“…For all the power the government has, being only for the good of the society, as it ought not to be arbitrary and at please, so it ought to be exercised by established and promulgated laws, and the rulers too, kept within their bounds…” (11, 137) John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government.The bounds of our rulers today, at all levels of government, now stretch well outside of their designated boundaries. My own experiences have shown the lack of restraint placed upon government officials at all levels leads to the erosion of individual liberties.
When my wife and I bought the Old Washington School in Esko, MN (Thomson Township), we learned the hard way that government was “always” right. The local zoning board decided what we could do in our building. They called them “covenants”, while we considered them overly intrusive. It specifically could not be used as a hotel, lodging (outside of a Bed & Breakfast), recreation center, or manufacturing. The gym that had always been used by Thomson Township as a church, group rentals, sporting events, voting, etc. was suddenly restricted from the same. At one point in the arguments, the zoning board was trying to restrict the gym to personal use only. I [Marvin Pirila] had to say at that point that we would not go through with the purchase if they restricted the gym to my use only. After two meetings of roughly three hours each, it finally got approved by the Township supervisors.
Next came the building permit process, and this was the ultimate nightmare. The building inspector [John Gulland] that had himself been in the same building for 13 years with Thomson Township officials started the project by saying that the old school was considered a new construction. I tried to reason with him saying that it was unreasonable for a building built in two phases during the 1920’s and 1930’s to be considered a new construction. He explained that a change in ownership constituted a change in use, and resulted in it being considered “new” and subject to the newest building codes. This was not true and not mentioned in any form in the Minnesota State Building Code. That meant, in his interpretation, that the Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (GREB) and provisions for Existing Buildings were inapplicable. Instead, we were forced to take a very old building and make it energy compliant. This immediately led to soaring construction costs.
After numerous revisions of the architectural plans (about 17) and continual delays in receiving a building permit we filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (MN DOLI). The MN DOLI investigator concluded various wrongdoings by the building inspector including: Failing to complete on-site inspection cards (recording inspections, particularly areas check, okayed, or listed deficiencies); failing to follow GREB; failing to allow exceptions for existing buildings (energy codes); and failing to issue all orders in writing. The building inspector was censured.
The failure of the building inspector to put requests in writing, despite numerous requests, led to ongoing ambiguity. We were attempting to get a temporary certificate of occupancy only to find the verbal demands changed every time we met them.
The costs of the flagrant and intentional abuses of the building code by the building inspector and plan reviewer cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars.
During the course of the MN DOLI investigation, the building inspector took up arms with the architect, and made repeated trespasses, as well as forced inspections, onto our property. These trespasses only became known when the township attorney wrote a letter to us alleging building code violations. The attorney himself became threatening, daring us to sue the township for wrongdoing.
This followed a previous trespass by the fire chief of Thomson Township who claimed he was looking for the owners to talk about the pile of wood slats outside. There was not a single car in either lot, the doors were locked, and yet he made entry to a locked door. There were no phone calls, no verbal communication, or handwritten message left. How? We suspect the township retained keys after the sale that allowed them entry to doors that had not been changed yet. We are guessing that the building inspector made entry the same way.
Trespassing charges were filed with Thomson Township in June, 2009, who proceeded to give them to the Carlton County Attorney. After constant prodding, Attorney Pertler reluctantly said he would pursue it. Nearly two years later, his office has not taken a single action. The attorney general’s office claimed county attorneys, like township officials, enjoy autonomy, and the scope of their office was limited. If you are wronged you can vote them out was their [Attorney General’s] advice. Sure, but who is going to pursue justice for the trespassing?
The duties of a county attorney is listed under Minn. Stat. § 388.051, and include under Subd. 1: The county attorney shall: …(c) prosecute…to the extent prescribed by law, gross misdemeanors, misdemeanors, petty misdemeanors, and violations of municipal ordinances, charter provisions and rules or regulations. Like the building inspectors, township officials, and plan reviewers, why should the county attorney do his job, there is no punishment for doing nothing. There's also no punishment for doing the wrong thing.
The MN DOLI stopped short of suspending the building inspector’s license even though it was appropriate. The county attorney told the owner’s he would not pursue anything while the case was being litigated because it might help them. The very suggestion that he was not doing his [Thomas Pertler’s] job because of its’ possible implication shows unethical and unprofessional conduct. Then again, they have “autonomy.”
The MN DOLI sends all of its findings to its legal department who undoubtedly water it down to matters that make it difficult to sue. More appalling is that the MN DOLI would not even defend its own department when asked to submit amicus curiae briefs to the courts. This brief would have defended their legislative right to overseeing building inspectors, removing this right from the discretion of state court judges. They simply sat on the sideline while their own statutory authority was undermined. This allows the court to bastardize all meaning of the "true laws" governing state building codes.
We filed a lawsuit believing the “law of reparation” applied equally to all citizens. We tried getting representation by an attorney, but their idea of “contingency” meant you paying all of their legal fees and then them getting a large portion of the award, if any. The risk is all yours. If attorneys commit malpractice, there is little you can do. You will be very lucky to find any attorney to try the case and then it will cost you a fortune. If you try it before their so-called "ethics" panel you will gravely disappointed. This is mostly a panel of attorneys protecting attorneys. Their influence over the non-lawyers is apparent and the entire process is intended to kill your spirit and willingness to sue.
Article 1, Bill of Rights (MN) Section 1, includes, “…Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people…” Section 8: “…Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person, property or character…” This is a great principle, and a part of our state constitution, but if it is not enforced, justice is not done. Unfortunately, our state has repeatedly failed to uphold our state and federal constitutional rights.
How could we lose when trespass itself is an intentional tort, the MN DOLI’s had censured the building inspector, and the belief of three different attorneys that our chances of winning were good. We believed if you did wrong, you paid for it. The township had already railroaded us into bankruptcy, so how could we proceed in court? The irony of being wronged is that you are often left distressed, exhausted, and flat broke. Everywhere you turn no one wants to help, and others are trying to capitalize on your situation. We refused to believe that the constitution did not have value anymore, or that our Creator would create or desire such an imbalance of power among people. Were we not all created equal with unalienable rights? We dug in and decided to move forward, representing ourselves [Pro Se].
The discovery process immediately went awry as the information the township agreed to provide, suddenly was kept under the guise of “The Minnesota Data Practices Act [MDPA].” Our legislature had granted all townships outside of five metropolitan areas as exempt from the MDPA. The Minnesota Association of Townships simply says that townships should voluntarily provide information upon reasonable requests. Guess what, reasonable to a township in a lawsuit is to share nothing that might hurt them. During legal discovery, Thomson Township repeatedly claimed protection from sharing certain information due to their rights under the MDPA – rights they did not have as the MDPA did not apply. Pursuant to discovery guidelines under the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedures, they should have been compelled to answer, yet they did not. The implication was that they would force us to pay additional costs to have discovery requests properly answered. When you are dead broke, you have to choose your battles and many of ours were decided for us early on.
The Request for Admissions from one of the defendants [Plan Reviewer] was not only improperly answered but also untimely. Generally, in most states at least, the admissions would be entered into the record as “admitted.” However, when the hearing to have admissions admitted was held, the court [Judge Dale A. Wolf] stated that Minnesota is a liberal state and granted the defendant additional time. The lack of abidance to any timeline guarantees abuse – and why not, if it buys you time and results in additional costs to the other party. Minnesota has effectively established a judicial system loaded with ways to abuse the due process rights of individuals. The only ones benefitting from this abuse are lawyers and judges, as they get more court time. Ultimately, all of these costs for the courts, court reporters, bailiffs, etc. roll onto the taxpayer.
After the discovery process was completed, cementing some positions while leaving others unanswered, the defendants filed for summary judgment seeking dismissal. With little more than a defense of “immunity”, the court [Judge Dale A. Wolf] granted their request. We argued the many exceptions to immunity under Minnesota Statute 466.03, including the failure to perform ministerial and operational level duties. Ministerial duties constitute your mandatory duties and lack discretionary aspects altogether. Operational level duties are day-to-day by definition, and lack the policy-making decisions that are generally covered by immunity. Trespass, being an intentional tort itself, should have been enough to defeat claims of immunity. The court engaged itself in a game of “court gamesmanship” when it continually questioned the cause of action for proceeding to trial. The claims clearly included gross negligence as covered by the Minnesota Tort Claims Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Just a few rows back from the defendants attorneys, sat the Thomson Township attorney and an attorney he worked with, laughing and whispering. This was a joke to all of them, and it showed with the little defense they gave, and needed, to get their desired judgment. As Stephanie Angolkar, attorney for defendants Thomson Township etal., stated to the court, if it proceeded to trial, all claims to immunity would be lost. They certainly did not want to go to trial and have their defense based on real merit because they would not win before a jury. In fact, we had a lawyer lined up to take the case if we got it to trial because they knew at that point it was over.
Judge Wolf said the censuring was nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Wolf also interpreted the trespassing as minor. In response to the violation of ministerial and operational level duties, Judge Wolf gave an example of what would constitute acting outside the scope of a building inspectors duties. He explained that if an inspector took a special attraction to a tenant and entered after hours and sexually assaulted her that would be outside the scope of duties. Are you kidding me? We would be talking about a criminal matter and not one of exceeding your scope of authority. This judge needs to be sent into retirement with County Attorney Thomas Pertler, and Judge Macauley as soon as possible. This county deserves individuals of virtue running the legal system, not these people who pick and choose winners and losers based on prejudice, bias, and affiliations.
When my wife and I bought the Old Washington School in Esko, MN (Thomson Township), we learned the hard way that government was “always” right. The local zoning board decided what we could do in our building. They called them “covenants”, while we considered them overly intrusive. It specifically could not be used as a hotel, lodging (outside of a Bed & Breakfast), recreation center, or manufacturing. The gym that had always been used by Thomson Township as a church, group rentals, sporting events, voting, etc. was suddenly restricted from the same. At one point in the arguments, the zoning board was trying to restrict the gym to personal use only. I [Marvin Pirila] had to say at that point that we would not go through with the purchase if they restricted the gym to my use only. After two meetings of roughly three hours each, it finally got approved by the Township supervisors.
Next came the building permit process, and this was the ultimate nightmare. The building inspector [John Gulland] that had himself been in the same building for 13 years with Thomson Township officials started the project by saying that the old school was considered a new construction. I tried to reason with him saying that it was unreasonable for a building built in two phases during the 1920’s and 1930’s to be considered a new construction. He explained that a change in ownership constituted a change in use, and resulted in it being considered “new” and subject to the newest building codes. This was not true and not mentioned in any form in the Minnesota State Building Code. That meant, in his interpretation, that the Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (GREB) and provisions for Existing Buildings were inapplicable. Instead, we were forced to take a very old building and make it energy compliant. This immediately led to soaring construction costs.
After numerous revisions of the architectural plans (about 17) and continual delays in receiving a building permit we filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (MN DOLI). The MN DOLI investigator concluded various wrongdoings by the building inspector including: Failing to complete on-site inspection cards (recording inspections, particularly areas check, okayed, or listed deficiencies); failing to follow GREB; failing to allow exceptions for existing buildings (energy codes); and failing to issue all orders in writing. The building inspector was censured.
The failure of the building inspector to put requests in writing, despite numerous requests, led to ongoing ambiguity. We were attempting to get a temporary certificate of occupancy only to find the verbal demands changed every time we met them.
The costs of the flagrant and intentional abuses of the building code by the building inspector and plan reviewer cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars.
During the course of the MN DOLI investigation, the building inspector took up arms with the architect, and made repeated trespasses, as well as forced inspections, onto our property. These trespasses only became known when the township attorney wrote a letter to us alleging building code violations. The attorney himself became threatening, daring us to sue the township for wrongdoing.
This followed a previous trespass by the fire chief of Thomson Township who claimed he was looking for the owners to talk about the pile of wood slats outside. There was not a single car in either lot, the doors were locked, and yet he made entry to a locked door. There were no phone calls, no verbal communication, or handwritten message left. How? We suspect the township retained keys after the sale that allowed them entry to doors that had not been changed yet. We are guessing that the building inspector made entry the same way.
Trespassing charges were filed with Thomson Township in June, 2009, who proceeded to give them to the Carlton County Attorney. After constant prodding, Attorney Pertler reluctantly said he would pursue it. Nearly two years later, his office has not taken a single action. The attorney general’s office claimed county attorneys, like township officials, enjoy autonomy, and the scope of their office was limited. If you are wronged you can vote them out was their [Attorney General’s] advice. Sure, but who is going to pursue justice for the trespassing?
The duties of a county attorney is listed under Minn. Stat. § 388.051, and include under Subd. 1: The county attorney shall: …(c) prosecute…to the extent prescribed by law, gross misdemeanors, misdemeanors, petty misdemeanors, and violations of municipal ordinances, charter provisions and rules or regulations. Like the building inspectors, township officials, and plan reviewers, why should the county attorney do his job, there is no punishment for doing nothing. There's also no punishment for doing the wrong thing.
The MN DOLI stopped short of suspending the building inspector’s license even though it was appropriate. The county attorney told the owner’s he would not pursue anything while the case was being litigated because it might help them. The very suggestion that he was not doing his [Thomas Pertler’s] job because of its’ possible implication shows unethical and unprofessional conduct. Then again, they have “autonomy.”
The MN DOLI sends all of its findings to its legal department who undoubtedly water it down to matters that make it difficult to sue. More appalling is that the MN DOLI would not even defend its own department when asked to submit amicus curiae briefs to the courts. This brief would have defended their legislative right to overseeing building inspectors, removing this right from the discretion of state court judges. They simply sat on the sideline while their own statutory authority was undermined. This allows the court to bastardize all meaning of the "true laws" governing state building codes.
We filed a lawsuit believing the “law of reparation” applied equally to all citizens. We tried getting representation by an attorney, but their idea of “contingency” meant you paying all of their legal fees and then them getting a large portion of the award, if any. The risk is all yours. If attorneys commit malpractice, there is little you can do. You will be very lucky to find any attorney to try the case and then it will cost you a fortune. If you try it before their so-called "ethics" panel you will gravely disappointed. This is mostly a panel of attorneys protecting attorneys. Their influence over the non-lawyers is apparent and the entire process is intended to kill your spirit and willingness to sue.
Article 1, Bill of Rights (MN) Section 1, includes, “…Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people…” Section 8: “…Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person, property or character…” This is a great principle, and a part of our state constitution, but if it is not enforced, justice is not done. Unfortunately, our state has repeatedly failed to uphold our state and federal constitutional rights.
How could we lose when trespass itself is an intentional tort, the MN DOLI’s had censured the building inspector, and the belief of three different attorneys that our chances of winning were good. We believed if you did wrong, you paid for it. The township had already railroaded us into bankruptcy, so how could we proceed in court? The irony of being wronged is that you are often left distressed, exhausted, and flat broke. Everywhere you turn no one wants to help, and others are trying to capitalize on your situation. We refused to believe that the constitution did not have value anymore, or that our Creator would create or desire such an imbalance of power among people. Were we not all created equal with unalienable rights? We dug in and decided to move forward, representing ourselves [Pro Se].
The discovery process immediately went awry as the information the township agreed to provide, suddenly was kept under the guise of “The Minnesota Data Practices Act [MDPA].” Our legislature had granted all townships outside of five metropolitan areas as exempt from the MDPA. The Minnesota Association of Townships simply says that townships should voluntarily provide information upon reasonable requests. Guess what, reasonable to a township in a lawsuit is to share nothing that might hurt them. During legal discovery, Thomson Township repeatedly claimed protection from sharing certain information due to their rights under the MDPA – rights they did not have as the MDPA did not apply. Pursuant to discovery guidelines under the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedures, they should have been compelled to answer, yet they did not. The implication was that they would force us to pay additional costs to have discovery requests properly answered. When you are dead broke, you have to choose your battles and many of ours were decided for us early on.
The Request for Admissions from one of the defendants [Plan Reviewer] was not only improperly answered but also untimely. Generally, in most states at least, the admissions would be entered into the record as “admitted.” However, when the hearing to have admissions admitted was held, the court [Judge Dale A. Wolf] stated that Minnesota is a liberal state and granted the defendant additional time. The lack of abidance to any timeline guarantees abuse – and why not, if it buys you time and results in additional costs to the other party. Minnesota has effectively established a judicial system loaded with ways to abuse the due process rights of individuals. The only ones benefitting from this abuse are lawyers and judges, as they get more court time. Ultimately, all of these costs for the courts, court reporters, bailiffs, etc. roll onto the taxpayer.
After the discovery process was completed, cementing some positions while leaving others unanswered, the defendants filed for summary judgment seeking dismissal. With little more than a defense of “immunity”, the court [Judge Dale A. Wolf] granted their request. We argued the many exceptions to immunity under Minnesota Statute 466.03, including the failure to perform ministerial and operational level duties. Ministerial duties constitute your mandatory duties and lack discretionary aspects altogether. Operational level duties are day-to-day by definition, and lack the policy-making decisions that are generally covered by immunity. Trespass, being an intentional tort itself, should have been enough to defeat claims of immunity. The court engaged itself in a game of “court gamesmanship” when it continually questioned the cause of action for proceeding to trial. The claims clearly included gross negligence as covered by the Minnesota Tort Claims Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Just a few rows back from the defendants attorneys, sat the Thomson Township attorney and an attorney he worked with, laughing and whispering. This was a joke to all of them, and it showed with the little defense they gave, and needed, to get their desired judgment. As Stephanie Angolkar, attorney for defendants Thomson Township etal., stated to the court, if it proceeded to trial, all claims to immunity would be lost. They certainly did not want to go to trial and have their defense based on real merit because they would not win before a jury. In fact, we had a lawyer lined up to take the case if we got it to trial because they knew at that point it was over.
Judge Wolf said the censuring was nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Wolf also interpreted the trespassing as minor. In response to the violation of ministerial and operational level duties, Judge Wolf gave an example of what would constitute acting outside the scope of a building inspectors duties. He explained that if an inspector took a special attraction to a tenant and entered after hours and sexually assaulted her that would be outside the scope of duties. Are you kidding me? We would be talking about a criminal matter and not one of exceeding your scope of authority. This judge needs to be sent into retirement with County Attorney Thomas Pertler, and Judge Macauley as soon as possible. This county deserves individuals of virtue running the legal system, not these people who pick and choose winners and losers based on prejudice, bias, and affiliations.
