Alice Krengel

Corruption in the current Minnesota Office of the Attorney General

2010-10-21T12:23:00.000-07:00

Hoarding_HRA_Housing

2010-07-25T08:01:00.000-07:00

http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,110995514001_2002691,00.html

State Budget Treading Water

2010-05-27T06:57:00.001-07:00

State Budget Treading Water

Posted using ShareThis

2010-02-25T00:57:00.000-08:00

MaryJaneDucheneRemand Judge AnnMontgomeryA10-12

View more documents from Sharon Anderson.

2010-01-18T14:14:00.001-08:00

MaryJane Duchene v. W.St.Paul,MN

View more documents from Sharon Anderson.

Some cash, property seized by Metro Gang Strike Force to be returned - TwinCities.com

2009-09-19T06:58:00.001-07:00

Some cash, property seized by Metro Gang Strike Force to be returned - TwinCities.com

Shared via AddThis

AliceKrengel_Won107-310 Legal Briefs

2009-07-19T10:52:00.000-07:00

Briefs filed in City of West St. Paul, Respondent, vs. Alice Jane Krengel, Appellant.

Minnesota State Law Library

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

Return to Home Page

Wind Beneath My Wings BETTE MIDLER

2009-07-19T09:46:00.001-07:00

To my Mother and Father Bill and Bernice A. Peterson, We still carry the Torch http://sharon4mayor2010.blogspot.com

Alice Krengel Won A07-310 MN Supreme Court

2009-07-18T14:00:00.001-07:00

2009-07-16T18:15:00.001-07:00

Alice Krengel WON 17 Jul09 12

View more documents from Sharon Anderson.

Judge Leslie Metzen Resigns

2009-02-28T14:57:00.000-08:00

Judge Leslie Metzen leaving 1st Judicial District bench to join Community Action Council - TwinCities.com

Judge Leslie Metzen leaving 1st Judicial District bench to join Community Action Council

Metzen leaving bench to begin work to combat violence

By Frederick Melo
fmelo@pioneerpress.com

Updated: 02/27/2009 11:35:10 PM CST

As the first female judge in Dakota County and the surrounding six counties of the 1st Judicial District, Leslie Metzen has had to tread a fine line of impartiality, forcing her to stop short of calling herself a social advocate, a women's advocate or an advocate for anything at all beyond blind justice.

That's about to change for one of the county's longest-serving judges.

In May, Metzen will lay down her gavel after almost 23 years on the bench and join the staff of the Community Action Council, a nonprofit human services agency in Burnsville.

Early on in her judicial career, Metzen committed her first faux pas, and a visible one, at that.

Metzen joined a court task force that had her rubbing elbows with prosecutors, defense attorneys and cops, trying to figure out a better way to handle cases of domestic abuse.

Many of her robed mentors were unimpressed that a fellow judge would step across the invisible line of the law and problem-solve with the same people who might appear before her in court. In fact, they seemed almost offended.

"I took a fair amount of criticism from my male colleagues, who thought it was improper," said Metzen, who was appointed to the bench in 1986 by then-Gov. Rudy Perpich, at the relatively youthful age of 37.

But history was on her side.

"As it turned out, a few years later, the chief justice for the Supreme Court mandated that every judicial district have a task force to look at how we handle domestic abuse

Maybe we need to teach men and boys how to have healthy relationships in their lives, and I don't think we're doing that now in our communities."

Metzen's legal résumé includes a stint from 1999 to 2001 as the first female chair of the Conference of Chief Judges, which was then the policy-making group for district courts statewide. Her fellow judges elected her chief judge for the 1st Judicial District in 1997 and again in 1999.

In 2002, she established a community "housing court" for South St. Paul, West St. Paul and Inver Grove Heights homeowners accused of property code violations. In her six years with the court, she ordered one defendant held behind bars — an 88-year-old South St. Paul man who served four days in jail after missing several court dates and refusing to clean up his back yard.

The court closed last year after Metzen joined Dakota County's new drug court, which offers repeat offenders intense supervision and a range of incentives to stay clean.

She also has been active in restorative justice efforts, in which a defendant must meet with a victim in person to apologize and explain himself.

Metzen is married to David Metzen, a retired superintendent of the South St. Paul school district, who currently serves on the University of Minnesota's Board of Regents. His brothers are Minnesota Senate President James Metzen, DFL-South St. Paul, and Thomas Metzen, president of Metzen Realty and a figure in Minnesota horse racing.

Frederick Melo can be reached at 651-228-2172.

Showing posts 1 - 2 of 2

A Human Services

United States

Advisory Committee report shows in 2000, a string link between child abuse and domestic violence in Dakota County. Their findins, poor record-keeping, minimal contact among criminal justice agencies, untrained staff members and very little court-ordered treatment, are all factors that allow offenders to abuse again and again; and lack of follow-up in family court.

Sharon4Anderson

AOL

I hope the Judge Metzen resigns from the SCAP Committment Panel, Apparantly she is getting out while the getting is good with the Hon. Rep. Dan Severson's AdHoc Committee to disclipine Judges re: google NancyLazaryan and Bob Zick
re:
http://www.upro.us/tv/
The Heinous Abuse by these Judges re: http://lufsky.blogspot.com The Treatment of Alice Krengel
was heinous,contrary to 42USC 3631
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/3631fin.php
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocate...

has cost the taxpayers a fortune http://www.tpt.org/courts/MNJudicialBranchvid...

The Committment and Murder of www.cpljimanderson.blogspot.com

Alice Krengel'sCivilRights

2009-01-18T07:33:00.001-08:00

Alice Krengel A07-310 MN SupVideo

2009-01-08T05:49:00.000-08:00

MNSupKrengel Oral Argument : A07-310_5MonJan09

SharonAnderson_BillDahn_Private AG MS617 Nuisance,MS204C Canvass

2009-01-02T11:38:00.000-08:00

Fri.2Jan09

Legal Notice to State AG Lori SwansonMinn. R. Civ. P.

24.04 Notice to Attorney General

www.ag.state.mn.us sorely lacking in Public PDF Formats

Electronic Filings re: AG's in the News

Columbia Law :

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/2008ElectronicMeritsBriefsSubmissionGuidelines.pdf

When the constitutionality of an act of the legislature is drawn in question in any action to which

the state or an officer, agency or employee of the state

Lori Swanson Public Nuisance - Google Search

  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:

A-Z Merit Briefs for Supreme Court Cases, Term 2007-2008 (ABA Division for Public Education)

             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

Relators challenge Constitutionality re: MS617.81,83 Nuisance,

617.83, 2008 Minnesota Statutes

MS204C.xx Canvass Boards

Public Nuisance laws mn - Google Search

Near v. Minnesota - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alice Krengel: Alice Krengel EnBanc Mon5Jan09 A07-310MN Supreme Court

MN Canvass Statute - Google Search

Minnesota Legislature - O

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

ffice of the Revisor of Statutes

SUPREME COURT COURTROOM, STATE CAPITOL
http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Calendars/January_2009.pdf

Monday, January 5, 2009
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THEREFORE MS 617.83 must be ruled Unconstitutionally vague,denial of due process

Hopefully it will be acknowledged by the Supeme Court that Korrie Land is not a doctor, and should not have been attempting to act as one, and that there are many other suitable laws which apply to resolving Alice's medical problelms, via competent medical professionals, which are not onnerous and destructive. Throwing Alice out of her house was wantonly onnerous and destructive. Alice could have been readily court ordered into medical care. to stay at her 823 Allen Home in West St.Paul, instead of Dorothy Day for 1 year.

causing great harm,injury, to Alice Krengel and others

Further Candidate Justice Paul Anderson must recuse www.levandar.com Korine Land that the Mayor

of West St. Paul John Zanmiller Dakota Canvass Board Member who hired

Korine Land, League of MN Cities, with Judge Leslie Metzen have failed to

address Prosecutorial Misconduct by the Levandar Law firm. MS617 must be striken,vacated.

Further : re: MN Const. Art. III Separation of Powers, for the Judicial Branch to sit in

the Executive Canvass Board is Criminally violative of the Judges Oaths of Office.MS 204C

Counting Ballots without decending to pariculars of the Author of the Ballots Intent is Bizzare

contrary to Rule of Law,Evidentiary Findings

Apparantly these Judges with their "Titles of Nobility" Exclusive Franchise have interposed the

Intent of the Voters without visual Testimony of the Ballot Author's.

Therefore: Sharon Anderson as Candidate again http://sharon4staterep64a.blogspot.com

current again Candidate http://sharon4mayor2010.blogspot.com read the Chandler Case

one of Obama's Cases as a Constitutional Lawyer.Sharon_AG_MN2010

/s/ Sharon Anderson aka Peterson_Chergosky_Scarrella /s/ Bill Dahn Native American http://billdahn.blogspot.com with Federal Memorandumn of Consent Judgment Rosenbaum

http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/consent%20decree,%20aclu%20v.%20kiffmeyer.pdf

Hereby gives Notice to Challenge MS617.83 Nuisance Laws in their entirety,

Canvass Boards at War with MN Const. Art.III

The Attorney General Lori Swanson will be in the courtroom at the same time as the Krengel Case is called

THEREFORE MUST BE CALLED TO DEFEND OR CHALLENGE CONSTITUTIONALITY.

Submitted in Good Faith without Fees, as We have been reduced to Poverty

AllianceMN Sharon Anderson's Blog

42 USC 3631

Hot Sites www.jurist.org www.judicialwatch.org

/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

Subject:

Sharon_Bill_RElators_ConstitutionalityMS617.83 Nuisance_MS204C Canvass

Date:

1/2/2009 12:33:25 P.M. Central Standard Time

From:

Sharon4Anderson

Reply To:
To:	attorney.general@state.mn.us, fred.grittner@courts.state.mn.us, eric.magnuson@courts.state.mn.us, tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us, rca@co.ramsey.mn.us, askdoj@usdoj.gov, james.lackner@usdoj.gov, frank.magill@usdoj.gov, state.auditor@state.mn.us, meritsbriefs@supremecourt.gov, g.barry.anderson@courts.state.mn.us, david.minge@courts.state.mn.us, robert.schumacher@courts.state.mn.us, paul.anderson@courts.state.mn.us, gordon.schumaker@courts.state.mn.us, harriet.lansing@courts.state.mn.us, wilhelmina.m.wright@courts.state.mn.us, russell.anderson@courts.state.mn.us, randolph peterson@courts.state.mn.us, sam.hanson@courts.state.mn.us, terri.j.stoneburner@courts.state.mn.us, thomas.kalitowski@courts.state.mn.us, alan.page@courts.state.mn.us, bruce .d.willis@courts.state.mn.us, edward.toussaint@courts.state.mn.us, natalie.e.hudson@courts.state.mn.us, roger.klaphake@courts.state.mn.us, helen.meyer@courts.state.mn.us, jill.flaskamp.halbrooks@courts.state.mn.us, r.a.jim.randall@courts.state.mn.us, christopher.j.dietzen@courts.state.mn.us, james.harten@courts.state.mn.us, coniversen@yahoo.com, contactus@justicepaulanderson.org, alan@nelson4office.org, tim@highesthill.com, campaign@jillclarkforjustice.org, camp@justiceloriegildea.com, chuck@senaldrick.org, kurtanderson08@gmail.com, senator@senatorbarkley.com, BillDahn3, rob@robfitzgerald08.com, al@alfranken.com, senatefranson@yahoo.com, info@priscillalordfarisforsenate.com, info@jamesforsenator.org, shepardj@SHEPARDJACK.191.it, Stanton4people, jackaldrich@yahoo.com, stwill@citlink.net, info@gailchangbforsjudge.com, info@godfreyforjudge.com, info@guzikforjudge.com, Sharon4Anderson, meg@electmegferber.com, Orensteinhr@yahoo.com, SNYDER@JSNYDERLAW.COM, aitkinpz@co.aitkin.mn.us, achhs@co.aitkin.mn.us, acac@mlecmn.net, age@aitkinage.com, acld@co.aitkin.mn.us, lgrams@co.aitkin.mn.us, janice.bare@courts.state.mn.us, ltibbetts@co.aitkin.mn.us, dale.lueck@co.aitkin.mn.us, irwi0009@umn.edu, central.services@co.aitkin.mn.us, sbennett@co.aitkin.mn.us, auditor@co.aitkin.mn.us, marta.swanson@courts.state.mn.us, license@co.aitkin.mn.us, kladd@co.aitkin.mn.us, sheriff2@co.aitkin.mn.us, chills@co.aitkin.mn.us, dselander@co.aitkin.mn.us, jratz@co.aitkin.mn.us, brian.napstad@co.aitkin.mn.us, diane.lafferty@co.aitkin.mn.us, assessor@co.aitkin.mn.us, reid.amborn@co.aitkin.mn.us, dboyer@co.aitkin.mn.us, ruth.bender@courts.state.mn.us, treas@co.aitkin.mn.us, dniemi@co.aitkin.mn.us, mark.wedel@co.aitkin.mn.us, janze003@umn.edu, tburke@co.aitkin.mn.us, mis@co.aitkin.mn.us, kpeysar@co.aitkin.mn.us, bonnie.lecocq@courts.state.mn.us, plandg@co.aitkin.mn.us, jhicks@co.aitkin.mn.us, russ.wagner@co.aitkin.mn.us, nancy.lebland@courts.state.mn.us, mbos@co.aitkin.mn.us, tsanbeck@co.aitkin.mn.us, paul.bailey@co.aitkin.mn.us, tveenker@co.aitkin.mn.us, bill.thompson@co.aitkin.mn.us, csutch@co.aitkin.mn.us, jblomberg@co.aitkin.mn.us, michelle.cosgriff@courts.state.mn.us, lori.grams@co.aitkin.mn.us, dmoore@co.aitkin.mn.us, mnext-aitkin@umn.edu, tgustin@co.aitkin.mn.us, rmnelson@co.aitkin.mn.us, coatty@co.aitkin.mn.us, galen.tveit@co.aitkin.mn.us, llcc@mlecmn.net, tburman@co.aitkin.mn.us, baverill@mndaily.com, eeskola@cbs.com, ddavis@forumcomm.com, hopfen@startribune.com, rstassen-berger@pioneerpress.com, ochsnews@yahoo.com, bbowring@tpt.org, charley.shaw@legal-ledger.com, mlohn@ap.org, jragsdale@pioneerpress.com, ahart@kare11.com, swente@republican-eagle.com, mfischenich@mankatofreepress.com, EEskola, tim.budig@ecm-inc.com, ndraper@startribune.com, lmccallum@mpr.org, bsalisbury@pioneerpress.com, lschumacher@stcloudtimes.com, pcondon@ap.org, mbrunswick@startribune.com, ntibbetts@mndaily.com, pjkessler@wcco.cbs.com, jcroman@kare11.com, plopez@startribune.com, tscheck@mpr.org, thauser@kstp.com, mlahammer@tpt.org, pdoyle@startribune.com, rrosario@pioneerpress.com, klksnews@yahoo.com, lsturdevant@startribune.com, jayjohnson@postbulletin.com, bbakst@ap.org, dbrewster@startribune.com, glenn.wilson@state.mn.us, market.assurance@state.mn.us, licensing.commerce@state.mn.us, education.comerce@state.mn.us, unclaimed.property@state.mn.us, energy.info@state.mn.us, general.commerce@state.mn.us, insdatareports.commnerce@state.mn.us, financial.commerce@state.mn.us, insurance.commerce@state.mn.us, securities.commerce@state.mn.us, petrofund.commerce@state.mn.us, telecom.commerce@state.mn.us, weights.measures@state.mn.us, MNLabContact@commerce.state.mn.us, mn.relay@state.mn.us, commerce.commissioner@state.mn.us, commerce.webmaster@state.mn.us, marcia.moermond@ci.stpaul.mn.us, kenneth.smith@ci.stpaul.mn.us, margaret.egan@ci.stpaul.mn.us, elizabeth.davis@ci.stpaul.mn.us, trudy.moloney@ci.stpaul.mn.us, thomas.davenport@ci.stpaul.mn.us, mkib73@hotmail.com, tim@e-democracy.org, velma.korbel@state.mn.us, carol.molnau@state.mn.us, brian.mcclung@state.mn.us, dli.commissioner@state.mn.us, cal.ludeman@state.mn.us, admin.info@state.mn.us, alice.seagren@state.mn.us, dan.salomone@state.mn.us, mhfa@state.mn.us, michael.pugliese@state.mn.us, michael.campion@state.mn.us, info@IronRangeResources.org, webinfo@mda.state.mn.us, mde.webmaster@state.mn.us, webmaster@doc.state.mn.us, deed.customerservice@state.mn.us, oet.web@state.mn.us, webmaster.finance@state.mn.us, sanne.magnan@state.mn.us, dhs.info@state.mn.us, steve.sviggum@state.mn.us, bms@state.mn.us, data.center@metc.state.mn.us, peter.bell@metc.state.mn.us, webmaster@mn-arng.ngb.army.mil, susan.heegard@state.mn.us, info@dnr.state.mn.us, webmaster@pca.state.mn.us, Dps.webmaster@state.mn.us, ward.einess@state.mn.us, dorweb.comm@state.mn.us, tom.sorel@state.mn.us, info@dot.state.mn.us, clark.dyrud@state.mn.us, mdva.webmaster@mdva.state.mn.us, rep.tim.faust@house.mn, rep.morrie.lanning@house.mn, rep.sandra.peterson@house.mn, rep.kathy.brynaert@house.mn, rep.bud.heidgerken@house.mn, rep.carol.mcfarlane@house.mn, rep.augustine.dominguez@house.mn, rep.nora.slawik@house.mn, rep.phyllis.kahn@house.mn, rep.joe.atkins@house.mn, rep.maryellen.otremba@house.mn, rep.steve.gottwalt@house.mn, rep.john.ward@house.mn, rep.leon.lillie@house.mn, rep.tony.cornish@house.mn, rep.brita.sailer@house.mn, rep.frank.hornstein@house.mn, rep.joe.mullery@house.mn, rep.tom.emmer@house.mn, rep.cy.thao@house.mn, rep.paul.kohls@house.mn, rep.david.bly@house.mn, rep.joyce.peppin@house.mn, rep.sandy.wollschlager@house.mn, rep.rick.hansen@house.mn, rep.carlos.mariani@house.mn, rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn, rep.bob.dettmer@house.mn, rep.mike.jaros@house.mn, rep.kim.norton@house.mn, rep.bruce.anderson@house.mn, rep.patti.fritz@house.mn, rep.dean.urdahl@house.mn, rep.john.lesch@house.mn, rep.julie.bunn@house.mn, rep.tom.rukavina@house.mn, rep.bill.hilty@house.mn, rep.frank.moe@house.mn, rep.steve.drazkowski@house.mn, rep.steve.smith@house.mn, rep.margaret.kelliher@house.mn, rep.john.benson@house.mn, rep.erik.paulsen@house.mn, rep.bob.gunther@house.mn, rep.andy.welti@house.mn, rep.shelley.madore@house.mn, rep.matt.dean@house.mn, rep.marty.seifert@house.mn, rep.larry.hosch@house.mn, rep.mary.murphy@house.mn, rep.tom.tillberry@house.mn, rep.sondra.erickson@house.mn, rep.carolyn.laine@house.mn, rep.neil.peterson@house.mn, rep.robin.brown@house.mn, rep.larry.haws@house.mn, rep.sandra.masin@house.mn, rep.dean.simpson@house.mn, rep.denise.dittrich@house.mn, rep.al.juhnke@house.mn, rep.tom.anzelc@house.mn, rep.mark.olson@house.mn, rep.pat.garofalo@house.mn, rep.neva.walker@house.mn, rep.bernie.lieder@house.mn, rep.karen.clark@house.mn, rep.maria.ruud@house.mn, rep.joe.hoppe@house.mn, rep.terry.morrow@house.mn, rep.kent.eken@house.mn, rep.marsha.swails@house.mn, rep.lyle.koenen@house.mn, rep.karla.bigham@house.mn, rep.gene.pelowski@house.mn, rep.rod.hamilton@house.mn, rep.ryan.winkler@house.mn, rep.tim.mahoney@house.mn, rep.dan.severson@house.mn, rep.randy.demmer@house.mn, rep.thomas.huntley@house.mn, rep.bud.nornes@house.mn, rep.jim.abeler@house.mn, rep.ken.tschumper@house.mn, rep.brad.finstad@house.mn, rep.ann.lenczewski@house.mn, rep.jeanne.poppe@house.mn, rep.mark.buesgens@house.mn, rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn, rep.denny.mcnamara@house.mn, rep.al.doty@house.mn, rep.linda.slocum@house.mn, rep.jeremy.kalin@house.mn, rep.mike.beard@house.mn, rep.dennis.ozment@house.mn, rep.mindy.greiling@house.mn, rep.lynn.wardlow@house.mn, rep.diane.loeffler@house.mn, rep.jim.davnie@house.mn, rep.bev.scalze@house.mn, rep.melissa.hortman@house.mn, rep.erin.murphy@house.mn, rep.ron.erhardt@house.mn, rep.paul.thissen@house.mn, rep.scott.kranz@house.mn, rep.laura.brod@house.mn, rep.aaron.peterson@house.mn, rep.kurt.zellers@house.mn, rep.alice.hausman@house.mn, rep.paul.marquart@house.mn, rep.steve.simon@house.mn, rep.david.dill@house.mn, rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn, rep.dave.olin@house.mn, rep.sarah.anderson@house.mn, rep.paul.gardner@house.mn, rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn, rep.tina.liebling@house.mn, rep.lyndon.carlson@house.mn, rep.connie.ruth@house.mn, rep.maryliz.holberg@house.mn, rep.will.morgan@house.mn, rep.rob.eastlund@house.mn, rep.loren.solberg@house.mn, rep.kate.knuth@house.mn, rep.john.berns@house.mn, rep.michael.paymar@house.mn, rep.tom.hackbarth@house.mn, rep.torrey.westrom@house.mn, rep.doug.magnus@house.mn, rep.tony.sertich@house.mn, rep.larry.howes@house.mn, rep.michael.nelson@house.mn, elections.dept@state.mn.us, secretary.state@state.mn.us, public.information@state.mn.us, direct.access@state.mn.us, authentication.inquiries@state.mn.us, ucc.dept@state.mn.us, sen.patricia.torres.ray@senate.mn, sen.tarryl.clark@senate.mn, sen.mary.olson@senate.mn, sen.linda.higgins@senate.mn, sen.david.senjem@senate.mn, sen.john.marty@senate.mn, sen.john.doll@senate.mn, sen.yvonne.prettner.solon@senate.mn, sen.paul.koering@senate.mn, sen.daniel.sparks@senate.mn, sen.terri.bonoff@senate.mn, sen.chris.gerlach@senate.mn, sen.kathy.saltzman@senate.mn, sen.warren.limmer@senate.mn, sen.jim.vickerman@senate.mn, sen.dick.day@senate.mn, sen.sandra.pappas@senate.mn, sen.debbie.johnson@senate.mn, sen.katie.sieben@senate.mn, sen.thomas.bakk@senate.mn, sen.geoff.michel@senate.mn, sen.sharon.erickson.ropes@senate.mn, sen.claire.robling@senate.mn, sen.keith.langseth@senate.mn, sen.david.tomassoni@senate.mn, sen.satveer.chaudhary@senate.mn, sen.gen.olson@senate.mn, sen.david.hann@senate.mn, sen.linda.scheid@senate.mn, sen.ann.lynch@senate.mn, sen.chuck.wiger@senate.mn, sen.steve.dille@senate.mn, sen.lawrence.pogemiller@senate.mn, sen.amy.koch@senate.mn, sen.dan.skogen@senate.mn, sen.don.betzold@senate.mn, sen.steve.murphy@senate.mn, sen.dennis.frederickson@senate.mn, sen.sandy.rummel@senate.mn, sen.ron.latz@senate.mn, sen.ray.vandeveer@senate.mn, sen.richard.cohen@senate.mn, sen.julianne.ortman@senate.mn, sen.bill.ingebrigtsen@senate.mn, sen.kathy.sheran@senate.mn, sen.ellen.anderson@senate.mn, sen.jim.metzen@senate.mn, sen.michelle.fischbach@senate.mn, sen.ann.rest@senate.mn, sen.gary.kubly@senate.mn, sen.leroy.stumpf@senate.mn, sen.jim.carlson@senate.mn, sen.rick.olseen@senate.mn, sen.joe.gimse@senate.mn, sen.tom.saxhaug@senate.mn, sen.tony.lourey@senate.mn, sen.betsy.wergin@senate.mn, sen.scott.dibble@senate.mn, sen.pat.pariseau@senate.mn, sen.mike.jungbauer@senate.mn, sen.rod.skoe@senate.mn, sen.linda.berglin@senate.mn, sen.mee.moua@senate.mn, sen.leo.foley@senate.mn, sen.julie.rosen@senate.mn, sen.dan.larson@senate.mn, steve@stevekelley.org, info@timpawlenty.com, ccs-1@mnip.org, pioneer@pinecitymn.com, ATM@startribune.com, editor@shakopeenews.com, editor2@rosemounttownpages.com, annej@republican-eagle.com, info@swansonforattorneygeneral.com, k.anderson@waconiapatriot.com, editor@paynesvillepress.com, news@hastingsstargazette.com, editor@savagepacer.com, editor@woodburybulletin.com, furst@postbulletin.com, editor@timberjay.com, newsrec@rconnect.com, pbakken@mnsun.com, plaindlr@stjamesnews.com, editorial@wadenapj.com, pilot@walkermn.com, infodesk@pioneerpress.com, news@fairmontsentinel.com, editor@watchdog-news.com, editor@plamerican.com, crystal@johnsonforag.org, tribute@tylertribute.com, editor@northfieldnews.com, editor.thisweek@ecm-inc.com, tara@saukherald.com, susanl@wctrib.com, paypress@paynesvillepress.com, herald@eot.com, editor@mankatofreepress.com, editor@chaskaherald.com, editor@chanvillager.com, rkrebs@stcloud.gannett.com, letters@postbulletin.com, fcnews@bevcomm.net, aenterprise@albanytel.com, pipepub@pipestonestar.com, online@nujournal.com, enterprise@unitelc.com, lpleader@rea-alp.com, dhill@trftimes.com, mcr@mcrecord.com, lkmtkaliberty@mchsi.com, info@poweronemedia.com, mcnews@frontiernet.net, observer@mtlakenews.com, monticellotimes@monticellotimes.com, editor@montenews.com, richg@glencoenews.com, news@pressnews.com, editor@jordannews.com, news@marshallindependent.com, news@hutchinsonleader.com, herald@herald-journal.com, gfhcity@gfherald.com, echo@echopress.com, nbowe@dlnewspapers.com, wanda.moeller@mx3.com, ron.oleheiser@mx3.com, dave.churchill@fergusfallsjournal.com, editor.countynews@ecm-inc.com, news@crookstontimes.com, rahnl@windomnews.com, news@cookcountystar.com, journal@ecloquet.com, andy.greenman@austindailyherald.com, peter.bodley@ecm-inc.com, westrib@sherbtel.net, advocate@lkdllink.net, ELYECHO, kgrinde@gfherald.com, online@dailyjournal-ifalls.com, Editor@weeklynews.com, news@pinejournal.com, news@albertleatribune.com, editor.argus@ecm-inc.com, star@boreal.org, opinions@pressnews.com, norlight@wiktel.com, winpost@winonapost.com, news@winonadailynews.com, editor@edenprairienews.com, exponent@rrv.net, ssudak@swpub.com, editor@star-herald.com, suncurrentsouth@mnsun.com, editor@koreanquarterly.org, swjournal@uswest.net, advocate@atm.org, Mkashmore, denisw@aplacetoremember.com, ppcomp@sherbtel.net, markcohen@minnlawyer.com, info@mnsunpub.com, art@mnsunpub.com, women@womenpress.com, classified@spokesman-recorder.com, latinomidwes@usa.net, sppc@saintpaulpublishing.com
CC:	library.ag@state.mn.us, nancylazaryan@gmail.com, Bill4Dahn, silha@tc.umn.edu, DOR.taxpayeradvocate@state.mn.us, dorrick@pioneerpress.com
BCC:
Sent on:

Sa 2 Jan09 Swanson

2009-01-02T11:27:00.001-08:00

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

Sa 2 Jan09 Swanson

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: mnaglori swansonconstitutionality...)

Alice Krengel EnBanc Mon5Jan09 A07-310MN Supreme Court

2008-12-31T10:55:00.000-08:00


English criminal law
Part of the common law series
Classes of crimes
Summary · Indictable Hybrid offence Regulatory offences Lesser included offence
Elements of crimes
Actus reus · Causation · Mens rea Intention · Intention in English law Recklessness · Criminal negligence Corporate / Vicarious / Strict liability Omission · Concurrence Ignorantia juris non excusat
Inchoate offenses
Incitement · Conspiracy Accessory · Attempt Common purpose
Defences
Consent · Duress · Necessity

Alice Krengel rep: by Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services Michael Hagedorn, apparantly the http://www.lmnc.org/ hired Pierre N. Regnier at What Cost to the Public at Large? this non profit apparantly site is down. Who will pay the Bills?

Request to the Public at Large re: Constitutionality of Nuisance Laws Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, P.L.L.P. - St. Paul MN - Attorney Profile - Pierre N. Regnier

public nuisance definition - Google Search

Public nuisance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alice Krengel mn supreme court - Google Search

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Calendars /January_2009.pdf

SUPREME COURT COURTROOM, STATE CAPITOL
Monday, January 5, 2009
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

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate7/alice2006/ENBANCCALENDAR.pdf

EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court

January 2009
SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

Monday, January 5, 2009, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol
City of West St. Paul, Appellant vs. Alice Jane Krengel, Respondent – Case No. A07-310:

Respondent Alice

owns a home in West St. Paul. Between September 2004 and July 2005, the police received more than two dozen reports

regarding the property, and twice pleaded guilty to misdemeanor public nuisance for incidents, in November 2004

and April 2005. Under Minnesota Statutes § 617.81, subd. 2 (2006), a public nuisance exists upon proof of two or more

separate incidents “committed within the previous 12 months.” In July 2005, the city put on notice of its intent to

seek an injunction under Minn. Stat. § 617.83 (2006) closing the building. In August 2005, and the city agreed to an

abatement plan. Although there were no further reports of nuisance, violated other terms of the abatement plan. In

June 2006, the city notified of its intent to seek injunctive relief and in August 2006 the district court temporarily

enjoined from living at the property for a period of one year. The injunction was made permanent in November 2006.

The court of appeals reversed, holding that the statute requires at least two incidents of a statutorily defined public nuisance

within the 12 months preceding the hearing on the request for a permanent injunction. Two issues are before the supreme

court: (1) when a nuisance leads to an abatement plan and the plan is breached, is the county precluded from seeking

injunctive relief to abate the nuisance when the date of the last nuisance activity is more than 12 months before the permanent

injunction hearing but within the 12 months preceding the notice of injunctive action required by statute; and (2) when a

nuisance results in an abatement plan and the plan is breached, are the nuisance abatement enforcement procedures found in

the statute tolled while efforts are made to voluntarily address the nuisance during the

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-310 City of West St. Paul, Respondent, vs. Alice Jane Krengel, Appellant. Filed May 6, 2008 Vacated; motion denied Johnson, Judge

Dissenting, Crippen, Judge* Dakota County District Court File No. C8-06-8776 Pierre N. Regnier, Susan Steffen Tice, Jardine, Logan & O‟Brien, P.L.L.P., 8519 Eagle Point Boulevard, Suite 100, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (for respondent) Michael Hagedorn, Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, Bigelow Building, 450 North Syndicate Street, Suite 285, Saint Paul, MN 55104; and Julia Althoff, Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, 166 East Fourth Street, Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for appellant) Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Hudson, Judge; and Crippen, Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

S Y L L A B U S

1. A district court may not issue a permanent injunction to abate a public nuisance pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 617.83 (2006) unless the public nuisance exists at the time of the hearing on the request for the permanent injunction. 2

2. A public nuisance exists for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 617.83 (2006) if two or more incidents of statutorily defined nuisance activity have occurred within the 12-month period preceding the hearing on the request for the permanent injunction.

O P I N I O N

JOHNSON, Judge Alice Jane Krengel has been a homeowner in the City of West St. Paul for approximately 20 years. She has been an extreme annoyance to her neighbors. For that reason, the district court issued injunctions pursuant to the Public Nuisance Law that prevented Krengel from living at or using her homestead property for one year. Krengel appeals, arguing that the permanent injunction was improper because the public nuisance was not ongoing when the city sought and obtained the permanent injunction. We interpret the Public Nuisance Law to require the city to prove that two or more incidents of nuisance activity, as defined by statute, occurred within the 12-month period preceding the hearing on the city‟s request for the permanent injunction. We thus conclude that the district court erred because the city‟s evidence of nuisance activity consisted solely of incidents occurring 15 or more months before the hearing on the city‟s request for the permanent injunction. Therefore, we vacate the permanent injunction. FACTS A. Background

Krengel has owned a house on Allen Avenue in West St. Paul for approximately 20 years. The house has been her residence during that time period, except for a one-year period between August 2006 and August 2007, when she was prohibited from using the 3

property by a temporary injunction and by the permanent injunction that she challenges in this appeal. The district court found that, over a six-year period, Krengel‟s neighbors "have been subjected to intoxicated persons at her home, yelling, arguing with one another, and screaming obscenities, at all hours of the days and nights." For example, a next-door neighbor witnessed Krengel‟s guests urinating on the neighbor‟s bushes. Another neighboring family feared for the safety and welfare of its teen-aged daughter because Krengel‟s boarders and guests made lewd and suggestive comments to her when she walked past Krengel‟s house. The police department received 29 reports regarding the property in a period of approximately one year. Krengel has not challenged these findings of facts. Furthermore, Krengel twice pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of public nuisance, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.74(1) (2004) and Minn. Stat. § 609.745 (2004), for incidents occurring on November 14, 2004, and April 10, 2005.

The incidents described above occurred between September 28, 2004, and July 12, 2005. Those incidents prompted the city attorney to send a letter to Krengel on July 29, 2005, to put her on notice that if she did not either abate the nuisance or enter into an abatement plan with the city, the city would seek an injunction pursuant to the Public Nuisance Law. The letter described 13 objectionable incidents. Among them were several incidents in which Krengel‟s guests were taken to a detoxification unit or to a hospital because of high blood-alcohol content; an incident in which two intoxicated males assaulted one another with hammers, with resulting injuries; and an incident in which two persons argued loudly in Krengel‟s yard while pushing and slapping each 4

other. The city attorney informed Krengel that the city would commence an action in district court to enjoin the public nuisance if Krengel did not either "abate the nuisance or enter into an agreed abatement plan within 30 days of service of this Notice." After receiving the city‟s July 29, 2005, letter, Krengel and the city entered into an abatement plan. Krengel signed the two-page document on August 17, 2005. The city council ratified it by a 6-0 vote on August 22, 2005, and the plan subsequently was signed by the mayor. The operative terms of the abatement plan (1) prohibited Krengel from using alcohol or controlled substances; (2) prohibited Krengel from keeping alcohol, alcohol containers, or controlled substances at the property; (3) prohibited Krengel from allowing more than three unrelated persons to reside at the property; (4) permitted certain police officers to make "random visits" to her home; (5) permitted certain police officers to administer random preliminary breath tests to Krengel; and (6) required Krengel to attend 90 meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous within 120 days and to submit verification of her attendance to the city attorney‟s office. The abatement plan was to be in effect for one year. In the final paragraph of the plan, Krengel acknowledged "that any violation of the terms and conditions of the Abatement Plan will allow the City Council to pursue injunctive action as stated in the Notice of Injunctive Action."

During the subsequent year, Krengel apparently stopped the egregious conduct that had prompted the city to send the July 29, 2005, letter, but she did not comply with the abatement plan. The district court found that Krengel violated the plan on seven occasions. First, on September 17, 2005, Krengel purchased a bottle of rum at a liquor 5

store. When police officers went to her home to investigate, Krengel refused to admit them. Second, on March 16, 2006, one of Krengel‟s boarders purchased a 12-pack of beer at a liquor store and walked directly to Krengel‟s home. Investigating police officers who went to Krengel‟s home detected alcohol on Krengel‟s breath. Third, on May 6, 2006, Krengel refused to admit a police officer who sought to conduct a random inspection pursuant to the abatement plan. Fourth, on May 7, 2006, Krengel again refused to admit a police officer who sought to conduct a random inspection pursuant to the abatement plan. The officer detected the odor of alcohol on Krengel‟s breath as well as slurred speech when she answered the door. Fifth, on June 29, 2006, an anonymous caller reported to police that Krengel had been drinking. When an officer went to Krengel‟s home, Krengel was sleeping in a bedroom. Sixth, on July 28, 2006, an officer saw Krengel walking on the sidewalk near her home and into her home while carrying a bottle that Krengel later admitted contained vodka. Krengel consented to a preliminary breath test, which revealed an alcohol concentration of 0.253. The officer‟s report stated that the "house was very quiet" and Krengel was "very cooperative." Seventh, on August 4, 2006, an officer saw Krengel walk into a neighborhood liquor store and, after entering the store, witnessed Krengel buying a bottle of vodka.

In response to Krengel‟s violations of the abatement plan, the city sent Krengel a second letter on June 27, 2006, that again provided notice of the city‟s intent to seek injunctive relief. The letter set forth the first four incidents described above that constituted violations of the abatement plan and also recited the same 13 incidents that were described in the first notice in July 2005. The letter concluded with language 6

similar to the first letter—that the city would commence an action in district court to enjoin the nuisance if Krengel did not either "abate the nuisance or enter into an agreed abatement plan within 30 days of service of this Notice." B. District Court Action On July 31, 2006, thirty-four days after its second notice, the city commenced an action in the Dakota County District Court. The city promptly moved for a temporary injunction to prohibit Krengel from maintaining a nuisance at her property. On August 3, 2006, the district court conducted a hearing on the motion. On August 10, 2006, the district court issued an order granting the motion and enjoining Krengel from residing at the property, from engaging in nuisance activity at the property, and from entering the property without prior approval of the police department. The order required Krengel to vacate her property by August 5, 2006, which indicates that the district court may have granted the motion orally at the hearing. The city then proceeded to seek a permanent injunction. The district court conducted a hearing on October 17, 2006. The district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order that was signed by the district judge on November 15, 2006, and filed with the court administrator on November 20, 2006. The order stated that Krengel is enjoined from occupying her home for one year from the date of the issuance of the temporary injunction, except that she may "enter the premises on five days from the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. to pack up personal belongings and to secure valuables and other items." In an affidavit that Krengel filed with the district court in August 2007, she stated that she lived at a homeless shelter for most of her year-long expulsion. 7

Krengel filed a timely notice of appeal from the district court‟s permanent injunction. The temporary injunction is not at issue in this appeal. C. Post-Judgment Motions After the district court issued the permanent injunction, Krengel made three attempts to stay enforcement of the injunction while she pursued this appeal. First, on December 13, 2006, Krengel filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with this court, seeking to preclude the district court from enforcing the permanent injunction. This court denied the petition in an order dated January 16, 2007. Second, on February 14, 2007, Krengel filed a motion in the district court to stay enforcement of the permanent injunction pending appeal. The district court conducted a hearing on February 27, 2007, and denied the motion in an order dated March 21, 2007. Third, on May 3, 2007, Krengel asked this court to review and reverse the district court‟s denial of her motion for a stay. This court denied Krengel‟s motion in an order dated May 22, 2007. On July 26, 2007, shortly before the expiration of the permanent injunction, the city moved the district court to extend the permanent injunction for six additional months. After an August 9, 2007, hearing, the district court denied the motion on the ground that the city had not given Krengel the notice required by Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 4 (2006). On August 15, 2007, after this appeal had been fully briefed and was awaiting oral argument, the city filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because the permanent injunction had expired. On August 28, 2007, this court issued an order deferring the motion to the panel considering the merits of the appeal. 8

ISSUES

I. Does Krengel‟s appeal present a justiciable controversy even though the permanent injunction has expired?

II. Under Minn. Stat. §§ 617.81-.87, may a district court issue a permanent injunction if the last incident of statutorily defined nuisance activity occurred more than 12 months before the hearing on the city‟s request for a permanent injunction?

ANALYSIS

I. The city has moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing that there no longer is a live controversy because the permanent injunction has expired. "The issue of whether a cause of action is moot is a question of law, which we review de novo." In re Risk Level Determination of J.V., 741 N.W.2d 612, 614 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 2008).

A case is moot if there is no justiciable controversy. Kahn v. Griffin, 701 N.W.2d 815, 821 (Minn. 2005); State ex rel. Sviggum v. Hanson, 732 N.W.2d 312, 321 (Minn. App. 2007). A justiciable controversy is one that "involves definite and concrete assertions of right," J.V., 741 N.W.2d at 614, and "allows for specific relief by a decree or judgment of a specific character as distinguished from an advisory opinion predicated on hypothetical facts," Sviggum, 732 N.W.2d at 321 (citing Holiday Acres No. 3 v. Midwest Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Minneapolis, 271 N.W.2d 445, 447 (Minn. 1978)). Appellate courts "decide only actual controversies and avoid advisory opinions." In re McCaskill, 603 N.W.2d 326, 327 (Minn. 1999). Thus, when there is "no injury that a 9

court can redress, the case must be dismissed for lack of justiciability," except in certain "narrowly-defined circumstances." Sviggum, 732 N.W.2d at 321. A matter will not be dismissed as moot, however, if (1) the issue raised is capable of repetition yet evading review or (2) collateral consequences attach to the otherwise moot ruling. McCaskill, 603 N.W.2d at 327. At oral argument, Krengel abandoned her argument concerning the second exception. She argues only that we should apply the first exception, that the propriety of the permanent injunction is capable of repetition yet evading review. This exception is well established. See, e.g., Kahn, 701 N.W.2d at 821; State ex rel. Archabal v. County of Hennepin, 505 N.W.2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993); State ex rel. Doe v. Madonna, 295 N.W.2d 356, 361 (Minn. 1980). The capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception may apply if "„(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.‟" Kahn, 701 N.W.2d at 821 (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S. Ct. 347, 349 (1975)). The rationale of the exception is that to "„abandon the case at an advanced stage may prove more wasteful than frugal.‟" Sviggum, 732 N.W.2d at 322 (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 192, 120 S. Ct. 693, 710 (2000)). A. Duration of Challenged Action

We first must determine whether the permanent injunction "was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration." Kahn, 701 N.W.2d at 821. The permanent injunction was in effect for approximately nine months before it expired. 10

This period of time was too short to allow the judicial process to reach conclusion. In fact, the oral argument in this case was scheduled for a date approximately six months after the permanent injunction had expired. The procedural posture of this case is comparable to that of Madonna, in which the plaintiffs challenged their confinements while awaiting a hearing to determine whether they should be committed to mental institutions. 295 N.W.2d at 358. The plaintiffs filed petitions for habeas corpus during their pre-hearing confinements, which lasted only a matter of weeks, but the petitions were not adjudicated before their pre-hearing confinements ended. Id. at 358-59. Approximately two and one-half years later, the supreme court held that the case was not moot, reasoning that "some method of review must exist." Id. at 361; see also Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206, 208 n.2 (Minn. 2001) (holding that challenge to one-year order for protection was not moot even though it had expired); Davis v. Davis, 297 Minn. 187, 188 n.1, 210 N.W.2d 221, 223 n.1 (1973) (holding that challenge to one-year residency requirement for divorce action was not moot even though plaintiff had since satisfied requirement). Thus, the first requirement of Kahn has been satisfied. B. Reasonable Expectation of Repetition

The second requirement of Kahn is that there is "a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again." 701 N.W.2d at 821 (quotation omitted). Throughout its brief, the city emphasizes the persistent nature of the objectionable situation at Krengel‟s property and the resources that the city‟s police department has been forced to expend in responding to complaints from Krengel‟s 11

neighbors as well as calls for assistance from Krengel herself when guests or boarders are out of control. The city has vigorously pursued this legal action as a means of preventing future problems. It appears that the city is likely to continue to pursue a legal solution to the situation that exists at Krengel‟s property. In fact, the city has sought to apply the Public Nuisance Law to Krengel on a second occasion. When the permanent injunction was due to expire in August 2007, the city sought to extend the injunction for an additional six months pursuant to the Public Nuisance Law. The district court denied relief on the ground that the city had not given Krengel the written notice required by Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 4 (2006). The city‟s repeated efforts to enforce the Public Nuisance Law against Krengel "undercut[] [the city‟s] claim that repetition of the governmental action in this case is remote and speculative as to" Krengel. Madonna, 295 N.W.2d at 361. These facts lead to the conclusion that there is "a reasonable expectation" that Krengel may be "subjected to the same action again." Kahn, 701 N.W.2d at 821 (quotation omitted). We need not consider the possibility that another person in Minnesota who owns or possesses real property may become a defendant in a civil action in which a city, a county, or the state seeks an injunction pursuant to the Public Nuisance Law. See id. at 823 (considering whether same issue may arise in future with respect to non-parties). Thus, the second requirement of Kahn has been satisfied. C. Summary

Both of Kahn’s requirements have been satisfied. Nonetheless, mootness is "„a flexible discretionary doctrine, not a mechanical rule that is invoked automatically.‟" 12

Jasper v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 642 N.W.2d 435, 439 (Minn. 2002) (quoting State v. Rud, 359 N.W.2d 573, 576 (Minn. 1984)). Although we naturally hesitate to make an exception to mootness, it is appropriate to do so here. It is significant that Krengel was unable to obtain appellate review of the permanent injunction before it expired despite having made three vigorous efforts to do so. First, she petitioned for writ of prohibition with this court, seeking to prohibit the district court from enforcing the permanent injunction. Second, she moved the district court for a stay of enforcement of the permanent injunction pending appeal. And third, she asked this court to review the district court‟s denial of her motion for a stay. All of these efforts were unsuccessful. Although Krengel‟s notice of appeal and her requests for stays were not filed as soon as possible, the lack of appellate review prior to expiration of the permanent injunction was due simply to the duration of the legal process. In addition, to decline to exercise appellate review would leave open the possibility that Krengel might, in the near future, be in the same position again if the city resumes legal action against her. Thus, we conclude that Krengel‟s appeal is not moot despite the expiration of the permanent injunction. II.

Krengel‟s primary argument is that the Public Nuisance Law requires a court to find that two incidents of a statutorily defined public nuisance occurred within the previous 12 months and that there is no such proof in this case. Krengel‟s argument requires that we construe the Public Nuisance Law. Statutory construction is a question 13

of law, which this court reviews de novo. Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc. v. County of Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 390, 393 (Minn. 1998). A. Statutory Framework Sections 617.80 through 617.87 of the Minnesota Statutes provide a means by which a city, a county, or the state may abate a public nuisance. The statute is known as the "Public Nuisance Law." City of Minneapolis v. Fisher, 504 N.W.2d 520, 522-27 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Sept. 30, 1993). The statute defines "public nuisance" by listing nine types of activities, including certain conduct relating to prostitution, gambling, controlled substances, unlicensed and unlawful sales of alcoholic beverages, and firearms. Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 2(a)(1), (2), (5), (6), (7), (8) (2006). As is relevant to this case, the statute provides: For purposes of sections 617.80 to 617.87, a public nuisance exists upon proof of two or more separate behavioral incidents of one or more of the following, committed within the previous 12 months within the building: . . . .

(3) maintaining a public nuisance in violation of section 609.74, clause (1) or (3);[1] [and]

1 Section 609.74(1) provides that it is a crime if a person "maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of members of the public." Minn. Stat. § 609.74(1) (2006). Section 609.74(3) provides that it is a crime if a person is "guilty of any other act or omission declared by law to be a public nuisance and for which no sentence is specifically provided." Id. § 609.74(3) (2006). 2 Section 609.745 provides that a person "having control of real property permits it to be used to maintain a public nuisance or lets the same knowing it will be so used is guilty of a misdemeanor." Minn. Stat. § 609.745 (2006).

(4) permitting a public nuisance in violation of section 609.745;[2] . . . . 14

Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 2(a). The Public Nuisance Law sets forth both substantive criteria and procedural requirements for litigation involving alleged public nuisances. There are four steps in the process of obtaining a permanent injunction to abate a public nuisance under the Public Nuisance Law. First, if a city (or other governmental entity authorized by Minn. Stat. § 617.80, subd. 9 (2006), to invoke the Public Nuisance Law) has reason to believe that a nuisance is being maintained, the city sends written notice to the owner of such a property and all other interested persons. Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 4(a). Among other requirements, the notice must "state that a nuisance as defined in subdivision 2 is maintained or permitted," must "summarize the evidence" of a nuisance, and must "inform the recipient that failure to abate the conduct . . . could . . . result in enjoining the use of the building for any purpose for one year." Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 4(b)(1)-(3). This written notice is a prerequisite to a civil action in district court and must be served on a property owner and all interested persons at least 30 days in advance of a civil action. Minn. Stat. § 617.82(c) (2006).

Second, the city commences a civil action in district court. The city may do so only if the "prosecuting attorney has cause to believe that a nuisance described in section 617.81, subdivision 2, exists." Minn. Stat. § 617.82(c). If, within 30 days after service of the prior notice, the recipient of a notice has abated the nuisance or has entered into an abatement plan and remains in compliance with it, the city may not file a nuisance action in district court. Minn. Stat. § 617.82(a). But if there is an abatement plan and the 15

recipient "fails to comply with the agreed abatement plan," the governmental entity may commence the action in district court. Minn. Stat. § 617.82(b). Third, the city obtains a hearing on its motion for a temporary injunction and presents evidence in support of its motion. "Upon proof of a nuisance described in section 617.81, subdivision 2, the court shall issue a temporary injunction." Minn. Stat. § 617.82(c). The temporary injunction "must describe the conduct to be enjoined." Id. Fourth, the city requests a permanent injunction and submits additional evidence, if any, in support of that request. "Upon proof of a nuisance described in section 617.81, subdivision 2, the court shall issue a permanent injunction and enter an order of abatement . . . ." Minn. Stat. § 617.83 (2006). As with a temporary injunction, a permanent injunction "must describe the conduct permanently enjoined." Id. As a general rule, "The order of abatement must direct the closing of the building or a portion of it for one year . . . ." Id.; Fisher, 504 N.W.2d at 524. B. Meaning of "Within the Previous Twelve Months" In this case, the district court found that Krengel previously had pleaded guilty to criminal charges of public nuisance, in violation of sections 609.74 and 609.745, for incidents that occurred on November 14, 2004, and April 10, 2005. The district court also found that "nine different incidents of public nuisance" occurred between July 2004 and July 2005.

Krengel argues that the district court‟s permanent injunction was improperly issued because the alleged public nuisance was not "ongoing" when the district court issued the permanent injunction. If an alleged nuisance is a static condition (such as, for 16

example, an unlawful junkyard or the day-to-day operation of an illicit business), its presence is continuous so that it is reasonably clear whether the alleged condition is ongoing. But if the alleged nuisance is episodic, consisting of discrete incidents, as is the alleged nuisance at Krengel‟s property, it is less clear whether the alleged condition is ongoing. Yet the statute contains a means of resolving the question; it provides that "a public nuisance exists upon proof of two or more separate behavioral incidents . . . committed within the previous 12 months." Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 2(a). The issue at the core of this case is the meaning of the phrase "within the previous 12 months." Krengel urges us to interpret section 617.81, subdivision 2, to require proof of two "behavioral incidents" occurring within the 12 months preceding the city‟s request for a permanent injunction. The city, on the other hand, contends that the 12-month period should be measured from the date on which the city served written notice of intent to seek injunctive relief pursuant to section 617.81, subdivision 4. The city sent its first notice on July 29, 2005, and its second notice on June 27, 2006. The city argues that the evidence offered to support the permanent injunction is sufficient because there were multiple incidents of nuisance activity in the 12-month period preceding the first notice.

If a statute is reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning, it is ambiguous. American Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309, 312 (Minn. 2001). But if "a statute‟s meaning is plain, judicial construction is neither necessary nor proper." Occhino v. Grover, 640 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn. App. 2002) (citing American Tower, 636 N.W.2d at 312), review denied (Minn. May 28, 2002). In that event, when "the language 17

of a statute is plain, that meaning is applied as a manifestation of legislative intent." Glacial Plains Coop. v. Hughes, 705 N.W.2d 195, 197 (Minn. App. 2005).

The requirement that two or more behavioral incidents have occurred "within the previous 12 months" is contained in section 617.81, subdivision 2, which is a reference point for several other sections of the Public Nuisance Law. For example, the provision that authorizes a permanent injunction requires "proof of a nuisance described in section 617.81, subdivision 2." Minn. Stat. § 617.83. Section 617.81, subdivision 2, in turn, states that "a public nuisance exists upon proof of two or more separate behavioral incidents . . . committed within the previous 12 months." The use of the word "proof" in section 617.81, subdivision 2, and in section 617.83 demonstrates that the relevant event for purposes of measuring 12 months is the hearing on a city‟s request for a permanent injunction. That is when the city is required to offer its "proof" of a nuisance. This conclusion follows naturally from the principle that words and phrases of a statute should be given their ordinary meaning, and the various sections of a statute must be read together to give a whole act context. American Tower, 636 N.W.2d at 312; Glen Paul Court Neighborhood Ass’n v. Paster, 437 N.W.2d 52, 56 (Minn. 1989). Furthermore, the word "exists" appears in the present tense, which requires that the nuisance not have been abated or otherwise resolved at the time of the city‟s proof. See Amaral v. St. Cloud Hosp., 598 N.W.2d 379, 384 (Minn. 1999) (stating that rules of grammar apply when determining meaning of statute). Thus, the statute requires a city or other governmental entity to prove that a nuisance exists at the time of the hearing on a 18

request for a permanent injunction, which requires proof of two or more incidents of statutorily defined nuisance activity within the 12-month period preceding the hearing. The city‟s argument for a contrary interpretation of the statute is unpersuasive because it ignores the connection between section 617.83 and section 617.81, subdivision 2. As the supreme court recently stated, when words of a particular statutory provision are "used elsewhere in the statute," they "furnish authoritative evidence of the legislature‟s intent and meaning," and a statute should be interpreted "in light of its surrounding sections, in order to avoid conflicting interpretations." All Parks Alliance for Change v. Uniprop Manufactured Hous. Communities Income Fund, 732 N.W.2d 189, 193-94 (Minn. 2007). Furthermore, the city‟s argument fails to identify any statutory language that ties the 12-month period solely to the written notice. We do not suggest that the 12-month requirement does not apply to the written notice required by section 617.81, subdivision 4. We simply respond to Krengel‟s argument by concluding that the 12-month requirement applies to the hearing on the request for a permanent injunction, an interpretation that is made plain by the common usage of the word "proof" in section 617.83 and section 617.81, subdivision 2. We are appropriately "attentive" to the text of the statute "because statutory text is all that is enacted into law." Klein Bancorporation, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 581 N.W.2d 863, 868 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Sept. 22, 1998). Thus, there is no reason to refer to extrinsic sources of information to divine the legislature‟s intent. 19

C. Application of Public Nuisance Law to Krengel The city sought to prove the existence of a public nuisance based on the episodic disturbances caused by Krengel and her guests rather than a static physical condition affecting her real property. The district court did not find that two or more behavioral incidents had occurred at Krengel‟s home within the 12 months preceding the permanent injunction hearing. In fact, the city‟s evidence was too stale to satisfy the 12-month requirement. The last of the "separate behavioral incidents" of statutorily defined nuisance activity occurred no later than July 12, 2005, which is approximately 15 months before the October 17, 2006, hearing on the city‟s request for a permanent injunction. Thus, the city could not prove that "a public nuisance exist[ed]" at the time of the hearing on the request for a permanent injunction because it could not offer "proof of two or more separate behavioral incidents . . . committed within the previous 12 months." Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 2. Therefore, the statute did not provide a legal basis for the district court‟s permanent injunction.

The city makes two alternative arguments. First, the city argues that the abatement plan stayed the operation of the statute and tolled the running of the 12-month period. Although the statute expressly addresses abatement plans, there simply is no provision in the statute for staying or tolling the statutory procedures while an abatement plan is in force. It is true that a city may not commence a civil action if a person is in compliance with an abatement plan. Minn. Stat. § 617.82(a). But it does not follow that if a person does not comply with an abatement plan, a city may proceed with a civil action without regard for whether a statutorily defined nuisance still exists. The statute 20

expressly permits a city to commence a civil action if a property owner "fails to comply with the agreed abatement plan." Minn. Stat. § 617.82(b). But the statute states that, in that event, the city may "initiate a complaint for relief in the district court consistent with paragraph (c)." Minn. Stat. § 617.82(b) (emphasis added). Section 617.82(c), in turn, refers back to section 617.81, subdivision 2, the provision that states that "a public nuisance exists upon proof of two or more separate behavioral incidents . . . committed within the previous 12 months." Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 2(a). Thus, when a property owner fails to comply with an abatement plan, a city is permitted to proceed with a civil action for injunctive relief, but the city must do so pursuant to the ordinary procedures and requirements of the Public Nuisance Law.3

3 The dissent reasons that there was "an ongoing nuisance" at Krengel‟s property because of "the continuous existence of a festering set of circumstances" such that Krengel "maintained and continued to „maintain‟—without abatement—an „incident‟ in the form of a „condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of members of the public.‟" See infra p. D-4 (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.74). This statement ignores the requirement that the city prove "separate behavioral incidents" of statutorily defined nuisance activity. Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 2. The statutory definition of a public nuisance does not encompass the mere possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages. See id., subd. 2(a). Furthermore, the mere potential, propensity, or predisposition to engage in behavior that might constitute a public nuisance cannot substitute for the "separate behavioral incidents" that are required by the statute. The dissent also reasons that Krengel‟s "noncompliance with the abatement plan perpetuates the nuisance" that the city had identified in its prior notice. See infra p. D-4. As far as the Public Nuisance Law is concerned, the abatement plan was successful; it led to the elimination of the statutorily defined nuisance that previously existed. The abatement plan did not resolve all issues between the city and Krengel only because the plan imposed a standard of conduct that was significantly more stringent than the statutory standard.

Second, the city argues that Krengel‟s violations of the abatement plan, in and of themselves, justified the district court‟s issuance of the permanent injunction. The 21

language of the abatement plan executed by Krengel and the city does not support the city‟s argument. Rather, the abatement plan, like section 617.82(c), refers the parties back to the Public Nuisance Law. The final paragraph of the abatement plan states that "any violation of the terms and conditions of the Abatement Plan will allow the City Council to pursue injunctive action as stated in the Notice of Injunctive Action." (Emphasis added.) Both of the city‟s notices, in turn, make multiple references to section 617.81. As previously discussed, section 617.81, subdivision 2, requires "proof of two or more separate behavioral incidents . . . committed within the previous 12 months." Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 2(a). Thus, in entering into the abatement plan, Krengel merely agreed that, in the event of a breach, the city would be free to seek an injunction pursuant to the statute, but nothing in the abatement plan altered the statutory requirements of an action for injunctive relief in that event.4

4 The dissent correctly states that "nothing in the statute stands in the way of an agreement like the one formulated by these parties." See infra p. D-3. It also may be said that the city and Krengel were not limited to the specific terms of the abatement plan to which they agreed. Freedom of contract permitted them to agree to alternative terms, including a shorter time period, which likely would have allowed the city to commence legal action soon enough to ensure that the incidents identified in the first notice were sufficiently current at the time of the hearing on the request for a permanent injunction. As it happened, Krengel first breached the agreement approximately one month after she signed it. The city then had the option, pursuant to section 617.82(b), to proceed with a civil action. Furthermore, if the incidents identified in a city‟s notice become too stale, the statute does not prohibit a city from providing an additional notice, and the statute does not prohibit a city from amending or supplementing its complaint, see Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.01, 15.04. 22

D E C I S I O N Krengel‟s appeal presents a justiciable controversy. Although the permanent injunction has expired, the parties‟ dispute is capable of repetition and likely would evade review. Thus, we deny the city‟s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The district court erred in issuing a permanent injunction. The district court did not find that the city had proved that two or more separate behavioral incidents of statutorily defined nuisance activity occurred within the 12-month period preceding the hearing on the city‟s request for a permanent injunction. The incidents on which the city‟s action is based occurred no later than 15 months before the hearing. Thus, a public nuisance did not exist at the time of the hearing on the city‟s request for a permanent injunction. Furthermore, the abatement plan did not permit the city to obtain a permanent injunction based on Krengel‟s violation of the plan. Thus, we vacate the permanent injunction. Vacated; motion denied. D-1

CRIPPEN, Judge (dissenting)

Minnesota‟s 1987 nuisance-abatement statute prescribes a process leading to a mandatory district court injunction that deprives the owner of use of her property for one year. Minn. Stat. § 617.81-.83 (2006).5 I respectfully disagree with the majority‟s construction and application of these statutory provisions, and I would affirm the district court‟s decision. For alternative reasons, in my opinion, the court was obligated to

5 These statutory provisions are simply structured. The topic of the act is the matter of obtaining an injunction or order of abatement; "[i]n order to obtain" this relief, these statutes "must be followed." Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 1. Section 617.81 defines the acts constituting a nuisance at subdivision 2 and delineates the notice requirements at subdivision 4. Minn. Stat. § 617.82, which is the center of controversy in this case, describes the procedure following a notice: (a) If the recipient of a notice under section 617.81, subdivision 4, either abates the conduct constituting the nuisance or enters into an agreed abatement plan within 30 days of service of the notice and complies with the agreement within the stipulated time period, the prosecuting attorney may not file a nuisance action on the specified property regarding the nuisance activity described in the notice. (b) If the recipient fails to comply with the agreed abatement plan, the prosecuting attorney may initiate a complaint for relief in the district court consistent with paragraph (c). (c) Whenever a prosecuting attorney has cause to believe that a nuisance described in section 617.81, subdivision 2, exists within the jurisdiction the attorney serves, the prosecuting attorney may by verified petition seek a temporary injunction in district court in the county in which the alleged public nuisance exists, provided that at least 30 days have expired since service of the notice required under section 617.82, subdivision 4. No temporary injunction may be issued without a prior show cause notice of hearing to the respondents named in the petition and an opportunity for the respondents to be heard. Upon proof of a nuisance described in section 617.81, subdivision 2, the court shall issue a temporary injunction. Any temporary injunction issued must describe the conduct to be enjoined. Finally, the use of "shall" in Minn. Stat. § 617.83 requires the district court to issue an injunction upon proof of a nuisance. See Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 16 (2006) (stating "„[s]hall‟ is mandatory"). D-2

provide the prescribed statutory relief in the circumstances of this case. First, proof of appellant‟s failure to comply with the 2005 agreement of the parties demonstrates that she continues to maintain, without abatement, a nuisance as defined by law; and that this condition, in and around her home, on this record, has existed for approximately 15 years. Alternatively, after appellant failed to comply with the plan, respondent was entitled to injunctive relief upon proof of the disturbances stated in the nuisance notice that was issued in 2005 to initiate these proceedings. For these reasons, appellant did not suffer an unwarranted loss of use of her property under the 2006 district court injunction orders.

Municipal action under the statute unfolds in prescribed stages. When evidence surfaces that gives the prosecuting authority "reason to believe that a nuisance is maintained or permitted," the prosecutor is authorized to serve a written notice that states, among other things, a summary of the evidence prompting the prosecutor‟s belief. Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 4. Significantly, this notice advises the recipient of three options: (1) abatement of the nuisance within 30 days; (2) "otherwise resolv[ing] the matter" with the prosecutor in the same time frame; or (3) suffering "the filing of a complaint for relief in district court that could, among other remedies, result in enjoining the use of the building for any purpose for one year." Id., subd. 4(b).

The recipient‟s timely and adequate response to the notice—when she "abates the conduct constituting the nuisance" or "enters into an agreed abatement plan . . . and complies with the agreement within the stipulated time period"—eliminates the prosecutor‟s right to seek a judicial injunction "regarding the nuisance activity described in the notice." Minn. Stat. § 617.82(a). D-3

Thus, the statute gives the notice recipient two choices "regarding the nuisance stated in the notice," abate this nuisance or "resolve" this nuisance with an "agreed abatement plan." The statute does not limit the term or the nature of the steps that constitute abatement under the plan; in other words, nothing in the statute stands in the way of an agreement like the one formulated by these parties, lasting for a year and calling for correction of conduct underlying the occurrence of nuisance events rather than the cessation of those event. Id.

The majority sees the evident pattern of the statute upset at this point by Minn. Stat. § 617.82(c), which states that the prosecutor may proceed to seek a judicial injunction when there is "cause to believe that a nuisance described in section 617.81, subdivision 2, exists." Minn. Stat. § 617.82(c).

The parties in this case adopted a one-year abatement plan. As a result, when appellant indisputably "failed to comply" with the plan, a year had passed and appellant asserted that the unabated nuisance did not in fact "exist" because "behavioral incidents" had not been "committed within the previous 12 months." Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 2 (defining acts constituting a nuisance).

A. The Continuing Nuisance

Commission of "behavioral incidents" constituting a nuisance includes "maintaining a public nuisance in violation of section 609.74, clause (1) or (3)." Id. The section referred to deals with maintaining or permitting a condition that, inter alia, "unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers" the community. Minn. Stat. § 609.74 D-4

(2006). Proof that this condition is maintained is proof that the nuisance exists, thus permitting the prosecutor to seek an injunction as stated in section 617.82(c).

It is reasonable to conclude, under these statutes, that respondent‟s prosecutor proved and the district court properly determined that there existed on appellant‟s property, because the abatement plan failed, an ongoing nuisance; the record shows that she maintained and continued to "maintain"—without abatement—an "incident" in the form of a "condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of members of the public." Id. In my opinion, the continuous existence of a festering set of circumstances that has included 180 police responses over 15 years can reasonably be considered a static, existing nuisance. The abatement plan sought to cure the nuisance conditions; appellant‟s noncompliance with the abatement plan perpetuates the nuisance that has produced both disturbing affects on neighboring property and investment of substantial municipal police resources.

The legislature anticipated that nuisance-abatement remedies would include injunctions, specifically providing for disuse for a year, and said in passing that there might be "other," unspecified remedies. Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 4(b)(3). But for injunctive remedies, of course, there must be something to enjoin. In the context of this law, there must be some remaining reason to deprive appellant of the use of her property for a year. It is reasonable under the governing statutes to conclude that the district court properly determined the cause for an injunction in this case; the prosecution evidence showed that the nuisance stated in the 2005 notice continued to exist. D-5

B. Specified Disturbances

Alternatively, if appellant‟s nuisance is labeled episodic rather than static, it is among reasonable interpretations of the statute to read it as a demand for injunctive relief upon proof of the episodes first stated in the abatement notice.

The original nuisance notice is permitted when a prosecutor "has reason to believe that a nuisance is maintained or permitted." Minn. Stat. § 617.81, subd. 4(a). The notice must specify the nuisance that is maintained. Id. If the parties choose an abatement agreement and the recipient complies with this agreement, "the prosecuting attorney may not file a nuisance action . . . regarding the nuisance activity described in the notice." Minn. Stat. § 617.82(a). The prosecutor may seek an injunction upon "cause to believe" that a nuisance "exists." Id., § 617.82(c).

Read together, the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 617.82 are in harmony: If the notice recipient abates or resolves the nuisance, the prosecutor must take no action; if the notice recipient fails to abate the nuisance or to comply with the abatement plan, the prosecutor may act. Respondent contends that the existing nuisance regards the activities described in the original notice. The serious nuisance recited in 2005 is the thread running through every stage of action in this case, and it has not been abated as provided by law. In this statutory scheme of action, the abatement plan, when it is chosen by the parties, has the nature as respondent has characterized it, a tolling of abatement-enforcement steps while efforts are made to voluntarily address the nuisance problem reported earlier.

Adding weight to respondent‟s contention, Minn. Stat. § 617.82(c), the same subsection that says the prosecutor may seek injunctive relief when a nuisance exists, D-6

expressly provides that his burden is for "proof of a nuisance described in section 617.81, subdivision 2." As the majority observes, the section defining nuisances speaks of those that exist, determined by examining acts committed in the prior year; the majority states the view that the year must be the period immediately before the proof. But as respondent suggests, the statute fails to resolve, upon failure of an abatement plan, whether the "nuisance" addressed in the stated burden of proof is the nuisance stated in the original notice, as it then existed, or another nuisance currently observed. It may be either without offending the words stated and the scheme of action provided in the statute.

C. Resolving Ambiguities

The language of the public nuisance abatement act fails to clearly define terms and prescribe the process, creating ambiguities that must be resolved by established standards on statutory construction. It is not clear from the language of Minn. Stat. § 617.82 whether new episodes of disturbance must exist or whether failure to comply with an abatement plan perpetuates the former nuisance—proven either by showing the failure to comply or by also showing the original disturbances. Not surprisingly, when respondent provided appellant with a second notice immediately before court proceedings, the prosecutor fully stated both the precipitating disturbances and appellant‟s specific failures respecting the abatement plan. In my opinion, there are dominant reasons to resolve these ambiguities in the fashion underlying the district court‟s deliberations and findings of fact: D-7

(1) The nuisance-abatement statute contemplates a series of steps that govern the parties "regarding the nuisance activity described in the (initial) notice." Minn. Stat. § 617.82(a). These include an abatement plan that might reasonably last for a year and reasonably deal with explosive conditions that must be remedied to end the risk of continuous disturbances. It does mischief to this statute to interpret and apply it in a fashion that alters its usefulness. We are to construe the statute "to give effect to all its provisions." Minn. Stat. § 645.16. And we are to take into account the need for the law, the mischief it aims to remedy, the object it aims to attain, and the consequences of a particular interpretation. Id., § 645.16(1), (3), (4), (6). The object of construction of laws is to effectuate the legislative intent. Id.; Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (2006).

(2) The statutory tie between the initial notice and the subsequent injunction action is ratified by the chosen language of the parties in their 2005 abatement plan. They expressly anticipated, when addressing the July 2005 abatement notice and the nuisance it reported, that the prosecutor could seek an injunction in the event that appellant failed to comply with the plan. In the same instrument, appellant committed herself to remedial steps that did not occur; she did not merely agree to be sure that no disturbance occurred during a one-year waiting period. Respondent proceeded in this case as anticipated in (1) the advisory stated in the 2005 abatement notice, (2) the statutory provision on noncompliance, and (3) the language on consequences stated in the abatement plan itself. The understanding and the conduct of the parties suggests the common meanings of the statutes, which are to be construed "according to their common and approved usage." Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2006). D-8

(3) In a practical sense, the demand for current disturbances creates barriers on the future formulation of abatement plans, adding to the legislative scheme the urging that abatement plans either should be short in duration or should only call for a cessation of disturbances. These are barriers that may be adverse to the interests of both municipal authorities and notice recipients. The prosecutor in this case is penalized for what is evidently a display of sound prosecutorial discretion. Rather than attempting to monitor the behavior of intoxicated guests in appellant‟s home, the prosecutor attempted to understand a problem and to attempt to deal with it most effectively by addressing its roots and choosing a reasonable time to address the problems. The agreement was a natural, reasoned, and laudatory approach of both parties to the nuisance problem. It is axiomatic that we are limited by what the legislature has said, having no freedom to add to or alter its enactments.

(4) Although the consideration can rightfully be seen as secondary to others already stated, "the legislature intends to favor the public interest as against any private interest." Minn. Stat. § 645.17(5). The statute invites the interpretation chosen by the district court, and this is consistent with an important public interest in property uses that are not threatening to others.

(5) Finally, deference to the public interest goes beyond the protection of municipal efforts to control public nuisances. The injunction challenged on this appeal, as mandated by the statute, deprived appellant of her property, and she has candidly disclosed to us in motion documents that she anticipates the collateral consequence of unrequited damage if the matter is not reviewed. It is equally evident that appellant D-9

anticipates proceedings to ascertain damages in the event we determine that the city was not entitled to the injunction that the district court granted. In my opinion, appellant has not met her burden to show that she is entitled to an award of damages on a theory of wrongful taking; the injunction sought and obtained by respondent was warranted by law.

For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent from the majority decision.

Alice Krengel has NO MORTGAGE

2008-08-12T07:37:00.000-07:00

Washington Legal Foundation

August 2008
A Subprime Tort?: Public Nuisance An Unfit Tool For Lending Regulation
By Richard O. Faulk, John S. Gray, and Diana P. Larson, partners in the Houston office of the law firm Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP.
Working Paper, August 2008, 20 pages
Download a PDF of the Publication

Alice Krengel'sCanons of Construction via ddaweb.org

2008-08-09T06:25:00.000-07:00

http://law.usc.edu/academics/centers/cslp/papers/cslp-wp-028.pdf

Alice Krengel's Canons of Constuction researched by http://www.ddaweb.org/

also found at Minnesota Legislature - General Information Links

Minnesota State Constitution

Minnesota Legislature - Office of the Revisor of Statutes

645 - 648

Statutes, Construction

Working Paper No. 28 Canons of Construction and the Elusive Quest for Neutral Reasoning ByJames J. Brudney and Corey Ditslear

Canons of Construction and the Elusive Quest for Neutral Reasoning

INTRODUCTION

Federal statutes, like the lawmaking enterprise itself, are seldom models of efficiency.

Procedural complexities and practical constraints impose substantial pressure on legislators

seeking to enact new laws. This pressure may produce inadvertent drafting oversights,1 or it may

give rise to deliberate ambiguities around which a pro-enactment majority can form. 2 Whether

through inevitable laxity or conscious choice, Congress leaves a fair number of gaps in the

meaning of its complex regulatory schemes. When filling those gaps with case-specific

interpretive responses, federal courts perform an important policymaking function. 3

In recent years, such policymaking has generated increased concerns about the

politicization of the judiciary. Plausible legal contentions tendered in a courtroom often reflect

the ideological preferences of diverse interest groups.4 Scholars using social science techniques

have contributed to the image of courts as policymakers, by establishing that judges’ political

party affiliation and ideological orientation are at times significant predictors of voting

1 One recurrent example involves federal statutes that lack an explicit limitation period within which to initiate legal

action. See North Star Steel v. Thomas, 515 U.S. 29, 33 (1995) (referring to numerous specific statutes). While

there may be rare instances in which this decis ion is conscious and deliberate (see note 2 infra), it generally reflects

simply insufficient attention to detail.

2 See, e.g., Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244, 262-63 (1994) (concluding, based on review of legislative

history, that supporters of 1991 Civil Rights Act “agreed to disagree about whether and to what extent the Act would

apply to preenactment conduct”). See generally Miriam R. Jorgensen & Kenneth A. Shepsle, A Comment on the

Positive Canons Project, 57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 43, 44-45 (Winter 1994); Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz,

Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation, 115 HARV. L. REV. 2085, 2155 (2002).

3 Congress also invites this gap-filling from executive branch agencies. See generally Edward Rubin, Dynamic

Statutory Interpretation in the Administrative State, www.bepress.com/ils/iss3/art.2 (2002).

4 See, e.g., Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001) (adjudicating tobacco industry’s right to engage in

certain forms of cigarette advertising); United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F. 3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (adjudicating

extent of government’s ability to regulate internet access). See generally John Ferejohn, Judicializing Politics,

136 pgs.Alice Krengel mn - Google Search Address Error

EMINENT DOMAIN IN MINNESOTA: Case study Alice Krengel, 823 Allen, WSP- 17 visits - Aug 6

TAKING OF THIS HOME OWNED BY: Alice Krengel 823 Allen West St. Paul, MN ... Is it public policy that the State of Minnesota is responsible for mental ...
www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate7/alice2006/alice.html - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

Alice Krengel A07-310 Nuisance Persons vs. Property Rights

2008-07-23T05:52:00.000-07:00

http://www.ci.west-saint-paul.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7b2CF6FEAE-EDC4-4E50-A078-817B219E41B8%7d/uploads/%7b3470598D-5E60-437A-A...

Hasn't Alice suffered enough? now the cost of litigation is over $300,000.00?

YOU BE THE JUDGE ITS YOUR TAX MONEY

Bloggers Disclaimer: Governing BoardsAmicus Briefs by the League Board of Directors St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman, acting in Concort with W. St. Paul Mayor John Zanmiller
may have heinous conflicts , contrary to Legislative mandate. Noel Kalinoski

" Thanks for the wonderful work you did and are doing for Alice Krengel, and the community, on appeals.

We continue to support her on principles that potentially affect the disabled and vulnerable:
See: http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate7/alice2006/alice.html

KELO V. NEW LONDON

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate7/alice2006/alice.html

"Nuisance Person" v. Property Rights You be the Judge. Your Home is at Risk.
http://alicekrengel.blogspot.com/

Hot Links Ain't It Beautiful Sharon Stephens Homeowner Calif,Ain't It Beautiful: RIVERSIDE COUNTY DA INVESTIGATOR MISCONDUCT

"Nuisance Person" re: Alice Krengel

INFORMATION BRIEF
Minnesota House of Representatives
Research Department View

Can the public nuisance law be used to abate nuisance activity that is not associated with a building?

During the three-year period from 1996 to 1999, Minnesota law15 permitted the filing of a civil action against an individual for engaging in nuisance activity16 without requiring any connection House Research Department October 2000 between the activity and a building. This law, known as the “person as nuisance” law, was intended to address specified nuisance activities conducted in places (e.g., streets, sidewalks, or other public areas) other than the kinds of structures and private premises that are subject to thepublic nuisance statute.

According to this law, any resident of the neighborhood or any neighborhood organization in the area where the nuisance activity occurred could file the nuisance action. Alternatively, the neighborhood resident or organization could ask the local prosecuting attorney to file the action.

Proof of a nuisance could be established by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent engaged in nuisance activity during two or more behavioral incidents within the past 12 months.

The law authorized two defenses to the nuisance action: that the respondent was coerced into committing the nuisance activity or that the prosecution of the nuisance was motivated by unlawful discrimination against the respondent, as defined in the state Human Rights Act. Finally, the law provided the following remedies:

• the issuance of a permanent injunction against further nuisance activity;
• the award of costs and attorney’s fees to the prevailing party; and
• a damage award equal to either the amount of actual damages caused by the nuisance or
exemplary damages of $500 per incident, whichever amount is greater.

When this “person as nuisance” law was enacted in 1996, the legislature considered it to be an experiment and, therefore, included a three-year “sunset” date in the original legislation. This sunset date was not extended or eliminated by subsequent legislative action and, as a result, the law was repealed effective August 1, 1999.

W.St.Paul v. Alice Krengel A07-310 PFR-Granted

2008-07-21T09:59:00.000-07:00

Thank you to the Clerk Supreme Court Opinions

In the Matter of W. St. Paul v. Alice Krengel A07-310 PFR no 26 GRANTED

26. City of West St. Paul v. Alice Jane Krengel - A07-310 -
Granted
Justice Paul Anderson recuses , conflict with www.levander.com

Alice Krengel-EminDomainmn

Alice Krengel-DDA-SlideShow

2008-07-08T06:35:00.000-07:00

Create a portable slideshow for your website, blog, Myspace, etc.

Slideshow preview

View Album

Get your own

Need help putting this slideshow on your website?

Alice Krengel Legal Actions-DDAWeb

2008-06-25T16:52:00.000-07:00

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

UPDATE: http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0805/opa070310-0506.pdf

2008, Alice Vindicated, Alice Wins Appeal, Overturns WSP Ruling MEDIA
SEE:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate7/alice2006/alice.html

http://advocate4.angelfire.com/alice/alicebackinhome2007.pdf

2007, City attempts again to remove Alice € 2008, City Appeals to Supreme Court: 1 2
" 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."
"City Attorney Land explained...The opinion was a very narrow reading of the public nuisance statue that basically renders part of it ineffective...It was a published opinion which means it has stat wide impact over the statutory interpretation of this public statue,,,the City has already met the deductible, any additional costs up to $250,000 are paid for by the League."
http://advocate4.angelfire.com/alice/citycouncil520081.pdf--

http://advocate4.angelfire.com/alice/citycouncil52008res.pdf
Advocacy and Technical Assistance and Support Division

Diabetics/Disabled Anonymous, Non Profit Support Group and Alliance.
1144 Ottawa Avenue
West St. Paul, MN USA 55118-2008
Fax and Phone: 651 457 4376

DDAweb@comcast.net

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 is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or believe that you have received this communication in error, please report that fact to the sender and delete the copy that you received. In addition, you should not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information. No permission is given to edit or otherwise alter the information contained in this message. No information or opinions contained herein shall constitute legal advice. THANK YOU.

DDA Newsletter

2008-05-11T06:56:00.000-07:00

DDA supported - Break through case protecting seniors, disabled and low income home-owners.

http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa/current/opa070310-0506.pdf

See DDA web page for her:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate7/alice2006/alice.html

Become a DDA member:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/ddaweb/formmembership.html

West St. Paul

Ejected homeowner 'vindicated' by appeals court ruling in her favor

By Nick Ferraro
nferraro@pioneerpress.com

Article Last Updated: 05/08/2008 12:03:53 AM CDT
Alice Krengel, shown outside her West St. Paul home in October 2006, says she has endured "public humiliation" because of her eviction by the city. She may seek damages. (Pioneer Press file photo)

For one year, Alice Krengel lived at the Dorothy Day homeless shelter in St. Paul, banned from her West St. Paul home by a district court.

After a series of public-nuisance violations, city officials had obtained an injunction to keep Krengel away.

She's been back home now for 10 months, but on Tuesday the Minnesota Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's decision, concluding she was illegally forced out of her house.

In a 2-1 ruling, the appellate judges determined West St. Paul failed to comply with a state law that requires cities to prove two or more nuisance incidents occurred within 12 months before the injunction hearing.

"I feel vindicated now," Krengel, 57, said Wednesday. "You cannot imagine my losses. This shows I'm a patient person."

The city claims Krengel, then an admitted alcoholic, had used her Allen Avenue home for years as a flophouse for criminals, drunks and drug users. Police went to her house 41 times in 2006 alone.

Krengel's attorney urged the appeals court to interpret the law to require proof that two "behavioral incidents" occurred within 12 months preceding the city's request for a permanent injunction, which was in October 2006. The city had argued the 12-month period should have begun in July 2005, when they served written notice on intent to seek the injunction.

"We thought the clock stopped at that point," City Attorney Kori Land said.

She called the decision a "moral victory" for Krengel.

"You can't change history and the fact she was gone for a year," Land said. "The city won the battle, but she won the war."

According to the city, police had been called to Krengel's home 180 times since 1990. Between September 2004 and July 2005, police were called to Krengel's home 29 times, including when two intoxicated men assaulted each other with hammers and several incidents in which Krengel's guests were drunk and were hauled to detox.

Threatening an injunction, Land in July 2005 notified Krengel she had to stop the nuisance or enter into an abatement plan with the city. Krengel entered into the agreement a month later to stay sober, not permit alcohol in the house and allow police officers inside for random inspections for one year.

After West St. Paul officials said she repeatedly violated the agreement, Krengel was barred from her house in August 2006.

Citing numerous violations of the state's nuisance law, District Court Judge Leslie Metzen followed with the permanent injunction three months later, forcing Krengel to stay out of her house until August 2007.

Krengel and her attorney unsuccessfully appealed three times to stop the injunction.

"The district court erred," Judge Matthew E. Johnson wrote in his decision, "because the city's evidence of nuisance activity consisted solely of incidents occurring 15 or more months before the hearing on the city's request for the permanent injunction."

Land called the decision a "strict interpretation of the law."

"You cannot predict when you're going to get your two nuisance violations," she said.

Land said there have been no police calls to Krengel's home or complaints from neighbors since she moved back in August.

But the fight might not be over.

Land said the attorneys who represented the city could seek to bring the case before the state Supreme Court.

Krengel said she has endured "public humiliation" and will discuss with her attorney whether to seek damages against the city for the eviction.

Nick Ferraro can be reached at 651-228-2173.

Diabetics/Disabled Anonymous, Non Profit Support Group and Alliance.
1144 Ottawa Avenue
West St. Paul, MN USA 55118-2008
Fax and Phone: 651 457 4376
DDAweb@comcast.net
DDAvolunteers@comcast.net

Become a DDA member:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/ddaweb/formmembership.html

--
Diabetics/Disabled Anonymous, Non Profit Support Group and Alliance.

1144 Ottawa Avenue
West St. Paul, MN USA 55118-2008
Fax and Phone: 651 457 4376

DDAweb@comcast.net
DDAvolunteers@comcast.net

http://www.ddasanctuary.org/

Sharon 4Anderson said...

http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa/current/opa070310-0506.pdf

CONFLICTS: Judge Crippen's Dissent
his former law clerk Lawyer State Senator Ellen Anderson, married to Andy Dawkins Author of Nuisance Ordinance
Judge Natalie Hudson, former st. paul city attorney, black female
www.mncourts.gov re: MS617.87
God Bless Alice Krengel, now Precedant via Published Opinions

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate7/alice2006/alice.html
Alice's Power of Attorney legally is what has saved her. next door neighbor who filed complaints has lost his home to mortgage forclosure.......Alice had paid her property taxes, undue hardships
Click here: Court of Appeals Published Opinions
A07-310 City of West St. Paul, Respondent, vs. Alice Jane Krengel,
Appellant.
Dakota County District Court, Hon. Leslie May Metzen.
1. A district court may not issue a permanent injunction to abate a public nuisance pursuant to Minn. Stat.Â§ 617.83 (2006) unless the public nuisance exists at the time of the hearing on the request for the permanent injunction.
2. A public nuisance exists for purposes of Minn. Stat.Â§ 617.83 (2006) if two or more incidents of statutorily defined nuisance activity have occurred within the 12-month period preceding the hearing on the request for the permanent injunction.
Vacated; motion denied. Judge Matthew E. Johnson.
Dissenting, Judge Gary L. Crippen.*

If in fact any Appeal, Issues of City Attorney Kori Land of the www.levander.com
law firm, double dipping as West St. Paul City Attorney, and Private Attorney, covertly ignoring the Heinous, Repugnant, Criminal Violations of Mayor John Zanmiller, Henn.Corrections Officer, who knows the law, Zanmiller also V.Chair St. Paul Water Board, with 1 Billion in Reserves, a non profit entity, Shutting off Sharons Water www.sharonanderson.org You Bet Alice has other Friends, Power of Attorney, ignored by Attorney Kori Land and Pierre Regnier
http://alicekrengel.blogspot.com
Submitted in Good Faith, Now Alice must be compensated "Big Time" for all She has suffered http://alicekrengel.blogspot.com or Google this case for Public Policy http://sharon4council.blogspot.com

9:45 AM

Sharons post at A Dem deleted>

Alice Krengel's Judges Johnson,Hudson,Crippen MS617.83

2008-05-08T08:35:00.000-07:00

Blogger: A Democracy - Post a Comment

Natalie Hudson, Court of Appeals

Judicial Service:A07-310 City of West St. Paul, Respondent, vs. Alice Jane Krengel,
Appellant.
Dakota County District Court, Hon. Leslie May Metzen.
1. A district court may not issue a permanent injunction to abate a public nuisance pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 617.83 (2006) unless the public nuisance exists at the time of the hearing on the request for the permanent injunction.
2. A public nuisance exists for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 617.83 (2006) if two or more incidents of statutorily defined nuisance activity have occurred within the 12-month period preceding the hearing on the request for the permanent injunction.
Vacated; motion denied. Judge Matthew E. Johnson.
Dissenting, Judge Gary L. Crippen.*
View All Judge Bios

617.83 INJUNCTION; ORDER OF ABATEMENT.
Upon proof of a nuisance described in section 617.81, subdivision 2, the court shall issue a
permanent injunction and enter an order of abatement, except as otherwise provided by section
617.85. The permanent injunction must describe the conduct permanently enjoined. The order
of abatement must direct the closing of the building or a portion of it for one year, except as
otherwise provided in section 617.84 or 617.85, unless sooner released pursuant to section 617.87.
Before an abatement order is enforced against a building or portion of it, the owner must be
served with the abatement order and a notice of the right to file a motion under section 617.85 in
the same manner that a summons is served under the Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the
abatement order shall also be posted in a conspicuous place on the building or affected portion.
History: 1987 c 283 s 4; 1997 c 100 s 3Alice Krengel mn - Google Search

EMINENT DOMAIN IN MINNESOTA: Case study Alice Krengel, 823 Allen, WSP - 4 visits - 6:12am

617. Abortion; Obscenity; Houses Of Ill-fame

Alice Krengel Won the War MS617.87

2008-05-08T03:31:00.000-07:00

Homestead42 USC 3631 617. Abortion; Obscenity; Houses Of Ill-fame

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

West St. Paul
Ejected homeowner 'vindicated' by appeals court ruling in her favor
By Nick Ferraro
nferraro@pioneerpress.com
Article Last Updated: 05/08/2008 12:03:53 AM CDT
Ejected homeowner 'vindicated' by appeals court ruling in her favor - TwinCities.com

Alice Krengel, shown outside her West St. Paul home in October 2006, says she has endured "public humiliation" because of her eviction by the city. She may seek damages. (Pioneer Press file photo)For one year, Alice Krengel lived at the Dorothy Day homeless shelter in St. Paul, banned from her West St. Paul home by a district court.

After a series of public-nuisance violations, city officials had obtained an injunction to keep Krengel away.

She's been back home now for 10 months, but on Tuesday the Minnesota Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's decision, concluding she was illegally forced out of her house.

In a 2-1 ruling, the appellate judges determined West St. Paul failed to comply with a state law that requires cities to prove two or more nuisance incidents occurred within 12 months before the injunction hearing.

"I feel vindicated now," Krengel, 57, said Wednesday. "You cannot imagine my losses. This shows I'm a patient person."

The city claims Krengel, then an admitted alcoholic, had used her Allen Avenue home for years as a flophouse for criminals, drunks and drug users. Police went to her house 41 times in 2006 alone.

Krengel's attorney urged the appeals court to interpret the law to require proof that two "behavioral incidents" occurred within 12 months preceding the city's request for a permanent injunction, which was in October 2006. The city had argued the 12-month period should have begun in July 2005, when they served written notice on intent to seek the injunction.

"We thought the clock stopped at that point," City Attorney Kori Land said.

She called the decision a "moral victory" for Krengel.

"You can't
change history and the fact she was gone for a year," Land said. "The city won the battle, but she won the war."
According to the city, police had been called to Krengel's home 180 times since 1990. Between September 2004 and July 2005, police were called to Krengel's home 29 times, including when two intoxicated men assaulted each other with hammers and several incidents in which Krengel's guests were drunk and were hauled to detox.

Threatening an injunction, Land in July 2005 notified Krengel she had to stop the nuisance or enter into an abatement plan with the city. Krengel entered into the agreement a month later to stay sober, not permit alcohol in the house and allow police officers inside for random inspections for one year.

After West St. Paul officials said she repeatedly violated the agreement, Krengel was barred from her house in August 2006.

Citing numerous violations of the state's nuisance law, District Court Judge Leslie Metzen followed with the permanent injunction three months later, forcing Krengel to stay out of her house until August 2007.

Krengel and her attorney unsuccessfully appealed three times to stop the injunction.

"The district court erred," Judge Matthew E. Johnson wrote in his decision, "because the city's evidence of nuisance activity consisted solely of incidents occurring 15 or more months before the hearing on the city's request for the permanent injunction."

Land called the decision a "strict interpretation of the law."

"You cannot predict when you're going to get your two nuisance violations," she said.

Land said there have been no police calls to Krengel's home or complaints from neighbors since she moved back in August.

But the fight might not be over.

Land said the attorneys who represented the city could seek to bring the case before the state Supreme Court.

Krengel said she has endured "public humiliation" and will discuss with her attorney whether to seek damages against the city for the eviction.

Nick Ferraro can be reached at 651-228-2173.

Showing posts 1 - 2 of 2

Bill Saint Paul, MN	Judge it! #1 1 hr ago She should sue the hell out of the city. These nusiance laws are just being used to target people that neighbors don't like.
Sharon Anderson AOL

Sharon Anderson

AOL

http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa/current/...

God Bless Alice Krengel, now Precedant via Published Opinions
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate7/alice2...
Click here: Court of Appeals Published Opinions
A07-310 City of West St. Paul, Respondent, vs. Alice Jane Krengel,
Appellant.
Dakota County District Court, Hon. Leslie May Metzen.
1. A district court may not issue a permanent injunction to abate a public nuisance pursuant to Minn. Stat.Â§ 617.83 (2006) unless the public nuisance exists at the time of the hearing on the request for the permanent injunction.
2. A public nuisance exists for purposes of Minn. Stat.Â§ 617.83 (2006) if two or more incidents of statutorily defined nuisance activity have occurred within the 12-month period preceding the hearing on the request for the permanent injunction.
Vacated; motion denied. Judge Matthew E. Johnson.
Dissenting, Judge Gary L. Crippen.*

If in fact any Appeal, Issues of City Attorney Kori Land of the www.levander.com
law firm, double dipping as West St. Paul City Attorney, and Private Attorney, covertly ignoring the Heinous, Repugnant, Criminal Violations of Mayor John Zanmiller, Henn.Corrections Officer, who knows the law, Zanmiller also V.Chair St. Paul Water Board, with 1 Billion in Reserves, a non profit entity, Shutting off Sharons Water www.sharonanderson.org You Bet Alice has other Friends, Power of Attorney, ignored by Attorney Kori Land and Pierre Regnier
http://alicekrengel.blogspot.com
Submitted in Good Faith, Now Alice must be compensated "Big Time" for all She has suffered http://alicekrengel.blogspot.com or Google this case for Public Policy http://sharon4council.blogspot.com

Alice Krengel

Corruption in the current Minnesota Office of the Attorney General

Hoarding_HRA_Housing

State Budget Treading Water

Some cash, property seized by Metro Gang Strike Force to be returned - TwinCities.com

AliceKrengel_Won107-310 Legal Briefs

Wind Beneath My Wings BETTE MIDLER

Alice Krengel Won A07-310 MN Supreme Court

Judge Leslie Metzen Resigns

Judge Leslie Metzen leaving 1st Judicial District bench to join Community Action Council

Alice Krengel'sCivilRights

Alice Krengel A07-310 MN SupVideo

SharonAnderson_BillDahn_Private AG MS617 Nuisance,MS204C Canvass

Sa 2 Jan09 Swanson

Alice Krengel EnBanc Mon5Jan09 A07-310MN Supreme Court

Alice Krengel has NO MORTGAGE

Alice Krengel'sCanons of Construction via ddaweb.org

Alice Krengel A07-310 Nuisance Persons vs. Property Rights

W.St.Paul v. Alice Krengel A07-310 PFR-Granted

Alice Krengel-DDA-SlideShow

Create a portable slideshow for your website, blog, Myspace, etc.

Slideshow options

Embed slideshow

Alice Krengel Legal Actions-DDAWeb

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

UPDATE: http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0805/opa070310-0506.pdf

2008, Alice Vindicated, Alice Wins Appeal, Overturns WSP Ruling MEDIA
SEE:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate7/alice2006/alice.html

http://advocate4.angelfire.com/alice/alicebackinhome2007.pdf

DDA Newsletter

DDA supported - Break through case protecting seniors, disabled and low income home-owners.

See DDA web page for her:

Become a DDA member:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/ddaweb/formmembership.html

Ejected homeowner 'vindicated' by appeals court ruling in her favor

By Nick Ferraro
nferraro@pioneerpress.com

Become a DDA member:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/ddaweb/formmembership.html

http://www.ddasanctuary.org/

Alice Krengel's Judges Johnson,Hudson,Crippen MS617.83

Alice Krengel Won the War MS617.87

Alice Krengel

Corruption in the current Minnesota Office of the Attorney General

Hoarding_HRA_Housing

State Budget Treading Water

Some cash, property seized by Metro Gang Strike Force to be returned - TwinCities.com

AliceKrengel_Won107-310 Legal Briefs

Wind Beneath My Wings BETTE MIDLER

Alice Krengel Won A07-310 MN Supreme Court

Judge Leslie Metzen Resigns

Judge Leslie Metzen leaving 1st Judicial District bench to join Community Action Council

Alice Krengel'sCivilRights

Alice Krengel A07-310 MN SupVideo

SharonAnderson_BillDahn_Private AG MS617 Nuisance,MS204C Canvass

Sa 2 Jan09 Swanson

Alice Krengel EnBanc Mon5Jan09 A07-310MN Supreme Court

Alice Krengel has NO MORTGAGE

Alice Krengel'sCanons of Construction via ddaweb.org

Alice Krengel A07-310 Nuisance Persons vs. Property Rights

W.St.Paul v. Alice Krengel A07-310 PFR-Granted

Alice Krengel-DDA-SlideShow

Create a portable slideshow for your website, blog, Myspace, etc.

Slideshow options

Embed slideshow

Alice Krengel Legal Actions-DDAWeb

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

UPDATE: http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0805/opa070310-0506.pdf

2008, Alice Vindicated, Alice Wins Appeal, Overturns WSP Ruling MEDIASEE:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/advocate7/alice2006/alice.html

http://advocate4.angelfire.com/alice/alicebackinhome2007.pdf

DDA Newsletter

DDA supported - Break through case protecting seniors, disabled and low income home-owners.

See DDA web page for her:

Become a DDA member:http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/ddaweb/formmembership.html

Ejected homeowner 'vindicated' by appeals court ruling in her favor

By Nick Ferraronferraro@pioneerpress.com

Become a DDA member:http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/ddaweb/formmembership.html

http://www.ddasanctuary.org/

Alice Krengel's Judges Johnson,Hudson,Crippen MS617.83

Alice Krengel Won the War MS617.87

2008, Alice Vindicated, Alice Wins Appeal, Overturns WSP Ruling MEDIA
SEE:

Become a DDA member:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/ddaweb/formmembership.html

By Nick Ferraro
nferraro@pioneerpress.com

Become a DDA member:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/ddaweb/formmembership.html