Persecution Black and White, MN Supreme Court: ‘WE DO NOT CARE' 
HEADLINES September 16, 2009
Persecution Black and White, MN Supreme Court: ‘WE DO NOT CARE'
THIS STORY all started with a mother visiting her daughter observing a black man crossing the road saying: “that stupid n*gger.“ Paula Bourne of Rosemount, MN: “I will not tolerate that language, racial bias in my presence or my son's.” This argument heated until the visiting mother Elizabeth Lubinski was driven to Rochester, MN and angrily dropped at the curb of other daughter Susan Gallas.
Then in 2006 Winona, MN mother Elizabeth Lubinski, daughter Susan Gallas and son Rick Lubinski wanted to sell the family home. Elizabeth held life estate interest, Gallas tenant in common and Rick Lubinski tenant in common. Other daughter Paula Bourne living in Rosemount, MN held other tenant in common interest. Elizabeth told Paula that Susan and Rick had left the four-hundred square feet of asbestos tile under the new linoleum. Winona Minnesota Perjury & Court Cover Up http://sites.google.com/site/winonaminnesotaperjury/winona-minnesota-perjury-court-cover-up
She further told Paula that the three of them wanted to sell this house. Paula then discussed the many, many years of watching her parents painting this 1885 home with hazardous, toxic lead until her father’s death of pancreatic cancer in the early 80’s. Elizabeth had continued to use hazardous lead paint until it ran out. This home was painted with lead from 1885 to 1978 + or over 93 years. Paula told Elizabeth she would only sign to sell if they proved it safe to her. Elizabeth informed Paula that black families were now moving into this Winona neighborhood. Elizabeth then said: “Who cares if we sell our lead, asbestos home to a dumb n*gger. “
Paula refused to sign. Elizabeth, Susan and Rick next filed a legal COMPLAINT M.S.A. 558.01. Partition Action with their desired relief of forcing Paula Bourne’s signature. Douglas Bourne, Paula’s husband joined the action. Douglas at trial tried to present the state of Minnesota sponsored video “Jimmy’s Getting Better.” Douglas has called Jimmy the little brother he had ordered from Santa when he was five. Douglas told Santa he wanted a black brother to play baseball with. This was in Chicago, IL where Douglas was born. Douglas learned to love blacks from the time he was born living in an unbiased Chicago neighborhood. Judge Fabian took Douglas’s copy of Jimmy, looked at the black boy’s Jimmy’s story and guess what you think he said next? Jimmy is not going to be allowed. Douglas would recommend everyone watching “Jimmy’s Getting Better." It is the passionate, sad story of a black child who was lead poisoned. Douglas argued the same point about allowing Jimmy’s Getting Better to the Minnesota Court of Appeals to no avail. The Minnesota Supreme Court on August 12, 2009 ruling ‘WE DO NOT CARE’ Petition Denied. The Minnesota Supreme Court has OK’d leveraging Paula Bourne’s signature and approval against her religious beliefs. She strongly disagrees with her family dumping all the years of lead and asbestos on an unsuspecting victim. Fetuses and children ages zero to six are the most at risk according to the Minnesota Department of Health’s literature. Judge Fabian at trial said I am not allowing anything from the Minnesota Department of Health. Children are the ones most at risk and yet they have no voice in this.
Minnesota courts including the Minnesota Supreme Court have now allowed, OK’d, and supported the religious persecution of Paula Bourne. Elizabeth Lubinski, Susan Gallas and Rick Lubinski are to get their desired relief enabling them to push their lead and asbestos off on an unsuspecting family. Minnesota Courts have now established they do not support lead and asbestos safety. This cases indirect black persecution, racial profiling and Paula Bourne’s direct persecution is not how the story’s beautiful black child Jimmy gets better. This is a sad day for Minnesota. As for Judges involved – they should be ashamed; remembered by the public for removal.
Paula Bourne and husband Douglas attended their place of worship (see photos) with Paula now knowing that the Minnesota court system has turned their back on them by signing approval of this hazardous home sale. Paula states : “I will go to jail for contempt of this order. I will (standtall) never agreeing to sell (untruthfully) this waste dump of hazardous materials to an unsuspecting black or white family."
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Standtall
Lakeville, Minnesota, United States
Sign in to NowPublic
Truemors
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (16)
at 07:34 on August 18th, 2009
It is a little bit clearer what the author is trying to say in this post, principally because of the graphiic attached.
If I understand this case, a Black family contracted to purchase a home which the sellers knew was full of hazardous susbtances, including lead and great quantities of asbestos, which would be prohibitively expensive for the buyers of the home to remove.
If I understand what's happening here, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered the Black family to purchase the house for which they had signed a purchase and sale agreement, even though they subsequently learned that the house was full of hazardous substances.
I don't know that any of the above is true, but this is what I suspect and speculate based on the vague and often irrelevant information provided in the above article.
Now, having read the link provided above, it seems as though the defendant in the case is the one of the owners of the house without whose signature the house cannot be sold, unless a judge orders the defendant to sell.
It sure would be usefull to have a link to the judicial decisions in this case, as well as some quotes from those decisions.
It seems to me that the defendant who does not want to agree to the sale of the house would have a stronger case if she could demonstrate that the knowing sale of this hazardous house to a third party would result in potential legal liability for the sellers, including the defendant.
Please include a link to anything the courts have published about this case, and please include quote of any sentence that has the words "issue", "question", "matter to be resolved", "rule", "holding", "decide", "hold" "therefore". These are the words the courts use when they are explaining what they are deciding and why.
at 08:23 on August 18th, 2009
First of all, I want to thank you for reading and responding to my story.
I would respectfully suggest you read the other three parts to my story.
(1) Minnesota Supreme Court: 'We Do Not Care' Petition Denied http://www.nowpublic.com/world/minnesota-supreme-court-we-do-not-care-petition-denied
2) Minnesota Appellate Court Debacle; Supreme Court Needs To Fix
http://my.nowpublic.com/world/minnesota-appellate-court-debacle-supreme-court-needs-fix
(3) Minnesota Case With Biased Judge Submitted to Supreme Courthttp://my.nowpublic.com/health/minnesota-case-biased-judge-submitted-supreme-court
Please also notice the Bourne’s entire Minnesota Supreme Court Petition for Review is posted 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
STATE OF MINNESOTAIN SUPREME COURT
Douglas M. Bourne and Paula Bourne PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECISION Petitioners, OF COURT OF APPEALSvs. APPELLATE COURT
CASE NUMBER: A081552
Elizabeth Lubinski, Susan J. Gallas, and Rick Lubinski
Respondents, DATE OF FILING OF COURT OF
APPEALS DECISION: JUNE 16, 2009
TO: The Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota:
The petitioners Douglas M. Bourne and Paula Bourne requests Supreme Court review of the above-entitled decision of the Court of Appeals upon the following grounds: Trial Court record altered, twisted, Judicial Canon & Constitutional Rights violations along with Trial Court perjury all discarded in this Appellate Court’s decision.
STATEMENT OF LEGAL ISSUE
SUMMED UP INTO ONE NOVEL ISSUE QUESTION OF LAW AND RECORD
Can the state under M.S.A. § 558.01. Partition force Bourne’s: authorization, approval, signature, engagement in respondents’ immoral conduct, against lead/asbestos safety, compromising Bourne’s religious, pro-life, beliefs, regarding hazardous home sales, with considerations for statutory target housing painted with ninety-three plus years of lead. This target housing’s renovations[A14] were done by respondents in violation 40 C.F.R. § 745.85. Renovations must be performed by certified firms using certified renovators by § 745.89 AUTHORITY: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d which is “Truth in Disclosure” federal law and as required 15 U.S.C.A. § 2686 Lead hazard pamphlet [A12].With respondents’ conduct in total disregard and violation of lead/asbestos safety and violating petitioners’ religious beliefs; the petitioners refused to sign, give approval, engage, participate and authorize this sale. EPA’s,target housing – meaning built before 1978, required 15 U.S.C.A. § 2686 Lead hazard pamphlet [A12] was furnished, accepted, by respondents, and Judge then placed into case record July 11, 2007. [A12-1, A20-3]This presents the novel issue question: Can the state force this statutory target housing, hazardous[A12],+ perjury [A10], (untruthful), property sale, violating the petitioners’ religious beliefs, moral conscience, under the law, MN Const. Art. 1, §16 [A18], with the Supreme Court’s acknowledging cases true record?[APPENDIX]
RESOLUTIONS BY COURT OF APPEALS
This action began needing Bourne’s signatures, authorization, participation [emphasis] against Freedom of Conscience? State, discarded Bourne’s rights, authorized, leveraged & forced the Bourne’s into respondents’ desired hazardous, toxic, lead/asbestos, and property sale. AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF CRITERIA RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT PETITION Appellate Court’s and Trial Court’s abuse of discretion, numerous errs, altering, twisting case’s record, disregarding perjury, judicial misconduct, misapplying or disregarding the law and Constitution.STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CASE presents novel issue of life tenant and two tenants in common wanting to leverage [force] approval, participation by third tenant in common and husband by using state’s authority forcing approval, petitioners’ participation, accomplishing respondents’ hazardous property sale. Testimony lead painted 93 + years [A8]. 15 U.S.C.A. § 2686 [A12]: Leads many extreme dangers and risks. Lead paints extreme risks to: fetus, baby, child ages zero to six. Respondents’ Renovation violations[A14]. Perjury: Asbestos was not removed. [A10] Statement [work crew] did not remove hazardous asbestos existing flooring, could not have - not licensed and bonded in Minnesota to do hazardous asbestos removal. Case presents: Constitutional Rights violations & Judicial Canon violations [A3].
ARGUMENT All witnesses (5) testified house was painted with lead, hazardous. See Appellate opinion top p.10: “Rick Lubinski and Gallas testified that it was not hazardous.” Twisting record - See Record: SUSAN GALLAS: “Douglas, this house was born in 1885. That is all they had in that many years till 1978 was lead paint.” “period.” [A8] Concedes specific knowledge of lead paint and places this house as painted with hazardous lead paint 1885 to 1978 (93 years). GALLAS: “I realize it does have hazards [A9] but to what extent I don’t know.” “When you sell a house, Doug, there is a disclosure.” “-- form. That states, Are you aware of any lead paint in this house? And I do not believe that Rick and I would ever not sign that there is lead paint in the house.”[A9]Conceding: There is hazardous - defined 15 U.S.C.A. § 2686 A12, A17 -lead paint in the house. Perjury [A10] confirming house’s hazardous asbestos still present. Confirming truth in disclosure will not occur, Judge biased against lead safety [A3], Judge at trial confirming not reading ANSWER [A4], Appellate opinion disregarded this obvious Equal Protection and Due Process violation [A4] and Judge covered up perjury/hazardous asbestos. Truth in Disclosure is one’s moral conscience choice? Bourne’s choice, as presented at trial, is against it. Many people, such as respondents, are too dishonest & lead too dangerous [great of risk] little children at greatest risk have no voice, per Bourne’s religion and conscience in all Bourne’s arguments from fetus – age six. U.S.C.A. § 2686 Lead hazard pamphlet [A12] Petitioners forced to engage in this state action allowing conduct opposing petitioners’ religious beliefs by compromising & burdening petitioners’ religious moral conscience by controlling, infringing and interfering with petitioners’ moral conscience as only engaging with respondents’ conduct if practicing lead and asbestos safety protecting fetus, baby, child and adult. Further, Bourne’s never asserting see Appellate Opinion top p.11:“They assert that they want to make the property completely safe before it is sold.” Twisting record - See Record beginning with Paula Bourne’s ANSWER: If petitioners were to sign, give approval, engage, participate and authorize this sale respondents needed to change conduct in compliance with petitioners’ pro life / pro safety – hazardous safety - not hiding toxic lead, asbestos meeting petitioners’ religious practices and moral conscience beliefs. Permanently disabled, partial foot amputee, Paula Bourne, in ANSWER, stated Elizabeth Lubinski is responsible, [A5] as life tenant, to pay for hazardous inspections and repairs. If Elizabeth truly indigent, bank accounts gone, refused to testify; petitioners’ position, arguments, trial: Qualified for hazardous removal grant program. The petitioners living one-hundred plus miles away in Rosemount, MN never asserting Bourne’s making property completely safe before it is sold. Not giving up their healthy ‘1995’ Rosemount, MN home. Petitioners’ arguments have outlined respondents’ doing significant home renovations against 15 U.S.C.A. § 2686. Lead hazard pamphlet [A12] --- Lead likely now spread. The Appellate Court’s opinion is apparently covering up for Judge’s misconduct not “true” record allowing the Judge to conceal, cover up, personal bias, prejudice [A3] and other horrific judicial misconduct as well with covering up respondents’ perjury presented with *trial* submissions and not as Appellate opinion p.8: “This belated attempt at impeachment fails. The trial in this litigation has ended, and the law does not call for a continuation of factual disputes.” Significant err- Twisting record - See Record: (1) store owner’s written statement, (2) tape recording, along with (3) her submitted business card [A10, A20-4] was strictly proving perjury and is a far difference from impeachment attempt. This was timely submitted, conclusive, perjury evidence, along with a certified trial transcript copy to Houston County Attorney, Suzanne Bublitz [A15] and Trial Judge See New Finding [Perjury] [A20-4] along with Trial - Proposed Findings of Fact[A20-4]. The Bourne’s legal arguments always included a barrage of federal and state statutes on leads dangers, risks presenting these statutes repetitively in all of their legal arguments, briefs listing state and federal statutes evidencing lead’s many toxic dangers and risks. Especially toxic dangers to fetuses, pregnant mothers and children ages zero to six. See 15 U.S.C.A. § 2686, 42 U.S.C.A. § 4852d, 24CFR35.130Sec. 35.130 Lead hazard information pamphlet [A12]. The lead hazard information pamphlet was developed by EPA, HUD and the Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuant to section 406 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2686). Pamphlet - United State’s mandated authority - truth in disclosure - 42 U.S.C.A. § 4852d. [A17] EPA747-K-99-001 Lead pamphlet [A12] defines this ‘target housing’as evidence to suffice Bourne’s religious beliefs, leads medical dangers, risks; yet why have Trial and Appellate Court errantly not mentioned mandated authority on this issue in their decisions? Appellate and Trial Courts claim of respondents going to do truth in disclosure later, hazardous home sale, but not mentioning disclosure’s EPA pamphlet [A12], federal code and state statutes defining LEAD’s toxic dangers and health risks. This “correct evidence”, [A12] this case’s “correct true record” and the trial court’s “correctly applying”: Article I, Section 16, of the Minnesota Constitution [A18] “confirms merit” and “wins” the case. The Appellate Court’s tossing aside “true” record is only reason the trial decision was errantly affirmed. Lying, perjury, [A10]asbestos was all removed --- then Bourne’s countered submitting owner’s written & taped evidence with written submissions before the case was even taken under advisement [A12-1, A20-4] stating [her work crew] did not remove [twenty feet] hazardous asbestos. [A10] Owner stating we are not even licensed or bonded in Minnesota to do hazardous asbestos removal – CLEARLY PERJURY.The asbestos was patched, Maipai - owner’s signed invoice presented to the Houston County Attorney [A15] and Trial Judge [A20-4]. This hazardous material is now under linoleum likely raining asbestos into basement below kitchens ‘1885’ subflooring planks.The Appellate Court allowed perjury unchecked as well as state leveraging constitutional violations burdening petitioners’ ‘Freedom of Conscience’ by authority Article I, Section 16, of the Minnesota Constitution. The court is correctly guided by M.S.A. 645.17 [A19] Presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent. (3) The legislature does not intend to violate the Constitution of the United States or of this state. The court is thus guided not to accomplish M.S.A. 558.01 sale at the expense of violating Bourne’s protected rights. Judge violated U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection of the Law not reading petitioners’ ANSWER [A4] evidenced with Judge 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. [A4] What Bourne submissions did the Judge read? For the Bourne’s stated reasons, the petitioners seek an order granting review of the decision of the Court of Appeals.at 10:02 on August 18th, 2009
I am black and I find Mrs. Lubinski's comments and Francis L. Holland's comments to be disgusting. Watch trhe video evidence you idiot. Obvious Perjury, Judicial Misconduct and Religious Persecution have taken place.
Obviously the court wants to suppress the Bourne's standing up for black America. This Judicial bias against black america is what is wrong. Speak out black America. This case is disgusting!!!
The Bourne's would have every right to bring suit against the State of Minnesota in federal court along with everyone else who violated Mr. and Mrs. Bourne.
Thanks Bourne's for trying to protect our chhildrem white and black.
Speak out black America -- this must stop...
at 10:35 on August 18th, 2009
Thanks Jeremy...
I thank you and the Bourne's thank you for your support!!
The Bourne's are tough to suppress and they actually have just as many black friends as white. No bias or prejudice there!!
They are very good people.
at 13:07 on August 18th, 2009
I am African American and I completely agree with Jeremy. Given White Americans [The Bourne's] who support black Americans [Jimmy or black children in general] the courts will suppress evidence every time. That is why Mr. Bourne would never be allowed to introduce as evidence "Jimmy's Getting Better" in a biased white court. This is so very, very wrong.
I agree --- speak out Black America.
Thanks Bourne's for trying to protect our children. Minnesota has had a real problem with black children being lead poisoned.
at 04:57 on August 19th, 2009
Black American are fare more likely to be lead poisoned. I reviewed "Jimmy's Getting Better." What an excellant story sponsored by the State of Minnesota yet not admissable in a case with a pre-1978 home - testimony as painted 93 years with lead. How biased can you get. Sponsorship by the State by not recognition by the State's court. Minnesota Courts must be run by the KKK. Any evidence involving a black is suppressed? Why? This is White Trash - Maybe we need another civil war to eliminate the KKK court system. Please read study I will post.
at 05:04 on August 19th, 2009
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4697843
at 05:07 on August 19th, 2009
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4697843
at 05:09 on August 19th, 2009
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4697843
at 05:12 on August 19th, 2009
Elonzo was referring to: Lead Poisoning and Black Children
an NPR Presentation
at 08:22 on August 19th, 2009
Elizabeth Lubinski - I am black and you are poor role model for Winona, Minnesota. I give all the credit in the world to your daughter Paula for standing up to you. I also credit her for the fight against lead poisoning. LEAD's danger is a real one !!
Mrs. Lubinski -- Do not ever call a black person a nigger!!
at 12:28 on August 20th, 2009
I have reviewed this case and it is the most blatent case of perjury, judicial misconduct and religious persecution I have ever seen. What is wrong with the Minnesota judicial system. Everything I guess. The United States Supreme Court needs to step in and take it over. The evidence on video is so overwhelmingly conclusive. Even my ten year old daughter saw the lies by Susan Gallas and Rick Lubinski of Winona, MN. How could they lie like that with a case against their own sister. They both have a hot place to go upon their deaths even though they have faced zero consequences by the disgraceful Minnesota court system. I am black and very disgusted at the religious persecution Paula Bourne has needlessly endured at the hands of the disgraceful, disgusting Minnesota courts. It makes me so glad I don't live in Minnesota. The people of Minnesota deserve way better.
at 05:48 on August 27th, 2009
The Bourne's video evidence of perjury is conclusive. Nice to know how BLIND the Minnesota court system can be to throw a decision. This is no different than a ref throwing a football game. E.G. --> Calling (untruthfully) offsides to see to it that one side loses. It also makes one wonder if this court was bribed in some fashion or manner? Maybe they had connections --> friends or family. Is Minnesota Dept. of Corrections Commisioner Joan Fabian related to this Judge James Fabian? For obvious reasons seen here the Minnesota court system can not trusted!! My blessing go out to the Bourne's. Mrs. Bourne has been persecuted in my opinion. I would recommend a lawyer contacting Mrs. Bourne and advising her on the federal law involved. It would seem to me they would have a significant federal claim for damages. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I would love to see what a good constitutional law attorney would have to say about all this nonsense. I want to expand on Mr. Hawkins' comment. I am african american and deserve the same respect as any white caucasion american. Mrs. Lubinski your daughter Paula deserves the greatest apology imaginable for your trashy behavior as she is right not to endorse the sale of your lead painted and asbestos infected hazardous dump property. You need to clean it up. You should make 100% sure any child, baby is safe. What is wrong with that? Any christian american values children and babies what is the matter with you? Are you christian? I hope so, but your actions say no!
at 05:37 on September 2nd, 2009
Attn: Tina Kells Excellant story - Does not need any improvement!! You folks need to quit persecuting the Bourne's!!!!!!!!
at 05:49 on September 2nd, 2009
Tina Kells, Story Looks excellent!! Please do not allow this persecution of Bourne's
at 06:04 on September 2nd, 2009
Tina Kells, Why are you persecuting the Bourne's by negative comments on this well written story!! We need to make our comments in support of these fine folks. I recently met Douglas & Paula Bourne at one of my concerts. I recognized their pictures. Public: Stop this persecution of the Bourne's. These are fine christian Americans!! Reba McEntire