 |
The public nuisance doctrine has been increasingly used by creative lawyers in a wide variety of claims, ranging from global warming to sub-prime loans. Has a recent Rhode Island Supreme Court decision put the brakes on this trend? Click here to access a free, on-demand webinar providing defense, plaintiff and academic perspectives on this important question.
Advertisement From Affiant Sharon Anderson e-mail 's:Granted Alice is no Madoff Mess "but for" Minnesota Malice against all citizens re Nuisance Laws to Confiscate Property must be Ruled Unconstutional
To the above named: Sat.3rdJan09 Re Hearing http://www.mncourts.gov/
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY E-COMMERCE
MonJan09
Lawyer's Clerk Fred Grittner 0037953 AG Lori Swanson 0254812 re: Rule 24.04
Pierre Regnier 0090232 apparantly hired by West St.Paul Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, P.L.L.P. - St. Paul MN - Attorney Profile - Pierre N. Regnier
by and thro the apparent defunct non-profit http://www.lmnc.org/
Attorney Michael Hagedorn,SMRLS, Affiants could not find your License at this time.
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court. January 2009. SUMMARY OF ISSUES ... A07-310: Respondent Alice Krengel owns a home in West St. Paul. ...
www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Calendars/January_2009_Summary.htm - 44k - Cached - Similar pages -
www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Calendars/January_2009_Summary.
Alice was HOMELESS FOR OVER 1 YEAR contrary 42 USC 3631to Drain on the System at Dorothy Day. When Alice had her Homestead over 20 years paid for. Techinally an Illegal Eviction via Prosecutor Misconduct, ie: Kori Larson Land ,Judicial Oversight Leslie Metzen and now the Heinous refusal by the State Attorney General to defend the Nuisance Statutes or Constitutionality thereof.
What has the league President done to the Website, re: Pierre regnier and Alice,Smrls
WSP et al had no business spending the enormous sums they spent on Alice's case. Sending her to jail and/or medical treatment would have cost a fraction of what has been spent.
EMINENT DOMAIN IN MINNESOTA: Case study Alice Krengel, 823 Allen, WSP Alice Krengel West St.Paul - Google Search
Briggs & Morgan Summary with pdf files
Interested Partys_Intervenors_ Victims of Nuisance Laws MS617.xx
and as Private Attorney Generals http://www.quitam.com/ reduced to Poverty.
RE: Alice Krengel A07-310 scheduled Mon. 5Jan09
This electronic letter submission in good faith to prevent Fraud upon the Court
May 12, 2008
Page 152
AUTHORIZATION TO FILE A PETITION FOR REVIEW TO THE SUPREME COURT
City Attorney Land explained that on May 6, 2008, the Court of Appeals overturned the District
Court’s injunction against Alice Krengel. The opinion was a very narrow reading of the public
nuisance statue that basically renders part of it ineffective. The League of Minnesota Cities
general counsel, the legal counsel representing the City in the Court of Appeals decision and the
City Attorney’s office as well, supports asking the Council to file a Petition for Review of the
Supreme Court so that this decision can be considered and, hopefully, overturned on appeal. It
was an unjustifiably narrow interpretation and, given that there was a strong dissent in the
opinion, there is a good likelihood the Supreme Court may take it up on appeal. It was a
published opinion which means it has state-wide impact over the statutory interpretation of this
public statue and it is very limiting and a bad law. She further explained that the City’s financial
responsibility is to pay for 15% of the appeal. Since the City has already met the deductible, any
additional costs up to $250,000 are paid for by the League.
Clpn. Englin commented that this has state-wide implications and sometimes we use laws that
somebody somewhere had to fight the fight to get and now it is our turn to do the same. He
also noted that in the work session, City Manager Remkus told the Council that any possible
additional costs would be paid for from the insurance fund and not from tax generated money.
Clpn. Tessmer agreed we need to go forward with this as this law was a pretty effective tool for
the City and the neighborhood and it would be nice to have this available to us in the future.
Clpn. Iago the fact that this is such a public item, he would ask the City Attorney to provide
progress with this and hopefully, come to a conclusion that is more favorably than what was
provided in the press.
ON MOTION of Clpn. Englin, seconded by Clpn. Wright, resolved to authorize the
League of Minnesota Cities to file a Petition for Review to the Supreme Court regarding
the Alice Krengel matter. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0
Page 152
AUTHORIZATION TO FILE A PETITION FOR REVIEW TO THE SUPREME COURT
City Attorney Land explained that on May 6, 2008, the Court of Appeals overturned the District
Court’s injunction against Alice Krengel. The opinion was a very narrow reading of the public
nuisance statue that basically renders part of it ineffective. The League of Minnesota Cities
general counsel, the legal counsel representing the City in the Court of Appeals decision and the
City Attorney’s office as well, supports asking the Council to file a Petition for Review of the
Supreme Court so that this decision can be considered and, hopefully, overturned on appeal. It
was an unjustifiably narrow interpretation and, given that there was a strong dissent in the
opinion, there is a good likelihood the Supreme Court may take it up on appeal. It was a
published opinion which means it has state-wide impact over the statutory interpretation of this
public statue and it is very limiting and a bad law. She further explained that the City’s financial
responsibility is to pay for 15% of the appeal. Since the City has already met the deductible, any
additional costs up to $250,000 are paid for by the League.
Clpn. Englin commented that this has state-wide implications and sometimes we use laws that
somebody somewhere had to fight the fight to get and now it is our turn to do the same. He
also noted that in the work session, City Manager Remkus told the Council that any possible
additional costs would be paid for from the insurance fund and not from tax generated money.
Clpn. Tessmer agreed we need to go forward with this as this law was a pretty effective tool for
the City and the neighborhood and it would be nice to have this available to us in the future.
Clpn. Iago the fact that this is such a public item, he would ask the City Attorney to provide
progress with this and hopefully, come to a conclusion that is more favorably than what was
provided in the press.
ON MOTION of Clpn. Englin, seconded by Clpn. Wright, resolved to authorize the
League of Minnesota Cities to file a Petition for Review to the Supreme Court regarding
the Alice Krengel matter. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0
The Court Information Office
(651) 297-5532 (phone)
(651) 297-5636 (fax)
Send an email via our contact form
(651) 297-5532 (phone)
(651) 297-5636 (fax)
Send an email via our contact form
Minnesota Judicial Center (MJC)
Suite #: 135
25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
John Kostouros
Court Information Office
Communications Director
(651) 296-6043 (phone)
(651) 297-5636 (fax)
Send an email via our contact form
Kyle Christopherson
Court Information Office
Communications Specialist
(651) 297-4029 (phone)
(651) 297-5636 (fax)
Send an email via our contact form
Lissa Finne
Court Information Office
Communications Specialist
(651) 297-5532 (phone)
(651) 297-5636 (fax)
Send an email via our contact form
THEREFORE: Affiants state and allege pursuant to the penalitys of perjury that the Krengel
Case has far reaching precedant is premature at this time for http://www.mncourt.gov/ enbancUS v Cruikshank92US542(1875)Decend to Particulars Ruling, without decending to particulars as the Krengel Case must affect all Cities.
1. The Public must have copys of any all contracts of the citiy membership as the web site appears to be defunct. with VP apparent disbarred Mayor Christopher B. Coleman as VP.
2. Federal Court Summary Judgment v. City of St. Paul apparantly on Appeal to 8th Cir
3. Brief of US Chamber Commerce Amicus Briefs Nuisance - Google Search U.S. Chamber of Commerce - Public Nuisance Litigation
Public Nuisance Litigation
Public Nuisance and Market Share LiabilityCity of St. Louis v. Benjamin Moore & Co.
No. SC 88230
Supreme Court Of Missouri
Agreeing with NCLC, the Missouri Supreme Court reaffirmed that plaintiffs, including governmental entities, must demonstrate individual causation in public nuisance actions. NCLC filed a brief describing efforts by the plaintiffs' bar to expand the public nuisance tort beyond its traditional boundaries. In this lead paint abatement action, the City of St. Louis attempted to follow their lead by seeking a reduced standard for the proof of individual causation. Instead of demonstrating that the defendant in fact sold lead paint to homeowners in St. Louis, the city would like to rely on a theory of market share liability. In a 1984 decision, the Missouri Supreme Court properly rejected such an approach as it applies to private plaintiffs. In its brief, NCLC made clear that no justification exists for treating governmental entities any differently.
Amicus brief filed 3/7/07. Decision 6/12/07.
View brief Haven't had time to Shepardize, Sharon's Heinous problems with W.St.PaulMayor John Zanmiller also VP on St. Paul Water Board, to arbitrarily shut off Water. http://www.sharonanderson.org/ AG's refusal to Abate Corruption in Aitkin, http://d.scribd.com/docs/733glitr3pqvwpwgjzs.pdf triggering Murder of Sharons Husband, then
View brief Haven't had time to Shepardize, Sharon's Heinous problems with W.St.PaulMayor John Zanmiller also VP on St. Paul Water Board, to arbitrarily shut off Water. http://www.sharonanderson.org/ AG's refusal to Abate Corruption in Aitkin, http://d.scribd.com/docs/733glitr3pqvwpwgjzs.pdf triggering Murder of Sharons Husband, then Sharons Writ property served Arbitrarily Denied???
ECF#p1291866-OJB-SIOUX#408B1911/s/ Bill Dahn
/s/ Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913_sa1299 political ?(Sharon4Anderson?)
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
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
