Ruling Case Law Morris v. Sax OPA061188-0515_25pdf
MN State Building Code:Minnesota State Building Code
Data Practices: Chapter 13Chapter 13 mn - Google Search
Bloggers: Law & Business Professor Bainbridge
References : Doc: Transcribed from the web
Ramsey County District Court file number: 62-CV-07-1960
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN THE
SUPREME COURT
Nancy Lazaryan, et al
(and other similarly situated persons)
in propria persona, in sumo jure
v.
The City of St. Paul, et al
Ramsey County District Court file number: 62-CV-07-1960
________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled concerning the limitations of Home Rule Charter cities in the recent Morris v. Sax case, and
WHEREAS the City of St. Paul submitted an amicus brief in support of the City of Morris in said case which was rejected by this Minnesota Supreme Court, and
WHEREAS the City of Sat. Paul is attempting to enforce ordinances under its Home Rule Charter that are in direct conflict with Morris v. Sax, and
WHEREAS your petitioner is a party in the above named district court case and said case has raised the authority of Morris v. Sax as controlling, and further
WHEREAS said case names as parties “other similarly situated persons” and your petitioner is thereby appearing a private attorney general,
Now comes Nancy Lazaryan, in propria persona, in sumo jure, petitioning this Minnesota Supreme Court to certify (answer) certain question(s). Notice having been given to the district court as to this petition.
FACTS
In May of 2008 this Minnesota Supreme Court issued an opinion in City of Morris v. Sax. The City of St. Paul participated in said case as an amicus, submitting arguments and brief in support of the City of Morris.
This Minnesota Supreme court held for the appellant (Sax) and rejected the arguments of the City of Morris (and the arguments of the City of St. Paul).
Almost immediately following the ruling of this Minnesota Supreme Court many members of the public appeared at the public hearing at the St. Paul city council meeting on May 30, 2008. These members of the public adamantly objected to actions being taken by the St. Paul city council to condemn and/or demolish certain private properties.
These Citizens specifically cited the recent Morris v. Sax case. Without exception, the city council gaveled down each member of the public, speaking at public hearing and objecting to the actions of the council (pursuant to Morris v. Sax). Your petitioner was one of the Citizens attempting to raise Morris v. Sax.
On July 2, 2008, at public hearing, another member of the public again raised the matter of Morris v Sax being ignored by the St. Paul city council. Again, the city council refused the Citizen to argue the controlling law of Morris v. Sax and the council demanded the Citizen stop speaking and sit down.
On July 16, 2008 your petitioner again appeared before the St. Paul city council at public hearing. As your petitioner began to make a record of objecting (pursuant to Morris v. Sax) to the condemnation actions against a property, your petitioner was gaveled down and the council meeting was adjourned. Two St. Paul police officers approached your petitioner and indicated that your petitioner was to be escorted off the public property (council chambers).
QUESTIONS
1.Pursuant to Morris v. Sax, the state building code and M.S. Sec. 117 the city of St. Paul is required to follow specific procedures when the city “takes”, condemns and/or demolishes a (private) property. If the city council openly and blatantly violates any or all of the above, does said action constitute the offense of “Misconduct of Office”?
2.Does denying the public an opportunity to speak at a public hearing constitute a violation of the “open meeting law”? (M.S. Chap. 13)
3.Is violating a Minnesota Supreme Court Order a malfeasance that constitutes violation of a public official’s oath of office?
Petitioner rests.
August 20, 2008
____________________________
Nancy Lazaryan, in propria persona in sumo jure
10734 West Lake Road
Rice, MN 56367
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN THE
SUPREME COURT
Nancy Lazaryan, et al
(and other similarly situated persons)
in propria persona, in sumo jure
v.
The City of St. Paul, et al
Ramsey County District Court file number: 62-CV-07-1960
________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled concerning the limitations of Home Rule Charter cities in the recent Morris v. Sax case, and
WHEREAS the City of St. Paul submitted an amicus brief in support of the City of Morris in said case which was rejected by this Minnesota Supreme Court, and
WHEREAS the City of Sat. Paul is attempting to enforce ordinances under its Home Rule Charter that are in direct conflict with Morris v. Sax, and
WHEREAS your petitioner is a party in the above named district court case and said case has raised the authority of Morris v. Sax as controlling, and further
WHEREAS said case names as parties “other similarly situated persons” and your petitioner is thereby appearing a private attorney general,
Now comes Nancy Lazaryan, in propria persona, in sumo jure, petitioning this Minnesota Supreme Court to certify (answer) certain question(s). Notice having been given to the district court as to this petition.
FACTS
In May of 2008 this Minnesota Supreme Court issued an opinion in City of Morris v. Sax. The City of St. Paul participated in said case as an amicus, submitting arguments and brief in support of the City of Morris.
This Minnesota Supreme court held for the appellant (Sax) and rejected the arguments of the City of Morris (and the arguments of the City of St. Paul).
Almost immediately following the ruling of this Minnesota Supreme Court many members of the public appeared at the public hearing at the St. Paul city council meeting on May 30, 2008. These members of the public adamantly objected to actions being taken by the St. Paul city council to condemn and/or demolish certain private properties.
These Citizens specifically cited the recent Morris v. Sax case. Without exception, the city council gaveled down each member of the public, speaking at public hearing and objecting to the actions of the council (pursuant to Morris v. Sax). Your petitioner was one of the Citizens attempting to raise Morris v. Sax.
On July 2, 2008, at public hearing, another member of the public again raised the matter of Morris v Sax being ignored by the St. Paul city council. Again, the city council refused the Citizen to argue the controlling law of Morris v. Sax and the council demanded the Citizen stop speaking and sit down.
On July 16, 2008 your petitioner again appeared before the St. Paul city council at public hearing. As your petitioner began to make a record of objecting (pursuant to Morris v. Sax) to the condemnation actions against a property, your petitioner was gaveled down and the council meeting was adjourned. Two St. Paul police officers approached your petitioner and indicated that your petitioner was to be escorted off the public property (council chambers).
QUESTIONS
1.Pursuant to Morris v. Sax, the state building code and M.S. Sec. 117 the city of St. Paul is required to follow specific procedures when the city “takes”, condemns and/or demolishes a (private) property. If the city council openly and blatantly violates any or all of the above, does said action constitute the offense of “Misconduct of Office”?
2.Does denying the public an opportunity to speak at a public hearing constitute a violation of the “open meeting law”? (M.S. Chap. 13)
3.Is violating a Minnesota Supreme Court Order a malfeasance that constitutes violation of a public official’s oath of office?
Petitioner rests.
August 20, 2008
____________________________
Nancy Lazaryan, in propria persona in sumo jure
10734 West Lake Road
Rice, MN 56367
No comments:
Post a Comment