and accountability in government, and it should embarrass no one to use his own promises against his administration. This letter represents my interpretation of what administrative Transparency and Open Government means ... how to go about it ... a major shift in administrative to judicial alignment, a new kind of separation of powers...a "competitive separation" bringing fourth an era of open competition between the administration and judiciary for the "hearts and minds" of the people...under one Constitution, one law, but with competition in its application. This approach begs another kind of concern: What happens in terms of creating or containing the forces impelling the "Imperial Presidency" when the executive branch competes with the judiciary for its own brand of "constitutional justice"? Is "executive supremacy" a real possibility and a real threat? I don't think so, but I would like your thoughts on that. Am I opening "Pandora's Box? What I do think would happen is that the Judiciary would engage the executive in defense of judicial supremacy. Very angrily at first. But the position that I suggest to the DoJ is very strong ... one of exposing and denouncing what are clear judicial usurpations. The judiciary will never have faced a power struggle in which it is denied the moral high ground, and it will have to back off. What would emerge from that is a more constitutionally defensible form of "judicial supremacy" which is really a "Democratizing of the Judiciary" which could approach the kind of changes that I described in "Democratizing the Judiciary" as it competes to re-establish itself as the final arbiter of the Constitution. In the meantime, the executive would evolve into becoming "kinder, more gentle and more fair" in its dealings with the people creating for itself and for the people a constitutional awareness which I generally describe as a "constitutionalconscience". At least, that is the underlying theory. And Congress? What would it do if the president openly engaged the judiciary to offer a speedier, less costly and more just form of justice in cases arising out of administrative action? Would it stand idly by ... would it takes sides ... would it recognize it's own short coming in allowing the Court to run wild with what is after all, The People's Constitution? Think of the politics involved with this of all presidents making what many would see as a grab for power? Would it be a grab for power? What are the legal and political implications of this kind of proposal? I think this is an entirely new approach to fighting institutionalized corruption and I am soliciting the whole range of input responses, from "you are crazy" to suggestions on what I might do to engage the DoJ in this kind of discussion, to what I should be aware of or beware of, to what you might suggest to assist the process. Anyone interested that knows anyone else interested, is asked to solicit their thoughts on this subject. Happy Holidays Wolfgram-- -- You received this because you have membership in the "Lawmen" Google Group. Comment to group owner - reply to the message (only the owner posts messages).See the archives, change options - visit http://groups.google.com/group/LawmenJoin / Subscribe - send email to Lawmen+subscribe@googlegroups.comResign / Unsubscribe- send email to Lawmen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
Attachment(s) from d b
2 of 2 File(s)
Obama
Ltr
Back to top Reply to sender Reply to group Reply via web post Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Search Ads
Get new customers.
List your web site
in Yahoo! Search.
Yahoo! Groups
Cat Owners Group
Connect and share with
others who love their cats
Y! Groups blog
The place to go
to stay informed
on Groups news!
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
Create New Topic Visit Your Group on the Web
Messages Files Photos Links
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
MARKETPLACE
Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
Find useful articles and helpful tips on living with Fibromyalgia. Visit the Fibromyalgia Zone today!
Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use Unsubscribe

VOTE MaryJane Duchene 4 MayorWestSaintPaul,MN

2010-10-13T13:36:00.000-07:00

Click here: (17) Twitter / Home

Wed. 13Oct2010

NEWS FLASH: NEW IDEAS: VOTE MARYJANE4MAYOR 2NOV2010 OR NOW ABSENTEE

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/mj4mayor/election2010.html

Assist_Advocate_Attorney Change techinallly all City and County Attorneys in the State of MN.

City Attorney: Mary Jane will work for the appointment of a city attorney who resides and offices from West St. Paul, not South St. Paul; and who has no conflicts of interest that impede a fair and healthy implementation of the law and ethical actions, see:
Diabetics/Disabled Anonymous: http://www.ddaweb.org/ http://www.murderbydiabetes.org/ http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/abuseofpower/index.html
REAL ESTATE ISSUES: * ALICE KRENGEL CASE
Diversity: Mary Jane has the experience and skill to work for a community that welcomes the disabled, seniors, and members of ethnic minorities, and which enforces laws prohibiting the taking of unethical and illegal advantage of people in these protected classes;- and will work diligently to remedy the current status quo to achieve these equitable results.

http://www.ctv15.org/index.php/candidate-forums/lwv-ramsey-county-attorney-forum.html

Ramsey Co. Video is relevant for ALL Co. Attrys

Sharon4Anderson Sharon4Anderson

http://www.ctv15.org/index.php/candidate-forums/lwv-ramsey-county-attorney-forum.html David Schultz Ramsey Co.AttryPrisons v Commitments

6 minutes agoFavorite Reply Delete

Starred results for MaryJane Duchene 4 Mayor

West St. Paul -- ELECTIONS - www.ci.west-saint-paul.mn.us/index.asp?...

MARY JANE DUCHENE FOR WEST ST. PAUL MAYOR - 2004

- 17 visits - Oct 8

Mary Jane will work to ensure that available federal funding is obtained for required repairs low income and senior citizens in West St. Paul, so that these ...
www.angelfire.com/mn3/mj4mayor/ - Cached - Similar

Minnesota public defenders question if justice is served - Topix

- 3 visits - Oct 7

Aug 16, 2010 ... 4. 2. 1. Keep tracking the Candidate for W.SaintPaul Mayor MaryJane Duchene who had to fire her Public defendar, Judge Perkins should not ...
www.topix.com/forum/city/stewartville.../T523I8NQ7LOISBLAG - Cached

Ballots set after filing deadline StarTribune.com

Aug 25, 2010 ... West St. Paul: Mayor, Mary Jane Duchene, John Zanmiller (i); ... Burnsville (elect 4): Peter Beckel, Dan Luth (i), Gail Morrison (i), ...
www.startribune.com/politics/local/101299754.html - Cached

Mayoral candidates have faced each other before - Poten & Partners

Zanmiller, who was first elected mayor in 2004 after serving two years on the city council, faces off against Mary Jane Duchene, who ran for the city's top ...
www.poten.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=10703687

Freedom-4You: MaryJane Duchene DogNoise_cit.344179Judge Perkins

- 4 visits - Aug 30

Sunday, April 4, 2010 ... City of West St. Paul v. Mary Jane Duchene, 2009/2010 .... Judgeship, State Rep64a,St.Paul Mayor 2010,www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com,Background Checks online,Internet Banking, google names,address,emails ...
freedom-4you.blogspot.com/.../maryjane-duchene-dognoisecit344179judge.html - Cached

MaryJaneDuchene_Mayor Candidate_WritProhibitionA10-937

A10-937 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION Mary Jane Duchene, Petitioner AND ..... Paid for by the Duchene 4 Mayor Volunteer Committee, 1144 Ottawa Avenue, ...
www.slideshare.net/.../mj-writ-pro6jun1022ems10mayor - Cached

Vote 2010 West St. Paul / Mayoral candidates have faced each other ...

Oct 12, 2010 ... Zanmiller, who was first elected mayor in 2004 after serving two years on the city council, faces off against Mary Jane Duchene, who ran for ...
www.twincities.com/education/ci_16323482

Mary Jane Duchene (MJ4MayorWSP) on Twitter

Mary Jane Duchene, 2010 Candidate for WEST ST. PAUL MAYOR. 9:10 AM Sep 4th via web. Name Mary Jane Duchene; Location West St. Paul; Web http://www.angelf. ...
twitter.com/MJ4MayorWSP - Cached

Ex-Viking Joey Browner enters Eagan mayoral race - NFL News - FOX ...

Updated Jun 3, 2010 4:33 PM ET. Former Minnesota Vikings safety Joey Browner has ... Bill Jungbauer and Mary Jane Duchene are running for the mayoral seat ...
msn.foxsports.com/.../ExViking-Joey-Browner-enters-Eagan-mayoral-race-15200163 - Cached

SHOWING ALL CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL, MAYOR CANDIDATES MINNESOTA ...

City of West St. Paul, Mayor. John Zanmiller. Mary Jane Duchene. Additional Independent Progressive Offices. Independent Progressive Candidates For U.S. ...
minnesota.evoter.com/minnesota/offices/city-of-west-st.-paul,-mayor - Cached

Sincere Thanks to all Citizens for Policy Changes

Disclaimer: Submitted Fundamental Fairness Doctrine Elections/Taxes/Rule of Law

LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Candidate AG2010 http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com/Blogger: www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson Homestead Act of 1862 neopopulism.org - Pro Se Dec Action Litigation Pack Sharon4Anderson Scribd Document's are based on SEC filings, Blogger: Dashboard Home www.slideshare.com/sharonanderson http://www.taxthemax.blogspot.com/ www.sharon4anderson.org

NewMNElectionLawsMS204B.06sub8,Judges,CoAttrys,Sheriffs Exempt

2010-08-11T08:05:00.000-07:00

“Sharon4Anderson”

Since: Feb 08

248

St. Paul, Minnesota

Sharon4MNAG is humbled by MN Turnout 4 All Races Please be so apprised that the new Laws http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx...
MS204B.06 sub8 EXEMPT Judges,Co.Attrys,Sheriffs from Disclosure even tho all Licensed: PLEASE VOTERS Step by Step Challenge Your Canvass Boards so we do not have a 2008 Election Fraud Repeat.
Ramsey Co. Jo Mansky Stated He DID NOT CONSIDER Sharons pdf Vote
http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/vot...

Canvass Board is Samo_Samo as 2008 Mark Oswald Election_Tax,Larry Dease 2nd Jud Court Admin,Mayor Coleman designee Clerk Shari Moore,Co. Board Reinhardt,Bennet meeting at Plato Blvd. State Canvass Mark Ritchie, 2 Sup.Justices,2Co Judges meeting next Tues 17Aug10

Ethics in Government Constiutional Guarantees of Separation of Church and State, Separation of Powers Are the voters mislead by Trial Lawyers and Sharons Opponent's R_Morman Bishop_Psyc_Barden and DFL Lori Swanson?

VoteSharonAnderson4MNAG v BishopBardenSepStateChurch_MNConstArt.III

2010-08-06T17:10:00.000-07:00

Fri. 6Aug10_ Tues 10Aug10

Please Vote Sharon Anderson MN_AG HomeGrown_ VA Widow_Learned in Law_Computers_4 YOU_ MN Attorney General

Estopp Sharia Law if Repugnant to Women.

Thank You
http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com/
http://www.usnpl.com/mnnews.php
FURTHER: DISCLOSING THAT MORMAN BISHOP CHRIS BARDEN. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MN CONST. ART. III VIOLATIONS.
http://www.50states.com/news/minn.htm

Click here: » Republican AG candidate a complete unknown to state politicos, voters
http://politicsinminnesota.com/blog/2010/08/republican-ag-candidate-chris-barden-is-a-minnesota-native-and-a-complete-unknown-to-the-states-politicos-and-voters/
Fri.6Aug10
LEGAL NOTICE: TO Mormon Bishop/ Licensed Psyc_CHRIS BARDEN AND LORI SWANSON,Media,News et al
BRING IT ON, http://www.whistleblower.org/press/gap-op-eds/681-the-birmingham-news-congress-should-protect-national-security-whistleblowers

DO THE RIGHT THING RESIGN/WITHDRAW FROM THE AG'S
RACE.

SHARON: must Stand UP for Judicial Reform, incompassing ABOLISH: THE SCAP PANEL Mission of the AG's Office has covertly been to defend the State and Agencies techinally against the Citizenery.

SHARON: must protect the Citizenery to do their own legal work, eliminating the need for ALL THESE LAWYERS_LAWYERS JUDGES_CITY AND COUNTY ATTORNEY . Huge Salarys in accordance with MN Const. Art. III
Separation of Powers.

ABOLISH THE 481.02, Minnesota Statutes 2007

481.02 UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW. Subdivision 1. Prohibitions. ... (9) a licensed attorney-at-law of Minnesota from rendering to a corporation legal ...
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?...SEC... - Cached - Similar

http://www.mnnews.com/special.html .html Click here: Minnesota Newspapers Directory Listing by County with Maps Special Note to NewsPapers re: Free Speech_Press sorry if I missed your circulation dates. Sharon's Passion is Pristine, Homegrown Mora MN re: Peterson Family www.petersonfamilytree.blogspot.com Love's MN
Thurs.5Aug10

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:Legal Notice QuoWarranto
TO CHIEF JUSTICE LORIE GILDEA ET AL

Please Vote Sharon Anderson Republican MN Attorney General:JUDICIAL REFORM MANDATED
http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com/pot.com with Legal Notice
Consumer Protection. Doing the Best to have full disclosure of Candidates for Public Office. Please forward,circulate,copy, blog Thanks Sharon

Wed. 4Aug2010

YOU Lorie Gildea MN Chief Justice in your OfficialCapacity_Oath of Office_Individually,severally_Franchise Licensed Lawyers

acting in concort with DFL Lori Swanson MNAG http://www.ag.state.mn.us/, apparantly are misapplying,overlooking,RICO Criminal Charges of Judges, City and County Attorneys and their Appointments and Elections http://www.mnvoters.org/Judges.htm

/ Embellzments of Citizens Propertys and Funds 4 the past 25 years.

THEREFORE: IN GOOD FAITH AND GOOD WILL AFFIANT SHARON ANDERSON BY E-COMMERCE BRINGS VIA MS2.724 TO MN CHIEF JUSTICE LORI GILDEA TO DO THE RIGHT THING,

1. Resind her appointment and put on the Nov.2nd,2010 Ballot for the Voters to decide

the Election of MN Chief Justice.

2. In Compliance with MN Const. Art. III Separation of Powers, Order the Removal from the 2Nov10 Ballot of Attorney General the names of Lori Swanson and Chris Barden.

3. Order an investigation into the Bizzare Taxing Methods of Ramsey Co. triggering the Removal of Judge Kathleen Gearin from the 2Nov10 Ballot for RICO Wrong Doings.

a. Gearin has been charged for years on the Exploitation,Commitment,Murder of Sharons 2nd Husband http://www.cpljimanderson.blogspot.com/ acting in concort with MN Court Clerk Fred Grittner acting as a Judge http://www.sharonswater.blogspot.com/

In the even of Sharons Death by these

Public Officials POA at http://www.sharon4anderson.org/

Further the Court must "Order" the Removal of any Judge or County Attorney sanctioned for Criminal Wrongoings.. ie: Backstrom and Blakely. from any Election Ballot.

Such other and further relief:

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY E-COMMERCE,WEB SITES,BLOGS,FACEBOOK,TWITTER

Mpls Star Profile Voters Guide Thanks You http ://digg.com/d31VjFh?t

Visit Sharon www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson

pdf formats www.slideshare.net/sharon4anderson www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson

Google Sharon4Anderson St.Paul MN,

/s/ Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913_sa1299 Attorney Pro Se_InFact,Private Attorney General Sharon4 Anderson - Google Profile ,Candidate 2010 iGoogle http://www.sharonagmn2010.blogspot.com/ Homestead Act of 1862 Blogger: User Profile: Sharon Anderson SharonsYahoo!
Shar1058's Buzz Activity Page - My Buzz Activity - Yahoo! Buzz
political ?(Sharon4Anderson?)
Sharon Anderson's Blog Click here: Sharon4Council file4[1]Shar_thune_22.pdf - Google Docs
Disclaimer on Site'sThe Electronic Communications Privacy Act MY FindLaw (ECPA) sets out the provisions for access, use, disclosure, interception and privacy protections of electronic communications. Sharon4Anderson Scribd pdf files. The law was enacted in 1986 and covers various forms of wire and electronic communications. According to the U.S. Code, electronic communications "means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce." ECPA prohibits unlawful access and certain disclosures of communication contents. Additionally, the law prevents government entities from requiring disclosure of electronic communications from a provider without proper procedure. The Legal Institute provides Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which encompasses ECPA. Blogger: Dashboard
NOTICE: This communication is not encrypted. This e-mail (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and Electronic Communications Privacy Act The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers

JURIST - Paper Chase: Missouri voters pass law seeking to bar health care mandate

2010-08-05T02:34:00.000-07:00

JURIST - Paper Chase: Missouri voters pass law seeking to bar health care mandate

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/april10/records_042610.html

2010-04-26T11:32:00.000-07:00

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/april10/records_042610.html

2010-04-26T11:22:00.001-07:00

TEXTAREA_ID

The Institute for Liberty Official Web Site.

2010-04-05T06:59:00.000-07:00

The Institute for Liberty Offici

Print Page Send to a Friend Home > Media Center

Stop a Washington takeover of the Internet

The Federal Communications Commission is moving ahead with proposed "Open Internet" rules, which would give federal regulators vast new powers, and ultimately lead to government control of the Internet.

In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet.
GN Docket No, 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52.
You can read the complete proposal here: (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf).

In a nutshell, “Open Internet” is the left’s latest marketing language for what they used to call “net neutrality.” It is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney, the Free Press founder who explained his goal to SocialistProject.ca: “What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility.”

“Open Internet” or “net neutrality” sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way – until you realize that modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn't been invented yet) get priority may be necessary to make the Internet work, but the government is considering regulations that will make it illegal to prioritize traffic.

In their initial comments, Free Press told the FCC that Internet providers must prove that there will never be a problem with Internet service, or submit to regulation. This is backward, and frankly un-American. The burden of proof should properly lie with the far left proponents of regulation like Free Press, which for a decade has been predicting a disaster for the Internet if the government did not regulate it. We need to remind the FCC that regulatory burdens should not be placed on Internet providers and users unless and until an actual problem emerges.

Free Press is arguing that the Internet – one of the most competitive, innovative, productive, and exciting industries in the country – should be regulated as if they were 1930’s-style government-protected monopolies. This backward-looking “Franklin D. Roosevelt” approach to the modern Internet would be hideously destructive, and must be stopped.

Heavy-handed regulation could destroy private investment in the Internet, in turn forcing taxpayers to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to keep the Internet functioning, bringing government ownership and control.

Please fill out the form below to submit an official comment to the FCC docket on this proposed rulemaking.

al Web Site.

MaryJaneDuchene_YouTube_MurderbyDiabetes

2010-04-04T12:46:00.000-07:00

http://www.murderbydiabetes.org/

Georgina Demars Pt. 1

Georgina Demars Pt. 2

Apologies for poor quality on the Demars videos. We are working to upgrade this.

SEE: Videos at YouTube - CLICK

Murder of Jane Duchene Pt. 1

Murder of Jane Duchene Pt. 2

Murder of Jane Duchene Pt. 3

MaryJane Duchene DogNoise_cit.344179Judge Perkins

2010-04-04T11:23:00.000-07:00

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate6/2009dog/wspnoise.html

DISCLAIMER: Mary Jane Duchene's Scientific Evidence of Noise cannot be refuted
Notice to all Bloggers,Dog Lovers et al, Fight Back West St.Paul,MN City Hall
run by www.levander.com Law Firm Attorney Kori Land.

appears to be simulating legal process without Long Form Complaint https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes /?id=609.51
http://www.wspwatchdogs.com/ Similar Situated Citizenery Noel Kalinoski
www.alicekrengel.blogspot.com

West St. Paul, Minnesota, RE: Alleged Noise Violations City of West St. Paul v. Mary Jane Duchene, 2009/2010

The Long Form Complaint contains only a statement of probable casue, and does not contain the required separate statement and detail of specific accusation that justifies charges being filed, failing which the cse must be dismissed. Click on images below to read full Long Form Complaint

Application for Public Defender: http://www.mncourts.gov/ruledocs/criminal/forms/RCRPform47.pdf FORM http://www.mncourts.gov/documents/0/Public/Rules/Crim_Rules__APPENDIX_OF_FORMS_eff_10-1-06.htm
Citation, 7/24/2009:	LINK
Demand Long Form Complaint	LINK
Long Form Complaint 7/31/2009	LINK
Initial Motion to Dismiss, inclusive long form complaint provided	LINK
Motion to Vacate and Reverse	LINK
WARRANT	LINK
Continuance	LINK
MOTION TO DISMISS, November 25, 2009	LINK
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, PREJUDICE, December 09, 2009	LINK
MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, December 16, 2009	LINK
Memorandum Support Motion to Dismiss of 11/25/2009, January 13, 2010	LINK
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING DECEMBER 16, 2009 MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, January 14, 2010	LINK
MOTION FOR SUMMARY ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, January 17, 2010	LINK
COURT ORDER, received January 18, 2010	LINK
REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT, JANUARY 11, 2010 Mary Jane Duchene Plaintiff: City of West St Paul Defendant: Mary Jane Duchene Case Number: 0:2010cr00012 Filed: January 13, 2010 Court: Minnesota District Court Office: DMN Office [ Court Info ] Notice of Electronic Filing 1/20/2010 LINK REMAND: 2/19/2010	LINK
MOTION TO VACATE AND REVERSE OR FOR AMENDED LONG FORM COMPLAINT, INCLUSIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE, March 16, 2010	LINK

MaryJane Duchene Public Policy Dog site,cit.3441797 JudgePerkins

2010-04-03T14:13:00.000-07:00

West St. Paul, Alledged Noise Violations

Disclaimer: Republished for Public Policy and to force Dakota Co. to implement pdf Forensic Files the Matter with Mary Jane Duchene should have been dismissed .

Classic Case of Prosecutor Misconduct by the West St.Paul City Attorney Kori Land of the http://www.levander.com/ Law Firm

Go to http://www.mncourts.gov/ to check the file under citation 3441797

PLEASE HELP MAKE THE COURTS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

West St. Paul, Minnesota,
RE: Alleged Noise Violations

City of West St. Paul v. Mary Jane Duchene, 2009/2010

The Long Form Complaint contains only a statement of probable casue, and does not contain the required separate statement and detail of specific accusation that justifies charges being filed, failing which the cse must be dismissed.
Click on images below to read full Long Form Complaint

MINNESOTA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - COMPLAINTS:

By Rule 2.01 the complaint shall consist of a written signed statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. This language is taken from F.R.Crim.P. 3. (Present Minnesota statutory law (Minn. Stat. §§ 629.42, 633.03 (1971)) simply provides for the complaint of an offense to be reduced to writing, but does not specify what the complaint shall contain.) The complaint shall otherwise conform to the provisions of Rules 17.02, 17.03. Minn. Stat. §§ 487.25, subd. 3; 488A.10, subd. 3, and 488A.27, subd. 3 govern the procedure for the issuance of complaints in the County Courts, Hennepin County Municipal Court and St. Paul Municipal Court, respectively, but also do not specify what the complaint shall contain.

Rule 17.02 Nature and Contents

Subd. 1. Complaint. A complaint shall be substantially in the form prescribed by Rule 2.

Subd. 2. Indictment. An indictment shall contain a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall be signed by the foreperson of the grand jury.

Subd. 3. Indictment and Complaint. The indictment or complaint shall state for each count the citation of the statute, rule, regulation or other provision of law which the defendant is alleged to have violated. Error in the citation or its omission shall not be ground for dismissal or for reversal of a conviction if the error or omission did not prejudice the defendant. Each count may charge only one offense. Allegations made in one count may be incorporated by reference in another count. An indictment or complaint may, but need not, contain counts for the different degrees of the same offense, or for any of such degrees, or counts for lesser or other included offenses, or for any of such offenses. The same indictment or complaint may contain counts for murder, and also for manslaughter, or different degrees of manslaughter. When the offense may have been committed by the use of different means, the indictment or complaint may allege in one count the means of committing the offense in the alternative or that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown.

Subd. 4. Bill of Particulars. The bill of particulars is abolished.

Subd. 5. Indictment and Complaint Forms--Felony and Gross Misdemeanors. For all indictments and complaints charging a felony or gross misdemeanor offense the prosecuting attorney or such judge or judicial officer authorized by law to issue process pursuant to Rule 2.02 shall use an appropriate form authorized and supplied by the State Court Administrator or a word processor-produced complaint or indictment form in compliance with the supplied form and approved by Information Systems Office, State Court Administration. If for any reason such form is unavailable, failure to comply with this rule shall constitute harmless error under Rule 31.01.

Rule 17.06 Motions Attacking Indictment, Complaint or Tab Charge
Subd. 1. Defects in Form. No indictment, complaint or tab charge shall be dismissed nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be affected by reason of a defect or imperfection in matters of form which does not tend to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant.
Subd. 2. Motion to Dismiss or for Appropriate Relief. All objections to an indictment, complaint or tab charge shall be made by motion as provided by Rule 10.01 and may be based on the following grounds without limitation:
(1) Indictment.
(a) The evidence admissible before the grand jury was not sufficient as required by these rules to establish the offense charged or any lesser or other included offense or any offense of a lesser degree;
(b) The grand jury was illegally constituted;
(c) The grand jury proceeding was conducted before fewer than 16 grand jurors;
(d) Fewer than 12 grand jurors concurred in the finding of the indictment;
(e) The indictment was not found or returned as required by law;
(f) An unauthorized person was in the grand jury room during the presentation of evidence upon the charge contained in the indictment or during the deliberations or voting of the grand jury upon the charge.
(2) Indictment, Complaint or Tab Charge. In the case of an indictment, complaint or tab charge:
(a) The indictment, complaint or tab charge does not substantially comply with the requirements prescribed by law to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant;
(b) The court lacks jurisdiction of the offense charged;
(c) The law defining the offense charged is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid;
(d) In the case of an indictment or complaint, that the facts stated do not constitute an offense;
(e) The prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations;
(f) The defendant has been denied a speedy trial;
(g) There exists some other jurisdictional or legal impediment to prosecution or conviction of the defendant for the offense charged, except as provided by Rule 10.02;
(h) Double jeopardy, collateral estoppel, or that prosecution is barred by Minn. Stat. § 609.035.

Subd. 3. Time for Motion. A motion to dismiss the indictment, complaint or tab charge shall be made within the time prescribed by Rule 10.04, subd. 1 except that an objection to the jurisdiction of the court over the offense or that the indictment, complaint or tab charge fails to charge an offense may be made at any time during the pendency of the proceeding.
Subd. 4. Effect of Determination of Motion to Dismiss.
(1) Motion Denied. If a motion to dismiss the indictment, complaint or tab charge is determined adversely to the defendant, the defendant shall be permitted to plead if the defendant has not previously pleaded. A plea previously entered shall stand. The defendant in a misdemeanor case may continue to raise the issues on appeal if convicted following a trial.
(2) Grounds for Dismissal. When a motion to dismiss an indictment, complaint or tab charge is granted for a defect in the institution of prosecution or in the indictment, complaint or tab charge, the court shall specify the grounds upon which the motion is granted.
(3) Dismissal for Curable Defect. If the dismissal is for failure to file a timely complaint as required by Rule 4.02, subd. 5(3), or for a defect that could be cured or avoided by an amended or new indictment, or complaint, further prosecution for the same offense shall not be barred, and the court shall on motion of the prosecuting attorney, made within seven (7) days after notice of the entry of the order granting the motion to dismiss, order that defendant's bail or the other conditions of his release be continued or modified for a specified reasonable time pending an amended or new indictment or complaint.
In misdemeanor cases, if the defendant is unable to post any bail that might be required under Rule 6.02, subd. 1, then the defendant must be released subject to such non-monetary conditions as the court deems appropriate under that rule. The specified time for such amended or new indictment or complaint shall not exceed sixty (60) days for filing a new indictment or seven (7) days for amending an indictment or complaint or for filing a new complaint. During the seven-day period for making the motion and during the time specified by the order, if such motion is made, dismissal of the indictment or complaint shall be stayed. If the prosecution does not make the motion within the seven-day period or if the indictment or complaint is not amended or if a new indictment or complaint is not filed within the time specified by the order, the defendant shall be discharged and further prosecution for the same offense shall be barred unless the prosecution has appealed as provided by law, or unless the defendant is charged with murder and the court has granted a motion to dismiss on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury. In misdemeanor cases and also in designated gross misdemeanor cases as defined in Rule 1.04(b) dismissed for failure to file a timely complaint within the time limits as provided by Rule 4.02 subd. 5(3), further prosecution shall not be barred unless additionally a judge or judicial officer of the court has so ordered.

Rule 11.09. Trial Date
(a) If the defendant enters a plea other than guilty, a trial date must be set.
(b) A defendant must be tried as soon as possible after entry of a plea other than guilty. On demand of any party the trial must start within 60 days of the demand unless the court finds good cause for a later trial date. The time period begins on the date of the plea other than guilty.
Unless exigent circumstances exist, if trial does not start within 120 days from the date the plea other than guilty is entered and the demand is made, the defendant must be released under any nonmonetary conditions the court orders under Rule 6.01, subd. 1.

For good cause the trial may be postponed beyond the 60-day time limit upon request of the
prosecutor or the defendant or upon the court’s initiative. Good cause for the delay does not include court calendar congestion unless exceptional circumstances exist. See McIntosh v. Davis, 441 N.W.2d
115, 120 (Minn. 1989). Even if good cause exists for postponing the trial beyond the 60-day time limit,the defendant, except in exigent circumstances, must be released, subject to such nonmonetary release conditions as may be required by the court under Rule 6.02, subd. 1, if trial has not yet commenced within 120 days after the demand is made and the not guilty plea entered. Other sanctions for violation of these speedy trial provisions are left to case law. See State v. Kasper, 411 N.W.2d 182 (Minn. 1987) and State lov. Friberg, 435 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. 1989).

MINNESOTA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

http://www.mncourts.gov/rules/criminal/RCRP.htm

On Criminal Long Form Complaints

A Guide to Minnesota Criminal Procedures - Bass Law Firm

"If you are charged with a misdemeanor by a ticket, citation, or tab charge, you can request a formal complaint (a written document detailing the
charges) at your arraignment. If you are in custody, the prosecution has 48 hours from the time of your demand to file a complaint. If you are
not in custody, the prosecution has 30 days from the date of your demand to file a complaint. If no complaint is filed within these timeframes,
the charges against you are dismissed."

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
Sr. Arthur Conan Doyle

*Click here for: Calculator for determining amount
sound diminishes with distance:*

*http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-distance.htm*.

Image of web page containing calculator:

*SECOND ONLINE CALCULATOR, LINK*
*Related Watts/decibels Calculator*

LINK TO EXPERT REPORT, CLICK HERE

Print quality version of Exhibit C below:

"Sound and noise is a very subjective topic with people. Sounds that are soothing to one person may drive another crazy. One person’s playful puppy may be a yapping mutt to the next-door neighbor. Fortunately, noise is measurable in relation to the background sounds in our environment. Therefore, zoning boards can choose to deal with the noise issue and neighbor concerns objectively, and not just make a decision based on pressure exerted by a concerned but uninformed or misinformed neighbor.
...
People often compare various sound situations for their own perspective. The average background noise in a house is about 50 dB(A), while a car driving down a street will be measured at 60 dB(A) at a distance of 300 feet. A “quiet” vacuum cleaner will emanate sound at 70 dB(A), about the same noise level that is attributed to an expressway when standing 100 feet away from it. Nearby trees on a breezy day will measure about 55 to 60 dB(A) on a decibel meter.
...
Sound decreases with the distance from its source by the square of that distance. That is, a noise at 200 feet will have only one-fourth of the intensity as that same sound heard from 100 feet away. Therefore, any sound emitted from a wind turbine will quickly blend into the background noise with increasing distance from the tower."

Application for Public Defender:
http://www.mncourts.gov/ruledocs/criminal/forms/RCRPform47.pdf
FORM

http://www.mncourts.gov/documents/0/Public/Rules/Crim_Rules__APPENDIX_OF_FORMS_eff_10-1-06.htm

Citation, 7/24/2009:

LINK

Demand Long Form Complaint

LINK

Long Form Complaint 7/31/2009

LINK

Initial Motion to Dismiss, inclusive long form complaint provided

LINK

Motion to Vacate and Reverse

LINK

WARRANT

LINK

Continuance

LINK

MOTION TO DISMISS, November 25, 2009

LINK

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, PREJUDICE, December 09, 2009

LINK

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, December 16, 2009

LINK

Memorandum Support Motion to Dismiss of 11/25/2009, January 13, 2010

LINK

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING DECEMBER 16, 2009 MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, January 14, 2010

LINK

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, January 17, 2010

LINK

COURT ORDER, received January 18, 2010

LINK

REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT, JANUARY 11, 2010

Mary Jane Duchene
Plaintiff: City of West St Paul
Defendant: Mary Jane Duchene

Case Number: 0:2010cr00012
Filed: January 13, 2010

Court: Minnesota District Court
Office: DMN Office [ Court Info ]

Notice of Electronic Filing 1/20/2010 LINK
REMAND: 2/19/2010

LINK

MOTION TO VACATE AND REVERSE OR FOR AMENDED LONG FORM COMPLAINT, INCLUSIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE, March 16, 2010

LINK

CLICK on image below to print

CLICK on image below to print map

Animal Abuse Case, Dakota County

Front Row (left to right): Police Officer John Reynold, ~~Officer Jennifer Hobbs, Sgt. Margaret Schult~~, Sgt. Audra Rawlings, ~~Officer Elizabeth Schult, Officer Joey McCollum~~, Officer Don Weber, Police Sergeant Tom Fangel.

http://www.ci.west-saint-paul.mn.us/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC={5AB2A4C2-6052-4911-A
F1B-3C51575DB80A}#{F9B67795-70B5-4335-B2BE-77C50FD85B54}
"Lost/Found Pets
If a pet has been found, and the pet has a license tag, call the West St. Paul Municipal Center at 651-552-4100. The City has a record of all licenses and owners. You can also inquire about lost or found pets by calling the petline at 651-322-2323."

Alice Krengel v. City WSP, case won, in Minnesota Supreme Court, one week before July 24, 2009

Supreme Court Decision 7/16/2009

http://www.murderbydiabetes.org/

Precedent, Due Process
and Long Form Complaint:

1997 - Dakota County Judge Harvis ruled that
prosecution must amend the long form complaint
to include both a statement of probable cause
and statement of case, or facts showing
basis and justification for the criminal charges.
The prosecution failed to amend the long
form complaint and the case was dismissed.
Dakota County Court file T2-97-24334

John Remington Graham

U.S. Supreme Court, U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), 92 U.S. 542

COLE V. ARKANSAS, 338 U. S. 345 (1949)

FARETTA V. CALIFORNIA, 422 U. S. 806 (1975)

Page 422 U. S. 818
III
This consensus is soundly premised. The right of self-representation finds support in the structure of the Sixth Amendment, as well as in the English and colonial jurisprudence from which the Amendment emerged.
A
The Sixth Amendment includes a compact statement of the rights necessary to a full defense:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Because these rights are basic to our adversary system of criminal justice, they are part of the "due process of law" that is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to defendants in the criminal courts of the States. [Footnote 14] The rights to notice, confrontation, and compulsory process, when taken together, guarantee that a criminal charge may be answered in a manner now considered fundamental to the fair administration of American justice -- through the calling and interrogation of favorable witnesses, the cross-examination of adverse witnesses, and the orderly introduction of evidence. In short, the Amendment constitutionalizes the right in an adversary criminal trial to make a defense as we know it. See California v. Green, 399 U. S. 149, 399 U. S. 176 (Harlan, J., concurring).

Contact DDA

Dog for Sale

905.13. Noisy Animals. A person must not keep, harbor, or maintain at any
place within the City, any animal that by its barking, howling, whining, or
other noises, unreasonably disturbs the peace and quiet of any person in the
vicinity. The phrase "unreasonably disturbs the peace and quiet" will
include, but is not limited to, the creation of any noise by the animals,
that can be heard by any person, including a law enforcement officer or
animal control officer, from a location outside of the building or premises
where the animal is being kept and that animal noise occurs repeatedly over
at least a five-minute period of time with one minute or less lapse of time
between each animal noise during the five minute period.
http://weststpaul.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={E1BEABEF-F6F6-4A
49-AD84-26C0AD909FE9}&DE={339E4B70-4A5F-47C2-9EE1-910401C66B7B}#905.13

Site Sponsors

Search:
The Web
Angelfire
Report Abuse « Previous Top 100 Next »

share: del.icio.us digg reddit furl facebook

West St. Paul, Minnesota, RE: Alledged Noise Violations

Citation:
LINK

Long Form Complaint
LINK

Initial Motion to Dismiss
LINK

Motion to Vacate and Reverse
LINK

WARRANT
LINK

Contiuance
LINK

MOTION TO DISMISS, November 25, 2009
LINK

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, PREJUDICE, December 09, 2009
LINK

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF EXCUPATORY EVIDENCE, December 16, 2009
LINK

REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT, JANUARY 11, 2010
LINK

Front Row (left to right): Police Officer John Reynold, Officer Jennifer Hobbs, Sgt. Margaret Schult, Sgt. Audra Rawlings, Officer Elizabeth Schult, Officer Joey McCollum, Officer Don Weber, Police Sergeant Tom Fangel.
http://www.ci.west-saint-paul.mn.us/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC=%7B5AB2A4C2-6052-4911-AF1B-3C51575DB80A%7D#%7BF9B67795-70B5-4335-B2BE-77C50FD85B54%7D"Lost/Found PetsIf a pet has been found, and the pet has a license tag, call the West St. Paul Municipal Center at 651-552-4100. The City has a record of all licenses and owners. You can also inquire about lost or found pets by calling the petline at 651-322-2323."

Site Sponsors

In a message dated 1/11/2010 4:20:21 P.M. Central Standard Time, DDAweb@comcast.net writes:
http://ddaexchange.org/1144OttawaAvenue/noticeremoveFC.pdf

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate6/2009dog/wspnoise.html

-- Diabetics/Disabled Anonymous, Non Profit Support Group and Alliance.1144 Ottawa AvenueWest St. Paul, MN USA 55118-2008Fax and Phone: 651 457 4376 DDAweb@comcast.net DDAvolunteers@comcast.net
http://www.ddasanctuary.org/

alternate link: http://www.ddaexchange.org/medcenter/medcenter.html

Frank J. Steinhauser Appellants v. City St.Paul Appellees

2009-07-28T06:29:00.000-07:00

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al.,
Appellants,
v.
City of St. Paul, et al.,
Appellees.
Sandra Harrilal, et al.,
Appellants,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Appellees.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et al.,
Appellants,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota in Civil File Nos. 0:04-cv-02632 JNE/SRN;
0:05-cv-00461 JNE/SRN and 0:05-cv-01348 JNE/SRN
________________________________
APPELLEES’ BRIEF
_____________________________

JOHN J. CHOI
Saint Paul City Attorney
LOUISE TOSCANO SEEBA (#292047)
Assistant City Attorney
750 City Hall and Courthouse
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
(651) 266-8770
Attorneys for Appellees

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These are civil cases alleging numerous causes of action: The federal Fair
Housing Act, the RICO Act, federal antitrust laws, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983,
1985, and various state law causes of action. The Steinhauser Appellants filed
their lawsuit on May 5, 2004. The Harrilal Appellants filed their lawsuit on March
3, 2005. The Gallagher Appellants filed their lawsuit on July 6, 2005.
(Hereinafter, the Landowners). All three cases were filed in the United States
District Court in the District of Minnesota and were assigned to Judge Joan N.
Ericksen and referred to Magistrate Judge Susan Richard Nelson. The cases were
consolidated, and throughout the litigation all motions were identical, heard on the
same date, and issued the same orders.
On June 15, 2007, the Landowners wrote an informal letter brief to
Magistrate Nelson requesting that the City1 be compelled to disclose employee
Magner’s personal records (tax filings, bank statements, and personal cell phone
records). On July 16, 2007, Magistrate Nelson denied the Landowners’ motion.

11:20 AM

Brief continued said...

Appellees have used “City” to designate 1 all Defendants: the City, Mayor, and City employees, unless otherwise noted.

The Landowners filed objections to the Magistrate’s Order. Judge Ericksen affirmed Magistrate Nelson’s denial of the Landowners’ motion to compel and
entered judgment on August 20, 2007.
On June 20, 2007, the Landowners filed a motion for sanctions against the City. On November 13, 2007, Magistrate Nelson denied the Landowners’ motion for sanctions. The Landowners filed objections to the Magistrate’s Order. Judge
Ericksen affirmed that ruling and entered judgment denying the Landowners’ motion for sanctions on January 3, 2008.
On February 25, 2008, the Landowners filed a renewed motion for sanctions against the City. On April 23, 2008, Magistrate Nelson denied the Landowners’ renewed motion for sanctions. An amended order denying the Landowners’
renewed motion for sanctions was signed by Magistrate Nelson on May 8, 2008.
The Landowners filed objections to the Magistrate’s Order. Judge Ericksen affirmed Magistrate Nelson’s denial of Landowners’ renewed motion for sanctions
and entered judgment on June 12, 2008.
On March 11, 2008, the City filed a motion for summary judgment. The
motion was continued until the Landowners’ renewed motion for sanctions was
decided. On September 12, 2008, the district court heard the City’s motion for summary judgment. In a fifty-three-page, December 18, 2008, Order, the district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment.

The Landowners appeal the district court’s Orders affirming the Magistrate Judge’s rulings on their motion to compel, motion for sanctions, and renewed
motion for sanctions. The Landowners also seek review of the district court’s
Order granting the City’s motion for summary judgment.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. CITY OF ST. PAUL HOUSING CODE AND ENFORCEMENT OF
THE CODE
Chapter 34 of the St. Paul Legislative Code (housing code) sets forth the
minimum property maintenance standards for all structures occupied or intended
to be occupied for residential purposes in the City. St. Paul, Minn., Code §§
34.01, 34.03 (1993). APP 001190-001191. The stated purpose of the housing code is to “protect the public health, safety and welfare in all structures and on all
premises.” Id. § 34.01. It “[e]stablishes minimum maintenance standards for all structures and premises for basic equipment and facilities for light, ventilation,
heating and sanitation; for safety from fire; for crime prevention; for space, use and location; and for safe and sanitary maintenance of all structures and
premises.” Id.

11:32 AM

Brief continued said...

In 2003, the City established DNHPI (Department of Neighborhood
Housing and Property Improvement) as an executive department responsible for
administering and enforcing the housing code. A 1-4.2 Randy Kelly, who was the Mayor at the time, appointed Andy Dawkins as the director of DNHPI. A 10. The
responsibilities of DNHPI included inspecting all buildings and properties as
required by the City codes; administering and enforcing laws regulating the
maintenance of residential property, including the City’s vacant building program
and the City’s rental registration program; and enforcing violations of the City’s
codes related to property maintenance. A 4. According to the DNHPI website,
DNHPI’s mission was to “keep the city clean, keep its housing habitable, and
make [its] neighborhoods the safest and most livable [of] anywhere in Minnesota.”
A 17. The DNHPI website identified closing down “problem properties” as one of
DNHPI’s priorities. Id. The DNHPI website described a “problem property” as
“[i]f you live next door to a problem property[,] you know it!” A 18. “Constant
calls to get rid of the junk, intolerable behavior by occupants, and guests, etc.” Id.
Problem properties included both rental and owner-occupied properties. Id.
During Dawkins’s tenure as Director, DNHPI enforced the housing code by
conducting proactive sweeps requested by City District Councils and responding
to citizen complaints. A 8, 9, 12, 14. According to the DNHPI website, to
respond to a citizen complaint, a housing inspector visited the subject property and
determined if a violation existed. A 20. If the complaint was founded, DNHPI
mailed a correction or an abatement order to the occupant and the property owner.

Dawkins created written rules and procedures for DNHPI, which were
publicly available from the DNHPI website. APP 001179-001188. These rules
stated that DNHPI’s goal was consistent application of the rules, but noted that
“universal application of the housing code” was not possible due to DNHPI’s
limited resources. APP 001180. Housing inspectors, therefore, had discretion in
their application of the rules, in their prioritization of cases, to determine which
problems received the closest scrutiny, and to achieve compliance through a
conversation with the property owner rather than issuing a work order or
misdemeanor tag. Id. To aid housing inspectors in exercising their discretion the
rules established the following priorities: serious health and safety cases, problem
properties, garbage and nuisance violations, falling down/dilapidated structures,
interior habitability cases, and structures with multiple violations. Id.

11:33 AM

Brief continued said...

Enforcement tools available to housing inspectors included orders to correct
or abate conditions, condemnation and vacant building registration, criminal
charges, and fees for excessive consumption of City services. A 19. In addition,
rental properties were subject to revocation of rental registration, evictions
initiated by the City Attorney, and City-initiated Tenant Remedies Actions
pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 504B.395, subd. 1(4) (2006). Id. At times, properties
not in compliance with the housing code were required to undergo a “code
compliance” inspection by the City’s Office of License, Inspections, and
7
Environmental Protection, which would evaluate the building’s structure,
plumbing, electrical condition, and mechanical condition. A 24-27.
A. Saint Paul Public Housing Agency
The St. Paul Public Housing Agency (PHA), a governmental entity separate
and distinct from the City, owns and manages 4300 units of public housing in the
City. A 30, 64. The United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) funds PHA’s public housing program through an operating
subsidy and capital improvement funds. A 30-31. PHA’s public housing includes
high-rise properties, family townhome developments, and scattered site properties,
which are single family or duplex properties located throughout the City. A 29,
35. The Landowners claim these scattered site properties are similar to their rental
properties. Steinhauser Third Amended Complaint ¶ 26; Harrilal Third Amended
Complaint ¶ 26; Gallagher Second Amended Complaint ¶ 28. According to PHA
documents, the scattered site properties’ tenant base is about 32% African-
American and 58% Asian/Pacific Islander. A 66.
PHA also operates the Section 8/Housing Choice Voucher program (HCV
program) for the City. A 31. HUD funds the HCV program. Id. PHA pays HCV
program funds directly to Landowners on behalf of households participating in the
HCV program. Id.

Brief continued said...

According to Jon Gutzmann, Executive Director of PHA, there is a shortage
of affordable housing in the City. A 40-41. About 6000 households are on the
waiting list for PHA public housing. A 41. Approximately 3000 households are
on the HCV program’s waiting list, which is closed. A 42-43. Although the
record does not reflect the demographic breakdown for the City, it is undisputed
that non-whites make up a disproportionate percentage of these waiting lists.
Gallagher ADD 000006.
PHA properties are subject to the federal Uniform Physical Condition
Standard (UPCS). A 45, 50-51. Properties owned by PHA also are subject to the
City’s codes, including the housing code. A 44, 52, 59, 64. According to Henry
Petro, Director of Maintenance for PHA, the City sends code enforcement orders
to a single contact person at PHA, who then forwards the order to the appropriate
PHA department. A 69-70. City housing inspectors have ordered repairs on PHA
homes, primarily for exterior deficiencies. A 73. The City rarely, if ever,
condemns a PHA scattered site property, declares a PHA scattered site property a
vacant building, or subjects a PHA scattered site property to a code compliance
inspection. A 61-63, 71-72, 74-75. The City has, however, condemned nonscattered
site PHA properties, including apartments in PHA high-rises. A 71.
HUD inspects a subset of PHA properties every two years. A 53-54. HUD
consistently rates PHA as a “high performer” in overall operations. A 76-82.
9
Between 2002 and 2005, PHA received scores between 88% and 90% for the
physical condition of its properties. A 79, 82. A score over 80% results in HUD
inspecting PHA properties every other year rather than every year. A 53-54.
In addition to undergoing HUD inspections, PHA properties are subject to
frequent inspections by the PHA itself. A 46. According to Al Hester, Housing
Policy Director for PHA, every PHA unit is subject to an annual preventative
maintenance inspection and an annual housekeeping inspection. A 55, 56-57.
PHA conducts yard-care and building-condition inspections of its scattered site
properties five times a year. A 47. PHA also conducts pest-control inspections of
its properties. A 58. Petro testified that PHA’s maintenance department employs
ninety-eight people. A 68. Seventy-seven of the maintenance department
employees are maintenance line workers. Id. PHA documents indicate that in
2002, PHA completed 28,577 non-emergency work orders and 6,573 emergency
work orders. A 84. PHA makes routine repairs in approximately 3.6 days and
emergency repairs within 24 hours. Id. In the last couple of years the PHA has
sold 18 of its scattered site housing units to raise funds necessary for capital
improvements on the other housing units in its portfolio. A 36-39.
Private-sector properties rented to HCV program tenants must meet the
federal Housing Quality Standards (HQS) set forth in 24 C.F.R. § 982.401 (2008),
as well as the City’s housing code. According to Hester, the HQS is a lower

8:34 PM

Brief continued said...

standard than the UPCS. A 51. In 1995, the City Fire Department compared the
City’s housing code to the HQS and concluded that the housing code was stricter
than the HQS for seventy-seven of the ninety-four items compared, or 82% of the
items. APP 000109. The housing code was as strict as the HQS for twelve items,
and the housing code was less strict than the HQS for three items. Id.
B. Landowners
The Landowners are current or former owners of residential rental
properties in the City. Of the sixteen Landowners, three are non-whites. Harrilal
Third Amended Complaint ¶ 92. The Landowners describe Sandra Harrilal as
“Black American” and Bee and Lamena Vue as Asian-American.3 Id. ¶ 92, ¶ 94.
According to the Landowners, a majority of their tenant base is African-American.
APP 000118, 000136, 000461, 000659, 000829, 000838.
Throughout their Complaints, the Landowners allege the City committed
multiple acts of wrongdoing. See generally, Steinhauser Third Amended
Complaint; Harrilal Third Amended Complaint, Gallagher Second Amended
Complaint. They challenge the legitimacy of code enforcement orders they
received and claim that neighboring properties also had code violations but did not
receive code enforcement orders. Id. They claim City housing inspectors and law
enforcement personnel conducted unconstitutional searches or inspections of their
11
rental properties. Id. The Landowners challenge the designation of certain
properties as vacant buildings and the legality of code compliance inspections. Id.
They contend that PHA received preferential treatment from the City with respect
to housing code enforcement while the City took a “heavy enforcement” and “code
to the max” approach with the Landowners. Id. In addition, they claim the City
targeted them for code enforcement because they rented to protected classes. Id.
Finally, the Landowners claim the City intentionally delayed mailings or
intentionally sent mailings containing code enforcement orders to wrong addresses
to prevent them from responding before a deadline expired. Id.
C. Landowners’ Statement of Facts
The Landowners’ statement of facts is rife with misstatements, taking
testimony out of context, recitation of irrelevant facts, and blatant disregard of the
actual facts. For example, in Gallagher’s and Steinhauser/Harrilal’s briefs they
continuously claim the phrases “force ownership change strategy” and “eviction
strategy” are evidence of discrimination. Gallagher Br. and Steinhauser/Harrilal
Br. throughout. The Landowners simply string these phrases together from Andy
Dawkins’ deposition exhibits (his handwritten notes) and pass them off as a
strategy of discrimination. It is particularly troubling that the Landowners skip the
portion of Andy Dawkins’ deposition where he explains what his handwritten
notes regarding these phrases mean. Gallagher ADD 000086 and 000087 skipping

8:35 PM

Brief continued said...

pages 562, 563, 564 and 565 of Dawkins’ deposition. In his deposition, while
going through his handwritten notes, Dawkins explained that ‘the force
responsible ownership strategy I have said several times was to make sure that we
stay with the property, to either get the property owner to get it into compliance, or
get the property owner to sell the property to someone who could get the property
into compliance.” A 15. The “eviction strategy” that the Landowners claim is
evidence of discrimination is the Minnesota law that allows a landlord who is
intimidated by a particular problem tenant to assign the eviction to the City. A 6-
7, 13. The “force responsible ownership change strategy” is not evidence of
discrimination, but rather efforts by the City to make sure that landlords are
responsible owners who keep their properties in safe condition for renters. The
“eviction strategy” is merely a law that allows landlords who need help evicting
problem tenants the ability to assign those evictions to the City. The Landowners
throughout their brief continue to use the terms “force ownership change strategy”
and “eviction strategy” as evidence of discrimination. The facts do not support
this and nothing could be further from the truth.
The Landowners also ignore Dawkins’ explanation that code enforcement
must be “consistent” and, in contradiction to this, claim that code enforcement was
inconsistent. Gallagher Br. pp. 7, 8. The Landowners take issue with factual
bulletins that simply reiterate the law. See Gallagher Br. pp. 9, 17 and 18 (an
13
administrative search warrant could lead to a condemnation, civil law has a lower
standard of proof then criminal law). The Landowners also cite a number of
deposition transcripts that have absolutely nothing to do with race. See e.g.,
Gallagher Br. pp. 10, 11.
With regard to testimony of code inspection officer Steve Schiller, Schiller
stated he was told to do a thorough inspection and that the orders that he wrote up
are only unfair from the standpoint that the homeowner was in very poor health.
Gallagher Br. p. 13. There is absolutely no evidence that code enforcement had
anything to do with anything other than the condition of the property.
The Landowners continue to cite documents that do not assist their
argument and are taken completely out of context. For example, the Landowners
cite an email wherein Jane Prince alleges that a neighbor may be using the
complaint-based system unfairly. See Gallagher Br. p. 15. There is no evidence
that the City was using the code enforcement unfairly which is the heart of the
Landowners’ allegations. Likewise, the Landowners cite a Dawkins’ memo which
he circulated to brainstorm with his department on how any parts of City
government may be susceptible to racism and unfair practices and what they could
do to fix it. APP 000008. The Landowners, in an amazing twist and complete
contradiction to the memo, rely on it in order to support their arguments that the

8:53 PM

Brief continued said...

City was condoning actions that would negatively affect minorities. See Gallagher
Br. p. 16.
The Landowners improperly state that Dean Koehnen was sent out to a
property because of his size. See Gallagher Br. p. 19. The email correspondence
Landowners cite clearly states that “The latest update might involve code.
Apparently the dogs at the property have been pooping on the main floor porch
which is raised off the back at the address and garbage has been piling up in the
yard.” APP 000016. As the email correspondence states, but Gallagher
Landowners completely ignore, this information involves code enforcement and
that is why it was forwarded to code enforcement. Furthermore, there is no
evidence that Dean Koehnen was ever used to intimidate anyone. To support this
allegation the Landowners rely on an email regarding someone named “Pam” in
Crime Prevention who allegedly said something to code enforcement officer
Jackie Girling. Ms. Girling then stated in an email that what Pam said sounded to
Girling like Pam was hoping that Koehnen could strong arm someone. Gallagher
Br. p. 19. At best this is hearsay from someone named Pam who was never
identified and never deposed. Likewise, Girling was never deposed. Furthermore,
that Pam hoped Koehnen would strong-arm someone is not evidence that Koehnen
actually did.
15
The Landowners rely on the opinion of the expert Don Hedquist that
Defendants were in violation of State law in removing grandfathering protections
for existing building through the “Code Compliance Certification process” in
support of their argument that the district court erred when it granted the City
summary judgment. Steinhauser Br. pp. 7-8, 35. A district court performs the
same role at the summary judgment phase as at trial; “an expert’s report is not
talisman against summary judgment.” Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d 55, 66 (2d
Cir. 1997). The district court functions as a gatekeeper who “separates expert
opinion evidence based on ‘good grounds’ from subjective speculation that
masquerades as scientific knowledge.” Presley v. Lakewood Eng’g & Mfg. Co.,
553 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Glastetter v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 252
F.3d 986, 989 (8th Cir. 2001)).
Even on a motion for summary judgment, “an expert’s opinion is not a
substitute for a plaintiff's obligation to provide evidence of facts that support the
applicability of the expert's opinion to the case.” Concord Boat Corp. v.
Brunswick Corp., 207 F.3d 1039, 1057 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Virgin Atl.
Airways Ltd. v. British Airways PLC, 69 F. Supp. 2d 571, 580 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)).
Speculative expert testimony is not competent proof and contributes “nothing to a
‘legally sufficient evidentiary basis.’” Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440, 454
(2000) (citing Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509

8:55 PM

Brief continued said...

U.S. 209, 242 (1993)). “An expert’s opinions that are without factual basis and
are based on speculation or conjecture are . . . inappropriate material for
consideration on a motion for summary judgment.” Major League Baseball
Props., Inc. v. Salvino, Inc., 542 F.3d 290, 311 (2d Cir. 2008). “[S]ummary
judgment may be appropriate if an expert opinion is fundamentally unsupported
and therefore of no assistance to the trier of fact.” Eckelkamp v. Beste, 315 F.3d
863, 868 (8th Cir. 2002); see also Viterbo v. Dow Chem. Co., 826 F.2d 420, 422
(5th Cir. 1987) (stating that although the federal rules of evidence “expanded the
acceptable basis for expert opinion [,] . . . this expansion does not extend to ‘make
summary judgment impossible whenever a party has produced an expert to support
its position’”) (quoting Merit Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 569 F.2d 666, 673
(D.C. Cir. 1977) (citation omitted)).
Don Hedquist's opinions are not the facts in the case, nor are they helpful in
determining any issue in the case. In considering the City’s motion for summary
judgment, the district court relied on the facts. On summary judgment, the district
court was presented with and considered Hedquist’s report. The court was under
no obligation to take Hedquist’s opinions as fact. In fact, it was up to the court to
determine whether Hedquist’s opinion was based on “good grounds,” such as
reliability and relevance, or mere speculation. Furthermore, Hedquist’s opinion
cannot act as a substitute for the Landowners’ obligation to provide evidentiary
17
facts supporting Hedquist’s opinion. None of the facts presented by Landowners
support Hedquist’s opinion. Without such factual basis, Hedquist’s opinion is
inappropriate material for consideration on a summary judgment motion.
Hedquist’s opinion does not contribute to any legally sufficient evidentiary basis
to overcome a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, Hedquist’s expert
opinion is incapable of supporting the Landowner’s argument that the district
court erred when it granted the City summary judgment.
STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW
I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS REVIEWED DE NOVO
The district court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Barge
v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 87 F.3d 256, 258 (8th Cir. 1996).
II. DISCOVERY RULINGS ARE REVIEWED FOR AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION
The district court’s discovery orders are reviewed very narrowly and will be
upheld, unless there was a gross abuse of discretion. Derby v. Godfather’s Pizza,
45 F.3d 1212, 1215 (8th Cir. 1995).
The district court’s decision to issue [or not issue] sanctions for discovery
abuse is reviewed using the “abuse of discretion” standard. Baker v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 86 F.3d 811, 816 (8th Cir. 1996).

8:55 PM

Brief continued said...

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The Landowners are or were owners of residential rental properties in the
City. Like any property owner with substandard housing in violation of City
codes, the Landowners were subject to the City’s lawful code enforcement. The
Landowners claim that the City enforced its codes against them in a manner that
violated state and federal laws. The Landowners claim that the City violated the
Fair Housing Act; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983; and civil RICO laws through its
enforcement actions. The Gallagher Landowners claim the City violated 42
U.S.C. § 1985 and violated various state laws.4 The Gallagher Landowners claim
that Chapters 34, 43, 45, and 51 of the City’s Legislative Code are
unconstitutionally vague.
The Landowners have not provided any evidence to substantiate their
causes of action and avoid the City’s request for summary judgment. Therefore,
the district court Order should be affirmed.
The Landowners also request that this Court reverse the district court’s
ruling on the Landowners’ motion to compel and the original and renewed
motions for sanctions. The district court did not abuse its discretion when ruling
on these motions. Accordingly, the district court’s Orders should be affirmed.
19
ARGUMENT
I. IT WAS PROPER FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO GRANT
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE CITY’S FAVOR WHEN THE
EVIDENCE PRESENTED NO GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL
FACT FOR TRIAL
A. Fair Housing Act
Section 3604 of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) makes it unlawful to refuse
to sell or rent to any person or discriminate in the terms, conditions, or privileges
of sale or rental of a building on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial
status, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)-(b). The FHA also makes it
“unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any persons in the
exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on
account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or
enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by” § 3604. 42 U.S.C. § 3617.
The Landowners claim that they rent to a higher percentage of African-
Americans than the PHA does and that this difference is the key to their FHA
claims. Gallagher ADD 000010, A 260.
1. Disparate Impact
To succeed on their disparate impact claim, the Landowners must show the
facially-neutral policy results in, or can be predicted to result in, a disparate impact
on protected classes compared to a relevant population. See Darst-Webbe Tenant
Ass’n. Bd. v. St. Louis Hous. Auth., 417 F.3d 898, 902 (8th Cir. 2005) [hereinafter

9:13 PM

Brief continued said...

Darst-Webbe]. If the Landowners make such a showing, the City must
demonstrate that the objected to policy has a “manifest relationship” to legitimate,
non-discriminatory policy objectives and “is justifiable on the ground that it is
necessary to” the attainment of those objectives. Id. If the City makes that
showing, the burden shifts back to the Landowners to show that a viable
alternative means is available to achieve the legitimate policy objectives without
discriminatory effects. Id. at 902-03.
The Steinhauser and Harrilal Landowners failed to identify in writing the
facially-neutral policy with which Steinhauser and Harrilal Landowners take issue.
Steinhauser/ Harrilal Br. pp. 26-32. Therefore, the City analyzes Steinhauser and
Harrilal Landowners’ claim on appeal assuming that the facially-neutral policy is
that which they identified for the first time at oral argument - - the City’s
enforcement of the City’s housing code instead of enforcing the federal HQS.
Gallagher ADD 000011. In order to support their claim, Steinhauser and Harrilal
Landowners allege, in sum and substance, that since African-Americans make up a
disproportionate percentage of low-income tenants, and compliance with the
City’s housing code increases the cost of low-income housing, that they have
shown that there is a disparate impact on African-Americans. However,
Steinhauser and Harrilal Landowners must do more than show that the housing
code increases the cost of low-income housing and that African-Americans tend to
The Landowners 5 only include a selection of the document in their
Appendix (APP 001442-001447) and one page that the Landowners specifically
cite is heavily redacted. The City, in its effort to uncover the document in the
exchanged discovery, actually found that the document with the same bates
21
have lower incomes. See Reinhart v. Lincoln County, 482 F.3d 1225, 1230 (10th
Cir. 2007) (“It is not enough for the [plaintiffs] to show that (1) a regulation would
increase housing costs and (2) members of a protected group tend to be less
wealthy than others. It is essential to compare who could afford the housing
before the new regulations with who could afford it afterwards.”). To make a
prima facie case of disparate impact, Steinhauser and Harrilal Landowners need to
offer evidence establishing the different costs of rent for African-Americans under
the City’s housing code and federal HQS and the percentages of African-
Americans who could not afford the rent because the City enforced the housing
code in lieu of enforcing federal HQS. The Steinhauser and Harrilal Landowners
provided no comparison and no such evidence to support this claim.
On pages 29 and 30 of Steinhauser and Harrilal Landowners’ brief, the
Landowners claim that the City made admissions of disparate impact. The
Landowners cite page 23 of a City of St. Paul 2000 Consolidated Plan and
Submission, and an unnumbered and heavily redacted page of what appears to be
from the same document. Nothing in this document supports the Landowners’
contention that the City admits that its code enforcement has a disparate impact on
African-Americans.5 The statement upon which Steinhauser and Harrilal
number was a different document altogether. Therefore, it is unclear to the City if
this is a document exchanged during discovery, or something new upon which the
Landowners have chosen to rely. In any event, it does not further their claim that
the City’s code enforcement had a disparate impact on African-Americans. A 261.
22

9:14 PM

Brief continued said...

Landowners rely on in order to show disparate impact states that the City does not
have data related to the race or ethnicity of households with housing needs. See
Steinhauser/Harrilal Br. p. 29. It therefore appears that the Steinhauser and
Harrilal Landowners are now relying on the lack of data in order to support their
disparate impact claim, when it is undisputed that the claim needs data and
evidence to support it. Likewise, the 2000 Consolidated Plan that states that new
immigrants oftentimes are heavily concentrated in central cities does not provide
the statistical comparison or evidence that Steinhauser and Harrilal Landowners
need in order to sustain a disparate impact claim.
Even if Steinhauser and Harrilal Landowners could show a disparate impact
in the City’s application of its codes versus the federal HQS, the next
determination would be whether the City could satisfy its burden to prove that any
disparate impact was justifiable as necessary to achieve legitimate policy
objectives. See Darst-Webbe, 417 F.3d at 901 (citing Oti Kaga, Inc. v. S.D. Hous.
Dev. Auth., 342 F.3d 871, 833 (8th Cir. 2003)) (applying a burden shifting
analysis to a FHA disparate impact claim in finding a public fund allocation
decision “justifiable on the ground it is necessary to [the defendant’s] exercise of its funding responsibilities”). The City identified numerous legitimate policy
objectives to support its code enforcement including: providing minimum property
maintenance standards, keeping the City clean and housing habitable, and making
the City’s neighborhoods the safest and most livable anywhere in America.
Steinhauser and Harrilal Landowners never dispute that these objectives are
legitimate and nondiscriminatory, that the enforcement of the housing code has a
manifest relationship to these objectives, or that the enforcement of housing code
is necessary to achieve those objectives.
Furthermore, Steinhauser and Harrilal Landowners can only prevail on their
disparate impact claim by showing a viable alternative exists that would allow the
City to achieve the same objectives without discriminatory effect. See Darst-
Webbe, 417 F.3d at 903. Steinhauser and Harrilal Landowners provide no such
alternative and, therefore, their disparate impact claim fails.6
The Gallagher Landowners flat out disagree with the Reinhart, 482 F.3d
1225, holding and claim that the analysis of difference in rents under the federal
HQS and the City’s housing code is “nearly impossible.” Gallagher Br. pp. 30-31.

9:16 PM

Brief continued said...

To the extent that Plaintiffs 6 are relying upon Gallagher Landowners’
argument that the Problem Property 2000 program is a viable alternative, the City
relies upon and incorporates by reference the arguments relating to Problem
Property 2000 below.

Gallagher Landowners make no attempts with statistical data or any other sort of
analysis in order to support their disparate impact claim.
To prove a fair housing disparate impact claim statistics or some other
analytical method is invariably used. Andrews v. City of New York, No. CV-01-
7333, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30290 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2004) (citing
Tsombanidis v. W. Haven Fire Dep’t, 352 F.3d 565, 575 (2nd Cir. 2003)). A 85-
97. In addition, Gallagher Landowners must also use the appropriate comparison
groups and first identify members of a protected group that are affected by the
neutral policy and then similarly situated persons who are not affected by the
policy. Id.; see also Brown v. Omaha Hous. Auth., No. 8:05-CV-423, 2007 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 53308 (D. Neb. July 20, 2007) (disparate impact claim generally
proved with statistical evidence). A 98-99. In the present case, however,
Gallagher Landowners provide no statistical proof or any other sort of analytical
method demonstrating the City enforced the housing code more aggressively
against them as compared to other landowners who have nonprotected class
tenants. In fact, the record reflects quite the opposite.
Had Gallagher Landowners attempted to support their claims with statistical
or analytical evidence, they would have discovered that there was no illegal
targeting. The record simply falls short of supporting Gallagher Landowners’
contention that the City maintained a policy which had a significant adverse
25
impact on a protected class and, therefore, Gallagher Landowners’ disparate
impact claim should be dismissed.
Gallagher Landowners also claim that Problem Property 2000 (PP2000) is a
viable alternative to the City enforcing its codes. See Gallagher Br. p. 36.
Gallagher Landowners do nothing more than argue that the program was
successful and do not put forth any evidence showing that PP2000 would
accomplish any different results concerning code enforcement’s impact on
protected class tenants. Gallagher Landowners cite to evidence indicating selected
City employees thought PP2000 worked well, but this evidence does not establish
how PP2000 ended the alleged affects on African-American tenants. As a result,
Gallagher Landowners do not successfully identify an alternative policy the City
should have used and, therefore, cannot maintain their disparate impact claim.
The district court properly dismissed all Landowners’ disparate impact claims as a
matter of law.
2. Disparate Treatment
The Landowners claim they have presented evidence of disparate treatment
due to City’s alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act. In their briefs, the
Landowners claim there was considerable evidence going to intentional
discrimination to meet the summary judgment standard.

10:11 AM

Brief continued said...

Disparate treatment, which occurs when some people are treated less
favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,
“is the most easily understood type of discrimination.” Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v.
U.S., 431 U.S. 324, 335 n.15 (1975). Proof of discriminatory motive is crucial to a
disparate treatment claim. Id. To survive summary judgment on a disparate
treatment claim, a party must present either “direct evidence” of discrimination or
create “the requisite inference of unlawful discrimination” under the framework
set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 (1973). See
Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 2004); East-Miller v.
Lake County Highway Dep’t, 421 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2005) (distinguishing
between “direct evidence” and McDonnell Douglas framework in FHA context).
“[D]irect evidence is ‘showing a specific link between the alleged
discriminatory animus and the challenged decision, sufficient to support a finding
by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated’” the
adverse action. Griffith, 387 F.3d at 736 (quoting Thomas v. First Nat’l Bank of
Wynne, 111 F.3d 64, 66 (8th Cir. 1997)). “Direct evidence does not include stray
remarks, statements by nondecisionmakers, or statements by decisionmakers
unrelated to the decisional process itself.” Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co., 462
F.3d 925, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citations omitted). See also
27
Harris v. Itzhaki, 183 F.3d 1043, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying direct evidence
exclusions in FHA context).
A party with direct evidence that illegal discrimination motivated the
adverse action does not need the three-part McDonnell Douglas analysis to survive
summary judgment, even if the strong evidence is circumstantial. See Griffith,
387 F.3d at 736. A party who lacks evidence that clearly points to the presence of
an illegal motive, however, can only avoid summary judgment by creating the
requisite inference of unlawful discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas
framework. Id. Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, once the plaintiff
establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant
to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Gilbert v.
Des Moines Area Cmty. Coll., 495 F.3d 906, 914 (8th Cir. 2007). If the defendant
offers a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, the burden shifts back to the
plaintiff to put forth evidence showing the defendant’s proffered explanation is a
pretext for unlawful discrimination. Id.
The Landowners in this case did not base their disparate treatment argument
on the McDonnell Douglas framework. Therefore, the district court was correct in
considering whether the Landowners have offered evidence showing a specific
link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the challenged decision that is
sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate
28
criterion actually motivated the adverse action. The Landowners have

10:12 AM

Brief continued said...

failed to
offer any such evidence. Alternatively, should this Court determine that the
Landowners did in fact argue their disparate treatment claim under the McDonnell
Douglas framework, the Landowners have still failed to establish the requisite
inference of unlawful discrimination. The district court was correct in dismissing
the Landowners’ disparate treatment claim.
The Landowners claim that an email from Jane Prince, a legislative aide to
former City Council member Jay Benanav, in December of 2005 demonstrates that
the City knew its code enforcement targeted minorities yet dismissed the
discriminatory effect and took no remedial action. Prince’s email, however,
related to a call from a City resident who was concerned that her neighbors were
calling in housing complaints against her because she was a person of color. In
the email, Prince stated that there was a “very real possibility that people of color
are unfairly targeted by the city’s complaint[-]based system” and that a block
meeting would be set up to discuss the concern with neighbors. APP 000007.
What this email demonstrates is that the resident was concerned about the
neighbors targeting her on the basis of race. What this email does not demonstrate
is the resident’s concern that the City was targeting her on the basis of her race.
Prince’s email makes clear that the City took the resident’s concerns seriously and
wanted to solve the issue. As the district court correctly decided, the Prince email
29
is not evidence of discriminatory animus on the part of the City. Nor does the
Prince email establish the requisite inference of unlawful discrimination under the
McDonnell Douglas framework.
The Landowners claim that a statement Dawkins made to Bill Cullen, a real
estate investor, is direct evidence of discrimination. It is the Landowners’
contention that Dawkins suggested to landlords that maybe the solution for the
City was to try to increase the quality of properties to the point that the lower tier
of less qualified tenants would have no places to rent. Cullen testified that
Dawkins asked a group of landlords how the landlords would like it if they didn’t
have to deal with tenants on the bottom of the market – “if all those tenants that
are at the bottom . . . were no longer in St. Paul.” Steinhauser/Harrilal Br. p. 37.
Although Dawkins’ statement was racially neutral on its face, the Landowners
contend that the statement reveals a racially discriminatory mind set. The context
of Dawkins’ statement, however, exposes the fatal flaw in the Landowners’
assertion.
According to Cullen’s testimony, Dawkins made the statement in question
during a meeting regarding improving conditions in the City’s Payne/Phalen
neighborhood. One suggestion as to how to improve the neighborhood was that
landlords screen their tenants. The suggestion prompted a discussion of the
attributes of low-income tenants. To illustrate, Cullen drew a box with the best

10:14 AM

Brief continued said...

tenants, those with high income, the best credit and the least criminal histories, at
the top. The worst tenants, those with poor credit scores, criminal records, poor
rental histories and low income, were at the bottom of the box. Race was not one
of the factors discussed related to either type of tenant. Even assuming Dawkins
did want to get rid of “bottom of the box” tenants, his statement was race-neutral
and reveals no discriminatory animus. See Twymon, 462 F.3d at 934 (finding that
race-neutral statements, without more, do not demonstrate racial animus). To
draw an inference of discriminatory intent would be to resort to speculation, which
a court must not do. See id.
The Landowners also point to a statement Dawkins made to Sara Anderson,
a housing advocate, as evidence of Dawkins’ racial animus. According to
Anderson, Dawkins stated that City officials and employees “don’t want lowincome
people renting in the City.” Steinhauser/Harrilal Br. p. 37. However,
Anderson also testified that she never heard Dawkins make any other negative
statements about low-income tenants. In addition, Anderson testified that she has
never heard any other City employee say he or she did not want low-income
people renting in the City. As the district court correctly concluded, there is no
evidence to suggest that Dawkins’ facially race-neutral statement arose from racial
animus on the part of Dawkins.
31
The Landowners further point to the deposition testimony of former Legal
Aid attorney Perry DeStefano as direct evidence of discrimination. In 2004,
DeStefano wrote to the City Council in order to notify the City that he believed
neighbors were making false allegations to police due to his client’s, a tenant,
protected class status. Discriminatory animus on the part of the neighbors is not
evidence of discriminatory animus on the part of the City. DeStefano also testified
that he thought the City used housing code enforcement and other tactics to evict
protected class members. These tactics included failing to mail corrective orders,
“backdating” housing inspection reports and delayed mailings. None of these
actions taken by the City indicates intentional discrimination on the basis of race.
The corrective orders were properly mailed to the building owner, a resident of
Georgia. The City’s decision to mail correction orders to the property owner in
accordance with the St. Paul Legislative Code § 40.06 is not direct evidence of
intentional discrimination. As to the backdating of letters, the Landowners
presented no evidence to suggest that any letter was in fact backdated instead of
merely delayed. Further, no evidence suggests that any delay in mailing letters
was intentional, motivated by race of the tenants, or anything other than clerical
error.
Appellants also point to statements housing code inspectors Lisa Martin and
Dean Koehnen allegedly made to Steve Johnson. Johnson alleges that when asked

10:14 AM

Brief continued said...

why they were issuing so many orders on his rental properties, Martin and
Koehnen replied by describing Johnson's tenants as “trouble makers,” “out of
towners,” “low life tenants,” “bottom of the barrel,” “undesirable tenants” and “the
black plague come like roaches.” Harrilal Br. p. 38; Steinhauser Br. p. 37. There
is no evidence to suggest that Martin and Koehnen's statements arose from the
racial animus of either inspector.
Similarly, Caty Royce testified that the City has a history of discriminatory
demolition of protected class housing. A bald accusation without supporting facts
does not lead to the conclusion that the City’s practices were indeed driven by
racial animus. In addition, Royce pointed to the neighbor’s use of code
enforcement to “get rid of her Black tenants.” Harrilal Br. p. 39; Steinhauser Br.
p. 38. Again, discriminatory animus by the neighbors is not evidence of
discriminatory animus by the City. Nor is Royce’s opinion direct evidence of
discriminatory animus by the City.
The Landowners also argue that the City’s decision to terminate the PP2000
Program, through which the City worked with landlords to achieve their
compliance with the housing code, is direct evidence of discrimination.
Steinhauser/Harrilal Br. p. 39. The Landowners contrast the City’s decision to
terminate the PP2000 Program with the City’s working relationship with the PHA.
Id. The Landowners do not explain how the City’s working relationship with the

10:15 AM

Brief continued said...

PHA furthers the Landowners’ claim that the City had a discriminatory animus
which motivated it to terminate the PP2000 Program. The Landowners’ entire
argument regarding PP2000 seems to be that since there are individuals who
thought the program worked well, the City’s decision to discontinue the program
must be evidence of discriminatory animus. However, lacking in this conclusory
statement is any actual evidence of discrimination. Furthermore, the PHA has a
working relationship with the City where it pays the City for community policing
which is above and beyond regular police service provided to the PHA and all
other properties. A 32-34. The City is not providing this service to the PHA free
of charge.
The Landowners also claim that they did not receive any financial help from
the City or the federal government to assist them in renovations of their older
properties. Steinhauser/Harrilal Br. p. 39. The Landowners do not explain how
the fact that they were not provided government aid in order to run their business
furthers their claim that the City had a discriminatory intent. As I am sure even
the Landowners would agree, the City or the federal government are not obligated
to provide private business financial resources.

10:17 AM

8th Cir_RICO said...

Here's a link for 8th Cir. Cases
for your research
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opns/opFrame.html

9:39 AM

Brief continued said...

B. Constitutional Claims
1. § 1981, § 1982 Claims
The Landowners challenge the district court’s dismissal of their claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1982. The Landowners are required to show
discriminatory intent in order to prevail on their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, §
1982. Dirden v. HUD, 86 F.3d 112, 114 (8th Cir. 1996). On appeal, in an effort
to present evidence of discriminatory intent, the Landowners rely on 2922
Sherman Ave. Tenants’ Ass’n v. D.C., 444 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
In 2922 Sherman, the court found that there was evidence that defendant
District of Columbia intentionally discriminated against tenants on the basis of
race when at first 75 buildings evenly distributed throughout the city were
recommended for a property list that may end in closure of the buildings. Id. at
682. Thereafter, the list was narrowed to 27 buildings that were in an area where
Hispanic residents were 4.1 times as great as the percentage of Hispanics in the
city as a whole. Id. Ultimately, 5 buildings were closed in an area that had an
average of Hispanics 4.4 times greater than the percentage of Hispanics in the city.
Id.
The Landowners rely on maps they have attached to their affidavits to liken
their case to 2922 Sherman. However, the Landowners’ random selection of maps
does not further their cause. In 2922 Sherman, the tenants were able to identify a
35
list of evenly distributed properties that were first put on the property list. Id. The
tenants were then able to identify a second list that narrowed the properties down
to those that were 4.1 times more populated with Hispanic residents. Id. And
then, further, were able to show a list of 5 properties that were closed in an area
that had 4.4 times more Hispanic residents. Id. The maps produced by the
Landowners in the case at bar make absolutely no comparison at all. The
Landowners have no evidence that other properties in similar condition to their
properties underwent any less code enforcement because of the race of the tenants.
The Landowners completely fail to connect code enforcement to race. At best, the
Landowners’ maps only show the neighborhoods in which they claim to have
owned properties, and that no matter where they owned properties or what the race
of the tenant, they could be subject to the City’s lawful code enforcement.
The Landowners also claim that “the City’s discriminatory environment and
attitude in housing code enforcement, force ownership change strategy and
eviction strategy were known by the City to eliminate affordable housing and to
have a disproportionate impact on protected class members.” Gallagher Br. at p.
48. This statement does not show any discriminatory intent on behalf of the City
and instead is conclusory and without evidentiary support.
Landowners rely on their claim that the City had an “animus toward rental
properties (Andy Dawkins’ own statements).” Steinhauser/Harrilal Br. p. 54;

9:40 PM

Brief continued said...

Gallagher Br. p. 49. The Landowners did not identify any statements to support
this claim and, in any event, the Landowners are alleging an animus towards rental
property, not anything that relates to race at all.
The Landowners also claim that there is “a complaint-based code
enforcement system that has a problem with targeting people of color (Jane
Prince’s email and Dawkins’ memo), and getting rid of the bottom tier of tenants
and low-income people in the City (Cullen’s and Anderson’s testimony).”
Steinhauser/Harrilal Br. p. 54; Gallagher Br. p. 49. First, the complaint-based
system of which Landowners Steinhauser and Harrilal rely upon and Prince’s
email concerning it, provide absolutely no evidence to support the Landowners’
claims that the City had discriminatory intent. The email is clearly regarding
neighbors’ possible discriminatory motives, not the City’s. Furthermore, the
Landowners rely on a statement regarding “bottom tier of tenants” and “lowincome
people.” On their face, those statements have nothing to do with race and
there is no evidence to support Landowners’ § 1981 and § 1982 claims.
Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Landowners’ § 1981 and § 1982
claims.
2. § 1983 Claims
The Landowners make claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations
of their constitutional rights under the 14th and 5th Amendments to the
The Landowners abandoned 7 their claims under the 4th Amendment to
the Constitution.
37
Constitution.7 Success on a § 1983 claim requires a showing of: “(1) [a] violation
of a constitutional right, (2) committed by a state actor, (3) who acted with the
requisite culpability and causation to violate the constitutional right.” Shrum v.
Kluck, 249 F.3d 773, 777 (8th Cir. 2001).
3. 14th Amendment
The Landowners allege violations of their 14th Amendment right to equal
protection as a result of the City’s code enforcement policies. The equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires state actors to treat similarly
situated people alike and permits state actors to treat dissimilarly situated people
dissimilarly. Gamely v. Minneapolis Park & Rec. Bd., 491 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir.
2007). As a threshold matter, the Landowners must establish that the City treated
them differently from similarly situated landowners. Id. In addition to unequal
treatment, the Landowners must also show intentional or purposeful
discrimination. See Lewis v. Jacks, 486 F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir. 2007).
The Landowners simply put forth no evidence showing intentional
discrimination on behalf of the City. The Landowners continue to cite “force
ownership change strategy and eviction strategy” as if stringing together words
from Andy Dawkins’ notes, without more, is enough to provide evidence of

9:41 PM

Brief continued said...

intentional discrimination. Gallagher Br. at pp. 44, 45 and Steinhauser/Harrilal
Br. p. 52. These phrases are not evidence of intentional discrimination, but what
Andy Dawkins had in his notes to explain his strategy to make sure that those who
owned rental properties were those who had the ability and desire to keep the
property safe for its renters. The City has the legal right to take over evictions for
landlords when the landlord could not or did not want to follow through with an
eviction proceeding because of the tenants they had. Therefore, these phrases are
not evidence of intentional discrimination and the Landowner’ equal protection
claim based on race fails. See id.
The Landowners make a “class-of-one” equal protection argument based on
what they describe as the City’s preferential treatment of the PHA. The purpose of
a class-of-one equal protection claim is “to secure every person within the state’s
jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned
by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly-constituted
agents.” Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). In order to
prevail on their class-of-one claim, the Landowners must show they have been
“intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no
rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Id.; see also, Costello v. Mitchell
Pub. Sch. Dist. 79, 266 F.3d 916, 921 (8th Cir. 2001).
39
The Landowners have provided no evidence to support the claim that they
have been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that
there is no rational basis for that treatment. Therefore, the Landowners’ class-ofone
claim fails.
Even if the Landowners could show that the PHA properties received
preferential treatment from the City, the Landowners would still be required to
show there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment between the
Landowners and the PHA to prevail on the class-of-one equal protection claim.
See id. The PHA is an organization with a comprehensive inspection schedule,
staff dedicated to maintenance, and a demonstrated record for maintaining its
properties. A 84. The Landowners simply have not put forth any evidence
showing that the PHA properties are in poor condition or that the PHA fails to
make repairs or correct situations after receiving notification of a violation of the
housing code.
On the contrary, the record indicates that the PHA responds appropriately to
DNHPI correction orders and makes repairs in a timely manner. A 84. Given the
City’s limited resources and PHA’s record of maintaining its properties, had the
Landowners been able to show that the PHA received preferential treatment in
code enforcement, the City would certainly have a rationale basis for permitting
PHA different treatment from the Landowners.

9:42 PM

Brief continued said...

4. Substantive Due Process
The Landowners contend that the City’s enforcement of the housing code
violated their substantive due process rights. The Landowners must show that a
governmental power was exercised arbitrarily and oppressively to succeed on their
substantive due process claims. See Roseman v. City of Columbia Heights, 268
F.3d 588, 593 (8th Cir. 2001). The government action must be arbitrary in the
constitutional sense. Id. “[T]he theory of substantive due process is properly
reserved for those truly egregious and extraordinary cases.” Id. The Gallagher
Landowners claim that they have provided sufficient evidence to withstand
summary judgment on this theory.8 In order to support this theory, Gallagher
Landowners once again cite this force ownership change strategy and eviction
strategies as their evidence. Once again, this is not evidence, but merely stringing
together words from Dawkins’ handwritten notes without recognizing that the
eviction strategy is only a reiteration of the law which allows the City to step in for
a landlord and effectuate an eviction. The force ownership change strategy is only
the City’s hope to have the possession of rental property in the hands of those who
will maintain them in a safe and lawful manner. This is not evidence of a violation
of the Landowners’ substantive due process. Therefore, this claims fails.

The Steinhauser 8 and Harrilal Landowners do not discuss substantive
due process in their brief and, therefore, appear to have abandoned this theory.

5. § 1985
Gallagher Landowners claim on appeal that the district court erred when it
dismissed their § 1985 claims.9 To prove the existence of the civil rights
conspiracy under § 1985(3), Gallagher Landowners must prove that: (1) that
defendants did conspire, (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or
indirectly, any person or class of persons of equal protection of the laws, or equal
privileges and immunities under the laws, (3) that one or more of the conspirators
did, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy, and
(4) that another person was injured in his person or property or deprived of having
and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States. Larson by
Larson v. Miller, 76 F.3d 1446, 1454 (8th Cir. 1996) (quotations omitted). The
“purpose” element of the conspiracy requires Gallagher Landowners to prove a
class-based “invidiously discriminatory animus.” See id. Gallagher Landowners
must allege with particularity and specifically demonstrate with material facts that
the City or its Appellee employees reached an agreement, for example, by pointing
to at least some facts which would suggest the City or its Appellee employees
reached an understanding to violate the Gallagher Landowners’ civil rights or their
tenants’ civil rights. See id. In order to meet this prong, the Gallagher

9 Steinhauser and Harrilal Landowners have not challenged the district
court’s dismissal of their § 1985 claims.
41

9:45 PM

Brief continued said...

Landowners simply state that they have “alleged with particularity and specificity
the City’s understanding of the impact of their discriminatory environment and
attitude in housing code enforcement, force owner change strategy and eviction
strategy.” See Gallagher Br. p. 49. Conspicuously absent from this conclusory
statement is any actual evidence supporting that the City and its employees
reached an agreement to violate the Landowners’ or their tenants’ civil rights.
Next, the Landowners claim that Dawkins had meetings with Chief Judge Mott
and City Attorney Cervantes to get “‘buy-in’ to [Dawkins’] aggressive force
ownership change and eviction strategies.” See Gallagher Br. p. 50. However,
nowhere within this statement is any evidence to support Gallagher Landowners’
claims that the City or its employees conspired to violate the Landowners’ or their
tenants’ civil rights. The Gallagher Landowners simply string together words
from Dawkins’ handwritten notes and then attempt to package it as evidence of
discrimination. The Gallagher Landowners fall far short of showing any
conspiracy to deny the Landowners’ or their tenants’ civil rights. Therefore,
Gallagher Landowners’ § 1985 claims were properly dismissed by the district
court.
6. Void for Vagueness
The Gallagher Landowners contend that certain terms are unconstitutionally
void for vagueness. Gallagher Landowners specifically identify the terms “vacant
43
building,” “code compliance,” problem properties,” and “legal occupancy.”
Landowner Allison offered evidence relating to a property located at 1522/1524
Carroll Avenue in support of his argument regarding the term “vacant building.”
This property is an upstairs/downstairs duplex and one of seven properties owned
by Landowner Allison which he purchased from the Landowner Dadders Entities.
“The void-for-vagueness doctrine is embodied in the due process clauses of
the fifth and fourteenth amendments.” Woodis v. Westark Cmty. Coll., 160 F.3d
435, 438 (8th Cir.1998). A vague regulation violates the Constitution because it
fails (1) to define the offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can
understand prohibited conduct and (2) to establish standards to permit
enforcement of the law in a non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory manner. Id. “In a
facial vagueness challenge, an enactment reaching a substantial amount of
constitutionally protected conduct may withstand constitutional scrutiny only if it
incorporates a high level of definiteness. An enactment imposing criminal
sanctions or implicating constitutionally protected rights demands more
definiteness than one which regulates the economic behavior of businesses.” Id.
(citations omitted).
The Court must first “determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial
amount of constitutionally protected conduct.” Id. Where the enactment does not
reach constitutionally protected conduct, a plaintiff may succeed in a vagueness

9:46 PM

Brief continued said...

challenge “only if the enactment is impermissibly vague in all of its applications.”
Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). For these reasons, the Court must
“examine the [plaintiff’s] conduct before analyzing other hypothetical applications
of the law, because a plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly
proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to . . . others.”
Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).
The St. Paul Legislative Code defines “vacant building” as:
A building or portion of a building which is:
a. Unoccupied and unsecured;
b. Unoccupied and secured by other than normal means;
c. Unoccupied and a dangerous structure;
d. Unoccupied and condemned;
e. Unoccupied and has multiple housing or building code
violations;
f. Condemned and illegally occupied; or
g. Unoccupied for a period of time over three hundred sixty-five
(365) days and during which time the enforcement officer has
issued an order to correct nuisance conditions.
St. Paul, Minn., Code § 43.02(7). There is no suggestion that the definition of
“vacant building,” which rests on the occupancy of a building, whether it is secure
from entry, and the condition of the building, reaches constitutionally protected
conduct. The district court, therefore, correctly examined the Gallagher
Landowners’ arguments regarding the vagueness of “vacant building” in light of
the those Landowners’ conduct. See Woodis, 160 F.3d at 438.
45
The Gallagher Landowners’ challenge focuses on the meaning of
“unoccupied” as used in the definition of “vacant building.” The St. Paul
Legislative Code defines “unoccupied” as “[a] building which is not being used
for a legal occupancy as defined in the Saint Paul Legislative Code.” St. Paul,
Minn., Code § 43.03(5). The St. Paul Legislative Code does not define “legal
occupancy,” but does define “residential occupancy” as “[o]ccupancy in a building
or portion thereof, for residential purposes, used or intended to be used for living,
sleeping, and/or cooking or eating purposes.” Id.
During his deposition, Landowner Allison testified that the downstairs
tenant had moved out shortly before Allison purchased 1522/1524 Carroll Avenue.
A 101. Allison also testified that the downstairs unit was “vacant” when he
purchased the property and when the City declared the property a vacant building.
A 101-102. Thus, Allison does not dispute that the downstairs unit was
unoccupied when the City declared the property vacant. Further, Allison does not
dispute that the property had housing code violations. A 103-105. A unit that is
unoccupied and has multiple housing code violations, as the downstairs unit of
1522/1524 Carroll Avenue did, falls within the definition of a vacant building, see
§ 43.02(7)(e), and is clearly proscribed. Allison lacks standing to challenge the
term “vacant building” on the grounds that it is unconstitutionally vague “because
a plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain

9:47 PM

Brief continued said...

of the vagueness of the law as applied to . . . others.” See Woodis, 160 F.3d at 438
(quotation marks and citations omitted).10
The Gallagher Landowners also cite to testimony from Dawkins and Dick
Lippert, the former head of DNHPI’s problem property unit, that they did not have
a definition for “problem property,” “code compliance,” “legal occupancy,” or
“vacant building.” Because the Gallagher Landowners have set forth no facts
establishing their standing to raise void for vagueness claims as to these terms, this
testimony is unavailing. The district court, therefore, properly dismissed the
Gallagher Landowners’ void for vagueness claims.
Even if Gallagher Landowners had established facts to support their
standing to raise void for vagueness claims, their claims still fail. Gallagher
Landowners fail to cite any evidence which demonstrates the code had failed to
put them on notice of certain proscribed conduct and how they were damaged by
such failure. Merely categorizing phrases commonly used in the housing arena as
vague does not satisfy the strict standard Gallagher Landowners need to establish

The Gallagher 10 Landowners also base their void for vagueness
challenge on the fact that a tenant was living in the upstairs unit of 1522/1524
Carroll Avenue when the inspector declared the building vacant. The inspector
based his decision to declare the entire building vacant on the vacancy of the
lower unit and his observation of the second story while standing on the ground.
While the decision to declare the entire building vacant may have been incorrect,
this does not make the term “vacant building” unconstitutionally vague. In fact,
the definition of “vacant building” permits the designation of a “portion of a
building” as a vacant building. St. Paul, Minn., Code § 43.02(7).

for a void for vagueness claim. For example, the phrase “problem properties” is
not a phrase used in the code nor is it a phrase meant to notify a landowner or
property owner of certain conduct that is required or prohibited and, therefore, it is
not a concept that is subject to a void for vagueness claim. The phrase has been
used to identify properties that have had numerous violations of the code - but the
phrase itself does not encompass conduct in which Gallagher Landowners needed
to comply with in order to follow the code. Gallagher Landowners reference
testimony from Dawkins demonstrating that he did not have the code memorized
with respect to how vacant buildings were classified as Category 1, 2 or 3 (a task
that Dawkins himself did not conduct as the Director of DNHPI). This does not
further Gallagher Landowners’ argument that the code itself was vague. Also, the
testimony from Lippert that he did not use the phrase “problem property” does not
assist their argument that the code is vague as that is not even a phrase set forth in
the code. Because Gallagher Landowners do not have standing in order to make a
void for vagueness claim, and, if they had standing, do not put forth evidence to
support their claim, it was properly dismissed by the district court as a matter of
law.

9:48 PM

Brief continued said...

C. RICO Claims
The Landowners claim that the City employees 11 in their individual
capacity violated federal RICO laws in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)(d). A
plaintiff who brings suit under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) must prove that a defendant
engaged in (1) conduct; (2) of an enterprise; (3) through a pattern; (4) of
racketeering activity. Handeen v. Lemaier, 112 F.3d at 1347. To establish their
conspiracy claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), the Landowners must first prove a
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). U.S v. Darden, 70 F.3d 1507, 1518 (8th Cir.
1995). Then Landowners must prove that a second defendant “objectively
manifested an agreement to participate directly, or indirectly, in the affairs of [the]
enterprise through the commission of two or more predicate crimes.” Handeen,
112 F.3d at 1355 (quoting U.S. v. Bennett, 44 F.3d 1364, 1372 (8th Cir. 1995))
(quotation omitted).
Racketeering Activity is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). That section lists
as predicate acts certain state law crimes, conduct that is “indictable” under

11 Steinhauser Landowners stipulated that the RICO allegations were
not against the City or the individual defendants in their official capacity. Doc.
No. 12 in Steinhauser v. City of St. Paul, Civ. No. 04-2632.
Although stipulations were not signed regarding the later filed cases,
Harrilal and Gallagher, the City submits that the City and its employees in their
official capacity are not capable of forming the criminal intent necessary to
support a predicate act necessary for a RICO violation. Sanville v. McCaughtry,
266 F.3d 724, 732-733 (7th Cir. 2001); Lancaster Cmty. Hosp. v. Antelope Valley
Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397, 404 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1094 (1992).

various federal provisions, and numerous other offenses. Handeen, 112 F.3d at
1353. In their complaints, the Landowners base their RICO allegations on seven
predicate acts: mail fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, the Hobbs Act, tampering,
bribery, and interstate travel or transportation in aid of racketeering. In their
papers before the district court, the Landowners identified their RICO claims as
alleged false claims of housing code violations, the City’s use of its housing code
rather than the HQS, misrepresentations of code compliance inspections, and
extortion. In their briefs before this Court, the Landowners rely on the same
alleged RICO violations as set forth before the district court. Steinhauser and
Harrilal Landowners add claims that the City intentionally sent important notices
to the wrong addresses and delayed mail in order to prejudice the Landowners.
See Steinhauser/Harrilal Br. pp. 56 and 57 and c.f. Steinhauser Doc. 255, pp. 69-
76. Steinhauser and Harrilal Landowners also identify illegally removing
grandfathering protections and applying present codes to the Landowners’
properties, intentionally condemning buildings without a basis in City codes or
state law. These allegations were identified by Steinhauser and Harrilal
Landowners before the district court as misrepresentation of code compliance
inspections and alleged false claims of housing code violations.
The first prong the Landowners must prove in order to sustain a RICO cause
of action is that the City employees engaged in conduct of an enterprise. Handeen,

9:50 PM

Brief continued said...

112 F.3d at 1347. The City may constitute an “enterprise” within the meaning of
RICO. See U.S. v. Clark, 646 F.2d 1259, 1263 (8th Cir. 1981). However, the
Landowners must have evidence that the City employees were engaged in conduct
of the enterprise (the City) and not simply conducting their own affairs. The
Landowners put forth absolutely no evidence that showed that any City employee
was doing anything more than conducting his or her own affairs. See Reeves v.
Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 185 (1993) (“Liability depends on showing that the
defendants conducted or participated in the conduct of the ‘enterprise’s affairs’
not just their own affairs”) (emphasis in original); Bennett v. Berg, 710 F.2d 1361,
1364 (8th Cir. 1983) (“Mere participation in the predicate offenses listed in RICO,
even in conjunction with the RICO enterprise, may be insufficient to support a
RICO cause of action.”). Therefore, the Landowners fail to show that the City
employees engaged in conduct of an enterprise.
Landowners claim that City employees violated RICO by making false
claims of housing code violations, intentionally condemned buildings without a
basis in City codes or state laws, illegally condemned homes on “trumped up
charges of code violations.” See Steinhauser/Harrilal Br. pp. 54, 58; Gallagher Br.
p. 54. However, the Landowners do not provide any evidence that the City
intentionally falsified code violations. To the contrary, the Landowners admit
many times that the code violations existed, but claim that the City was being
51
nitpicky or taking the opportunity to write the landlord up on every possible
violation. A 100-258. The Landowners do, however, challenge certain code
violations by claiming that the violation never existed. However, the Landowners
never put forth any evidence to support their claim that the City intentionally
falsified any of its code enforcement orders setting forth the Landowner’s housing
code violations.
The Landowners claim that the City somehow concealed differences
between its housing code and the HQS is also unavailing. The City’s housing
codes are readily available and public as are the Federal Housing Quality
Standards. In any event, the Landowners do not identify if such concealment
existed, how it would be a predicate act necessary to sustain a RICO cause of
action.
At the district court, Landowner Meysembourg claimed that the City
engaged in racketeering by misrepresenting the nature of code compliance
inspection by describing a TRA that the City filed against him and ultimately
settled. Landowner Meysembourg complained that the City Attorney Maureen
Dolan set forth on the record that he was not required to bring his property up to
the 2003 code, but when Meysembourg contacted the City’s Office of License,
Inspection, Environmental Protection (LIEP) to schedule his inspection, he was
told that there was no such thing as an “as-built” code compliance inspection. The

9:51 PM

Brief continued said...

LIEP inspector offered to talk to his supervisor about the situation and
Meysembourg did not pursue the matter further. There is no evidence that
Assistant City Attorney Maureen Dolan had entered into the settlement with
Meysembourg intentionally misrepresenting the nature of the code compliance in
which Meysembourg agreed to go through. Even if she had intentionally
misrepresented it, Meysembourg would still have to show that that conduct
constituted a predicate act giving rise to RICO liability. Generic allegations of
common law fraud do not constitute racketeering activity. See Giuliano v. Falton,
399 F.3d 381, 388 (1st Cir. 2005). Furthermore, Meysembourg has not put forth
any evidence showing that Dolan’s conduct used the U.S. mail or wires. There is
no evidence to support a claim that Dolan’s conduct would be extortion or
attempted extortion because she certainly did not seek any property from
Meysembourg. See Scheidler v. NOW, Inc., 537 U.S. 393, 405 (2003) (holding
that shutting down abortion clinics was not extortion because protesters “neither
pursued nor received ‘something of value from’ respondents that they could
exercise, transfer or sell”). Therefore, even if Dolan had intentionally misled
Meysembourg, Landowner Meysembourg has not established that her conduct
constituted a predicate act.
The remaining Landowners do not identify any facts specific to them that
would support their allegation that code compliances by the City were
53
administered in such a way that it was a predicate act enumerated as a racketeering
activity as defined by statute.
In order to support their RICO allegations against Magner, the Landowners
rely on affidavits of Nancy Osterman, Julian Jayasuriya, and Lois Jacobs which
were previously filed with the district court on June 15, 2007. APP 000435-
000442, 000457-000459. In Osterman’s affidavit, she claims that Magner
instructed her to sell her home to “someone” and was presented the purchase price
of $40,000. APP 000436 at ¶ 8. Osterman ultimately sold her home to Julian
Jayasuriya for $90,000. Id. at ¶ 10. Julian Jayasuriya alleges that Osterman told
him that she was told by Magner to sell her home to someone of Magner’s
choosing at a price drastically below fair market value. APP 000439. He also
complains that he expressed disagreement with Magner’s methods of code
enforcement or ethics. Id. at ¶ 7. Lois Jacobs alleges that Magner offered to buy
her home for $50,000 cash. APP 000458. She also alleges that Magner threatened
to have her grandson taken to jail because her grandson was breaking the law by
living in her condemned home. Id. at ¶ 6.
The Landowners cannot sustain a civil RICO claim against Magner, as they
do not have standing. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) confers standing on any individual who
has experienced injury to his or her business or property that occurred by reason of
a RICO violation. Bowman v. W. Auto Supply Co., 985 F.2d 383, 384 (8th Cir.

9:52 PM

Brief continued said...

1993). The Landowners have not shown any injury to their business or property
based on the alleged conversations that Magner had with non-plaintiffs Osterman
or Jacobs. In fact, even if Osterman or Jacobs were parties to this lawsuit, and
also making RICO allegations, their allegations could not survive summary
judgment. By their own admissions, they have not suffered any economic injury
because of the alleged conversations with Magner. Even Osterman and Jacobs
admit that Magner did not compel them to sell him their properties at a rate below
fair market value or extort anything from them. Jayasuriya has not even claimed
that Magner offered to buy the property at below market value, but rather
reiterates a story told to him by Osterman. Certainly, the Landowners’ RICO
allegations against Magner were properly dismissed on summary judgment. Not
only do they show absolutely no economic injury because of Magner’s alleged
conversations with Osterman and Jacobs, but Osterman and Jacobs likewise did
not have any economic injury.
Furthermore, the allegations made by Osterman and Jacobs do not rise to the
level of a predicate act. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2) (extortion means obtaining the
property of another). Neither Magner nor anyone affiliated with him ever obtained
Osterman’s or Jacob’s property.
Magner’s alleged offer to buy property from Osterman and alleged offer to
buy property from Jacobs does not establish a “pattern.” “[T]o prove a pattern of
55
racketeering activity a plaintiff or prosecutor must show that the racketeering
predicates are related, and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued
criminal activity.” H. J., Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239 (1989); see
Sedima v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 497 (1987); Diamonds Plus, Inc. v. Kolber,
960 F.2d 765, 769 (8th Cir. 1992). Assuming that the actions described in the
affidavits were predicate acts, evidence that Osterman was offered below market
value for her home by Magner in August of 2003 and that Jacobs was offered
below market value for her home by Magner at an unidentified time is not enough
to establish a pattern. APP 000436.
Even if this Court assumes the facts described in the affidavits of nonparties
constitute a predicate act of extortion, the affidavits, without more, are
insufficient to permit a jury to reasonably find that Magner’s attempts at extortion
were a regular way of conducting the City’s business. “The mere existence of a
scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there
must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Landowners’ RICO
claims fail because they have not put forth evidence that raises a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether Magner engaged in “conduct of an enterprise.”
Finally, the Landowners have put forth no evidence that any City employee
entered into a requisite agreement to participate directly or indirectly, in the affairs

9:52 PM

Brief continued said...

of an enterprise through the commission of two or more predicate crimes.
Bennett, 44 F.3d at 1374. Therefore, the Landowners’ RICO conspiracy claim
fails and, therefore, was correctly dismissed by the district court.
D. State Law Claims
Gallagher Landowners alleged that the district court erred when it granted
the City’s motion for summary judgment regarding Gallagher Landowners’ state
law claims. Steinhauser and Harrilal Landowners have not challenged the district
court’s decision to dismiss their state law claims. See Steinhauser/Harrilal Br. p.
2. Therefore, the City only responds to Gallagher’s Landowners’ appeal of the
district court’s dismissal of state law claims.
Gallagher Landowners made three state law claims: (1) abuse of process, (2)
tortious interference with contract; and (3) tortious interference with plaintiff’s
business expectancy. The City agrees with Gallagher Landowners’ reiteration of
the elements of each of the state law cause of action. Gallagher Br. pp. 56, 57.
However, Gallagher Landowners have offered no evidence in support of their state
law claims other than the conclusory statement that the City’s actions are “exactly
the type of evidence plaintiffs rely on in support of their state law claims.”
Gallagher Br. p. 57. Since Gallagher Landowners did not provide evidence in
support of any of their state law claims to the district court, nor do Gallagher
Landowners take this opportunity on appeal to provide any evidence to support
12 Steinhauser and Harrilal Landowners have not appealed the district
court’s Order denying the Landowners’ motion to compel City employee Steve
Magner’s personal records.
57
their state law claims, the district court properly dismissed their claim and its
decision should be affirmed.
II. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT RULED ON THE LANDOWNERS’ NONDISPOSITIVE
MOTIONS AND THEREFORE THE COURT’S ORDERS SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED
The Landowners claim that the district court abused its discretion when it
denied their motion to compel and their motion (and renewed motion) for
sanctions. Such decisions should only be reversed on appeal if there is evidence
that the district court abused its discretion. Since the district court did not abuse
its discretion, its decisions should be affirmed.
A. Motion to Compel
The Gallagher Landowners allege that the district court erred when it denied
their motion to compel City employee Steve Magner’s personal records.
Gallagher’s Br. pp. 59-63.12 The district court’s Order denying Gallagher
Landowners’ motion to compel is reviewed very narrowly and should be upheld,
unless there was a gross abuse of discretion. Derby, 45 F.3d at 1215. Gallagher
Landowners claim that they need City employee Magner’s personal records as
further evidence that he committed a RICO predicate act of “attempted extortion”

9:53 PM

Brief continued said...

and “extortion.” Throughout many years of discovery, Gallagher Landowners had
every opportunity to gather information to support their claim that City employee
Magner had engaged in “attempted extortion” or “extortion” in violation of the
RICO Act. Gallagher Landowners’ complete lack of evidence provided ample
reason for Magistrate Judge Susan Richard Nelson to find that the “plaintiffs have
produced absolutely no evidence that [Magner] has derived any income from the
alleged pattern of “racketeering.” Gallagher ADD 000081.
There is absolutely no evidence that Magner received any income from any
source (Plaintiff or non-Plaintiff) as Gallagher Landowners allege. Furthermore,
to the extent that Gallagher Landowners claim that they needed bank records in an
effort to support a claim of “attempted extortion,” the City submits that any
attempt to gain funds would not be reflected in bank records. Therefore, there was
no gross abuse of discretion when the court denied Gallagher Landowners’ motion
to compel. Gallagher ADD 000079 - 000083.
B. Motions for Sanctions and Renewed Motions for Sanctions
In an Order dated November 13, 2007, the Honorable Susan Richard
Nelson, denied the Landowners’ motion for sanctions against the City. Gallagher
ADD 000077. The Landowners objected to that Order and on January 3, 2008, the
district court affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s decision. Gallagher ADD 000077-
000078. The Landowners renewed their motion for sanctions and in a May 8,

9:54 PM

Brief continued said...

2008, Order, Magistrate Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied the Landowners’
renewed motion for sanctions. Gallagher ADD 000055. The Landowners
objected to that Order and on June 12, 2008, the district court affirmed the
Magistrate Judge’s decision. Gallagher ADD 000065.
The district court’s decision to issue [or not issue] sanctions for discovery
abuse is reviewed using the “abuse of discretion standard.” Baker, 86 F.3d at 816.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Landowners’
motions for sanctions. Sanctions for spoliation may not be imposed “until the
moving party can demonstrate they have suffered prejudice as a result of the
spoliation.” E*trade Secs. LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG,, 230 F.R.D. 589, 592 (D.
Minn. 2005) (citing Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739, 748 (8th Cir.
2004) (“There must be a finding of prejudice to the opposing party before
imposing sanction for destruction of evidence.”)).
The district court correctly found that the Landowners did not show the
destruction or failure to produce TISH reports had prejudiced them. The
Landowners did not request the reports until 2007, and in response to that request,
the City produced all of the reports in its possession to Landowners.13 Gallagher

It is important to no 13 te that the TISH reports are not City documents
but documents created by TISH evaluators, who are not City employees. The City
only holds the documents for a set time period because it is the licensing agency
for the TISH evaluators. The City’s code enforcement has nothing to do with the
private TISH evaluators or the reports that they create.

ADD 000064. The Landowners requested sanctions based on the destruction of
earlier reports that were destroyed pursuant to the City’s valid document retention
policy. However, the City provided the Landowners all the information the
Landowners needed to obtain the missing TISH reports directly from the TISH
evaluators (who are not City employees). The Landowners are the ones who
independently decided they did not need the reports. The district court correctly
found that the Landowners simply did not show prejudice based on the City’s
destruction of TISH. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Landowners’ motion for sanctions regarding the TISH reports, the district
court’s decision should be upheld.
The Landowners also resurrect their allegations that the City should be
sanctioned for failing to disclose emails.14 Gallagher Landowners’ Br. p. 59 and
Steinhauser and Harrilal Br. p. 59. Again, the Landowners provided no evidence
to support that they were prejudiced by the City’s disclosure of emails. Regarding
the individual email counts of which the Landowners complained: Susan
Kimberly, Kathy Lantry and Andy Dawkins, the Landowners provided no
evidence other than mere speculation claiming that more emails should exist.

9:55 PM

Brief conclusion said...

The City disclosed over 1 million email files throughout discovery. 14
When the City was unable to retrieve email files due to technical constraints, it
hired national data recovery firm Kroll Ontrack to retrieve those emails and
produce them to the Landowners.
Steinhauser/Harrilal ADD 000066 and 000067. Furthermore, the Landowners did
not provide any evidence that allegedly deleted emails would have information
favorable to their case.
With respect to the Landowners’ claim that the City should be sanctioned
for not retaining more pre-December 2005, emails, the district court correctly
found that the Landowners did not provide any evidence of being prejudiced by
any destruction of emails. In an effort to show prejudice, the Landowners made
only conclusory assertions which were no more than mere speculation that
destroyed emails would have contained evidence to their claims. Steinhauser and
Gallagher ADD at 000067. The district court correctly found that the
Landowners’ conclusory statements do not satisfy the requirements that the
Landowners show prejudice. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the Landowners’ motion for sanctions (and renewed motion for sanctions)
and, therefore, the district court’s decisions should be affirmed.
62
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the City respectfully requests this Court to affirm the
district court’s decisions granting the City summary judgment and denying the
Landowners’ non-dispositive motions.
Date: July 14, 2009 JOHN J. CHOI
Saint Paul City Attorney
By: _______________________________
LOUISE TOSCANO SEEBA, #292047
Assistant City Attorney
750 City Hall and Courthouse
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
(651) 266-8772
Attorneys for Appellees

9:58 PM

Freedom-4You

St.PaulBudget_SharonDemandsReform_vs_LantrysLarceny_ChrisSamuels

Case of injustice ie: Franco St.Paul MN

Don Mashak Fight4FreeSpeech

Carrie Underwood - Mama's Song

Freedom Fighters Sharon4Anderson_Don Mashak

VOTE MaryJane Duchene 4 MayorWestSaintPaul,MN

Starred results for MaryJane Duchene 4 Mayor

MARY JANE DUCHENE FOR WEST ST. PAUL MAYOR - 2004

Minnesota public defenders question if justice is served - Topix

Ballots set after filing deadline StarTribune.com

Mayoral candidates have faced each other before - Poten & Partners

Get more results from the past 24 hours

Freedom-4You: MaryJane Duchene DogNoise_cit.344179Judge Perkins

MaryJaneDuchene_Mayor Candidate_WritProhibitionA10-937

Vote 2010 West St. Paul / Mayoral candidates have faced each other ...

Get more results from the past 24 hours

Mary Jane Duchene (MJ4MayorWSP) on Twitter

Ex-Viking Joey Browner enters Eagan mayoral race - NFL News - FOX ...

SHOWING ALL CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL, MAYOR CANDIDATES MINNESOTA ...

NewMNElectionLawsMS204B.06sub8,Judges,CoAttrys,Sheriffs Exempt

VoteSharonAnderson4MNAG v BishopBardenSepStateChurch_MNConstArt.III

JURIST - Paper Chase: Missouri voters pass law seeking to bar health care mandate

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/april10/records_042610.html

The Institute for Liberty Official Web Site.

Stop a Washington takeover of the Internet

MaryJaneDuchene_YouTube_MurderbyDiabetes

MaryJane Duchene DogNoise_cit.344179Judge Perkins

MaryJane Duchene Public Policy Dog site,cit.3441797 JudgePerkins

Frank J. Steinhauser Appellants v. City St.Paul Appellees