Saturday, September 19, 2009
Some cash, property seized by Metro Gang Strike Force to be returned - TwinCities.com
Shared via AddThis
Sunday, July 19, 2009
AliceKrengel_Won107-310 Legal Briefs
Minnesota Appellate Court Briefs Collection
Shown here are the statements of the issues presented for review by the appellate courts in the briefs filed for this case. The entire brief set can be found at the State Law Library and other libraries around the state. See Minnesota Appellate Court Briefs Collection for more information.
CASE NAME: City of West St. Paul, Respondent, vs. Alice Jane Krengel, Appellant.
Read the opinion in this case at A07-310
CITATION: 748 N.W.2d 333 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)
Legal Issues in APPELLANT'S BRIEF:
1. Did the district court have authority to enjoin appellant from living in her own home for a year without first finding that appellant was responsible for two or more behavioral incidents constituting a nuisance under Minnesota nuisance law within the 12 month period preceding the request for an injunction? The district court, by implication, held in the affirmative. Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. §617.81, subdivisions 1,2 and 4; Minn. Stat. §617.82; Minn. Stat. §617.83. 2. Did the district court have authority to enjoin appellant from living in her own home for a year without first finding that appellant was responsible for conduct which adversely affected any considerable number of members of the public within the 12 months preceding the request for an injunction? The district court, by implication, held in the affirmative. Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. §617.81, subdivisions 1 and 2; Minn. Stat. §617. 82; Minn. Stat. §617.83; Minn. Stat. §609.74(1). 3. Did the district court have authority to enjoin appellant from living in her own home for a year without describing the nuisance conduct maintained or permitted by appellant or identifying any existing or ongoing nuisance condition to be enjoined? The district court, by implication, held in the affirmative. Minn. Stat. §617.82; Minn. Stat §617.83. 4. Did the district court have authority to enjoin appel1ant from living in her own home for a year for non-compliance with an abatement plan which did not constitute nuisance activity under Minnesota law? The district court, by implication, held in the affirmative. Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. 617.81, subdivisions 1,2 and 4; Minn. Stat. §617.82; Minn. Stat. §617.83.
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT'S BRIEF:
I. DID THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY ISSUE THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION USING THE TIMEFRAME OF JULY 2004 TO JULY 2005 WHEN A NOTICE OF INJUNCTION WAS SERVED ON APPELLANT ON JULY 29, 2005 OUTLINING 13 SEPARATE NUISANCE INCIDENTS WHICH OCCURRED DURING THAT TIME PERIOD AND WHEN APPELLANT THEREAFTER VIOLATED THE TERMS OF THE ABATEMENT PLAN ENTERED INTO ON AUGUST 17, 2005? The District Court held in the affirmative. Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat § 617.81, Subds. 1,2,4; Minn. Stat. § 617.82; Minn. Stat. § 617.83; City of St Paul v. Spencer, 497 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. App. 1993). II. DID THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY ISSUE THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION AFTER DETERMINING THAT APPELLANT MAINTAINED AND PERMITTED A CONDITION THAT UNREASONABLY ANNOYS, INJURES OR ENDANGERS THE SAFETY, HEALTH, MORALS, COMFORT OR REPOSE OF ANY CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHEN IT FOUND THAT APPELLANT CREATED A NUISANCE AS DEFINED BY MINN. STAT. § 609.74(1)? The District Court held in the affirmative. Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. § 617.81, Subds. 1,2; Minn. Stat. § 617.82; Minn. Stat. § 617.83; Minn. Stat. § 609.74(1). III. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE CONDUCT TO BE ENJOINED WHEN IT FOUND, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT (1) THERE WERE 29 POLICE REPORTS REGARDING THE PROPERTY RANGING FROM INTOXICATED MALE GUESTS, TO AN ASSAULT, TO UNRELATED GUESTS; (2) A NEIGHBOR SAW APPELLANT SMASH OUT THE WINDOW OF A PICKUP TRUCK IN HER DRIVEWAY; AND (3) YELLING, ARGUING AND SCREAMING OBSCENITIES ALL HOURS OF THE DAY AND NIGHT HAS OCCURRED? The District Court held in the affirmative. Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. § 617.81, Subds. 1,2,4; Minn. Stat. § 617.82; Minn. Stat. § 617.83. IV. DID THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY ENJOIN APPELLANT DUE TO HER NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABATEMENT PLAN? The District Court held in the affirmative. Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. § 617.81, Subds. 1,2,4; Minn. Stat. § 617.82; Minn. Stat. § 617.83.
Also filed: APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF
Wind Beneath My Wings BETTE MIDLER
To my Mother and Father Bill and Bernice A. Peterson, We still carry the Torch http://sharon4mayor2010.blogspot.com
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Judge Leslie Metzen Resigns
|
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Friday, January 2, 2009
SharonAnderson_BillDahn_Private AG MS617 Nuisance,MS204C Canvass
the state or an officer, agency or employee of the state
Sec.State Mark Ritchie,Chief Justice Eric Magnuson ,MS2.724 Eric Magnuson - Google Search Kathleen Gearin,Barry Anderson
Gearin Kathleen Gearin MN - Google Search, State of Minnesota,
by and thro Governor Tim Pawlenty www.state.mn.us,Legislature,All Agencies
Media et a l Relatee's
With Notice to the US Supreme Court and Justice re:
Electronic Filings:
AFFIDAVITS OF SHARON ANDERSON AND BILL DAHN
WITH STANDING, AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERALS_ATTORNEY PRO SE'
,CANDIDATES,VOTERS,LEGAL SOVERIGN CITIZENS OF THE USA,BORN IN
MINNESOTA.
WHO DID VOTE IN THE 9SEPT08 PRIMARY AND 4NOV08
ELECTIONS , ADVOCATES OF ALICE KRENGEL, ALSO VICTIMIZED
and must not be disenfranchised from their VOTES/Property
Statutes | 2008 | Section 204C.32 Canvass Of State Primaries | Chapter 204C Election Day Activities |
Statutes | 2008 | Section 204C.33 Canvass Of State General Elections | Chapter 204C Election Day Activities |
Statutes | 2008 | Section 204C.35 |
http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Calendars/January_2009.pdf
En Banc Oral
City of West St. Paul,
Appellant,
vs. A07-310
Alice Jane Krengel,
Respondent.
Pierre N. Regnier
Susan Steffen Tice
Jardine, Logan & O’Brien, P.L.L.P.
8519 Eagle Point Boulevard – Suite 100
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
Michael Hagedorn
Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, Inc.
45 Syndicate Street – Suite 285
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
Opinion Court of Appeals
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0805/opa070310-0506.pdf summary of issues
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Matter of the Review of the 2005
Annual Automatic Adjustment of Charges
for All Electric and Gas Utilities
Case No. A07-653
Lori Swanson
Minnesota Attorney General
Kari Valley Zipko
Assistant Attorney General
445 Minnesota Street – Suite 1100
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2128
Eric Swanson
David M. Aafedt
Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A.
225 South Sixth Street – Suite 3500
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Opinion Court of Appeals
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0805/opa070653-0506.pdf summary of issues
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance for a Better Minnesota Sharon Anderson's Blog Click here: Sharon4Council file4[1]Shar_thune_22.pdf - Google Docs
Disclaimer on Site'sThe Electronic Communications Privacy Act MY FindLaw (ECPA) sets out the provisions for access, use, disclosure, interception and privacy protections of electronic communications. Sharon4Anderson Scribd pdf files. The law was enacted in 1986 and covers various forms of wire and electronic communications. According to the U.S. Code, electronic communications "means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce." ECPA prohibits unlawful access and certain disclosures of communication contents. Additionally, the law prevents government entities from requiring disclosure of electronic communications from a provider without proper procedure. The Legal Institute provides Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which encompasses ECPA. Blogger: Dashboard AndersonAdvocates/ddaweborg.msnw
NOTICE: This communication is not encrypted. This e-mail (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and Electronic Communications Privacy Act The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers