John Hutchison on tru tv Jessie Ventura,NancyLazaryan_Hutchison2012

ALERT!!! Report on Radioactive Food in U.S.A.

Scientist John Hutchison Uses Frequency Healing to Restore The Gulf Afte...

Eliminating Your right to Vote4Judges MN_SF70_NancyLazaryan_Greg Wersal

-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Lazaryan
To: nancy lazaryan
Sent: Fri, Apr 16, 2010 11:18 am
Subject: ELIMINATING your right to VOTE being considered by MN Legislature

ELIMINATING your right to VOTE being considered by MN Legislature St. Paul, Minnesota April 16, 2010 Amidst all the flurry and noise about national health-care and the state budget crisis, an insidious bill has quietly worked its way through several committees in the MN state legislature. Eliminating your right to vote for your judges. Have you noticed on the election ballot the vast majority of judges run unchallenged? The reason for this is because the MN Supreme Court, without authority to do so, created "rules" as to who can run for office, and what they can say in a campaign. Almost a decade ago, one candidate for the MN Supreme Court, Greg Wersal, challenged these rules. It took him eight years of battling in court, and finally, the United States Supreme Court determined the MN Supreme Court's rules were unconstitutional. After the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the MN Supreme Court rallied their friends and have been pushing for a bill that would ELIMINATE open elections for the judges. They have used fancy language, saying, "we will still have elections, RETENTION elections". The governor will appoint all the judges, and if, after years deciding issues concerning the lives of people, the people would then decide whether to "keep" the judge. A "committee" will evaluate the judge and "recommend" to the people if they should vote to "retain" the judge. The committee will NOT evaluate if the judge followed the law and the constitutions, but only issues such as the judge was "nice" or "on time". IF THIS PASSES in the Legislature, there will be a question put on the ballot this fall. The question will be if YOU want to CHANGE the Minnesota constitution. BUT...they will NOT tell you the truth. The "question" on the ballot will be: "Do you want to change the constitution "to reaffirm the impartiality of the judiciary?" The TRUTH is that if you vote YES... we will be giving up our RIGHT to VOTE for our judges. The governor will appoint his cronies. The committee will never tell us if a judge violated the law. And we will lose our ability to decide WHO will be our judges. Below is an email I received from Greg Wersal, who testified at a MN Senate committee hearing yesterday. He is running for the MN Supreme Court. He asks the YOU contact the members on the committee and tell them to STOP the bill. If you think the RIGHT to VOTE is important, please pick up the phone and call. Tell others. Post on blogs. Nancy Lazaryan --- On Fri, 4/16/10, Greg Wersal <gregwersal@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Greg Wersal <gregwersal@hotmail.com> To: "Nancy Lazaryan" <nancylazaryan@yahoo.com> Date: Friday, April 16, 2010, 8:01 AM Yesterday I attended the hearing on SF70 before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The Chair, Sen. Larry Pogemiller, Sen. Gen Olson, were “concerned” by the testimony they heard -- concerned enough that instead of acting on the bill they set it over for a week to give the members time to think about it. Here is what they are concerned about: 1. How judges are selected: Jd. Susan Miles of the District Judges Association attacked the bill because it does not contain mandatory merit selection. She argued that the Governor will fill the judicial positions with his friends, not qualified people, let alone highly qualified people. She also noted that once the Gov appoints the appointee does not stand for a retention election for 3+ years in which she said, “they can do a lot of damage.” I followed up her statements with my own saying the there is no check and balance on the Gov’s ability to appoint and that if the Gov had a weird political belief that would be reflected in the judges he chose and we need some kind of check and balance. I said that mandatory merit selection would function as a check and balance. 2. The lack of accountability for decisions: I again argued that lines 8.28 - 8.30 of the bill which state that the judicial performance commission may not evaluate judicial performance “based on substantive legal issues or opinions subject to standard appellate processes” was dangerous and needed to be removed from the bill. I focussed mostly on the fact that sentencing in a criminal case is subject to appeal. I said that we have judges right now who routinely do not follow the state sentencing guidelines and were putting people on probation and back out onto the street that should go to jail according to the guidelines. I also note that an appeal by a prosecutor is not a solution because it can take months and in the mean time the criminal is out on the streets. Pogemiller was concerned enough to ask the others if I was right in my interpretation of the language of the bill. I was given a second chance to speak and I pointed out that we could have a judge who repeatedly has his decisions overturned on appeal and that the commission on judicial performance could not take it into account. That is when Se. Gen Olson said she had problems with the bill. I said they should eliminate lines 8.28- 8.30 from the bill and let the commission actually look at a judges decisions to determine the judge’s performance. The committee might do that. 3. The langauege that will appear on the ballot: I was arguing against the language which will appear on the ballot -- specifically the word that say the bill is “to reaffirm the impartiality of the judiciary”. Pogemiller stopped me and asked “you mean the language is too presumptuous?’” (line 2.8 - 2.9 of the bill) He thought it was as well. The language will steer the voter to vote for the amendment because who doesn’t want an impartial judiciary. Gen Olson was also concerned that the language of a proposed constitutional amendment can tip the voters on way or another. The problem I pointed out is that if all judges are appointed by the Gov and there is no mandatory merit selection, them we will not get an impartial judiciary at all -- at least not a judiciary that is impartial towards the Gov and his concerns. The members of the committee are as follows: Chair: Lawrence J. Pogemiller 651-296-7809 Vice Chair: Tarryl L. Clark 651-296-6455 Ranking Minority Member: David H. Senjem 651-296-3903 sen.david.senjem@senate.mn Member: Thomas M. Bakk 651-296-8881 Linda Berglin 651-296-4261 Richard J. Cohen 651-296-5931 Dennis R. Frederickson 651-296-8138 sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn Keith Langseth 651-296-3205 James P. Metzen 651-296-4370 sen.jim.metzen@senate.mn Gen Olson 651-296-1282 sen.gen.olson@senate.mn WE need to make a concerted effort to contact these people and talk to them about the problems. I think we can change some minds. I also believe that if we get the committee to eliminate lines 8.28 - 8.30, the judges will turn against the bill. They do not need to hear from me. Many people think I am against this bill simply because I want to be elected. They have to be told that this bill as drafted is bad for Minnesota. And they need to hear from as many people as possible. Please sent this e-mail to others you know and encourage then to contact these Senators. Greg Wersal

Nancy Lazaryan denied due process by Judge John VandeNorth,Justice Eric Magnuson,Edward Toussaint

Click here: http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=672539489

Logout Search Menu New Criminal/Traffic/Petty Search Back Location : All MNCIS Sites - Case Search Help

Register of Actions

Case No. 62-T5-07-024818

The State of Minnesota vs. NANCY CAROL LAZARYAN, [112807]

§ § § § § §

Case Type: 5th Degree Assault Date Filed: 11/29/2007 Location: Ramsey Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.

Party Information

				Lead Attorneys
Defendant	LAZARYAN, NANCY CAROL RICE, MN 56367		Female 12/18/1958	TSAI, EVAN CURTIS Public Defender
Jurisdiction	State of Minnesota			JOHNSTON, HEIDI LYNN

Charge Information

Charges: LAZARYAN, NANCY CAROL			Statute	Level	Date
1.	Assault-5th Degree-Misdemeanor		609.224.1	Misdemeanor	11/28/2007
2.	Disorderly Conduct		609.72.1	Misdemeanor	11/28/2007
3.	Trespass-Premises of Another-Refuse to Depart		609.605.1(b)(3)	Misdemeanor	11/28/2007

Events & Orders of the Court

			DISPOSITIONS
11/29/2007			Plea (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding) 1. Assault-5th Degree-Misdemeanor Not guilty
11/29/2007			Plea (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding) 2. Disorderly Conduct Not guilty
11/29/2007			Plea (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding) 3. Trespass-Premises of Another-Refuse to Depart Not guilty
05/02/2008			Disposition (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) 1. Assault-5th Degree-Misdemeanor Dismissed 2. Disorderly Conduct Convicted 3. Trespass-Premises of Another-Refuse to Depart Convicted
05/02/2008			Sentenced (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) 2. Disorderly Conduct 11/28/2007 (MSD) 609.72.1 (609721) 3. Trespass-Premises of Another-Refuse to Depart 11/28/2007 (MSD) 609.605.1(b)(3) (6096051b3) Local Confinement: Agency: Ramsey County Correctional Facility Term: 90 Days Time To Serve: 90 Days Stay 0 Yr 0 Mo 0 Days For 1 Yr Status: Active 05/02/2008 Probation - Adult: Type: Supervised probation Agency: Ramsey County Probation Term of 1 Yr 05/02/2008 - 05/02/2009 Status: Active 05/02/2008 Fees - Adult: (Grand Total: $206.00) Due 05/02/2008 Fine: $1,000.00 Fees: (Fees Total: $156.00) Criminal Surcharge: $146.00 Law Library: $10.00 Stay of $950.00 Condition - Adult: 1. No same or similar, 05/02/2008, Active 05/02/2008 2. Remain law-abiding, 05/02/2008, Active 05/02/2008 3. No contact with victim(s), 05/02/2008, Active 05/02/2008 Comment: General Sentence Service - Adult: Type: Community work service 60 Hours For Indeterminate Start: 05/02/2008 Status: Active 05/02/2008
			OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
11/29/2007			FLD-Case Filed (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding )
11/29/2007			ORD-Order (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding )
11/29/2007			ORD-Order (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding )
11/29/2007			ORD-Order (Judicial Officer: Administrative, Calendar )
11/29/2007			Arraignment (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Dorn, Marybeth) Result: Converted Activity Status Flag Occurred
11/29/2007			Interim Condition for LAZARYAN, NANCY CAROL - No contact with victim(s)
12/13/2007			DOC-Document Filed (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding )
01/03/2008			Pre-trial (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) Result: Converted Activity Status Flag Occurred
02/07/2008			MTN-Motion Filed (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding )
02/08/2008			DOC-Document Filed (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding )
02/14/2008			CRS-Correspondence (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding )
02/14/2008			DOC-Document Filed (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding )
02/20/2008			DOC-Document Filed (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding )
02/20/2008			MTN-Motion Filed (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding )
02/20/2008			Motion Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) Result: Converted Activity Status Flag Occurred
02/21/2008			DOC-Document Filed (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding )
02/21/2008			DOC-Document Filed (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding )
02/21/2008			Other Document
02/25/2008			DOC-Document Filed (Judicial Officer: Judge, Presiding )
02/25/2008			Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) Result: Converted Activity Status Flag Occurred
02/25/2008			CANCELED Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) Other
03/10/2008			Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) Result: Converted Activity Status Flag Occurred
03/10/2008			CANCELED Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) Other
03/10/2008			CANCELED Jury Trial (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) Other
03/12/2008			CANCELED Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) Other
03/13/2008			CANCELED Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) Other
04/14/2008			Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) 04/14/2008 Reset by Court to 04/14/2008 Result: Held
04/14/2008			Memorandum
04/14/2008			Notice of Motion and Motion
04/14/2008			Affidavit-Other
04/16/2008			Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) 04/15/2008 Reset by Court to 04/16/2008 Result: Held
04/21/2008			Other Document
04/21/2008			Affidavit of Service
04/22/2008			CANCELED Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) Other
04/22/2008			Correspondence
04/22/2008			Transcript
04/22/2008			Transcript (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
04/23/2008			Motion Hearing (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Johnson, Gregg E.) Result: Held
04/23/2008			Motion (Judicial Officer: Johnson, Gregg E. )
04/24/2008			Other Document
04/24/2008			Affidavit of Service
04/28/2008			Hearing (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) 04/28/2008 Reset by Court to 04/28/2008 Result: Held
04/28/2008			Notice of Motion and Motion (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
04/28/2008			Other Document (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
04/29/2008			Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) Result: Held
04/30/2008			Jury Trial (10:15 AM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) Result: Held
05/01/2008			Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) Result: Held
05/02/2008			Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer VanDeNorth, John B., Jr.) Result: Held
05/02/2008			Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Johnson, Gregg E. )
05/02/2008			Criminal Judgment and Warrant of Commitment (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
05/02/2008			Notice-Pay or Appear (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
05/02/2008			Jury Instructions Document (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
05/02/2008			Verdict (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
05/02/2008			Verdict (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
05/02/2008			No Contact Order (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
05/05/2008			Criminal History Disposition has been processed
05/06/2008			Notice of Appeal
05/06/2008			Affidavit for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis
05/09/2008			Notice-Other
05/13/2008			Notice of Motion and Motion
05/14/2008			Order for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
05/19/2008			Correspondence
06/02/2008			Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Toussaint, Edward, Jr. )
06/05/2008			Transcript
06/12/2008			Order-Other (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
06/16/2008			Other Document
06/25/2008			Correspondence
07/08/2008			Correspondence
07/14/2008			Other Document
07/14/2008			Other Document
07/18/2008			Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Johnson, Matthew Edwin )
07/29/2008			Transcript
07/29/2008			Transcript
07/29/2008			Transcript
07/29/2008			Transcript
08/04/2008			Sent to Collections
08/04/2008			Sent to Collections
08/05/2008			Update sent to Collections
08/05/2008			Update sent to Collections
09/23/2008			Other Document
09/23/2008			Affidavit of Service
10/08/2008			Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Toussaint, Edward, Jr. )
11/18/2008			Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Toussaint, Edward, Jr. )
12/04/2008			Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Toussaint, Edward, Jr. )
12/24/2008			Transcript
12/24/2008			Transcript
01/09/2009			Memorandum
01/09/2009			Motion
01/09/2009			Affidavit of Service
01/13/2009			Transcript
01/13/2009			Transcript
01/13/2009			Transcript
01/13/2009			Transcript
01/13/2009			Transcript
01/13/2009			Transcript
01/13/2009			Transcript
01/14/2009			Other Document
01/14/2009			Affidavit of Service
01/21/2009			Order Denying Motion (Judicial Officer: VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. )
01/22/2009			Exhibit List
01/29/2009			Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Toussaint, Edward, Jr. )
02/11/2009			Update sent to Collections
02/11/2009			Update sent to Collections
06/09/2009			Request for Trial Court Record-Appellate Court
07/28/2009			Publicly Viewable Note to File
10/28/2009			Other Document
01/28/2010			Order-Other (Judicial Officer: Magnuson,Eric J. , )
02/26/2010			Appeal Denied

Financial Information

			Defendant LAZARYAN, NANCY CAROL
			Total Financial Assessment			251.00
			Total Payments and Credits			0.00
			Balance Due as of 04/11/2010			251.00
05/02/2008			Transaction Assessment			206.00
08/04/2008			Transaction Assessment			45.00

Nancy Lazaryan Political Satire_MN_Leg.

I thought you might be interested in this You must be logged in to view this video. The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as being potentially offensive or inappropriate. Viewer discretion is advised. Please confirm that you wish to view this video. This video or group may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community. Please confirm that you wish to view this video. This video is unavailable. This featured video is available for rental by clicking here. Info Comments Favorite Share Playlists Flag Thanks for rating! Minnesota Legislators are Chicken Sh**t From: johnkhutchison2008 January 25, 2010 103 views Citizens demand that the Minnesota Legislature obey the constitution. Legislators run and hide and call the police. Part One of Three. up on CNN http://www.ireport.com/people/johnkhutchis?view=overview&... ... (more info) (less info) View comments, related videos, and more Posted on several sites...YouTube...MySpace...and I-Report on CNN.....if CNN "likes it" they will post on the regular CNN website. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=johnkhutchison2008#p/u/2/fUXs5OBntXk http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=johnkhutchison2008#p/u/1/TuHjnT596p0 http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=johnkhutchison2008#p/u/0/AECydX0B0zM I'm busy doing editing....more shows coming this week.... Nancy Lazaryan

Nancy Lazaryan_DueProcessDenied_Jessie Conspiracy

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8625108074344335679
DUE PROCESS DENIED?
REPORTER NANCY LAZARYAN - CNN iReport CONSPIRACY THEORY WITH JESSE VENTURA on truTV

This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A08-1577

A08-2093

Nancy C. Lazaryan, Appellant, Victoria C. Marchetti, et al., Plaintiffs (A08-1577), Victoria C. Marchetti, Appellant (A08-2093), Evelyn C. Wallace, Plaintiff (A08-2093), vs. City of St. Paul, et al., Respondents, ReMax Resources of Stillwater, Minnesota, et al., Respondents, Wells Fargo Mortgage, an Iowa corporation, doing business in the State of Minnesota, Respondent.

Filed December 1, 2009

Appeal dismissed in part and affirmed in part

Halbrooks, Judge

Ramsey County District Court

File No. 62-CV-07-1960

Nancy C. Lazaryan, 10734 West Lake Road, Rice, MN 56367 (pro se appellant) 2

Victoria C. Marchetti, 1033 Colne Street, St. Paul, MN 55103 (pro se appellant)

John J. Choi, St. Paul City Attorney, Judith A. Hanson, James F. X. Jerskey, Assistant City Attorneys, 750 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for respondents City of St. Paul, Mike Kalis, Steve Magner, Robert Kessler, and Marcia Moermond)

David J. McGee, Natalie R. Walz, 3300 Edinborough Way, Suite 600, Edina, MN 55435 (for respondents ReMax Resources, Thad Rich and Thomas (Tom) Sawyer)

Leah K. Weaver, Rebecca F. Schiller, Reiter & Schiller, P.A., The Academy Professional Building, 25 North Dale Street, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for respondent Wells Fargo Financial Minnesota, Inc.)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Lansing, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

HALBROOKS, Judge

Appellant Nancy Lazaryan challenges the district court’s dismissal of her complaint for lack of standing and improperly representing a party. Appellants Lazaryan and Victoria Marchetti also challenge two subsequent orders, one dismissing their request for review of a city council decision based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and one lifting a stay on an abatement order issued by respondent City of St. Paul. Upon notice of review, respondent ReMax Resources of Stillwater, Minnesota challenges the denial of its motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim. Because we agree that Lazaryan does not have standing to bring the types of claims she asserted in her complaint and that she cannot make legal arguments on behalf of another party, and because we conclude that ReMax was not harmed by the district court’s denial of its motion to dismiss, we affirm 3

in part. Because we conclude that Lazaryan and Marchetti were not aggrieved by the subsequent orders due to their lack of standing, we dismiss in part.

FACTS

This consolidated appeal involves a house that is registered with respondent City of St. Paul as a "vacant building." The city designated the house as vacant in May 2006, and sent a "Vacant Building Registration Notice" to the then-owner indicating that the house met the legal definition of a registered vacant building. Respondent Wells Fargo Financial Minnesota, Inc.1 became the owner of the house in August 2006 following foreclosure and the expiration of the statutory redemption period. Wells Fargo engaged respondent ReMax Resources of Stillwater, Minnesota to sell the house. A "Truth in Sale of Housing" inspection occurred in 2007, and the report indicated that the property was not a registered vacant building.

1 Although the original complaint named "Wells Fargo Mortgage, an Iowa corporation, doing business in the [S]tate of Minnesota" as a defendant, the motion to dismiss was brought by "Wells Fargo Financial Minnesota, Inc.," and Wells Fargo Financial Minnesota, Inc. has responded to the appeal.

Evelyn Wallace entered into a purchase agreement with Wells Fargo dated May 1, 2007. It is undisputed that Wallace did not know at that time that the property was registered with the city as a vacant building. After Wallace closed on the sale, her granddaughter, appellant Victoria Marchetti, began living in the house. Marchetti and appellant Nancy Lazaryan, Wallace’s daughter and Marchetti’s mother, made some repairs to the property; Lazaryan now claims that there was a contract between Wallace, Marchetti, and herself "that [Lazaryan] and [Marchetti] would invest substantial time and 4

monies into the building in exchange for an equitable interest in the property." Approximately one month after Marchetti moved in, respondent Mike Kalis, a property inspector with the city, informed her that she could not live there because the house was a registered vacant building. Lazaryan appealed the vacant-building designation in a hearing before respondent Marcia Moermond, a legislative hearing officer for the city. Moermond denied the challenge and Lazaryan appealed Moermond’s decision to the city council. The city council subsequently affirmed Moermond’s decision.

On August 3, 2007, Wallace completed a "Limited Power of Attorney" form granting "a limited and specific power of attorney" to Lazaryan. In the space provided to list the specific acts that Lazaryan was authorized to undertake on Wallace’s behalf, the address of the house appears. Appellants, pro se, subsequently served a summons and complaint on nine defendants appealing the determination of the legislative hearing officer and seeking damages. The complaint was filed in Ramsey County District Court. Lazaryan and Marchetti signed the complaint individually, and Lazaryan also signed as the "attorney-in-fact" for Wallace.

Appellants’ complaint alleged that the city (including Kalis, Steve Magner, and Robert Kessler named in their individual capacities) failed to give adequate notice of the vacant-building designation to Wells Fargo, gave improper notice of the designation to the then-owner because he was deceased, failed to make a public record of the vacant-building designation, and failed to demonstrate that the building met the legal criteria of a registered vacant building. The complaint also alleged a taking due to the city’s unlawful designation of a vacant building and due-process violations by the city due to improper 5

notice; failure to provide the city council the file on the property prior to Lazaryan’s appearance before the council; false assertions by Kalis, Magner, and Kessler; and a false determination by Moermond. The complaint further alleged that Wells Fargo and ReMax (including Thomas Sawyer and Thad Rich, named in their individual capacities as the listing agent and broker) had a duty to disclose the vacant-building status to appellants and failed to do so (thereby committing fraud) and that Wells Fargo and ReMax failed to exercise due diligence in examining records prior to the sale.

Respondents brought three separate motions to dismiss.2 The district court issued an order on February 20, 2008, dismissing all claims of Lazaryan and Marchetti based on lack of standing because they have no equitable interest in the property. The district court denied Lazaryan the right to represent Wallace but, in the interest of fairness, addressed the arguments made by Lazaryan on Wallace’s behalf. The only claim to survive the motions to dismiss was Wallace’s claim against ReMax for failing to give her notice of the vacant-building designation. ReMax moved to dismiss because Wallace did not allege in her complaint that ReMax had any knowledge of the vacant-building designation prior to Wallace’s purchase of the house. Because ReMax’s memorandum was untimely, the district court gave Wallace 14 days from the date of the hearing to respond to ReMax’s memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss. Lazaryan responded, including with her response an affidavit stating that Sawyer had admitted taking a photograph of the house that was posted on the Multiple Listing Service and that

2 The City of St. Paul moved to dismiss on behalf of the city, Kalis, Magner, Kessler, and Moermond. ReMax moved on behalf of ReMax Resources of Stillwater, Rich, and Sawyer. Wells Fargo filed its own motion. 6

the photograph showed a blue placard in the window, which Lazaryan claimed was the vacant-building notice. In denying ReMax’s motion, the district court stated:

While [ReMax is] correct in asserting that the Complaint does not contain a specific allegation that they had knowledge of the property’s vacant property status, the record reflects that it was the Remax agents who listed the property for sale, presumably toured the property, and photographed the property showing the City’s notice on the front door. These allegations, if true, could give rise to knowledge on the part of [ReMax], and accordingly, dismissal is inappropriate as to this claim by Wallace.

Lazaryan appealed the partial judgment entered pursuant to the February 20, 2008 order, again signing on behalf of Wallace based on her limited power-of-attorney status.

Following the district court’s order, appellants sought review of the city council’s decision to uphold the vacant-building designation. The district court held a hearing on the matter on June 26, 2008. Only Lazaryan appeared on behalf of appellants at this hearing, and, although the district court restrained her from offering legal argument due to her lack of standing, it allowed her to make an appearance on Wallace’s behalf based on the limited power of attorney. The district court issued an order on July 15 stating that Lazaryan is not authorized to practice law and restraining her from offering legal argument on Wallace’s behalf. The order also stayed a summary-abatement order requiring the house to be boarded pending the district court’s determination of appellants’ petition. The July 15 order has not been appealed.

Lazaryan then hired counsel on Wallace’s behalf, who submitted a letter memorandum to the district court addressing Wallace’s claims. The city also submitted a memorandum, and the district court issued findings and an order dated October 1, 2008. 7

The October 1 order dismissed the request to review the city council decision based on the district court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On November 18, 2008, the district court issued another order, lifting the stay of the city’s summary-abatement order. Lazaryan requested another hearing on the matter that the district court denied. Lazaryan and Marchetti then appealed the October 1 and November 18 orders pro se, asserting that the district court violated their right to due process by refusing to hear their arguments or let them present evidence. Once again, Lazaryan signed the documents on behalf of Wallace. This court subsequently consolidated the two appeals.3

3 Appellants also sought a writ of mandamus or prohibition from this court. The petition sought a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to hold a hearing regarding the lifting of the stay, or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition precluding the district court from enforcing either its order denying review of the city council’s determination or its order lifting the stay. This petition was denied. Lazaryan v. City of St. Paul, No. A08-2091 (Minn. App. Jan. 5, 2009) (order), review dismissed (Minn. Apr. 17, 2009).

D E C I S I O N

I.

Lazaryan, on behalf of Wallace, purports to appeal the judgment entered pursuant to the February 20 order based on Wallace’s grant of a limited power of attorney to Lazaryan. The issue of whether a person may stand in for a pro se appellant under a limited power of attorney is a legal question. We review such issues under a de novo standard. In re Collier, 726 N.W.2d 799, 803 (Minn. 2007). The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a non-attorney can represent another person in court in In re Conservatorship of Riebel: 8

We do not construe the authorizations in [Minn. Stat.] section 523.24 for an attorney-in-fact to assert and prosecute claims to empower the attorney-in-fact to appear as the attorney-at-law in asserting and prosecuting those claims. So construed, the power of attorney statute would allow anyone to authorize another person, regardless of their qualifications, to practice law on their behalf, providing a very easy means of circumventing the prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law in Minn. Stat. § 481.02. We will not construe a statute in a way that creates such an absurd result. More importantly, even if intended by the legislature, such a construction of the statute would undermine this court’s exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law and would violate the doctrine of separation of powers. We are constrained to interpret statutes to preserve their constitutionality. Therefore, we do not interpret the relevant provisions of section 523.24 to mean that a power of attorney authorizes an attorney-in-fact to practice law.

625 N.W.2d 480, 482 (Minn. 2001) (citations omitted).

In Riebel, a mother, who was not a lawyer, attempted to represent her daughter in court based on a power of attorney. Id. at 481. Appellants attempt to distinguish Riebel by claiming that Riebel involved an artificial entity and that because Wallace is a natural person, she has additional rights under "common law and the constitutions." But we see no basis to distinguish Riebel from the case at hand. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Lazaryan’s request to represent Wallace in court.

II.

Lazaryan challenges the district court’s dismissal of Marchetti’s and her complaint for lack of standing.4 The question of whether a person has standing to bring a claim is a

4 Although Marchetti did not file a notice of appeal with respect to the February 20, 2008 order (addressing standing), Marchetti did appeal the two subsequent orders. In that 9

appeal, Marchetti argues that she has standing. Our analysis addresses the standing of both Lazaryan and Marchetti, despite Marchetti’s failure to properly appeal this issue.

question of law, which is reviewed de novo. Rukavina v. Pawlenty, 684 N.W.2d 525, 531 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Oct. 19, 2004). "Standing is the requirement that a party has a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court." Id. (quotation omitted). "The fundamental aspect of standing is that it focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before a court and not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated. The essential question is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues." Id. (quotation and citation omitted).

Appellants assert that ReMax and Wells Fargo failed in their duty to notify them of the vacant-building status of the house before Wallace’s purchase and that the city’s improper designation of the house as vacant and failure to properly notify interested parties constituted a taking. But Lazaryan and Marchetti are not owners of the house and did not assert any property interest in their complaint. Lazaryan now claims (1) to have a contract with Wallace, the terms of which provided that she and Marchetti will perform work at the house in exchange for "an equitable interest" in the property or (2) that based on Real Estate Equity Strategies, LLC v. Jones, 720 N.W.2d 352 (Minn. App. 2006), Marchetti’s status as Wallace’s tenant confers standing on Marchetti.

Without reaching the applicability of Jones, it is clear that Marchetti and Lazaryan do not have standing to bring the types of claims they have alleged in their complaint. Any notice owed to prospective purchasers was owed to Wallace prior to her purchase. 10

Even assuming that Lazaryan or Marchetti could establish a current ownership interest in the property or show that tenants have standing under Jones, there is no dispute that Lazaryan and Marchetti did not have any interest in the property until after Wallace purchased it. Similarly, any taking that allegedly occurred as a result of improper procedure by the city would have occurred at the time the house was registered as vacant, nearly a year before Wallace purchased it. As the district court stated, neither the fact that appellants incurred expenses nor the fact that Marchetti lived at the property supports a "finding of an equitable interest that would support the types of claims brought . . . in this matter." Because we agree, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Lazaryan’s and Marchetti’s complaint based on lack of standing.

III.

Lazaryan and Marchetti also appeal the district court orders from October 1 and November 18, 2008. Lazaryan and Marchetti contend that the orders should be reversed claiming that their right to procedural due process was violated because they were not allowed to present evidence or argue the merits of their claim. But the district court had already determined that Lazaryan and Marchetti did not have standing and that Lazaryan could not represent Wallace—questions that are now the subject of this appeal. Despite this ruling, and without waiting for a decision on appeal, Lazaryan was the only person to appear on behalf of appellants at the June 26 hearing. Lazaryan was not allowed to present any legal argument—only Wallace’s attorney was afforded this opportunity. While Lazaryan argues that she was not afforded procedural due process, she fails to understand that she was not entitled to due process. Because neither she nor Marchetti 11

have standing, the orders did not address their substantive rights. The orders specifically address only Wallace’s rights. A party not aggrieved by a court order has no right to appeal. Singer v. Allied Factors, Inc., 216 Minn. 443, 445-46, 13 N.W.2d 378, 380 (1944). Because the orders did not address the rights of Lazaryan and Marchetti, they were not aggrieved by these orders, and they have no right to appeal them. We therefore dismiss the appeal of the October 1 and November 18 orders.

IV.

The only claim that survived the three motions to dismiss was Wallace’s claim that ReMax failed to disclose the vacant-building status. In its notice of review, ReMax argues that the district court erred by looking outside the pleadings on its rule 12 motion to dismiss and that the district court should therefore have converted its motion to one for summary judgment. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02. We review de novo the legal question of whether the district court erred by denying ReMax’s motion to dismiss. See Larson v. Wasemiller, 738 N.W.2d 300, 303 (Minn. 2007). Rule 12.02 states:

If, on a motion asserting the defense that the pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment . . . and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.

Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02.

A district court need not convert a rule 12.02 motion to a motion for summary judgment if it is clear that the district court did not rely on materials submitted outside the pleadings when making its determination. In re Hennepin County 1986 Recycling Bond 12

Litig., 540 N.W.2d 494, 497 (Minn. 1995). But in this case, the district court relied on Lazaryan’s affidavit in reaching its conclusion that ReMax took a photograph of the house showing the city’s notice. Therefore, the district court should have given ReMax an opportunity to respond pursuant to rule 12.02. The record shows that the district court did not afford ReMax the opportunity to respond or submit additional materials. The district court stated at the motion hearing, "I am not going to invite replies because I think I have a pretty good understanding of [ReMax’s] position and I’ve allowed [ReMax] to have oral argument on the matter."

Although the district court should have afforded ReMax the opportunity to present additional relevant materials before ruling on ReMax’s motion to dismiss under rule 12, there is nothing in the rules that precludes ReMax from moving for summary judgment as this matter proceeds. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.02 (stating that a party against whom a claim has been asserted may "at any time" bring a motion for summary judgment). We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of ReMax’s rule 12 motion.

Appeal dismissed in part and affirmed in part.