Thurs.20Sept.2012 Re: Aitkin Land Corruption
State of Minnesota by and thro Aitkin County Attorney
James Ratz
vs. Crim File 01cr12-318 www.mncourts.gov
Tim Klatke et al
9/19/2012\
| Skip to Main Content Logout My Account Search Menu New Criminal/Traffic/Petty Search Refine Search Back |
|
Register of Actions
Case No. 01-CR-12-318
| State of Minnesota vs DOUGLAS LAMONT LANDRUS | § § § § § |
|
| Lead Attorneys | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Defendant | LANDRUS, DOUGLAS LAMONT | DOB: 10/26/1960 |
GARY
RUSSELL LEISTICO Retained 320-251-6700(W) | |
| PALISADE, MN 56469 | ||||
| Jurisdiction | State of Minnesota | SARAH
ELIZABETH WINGE 218-927-7347(W) | ||
| Charges: LANDRUS, DOUGLAS LAMONT | Statute | Level | Date | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Trespass-Remaining on land prohibited after notice (Not applicable - GOC) | 97B.001.3 | Gross Misdemeanor | 01/01/2012 | |
| 2. | Hunting-Wound or Kill Domestic Animal (Not applicable - GOC) | 97B.001.8(1) | Misdemeanor | 01/01/2012 | |
| OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/05/2012 | Complaint Summons (Judicial Officer: Solien, John R. ) | ||||||
| 04/05/2012 | Affidavit of Mailing | ||||||
| 04/13/2012 | Affidavit for Restitution | ||||||
| 04/23/2012 | First Appearance (2:30 PM)
(Judicial Officer Solien, John R.)
| ||||||
| 04/23/2012 | Interim Condition for LANDRUS,
DOUGLAS LAMONT
- Keep court/attorney informed of current
address
- No contact with victim(s) - Released on own recognizance - Remain law-abiding - Make all future court appearances - Make and maintain contact with attorney | ||||||
| 05/10/2012 | Certificate of
Representation
| ||||||
| 05/10/2012 | Demand/Request for Discovery
| ||||||
| 05/10/2012 | Correspondence
| ||||||
| 05/15/2012 | Discovery Disclosure
| ||||||
| 07/12/2012 | Notice of Motion and Motion
| ||||||
| 08/08/2012 | Transcript | ||||||
| 08/16/2012 | Correspondence | ||||||
| 08/20/2012 | Correspondence | ||||||
| 08/21/2012 | Contested Omnibus (9:00
AM) (Judicial Officer Solien, John R.)
| ||||||
| 09/05/2012 | Transcript | ||||||
| 10/30/2012 | Contested Omnibus (1:30
PM) (Judicial Officer Solien, John R.)
|
Re: Another illegal trespass and illegal repair of control
structure / dam
Re: Case # 01-CR-12-318, State representation.
Re: Incomplete Court document file and non itemized document list sent 8/24/12 sent by Jimmy
Ratz.
Re: letter dated 8/29/2012 contested omnibus hearing continuance, subpoena.
Re: Case # 01-CR-12-318, State representation.
Re: Incomplete Court document file and non itemized document list sent 8/24/12 sent by Jimmy
Ratz.
Re: letter dated 8/29/2012 contested omnibus hearing continuance, subpoena.
Itemized list of documentation received by James Ratz on 8/24/12:
*Cover sheet 8/24/12
*Aitkin County Information Disclosure Request (8/14/12).
*Aitkin County Sheriff Department Incident Detail Report (2/17/12).
*State of Minnesota DNR Initial Complaint Report (1/31/12).
*State of Minnesota DNR Supplemental Report (3/21/12).
*Aitkin County Sheriff Department Supplemental Report (2/17/12).
*Taped Transcript Mlynar, Landrus, Asmus (1/11/12).
*Aitkin County Sheriff Department pictures 11 pages.
*Minnesota DNR pictures 10 pages.
*Lake layout photo 1 page.
*Letter from DNR to David Klatke (1/14/12).
*Letter from Timothy Klatke to Tom Provost (2/6/12).
*Timothy and David Klatke’s letter to MN DNR Officer Mlynar (1/25/12).
*Timothy Klatke’s Public Safety Letter (1/25/12).
*Timothy Klatke’s letter to Aitkin County Attorney’s office to Jessica Brown (4/10/12).
*Timothy and David Klatke’s letter to Aitkin County Attorneys James Ratz and Ben Smith
(5/1/12).
*Letter from Moss and Burnett to John Welle (3/24/03).
*Letter from Moss and Burnett to Doug Landrus (8/27/03).
*Letter from Moss and Burnett to Tom Murtha, Aitkin County Attorney (9/4/03).
These items were submitted to the Aitkin County Attorney’s office but were not included in the
received documentation:
*Letter from Iverson / Reuvers representing Aitkin County (1/19/12).
*Letters from Kevin Fern to James Ratz (dated 2/2/12, 2/26/12 and 5/1/12).
Items not provided.
1)MN. DNR Bob Mlynar’s taped conversation 1/12/12, illegally acquired recording.
2) Bob Mlynar’s property line documentation.
3) Court ordered no contact complaint documents and actions.
Timothy L. Klatke
11600 East French Lake Road
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
612-240-3838
Timothy L. Klatke
11600 East French Lake Road
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
612-240-3838
9/19/2012
James Ratz / Sarah Winge / Jessica Brown
217 Second Street N.W. - RM 231
Aitkin, MN 56431
Re: Another illegal trespass and illegal repair of control structure / dam
Re: Case # 01-CR-12-318, State representation.
Re: Incomplete Court document file and non itemized document list sent 8/24/12 sent by Jimmy
Ratz.
Re: letter dated 8/29/2012 contested omnibus hearing continuance, subpoena.
To All Addressed:
We are giving you all notice that the public, legal and judicial corruption in Aitkin County, the
State of Minnesota and the Federal government is now part of a national movie documentary
including a congressional testimony and the subject of many government corruption blogs,
which is now being seen by the whole country. Us and the public have had enough, every action
and every future action are being mirrored.
It was brought to our attention that Aitkin county and/or the DNR went onto our property again
on 8/22/12, (one day after the contested omnibus hearing) illegally trespassing and sand
bagging/repairing an illegal control structure/dam and harassing us yet again. These actions fall
into the stalking / harassment guidelines. It is again a futile attempt to divert the attention away
from original county and state crimes by bringing us back into the illegal corrupt court system.
( Kangaroo Court ).
State representation of Case # 01-CR-12-318
On review of the documents sent on 8/24/12 there are some documents that the county attorney
should have presented me to support my case and are a part of the investigation in the killing of
my dog Queenie and the trespassing/stalking issues. There are prevalent issues missing in Bob
Mlynar’s and Dan Asmus’s statements. The recorded phone conversation of myself in the initial
complaint report 1/31/12. In the evidence letter there are 2 digital tape recordings, only one was
sent, the taped transcript between Mlynar, Asmus, Landrus.
I request the recorded conversation between myself and Bob Mlynar from 1/12/12, which was
taken illegally, he never stated that he was recording our conversation. This is basic law and I
don’t do taped phone statements or recordings as stated to Sheriff Asmus when he tried to get a
delinquent statement. They are all trying to catch us in a threat, intent to do harm statement,
slander, defamation of character or push us into an actual assault so Aitkin County Attorney
Jimmy Ratz and Judge John R. Solien can force us into court or jail, extort more money and
pressure us into giving up our pursuit of their crimes. Their desperation is evident and this could
be the reason for the trap to be placed in this specific area.
Sarah Winge, Aitkin county assistant attorney, I am advising you to publicly withdraw from this
case and force Jimmy Ratz, to take it over, he is already involved in many crimes against us so
what’s another crime? It looks like you are forced to do crimes against the people you work for,
the taxpayers and myself. Quit or withdraw before you get deeper in this situation. At least Ben
Smith, your former assistant county attorney co-worker, had enough sense to quit and leave the
county corruption, cut his losses and not continue in another crime against us, and not let Ratz
and Solien force him into another criminal act in the court. The last illegal case Ratz and Solien
did to us they had the case moving to a jury trial and their lawyer in crime, Hess Law Firm was
fired. I have witnessed all of these crimes and they are documented. They knew they couldn’t
manipulate us representing ourselves so Solien had to stop the trial and force an order, like they
are not capable of selecting a corrupt group for a trial in this kangaroo court. I bet they have a
select jury group on speed dial for these specific situations.
Based on my past experiences, I believe Turner, Ratz and Solien are very capable of picking a
select person, let them out of a serious crime in exchange for a favor down the road like they
needed in this specific situation. How else can you draw attention to the illegal C/S Dam area,
on private property with no jurisdiction, especially when there outside legal help failed, but to
get a trapper to set in this specific area that they have to draw attention to, the plan was for us to
find the trap and tamper with it or report it on my property, and then they would start up with the
courts persecution of us, but their plan back fired when my dog was killed and now they are
forced to represent me as a victim, which created a big problem in the court preceding so they
had to minimize the charges so they can let the person out of yet another crime, (who said crime
doesn’t pay), bypass legal protocol, minimize the charges, fabricate the statements and evidence,
work with the defense lawyer, manipulate the court proceedings, throw out the material facts, set
a new precedence to the area, PUBLIC WATER, WATER RIGHT OF WAY, HIGH WATER
MARK, to get out of their past crimes and then persecute the victim on top of it all and subpoena
them to court, and down the road start up again in the corrupt courts on the land fraud, sounds
pretty accurate to me.
The problem with dealing with criminals all the time is, if you aren’t a man or woman of high
moral values, spiritually grounded with impeccable integrity you are bound to become one. As is
the case here. Here is the catalyst for the set up Scott Turner Aitkin County Sheriff, Jimmy Ratz
and Judge John R. Solien all start getting caught in crimes no big deal, it’s happened before, so
they start working together illegally pulling favors for each other and it works for a while and all
of a sudden they meet a foe that is tenacious in not letting them abuse their power and
corruption, so they all pool their resources and hit their foe with a vengeance, and the foe is still
standing and not only standing but starting to destroy the individuals one by one, sinking them
deeper into the crimes, so they try something even more dramatic and criminal to no avail.
That’s where we are at now. None of you can be representing this case you have committed
Treason and perjury and fraud just to name a few crimes - you are all criminals, and you know it
is well documented.
August 29, 2012 letter from Jessica Brown Aitkin County Crimes victim advocate, pretrial issues
being contested by the defense.
1. Whether defendant was trespassing/public right of way.
The state of Minnesota failed to produce any documents or laws that gave them the right to have
the control/structure dam on our private property, (where the trap was set), it has been since
2001, over 11 years, since the county/state has been trying to push their illegal criminal agenda
on us because the state knows it is a massive liability and tied to other crimes, to have the illegal
C/S Dam on our property. Just because the illegal C/S Dam was placed inside our shoreline,
doesn’t constitute public water up to it. In fact, it is further proof that it is part of the plot or
maneuver by the state to illegally set a precedence to eliminate their crimes. Aitkin County
attorneys are not properly representing my case. It is provable by the fact there is nothing in
Exhibit 1 proving the C/S Dam is on private property, (if they do they incriminate the
county/state/federal government). The state DNR and MN. Conservation Officer Bob Mlynar
know the private property rules and shoreline trespass laws. Because we shut down the firm
Iverson & Reuvers (the state of Minnesota’s outside legal council paid for with more tax payer
dollars, there are four assistant attorney’s and the county attorney costing us around 350,000
thousand a year plus benefits and they are hiring an outside legal firm, can you figure out why?
Jimmy Ratz is caught in the crimes and his conflict of interest living on the same lake), with the
U.S.G.S. Quadrangle map Esquagama, MN/MSA 1973, which was deliberately left out of the
case file dated 2/2/12, showing no public water easement or right of way on our property. This
makes the C/S Dam illegal and in turn gives no public water way jurisdiction of any type in front
of or in back of the C/S Dam, the DNR should then acknowledge that in this situation the proper
way to determine private property here is to run a line from the outermost point of the shoreline
on each side of the opening and that is the edge of the shore and now go three feet from the high
water mark from that line and that is the legal boundary, which puts the location of the baited
lethal trap and the C/S Dam well within our private property rights, and add to that figure the
amount of shoreline that was lost over the years from the illegal C/S Dam and it is even further
out. The DNR knows that a boat or person can’t encroach on private shoreline, which is the
three feet from the high water mark, that in turn makes any water inside the shoreline non
navigable water and private.
That now changes the charges to Felonies, not Gross Misdemeanor and Misdemeanor. And make
it a direct trapping violation and criminal stalking issue.
2. Whether the defendant had reason to know he wasn’t allowed on the property.
Doug Landrus and his family and relatives knew they are not allowed on our property. He states
that in his taped statement and police reports (when confronted by Tim Klatke verbally)to Bob
Mlynar and Aitkin County Sheriff Dan Asmus in the 1/31/12 initial law enforcement report. An
incident occurred on Tim’s property 8/23/2003 which lead to the 8/27/03 certified letter
(restraining order) telling Mr. Landrus to stay away from all Klatke company property and stop
harassing them proves that they all knew, see Deed #185433 in the case file.
In the original police report Dan Asmus ACSD left out the conversation between he and I
regarding the constant harassment and trespassing that we have been receiving regarding Doug
Landrus and family. I mentioned to him some of the numerous things he and his family have
done to us. If my civil rights had been upheld, and I would have been provided a signed
statement and amended statement then numerous other violations would have been reported.
The property line that Bob Mlynar was so adamant in finding in his letter 1/31/12 has not been
presented in the documents supplied to us from Jimmy Ratz ACA on 8/24/12, therefore how did
he determine that the illegal baited trap that killed my dog was on mine or my fathers property,
or was it part of the plot for public water, they all know where it is they just can not admit it
because of the corruption, in fact the last time we tried to locate the property line and marker we
couldn’t find it, as to Bob Mlynar comment in the 1/31/12 letter, it was surveyed in 8/1954 when
sold to Albert Whittier, and again in 1973 when David Klatke Jr. acquired it by a surveyor named
Voight, and there has to be a survey of the C/S Dam in 1973, and then a survey in 1990 by Terry
Betley. The only way it could be missing is that when they put the C/S dam in they pulled it out
or ACHD pulled it in the trespass in 2002 or 2007 trespass, and rest assured we will not resurvey
the property to alleviate the County/State or Terry Betley of their crimes. You know have
to relocate this marker and replace it, mark it and notify us.
I am requesting the following information/questions answered:
*The illegally taped conversation between Bob Mlynar and myself, 1/12/12. Please see attached
itemized list of documentation received by me.
*The documentation Bob Mlynar used to determine property lines for this case. Please see
attached itemized list of documentation received by me.
*The courts have all the documentation regarding this case. What is the purpose of subpoenaing
me?
*Who requested the live testimony ? (subpoena).
*How could Bob Mlynar know there was no trapping violation when he wasn’t even sure of the
property line? Or did he already know. He stated there was no trapping issues in the taped
recording between himself and Landrus, one day after the crime. Neither of the officers asked
Landrus or his son for trapping licenses. They killed my dog in a baited lethal trap on private
property and no trapping violation?
*In the evidence provided me there are no pictures of Doug Landrus’ or his son’s footwear while
there are numerous photos of the footprints at the crime scene. Yet the truck tires were an
evident match to the photos also taken at the crime scene. All foot/vehicle tracks are on my
property, there are no tracks anywhere near the lakeshore from the lake side. The closest seen
was at least 100 ft. out on the ice and did not approach the shoreline. And no vehicle, 4-wheeler
or snow mobile tracks either. This was noted not only by myself, but Sheriff Asmus commented
on no tracks coming up to the shoreline from the lake and to the trap area in his report.
*I want a copy of this letter also included in the court file.
*Why was the court ordered no contact not enforced on the defendant ?, Why is it not included in
the court file ?, when reported on 7/31/2012, I went to ACA office on 8/14/2012 and could not
get information in writing, I want a copy of the Sheriff’s report and the ACA response report.
Who the hell is representing us any way? In the Florence Packet Exhibit # 1 there is
representation for us to the defendants statement he set from the (ice) public water statement,
limited discovery documents in the court file sent to us, you shysters are deliberately fabricating
this case, if you don’t dispute this all of the other private property issues are meaningless. The
state can shut the defense down cold with one statement from sheriff Asmus, the foot traffic did
not approach the shoreline, You can not be this incompetent.
We will not allow the state to use this tragedy to eliminate their crimes, at first glance this
seemed to be apart of the cover-up, but now it is appearing to us that it was a set-up for the
cover-up. There is no where to run and nowhere to hide and now the house and senate have
fully joined the cover-up and land fraud corruption.
Best wishes,
Timothy Klatke
Enclosure: Itemized List of Documentation received by James Ratz on 8/24/2012
Cc: Lori Swanson, Attorney General
Scott Turner, Aitkin County Sheriff
Tom Landwehr, DNR Commissioner
Lonnie Thomas, DNR AH
Robert Mueller, FBI
Boelter & McCabe, MN FBI
Al Franken, Senator
Amy Klobuchar, Senator
Joyce Pepin, House Representative
Warren Limmer, Senator
Eric Paulsen, Congressman
David & Darlene Klatke
Kevin Fern
Tim doing
what I can finally opened File will transferr to www.sharonvaitkin.blogspot.com
Ratz tried to committ me; Haven't been on my property for over 10 years due to
Aitkin Corruption.
Perhaps you should remove
this alleged Criminal Case to Federal Court,
Notify Aitkin Commissioners re: Eminent Domain
etc.
STATE OF
MINNESOTA
IN
SUPREME COURT
A04-2252
In
re Petition for Disciplinary Action against
Bradley
C. Rhodes, a Minnesota
Registration
No. 155913.
O R D E R
The
Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a
petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Bradley C. Rhodes has
committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, failing
to serve and file a brief during his representation of a client in a criminal
matter, failing to timely serve and file another brief for that client, and
failing to cooperate with the Director’s investigation of the matter, in
violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 3.2, 3.4(c), 8.1(a)(3), and 8.4(d), and
Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).
Respondent
admits his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, waives his rights
under Rule 14, RLPR, and has entered into a stipulation with the Director in
which they jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a public
reprimand, payment of $930 in costs and disbursements under Rule 24, RLPR, and
two years of supervised probation subject to the following conditions:
a.
Respondent shall cooperate fully with the Director’s Office in its efforts to
monitor compliance with this probation and promptly respond to the Director’s
correspondence by the due date. Respondent shall cooperate with the Director’s
investigation of any allegations of unprofessional conduct which may come to the
Director’s attention. Upon the Director’s request, respondent shall provide
authorization for release of information and documentation to verify compliance
with the terms of this probation.
b.
Respondent shall abide by the Minnesota Rules of Professional
Conduct.
c.
Respondent shall be supervised by a licensed
Minnesota
d.
Respondent shall cooperate fully with the supervisor in his/her efforts to
monitor compliance with this probation. Respondent shall contact the supervisor
and schedule a minimum of one in-person meeting per calendar quarter. Respondent
shall submit to the supervisor an inventory of all active client files by the
first day of each month during the probation. With respect to each active file,
the inventory shall disclose the client name, type of representation, date
opened, most recent activity, next anticipated action, and anticipated closing
date. Respondent’s supervisor shall file written reports with the Director at
least quarterly, or at such more frequent intervals as may reasonably be
requested by the Director.
e.
Respondent shall initiate and maintain office procedures which ensure that there
are prompt responses to correspondence, telephone calls, and other important
communications from clients, courts and other persons interested in matters that
respondent is handling, and which will ensure that respondent regularly reviews
each and every file and completes legal matters on a timely basis.
f.
Within thirty days from the execution of the stipulation, respondent shall
provide to the Director and to the probation supervisor, if any, a written plan
outlining office procedures designed to ensure that respondent is in compliance
with probation requirements. Respondent shall provide progress reports as
requested.
This
court has independently reviewed the file and approves the jointly recommended
disposition.
Based
upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,
IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Bradley C. Rhodes is publicly reprimanded and
placed on supervised probation for two years from the date of this order subject
to the agreed-upon conditions set forth above. Respondent shall pay $930 in
costs and disbursements under Rule 24, RLPR.
Dated:
May 18, 2005
BY
THE COURT:
/s/
Russell
A. Anderson
Associate Justice
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C7-99-1630
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C7-99-1630
Gun Lake Association, et al.,
Relators,
Relators,
vs.
County of Aitkin,
individually and by and through
its planning commission and board of commissioners,
Respondent,
individually and by and through
its planning commission and board of commissioners,
Respondent,
George Shetka, et al.,
Respondents.
Respondents.
Filed June 20, 2000
Affirmed.
Peterson, Judge
Affirmed.
Peterson, Judge
Aitkin County Board of Commissioners
Thomas A. Streitz, 4531 Wentworth Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55409 (for
relators) John Erickson, Erickson & Pearson Law Offices, 319 South Sixth Street, Suite 525, Brainerd, MN 56401 (for relators)
Jack Y. Perry, Tamika R. Nordstrom, Briggs & Morgan, P.A., 2400 IDS Center, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondent George Shetka and Charles Hawkinson)
Michael J. Ford, Quinlivan & Hughes, P.A., 400 South First Street, Suite 600, St. Cloud, MN 56302; and
Bradley Rhodes, Aitkin County Attorney, James P. Ratz, Assistant County Attorney, 209 Second Street Northwest, Aitkin, MN 56431 (for respondent Aitkin County)
Considered and decided by Anderson, Presiding Judge, Schumacher, Judge, and Peterson, Judge.
S Y L L A B U S
1. Under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2 (1998), a conditional use permit is granted as a matter of law if, within 60 days after the application is submitted, a county planning commission does not deny the permit application.2. If a conditional use permit application is granted as a matter of law under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2 (1988), a county board does not act arbitrarily, or otherwise improperly, when it affirms the grant of the application.
3. Participants in the quasi-judicial process of considering a conditional use permit application are entitled to reasonable notice of hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
O P I N I O N
PETERSON, JudgeRespondents applied to Aitkin County for a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a hot-mix, asphalt plant on property in Fleming Township. When the county planning commission initially considered the CUP application, it stated it was conditionally granting the application and that specific conditions for the operation of the hot-mix plant would be imposed later. The planning commission later approved certain conditions and relators appealed the planning commission's decision to the Aitkin County Board of Commissioners, which denied the appeal. On appeal to this court from the county board's denial of the appeal from the planning commission, relators challenge the grant of the CUP and the process used to create the later-imposed conditions. Because the county board's decision to deny the portion of the appeal challenging the grant of the CUP is consistent with Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2 (1998), and because relators have not shown that the process used to create the conditions was defective, we affirm.
FACTS
Respondent George Shetka owns property in Fleming Township in Aitkin County. Respondent Charles Hawkinson manages that property. In May 1998, Hawkinson applied to Aitkin County for a CUP allowing part of the Shetka property to be used as a "permanent/ongoing site for the use of temporary/portable hot mix plants."The Gun Lake Resident's Association and Robert Carlson, among others, opposed the application. The Fleming Township Board of Supervisors sent the county planning commission a letter expressing the board's opposition to allowing a hot-mix facility on Shetka's land. In July 1998, the township board sent the planning commission another letter stating that the township wanted to present its case for adopting a list of conditions for any CUP the county might grant.
At some point in July 1998, the township board, residents' associations, Hawkinson, Shetka, and a representative of an environmental group met. They discussed, and at least tentatively agreed upon, conditions for the operation of the proposed hot-mix plant. On July 20, 1998, the county planning commission met to address the CUP application. At that meeting: (a) the proposed conditions were presented to the planning commission; (b) a township representative stated that the township board believed the proposed conditions were "solid," would protect the surrounding environment, and that the township board was in favor of granting the CUP with those conditions; (c) the planning commission noted that two other sets of proposed conditions had been introduced; (d) Shetka's attorney argued that if the legal requirements for a CUP were satisfied, the commission lacked discretion to deny the application; (e) questions were raised about whether there were other possible sites for a hot-mix plant in the county; and (f) the planning commission stated that it was conditionally approving the CUP application but that the question of conditions for the CUP would be referred to an ad hoc environmental responsibility team made up of two members of the planning commission, the county attorney, and staff from the zoning office.
On July 20, 1998, the county zoning ordinance required that an appeal of a planning commission decision be taken to the county board within 30 days. No appeal of the planning commission's July 20 decision was taken. On July 29, 1998, the environmental responsibility team met to create a list of proposed conditions for the CUP. A representative from the township and counsel for Carlson were allowed to be "non-verbal observers" at the meeting.
An August 14, 1998, letter from the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board to the planning commission stated that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) had been requested for the proposed hot-mix plant and that the county was the proper authority to ask the CUP applicant to complete the worksheet. Effective August 25, 1998, the county zoning ordinance was amended to require that an appeal of a planning commission decision be by writ of certiorari to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. An EAW was filed in February 1999. Comments on the EAW were filed through early March. Comments from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stated that while the odor associated with the hot-mix plant would not be easy to address, the other aspects of the EAW were not a major concern.
A March 22, 1999, memorandum from the county planning commission to the county board stated that the environmental responsibility team did not recommend continuing the environmental review process by requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed facility. The next day, the county issued its decision against requiring a full EIS, stating that the identified environmental impacts were minor and/or temporary, the plan did not include environmental effects that could not be addressed, and the project lacks a potential for significant environmental effects.
On April 19, 1999, the full planning commission met to consider the list of proposed CUP conditions that had been developed by the environmental responsibility team. Relators' counsel argued that the process for developing the conditions had been flawed because his attempt to put information in the record (apparently at the July 29 meeting that started the process for drafting the conditions) had been ignored. The chair of the commission replied that the only thing at issue at the meeting was the propriety of the conditions for the CUP. After some alterations, the commission approved the proposed conditions. Counsel for Carlson asked how to appeal the planning commission's decision and the county attorney told him to appeal to the county board.
On May 15, Carlson's counsel sent the county board a letter stating that Carlson was appealing the "April 19, 1999 granting of a [CUP.]" [1] On August 10, the county board heard the appeal. On August 31, the board voted 3-2 to deny the appeal. This appeal followed. During the pendency of the appeal, Fleming Township was dismissed as a party to the appeal.
I S S U E S
1. Did the county board act arbitrarily, or otherwise improperly, in denying
the portion of relators' appeal challenging the grant of the CUP application?
2. Did relators show defects in the process used to create the conditions imposed on the conditional use permit?
ANALYSIS
I.
"[A]n agency must approve or deny within 60 days a written request relating
to zoning" and "[f]ailure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is
approval of the request." Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2 (1998). "Agency" includes
a county. Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 1 (1998). Relators allege that the CUP
application was made on May 20, 1998. Shetka alleges that the application was
made on May 18, 1998. Although some of the documents supporting the CUP
application are dated May 18, the application is dated May 20. For purposes of
this appeal, we assume that the application was made on May 20, 1998. Sixty days from May 20, 1998, was Sunday, July 19, 1998. Therefore, the last day for the county to approve or deny the application was Monday, July 20, 1998. See Minn. Stat. § 645.15 (1998) (stating, if last day of relevant period is Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, period continues to next day that is not Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday). On July 20, 1998, the county planning commission stated that it was "conditionally approving" the CUP application and that the conditions for the approval would be addressed later.
It is not clear from the record whether the planning commission intended to actually grant the CUP application on July 20, 1998. The record of the July 20, 1998, hearing includes statements by the chairman of the planning commission indicating that the commission was "[c]onditionally approving; we are not approving [the application]. It will not be approved or disapproved until the next meeting, based on what the conditions are with the committee--[.]" Similarly, the minutes of the April 19, 1999, planning commission meeting indicate that the chair of the planning commission "stated that if [the conditions proposed by the environmental responsibility team] make this permit acceptable and there are successful findings of fact, the commission will approve the [CUP.]”
Although it is not clear whether the planning commission intended to grant the CUP application on July 20, 1998, it is clear that the commission did not deny the application. Therefore, either the application was approved by an affirmative act of the planning commission on July 20, or the application was approved as a matter of law under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2, because the planning commission failed to deny the application within 60 days. See Demolition Landfill Servs., LLC v. City of Duluth, 609 N.W.2d 278, 281 (Minn. App. 2000) (holding that, under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2, an agency's rejection of a resolution to grant a permit application was not equivalent to denying the application and therefore, the permit was granted as a matter of law), pet. for rev. filed (Minn. May 26, 2000). [2]
As of July 1998, section 11.05 of the Aitkin County zoning ordinance stated that “any decision of the Planning Commission” regarding a CUP application could be appealed to the county board within 30 days. Aitkin County, Minn., Zoning Ordinance § 11.05 (1996) (emphasis added). [3] For purposes of this appeal, we assume that the ordinance's use of “any decision” refers to “any final decision” and that therefore, the planning commission's July 20, 1998, statement that it would rule on the conditions for the CUP application at a later date rendered the July 20 grant of the CUP (be it a grant by the planning commission, a conditional grant by the planning commission, or a grant by operation of law under Minn. Sta.t § 15.99, subd. 2) non-final and hence not appealable to the county board until the planning commission made its decision on conditions for the CUP. [4]
On appeal of a county's denial of a CUP application, we review whether the decision was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law or without evidentiary support. Molnar v. County of Carver Bd. of Comm'rs, 568 N.W.2d 177, 181 (Minn. App. 1997). Relators allege that the grant of the CUP application is defective because the county failed to abide by relevant statutes and ordinances, failed to make adequate findings of fact, and made findings that were not supported by the record. But the result reached by the county board, which, in effect, affirmed the grant of the CUP, is not only allowed, but compelled, by statute due to the county's failure to deny the CUP application within the period set out by Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2. We cannot hold that the county acted in an arbitrary, or otherwise improper, fashion when the result it reached was compelled by statute.
II.
Effective on August 25, 1998, section 11.05 of the Aitkin County zoning
ordinance was amended to require that appeals from planning commission decisions
relative to a conditional use permit be taken to the Minnesota Court of Appeals
by writ of certiorari. Respondents argue that relators improperly appealed the
April 19, 1999, planning commission decision to the county board under the old
appeal procedure rather than to this court under the amended procedure. Relators appealed the planning commission's decision pursuant to advice from the Aitkin County Attorney that the old appeal process continued to apply to applications initiated before the effective date of the ordinance amendment. It is not apparent from the record what authority the county attorney relied on to conclude that the old appeal process applied. We have found nothing that indicates one way or the other whether the ordinance amendment was to be applied to applications that were pending when the amendment became effective. Therefore, because the record does not permit meaningful analysis of this question, and because we conclude that a decision on this issue will not change the effect that our ultimate decision will have on the parties, we decline to determine which appeal process applies. We assume that an appeal to the county board under the old appeal process was proper.
Relators allege that the planning commission's process for developing the conditions for the CUP deprived them of due process of law and violated the open meeting law. [5] To support their argument, relators cite the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 7, of the Minnesota Constitution, and the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. § 471.705 (1998). But relators do not explain how the constitutional and statutory provisions they cite were violated; they simply argue in a conclusory fashion that the provisions were violated. Absent an attempt to apply the law that they cite, relators failed to carry their appellate burden to show error and prejudice. Midway Ctr. Assocs. v. Midway Ctr., Inc., 306 Minn. 352, 356, 237 N.W.2d 76, 78 (1975).
Furthermore, quasi-judicial proceedings, such as considering a CUP application, do not generally invoke "the full panoply of procedures required in regular judicial proceedings[;]" the applicable rights of due process are "reasonable notice of hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard." Barton Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of Afton, 268 N.W.2d 712, 716 (Minn. 1978).
Relators allege that they were precluded from meaningful participation in the environmental review team's construction of the list of conditions for the CUP. But although relators were not able to actively participate in drafting some of the conditions proposed for the CUP, they had substantial input in at least one of the preliminary lists of proposed conditions considered by the environmental review team. Relators also participated in both the April 19, 1999, hearing at which the planning commission considered the conditions proposed by the environmental review team and in the appeal of that decision to the county board. Thus, while relators may not have been allowed to participate in an early stage of the drafting of proposed CUP conditions, they were allowed to address the reasonableness of the conditions at least twice.
Relators also object to the planning commission's “apparent rejection” of the “settlement agreement” approved by the parties in July 1998. Relators, however, cite no authority that requires a governmental body responsible for zoning decisions to accept the terms of an agreement among third parties. Absent any authority indicating that relators' opportunities to be heard were inadequate, we cannot say that relators have shown that they were denied the limited due process to which they were entitled in the quasi-judicial proceeding.
D E C I S I O N
Because the county planning commission stated that it was conditionally granting the CUP application and did not deny that application within 60 days after it was submitted, the CUP application was either granted by affirmative act of the planning commission or by operation of law under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2 (1998), on July 20, 1998. Because the county board's affirmance of the grant of the CUP was consistent with the result mandated by Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2, the county board did not act in an arbitrary or otherwise improper fashion in affirming that grant. Also, relators have not shown that their opportunity to be heard in the process used to create conditions imposed on the CUP was inadequate. Relator's request for attorney fees is denied.Affirmed.
Footnotes
[1] Shetka and relators dispute whether the failure to state in the appeal letter that the Gun Lake Association was challenging the planning commission's decision means Gun Lake is not a proper party to the appeal to this court. Whether Gun Lake is a proper party in this court will not affect the scope of the arguments presented for decision because it is undisputed that (a) Carlson did appeal to the county board; (b) Carlson and Gun Lake have the same attorney; and (c) that attorney filed a single brief in this court. Thus, this opinion refers to Carlson and Gun Lake as "relators."[2] Relators argue that whether the CUP application was approved as a matter of law is not properly before this court because respondents did not file a notice of review raising that issue. But appellate courts have the obligation to decide cases consistent with the law. See State v. Hannuksela, 452 N.W.2d 668, 673 n.7 (Minn. 1990) (“it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law and that responsibility is not to be `diluted by counsel's oversights, lack of research, failure to specify issues or to cite relevant authorities'”) (citation omitted); Greenbush State Bank v. Stephens, 463 N.W.2d 303, 306 n.1 (Minn. App. 1990) (applying Hannuksela in a civil case), review denied (Minn. Feb. 4. 1991). Our decision simply recognizes that under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2, the planning commission's failure to deny the CUP application within 60 days after it was submitted is an approval of the application. The approval occurred without any further action by respondents to invoke their rights under the statute, and the respondents did not lose their rights under the statute by failing to file a notice of review.
[3] After oral argument to this court, the county was directed by order of this court to file copies of the county's zoning ordinance in effect on May 18, 1998, and all later amendments. In addition to the requested documents, this court received numerous other post-oral-argument submissions from the parties. The unsolicited submissions were improper and were not considered in the resolution of this appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 128.02, subd. 4 (stating that no brief beyond those identified in the rules may be filed without leave of the court).
[4] Our construction of the ordinance is consistent with the amended version of the ordinance that became effective in August 1998 and allows appeal of “any decision of the Planning Commission relative to a conditional use permit” to this court by writ of certiorari. (emphasis added). See In re Application by City of Rochester for Adjustment of Serv. Area Boundaries With Peoples Coop. Power Ass'n. Inc., 524 N.W.2d 540, 541 (Minn. App. 1994) (stating certiorari ordinarily available only when ruling sought to be reviewed is final, rather than interlocutory, determination). If the ordinance in effect in July 1998 did not require a final decision for appeal to the county board, the planning commission's failure to immediately rule on the conditions for the CUP did not render the July 20, 1998, grant of the CUP (be it a grant by the planning commission, a conditional grant by the planning commission, or a grant by operation of law under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2) unappealable. Under this analysis, relators' May 1999 attempt to appeal the July 1998 grant was untimely, the grant of the CUP application was not properly before the county board and is not properly before this court.
[5] The parties' arguments on this issue assume that conditions can be imposed on a CUP after the date on which the CUP would otherwise have been granted under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2. We express no opinion on this question.
Sharon4Anderson@aol.com AttorneyProSe_Private AG,
ECF 65913 Pacer:sa1299 Tel: 651-776-5835 HEALTH CARE Candidate 2012Senate64 www.sharonsenate64.blogspot.com
http://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/judicial-corruption-_sharonscarrellaanderson_lawless-america/http://www.pacificlegal.org/document.doc?id=608&utm_source=Sentry+-+3%2F21%2F12+Healthcare&utm_campaign=3-21-12+Healthcare+SENTRY&utm_medium=emailhttp://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/10-1032-bsac-Massachusetts.pdfhttp://sharon-mn-ecf.blogspot.com/2007/03/foia-06cv-permission-to.htmlhttp://mpls.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/profiles/26222.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/planet/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file4.pdfhttp://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file6.pdfwww.sharon4anderson.org
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/files/f/900-2007-02-27T034409Z/WritProA06-1150_30Jun06.pdfhttp://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/google-lawmen-cases-mn-62cv09-1163/POA http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/PDFcorr/SADPA4172006.pdfhttp://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profile/SharonScarrellaAndersonwww.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4anderson www.taxthemax.blogspot.com www.scribd.com/sharon4anderson www.slideshare.com/sharon4anderson
No comments:
Post a Comment