Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Minnesota Supreme Court: 'We Do Not Care' Petition Denied
Share:
by Standtall | August 13, 2009 at 05:57 am
1163 views | 88 Recommendations | 5 comments
Photos
Minnesota Supreme Court: “As one of three tenants in common the lower court has leveraged my signature, approval of this home sale, against my freedom of conscience; guess what’s under the new linoleum?” August 12, 2009 S.C. -- We don’t care, petition denied… Minnesota Judge James A. Fabian admittedly didn’t read defendant’s ANSWER. Judge James A. Fabian, Winona County, MN Case 85-CV-07-236 asking during the middle of trial: “Just so I am clear, is asbestos also an issue here?” “Asbestos” was mentioned ten times in petitioners’ ANSWER. Minnesota Supreme Court: “Judge Fabian obviously read the COMPLAINT doesn’t a Minnesota Judge also have to read the defendant’s ANSWER?”
August 12, 2009 -- S.C. -- We don’t care, petition denied…
This Minnesota Judge decided the defendant’s LEAD PAINT ISSUE [See video] based on his mother:
“Other than the moral issue you have with selling this house to somebody that might have children which is the same as eighty percent of the other hundred year old houses in the city of Winona at this time *** She is eighty-nine years old so it obviously hasn’t affected her too much -- the lead-based paint and the newspaper in the wall. So why not just sell the house and get it over with.”
That is a violation of Minnesota Judicial Canons as biased and the Bourne’s were not given a fair trial?
August 12, 2009 -- S.C. -- We don’t care, petition denied…
How about the perjury? “guess what’s under the new linoleum?” The house is for sale should the new buyers be told by: Rick Lubinski: “I was there the day the guys -- they tore the tile out. In order to put another tile floor on top of the old floor they have to put an underlayment over the top of it. So they completely tore the old floor out and put an underlayment over the top it and then the tile over the top of that. And I was there and I watched them. So”
And
Susan Gallas: “No, I am not. In fact, there was asbestos in the kitchen but the people who relaid the linoleum in the kitchen, they took it all out. So it is gone.”
The Store Owner: COMPLETELY DISPUTES http://sites.google.com/site/winonaminnesotaperjury/winona-minnesota-perjury-court-cover-up
see video. She says this house is not [asbestos] safe. She did not remove the [four hundred square feet] toxic asbestos.
This hazardous material is now under linoleum likely raining asbestos into basement below kitchens ‘1885’ subflooring planks. Is the Minnesota Supreme Court going to allow this perjury and asbestos cover up?
August 12, 2009 -- S.C. -- We don’t care, petition denied… Testimony by five witnesses places this 1885 house as painted with lead and for 93+ years and never safety checked?
August 12, 2009 -- S.C. -- We don’t care, Paula and Douglas Bourne's petition for review denied…
Follow uo to: Minnesota Appellate Court Debacle; Supreme Court Needs To Fix http://www.nowpublic.com/world/minnesota-appellate-court-debacle-supreme-court-needs-fix
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
Standtall
Lakeville, Minnesota, United States
Recommendations (88)
Spydermonkey
huntsville, Alabama, United States
jazzyzazzy
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
albertacowpoke
Canada
enlargetom
Pune, Maharastra, India
Anonymous users (80)
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (5)
at 11:00 on August 13th, 2009
I'm sorry, I don't understand this news article.
at 13:36 on August 13th, 2009
I really don't understand this article either. I think it would help if the writer went back to the decision of the lower court and quoted (1) the issue, (2) the rule, and (3) the holding from the decision of the lower court.
At some point in the lower court(s) written decision(s), the court(s) announce (says), "the issue is . . . ", or "the question this case presents is . . .", or "the decision of this court must be based upon . . .".
In order for readers at NowPublic to understand this case, we need know what the "issue" or "question" decided was. And we need to know the "rule of law" that was applied.
At some point in the lower court(s)' decision(s), probably in the last paragraph, the court announces, "and so we hold" or "and so we find" or "and so this court holds/finds that", or "and therefore . . . " or "and so we rule that . . ."
That's the "decision" of the lower court, and we need to understand that.
I would ask the writer to look at the decision of the lower court and see if the writer can find and tell us all of the sentences that have the words "decision", "rule", "holding", "find", decide" and "and therefore".
If you don't want to read the whole written decision, you can probably find these words in the first or second paragraph and the last or next to last paragraph. Please include in this article every sentence that includes one of the words or phrases that are in quotes above.
Then everyone will understand much more clearly what the problem is here and how the court decided to address the problem. Without knowing these things, we can't understand how and why the decisions of the courts are unfair.
at 10:06 on August 17th, 2009
First of all, I want to thank you for reading and responding to my story. Your advice is well taken. However, this structure would apply more to a straight forward legal case. This case has been anything but. This case has turned into investigative reporting which you probably realize is very difficult. On the surface -- who is the public going to believe me or the court? That 's why I have provided the Bourne's evidence which alleges perjury, judicial misconduct, hazardous material cover up, rights violations and a situation where the Judge did not even read the Bourne's ANSWER. Then the public can read my investigative accusations (story) and compare it to the evidence provided and form their own opinions.
How fair would it be if I served a legal COMPLAINT on you and the Judge only read my legal COMPLAINT and did not bother to read or acknowledge your legal ANSWER? In America this is an EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, U.S. Const. Amend. 14, violation at its worst.
I would respectfully suggest you read the other two parts to my story. (1) Minnesota Case With Biased Judge Submitted to Supreme Court http://my.nowpublic.com/health/minnesota-case-biased-judge-submitted-supreme-court (2) Minnesota Appellate Court Debacle; Supreme Court Needs To Fix http://my.nowpublic.com/world/minnesota-appellate-court-debacle-supreme-court-needs-fixPlease also notice the Bourne’s entire Minnesota Supreme Court Petition for Review is posted (1) and (2) to bring you completely up to speed on this developing story.
The Minnesota Supreme Court actually did not review any of the Bourne's issues. [REVIEW DENIED] I am reporting a case where the Minnesota Supreme Court on August 12, 2009 said we don't care about what is in the Bourne's Petition for Review -- PETITION DENIED
francislholland - You are doing a good job of writing and keep up the good work !! Standtallat 11:27 on August 18th, 2009
Business as usual...not reading or comprehending anything other than political implications or bennies
at 12:21 on September 3rd, 2009
I have been keeping up with this story & thanks StandTall for keeping us updated!