City Council Meeting
Items 58 thro 70 spec. 62
Sharon 4Anderson said...
THANKS FOR POSTING
put Leroy S. Smithrud in Title for search engine's to pick up
Items 58 to are all Marcia Moermonds ILLEGAL condemnations.SMRLS WITHDRAWALS?
ISSUES: VA & Smithrud denied due process's,as Mortgage Holder no served.ie VA
JURISDICTION: Moermonds and Boss Tweed Bostrom demand that Quiet Title, or Title papers be given to Moermond immdiametly or Demolition in 15 days.
AUTHORITYS: RICO STATUTES http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/3631fin.htm
fORENSIC EVIDENCE:
VIDEO: Smithrud's statement " Steve Magner told me not to do anything"
BOSS TWEED BOSTROM, SNOW WHITE LANTRY, 7 dwarfs and City Attorney, must submit that statement to the State & Federal Authoriies against Magner, before
BOSS TWEED BOSTROM could go any further.
If in fact the Mayor does not veto this heinous violations of "usury" civil rights, seniors
ordinance Mayor Chris Coleman who is no longer a Licensed Lawyer, ust be criminally indicted.
http://rrinfo.co.ramsey.mn.us/public/characteristic/Parcel.pasp?scrn=Pmt&pin=272922320002&cnt=6
1369 Case owner Leroy S. Smithrud
appears that $2,773.oo Property taxs due 15May08 are paid in full.
http://stpaul.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=37
62. Resolution - 08-479 - Ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 1369 Case Avenue within fifteen (15) days from adoption of resolution. (GS 3050559) (Legislative Hearing Officer’s recommendation is forthcoming)
GS3050559-Res.1369 Case&clip_id=800
Sharon 4Anderson said... Pic's do no come thro
ISSUES: ARE CONSTITUTIONAL TAKING WITHOUT COMPENSATION, QUIET TITLES OF OWNERSHIP,
Smithrud has the God Given Right to a Jury Trial before Demolition. So what if Smithrud is a Landlord in Mpls, his health problems of falling off the ladders, broken pelvis, etc.
Smithrud is no con man, just an ole timer trying to protect his investments.
1369 Case is likened to 14 E. Jessamine ? et al
DSI, Moermonds apparant Dominant Position to control the
Realestate in City of St. Paul
What Law or Ordinance has Leroy Smithud broken for such drastic Demolition ?
Cullen & Repke both have vested interests on the East Side via their Realestate or NonProfit Companys?
1369 case
cannot be torn down until Valid Judgments of Ownership, Mortgage
the matter must be referred to Authorities, for Gerald Hendrickson
Prosecutorial Misconduct,
Reread the Krengel Cite
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate7/alice2006/alice.html
However the "taking" by Condemnation heinous "AntiTrust"
likened to MicroSoft anti Trust
started 2004, currently on appeal
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2008/05/prosecute-lawyers-too.php
Microsoft appeals EU antitrust fine
[JURIST] Microsoft [corporate website; Microsoft EC archives] announced Friday that it has filed an appeal with the European Court of First Instance [official website] in hopes that it will annul the record fine [press release] of 899 million euros ($1.3 billion). The penalty [JURIST report] was imposed after Microsoft failed to comply with a 2004 landmark ruling [JURIST report] requiring the ... [more].
Posted by Abigail Salisbury on May 9, 2008, 2:29 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/35636
Wednesday, 24 March, 2004, 15:49 GMT
Microsoft hit by record EU fine
Microsoft is to appeal against the EU's decision
Software giant Microsoft must pay a fine of 497m euros ($613m; £331m) for abusing its dominant market position, the European Commission has ordered.
97.stm
Nancy Lazaryan said... I understand what Sharon is saying. She is questioning the TAKING of the property without due process of law..A JURY.
She is basically asking the same questions I asked:
WHAT is the "compelling state interest" to violate the rights of the property owner..to take his property?
And she is relating the incident to have similarities to the Microsoft case.
Here is info on "compelling state interest":
"In constitutional law, a method for determining the constitutionality of a statute that restricts the practice of a fundamental right or distinguishes between people due to a suspect classification. In order for the statute to be valid, there must be a compelling governmental interest that can be furthered only by the law in question. Also called compelling governmental interest test and, in the case of a state statute, the compelling state interest test."
11:26 AM
Anonymous said...
Microsoft appeals EU antitrust fine
[JURIST] Microsoft [corporate website; Microsoft EC archives] announced Friday that it has filed an appeal with the European Court of First Instance [official website] in hopes that it will annul the record fine [press release] of 899 million euros ($1.3 billion). The penalty [JURIST report] was imposed after Microsoft failed to comply with a 2004 landmark ruling [JURIST report] requiring the ... [more].
Posted by Abigail Salisbury on May 9, 2008, 2:29 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/35636
Wednesday, 24 March, 2004, 15:49 GMT
Microsoft hit by record EU fine
Microsoft is to appeal against the EU's decision
Software giant Microsoft must pay a fine of 497m euros ($613m; £331m) for abusing its dominant market position, the Europe
Nancy Lazaryan said...Anonymous at 2:02,
Microsoft is abusing the dominant market position...like the city of St. Paul trying to dominate the market...PHA. Allowing the PHA to "get by" and not have code compliance inspections.
Moving PRIVATE landlords OUT by abuse of process so that the city controls all of the lower income rentals.
This "senior citizen" is a private landlord.
DUH.
Sharon 4Anderson said... Has this Blog become
TRITE ,IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
Topic is the no. 62 on City Agenda,7May08, Leroy Smithrud, age 63, apparant Veteran, with VA Mortgage, STate & Federal Civil and Constitutional Rights, Bobby please delete Sharons Posts, as Sharons Work Product Doctrine will be posted elsewhere.
HAPPY MOTHERS DAY TO ALL
fURTHER Bill Cullen realestate has caused severe harm, injury in his ownership of 699 Surrey, Chuck Repke when aide to Thune, caused serious, material, criminal violations of Sharons Property Rights, 1058 Summit etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trite
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Ignorance+of+the+Law&btnG=Search
ignorance of the law is no excuse
The statement "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is an ancient legal doctrine:
Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law; but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him.
John Selden (1584-1654), posthumously published in Table Talk, 1689.
If a defendant were allowed to escape legal responsibility for his acts, merely by saying "I didn't know it was wrong/illegal", the system of using law to regulate human conduct would collapse. So the doctrine is a practical necessity.
This doctrine still has vitality and validity today. See, for example, Ratzlaf v. U.S., 510 U.S. 135, 149 (1994); U.S. v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 612 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring); Minnesota v. King, 257 N.W.2d 693, 697 (1977).
http://sharon4council.blogspot.com/
