"City of Saint Paul takes the low road in obstructing Nancy Lazaryan's investigation into city corruption."
35 Comments -
Show Original Post
**
Nancy Lazaryan has been inspecting the vacant building files at the City of St. Paul. It took over a month of pressuring the City to even begin to see these files. It is well established that public data can be viewed at any time during "normal business hours"...8:00 AM to 4:30PM, Mon. - Fri. The City of St. Paul had limited the time that Lazaryan could have access to inspect the public data. After "negotiations", it was agreed that Lazaryan would have access to the files every Wednesday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM. Two weeks ago Lazaryan arrived at the City on a Wednesday to inspect the data. She was told that it was not available because she had not called ahead of time to say exactly when she would be arriving. After Lazaryan made a "fuss", the City produced the data for inspection.
Robert Humphrey then sent a series of emails to Lazaryan, establishing a "protocol" that Lazaryan would need to call 48 hours in advance to tell the City the exact time she would be arriving on each Wednesday.
Robert Humphrey is not the Responsible Authority for the City of St. Paul. Robert Humphrey is not a "designee" for the Responsible Authority of St. Paul. Robert Humphrey was violating the law by establishing this "protocol".
This week, Lazaryan appeared at the City offices at approximately 2 PM on Wednesday to inspect the data. She came with a TV camera and camera person. She asked to see the data. Robert Humphrey came to the elevator lobby, and denied Lazaryan access to the data. Lazaryan informed Humphrey that he was violating the law and placed him under Citizen's Arrest.
Lazaryan immediately called the St. Paul police and informed them of the situation and asked for assistance; for the police to take custody of the person that she had arrested. During the phone call to the police, Humphrey attempted to flee, and Lazaryan pursued.
Lazaryan cornered Humphrey in a back office and waited for the police to arrive. Upon the arrival of the police, Lazaryan asked the police to take custody of Humphrey, and to give her a "Citizen's Arrest Form" to fill out. The police told Lazaryan that the form was in the squad car and that Lazaryan was to follow the officer to the car to get the form. Lazaryan, with TV camera rolling, followed the officer. Upon reaching the squad car, the officer refused to give Lazaryan the Citizen's Arrest form, and told Lazaryan if she returned to the City offices, she would be charged with trespassing.
Lazaryan then went to the St. Paul Police headquarters, with the TV camera person. She asked to speak with the Chief. Instead of the Chief, Sgt. Burke spoke with Lazaryan. With TV cameras rolling, Lazaryan told Burke that the officers needed to be investigated for misconduct because they refused to do their duty by refusing to take custody of Humphrey.
At around 4:00 PM Sgt. Burke called Lazaryan and tried to "explain away" the actions of Humphrey. Lazaryan told Burke that a Citizen's Arrest had been made, and that the officers had the duty to take Humphrey. Lazaryan asked for a formal investigation of the officers' misconduct. Burke asked Lazaryan to return to the police station and to meet with a special investigator.
Lazaryan returned to the police station, this time without the camera person. Lazaryan was immediately met in the lobby by one of the officers that Lazaryan was accusing of misconduct. Lazaryan objected to going with this officer, but was told another officer was going to take Lazaryan's complaint. While Lazaryan was giving details of her complaint to the "investigator", Sgt. Burke called Lazaryan on her cell phone, asking when she would be getting to the police station. Lazaryan told Burke that she was already talking with an "investigator", and was concerned that the officer that Lazaryan was complaining about was present while Lazaryan was making her complaint. Shortly thereafter, Lazaryan attempted to leave, frustrated that the "investigator" was not making any notes.
Lazaryan called a friend on her cell phone, concerned at what was transpiring. As she attempted to leave she was "bum rushed" by several officers. Lazaryan asked if she was under arrest, and was told she was not under arrest. She then insisted that she could leave. The officers forced her back into the "interview room" and ordered that she end her cell phone conversation. Moments later they cuffed Lazaryan and took her to jail. Lazaryan asked to immediately be taken to a judge, which is her right. The police refused.
After spending the night in jail, Lazaryan appeared before the judge. The city attorney tried to get the judge to order a psychological exam of Lazaryan. The judge questioned Lazaryan and then denied the exam. The judge placed a "no contact" order on Lazaryan and released her, without bail. The judge also ordered that the City would provide Lazaryan with the data that she had been seeking.
On Thursday, after being released from jail, Lazaryan contacted Sgt. Burke. She left a message, stating that she did not appreciate the treatment by the St. Paul police, since Lazaryan had come in, at Burke's request, to make a complaint against the police for misconduct.
At almost 5:00 PM on Thursday Sgt. Burke called Lazaryan back and told her that he had no idea the "corrupt" officers had hijacked Lazaryan and arrested her. Burke asked that Lazaryan come back to the police station and talk with Internal Affairs. Lazaryan insisted on a meeting with the Chief, and that if the Chief did not clean up the corruption in the police department, that the St. Paul police will be feeling the full force and power of the Citizens upon them.
The Chief was not in the office on Friday, and will be getting this message on Monday.
The events that the camera person taped were aired on "Inside Insight" Wednesday evening, while Lazaryan was in jail. This tape will be available for posting on the blog.
- Nancy Lazaryan said...
So that the Citizens understand:
M.S. Sec.629.30
ARRESTS; BY WHOM MADE
Subd. 2. Who may arrest. An arrest may be made:
(4) by a private person.
M.S. Sec.629.37
WHEN A PRIVATE PERSON MAY MAKE AN ARREST
A private person may arrest another:
(1) for a public offense committed or attempted in the arresting person's presence;
(2) when the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the arresting person's
presence; or
(3) when a felony has in fact been committed, and the arresting person has reasonable cause
for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
M.S. Sec. 629.38
REQUIRING A PRIVATE PERSON TO DISCLOSE CAUSE OF ARREST.
Before making an arrest a private person shall inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the arrest and require the person to submit. The warning required by this section need not be given if the person is arrested while committing the offense or when the person is arrested on pursuit immediately after committing the offense.
M.S. Sec. 609.43
MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
A public officer or employee who does any of the following, for which no other sentence is specifically provided by law, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both:
(1) intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law; or
(2) in the capacity of such officer or employee, does an act knowing it is in excess of lawful authority or knowing it is forbidden by law to be done in that capacity; or
(3) under pretense or color of official authority intentionally and unlawfully injures another in the other's person, property, or rights; or
(4) in the capacity of such officer or employee, makes a return, certificate, official report, or other like document having knowledge it is false in any material respect.
Humphrey, in my presence, violated M.S. Sec 609.43 (as well as other criminal statutes, including felonies).
The police that arrested me, and the city prosecutor are in violation of M.S.Sec. 609.43.
It will be interesting to see if the St. Paul Chief of Police will aid and abet these criminals.
- Nancy Lazaryan said...
I have a long documented email thread of communications with the City prior to the Citizen's Arrest. City attorney James Jerskey and Shari Moore were copied on these emails.
MN Chap 13 (the state version of Freedom of Information Act) states that violations of the statute carries CRIMINAL and civil consequences.
MN Chap 13 is specific as to WHO can handle the public data. I had spoken with the Minnesota Dept. of Administration, several times, verifying that the City was not complying with Chap 13.
I NOTICED Mr. Humphrey, Shari Moore and James Jerskey that Mr. Humphrey's actions were criminal. Here is the ACTUAL EMAIL that I sent on Nov.21,2007:
Mr. Humphrey,
Under what authority of law are you authorized to set forth the protocols for the handling of my requests for public data?
Government employers are restrained by law in what they can, and cannot do. If there is no law that authorizes you to determine the protocols, then you cannot create the protocols.
If you want to change the law, so that you are authorized to create these protocols, then I suggest you work with your legislator or run for the legislature yourself.
Since, as a Citizen, I am concerned that my employees know the law of the Citizens, I am suggesting you check out the website for the League of Minnesota Cities, since none of the 40 attorneys hired by the City of St. Paul seem to understand M.S. Chap.13.
Here is their website http://www.lmnc.org
...and then there are the "other governmental agencies" that say the public data is available Mon-Fri, 8AM to 4:30 PM
http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/taxes/use_of_information/your_right_public_data.shtml
Before you dig yourself an even bigger hole, I suggest that you get an opinion from Jim Schwartz at IPAD as to whether your "protocols" are legal.
Concerning my request for data about the vacant building categories...
Shari Moore made Bob Kessler her designee (the manner she did this appears to be in compliance with Chap.13)....
then Bob Kessler made you his designee....but that was not done in the manner proscribed by the law...
and now you have made Mr. Jerskey your designee.
I already had communication with Mr. Jerskey, and I thought we had come to the agreement that Mr. Jerskey could not, by law, respond to my data requests.
I realize that Minn. Chap. 13 is a lot to read, so I'll just give you a shorter, yet still important law that you should be considering:
M.S. Sec. 609.43 -- CRIMINAL
Misconduct of Public Officer or Employee
A public officer or employee who does any of the following, for which no other sentence is specifically provided by law, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both:
(1) intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law; or
(2) in the capacity of such officer or employee, does an act knowing it is in excess of lawful authority or knowing it is forbidden by law to be done in that capacity; or
(3) under pretense or color of official authority intentionally and unlawfully injures another in the other's person, property, or rights; or
(4) in the capacity of such officer or employee, makes a return, certificate, official report, or other like document having knowledge it is false in any material respect.
Mr. Humphrey, under WHAT authority of law are you establishing the
"protocols" that you are requiring of me, protocols that restrict my free access to the data?
Ms. Moore, as the responsible authority, you must respond to my request for the data concerning the vacant building categories. This is your "known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the office or employment", especially since you are aware that your "designee", Bob Kessler has unlawfully abrogated his duty to Robert Humphrey.
Ms. Moore, please respond to my data request concerning the vacant building categories.
Nancy Lazaryan
ALL of the Emails that I sent to the City are PUBLIC RECORD. If anyone wants to see all the emails, make a Data Pratices request to Shari Moore and ask for any an all communictaions between Nancy Lazaryan and the City of St. Paul.
Nancy Lazaryan- Sharon Anderson said...
If We can assist anyone,who is illegally jailed as My mother Bernice A Peterson 1983Mayoral Candidate, on my property at 2194 Marshall No Statute of Limitations on Fraud eleted SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS Bobby I've deleted most post as I am not going to fight with Repke at this time
3.732 Settlement of claims.
3.735 Inactive.
3.736 Tort claims.- Nancy Lazaryan said...
Whenever you want City Records you need to make a request, under MN Chapter 13 to City Clerk Shari Moore (who is the person, according to the law,that handles the public data.
I suggest you put your request in writing. Say, "Pursuant to M.S. Chap 13, I want to see _______ records."
It took me over a month of emails, over and again, before Ms. Moore got together "some" of the files.
Nancy Lazaryan
- Nancy Lazaryan said...
Chuck,
M.S. Sec. 609.43 is a "public offense". Prior to Wednesday I had noticed Humphrey, in writing for him to cease his violating M.S. Sec. 609.43.
On Wednesday I witnessed Humphrey violating M.S. Sec. 609.43. His crime is on video and has been televised. When I arrested him I also charged him with violating M.S. Sec. 609.52..THEFT.
Minnesota Chapter 609 are the Criminal Statutes
...Public Offenses. Anytime someone violates any one of the sections of 609, in your presence, you have the right and the duty, as a Citizen, to arrest that person.
After I arrested Humphrey he admitted certain things to me, and I further charged him with felonies.
This matter is now being investigated by law enforcement authorities
outside of the St. Paul police.
Nancy Lazaryan- Sharon Anderson said...
http://crimes-against-humanity.blogspot.com/ Forensic records obtained for 20 years
In this case Chuck Repke is not a public official, to slander his good name is unethical, Thanks for standing up to whomever
Millions of blogs out there, In fact SharonScarrellaAnderson now has 68 blogs, Its an HONOR to be Sanctioned from http://www.e-democracy.org/ chilling Free Speech, Nancy the records are with the persons, I have all mine for the past 30 years. Just got another from defendant Joel Essling for $70.00 excessive consumption MAIL FRAUD, Your arrest appears questionable?
FURTHER sheri.moore@ci.stpaul.mn.us is now in the Legislative Branch, Humphrey is in the Executive Branch re: Separation of Powers Doctrine: PS We were sued for Practicing Law 30 years ago Whatever that is, Be Careful of these Pscy Examns Sharon has had over 12, the only Certified Sane Candidate for Any Public Office
This Blog is getting Boring with your personal attacks Delete if you want The Truth is out there
Persons in Glass House throwing Stones are Reprehensible http://sharon4council.blogspot.com/- Nancy Lazaryan said...
Chuck, Chuck, Chuck,
This is what our LAW says, and it SPECIFICALLY applies to public officers and employees. We have this Law because we have determined certain actions by our employees to be crimes.
M.S. Sec. 609.43
MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
A public officer or employee who does any of the following...
(2) in the capacity of such officer or employee,
does an act knowing it is in excess of lawful authority or knowing it is forbidden by law to be done in that capacity;
or
(3) under pretense or color of official authority intentionally and unlawfully injures another in the other's person, property,
or rights...
M.S. Sec. 609.02 DEFINITIONS. Subd. 9. (3) "Intentionally" means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act performed by the actor, if successful, will cause that result. In addition, except as provided in clause (6), the actor must have knowledge of those facts which are necessary to make the actor's conduct criminal and which are set forth after the
word "intentionally."
Here are excerpts from my last my email to Humphrey on Nov 21, 2007:
Mr. Humphrey,
Under what authority of law are you authorized to set forth the protocols for the handling of my requests for public data? Government employers are restrained by law in what they can, and cannot do. If there is no law that authorizes you to determine the protocols, then you cannot create the protocols.
...Since, as a Citizen, I am concerned that my employees know the law of the Citizens, I am suggesting you check out the website for the League of Minnesota Cities, since none of the 40 attorneys hired by the City of St. Paul seem to understand M.S. Chap.13.
...I realize that Minn. Chap. 13 is a lot to read, so I'll just give you a shorter, yet still important law that you should be considering:
M.S. Sec. 609.43 -- CRIMINAL
Misconduct of Public Officer or Employee
...(2) in the capacity of such officer or employee, does an act knowing it is in excess of lawful authority or knowing it is forbidden by law to be done in that capacity; or
(3) under pretense or color of official authority intentionally and unlawfully injures another in the other's person, property, or rights;
...Mr. Humphrey, under WHAT authority of law are you establishing the
"protocols" that you are requiring of me, protocols that restrict my free access to the data?
Chuck, Chuck, Chuck,
Humphrey intentionally acted without authority of law to deny my right to inspect the data. He was fully aware that he was in violation of the law.
I did not "determine it in my mind"...the evidence is clear and absolute.
Nancy Lazaryan
- Sharon Anderson said...
Forensic Evidence is NOT blog envy,Apparantly you have not even read the 68 Blogs, now its 69 or 70
used re: Title 26 501(c)3 for educational purposes:
Its illegal to entrap the city or State"but for" Sharon applyed for 2nd Judicial Judge(Dickinson) Seat the city is simulating legal ??process to jail NancyLazaryan because she is lobbying HF1261 is bizzare,
You bet we'll be on the Ballot 2008 Ha Ha Legal Way to FOIA the State for records: challenge constitutionality, "Learned in the Law" has NEVER been defined by the Legislature http://sharon4staterep64a.blogspot.com/
http://www.sharon4judge.blogspot.com/
PS Public Works andy.bahn@ci.stpaul.mn.us listed on the back of each and every Notice's 651-266-8858 submits False internal documents from Kessler's Office via defendant joel essling for City Council Ratification Sharon is entrapping the City for Extortion? PSS City has wilfully failed to properly serve my Dead Husband: Follow the Money- Nancy Lazaryan said...
Sharon,
I appreciate your courage and your willingnes to speak, yet you are mistaken about "learned in the law".
If you read the Minnesota Constitutional Debates,
"learned in the law" is discussed and defined. If you would like to read the debates, there is an electronic copy online at the Minnesota State Law Library site.
The INTENT behind our laws is as important as the words of the law. You can further find the intent of "learned in the law" in the statutes by researching the bill and committee meeting minutes at the Minnesota Historical Society. I previously worked for a law professor and did his legislative intent research.
It was the intent of the people, spoken through our legislature, to have open and free access to all public data. So important is this free access, that criminal penalities were attached to any public employee that violated our access. See as follows:
Minnesota Statutes Section 13.09 (2005): Penalties.
Any person who willfully violates the provisions of this chapter or any rules adopted under this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. Willful violation of this chapter by any public employee constitutes just cause for suspension without pay or dismissal of the public employee.
Humphrey was restricted by the language of M.S. Chap. 13 from handling my request for data, much less denying me access to the data.
There was a public official in northern Minnesota that was charged with a misdemeanor for denying access to public data. I am chasing down the details of the story and will post them later.
Nancy Lazaryan - Sharon Anderson said...
MADAM LAZARYAN: Response dtd.5Dec07
PLEASE DO NOT MISINFORM THE PUBLIC AS TO 'LEARNED IN THE LAW" Blue Book pg 262, Amendments to MN State Constitution 1952 "to clarify meaning of who can VOTE" rejected by the citizens in compliance with VOTING RIGHTS ACTS
POLL TAX, LITERACY-LICENSE TRIGGERING CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF STATE & FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS, CHECK with your lawyer "buddies" Greg Wersal http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/994021p.pdf: site
Disbarred Lawyer John Graham with R kids, Your INTENT to mislead the public is not well taken by In re: Scarrella for Associate Justice 221NW2d562 which is Affiant Sharon Scarrella, now Anderson
Judges CANNOT MAKE LAWS, only the Legislature "must" make the laws
FURTHER as Sharon has electronically filed the application for 2nd Judicial District vacancy (Dickinson) Seat
re: SEPARATION OF POWERS If We non Lawyers are excluded from Judicial Offices based upon a License requirement, then that License must excluded ALL LAWYERS from the Legislative and Executive Branch's including city attorney Louise Seeba
Lazaryan you are correct on the MS13.09 http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/statute/statute_chapter.php?year=2007&start=13&close=13C&history=&border=0 However Humphrey is low man on Totem Pole.
Lazaryan you should have applied for Non Lawyer Judge http://sharon4judge.blogspot.com WELCOME'S all background checks to prove Judicial Corruption and or http://sharon4staterep64a.blogspot.com Entenza WAS/IS a lawyer got dumped "Big Time Erin Murphy is accountable
The United States is constitutionally constituted federal governance for the United States of America. It is nothing more, and nothing less than a municipal service corporation, whose statutory limitations are written in black and white. Read the Constitution of the United States for the United States of America, and its forerunners, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, and the Declaration of Independence of the thirteen United States of America
The “Courts” in America are statutory creatures of law that are legislative agencies constituted constitutionally by the legislature in conformity to the State and or Federal Constitution.
The will and whim of the legislature operating under the state and federal capitol dome is constitutionally constituted to stand within the rule of law. It is unfortunate that far too many Americans proclaim their misery is a result of the known corruption of the public weal. It is a fact, that it is the known corruption of the public weal that is instituted by the appointed political bureaucracy which will that substantiate the necessity to learn how to stand the force of law by objecting to the inequitable public policy of the administrative state that lies well in equity when the litigant has not knowledge to the law.
Google Jack-john Graham
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Jack+Graham+lawyer+MN&btnG=Search
FURTHER GO TO http://freedom-4you.blogspot.com taken from the federal courts with Sharons ECF P-165913 Pacer Account sa1299 at 8 cents a page total 88 cents
No comments:
Post a Comment