Final call for amicus curiae briefs

Dear advocates of true democracy;

Your help is needed in pleading the rights of citizens to transparent local governments, ethical and professional government services, and the right to privacy in one's own homes. None of these basic rights were afforded us, yet the local authorities are not compelled by law to answer to their wrongs. The MN Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) does not apply to any municipalities or townships outside of the metro Minneapolis/St Paul area and left no recourse to us for the numerous wrongs committed by the local townships' building inspector and fire chief. If you will read our petition to the U.S. Supreme Court you will understand the trials and tribulations we endured from a township that flexed its uninhibited power to determine local winners and losers. When finding out the MGDPA did not apply to them, the township refused to answer discovery requests. They destroyed us emotionally and financially as they have with many others. We have taken this as far as we can alone, and need your help in supporting us via an Amicus Curiae brief. Please look at our case and let us know what you decide.

We'll pray for your participation in such grave matters of constitutional rights. See docketed case at U.S. Supreme Court below.  The time is now.

Sincerely,

Marvin Pirila & Gail Francette
1 N Cloquet Rd W
Esko, MN 55733
(218) 391-2876
marvindp@msn.com

No. 11-887 Title: Marvin Pirila, et al., Petitioners v. Thomson Township, Minnesota, et al. Docketed: January 20, 2012 Lower Ct: Court of Appeals of Minnesota Case Nos.: (A11-276) Decision Date: August 22, 2011 Discretionary Court Decision Date: October 26, 2011 ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jan 13 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 21, 2012) Jan 13 2012 Appendix of Marvin Pirila, et al. filed (Volumes 1 & 2). Jan 23 2012 Waiver of right of respondents Thomson Township, Minnesota, et al. to respond filed. Jan 26 2012 Waiver of right of respondent Duane Grace to respond filed.

---

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Marvin Pirila	1 N Cloquet Rd W	(218) 391-2876
	Esko, MN 55733
Party name: Marvin Pirila, et al.
Attorneys for Respondents:
Paul Donald Reuvers	9321 Ensign Avenue South	(952) 548-7200
Counsel of Record	Bloomington, MN 55438
Party name: Thomson Township, Minnesota, et al.
Steven L. Reyelts	332 West Superior Street, Suite 700	(218) 727-6833
Counsel of Record	Duluth, MN 55802-1801
Party name: Duane Grace

Unconstitutional Inspection Scheme

By Dana Barliner

 On December 28, 2011, the Minnesota Supreme Court handed down an important victory for Red Wing property owners and renters, and for citizens across the state of Minnesota. The court allowed a property rights case to go forward that had been tied up by procedural wrangling for more than five years. The case challenges Red Wing’s rental inspection program, under which the city can enter and inspect people’s homes without any evidence that a code violation has taken place. The decision, which seriously examined the facts of the case and the practical impact of the law on plaintiffs’ rights, is a model of judicial engagement.

Nine landlords and two tenants from Red Wing, Minn.—who are represented by IJ—object to Red Wing’s rental inspection law. Many cities across Minnesota—including Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth and Rochester—have ordinances like Red Wing’s that allow government officials to conduct housing inspections of all rented homes in the city, even if the tenant refuses to consent to the search and even if the government has no reason to believe there is a problem with the rental home or even with the building.

Red Wing’s unconstitutional inspection program allows government inspectors to poke around in practically every nook and cranny of rented homes—even closets and bathrooms. Over the past four years, Red Wing had tried three times to get what are called “administrative” warrants to force entry into these homes after the tenants and landlords refused to consent to the searches. Unlike a typical search warrant, an “administrative” warrant does not require individual probable cause—in other words, the government does not need any evidence that the law has been violated. It simply says there is a general reason to search. In the case of rental inspection programs, cities simply say that they have an inspection program and that they need to conduct searches in order to make sure everyone is complying with all housing codes. If the administrative warrant is granted, the government is then free to search the homes of renters against their wishes.

Even though Red Wing had been trying aggressively to get these warrants to search our clients’ homes and properties, and even though Red Wing had stated unequivocally that it would continue to seek entry to the homes, both the trial and appeals courts had said that the tenants and landlords did not have standing to challenge the rental inspection law. It looked like our clients were going to have to wait until after an unconstitutional search in order to challenge it. Now, thanks to the Minnesota Supreme Court, the courthouse door is open and our clients will find out if the law is constitutional before it is used against them.

As the Minnesota Supreme Court pointed out, “The City has actually begun enforcing the rental inspection ordinance against appellants.” Therefore, there is a real dispute over our clients’ rights, and the courts can proceed to address whether the law is unconstitutional.

Landlord Robert McCaughtry, one of our clients, has had enough of the city’s inspection program. He said, “It is wrong for the city to force its way into people’s homes without any evidence of a problem or code violation. I’m grateful that we’ll finally get our opportunity to show that this program is unconstitutional.”

The Minnesota Supreme Court sent the case back to the Minnesota Court of Appeals to consider whether the Minnesota Constitution forbids administrative search warrants, particularly administrative search warrants for people’s homes. We argue, to the contrary that the Minnesota Constitution requires actual probable cause to believe that someone is violating the law before the government may conduct a search against someone’s will. If we are successful, the decision will protect all Minnesotans and set important precedent throughout the country.

Dana Berliner is IJ's [Institute of Justice] litigation director.  Take this link to the Institute of Justice Newsletter....

Are we a movement of inaction?

We are in a period of time in the United States where all can be saved or lost in a matter of a couple short years.  If we don't act now, everything our forefathers and country men sacrificed will have been for nothing.  If we fail to change course our children will have little to look forward too and the American Dream will officially be gone.  The United States Constitution is the greatest man-made document on the face of the planet.  The only greater document came from God's word, the Bible.  This country and every citizen of this once great country cannot turn away from God's truth, and the principles embedded in the constitution.  In God we Trust.  Read the latest article on "Are we a movement of inaction?"

Supreme Court of the United States - Docket No. 11-887

The case of:

Marvin Pirila, et al.
                    (Petitioners)

                              v.                                           No. 11--887

Thomson Township, et al.
                   (Respondent)

is now on docket at the Supreme Court of the United States at .......

All amicus curaie briefs are now due within 30 days.  If you are behind individual rights, the limited powers of government, and just plain decency, please file your briefs now.