Lazaryan Video's-A-Democracy.Blogspot.com

Nancy Lazreon, Inside Insight, Guest: Nancy Osterman Nancy Lazreon, Inside Insight, Guest: Nancy Osterman 26 min video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9153527281635581274 Attorney Patrick Tierney said... Patrick T. Tierney Attorney At Law July 31, 2008 The Honorable Dale B. Lindman Judge of District Court 1030 Ramsey County Courthouse 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Nancy C. Lazaryan, et al. v. The City of St. Paul, et al. Court File No.: 62-CV-07-1960 Our File No.: 13236-1 Dear Judge Lindman: Evelyn Wallace submits this letter argument in support of her request that this Court order the City to remove the vacant building classification on this property because (1) the City’s regulation of this property as a registered vacant building is in conflict with the State Building Code and, therefore, impermissible under City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc.749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.2008) and (2) the City Code provisions that allow the City to register property as a vacant building, as applied by the City in this case, resulted in an impermissible taking of property without due process. A. Background: During May of 2007, Evelyn Wallace purchased a single family residence at 1033 Colne Street, in the City of Saint Paul. At the time she purchased that property, she had no actual or constructive knowledge that the City had previously registered the property as a vacant building. On June 1, 2007, Evelyn Wallace’s granddaughter, Victoria Marchetti, began living in the home. On July 10, 2007, an enforcement officer for the City of Saint Paul informed Victoria Marchetti that the house was a “Registered Vacant Building” and directed her to vacate the property. The State Building Code provides that a building official “… may order any building or portion of a building to be vacated if continued use is dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupants. The order shall be in writing and state the reasons for the action.” Minn. Rules, 1300.0180, Unsafe Buildings or Structures. The State Building Code further provides that if a municipality decides that property should be vacated, it must follow the statutory procedure set forth in Minn. Stat., §§463.15 to 463.26. Minn. Stat. §463.251 allows a city to secure a vacant or unoccupied building if the building “is deemed hazardous due to the fact that the building is open to trespass and has not been secured.” Minn. Stat. §463.17 requires that the municipality provide notice to the owner, mortgage holder and that the municipality record any Order with the County Recorder. The Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 43, §43.02 provides a different definition of a vacant building. The City Code defines a 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. In this case, this property never met the requirements for a vacant building under the State Building Code. The property was never found to be “dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupants.” The property is currently being legally occupied by Victoria Marchetti and does not now, nor has it ever, met the definition of a vacant building under the City Code. On July 11, 2007 Evelyn Wallace appealed the enforcement officer’s order that attempted to impose a vacant building classification on her property, and that ordered her granddaughter to vacate the property. In her Application for Appeal, she noted that the February 15, 2007 Truth-in-Housing report on this property did not identify the property as a vacant building. On July 24, 2007 a legislative hearing was conducted pursuant to Chapter 18, §18.01 of the Code. The legislative hearing officer considered the appeal to be an appeal of the original May 2006 order of the City classifying this house as a vacant building. The officer recommended that the City Council uphold enforcement officer’s order. The City Council accepted the recommendation of the hearing officer. Chapter 18, §18.03 of the Code provides for judicial review of the final decision of the legislative hearing officer by the filing of an action seeking review in district court. In August of 2007 Evelyn Wallace complied with that section of the Code by serving and filing this action seeking judicial review of the order of the legislative hearing officer. On May 30, 2008 the Plaintiffs sought a restraining order against the City restraining the City from taking further action concerning this property until this Court ruled on the merits of the Appeal. On June 26, 2008 this Court scheduled a hearing “on judicial review for determination of a final decision of a legislative officer and for temporary restraining order.” During that hearing, the Court invited arguments on the effect of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc.749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.2008). B. Argument: 1. The registered vacant building regulations contained in the City’s Legislative Code are unenforceable because they are different than the provisions of the State Building Code. City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc. In City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.2008), the City of Morris sought a temporary injunction to prevent the owner of a building from renting his property as housing until the owner corrected deficiencies identified during an inspection done pursuant to the city’s licensing ordinance for rental housing. The owner counterclaimed for an injunction to prevent the city from enforcing any portion of the ordinance that was in conflict with the State Building Code. The issue considered by the Supreme Court was whether a city could enforce ordinances that were more stringent that the State Building Code. The Court recognized that “municipalities have no inherent powers and possess only such powers as are expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have been expressly conferred.” Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 357, 143 N.W.2d 813, 820 (1966). The Court also recognized that “[w]hen a statute contains specific language as to the extent of permissible municipal regulation, our focus is on the language of the statute.” City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc.749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.2008); State v. Kuhlman, 729 N.W.2d 577, 580 (Minn.2007). The Court found that the State Building Code contained specific language that restricted a city’s authority to regulate matters covered by the State Code. Minn. St. §16B.62 (Subd.1) expressly provides that “The State Building Code applies statewide and supersedes the building code of any municipality.” And Minn. Rule 1300.0040 (2005) provides that the “code applies statewide … and supersedes the building code of any municipality.” The Supreme Court held that a City’s regulation of a matter that is included in the State Building Code cannot be “different” than the State Code. (“Thus, even a provision that is merely additional and complementary to a provision in the State Building Code is prohibited”). City of Morris, supra, 749 N.W.2d @10. State Building Code The State Building Code provides the exclusive method for a city to manage vacant buildings. Minnesota Rules, 1300.0180, entitled Unsafe Buildings or Structures, provides: A building or structure regulated by the code is unsafe, for purposes of this part, if it is structurally unsafe, not provided with adequate egress, a fire hazard, or otherwise dangerous to human life. Building service equipment that is regulated by the code is unsafe, for purposes of this part, if it is a fire, electrical, or health hazard; an unsanitary condition; or otherwise dangerous to human life. Use of a building, structure, or building service equipment constituting a hazard to safety, health, or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster, damage, or abandonment is, for the purposes of this part, an unsafe use. Parapet walls, cornices, spires, towers, tanks, statuary, and other appendages or structural members that are supported by, attached to, or a part of a building and that are in deteriorated condition or otherwise unable to sustain the design loads that are specified in the code are unsafe building appendages. The building official may order any building or portion of a building to be vacated if continued use is dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupants. The order shall be in writing and state the reasons for the action. All unsafe buildings, structures, or appendages are public nuisances and must be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal according to Minnesota Statutes, sections 463.15 to 463.26. Under the State Building Code, there must be a finding that the continued use of the building “… is dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupants” and there must be a written order stating the “the reasons for the action.” The State Building Code further provides that before a municipality can order that a building be vacated, the City must follow the statutory procedure set forth in Minn. Stat. §§463.15 to 463.26. Minn. Stat. §463.17 provides: Subdivision 1. Contents. The order shall be in writing; recite the grounds therefor; specify the necessary repairs, if any, and provide a reasonable time for compliance; and shall state that a motion for summary enforcement of the order will be made to the district court of the county in which the hazardous building or property is situated unless corrective action is taken …” Subdivision 2. . Service. The order shall be served upon the owner of record, or the owner's agent if an agent is in charge of the building or property, and upon the occupying tenant, if there is one, and upon all lien holders of record, in the manner provided for service of a summons in a civil action. If the owner cannot be found, the order shall be served upon the owner by posting it at the main entrance to the building or, if there is no building, in a conspicuous place on the property, and by four weeks' publication in the official newspaper of the municipality if it has one, otherwise in a legal newspaper in the county. Subdivision 3. Filing. A copy of the order with proof of service shall be filed with the court administrator of district court of the county in which the hazardous building or property is located not less than five days prior to the filing of a motion pursuant to section 463.19 to enforce the order. At the time of filing such order the municipality shall file for record with the county recorder or registrar of titles a notice of the pendency of the proceeding, describing with reasonable certainty the lands affected and the nature of the order. If the proceeding be abandoned the municipality shall within ten days thereafter file with the county recorder a notice to that effect. Saint Paul Legislative Code The Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 43, §43.02 defines a 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. The City Code is substantially different than the State Code. First, the definition of a vacant building under the City Code allows the City to register a property as vacant that would not be classified as vacant under the State Building Code. Second, the City Code requires the property owner to bring the property into full compliance with all “current codes and laws”. That provision is in direct conflict with the State Building Code. (“Finally, the State Building Code regulates the post-construction use of buildings by specifically allowing the occupancy of an existing building to continue without complying with current code requirements (nonconforming use) unless a code provision is “specifically applicable to existing buildings.” City of Morris, supra, 749 N.W.2d @ 9). Third, the State Building Code requires the municipality to follow a procedure designed to assure that the owner of the property, and any subsequent purchaser, has received due process. Specifically, the State Code requires that “… the municipality … file for record with the county recorder or registrar of titles a notice of the pendency of the proceeding, describing with reasonable certainty the lands affected and the nature of the order. If the proceeding be abandoned the municipality shall within ten days thereafter file with the county recorder a notice to that effect.” Minn. Stat. §463.17, Subd. 3. City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc.749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.2008) does not allow the City to classify property as vacant without following the State Building Code. The City Code is substantially different than the State Code and, therefore, this Court should order the City to remove the registered vacant building classification on this property. 2. The City Code, as implemented by the City, allows for an unconstitutional taking of property. The City Code does not authorize the City to register property as vacant property. Section 43.02 (7) allows an owner to voluntarily register his property as a vacant building (“The owner shall register … “). By classifying this property as vacant, without the consent or permission of the owner, the City has acted beyond the authority of both the State Code and the City Code. The City can only cause property to be classified as vacant by following the State Code, which requires a showing that the property is “…dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupant” and which requires the City to follow the due process requirements mandated by Minnesota Statutes and to file the Order with the county recorder so that a subsequent purchaser has notice of the Order. If the City followed the Statute, Evelyn Wallace would have received notice that she was purchasing a house that had been registered as vacant. But because the City did not follow the Statute, Evelyn Wallace had no actual or constructive notice that the property she was purchasing had been classified as a vacant building. That classification adversely affects her rights as an owner. Chapter 43, §43.03 of the Code imposes obligations on owners of registered vacant property. Those obligations include the assessment of vacant building fees, the requirement that the owner submit a plan and timetable that meets the approval of the enforcement officer, the potential obligation to pay penalties, the obligation to bring the property into full compliance with all current codes and laws, and certain requirements on the resale of the property. The owner of the property is denied occupancy of the building until all conditions required by the City are met. Because of that, the City’s action in designating this property as a vacant building substantially infringes on Evelyn Wallace’s property rights. Government conduct that substantially infringes on a citizen’s property rights is considered a “taking” and requires that the government provide the citizen with due process before the City takes the property. In this case, the City failed to provide Evelyn Wallace with any notice that this property had been designated as vacant property at the time she purchased the property. The City was required, pursuant to the State Building Code and the City Code to provide notice to both the owner and the mortgage holder that the property was being classified as a “vacant building” and the State Building Code requires that the City records the order with the County Recorder. The City failed to notice the mortgage holder and failed to record the vacant building order with the County Recorder. The February 2007 Truth-in-Housing report specifically states this house is not a vacant building. Without the notice required under statute, required by the State Building Code, and required by the City Code, the City cannot constitutionally treat this property as a vacant building because that conduct amounts to a “taking” without due process. To be enforceable, a lien or charge against real property must appear as a matter of record so that the purchaser of the property can discover that the property is subject to a lien or encumbrance. That is what is required by the State Building Code. Because the City does not record vacant building registrations with the Ramsey County Recorder, and because the Truth-in-Housing report in this case did not identify this property as a vacant building, Evelyn Wallace had no actual or constructive notice of this designation at the time she purchased this property. The only concerns the City ever raised about this property were that the electricity had been turned off, and that the roof needed repair. But under the State Building Code these conditions cannot be the basis for declaring a house a vacant building. The City cannot use these conditions to force an owner of property to vacate her home without a specific finding that these conditions make the home “…dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupant.” The electrical system in this house is in full compliance with the State Building Code and the City has not, and cannot, show that having the electrical system turned off is “…dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupant.” Similarly, the City has not, and cannot, show that a roof in need of repair makes a house “…dangerous to life, health, or safety of the occupant.” City of Morris v. Sax prohibits the City from entering a person’s home, inspecting the home, and forcing a person to vacate that home, without meeting the substantive and procedural requirements of the State Building Code. For these reasons, Evelyn Wallace respectfully requests that this Court order that the City of Saint Paul remove the vacant building classification on this property. Very truly yours, Patick T.Tierney law cases said... Apparantly Tierney wins on Appeal http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/416/416.F3d.864.04-3040.html PATRICK T TIERNEY MS 463 said... Read the Statutes yourselves, even the Judges do not take the "time" So many laws repealed, the real Issue is Constitutionality, Authority and Jurisdiction for DSI and Moermond to do what they illegally do https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP&year=2007&section=463. . Morris v. Sax A-08-1188 said... Sites are changed, Archives of Law Library pdf format Apparantly there may be a few Honest Lawyers, ready to take on the City? GO GET EM NANCY http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/0805/OPA061188-0515.pdf S Y L L A B U S 1. When the express language of a state statute defines the scope of permissible municipal regulations, we determine the validity of municipal regulations on the same subject by applying the plain language of the statute. 2. Under Minn. Stat. § 16B.62, subd. 1 (2006), a municipal rental licensing ordinance regulating components or systems of a residential structure covered by the State Building Code is invalid where the municipal ordinance imposes different requirements than the State Building Code. 3. Inspection standards in a municipal rental licensing ordinance regulating ground fault interrupter receptacles, bathroom ventilation, and egress window covers are invalid under Minn. Stat. § 16B.62, subd. 1, because the inspection standards are Update:1Jul08 Blogger: A Democracy - Post a Comment Bob said... Nancy Lazaryan **** **** ***** Rice, MN 56367 Judge Lindman Ramsey County District Court 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 By FAX: ***-***-**** June 30, 2008 RE: 62-CV-07-1960 Dear Judge Lindman, Pursuant to your Order from the bench on June 26, 2008, I had the dumpster removed (that same day) from the property at 1033 Colne. I clearly heard you say that you were staying the enforcement of the registered vacant building (as to occupancy). But, the City of St. Paul is pursuing boarding up the house, and there is a public hearing on Wednesday (July 2) concerning the boarding of the house. May I please get a copy of the transcript with your order from the bench, or if you have time, the written order to stay the enforcement of the vacant building (before the St. Paul city council meeting on July 2, 2008)? Evidently, the City does not take seriously your order from the bench. Maybe something in writing would make the City comply with your order. I was at a hearing on June 24, 2008 before the St. Paul Legislative Hearing Officer concerning the boarding of the house. Before it was my turn, many other people appeared whose homes had been condemned by the City because these people were unable to pay their electric bills. The city officials had literally thrown these people out into the streets and seized the houses because the electricity had been cut off. Please review our pleadings in this case. The City purports that because the owner of 1033 Colne had voluntarily suspended the utilities to the house, the house qualified as “unfit for human habitation” and thereby met the criteria as a “vacant building”. This does not comply with the state code, or with Morris v. Sax. Also please note the names of the Plaintiffs. We are bringing this action as private attorney generals on behalf of “Other Similarly Situated Persons.” Many, many people have spoken at the St. Paul city council meetings and demanded the City comply with the restraints of Morris v. Sax. But the City refuses and they are throwing people out of their homes by condemnation that does NOT comply with the directives of the state building code. These “Other Similarly Situated Persons” need YOUR help. 06-30-2008 Letter to Judge Lindman Page 1 of 2 The district court is the proper forum to seek the necessary relief to stop the destruction of people’s lives by the City. As you may know, I went back and forth with Chief Judge Touissant when I attempted to appeal Judge Higgs “unappealable” order. IT IS CLEAR that the Court of Appeals wants a complete record to be made, as the appellate court is not the proper court to be the trier of facts in these local issues. Patrick Tierney, attorney-at-bar has now been hired to represent the interests of my mother, Evelyn Wallace. Would you allow me to speak on behalf of the “Other Similarly Situated Persons” as a private attorney general and seek equitable relief from this court in the form of a restraining order that keeps the City from kicking people out of their homes and condemning and demolishing houses based upon a city code that is in violation of Morris v. Sax? If not, would you allow Patrick Tierney to bring said motion for equitable relief? Thank you for you time and service to the People of the state of Minnesota. Sincerely, Nancy Lazaryan cc: James Jerskey (atty. for City) by fax: ***-***-**** David McGee (atty. for Remax) by fax: ***-***-**** Rebecca Schiller (atty. for Wells Fargo) by fax: ***-***-**** Patrick Tierney (atty. for Evelyn Wallace) by fax: ***-***-**** Victoria Marchetti: by hand 6:37 PM Sharon 4Anderson said... Nancy,Nancy,Nancy Your in a DEN of Thieves Now your writings are published on this Blog " Also please note the names of the Plaintiffs. We are bringing this action as private attorney generals on behalf of “Other Similarly Situated Persons.” Until you get Permission and or Law License, you are bordering on the "Unauthorized Practice of Law" Normally www.quitam.com actions are under SEAL Qui Tam ("He who sues on behalf of the king as well as for himself") is a provision of the Federal Civil False Claims Act that allows a private citizen to file a suit in the name of the U.S. Government charging fraud by government contractors and other entities who receive or use government funds, and share in any money recovered. 40 yrs ago Earl Gray "took" my daughter and gave her to a Woman who Murdered her 10 mnth child Henry Gooselaw Jr, Bullock v. State MN 611 F2d258(1979)President of Divorce Reform Inc. In re Scarrella for Associate Justice 221NW2d562 Then Gray acting US Attry sued us for Practicing Law, Been There Done That 8:43 AM

Post a Comment On: A Democracy

"A final warning! by Nancy Lazaryan"

3 Comments -


Show Original Post


Collapse comments

I deleted Nancy's phone number and Address


To the Governing Body of Maplewood, Minnesota
When I spoke to the Maplewood City Council on March 23, 2008 I informed the council of the
events and results of the criminal trial against me, which was brought by Maplewood.
Repeatedly, I have appeared before the council and made my demand that the elected officials of
Maplewood abide by their oaths of office and uphold our constitutions.
This letter is my final warning to the government of Maplewood, Minnesota. The following
violations of the state and federal constitutions will cease, or the People of Maplewood will bring
a federal RICO action and by federal authority seek the remedy of dissolving the artificial entity
known as the City of Maplewood, Minnesota.
Regarding the Citizens at large in Maplewood and the state of Minnesota:
1. On March 23, 2008 the council passed the first reading of amendment to the
watershed ordinance. This was done in spite of the fact that those members of the
public that would be directly impacted by the change in the ordinance where not
properly noticed. Notice after the passing of the first reading, by letter to these
Citizens, does not constitute proper notice and thereby violates due process.
2. As testified to by a Maplewood police officer under oath in the Ramsey county
district court, the police policy in Maplewood is to require Citizens to falsify
police reports, and if the Citizen refuses, the police will not investigate the
complaint of the Citizen. This is a violation of due process and abuse of power.
3. Maplewood has abused the police power and the power of the courts by
retaliating against Citizens and members of the media that have sought public data
and to expose the corruption within the government of Maplewood.
4. Upon knowledge of the repeated abuses by the Maplewood police in violating the
rights of the Citizens, the governing body has not taken action to stop these
abuses. This failure to act is misconduct in office.
5. Maplewood has failed to produce the public data demanded by numerous
Citizens, on multiple occasions. This failure is misconduct in office and violates
M.S. Chapter 13.
6. Certain members of the Maplewood city council are attempting to restrict the
right of the people of the state of Minnesota from petitioning the council during
the public comment section of the council meetings. Maplewood is a political
subdivision of the state of Minnesota and receives monies from the Citizens of the
state of Minnesota. These actions violate the federally secured right to petition the
government.
7. Councilmember Junemann has repeatedly left her office by removing herself from
the council room during the times that Citizens have petitioned the governing
2
body during council meetings when the Citizens were exposing the malfeasances
of the Maplewood employees and council members. These actions by Junemann
constitute open defiance of duties required of her in her office as an elected public
official.
8. Councilmember John Nephew, prior to his taking office, contacted the League of
Minnesota Cities and sought legal advice concerning matters involving the
governing of Maplewood. His actions were criminal, in that he was
impersonating a public official. Nephew openly admitted to these actions at a
Maplewood city council meeting, and he was never charged for his criminal
actions.
9. In spite of the evidence of Agent Orange, Silvex and other toxic chemicals being
present at the Beam Avenue Compost site, the governing body of Maplewood has
refused to require the site to be cleaned up. These actions constitute malfeasances
in office and violations of our state and federal constitutions, in that the
government has been established by the People to secure our safety.
10. In spite of the evidence of the hazard to the health of the Citizens of composting
materials, the governing body of Maplewood has allowed X-Cel Energy to create
a site that contains wood chips, which are an even greater hazard than mere
composting materials. This was done over protests of the Citizens. Again, these
actions are violations of the state and federal constitutions.
11. A Citizen in southern Maplewood was almost killed by the malfeasances of the
governing body of Maplewood and/or its employees directing that toxic chemicals
to be dumped into her yard. No investigation was made into this incident. These
actions are egregious and rise to the level of treason.
12. The city employees, including supervisors, have created a union. This action is an
affront to the Citizens of Maplewood, as it has been repeatedly held by the U.S.
and Minnesota Supreme courts that government employment is privileged.
Thereby, the employees of the artificial entity known as the City of Maplewood
do not have the right to unionize, which is a right secured for private citizens
employed by private employers. These actions by the employees of Maplewood
violate the Rule of Jurisdiction under Natural Law.
13. In spite of the City of Maplewood being over $60 million in debt, the City refuses
to operate in a fiscally responsible manner. The City pays employees up to twice
what is paid in the private sector and is now attempting to create new positions
that are unnecessary and an additional tax burden upon the Citizens of both
Maplewood and the state of Minnesota.
3
Regarding myself and my family:
1. Chad Lemmons is not authorized by law to represent the City of Maplewood in
the quiet title action against my family. This is a violation of due process.
2. The City of Maplewood has not authorized by resolution the slander of title action
against me. This is a violation of due process.
3. The employees and/or elected officials of Maplewood conspired to falsely charge
me. These actions constitute criminal actions under the federal RICO statutes and
violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. constitution.
4. The Maplewood police manipulated a Citizen into falsifying a Citizen’s arrest so
that I would be criminally charged for an action the police knew was not criminal.
These actions constitute criminal actions under the federal RICO statutes and
violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. constitution.
5. The act of posting the property in south Maplewood with “no trespassing” signs is
not criminal, and Maplewood using the police to punish us for the postings was an
abuse of power.
The People of the state of Minnesota established our government to serve and protect Us.
Each elected official, as well as members of the Executive branch (such as police officers) have
sworn an oath to uphold our constitutions, which secure certain rights to the People. Under the
constitutions, the People have secured their right of redress for injuries done against Them.
Employees and elected officials within the artificial entity known as the City of Maplewood have
repeatedly and knowing violated their oaths of office.
The governing body of the City of Maplewood will uphold their oaths of office by:
1. Responding to and paying for the damages the City has done to the Citizens.
2. Investigating and disciplining those City employees that have violated the rights
of the Citizens.
3. Complying with the statutory and constitutional restraints placed upon the City in
governing the People.
4. Creating processes that ensure the rights of the Citizens will no longer be violated.
Failure of the governing body of Maplewood to act upon taking these so stated steps to rectify
the abuses against the People will be further evidence of the necessity of the People to dissolve
the artificial entity known as the City of Maplewood.
We the People have determined that we are “self-governed” and have set forth the restraints we
have required for those that serve us in government. This is your final warning.
4
Written response to these demands must be made prior to April 16, 2008, or a federal
RICO lawsuit will be filed against the City of Maplewood.
Please take notice: In the federal RICO lawsuit, the Citizen plaintiffs will seek injunctive relief
for immediate removal from office of all Maplewood elected officials, as well as leave of the
court to place liens upon all properties owned by the City of Maplewood. Under the federal
RICO statutes prevailing plaintiffs are awarded TRIPLE damages and attorney fees. Given the
sworn court testimony of the Maplewood police officers this month, it is doubtful that
Maplewood would prevail in the federal lawsuit.
March 26, 2008
Nancy Lazaryan
Nancy Lazaryan
Mailing address: ****
Rice, MN 56367
Email: nancylazaryan@yahoo.com
Cell phone: ***-****
cc: H. Alan Kantrud, Ramsey County Undersheriff Altendorfer, members of the media.

8:08 AM

Friends of Karl Granse-Constitutional Thinking

Please forward, circulate Minnesota State Constitution 1

Judicial Restraint Minnesota http://www.mncourts.gov/

NARA Bill of Rights for educational purposes

Freedom Law School :: Live Free Now!

FRIENDS OF karl granse mn - Google Search

EVERY sixth grade student in our schools should be taught the following...and I am certain that the majority of the people getting this email have never heard these words. I was sent this from the man that "taught me the foundations", Karl Granse.

Remember what I previously sent to you about the "Rule of Jurisdiction"?...the Creator creates "Man"...a Natural Person...Man creates government an artificial entity...government creates corporations...artificial entities. Government does NOT have jurisdiction over Man.

ONLY the Natural Person has "unalienable rights".

The Constitutions (state and federal) are the compacts (contracts) between the Sovereign People, which define how WE will live in society.

I highly suggest that you read this. Think about it. We are the Sovereign People and we are responsible to the mess that we have let happen.

Subject: Constitutional thinking
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:13:59 -0600

Class 101 . . . KG

Preamble
America is engulfed in the fires of a Culture War, and federal judges for fifty years have been whipping the flames to a white-hot heat. Federal courts have usurped the power to define whether we and our loved ones are truly "persons" deserving of constitutional protections, and whether our religious beliefs are "acceptable" to the I.R.S., thus being constitutionally sheltered from destructive taxation. This "imperial judiciary" has also approved the exclusive teaching that all of us are nothing more than animals and has ruled that when we oppose gay rights activism, our only possible motive is hatred for homosexuals.

These "Reconstructionist" judges (popularly labeled "liberals" and "judicial activists") and their postmodernist allies throughout American culture must be repelled. The responsibility for such a counter-attack falls on us Constitutionalists (popularly known as "conservatives" and "judicial restraintists").

This "Manifesto" is a declaration of the fundamental Constitutionalist principles which made America great and for which we must fight in today's Culture War. These are the standards by which we must evaluate judicial decisions, select federal judges, elect other officials, and promulgate all other constitutional/judicial policy.

All the principles set forth below are inseparably related to one another and are indispensable to a comprehensive and consistent body of Constitutionalist theory. The "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, asserted that "knowledge is power." Understanding clearly and supporting completely this body of principles will unite and empower us as Constitutionalists to fight effectively to reclaim our Constitution, our culture, and our courts.

Principles

1. The American legal system must, by definition of a "legal system," be anchored in a supreme, fundamental permanent law to give it stability and direction.

2. The Constitution is, and must, by its very nature be, the supreme, fundamental, permanent law of the American legal system. No court decision, statutory law, or other form of "law" is either equal to, or superior to, the Constitution.

3. The Constitution, properly interpreted, is the ultimate "precedent" in American law and is the standard against which "precedents" (previous court decisions) in constitutional law (decisions of the courts interpreting the document) must be evaluated. No "precedent," regardless of its age, is "settled law" deserving of enforcement if it violates the Constitution, properly interpreted.

4. "Autonomous judicial restraint" is a recently created perversion of "judicial restraint" which must be rejected. "Autonomous judicial restraint" attempts to separate "judicial restraint" from the main body of Constitutionalist theory and places excessive emphasis on prior court decisions, not the Constitution, as the precedent to be followed. This approach leaves standing such egregious decisions as those described above in the "Preamble." Since such decisions are themselves extremely activist and anti-Constitutional, adherence to them actually renders a judge, not a genuine restraintist, but a judicial activist and a liberal. "Authentic judicial restraint," the correct--and original--form of judicial restraint, must be perpetuated, as it correctly subordinates court decisions to the Constitution, evaluating decisions according to the document.

5. The Constitution is controlling in all areas of law about which it speaks and should be effectively enforced within those limits. The Constitution does not control every area of life, as much authority and responsibility are reserved to the control of other agents such as individuals, private institutions, and the states.

6. The words of the Constitution have a fixed meaning which can, and must, be determined by careful, objective study of the express language of the text, the context of the provision being interpreted as well as the entire document, the intent of the Framers, and the world view surrounding the various provisions of the document as they were written. The meanings of the Constitution's provisions are not indeterminate, conflicting, and obsolete, constantly needing change through an "evolutionary process." The meaning of the Constitution's words cannot, and should not, be derived from the cultural/political environment of a particular time and/or a particular power group, such as federal judges.

7. The Constitution is embedded in an all-encompassing world view and, properly interpreted, can express the values of only one world view. The Constitution, properly interpreted, is not, and cannot be, an eclectic document reflecting more than one world view. A "pluralism" or "diversity" of world views cannot provide a solid, workable foundation for our Constitution

8. Religious/theological views and values are foundational to any world view. Therefore, religious/theological views are inseparably related to legal/constitutional/judicial values and actions. There is not, and cannot be, a complete "wall of separation" between religious/theological/philosophical values and legal/constitutional/political values.

9. The world view in which the Constitution is moored is the Judeo-Christian world view. Therefore, the ultimate foundation of the Constitution is Judeo-Christian religious/theological values and views, revolving around a theistic God. The ultimate foundation of the Constitution is not the Humanistic world view, demanding that a human agent or group of human agents (i.e., judicial elite) ravage the Constitution with Humanistic perspectives, purposes, and values. Indeed, our constitutional republic will increasingly malfunction and eventually collapse if severed from its Judeo-Christian foundation.

10. The basic meaning of the Constitution's provisions can be altered only by the people, who are the ultimate HUMAN source of the Constitution. There are, however, limits to the people's power. We must follow the formal amendment process specified in Article V. of the Constitution, and we can alter the document only within the limits allowed by the Judeo-Christian value system.

11. Federal judges have neither the authority nor the competence to rewrite the Constitution by changing its basic meaning--even when such rewriting is justified as "expressing the will of the people" or by some other euphemistic falsehood.

12. The APPLICATION of the Constitution's provisions (as distinguished from their basic MEANING) can be altered by properly authorized human agents employing legitimate procedures.

13. The federal judiciary must recognize fully the validity of the principle of separation of powers--that the national courts are only one branch among three branches of the national government and are not superior to either of the other two branches. There is to be a balance of both power and responsibility among the three branches, with the judiciary confined to interpreting existing law, not making or executing law.

14. The federal judiciary must recognize fully the validity of the principle of federalism--that there are two levels of government (national and state) each with its own powers and responsibilities under the Constitution. Neither level of government can legitimately over-run the other.

15. Federal judges must recognize fully that civil law/government is only one societal institution among several (the other primary institutions being the family and the church). A balance of power and responsibility, undisturbed by federal judges, must be maintained among these institutions.

16. The national courts are empowered and equipped to handle only cases involving clearly identifiable parties who are arguing over specific issues and rights which are recognized by the Constitution, and for which the Constitution provides narrow and direct relief. Once a national court has resolved such a dispute, the court is neither empowered nor equipped to try enforcing its decision through unconstitutional actions such as forcing local governments to raise their taxes.

Proclamation

We, America's Twenty-First Century Constitutionalists, affirm these principles as both our foundation and the objects for which we are fighting in our Culture War. We call upon all Americans who love our constitutional republic to understand clearly and support completely this "Manifesto." Thus may we fight together to reclaim our culture, our Constitution, and our courts!

Nancy Lazaryan Court Watch

View Full Size

Blogger: User Profile: Nancy Lazaryan

mn_court3.avi

March 15th,2008

After YEARS of battle in and out of the courts, we had several victories this week.

Personally, I have been dealing with corruption within the local government of Maplewood, MN. The officials of Maplewood retaliated against me in 2006 by kidnapping me and taking me to jail (I was never arrested). The charges against me were dismissed, after I was forced to go to numerous hearings on the criminal matter.

Then in 2007, I was again criminally charged, based upon a falsified police report. The prosecutor admitted the police report was falsified, but the judge still would not dismiss the charges.

This week I appeared before a jury on the 2007 criminal charges. The public record was established, with the police officer admitting on the stand, under oath, that he had falsified the police record by compelling a Citizen to sign a false "Citizen's Arrest" form...and that doing so is "standard procedure". The police officers also admitted that they strategized with the City as to how to "get me" because they had failed to do so in 2006.

Do I hear RICO anyone????

The jury found me NOT GUILTY of ALL charges.

Next week I have scheduled the taking of depositions of many of these corrupt officials, including a state district court judge (who was subpoenaed) and a state Supreme court Justice...in a CIVIL case.

While I was waiting to hear the verdict of the jury in my criminal case, I got a call from the Minnesota Attorney General's office. Video-kids v Swanson_8pdfThey were quite upset that I was deposing a MN Supreme court judge. I told them I was deposing him as a PRIVATE CITIZEN as a witness in a PRIVATE civil case, and the Attorney General's office had no business sticking their noses into it.

Late yesterday I received a voicemail message from the attorney in the civil case that stated he had scheduled an emergency hearing for Monday before the judge (in the civil case) to get a RESTRAINING order against me to prevent me from taking the depositions of EVERYONE that I had sent notice to. (This attorney is also one of the witnesses and I have a right to depose him as well, and he is trying to prevent his own deposition).

Also, we also have been suing the City of Maplewood because they refused to give us PUBLIC data. (MN Data Practices, a/k/a "Freedom of Information"). We faced (yet another) corrupt district court judge in this case, and our lawsuit was dismissed. After much wrangling with the Minnesota Appellate Court, this week I received an Order from the appellate court that my appeal WILL be heard!

At the state level, I was promised (again) a response from the chair of the Senate Judiciary to the Citizens' demand to be heard at the MN Legislature concerning judicial corruption.

On the "national" level we are gearing up to effectively seek federal assistance, using ALL the remedies available to us, in EVERY branch of government and with the voice of the sovereign Citizens. Last week we had a training seminar for Town Hall meetings, and within the next week we are hoping to have the United We Stand website "live" with training videos posted for everyone.

Most of the people getting this email have been frustrated by years and years of dealing with a system void of justice. You may feel alone and isolated as your own battle drains your energy.

Each person's individual pressure upon the corrupt system is vitally important, yet we stand with each other. We will regain our country.

Nancy