Click here: Alice Krengel,it was a pleasure to see you 13Mar07 Tues at Passport.
You stated you have an Appeal Pending: Good Luck
The conflict of Judge Metzen and Kory Land Prosecutor is likened to a Banana Republic ie; http://www.democracynow.org
your friends/advocates Bill and Sharon check our blogs in sig. below
www.sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com www.billdahn.blogspot.com
family /s/ Bill Dahn tel: 651-453-1992 PO Box 7417 ECF#P1291866 Ojb-Sioux#408B19111www.
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: Document's are based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, press releases, and knowledge gained as financial journalists, Private Attorney Generals, Candidates for Public Offices, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these documentexpressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Monday, March 5, 2007
Nuisance codifiedMS561.01(1998)-2007
Legal Notice to James Backstrom Dakota AttorneyJames C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Respondent, vs. One 1989 Range Rov
Don Gudmonson Dakota Sheriff
Chicago Greylord Operations - Google Search
Bud Shaver WestSt.Paul Police
COUNT I Title 18
Alice is still at DorothyDay, On or about Tues.27Feb07 Alice apparantly appeared in Judge Leslie Metzens Court Room, by information and belief: represented by SMRLS Julia Althouse
AFFIDAVITS OF SHARON ANDERSON AND BILL DAHN
Candidates St. Paul City Council www.sharon4council.blogspot.com
www.billdahn.blogspot.com 42 USC 3631
COUNT IIMS 609.51SimulatingLegProcess
challenging the St. Paul City Ordinance and Merger of LIEP-DPSINuisance laws_17 are making serious charges against Judge Leslie Metzen, www.levander.com Kory Land aka Larson re:
EMINENT DOMAIN: Alice Krengel, 823 Allen, WSP
Both verily believe Alice is charged with repealed Statutes as We directly believe that Alice has never intentionally interfered with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiffs land" or her Neighbors Propertys, surrounded by Martys Bar, Gallaghers and 40 Acres Liquor Store. FishLakeNuisance
Further we allege that the Mayor of West St. Paul John Zanmiller also ViceChair WaterA06-1150f/_26of St. Paul Water Board also apparant corrections officeralso defendant ? has with malice intent approved the WST.PaulLic
kicking out Alice's Disabled Tenants to create bizzare examples.
Finding of Nuisance: codified MS561.01(199561. Nuisance, Trespass, Waste; Damages8)
Minnesota Statutes 2006
Don Gudmonson Dakota Sheriff
Chicago Greylord Operations - Google Search
Bud Shaver WestSt.Paul Police
COUNT I Title 18
Alice is still at DorothyDay, On or about Tues.27Feb07 Alice apparantly appeared in Judge Leslie Metzens Court Room, by information and belief: represented by SMRLS Julia Althouse
AFFIDAVITS OF SHARON ANDERSON AND BILL DAHN
Candidates St. Paul City Council www.sharon4council.blogspot.com
www.billdahn.blogspot.com 42 USC 3631
COUNT IIMS 609.51SimulatingLegProcess
challenging the St. Paul City Ordinance and Merger of LIEP-DPSINuisance laws_17 are making serious charges against Judge Leslie Metzen, www.levander.com Kory Land aka Larson re:
EMINENT DOMAIN: Alice Krengel, 823 Allen, WSP
Both verily believe Alice is charged with repealed Statutes as We directly believe that Alice has never intentionally interfered with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiffs land" or her Neighbors Propertys, surrounded by Martys Bar, Gallaghers and 40 Acres Liquor Store. FishLakeNuisance
Further we allege that the Mayor of West St. Paul John Zanmiller also ViceChair WaterA06-1150f/_26of St. Paul Water Board also apparant corrections officeralso defendant ? has with malice intent approved the WST.PaulLic
kicking out Alice's Disabled Tenants to create bizzare examples.
|
Finding of Nuisance: codified MS561.01(199561. Nuisance, Trespass, Waste; Damages8)
Minnesota Statutes 2006
Chapter 561. Nuisance, Trespass, Waste; Damages
Copyright © 2006 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.
| 561.01 | Nuisance; action. |
| 561.02 | Maliciously maintained structure. |
| 561.03 | Remedies. |
| 561.04 | Trespass; treble damages. |
| 561.05 | Repealed. |
| 561.051 | Liability for acts of wild animals. |
| 561.06 | Repealed. |
| 561.07 | Animals may be impounded. |
| 561.08 | Owner of property may distrain. |
| 561.09 | Owner of animals liable for trespass. |
| 561.10 | Trespass after execution or foreclosure sale. |
| 561.11 | Repealed. |
| 561.12 | Repealed. |
| 561.13 | Repealed. |
| 561.14 | Repealed. |
| 561.15 | Repealed. |
| 561.16 | Repealed. |
| 561.17 | Action for waste. |
| 561.18 | Waste pending year for redemption; injunction. |
| 561.19 | Nuisance liability of agricultural operations. |
561.01 NUISANCE; ACTION.
Anything which is injurious to health, or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction
to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is
a nuisance. An action may be brought by any person whose property is injuriously affected or
whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance, and by the judgment the nuisance may be
enjoined or abated, as well as damages recovered.
History: (9580) RL s 4446
Anything which is injurious to health, or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction
to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is
a nuisance. An action may be brought by any person whose property is injuriously affected or
whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance, and by the judgment the nuisance may be
enjoined or abated, as well as damages recovered.
History: (9580) RL s 4446
561.02 MALICIOUSLY MAINTAINED STRUCTURE.
Any fence, or any other structure, maliciously erected or maintained for the purpose of
annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining property shall be deemed a private nuisance.
History: (9581) 1907 c 387 s 1
Any fence, or any other structure, maliciously erected or maintained for the purpose of
annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining property shall be deemed a private nuisance.
History: (9581) 1907 c 387 s 1
561.03 REMEDIES.
Any such owner or occupant injured, either in comfort or in the enjoyment of an estate by
such fence, or any other structure, may have an action of tort for the damage sustained thereby
and may have such nuisance abated.
History: (9582) 1907 c 387 s 2; 1986 c 444
Any such owner or occupant injured, either in comfort or in the enjoyment of an estate by
such fence, or any other structure, may have an action of tort for the damage sustained thereby
and may have such nuisance abated.
History: (9582) 1907 c 387 s 2; 1986 c 444
561.04 TRESPASS; TREBLE DAMAGES.
Whoever without lawful authority cuts down or carries off any wood, underwood, tree, or
timber, or girdles or otherwise injures any tree, timber, or shrub, on the land of another person, or
in the street or highway in front of any person's house, city lot, or cultivated grounds, or on the
commons or public grounds of any city or town, or in the street or highway in front thereof, is
liable in a civil action to the owner of such land, or to such city or town, for treble the amount
of damages which may be assessed therefor, unless upon the trial it appears that the trespass
was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on
which the trespass was committed was the defendant's, or that of the person in whose service
or by whose direction the act was done, in which case judgment shall be given for only the
single damages assessed. This section shall not authorize the recovery of more than the just
value of timber taken from uncultivated woodland for the repair of a public highway or bridge
upon or adjoining the land.
History: (9585) RL s 4449; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1986 c 444
Whoever without lawful authority cuts down or carries off any wood, underwood, tree, or
timber, or girdles or otherwise injures any tree, timber, or shrub, on the land of another person, or
in the street or highway in front of any person's house, city lot, or cultivated grounds, or on the
commons or public grounds of any city or town, or in the street or highway in front thereof, is
liable in a civil action to the owner of such land, or to such city or town, for treble the amount
of damages which may be assessed therefor, unless upon the trial it appears that the trespass
was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on
which the trespass was committed was the defendant's, or that of the person in whose service
or by whose direction the act was done, in which case judgment shall be given for only the
single damages assessed. This section shall not authorize the recovery of more than the just
value of timber taken from uncultivated woodland for the repair of a public highway or bridge
upon or adjoining the land.
History: (9585) RL s 4449; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1986 c 444
561.051 LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF WILD ANIMALS.
An owner of land shall not be liable in trespass, nuisance, or otherwise for the actions of
wild animals in their natural state.
History: 1982 c 462 s 10
An owner of land shall not be liable in trespass, nuisance, or otherwise for the actions of
wild animals in their natural state.
History: 1982 c 462 s 10
561.07 ANIMALS MAY BE IMPOUNDED.
Any person may, and every sheriff and police officer shall, distrain and impound any cattle,
horses, mules, sheep, swine, or any domestic fowls running at large or trespassing upon the lands
of another or upon any public property in this state, and when so impounded such proceedings
shall be had relative to the animals and fowls so impounded as are or shall be provided by the
general laws of this state relating to the impounding of animals.
History: (1388) 1921 c 319 s 3; 1967 c 516 s 1; 2005 c 10 art 2 s 4
Any person may, and every sheriff and police officer shall, distrain and impound any cattle,
horses, mules, sheep, swine, or any domestic fowls running at large or trespassing upon the lands
of another or upon any public property in this state, and when so impounded such proceedings
shall be had relative to the animals and fowls so impounded as are or shall be provided by the
general laws of this state relating to the impounding of animals.
History: (1388) 1921 c 319 s 3; 1967 c 516 s 1; 2005 c 10 art 2 s 4
561.08 OWNER OF PROPERTY MAY DISTRAIN.
The owner or occupant of lands in any city may distrain any of such animals or fowls
doing damage on such lands, and thereupon such proceedings as to these animals or fowls and
the disposition thereof and the damage done thereby as are or shall be provided by the general
laws of this state relating to the distraining by the owner or occupant of lands, of any beast
doing damage thereon, the disposition of the beast distrained, and the appraisal of the damages,
and the collection thereof.
History: (1389) 1921 c 319 s 4; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7
The owner or occupant of lands in any city may distrain any of such animals or fowls
doing damage on such lands, and thereupon such proceedings as to these animals or fowls and
the disposition thereof and the damage done thereby as are or shall be provided by the general
laws of this state relating to the distraining by the owner or occupant of lands, of any beast
doing damage thereon, the disposition of the beast distrained, and the appraisal of the damages,
and the collection thereof.
History: (1389) 1921 c 319 s 4; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7
561.09 OWNER OF ANIMALS LIABLE FOR TRESPASS.
In case the owner or occupant of lands shall not distrain the animals or fowls doing damage
as provided herein, then any person who shall knowingly permit the running at large or trespass
of any such domestic animal or fowl within any city, shall be liable to the person aggrieved for
treble the damages sustained, to be recovered in a civil action.
History: (1390) 1921 c 319 s 5; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1986 c 444
In case the owner or occupant of lands shall not distrain the animals or fowls doing damage
as provided herein, then any person who shall knowingly permit the running at large or trespass
of any such domestic animal or fowl within any city, shall be liable to the person aggrieved for
treble the damages sustained, to be recovered in a civil action.
History: (1390) 1921 c 319 s 5; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1986 c 444
561.10 TRESPASS AFTER EXECUTION OR FORECLOSURE SALE.
When real property is sold on execution or under judgment or mortgage, the purchaser
thereof, or any person who has succeeded to the purchaser's interest, after the estate becomes
absolute, may recover damages for injury to the property by the tenant in possession after the
sale, and before possession is delivered under the conveyance.
History: (9586) RL s 4450; 1986 c 444
When real property is sold on execution or under judgment or mortgage, the purchaser
thereof, or any person who has succeeded to the purchaser's interest, after the estate becomes
absolute, may recover damages for injury to the property by the tenant in possession after the
sale, and before possession is delivered under the conveyance.
History: (9586) RL s 4450; 1986 c 444
561.17 ACTION FOR WASTE.
If a guardian, tenant for life or years, joint tenant, or tenant in common, of real property,
commits waste thereon, any person injured by the waste may bring an action against the waster
therefor, in which there may be judgment for treble damages, forfeiture of the estate of the party
offending, and eviction from the property. Judgment of forfeiture and eviction can only be given
in favor of the person entitled to the reversion, against the tenant in possession when the injury to
the estate in reversion is adjudged in the action to be equal to the value of the tenant's estate or
unexpired term, or to have been done in malice.
History: (9583) RL s 4447; 1986 c 444
If a guardian, tenant for life or years, joint tenant, or tenant in common, of real property,
commits waste thereon, any person injured by the waste may bring an action against the waster
therefor, in which there may be judgment for treble damages, forfeiture of the estate of the party
offending, and eviction from the property. Judgment of forfeiture and eviction can only be given
in favor of the person entitled to the reversion, against the tenant in possession when the injury to
the estate in reversion is adjudged in the action to be equal to the value of the tenant's estate or
unexpired term, or to have been done in malice.
History: (9583) RL s 4447; 1986 c 444
561.18 WASTE PENDING YEAR FOR REDEMPTION; INJUNCTION.
When real property is sold upon execution or under judgment or mortgage, until the
expiration of the time allowed for redemption, the court may restrain the commission of waste
on the property, by order granted, with or without notice, on application of the purchaser or the
purchaser's assigns holding the certificate of sale; but it is not waste for the person in possession of
the property at the time of sale, or entitled to the possession afterwards, during the time allowed
for redemption, to continue to use it in the same manner in which it was previously used, or to use
it in the ordinary course of husbandry, or to make the necessary repairs of the buildings thereon,
or to use wood or timber on the property therefor, or for the repair of fences or for fuel for the
possessor's family, while the possessor occupies the property.
History: (9584) RL s 4448; 1986 c 444
When real property is sold upon execution or under judgment or mortgage, until the
expiration of the time allowed for redemption, the court may restrain the commission of waste
on the property, by order granted, with or without notice, on application of the purchaser or the
purchaser's assigns holding the certificate of sale; but it is not waste for the person in possession of
the property at the time of sale, or entitled to the possession afterwards, during the time allowed
for redemption, to continue to use it in the same manner in which it was previously used, or to use
it in the ordinary course of husbandry, or to make the necessary repairs of the buildings thereon,
or to use wood or timber on the property therefor, or for the repair of fences or for fuel for the
possessor's family, while the possessor occupies the property.
History: (9584) RL s 4448; 1986 c 444
561.19 NUISANCE LIABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the
meanings given them:
(a) "Agricultural operation" means a facility and its appurtenances for the production of
crops, livestock, poultry, dairy products or poultry products, but not a facility primarily engaged
in processing agricultural products.
(b) "Established date of operation" means the date on which the agricultural operation
commenced. If the agricultural operation is subsequently expanded or significantly altered,
the established date of operation for each expansion or alteration is deemed to be the date of
commencement of the expanded or altered operation. As used in this paragraph, "expanded"
means an expansion by at least 25 percent in the number of a particular kind of animal or livestock
located on an agricultural operation.
"Significantly altered" does not mean:
(1) a transfer of an ownership interest to and held by persons or the spouses of persons
related to each other within the third degree of kindred according to the rules of civil law to the
person making the transfer so long as at least one of the related persons is actively operating the
farm, or to a family farm trust under section 500.24;
(2) temporary cessation or interruption of cropping activities;
(3) adoption of new technologies; or
(4) a change in the crop product produced.
(c) "Generally accepted agricultural practices" means those practices commonly used by
other farmers in the county or a contiguous county in which a nuisance claim is asserted.
Subd. 2. Agricultural operation not a nuisance. (a) An agricultural operation is not and
shall not become a private or public nuisance after two years from its established date of operation
as a matter of law if the operation:
(1) is located in an agriculturally zoned area;
(2) complies with the provisions of all applicable federal, state, or county laws, regulations,
rules, and ordinances and any permits issued for the agricultural operation; and
(3) operates according to generally accepted agricultural practices.
(b) For a period of two years from its established date of operation, there is a rebuttable
presumption that an agricultural operation in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a),
clauses (1) to (3), is not a public or private nuisance.
(c) The provisions of this subdivision do not apply:
(1) to an animal feedlot facility with a swine capacity of 1,000 or more animal units as
defined in the rules of the Pollution Control Agency for control of pollution from animal feedlots,
or a cattle capacity of 2,500 animals or more;
(2) to any prosecution for the crime of public nuisance as provided in section 609.74 or to an
action by a public authority to abate a particular condition which is a public nuisance; or
(3) to any enforcement action brought by a local unit of government related to zoning under
chapter 394 or 462.
Subd. 3. Existing contracts. This section shall not be construed to invalidate any contracts
or commitments made before January 1, 1983.
Subd. 4. Severability. If a provision of this section, or application thereof to any person or
set of circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, the invalidity shall not affect other
provisions or applications of this section which can be given effect without the invalid provision
or application. To that end, the provisions of this section are declared to be severable.
Subd. 5.[Repealed, 1983 c 182 s 2]
History: 1982 c 533 s 1; 1983 c 182 s 1; 1994 c 619 s 9,10; 1994 c 622 s 4,5; 2001 c
128 s 4; 2004 c 254 s 43,44
Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the
meanings given them:
(a) "Agricultural operation" means a facility and its appurtenances for the production of
crops, livestock, poultry, dairy products or poultry products, but not a facility primarily engaged
in processing agricultural products.
(b) "Established date of operation" means the date on which the agricultural operation
commenced. If the agricultural operation is subsequently expanded or significantly altered,
the established date of operation for each expansion or alteration is deemed to be the date of
commencement of the expanded or altered operation. As used in this paragraph, "expanded"
means an expansion by at least 25 percent in the number of a particular kind of animal or livestock
located on an agricultural operation.
"Significantly altered" does not mean:
(1) a transfer of an ownership interest to and held by persons or the spouses of persons
related to each other within the third degree of kindred according to the rules of civil law to the
person making the transfer so long as at least one of the related persons is actively operating the
farm, or to a family farm trust under section 500.24;
(2) temporary cessation or interruption of cropping activities;
(3) adoption of new technologies; or
(4) a change in the crop product produced.
(c) "Generally accepted agricultural practices" means those practices commonly used by
other farmers in the county or a contiguous county in which a nuisance claim is asserted.
Subd. 2. Agricultural operation not a nuisance. (a) An agricultural operation is not and
shall not become a private or public nuisance after two years from its established date of operation
as a matter of law if the operation:
(1) is located in an agriculturally zoned area;
(2) complies with the provisions of all applicable federal, state, or county laws, regulations,
rules, and ordinances and any permits issued for the agricultural operation; and
(3) operates according to generally accepted agricultural practices.
(b) For a period of two years from its established date of operation, there is a rebuttable
presumption that an agricultural operation in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a),
clauses (1) to (3), is not a public or private nuisance.
(c) The provisions of this subdivision do not apply:
(1) to an animal feedlot facility with a swine capacity of 1,000 or more animal units as
defined in the rules of the Pollution Control Agency for control of pollution from animal feedlots,
or a cattle capacity of 2,500 animals or more;
(2) to any prosecution for the crime of public nuisance as provided in section 609.74 or to an
action by a public authority to abate a particular condition which is a public nuisance; or
(3) to any enforcement action brought by a local unit of government related to zoning under
chapter 394 or 462.
Subd. 3. Existing contracts. This section shall not be construed to invalidate any contracts
or commitments made before January 1, 1983.
Subd. 4. Severability. If a provision of this section, or application thereof to any person or
set of circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, the invalidity shall not affect other
provisions or applications of this section which can be given effect without the invalid provision
or application. To that end, the provisions of this section are declared to be severable.
Subd. 5.[Repealed, 1983 c 182 s 2]
History: 1982 c 533 s 1; 1983 c 182 s 1; 1994 c 619 s 9,10; 1994 c 622 s 4,5; 2001 c
128 s 4; 2004 c 254 s 43,44
Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation For Legislative Staff or for directions to the Capitol, visit the Contact Us page. |
Friday, February 23, 2007
Nuisance Law MS.617UnconstitutionallyVague
TO FRED GRITTNER: CLERK www.mncourts.gov
ATTENTION LORY SWANSON www.ag.state.mn.us
Dated: Fri.23FEb07 4:15pm
Click here: State of Minnesota, Appellant vs. Daniel Alan Kuhlman, Respondent, A06-568, Court of Appeals Published, September
S Y L L A B U S
The Minnesota legislature has expressly preempted local ordinances that are “in conflict” with the Minnesota Highway Traffic Regulation Act. The Minneapolis photo-enforcement ordinance is “in conflict” with the Act for two reasons. First, it violates the Act’s uniformity requirement. Second, it reduces the state’s burden of proof in a prosecution for a traffic-signal violation." Hatch-State,Heffern_Appell,Bass-Resp,Sessoms-Amicus
By information and belief talking to www.alicekrengel.blogspot.com Thurs.22Feb07, Alice stated her smrls lawyer julia.althouse@smrls.com had an appeal to be heard 27thFeb07. Alice has a severe cold, the cruel and unusual punishment of the "taking" of her homestead is UnConstitutionally Bizzare.
Nuisance laws_17 The undersigned has only the best interest of Alice at heart, must implore the State Attorney General to come in on the Constitutionality of MS617, the above pending Photo Cop Case is applicable:
AMICUS CURIAE: SHARON ANDERSON AND BILL DAHN: In good Faith, "but for" the horror of prejudice of Judge Leslie Metzen ie: Robert Schumaker elderly Vet, jailed: www.lufsky.blogspot.com inprisoned at St. Peter for years: Alice thrown out on the streets must hold this Judge Criminally liableSCAP
.AFFIDAVIT SHARON ANDERSON CONCERNED CITIZEN AMICUS CURIE CONSTITUTIONALITY of NUISANCE LAWS "in conflict"
In the matter of Alice Krengel v. City of West St. Paul
1. Has the District Court Records (Metzen) wilfully failed Title18s to protect the Laws and Constitution of the State and Federal?42 USC 3631
2. Has the Private LawFirm Levander,under contract as West St. Paul City Attorney wilfully, with malice used undue influence against Alice and the Nuisance Law to illegally MS 609.51SimulatingLegProcess reducing Alice to Poverty,Peonage in a "Patterned" Enterprise of http://www.levander.com/ 609.903 RICO 609.385Treason denying HomeStead Owner Laws.
3.
M S 8.31 AG Duties must Lory Swanson MN State Attorney General protect and defend the Statutes, when used illegally by Lawyers and Judges to commit THEFT BY SWINDLE, ruin the Health,Safety,Welfare of any citizen.4. The Kelo case is not applicable at this time, but if it were is not Alice entitled to Just Compensation triple the amount of the value of property of $189 thous, plus Punatitive, Compensatory, tort damages over $100,000.00 for each and every occurrence for the past (6) years? Kelo_58pdf
EMINENT DOMAIN IN MINNESOTA: Case study Alice Krengel, 823 Allen, WSP
— C H A P T E R 9 —
Property Rights
No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
— Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NOT AT THIS TIME EXCEPT HAVE STANDING IN GOOD FAITH TO PROTECT THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF ALL CITIZENS
Sharon-Minnesota LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: Document's are based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, press releases, and knowledge gained as financial journalists, Private Attorney Generals, Candidates for Public Offices, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these documentexpressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting on that recommendation. s BlogItBabe Legal Eagle SharonAnderson Sharon-Sharon-E-Dem CobraShar:aka Sharon4Anderson@aol.com
SharonsBriefs MinnesotaMortgageMassacre
Candidate profile Sharon4Anderson's Legal BlogBriefsAndersoSharonScarrellaAndersonnI AnderDivas1: Divas Realestate 14 E. Jessamine 14Feb07Demolition RICO-WHISTLEBLOWERS Divas1sonAdvocates Sharon4Anderson Bill Dahn Sexy Seniors1 Alice Krengel Cheryl Hilyar Judicial Delusions1 WILLY LUFSKY Scap129FAnokaP2697(1976) Cpl James R. Anderson USMC 11022885 Bio for Sharon Anderson , Senior Queen 2007 Winter-Carnival TAKING DL_AOL Journal Legal Eagle SharonAnderson 1 Journalism Ethics Blogger: 1986 Petition Jane Duchene MN Bull SharonScarrellaAndersonUSBriefs - Buzznet Photo Sharing Community Sharon'sFedCases1973to2006_13pdf Anderson + Advocates www.sharonanderson.org www.sharon4anderson.org
family /s/ Bill Dahn tel: 651-453-1992 PO Box 7417 ECF#P1291866 Ojb-Sioux#408B19111www.billdahn.com www.billdahn.blogspot.com Bill Dahn, Homestead Rip Off
Alice Krengel Cheryl Hilyar Sharon-AndersonI Divas1 Sharon-E-Dem
Alice Krengel Cheryl Hilyar Sharon-AndersonI Divas1 Sharon-E-Dem
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
| |||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Order16Jan07(Toussaint)Whistleblowers CriminalComplaints
BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL WHERE IS YOUR COMPASSION: What Heinous Crime did Alice committ warrant "taking" her homestead and rentals for 1 year. State of Minnesota by its Attorney General, Mike Hatch, Respondent, vs. Allina Why doesn't the Government protect ALL Citizens.Ex-agent wins lawsuit against FBI
click on pics to read-----------------
Forwarded Message:
LEGAL NOTICE: document's are based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, press releases, and knowledge gained as financial journalists, Private Attorney Generals, Candidates for Public Offices, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these documents Cpl James R. Anderson USMC 11022885 Bio for Sharon Anderson , expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting on that recommendation. TAKING DL_AOL Journal Candidate profile www.blogitbabe.blogspot.com
Senior QueenCandidate2007 Legal Eagle SharonAnderson 1 Journalism Ethics Blogger: www.judicialdelusions.blogspot.com 1986 Petition Jane Duchene MN Bull SharonScarrellaAndersonUSBriefs - Buzznet Photo Sharing Community Sharon'sFedCases1973to2006_13pdf Anderson + Advocates www.sharonanderson.org www.sharon4anderson.org www.alicekrengel.blogspot.com www.sharonscarrellaanderson.blogspot.com
Forwarded Message:
| ||||||||||||
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Please take legal notice of the Status of www.alicekrengel.blogspot.com , the Heinous, Repugnant Criminal Abuse of Power 42 USC 3631 reducing Alice and others US CODE: Title 18,1581. Peonage; obstructing enforcement
We the undersigned Whistleblowers have standing as Injured Partys also
Wilful neglience to enforce the alleged Health Problems of Krengel, cruel and unusual punishment of "taking" Homestead, forcing Alice to sleep at Dorothy Day without Trial by Jury, Consitutionality of MS617.xx, formal complaints decending to particulars.
Wilful neglience of the State Attorney General to defend the Constitutionality of Statutes and or intervene in this Bizzare "takings" , uniformity of Judicial Travestys costing the taxpayers a fortune www.lufsky.blogspot.com
LEGAL NOTICE: document's are based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, press releases, and knowledge gained as financial journalists, Private Attorney Generals, Candidates for Public Offices, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these documents Cpl James R. Anderson USMC 11022885 Bio for Sharon Anderson , expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting on that recommendation. TAKING DL_AOL Journal Candidate profile www.blogitbabe.blogspot.comSenior QueenCandidate2007 Legal Eagle SharonAnderson 1 Journalism Ethics Blogger: www.judicialdelusions.blogspot.com 1986 Petition Jane Duchene MN Bull SharonScarrellaAndersonUSBriefs - Buzznet Photo Sharing Community Sharon'sFedCases1973to2006_13pdf Anderson + Advocates www.sharonanderson.org www.sharon4anderson.org www.alicekrengel.blogspot.com www.sharonscarrellaanderson.blogspot.com
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
A06-2351Writ Prohibition Dismissed MS617.87
| Subj: | Check out MINNESOTA re: Alice Krengel A06-2351Dismissed 16Jan07 (Toussant) |
| Date: | 2/7/2007 3:01:24 P.M. Central Standard Time |
| From: | Sharon4Anderson |
| To: | AliceKrengel@yahoo.com, Sharon4Anderson |
| Right-click picture(s) to display picture options | |
| Subject: | Fwd: Check out MINNESOTA re: Alice Krengel A06-2351Dismissed 16Jan07 (Toussant) | ||||
| Date: | 2/7/2007 3:05:01 P.M. Central Standard Time | ||||
| From: | |||||
| |||||
Pleas to the Public
Advocates Alice www.sharon-anderson.blogspot.com www.billdahn.blogspot.com Consitutionality of 617. Abortion; Obscenity; Houses Of Ill-fame Is MS617.87 used to Steal Realestate from the Poor?
617.86 CONTEMPT.
Whoever violates a temporary injunction, permanent injunction, or abatement order granted
under sections 617.80 to 617.87 may be adjudged in contempt of court.
History: 1987 c 283 s 7
617.87 RELEASE OF PROPERTY.
If, after an order of abatement has been entered, the owner appears and pays the costs of
the action and files a bond in an amount determined by the court, but not to exceed $50,000,
conditioned that the owner will immediately abate the nuisance for a period of one year, the court
may, if satisfied of the owner's good faith, order the release of the building or portion of it which is
subject to the order of abatement. If the premises are released, for each day during the term of the
bond that the owner knowingly permits any part of the premises to be used for any activity which
was the basis of the abatement order, the owner shall forfeit $1,000 under the bond. Forfeiture
under the bond does not relieve the owner from prosecution for contempt. Release of the property
pursuant to this section does not release it from an injunction issued under section 617.83 or any
other judgment, penalty, lien, or liability to which it may be subject by law.
History: 1987 c 283 s 8
Click here: MINNESOTA 7Feb07 Update: Pursuant to the undersign's call to http://www.mncourts.gov/ re:
THANKS FOR COOPERATION
Alice Krengel Petitioner A06-2351 v. City of West St. Paul
651-296-2581 Summary as stated , clerk was very courteous Milessa Thanks.
"ORDER" denying Writ of Prohibition /s/ Toussaint dtd.16Jan07
Schumaker-Dietzen basically stating:
Nuisance Ordinance Aug06 Permanent 20Nov06(Metzen)
1 year Denying Homestead Property Right based on
Inadequate , Premature Writ, Remedys may be obtained
in District Court.
3 cases ? Hancock v Nelson Bellows and xx v. Issacs
Law Library 651-296-2775 sheri.huppert@courts.state.mn.us
When Briefs are subjected for public scrunity and online.
Dennis.skrade@courts.state.mn.us Sharon does not require the
hardbound Statutes now online. If Annotated are available please call
651-776-5835
LEGAL NOTICE: document's are based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, press releases, and knowledge gained as financial journalists, Private Attorney Generals, Candidates for Public Offices, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these documents Cpl James R. Anderson USMC 11022885 Bio for Sharon Anderson , expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting on that recommendation. TAKING DL_AOL Journal Candidate profile www.blogitbabe.blogspot.com
Senior QueenCandidate2007 Legal Eagle SharonAnderson 1 Journalism Ethics Blogger: www.judicialdelusions.blogspot.com 1986 Petition Jane Duchene MN Bull SharonScarrellaAndersonUSBriefs - Buzznet Photo Sharing Community Sharon'sFedCases1973to2006_13pdf Anderson + Advocates www.sharonanderson.org www.sharon4anderson.org www.alicekrengel.blogspot.com www.sharonscarrellaanderson.blogspot.com Public Constitutionality
Monday, January 22, 2007
Alice'sLawyersSMRLS Fed Court Depositions
QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC POLICY, TRUSTED PROFESSIONALS
"HOMELESS HABITAT" ie:Bob Davis www.am1500.com
Please mosey over to Mpls Federal Court Blg. to research
the RICO Case listed below:
The common Thread of Prosecutors ie: City Attorneys
in concort,complicity with Southern Reg. Leg. Services has not been
abated by the Judicial Branch.
Why is the St. Paul City Council obstructing legal process
by refusing to be deposed:? What are they hiding
"Secret Renovation Contracts" without Bids??
Forwarded Message:
Click here: http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate7/alice2006/WSPwomanguiltytrespas12007.pdf
To whom it may concern:Seth Loy Editor Media et al
by information and belief the article written by you published 7Jan07 must also have the Trusted Professionals, Powers of Attorneys, the Jury who were denied the evidence of just who owns 823 Allen with any all medical records for strict scrunity.
If in fact the Risk Management of the city of west stpaul has the building insured then pursuant to the UCC Damages are due and payable to the owner Alice Krengel
Thank you for your time: However it appears that Kory Land of the www.levander.com law firm ie: Justice Paul Anderson is making false statement not in the record, thereby Fraud upon the Court.
It would do Justice to inquire www.mncourts.gov for the most recent rulings in the Krengel Case.
Where are the Bernsteins and Woodwards of the Nixon Era?
Please visit www.alicekrengel.blogspot.com for
EMINENT DOMAIN: Alice Krengel, 823 Allen, WSP
Alice Krengel - Google Search The undersigneds point of contention pursuant the the Conspiracy Theory, is that Mayor John Zanmiller of West St. Paul, also conflict on the St. Paul Water Board, with 113Dec06tCityCo_6 Billion in Reserves: re: www.sharonanderson.org is using political power for pecuniary gain, exploiting an alleged alcoholic.
The Court should have put Alice in long term treatment, had the POW Powers of Attorneys take care of the realestate , put Alice on Social Security Disability potentially for Bipolar examined by a Trusted Professional.
The Court Orders have No Medical Reports to techinally evict.
Please research the record Based on all Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, it appears that Prosecutorial Misconduct has occurred.
LEGAL NOTICE: document's are based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, press releases, and knowledge gained as financial journalists, Private Attorney Generals, Candidates for Public Offices, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these documents Bio for Sharon Anderson , expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting on that recommendation. TAKING DL_AOL Journal Candidate profile www.blogitbabe.blogspot.com
Senior QueenCandidate2007 Legal Eagle SharonAnderson 1 Journalism Ethics Blogger: www.judicialdelusions.blogspot.com 1986 Petition Jane Duchene MN Bull SharonScarrellaAndersonUSBriefs - Buzznet Photo Sharing Community Sharon'sFedCases1973to2006_13pdf Anderson + Advocates www.sharonanderson.org www.sharon4anderson.org www.alicekrengel.blogspot.com
"HOMELESS HABITAT" ie:Bob Davis www.am1500.com
Please mosey over to Mpls Federal Court Blg. to research
the RICO Case listed below:
The common Thread of Prosecutors ie: City Attorneys
in concort,complicity with Southern Reg. Leg. Services has not been
abated by the Judicial Branch.
Why is the St. Paul City Council obstructing legal process
by refusing to be deposed:? What are they hiding
"Secret Renovation Contracts" without Bids??
Check www.ademocracy.blogspot.com read comments Julia of SMRLS are representing some Tenants in Stenhauser Fed. Case 321 Bates 1 block from www.sharonanderson.org
Sunday, January 21, 2007
More Dirty Deeds By The City
Please look in the comments for the post. This post is dedicated to the other bob "the landlord hater..
Kathy Lantry
St. Paul City Council
City Hall - Room 320C
15 W. Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
LAW OFFICES OF
MINNESOTRAE GIONAL EGAL
SUITE 200
Ifdi EA..T FOIIRTH STREET
ST PA'Alll.. MINNESOTA ri,lOl
(651) 222-5863
FAX (651) 297-6457
August 11,2004
HAND DELIVERED
LAW WORK MANAGER
STEVENWOLFE
ATTORNEYS
JULIAALTHOFF
BETIYBERGER
PERRYDE STEFAN0
M*R111** EAVES
KATHLEENM. EVESTAGE
JON OEFfEN
KEN GlLCHRi8T
JAP*UL HARRIS
LAUWJELINEK
GEWLDG. ULUZNY
DOLLENE LAMBERM
JAMES LAURENCE
LAURA MELNICK
RON MICWLSON
JENNIFER MUCHEK
REBECCAAOSSOW
RACHEL SIBLEY
VALERIE BSNWER
.JAMES J. STREET
COLLEENWALBW
BENJAMIN LWEISS
Re: 321 Bates Avenue
Dear Ms. Lantry:
Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services represents the tenant-caretaker, Robert King, in the
above-referenced matter. We DO NOT represent the owner of the property. At the legislative
hearing on August 10. 2004, the hearing officer instructed us to write you a written response and
request as you have this matter on the closed agenda. We would respectfully request that you
read this letter along with the August 5, 2004 letter, which is enclosed herein, into the record. We
have also included a copy of the July 22, 2004 inspection notice, the July 27, 2004 letter from the
owner, the July 29, 2004 letter to the legislative hearing officer from our office and a print out from
the Fire Marshall's office verifying that the inspection notice generated July 14, and typed up July
22, 2004, did not get sent thereby proving that the caretaker did not have notice of the repairs
until the actual hearing on July 27, 2004.
Our office has the following concerns in addition to those noted in the attached August 5, 2004
letter:
1. The neighbors have made repeated false allegations that the caretaker,
Mr. King, is involved in drug activity. As you know, our office has a policy that we do not represent
people if there is credible evidence of drug activity. We checked with Ruth Ann Eide from the St.
Paul Force Unit. There is simply no credible evidence that Mr. King is involved in drug activity on
the premises. Quite the contrary, he has met personally with the Force Unit and Ruth Ann Eide
so that he can learn about tenant screening procedures that the Force Unit of St. Paul
recommends. He has agreed to implement their recommendations. Further, he has agreed to
work hand-in-hand with the Force Unit, the District 4 Community Council and the neighbors to
remedy the criminal activity in the neighborhood.
Mr. King has even agreed to put exterior lighting and cameras on the premises to ward off
the criminal element that is out in the neighborhood. He has no more control over the criminal
activity on the street than the complaining neighborhood residents. I challenge you to find a more
responsive caretaker in the Dayton's Bluff Area. At the hearing, the neighbors even accused Mr.
King of having long grass, not that this is a big matter. However, the point is that this was a
EXHIBIT G STP 018291
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 36 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 29 of 46
completely false allegation as I was personally on the premises on Monday and there is no long
grass on the premises. You know as an officer of the court, I am obligated to be honest and you
know me well enough to know that I am honest and straight forward. Since the neighbors are
lying about that and I question whether they are credible about their other allegations. Although
there are a number of police calls, Mr. King had vacated other problem tenants. He is the only
one there and he is willing and able to work with the Force Unit to prevent other bad tenants from
moving in.
2. The lnspection Office has set this case up for failure. The record is clear
that Unit 1 was condemned for being over-crowded. The unit has been vacated. Therefore, that
unit should no longer be condemned. Secondly, the inspection notices have not been sent out as
represented in their letters. We proved this at the hearing. One may construe this as either a
misrepresentation or fraud perpetrated by the inspectors office. Based on how this case has
proceeded one could argue this was just another tool which was being used to vacate the
building. We obtained an inspection report dated July 14, 2004. At the hearing, it was brought up
by the building inspector herself, Pat Fish, that this letter never went out either. Thus, there are
two inspection reports during the time this matter was before the legislative hearing officer. The
two letters listed the repairs that were of issue before the legislative hearing officer and neither the
owner nor the received the repair notices until the actual hearing date. Is that fair play?
Additionally, the apartment was supposed to be reinspected by the City Fire Marshall prior
to the hearing on August 10, 2004. Naturally, that never happened as there was allegedly another
mistake by the City lnspection Department. Although we provided proof by pictures that a
majority of the repairs were made, the City conveniently did not reinspect the premises by the
hearing as promised and thus it caused yet another delay. Moreover, if you look at the July 22,
2004 notice, it is defective on its face as it states the reinspection will be on or after July 12, 2004.
That is clearly erroneous as the reinspection date precedes the date of the notice. Again this
notice was not received until the actual legislative hearing on July 27, 2004. Nevertheless,
essentially all the repairs have been completed with the exception of the electrical work as the
caretaker was taking bids from electricians. If the City Inspector had not been negligent in failing
to give proper notice or if they were not trying to sabotage the success of the repairs, the repairs
would have already been made. I was informed by the on-site and off-site caretakers that they
have narrowed down their electrician bids to two prospects. They will be making a final decision
this Friday on which one to choose.
3. I was concerned that the City was using the Building Inspection Department to
vacate a building of disabling and minority people. Every person in this building was a person in a
protected class. They were either minorities or disabled people. Vacating the building by using
the inspection department in this manner did have a disparate impact. I know the City did not
intend to have a disparate impact. We try to collaborate with the City and try to produce win-win
situations. I can easily see that the owner and tenants would have a claim for disparate impact
against the City. Naturally, I do not represent the owner nor would I be bringing such an action
against the city as we have a long history of collaborating together. However, I thought you
should know that as a practicing housing law attorney who knows about discrimination law that
there is exposure to a discrimination claim on this matter due to the way it was handled.
4. I know you would agree it is best to play with an "open hand" when dealing with
the public. The hearing officer ~nformedu s that the decision will be before the City Council but it
will be presented at a closed meeting. She specifically said we were not invited. I can see the
City Council deliberating in closed chambers on matters. However, when there is a actual vote
whether it is on the consent calendar or otherwise, it should be open to the public for comment. I
2
EXHIBIT G STP 018292
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 36 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 30 of 46
will research the Open Meeting Act and fo~lardit to you. I admit I have not looked at the Open
Meeting Act for awhile as I have not needed to.
5. By forcing a vacate of the building by revoking the Certificate of Occupancy, we
will now have a vacant building on a corner where there is criminal activity. As you know, there is
nothing that will blight a neighborhood more than a vacant building on a city corner. There will no
longer be "eyes and ears" watching the criminal activity. Since Mr. King was working "hand-inhand"
with the Force Unit, he would be able to put good tenants in the building. Without having
people in the building there will be no additional "eyes and ears" thereby resulting in an increase
of criminal activity on the corner.
Although the neighbors consistently claimed there are still squatters, there is
absolutely no evidence of that. They have already proven not to be credible. Mr. King assures
me that he has not allowed squatters in, has secured the building and is working with the Force
Unit to prevent squatters. I went over to the building to take pictures for the hearing and I could
not get in.
6. I was informed by the legislative hearing officer that I would be informed of her
decision by noon today so we could send you written comments. It is now 1:30PM and I was
never called regarding her decision.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me and I hope
the City Council will allow Legal Services to collaborate with the District IV Community Council,
the Force Unit, the Fire Marshall, the caretaker and the neighbors to rectify this situation as it is
not common that we are able to obtain a cooperative caretaker who works for an alleged problem
landlord. I would hate to lose the opportunity to collaborate together on this case as it does
appear that we have got the owner's attention and were making great progress despite the "hide
the ball" tactics that were being played by the inspectors office.
ss
encs
cc Robert King
Debbie Montgomery
Dave Thune
Pat Harris
Jay Benanav
Lee Helgen
Dan Bostrom
EXHIBIT
unday, January 21, 2007
Forwarded Message:
| ||||||||||
Click here: http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate7/alice2006/WSPwomanguiltytrespas12007.pdf
To whom it may concern:Seth Loy Editor Media et al
by information and belief the article written by you published 7Jan07 must also have the Trusted Professionals, Powers of Attorneys, the Jury who were denied the evidence of just who owns 823 Allen with any all medical records for strict scrunity.
If in fact the Risk Management of the city of west stpaul has the building insured then pursuant to the UCC Damages are due and payable to the owner Alice Krengel
Thank you for your time: However it appears that Kory Land of the www.levander.com law firm ie: Justice Paul Anderson is making false statement not in the record, thereby Fraud upon the Court.
It would do Justice to inquire www.mncourts.gov for the most recent rulings in the Krengel Case.
Where are the Bernsteins and Woodwards of the Nixon Era?
Please visit www.alicekrengel.blogspot.com for
EMINENT DOMAIN: Alice Krengel, 823 Allen, WSP
Alice Krengel - Google Search The undersigneds point of contention pursuant the the Conspiracy Theory, is that Mayor John Zanmiller of West St. Paul, also conflict on the St. Paul Water Board, with 113Dec06tCityCo_6 Billion in Reserves: re: www.sharonanderson.org is using political power for pecuniary gain, exploiting an alleged alcoholic.
The Court should have put Alice in long term treatment, had the POW Powers of Attorneys take care of the realestate , put Alice on Social Security Disability potentially for Bipolar examined by a Trusted Professional.
The Court Orders have No Medical Reports to techinally evict.
Please research the record Based on all Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, it appears that Prosecutorial Misconduct has occurred.
LEGAL NOTICE: document's are based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, press releases, and knowledge gained as financial journalists, Private Attorney Generals, Candidates for Public Offices, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these documents Bio for Sharon Anderson , expressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting on that recommendation. TAKING DL_AOL Journal Candidate profile www.blogitbabe.blogspot.comSenior QueenCandidate2007 Legal Eagle SharonAnderson 1 Journalism Ethics Blogger: www.judicialdelusions.blogspot.com 1986 Petition Jane Duchene MN Bull SharonScarrellaAndersonUSBriefs - Buzznet Photo Sharing Community Sharon'sFedCases1973to2006_13pdf Anderson + Advocates www.sharonanderson.org www.sharon4anderson.org www.alicekrengel.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)