Thursday, November 15, 2012

U.S. Entitlements – How do you pay for them?

By Marvin Pirila - Writer of the blog

The majority of American’s polled before the election wanted their politicians to eliminate deficit spending and reduce the national debt.  The best duo possible, Romney and Ryan, were right there and ready to deliver.  However, when it came time to vote, the population cast their votes to stay the same course we have been on the last four years.  As the record shows, that means increased deficit spending and enormous additions to the national debt while entitlement programs skyrocket in cost.

As we approach the $16.5 trillion mark in national debt, run annual deficits in excess of $1 trillion, and have unfunded liabilities of $121.4 trillion (Medicare, Social Security, and Prescription Drug Liability), where is this money going to come from?  This country has to come up with $1,058,059 per taxpayer right now, as of November 9, 2012, just to fund what these funds are already behind.  With the population of baby boomers rising and the number of disability claims being added each day, it will take much more.

There could not have been a worse time for Obamacare.  Obamacare is going to cost this country dearly in terms of unemployment, economic growth, and tax revenues.  Obamacare should be renamed ObamaScare as it scared businesses, incentives, and jobs away from the U.S.  It is undoubted the largest entitlement program ever. In October of 2012, the average American household’s share of this spending was $29,691, roughly two-thirds of median household income. 

Our best path to economic growth, surplus revenues, employment, and debt reduction was on the table, laid down by Romney and Ryan.  The cornerstone of job growth, GNP growth, lower inflation, and higher tax revenues was by developing our natural resources, coal, natural gas, and oil.  This plan went away with the re-election of President Obama.  Obama is against drilling for oil, coal use, or even piping in oil from our #1 supplier Canada.  His energy plan is wind and solar, whose time simply has not come of age yet.  Obama's policies favor higher gas prices, which would make wind, and solar technologies more competitive.  Nothing that takes manipulation to be competitive is yet ready for the broad based market.

The only plan on the White House table now to increase revenue is to tax the richest 1% much higher.  This will have only a negligible effect, if any noticeable difference whatsoever.  Their plan to reduce spending is to cut the military outlays by $1 trillion.  This comes at the most volatile time internationally since World War II.  The volatility of Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and other Middle Eastern countries makes one question the move to weaken our military.  Russia remains a staunch supporter of Iran and Syria, using its UN vetoes to kill all UN action on either of these countries.  After using its veto to kill action to help Syria, Russia then supplied weapons and other assistance to the Syrian government.  Russia, under Putin, is not trustworthy and routinely takes actions that undermine the U.S. internationally.

Obama says he is going to close tax loopholes without specifying which ones.  Any fair and objective view of this administration show no real plan to balance the budget, reduce the deficit, and fund our unfunded liabilities.  The reason there is no plan on the table is that the real plan is too disturbing for public consumption.  The real plan is to bring this country to its knees.  The only “Forward” place we are headed is over the cliff.  This administration is working extra to outspend its revenues, outpacing every administration since this country’s founding.

Since Medicare and Social Security was established, Congress and the President have been raiding its coffers to pay bills it readily took on in excess of the revenues coming in.  Debt enslaves us, and our debt has never been so large, and growing so quickly.  What this country needed was someone to lead them into prosperity, not one who would lead them into destitution.

Obama’s plan to tax the rich at higher and higher rates will not help American’s financial crisis.  The biggest and most painful job as a politician is to tighten the belt on spending, and in our status, very tight.  One reason Romney and Ryan lost the election was that their plans were to take those painful steps to restore our economic strength.  The problem now is that too many American’s are addicted to government handouts.  Too many are worried more about what they can get rather than what is best for their country, their kids, and the future.  They voted to squander the well being of the next generation to receive free handouts for themselves.  This short-term vision and the “me” concern has to give way to reasonable sacrifices for the long term benefit of the country and its citizens.  The sacrifice people should be willing to make is to get only what they need from the government to get back on their feet again after a layoff, injury, or other setback.  Our government designed itself to care for the truly needy or temporarily in need while looking for work.  The capable must work, doing whatever they must to survive.  All honest work is honorable and even if it is not your ideal job, you should keep it until you can find the job you want.  Sitting at home when you are fully capable of working is immoral when you are feeding off the taxpayer’s hard work.

Romney and Ryan had a plan to cut entitlement programs Obama does not.  Obama is not going to change course, because his course, unlike the desire of many Americans is not to cut spending in any significant way, if at all.  Obama has not taken responsibility in four years so why should anyone believe he suddenly would now.  Significant change will only occur when we have a leader willing to accept responsibility for fixing our situation rather than blaming everyone else.  Many American’s give him an endless pass because they refuse to examine the facts, instead relying on the media in its short snippets to form their opinion for them.

The answer to our economic problems is simple but there is no one in office with the backbone to carry it out. 

  • Cut all subsidies to oil and alternative energies.  Allow the free market to determine their period of relevance.
  • Cut all funding to the overly bureaucratic and stifling United Nations.  The corrupt U.N. duplicates existing services and accomplishes nothing.  A single veto ends action on any important matters.  The U.S. will always share different values and beliefs than the rest of the world, and making concessions of any kind is dangerous to our way of life.
  • Abandon the notion of Global Warming, and its redistribution undertones.  Cut funding to the Kyoto Protocol that governs carbon emissions – Canada did.  Canada's Piers Corbyn, the founder of the Weather Action Foundation, concluded, “carbon dioxide is controlled by world temperatures rather than the other way around.”  Corbyn states that solar activity, not carbon dioxide, is behind climate change.  He again stated, “Carbon dioxide has zero effect, I repeat: zero effect, no effect whatsoever.”  Corbyn says that solar activity, not carbon dioxide, is behind climate change.

    “I don’t believe in man-made climate change because there is no evidence for it. In fact, carbon dioxide is controlled by world temperatures rather than the other way around,” he told RT. “Climate change is going on, and the key aspects of the big, very extreme events that happened in the last 18 months were predicted by us, the Weather Action, using solar activity.

    Corbyn believes the Kyoto protocol is a semi-fraudulent scheme aimed at wasting public funds, which could otherwise have a better use.

    “It is a complete waste of time.  It’s a waste of public money. It’s a gravy train for so-called scientists looking into things that don’t exist, and, of course, for the governments to impose taxations, and oil companies to increase oil prices on the back of increasing energy prices – which is the thing demanded by the global warming’s nonsense lobby,” he explained.
            Global temperatures rise as more sun hits the earth, particularly when it rests on             water.  Water covers 70% of the earth’s surface, and is a huge carbon sink.  As the oceans warm, the waters release more carbon, and the effect of this carbon release is more warming.  More cloud cover leads to less carbon emissions, and lower             temperatures.  This is in stark contrast to Al Gore’s infamous claims that carbon             dioxide is the sole cause of global warming. 

  • Cut all agricultural subsidies and let farmers rely on crop insurance to protect against losses.
We cannot afford any expense that is not necessary.  The simple existence of government grants/subsidies produces an imbalance in the free market.  A subsidy of one commodity and not another encourages production that is not based on supply and demand.  Crops may be grown only because the government is subsidizing it rather than because of consumer demand.  If something cannot make it in the free market on its own, it is unneeded or the price is too high.

The government should not be deciding what pet projects get green lighted, because this encourages pandering to political supporters.  Worse yet is that this pandering comes on the backs of taxpayers, many of whom would not agree with their funding.  Ethanol is a perfect example of politics at its very worst.  Corn-based ethanol was an early attempt to cut the use of fossil fuels, but was quickly determined to use more fuel in its production than it produced.  Still, taxpayers paid tens of billions of dollars subsidizing a losing venture that wasted food and feed stock as well.  Politicians finally cut the subsidy, yet sustain the industry by the government mandate that a certain percentage of government vehicles use alternative fuels.

Any budget considerations have to have true accounting involved.  That means passing legislation that requires gas and food to be included in inflation figures and eliminates manipulation by the White House.

The U.S. has to reduce its regulations if it is going to compete domestically and internationally.  If we cannot produce products at a competitive price, American’s will import more and export less.  There are too many government agencies overseeing and overlapping the same industries.  This overhead hinders the ability of companies to control their costs.

High gas prices increase the cost of nearly everything.  We must achieve energy independence, coupled with the cheap oil available from Canada.  In the process of achieving energy independence, we would create millions of jobs, both direct and indirect, by hydro-fracking for oil/natural gas.  An improved network of pipelines and new refineries could also lower the price of gas. 

Natural Gas

Enormous reserves of natural gas should welcome a higher number of natural gas vehicles.  Natural gas costs, on average 1/3 less to fill a vehicle and with cleaner emissions.  About 98% of the U.S. consumption is produced in the U.S. and Canada. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) predicts that over 98% of natural gas used in the U.S. will come from the U.S. alone by 2030.  A recent study found that the U.S. already has 118 years of natural gas resources itself.

The 1 1/2 million miles of pipelines and distribution lines across the U.S. makes it readily available to nearly anyone.

Natural gas produces 22 to 29% less greenhouse gas emissions than diesel or gasoline-powered vehicles, respectively, and less urban pollution.  Source: State Alternative Fuels Plan, California Energy Commission, Adopted December 5, 2007.

Natural Gas has Renewable Options Too!

Natural gas can be produced from any organic waste or energy crop like switch grass.  Conservative estimates suggest that the U.S. could produce the equivalent of 10 billion barrels of gasoline by producing biomethane (renewable natural gas).  This potential is nearly infinite when biomethane production from cellulosic energy crops is considered.

Unlike Ethanol, natural gas does not compete with food sources, and drive up its prices.  Ethanol also has distribution issues that natural gas doesn't. Greater ethanol use would only create more food shortages and higher prices.

Infrastructure Money Reality

When the government touts infrastructure money as a stimulus to the economy it fails to explain that its benefits directly relate to the project undertaken.  Repaving a road with breaks with it, but still smooth, in a low traveled region will do little to benefit citizens.  On the other hand, a more efficient mass transit system in heavier traveled regions allow citizens to travel more cheaply, takes more vehicles off the road, and puts more money into their pockets to buy other things.

The Sacrifices Required comes with Benefits

The answer to the debt crisis is simple, but the carry through will take a nation of patriotic citizens willing to live without government entitlement programs.  The sacrifice comes with its own benefits:

  • Greater freedoms to create and innovate through less government interference, namely regulation and taxation
  • Ability to determine our own donations, rather than allowing the government to decide who should get taxpayer money – often in exchange for expected votes
  • Lower taxes due to the elimination of unneeded entitlement programs, grants, and subsidies
  • Lower gas prices due to domestic production, lowering the cost of most goods
  • More jobs due to the millions of direct and indirect jobs created by tapping our natural resources, including coal
  • The end of entitlements leads to less lobbyists, less lobbying, and a stronger voice of the individual rather than special interest groups
  • Less borrowing from foreign countries, and less interest being paid to them
  • A stronger dollar that buys more from other countries 

Paying our Public Debt is an American's Responsibility

Ultimately, it is our responsibility to pay our own debts rather to pass it along to the next generation.  In our case, we need to pay for every Congress and Administration that has raided Medicare, Social Security, and Postal Service coffers to pay for some of their incessant spending.

Our Founding Fathers Weighed in on Debt...

“I, however, place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.”  Thomas Jefferson

The Founders recognized the nature of debt for what it is: evil, because it is a form of bondage.  Debt is giving another power over your liberty.  Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “If you cannot pay that time [when the debt is due], you will be ashamed to see your creditor; you will be in fear when you speak to him; you will make poor pitiful sneaking excuses, and by degrees come to lose your veracity [truthfulness], sand sink into base downright lying; for as Poor Richard says, the second vice is lying, the first is running in debt.  And again, to the same purpose, lying rides upon debt’s back.”
The Founding Fathers felt the debts of one generation should be paid for by the generation that incurred them.  The rising generation, they felt, should be both politically, and economically free from the burdens of the previous one.  They felt that passing debts onto the next generation would be forcing the children of the future to be born into a certain amount of bondage or involuntary servitude.  This position would be something for which they neither voted nor subscribed.  Literally, it would mean “taxation without representation” and a blatant violation of a fundamental republican principle.
George Washington stated “No pecuniary [monetary] consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt; on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable.”  (Fitzpatrick, Writings of George Washington, 33:168.)
Our Future or Demise Rests on our willingness to Sacrifice Entitlements.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

What happened to the Employee Theft Claims in Carlton County?

County Commissioners, Thom Pertler, and Jesse Berglund;

In regards to the October 13, 2012 claims of employee theft, what has your office and/or Carlton County done? If nothing, say so.

Leadership isn't silence, hiding, or trying to ignore the truth.
Thank you,
Marvin Pirila


Published October 13, 2012, 06:58 AM

Carlton County addresses charges of employee theft

A 29-year employee of Carlton County’s building and maintenance department lodged a verbal complaint this week with the Carlton County Board about alleged time-stealing and theft by employees.
By: Wendy Johnson, Pine Journal

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Entitlements now deciding elections

As I watch the election unfold for president of the United States I am disturbed by what I see truly occurring.  Michigan goes to Obama - why?  One could say the billions that taxpayers footed for the car industry that Obama took credit for.  The Northeast swung on emotions in favor of Obama because of Hurricane Sandy - leaving logic and reason behind them.  Why?  Hope of endless government help. Romney would provide the same help but coordinate efforts better and wouldn't have needed, after four years, to borrow money from China to pay for it.  Romney would have made it more than a photo shoot.

During the oil spill, where the hell was Obama?  He was letting things get worse so he could further his agenda.  He turned away help from other countries that would have helped contain the situation much faster.  Does everyone have such short memories they forget how he really handles catastrophes?  Look at the tornado disaster in Joplin, Missouri, that he ignored and denied FEMA assistance too.  If there wasn't an impending election Obama wouldn't even have shown for the short photo-shoot.  Oblama would have been golfing or hanging with an ignorant celebrity.  And what about Benghazi?  Endless lies, cover ups, and blame is all we ever got.  If Obama gets re-elected he'll do what he did to the Fast and Furious Scandal and the Black Panther voter intimidation scandal, and simply kill them.  Transparency in Obama's eyes means smoke and mirrors, lies and deception, manipulation and endless rhetoric.

Whatever the result tonight, this country is in big, big trouble, because almost 50% of this country wants handouts, instead of working for their own.  We will become the largest Greece protege' anywhere.  We will cease to be a world power, cease to be a democracy, and cease to have any voice of true, working, honest Americans.  The freedom earned by our service women and men will have been squandered for the hope of redistribution and handouts.  We will take from the rich and give to the poor, then take from those left with more than others and give that to the bottom until everyone is equal, destitute, poor, and without hope.  Meanwhile, Obama and his cronies will be the elitists determining what rations we get while he lives high with buddy George Soros, William Ayers, and Warren Buffett.

Obama played a pivotal role as ACORNs lawyer in bring the subprime crisis he is famous for blaming Bush for.  Hell, what doesn't he blame Bush for?  He's a leader from behind.  Says it all doesn't it.  Apparently not, because a large part of the population likes to hear his rhetoric and save his catch phrases for arguments against logic and reason.  "Things are getting better, we have created 4 million jobs."  Really, and I have swamp land that's going to simply rise into mountains of gold.  If you've ever quoted one of Obama's ridiculous lies, you are an idiot.

If you think Obama is suddenly going to make things better, look no farther than the last four years...and look beyond his lying speech secretaries and look at the facts.  This guy has done nothing his whole life that benefitted Americans  --- NOTHING.  Take a look in the mirror because you are the sucker that everyone used to always joke about.

Where will the handouts come from once we can't borrow anymore money or print anymore because we've killed every tree printing money?  Quit worshipping Obama and start reading some real facts.  Then and only then will you see what a buffoon you really are and how you sacrificed a great country for some idealistic fantasy world where money comes from the sky, we don't have to work, and everyone is happy, happy, happy.

If you think things are bad now, just wait until Obama doesn't have to worry about a reelection.  Businesses are closing down and moving overseas.  Gas prices are going to go through the roof because Obama has killed all oil leases to federal lands, is anti-oil, and anti-Keystone.  We are simply doomed and everyone of you that voted for Obama, if elected, have accepted responsibility for America's official end as a great country.

Excuse me now, I see Obama is leading in the electoral vote, so I need to throw up, then slash my wrists.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

How ACORN, Obama, and Bill Clinton started the sub prime crisis

ACORN that is continually in trouble for voter fraud also pushed the sub prime mortgage crisis that has destabilized our economy.  Disturbingly, Barack Obama promised ACORN that it was going to shape our national agenda.

ACORN was started in the 1970’s by Radicals George Wiley & Wade Rathke, with input from sociologists, Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, started ACORN in the 1970's.  All of them are neo-Marxist ideologists.

ACORN is made up of several legally distinct parts including local non-profits, a national lobbying organization, and the ACORN Housing Corporation.  ACORN is partisan and always aligned with the Democratic Party on policy.

Obama began to work for ACORN via Project Vote in 1992 and as a trainer for the "power" seminars.  ACORNs "People’s Platform Preamble" includes "We are an uncommon people. We are the majority, forged from all minorities.  We are the masses of many, not the forces of few.  We will continue our fight until the American way is just one way, until we have shared the wealth, until we have won our freedom...This is not a simple vision, but a detailed plan...Our plan is to build an American reality from the American rhetoric, to deliver a piece of the present and the fruits of the future to every man, to every woman, to every family...We demand our birthright: the chance to be rich, the right to be free… "

Their goal is expressed when they state, “We will continue our fight until the American way is just one way, until we have shared the wealth, until we have won our freedom.”  They have committed their organization and resources to pursue their agenda.  Only when things are their way and wealth is redistributed to their liking, they will have won their freedom.  Not only do they have right to be rich, but also they deserve it by simply being born.

Although Obama denies ties to ACORN, he has been recorded as making this exact quote.  "I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career.  Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work." -- Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007.

Obama publicly endorsed ACORN and then paid them more than $800,000 for its voter registration efforts.  ACORN used a lot of this money for voter registration fraud.  Obama's campaign disguised these payments in its' FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work."  After initially telling the Federal Election Commission this money was for "staging, sound, lighting," Obama's campaign later admitted the cash was to get out the vote.

Obama was ACORN's attorney in the "Motor Voter" case instrumental in organizing "Project VOTE" in 1992.  The sole purpose of these activities was to destroy the integrity of the voting system.

Obama’s involvement with ACORN has been concealed in part by the wiping the web clean of potentially damaging articles that had appeared, and were previously publicly accessible.

The article, The Barack Obama Campaign, written by Toni Foulkes in 2004, a Chicago ACORN Leader, was published in the journal Social Policy.  Foulkes wrote, "Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar (the name of the Republican governor at the time) and we won.  Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992.  Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office.  Thus it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends."

Obama’s campaign website in 2008 would deny this association stating:  "Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity."

Acting as ACORN’s lawyer, Obama sued Illinois in 1993, to make voter registration laxer.  The intent of relaxing voter registration rules was to allow illegal votes to occur.  This appears to be the Democratic purpose in its objection to the Voter ID amendments.  Why wouldn't you want voter ID laws unless you were going to benefit from it?  The Democrats favor illegal votes that would put themselves into office rather than protect the rights of true Americans.

Obama sued Citibank (Buycks-Roberson) as ACORNs attorney in 1994 to force them into giving sub prime loans to homebuyers with poor credit ratings, setting the stage for the mortgage meltdown.  As one commentator noted in May 2008, legal "successes" such as this were probably responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2007 AND 2008.  That is, banks were not loaning to blacks whose credit was poor.  When the law forced them to lend money anyway, the inevitable collapse occurred.  [Yes, the very reasons for the mortgage meltdown was what Obama and ACORN fought for and then when it melted down, blamed President Bush and Wall Street.]  After obtaining a settlement in the Citibank litigation, ACORN used its subsidiary organization ACORN Housing, a nationwide organization with offices in more than 30 U.S. cities, to push the group's radical agenda to get sub prime home buyers mortgages under the most favorable terms possible.

ACORN’s tactical plan derives from the Rules for Radicals by Marxist Saul Alinsky.  These rules claim the ends justify the means, be it by ridicule, lies, cheating, etc.  The rules include holding the virtuous to exaggerated and impossible standards, while not playing by their rules.  One of the chief objectives is to sell "change."  The result of that change is an enforced "egalitarian" (Marxist) society.  Obama has taught these "rules."  Who can argue that Obama has not employed these means extensively since 2008 by lying, selling change, and holding the virtuous to exaggerated, impossible standards?

ACORN founders’ strategy has been the Cloward-Piven Strategy -- to overcommit government, growing it past the point of sustainability by causing crises. This, while developing an organized proletariat of dependent classes and applying them to disrupt society and revolt against American freedoms. All, to ring in the new "egalitarian" (neo-Marxist) state. That would be a big "change."  [This is exactly what has happened during Obama’s first term as President.  We have heard endless rhetoric pushing class warfare, social programs, and endless entitlements.]

Cloward, Piven, and ACORN’s leaders pushed to greatly expand America’s welfare roles.  Rudy Giuliani cited Cloward-Piven for an "economic sabotage" that led to the 1975 bankruptcy of New York City.  Obama is just another ACORN protégé who truly wishes to expand welfare rolls as opposed to increasing work rolls.

ACORN was a driving force for the revised Community Reinvestment Act of 1995, pushing sub prime mortgages through a eager Fannie Mae.  This allowed ACORN to pressure mortgagors to grant bad loans to bad risk homebuyers in the name of helping the poor.  Many of the poor were hurt further, while Fannie Mae prospered.  Their personnel gave Obama‘s campaign $126,349.

ACORN, claiming a membership of 400,000, is funded in part by wealthy, anti-American radicals such as George Soros and our tax dollars.  George Soros and Barrack Obama have ties and share similar interests, namely in destroying our free markets.

Barack Obama spent a lot of time disassociating himself from political partners such as his relationship with William Ayers.  Ayers is the unrepentant domestic terrorist of the Weather Underground and a man who still wants the overthrow of the capitalist economic system in the U.S.

Obama played a key role in the domino affect that led to the housing crisis we now endure.  Obama had a part in the lawsuit that started the government on a course of forcing lenders to give more loans to those who had poor credit.  Lending companies were forced to come up with imaginative ways of fulfilling the quota that was required.  Sub-prime lending was born as a result.  Many who were able to look beyond the quota forecast the mortgage crisis.

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation eased the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders, ... under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration.  The roots of the financial crisis go back to 1993, when Fannie and Freddie began stocking up on sub prime and other risky loans while reporting them as prime.

"  Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990s by reducing down payment requirements," said Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer.  "Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called sub prime market."

Fannie Mae took on significantly more risk when it entered the sub prime market.  This risk can be sustained during good economic times but inevitably come to a horrendous conclusion in a downturn.  The economic downturn came, as it always does in an up and down free market, and the government-subsidized corporation ran into trouble.  This led to a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry of the 1980s.

The meltdown in sub prime home mortgages has been widely regarded as a major contributing cause of the current recession that officially began in December 2008 after two consecutive quarters of negative growth in gross domestic product, or GDP.

During 2008, the Obama presidential campaign attempted to distance the candidate from ACORN voter fraud by arguing that the U.S. Department of Justice was on the same side of the Citibank case as was lawyer Obama, reflecting the Clinton Administration's determination to expand homeownership among the poor.

Obama administration's $787 economic stimulus package allowed ACORN access to approximately $2 billion for non-profit "neighborhood stabilization" non-governmental organizations.  Some of those funds could be allocated to ACORN to buy abandoned or foreclosed homes in impoverished neighborhoods, with the intent to rehabilitate them for resale or rental.

After the sub prime crisis had already started in 2007, Obama said that sub prime mortgages that gave houses to people who couldn't afford them was a good idea.  It was a good idea under Obama that he would then blame on George Bush Jr. for four years and running.  He can openly think it is a great idea until it collapses, then like his other ideas becomes someone else's.

The Treasury Department, under the advice the administration, removed the $400 billion cap to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac solvent.  These two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are responsible for one of the worst policy disasters in history.  The GSEs had begun buying risky loans in 1993 (under Clinton) to meet the "affordable housing" requirements established under congressional direction by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Most of the damage was done from 2005 through 2007, when Fannie and Freddie were binging on risky mortgages.  Democrat Barney Frank denied that there was any cause for concern, and claimed that he wanted to "roll the dice" on subsidized housing support.

By the end of 2008, Fannie and Freddie held or guaranteed approximately 10 million sub prime and Alt-A mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBS).  These risky loans had a total principal balance of $1.6 trillion.  These are now defaulting at unprecedented rates, accounting for both their 2008 insolvency and their growing losses today.  Since 2008, under government control, the two agencies have continued to buy dicey mortgages in order to stabilize housing prices.

Research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae and a housing expert, found that from the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly sub prime or Alt-A.

There were 26 million-sub prime and Alt-A loans outstanding in 2008:  10 million by Fannie and Freddie, 5.2 million by other government agencies, and 1.4 million were on the books of the four largest U.S. banks.  In addition, about 7.7 million sub prime and Alt-A housing loans were in mortgage pools supporting MBS issued by Wall Street banks.  These later pools had long before been driven out of the prime market by Fannie and Freddie's government-backed, low-cost funding.  The vast majority of these MBS were rated AAA, because the rating agencies' models assumed that the losses that are incurred by sub prime and Alt-A loans would be within the historical range for the number of high-risk loans known to be outstanding.

Fannie and Freddie's problems mounted in large part to HUD's affordable housing regulations that required that in 2007 that 55% of all the loans the agencies acquired had to be made to borrowers at or below the median income, with almost half of these required to be low-income borrowers.

An article by Professor David Walls directly connects Rathke’s ACORN to Alinsky, ACORN’s mission of pressuring banks to issue risky mortgages, and the alliance between ACORN and unions:   ACORN announced: "On Feb. 19, ACORN members will launch a new tactic in fighting foreclosures: civil disobedience.  Participants in the ACORN Home Savers campaign nationwide will simply refuse to move out of foreclosed homes, or in some cases, will move back in.  ACORN homesteaders intend to squat in their homes until a comprehensive, federal solution for people facing foreclosure is put in place."

ACORN offices trained teams of "Home Savers" described as "people ready and willing to mobilize on short notice to defend the homesteaders against attempts to evict them."

Obama clearly follows these beliefs and almost daily encourages civil disobedience (Occupy Wall Street), class warfare (the 1%), social warfare (redistribution), partisan politics (never works with Republicans), the blame game (it's everyone else's fault, especially Bush's), and race warfare.

The Clinton Administration found that ACORN was misspending government grants designed to help counsel the poor.  Yet, Bill Clinton is now out stumping for Obama on the campaign trail.  Do you feel like most of us that Bill is more than a little reluctant representing someone he clearly does not believe in?  When Bill wins the Oscar later this year, we will finally recognize him for the actor he has been forced to become on Hillary's behalf.

A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19, 2008, The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a "a game changer."

Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the committee what she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s Washington, D.C. office.  The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms. Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against ACORN, she had been a "confidential informant for several months to The New York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom."

Ms. Moncrief had been providing Ms. Strom with information about ACORN’s election activities. Ms. Strom had written several stories based on information Ms. Moncrief had given her.

During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office.

Ms. Moncrief told Ms. Heidelbaugh the campaign had asked her and her boss to "reach out to the maxed-out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN."

Ms. Heidelbaugh then told the congressional panel:  "Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama campaign, Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, "it was a game changer."

Matthew Vadum, a senior editor and analyst with CRC has determined that the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) is best described as a "multi-headed hydra" with over 400,000 member families positioned in 110 cities fiercely opposed to the capitalist system.

"ACORN claims to be non-partisan but there are mountains of evidence that show it is flagrantly partisan," Vadum said. "It celebrates the most left-wing politicians and endorses Democratic Party candidates. Whenever ACORN is called out for activity that might violate their tax status, the standard operating procedure is to deny responsibility and to place the blame on rogue actors.  Their network is deliberately set up to avoid scrutiny and to create confusion."

While the organization’s complicated structure makes is difficult to determine how many affiliates and subsidiaries are tied in with ACORN’s vast apparatus, its connection with organized labor, especially the Service Employees International Union, is well-established, Vadum observed.

In 2008 SEIU spent over $42 million on independent expenditures and communications, more than any other group aside from the Republican and Democratic National Committees, according to  SEIU’s political action committee (PAC) also contributed about $2.3 million to candidates in the 2007-2008 cycle, with 94 percent of its donations going to Democrats.

According to a Washington Examiner article, ACORN has taken in $53.6 million in federal funding since 1994.  The taxpayers has been taken for $53.6 million that ended up in voting fraud scandals and a sub prime mortgage crisis, that ultimately cost this country its worst economy since the Great Depression.  This crisis was backed and supported by ACORN and its equivalent organizations, and was almost exclusively a democratic backed ideology.  All money into ACORNS programs, found its way back in terms of campaign support and money for Democrats.

Everyone may wonder what happened to the investigation and prosecution of ACORN for their crimes...well, nothing.  House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. backed off plans to investigate purported wrongdoing by the liberal activist group ACORN, saying "powers that be" put the kibosh on the idea.

The Washington News Observer published a video of Iowa Rep. Steve King delivering the opening statement at a Congressional forum on ACORN on December 1, 2009.  He said he is convinced that any investigation of ACORN will reflect poorly on the Obama administration, and "...these low roads, following ACORN, do lead to the White House."

King said "We know Obama has worked for ACORN" and he has been part and parcel of that -- Project VOTE in particular. That entire network is something the Chicago organization that now sits in the White House knows a lot about.

King also pointed out that the new White House Counsel -- Robert Bauer -- sent a 7 page letter to the Attorney General last year urging an investigation of President Bush and the McCain Campaign for "alleging that ACORN was promoting fraudulent voter registration activities."

Though the largely Democratic House Appropriations Committee voted against the block of funding for ACORN after voting fraud allegations, Bill Clintons appointee, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Gershon, provided the corrupt ACORN a free pass out of trouble.  Gershon issued a federal injunction against the Congressional funding ban, crying that it ran afoul of the Constitution because under the ban, ACORN was "singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt."  Essentially, Gershon's ruling said ACORN can't be punished now because the Obama administration failed to punish it earlier via a long-overdue, much-needed criminal investigation into the group.

The relationships should trouble you -  ACORN, Obama, Clinton, Democrats -- in regards to the sub prime mortgage crisis.  Yes, the 80's were a good time in America, but did it come at a cost to those of us in the 2000's?  The answer is a resounding YES!  President Obama played a key role in formulating the plan to create the economic crisis and now disavows his role.  His role is undeniable and just another testament to the true character of the man he is.  If you vote for him, you deserve what you get, but for the sake of those who desire accountability and honesty, he isn't the one.

Cut our losses, forget the lies and rhetoric, and get rid of this presidential disaster now!

Note:  We missed what really made the 90's seem great.  Budget surpluses in the late 1990s were fed largely by deep defense cuts that gutted the military, while non-defense discretionary spending continued growing.  Source:  OMB; Historical Tablles, Table 8.7, February 2012.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Obama has a record and it SUCKS!

Since Obama took office things have got incredibly worse:  A comparison of October 25, 2008 and October 25, 2012 makes it very clear.

US Public Debt Subject to Limit rose from $9,000,000,000,000 to $16,030,671,412,941, a 78% increase.   Obama's administration is causing this to balloon through huge deficit spending.

US National Debt rose from $10,433,366,689,774 to $16,205,467,176,477, a 55% increase.

US Federal Spending  rose from $2,936,982,146,347 to $3,551,242,146,184,  a 21% increase.

US Federal Budget Deficit rose from $405,010,552,617 to $1,127,473,808,670,  a 178% increase over revenue.

US Federal Tax Revenue dropped from $2,531,971,593,314 to $2,423,768,372,454, a 4% reduction.

US Debt Held by Foreign Countries rose from $3,438,115,400,099 to  $5,585,703,211,717, a 62% increase

US Total Debt  rose from $50,711,168,783,159 to  $58,616,715,866,103, a 16% increase.

US Population rose from 305,097,473 to 314,648,618, a 3% increase.

US Income Taxpayers rose from 108,597,475 to 114,585,123, up 6%.

Official Unemployed rose from 10,491,375 to 11,959,804, an increase of 14%.   "Obama claims 8% unemployment even though it is really 14%."

Actual Unemployed rose from 13,554,685 to 22,679,005, an increase of 67%.  "More than 9.1 million more actual unemployed; includes underemployed"

US Work Force dropped from 143,858,537 to 143,177,176, or a loss of 681,361 workers.  "The workforce has shrunk as the population has increased 3%.  More than 2 million have given up looking for work."

US Retirees & SSI rose from 50,713,658 to 68,022,345, up 34% "This is a growing problem for everyone as baby boomers retire"

US Families rose from 79,600,700 to 83,465,585, an increase of 5%.

Food Stamp Recipients exploded from 32,549,593 to 47,074,863, an increase of 14,525,270 people which is a 45%  increase.

Federal Reserve Monetary Base  climbed enormously from $1,516,162,591,576 to   $2,654,581,994,932, an increase of 75%. "The Obama administration has continually printed money, exploding the monetary base"

M2 Money Supply rose from $8,123,250,459,443 to $10,209,864,690,259, a 26% increase.  "This increase leads to a weaker dollar, allowing consumers to buy less"

Treasury Securities rose from $1,060,185,018,908 to $1,193,169,805,642,  a 13% increase.  The artificial increase in money led to higher inflation (near 9%) and money buying much less."

Currency and Credit Derivatives  rose from $556,509,519,577,826 to $745,948,701,556,573, a 34% increase.   "Inflation and eroding pay results in less purchasing ability."

US Debt Held by Foreign Countries  increased from $3,438,115,400,099 to $5,582,703,211,717, a 62% increase.  "Money borrowed for stimulus money has been proven to extend recessions."

US Trade Deficit  dropped from $814,870,952,950 to $776,093,242,948, a 5% drop.  "Dropped due to weaker dollar that allows other countries to buy more goods from U.S."

US Trade Deficit with China rose from $266,337,568,297 to $331,613,531,336, a 25% increase.  "U.S. is buying 25% more from China under Obama"

US Imported Oil  rose from $422,439,876,566 to $445,630,062,758, a 5% increase.  "The high price of gasoline under Obama has caused consumers to reduce use."

Imported Oil - OPEC dropped from $193,532,659,480 to $176,304,147,506, a 9% drop.   "The turmoil in Arab countries has led to purchases in other non-OPEC countries.  Also, federal leases
granted under Clinton and Bush helped. Obama has restricted domestic drilling substantially,
particularly on federal lands."
Largest Budget Items
Defense/Wars rose slightly from $661,360,508,310 to $661,760,413,294.  "There was no decrease whatsoever despite Obama's claims.  Actually up by almost $400 million."

Medicare/Medicaid  rose from $651,643,588,036 to $754,861,185,368,  a 16% increase.   "Unavoidable as many baby boomers retire"

Social Security costs rose from $606,465,043,594 to $778,251,601,773, up 28% "Unavoidable as many baby boomers retire"

Interest on Debt  rose from $250,143,248,249.00 to $257,036,584,764.00, a 3% increase.  A lot of this money is going to China.

Income Security  rose  from $249,644,273,836.00 to $365,386,984,245.00, up 46%.

Federal Pensions  rose from $171,678,888,808.00 to $212,535,338,838.00, a 24% increase.

Obama's Scandals 

"Fast and Furious - trading arms to Mexican Cartels used to kill at least one border agent.  Under fire for the administration's role, Attorney General Aric Holder was pardoned by President Obama"

Solyndra - More than $500 million to a solar panel company that didn't produce squat.  This loss was on the backs of taxpayers.
Black Panther Voter Intimidation - Black Panthers interfered with the voting process in violation of federal laws.  The justice department refused to investigate.

Joe Biden's brother received a $1.5 billion contract in Iraq. 

Obama was the first president in U.S. history to have known terrorists visit the White House. 

Obama has turned America's back on it's closest ally in the Middle East - Israel. 

Obama has bowed and apologized to brutal dictators around the world. 

Obama repeatedly lied about the Benghazi, Libya, attack.  He said it was because of a video (Lie), was a rally gone bad (Lie), and that he knew nothing about it (Lie). 

If Obama's birth certificate exists, why spend close to $2 million while failing to show it.  A real certificate can be reproduced for about $10.    The electronic one offered was shown to be a fake by Sheriff Arapio's team.  Why would you create a phony birth certificate?

A leader by definition cannot lead from behind as Obama likes to define himself. 

"The U.S. has stood by while Russia used its veto power to deny U.N. assistance to the Syrian people, then watched as the Soviets armed the Syrian army so it could slaughter more than 30,000 citizens."

"Obama has used Executive Priviledge improperly almost 1,000 times, ignoring Congress, and ultimately the public that depends on its representatives to for its voice.  He is not a dictator although he has performed as one.  His repeated appointment of ""Czars"" is most telling.  Thinking the camera was off when talking to Putin, Obama said he would ""have a little more flexibility after the election.""  If he used executive priviledge excessively in his first term, facing another election, what
do you think he will do in a second term when there is not another election?" 
Obama was the first president ever to ignore National Prayer Day.  Note that this is a day of prayer whatever your faith.

"Obama's bailout plan (Stimulus) favored some companies while destroying others.  The controls were already in place and didn’t' require any government intervention.  Companies in trouble generally enter bankruptcy court and restructure their debt.  Stockholders take that ""known risk"" when investing." 

"Whatever you think of Obamacare, it was rammed down the throats of the American public that were overwhelmingly against it.  To this day no one can explain it, even though Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass the bill to see what's in it.  Ridiculous statement for a ridiculous plan.  Like it or not, it does include language that allows a denial of heath care for some, is administered by the IRS (who is ruthless and poorly managed), and funds Planned Parenthood.  I personally believe that a woman's choice is whether or not she is going to do what she can to avoid pregnancy.  If she is willingly having sex and gets pregnant, the public should not pay for her abortion.  Should the living, yet unborn, be murdered out of convenience to the poor decision of the mother. 

Our country is failing in many respects because of the lack of accountability - hence we have many wanting ""Socialism"" without understanding the personal costs to liberty and freedom.  Look at France.  This should be left to the states, rather than the Federal Government to determine.  A more centralized government puts more power into the hands of fewer people and is a risk to the individual freedoms we now have.   If that's not enough reason, the U.S. already has more than $117 trillion in unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare,  National Debt, etc.)  -- where is this money going to come from for Obamacare?  You cannot continue to print more money without weakening the dollar, killing growth, and creating high inflation.  By nearly any measure we are already bankrupt." 

"Obama bashes Romney for not disclosing what tax loopholes he would close in his quest to increase revenue, but lo and behold, Obama's own, and very recent plan suggests closing loopholes, but not specifically which ones.  Likewise, Obama says nothing about cutting costs and would continue deficit spending.  After 4 years, he still has NO plan.  This country has not gotten one iota better, but has actually declined in every aspect (financially, militarily, socially, etc.)."   "Taxing the very wealthy at higher and higher rates will do nothing to benefit this country or its people.  If you took it all, it wouldn't amount to much, relative to our population and the nations debt.  What it would be is a disincentive to success and investment.  You will see more money go overseas, more businesses go overseas, and less domestic investment.  And if this is social responsibility, what happens after this money is gone and still people are struggling, and they will be more than ever?  Do we go next to those earning over $100,000, then those earning over $50,000, until everyone has exactly the same?  Those deadbeats that could work but won't will get exactly what you do without lifting a finger other than count the money you earned for them?  Is this the future you want for your kids?" 

"Obama promised to bring people together, but the truth is it has never been more divided, and that is his doing.  Class warfare has the poorer blaming the rich for their problems.  Racial warfare was inflamed by this administrations failure to prosecute minority groups and individuals for civil rights violations.  He blames the Republicans and Tea Party for things when he held a majority in both houses and a free path for two years.  Yet, what did accomplish?  I can't think of a single thing." 
The masses seem caught up in the repeated use of words, even when they are blatantly untrue.  Hitler blamed the Jews, Obama blames everyone, but particularly the rich (even though he has many rich friends, like George Soros, Warren Buffett, etc.), Republicans, and the Tea Party.  So many people have been thrown under the bus, the bus had to get a lot more clearance room underneath. 

A "true" leader accepts responsibility, Obama blames everyone else, particularly Bush.  Will he accept responsibility when the next President takes over his devastating mess?  I doubt it.  And the blind sheep of this country will defend him, without the benefit of logic or reason. 

There are no signs the economy is improving, despite some claims "that things are getting better."  They are actually getting worse.  The deficit spending is causing the national debt to soar, inflation is approaching double digits (even though the administration wants you to exclude gas and groceries from the CPI), and wages have stagnated.  Unless you received a roughly 10% pay increase you have lost money.  You would need that much just to stay even (Inflation:  9% + GNP:  1%).  The GNP (Gross National Product has to be at least 3% to be considered healthy), yet in Obama's term it has barely topped 1%.

"A free market has ups and downs, which occur to correct anomalies in the system.  When the Fed manipulates the interest rate they are upsetting the natural system.  Low interest rates boost housing sales but hurt retirees who have investments." 

"The idea of ""redistribution"" is ""socialism"" by definition, and one step from communism.  It really is the consolidation of power into a small group of elitists."

"Four years ago Obama swung the election with a message of hope, but that's all it was - a speech, nothing more.  He's proven that he likes to stand out in front when it comes to speaking, but when it comes to leadership, he likes to lead from behind.  After four years, Obama has no ""real"" record to run on, so he's attempting to make one up.  In fact, the only record he has is one of regular visits to liberal talk shows, celebrity visits, and numerous outings to the golf course.  It makes one wonder if Obama sought the presidency to become a Hollywood celebrity rather than to lead the country out of trouble.  His record clearly suggests "celebrity"" status.  Maybe he can get his own show after being done in office called, ""Motivational deception.""  Given four years to deliver tangible evidence of hope, Obama has none to offer.  Will another round of empty promises win him another term?  We'll see."     

Sunday, October 21, 2012

MN Government Data Practices Act - Responsibility

Deprivation of Individual Rights - The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act

On April 19, 2000, the 81st legislature made one of the worst pieces of legislation ever, allowing townships and municipalities outside of the metropolitan area to withhold information from the public.  This led to concealment of information and was a huge blow to transparency.  This was simply government allowing other other government agencies to operate under the radar.

The Minnesota Senate -- H.F. No. 3501 (Data Practices Act)  was read the third time, as amended, and placed on its final passage.

The question was taken on the passage of the bill, as amended.
The roll was called, and there were yeas 61 and nays 0, as follows [Not a single vote for citizens]: 
Those who voted in the affirmative were:
Kelly, R.C.
Kelley, S.P.


Saturday, October 20, 2012

Trespassing in Thomson Township and Sham Investigation

Marvin Pirila
1 N Cloquet Rd W
Esko, MN 55733
October 20, 2012

Tom Pertler
Carlton County Attorney
PO Box 190
Carlton, MN 55718-0190

Dear Mr. Pertler and Mr. Berglund;

I received the “public documents” your office shared regarding our trespassing complaint.

I can say with conviction and proof that no real investigation or follow through was exercised.

Pursuant to Fond du Lac investigator Russ Rule’s supplemental report:

q       He conducted phone interviews with only the offenders, building inspector John Gulland and fire chief Jeffrey Juntunen.

q       He failed to interview any of the four other witnesses:  Marvin Pirila, Gail Francette, Nicholas Perfetti, Jake Fjeld, and Mark Blomquist.

q       Officer Russ Rule rescheduled his first meeting with Marvin Pirila due to a scheduling conflict he had.  The rescheduled meeting was set for the Wal-Mart parking lot.  Mr. Pirila and his wife Gail Francette waited approximately an hour for the absent Mr. Rule.  No call was received.  No contact was attempted by Mr. Rule after the initial rescheduling time.

 Discrepancies and time-delay issues:

q       Mr. Pirila filed the complaint, case no. PD10309104, on 6/24/10 with officer Tom Foldesi.

q       Officer Rule claims that Mr. Foldesi referred this case to him in September of 2011, 15 months after the complaint.  The Incident Report, ICR #10-309104, shows it was actually forwarded to Carlton County on 7/2/10.

Failure to investigate timely or with impartiality

q       Page 1 of 2 of Office Foldesi’s Narrative states, “It was found out that Chief Foldesi made attempts to receive statements from Jeffrey Juntunen and John Gulland and ultimately did not receive any statement at the time because of the Law Suite [sic].”  Not a single mention of attempted interviews of witnesses Gail Francette, Nicholas Perfetti, Mark Blomquist, or Jake Fjeld.

q       The August 17, 2011, letter from County Attorney Thomas Pertler to Chief Foldesi specifically requested that Mark Blomquist, Jake Fjeld, Marvin Pirila, and Gail Francette be interviewed.  None of these ever took place.  This letter also asked that any and all records should be obtained that were maintained by Chief Juntunen and Inspector Gulland or their superiors, pertaining to the inspections done at the Pirila/Francette property.  None were produced and no proof that any such attempt to obtain occurred.

q       Page 2 of 2 states, “In 2012 the Law Suite [sic] against Thompson [sic] was resolved.”  This shows a purposeful delay to hinder the plaintiff’s lawsuit against Thomson Township. 

q       Page 2 of 2 states, “…The old Washington School as he had seen a large pile of old latch and plaster next to the building.  He [Juntunen] went into the building as contractors were working with machinery going.  He advised the contractors and then left the building.  At the time Juntunen stated the doors were not locked and would have knocked but did not think the workers would have heard him.’  This contrasts with the contractor’s immediate report.  Contractors Mark Blomquist and Jake Fjeld witnessed fire chief Jeffrey Juntunen on two different days inside the building.  On one of these days, Mr. Juntunen, they said was inside the locked building when they arrived.  On the second day, they said he entered the locked building while they were working.  Mr. Juntunen did not identify himself and wandered about the building at will.  He neither had the consent of owners, nor requested it.  There was also no notice of his visit either by phone or in writing.  The first official notice of Mr. Juntunen’s illegal entry came via a September 5, 2008, letter from Thomson Township attorney David Pritchett citing alleged fire code violations.  The slats slowly accumulated outside and in no way necessitated an immediate, illegal entry into private property.  Curtilage rights did not apply.  If Mr. Juntunen wanted to act responsibly he would have written a letter or phone the owners at any point to discuss it.  He simply decided to go on a roaming venture inside their building without their knowledge.

q       Page 2 of 2:  Officer Russ Rule claims, “It is believed that Juntunen was doing his job as a Fire Chief protecting property from a possible disaster or fire.”  As the fire chief or fire marshal, Mr. Juntunen is subject to the rules of entry pursuant to Minnesota Statute 299F.09.  This statutes specifically states, “The …chief of the fire department of each city where a fire department is established … at all reasonable hours may enter into all buildings and upon all premises within their jurisdiction for the purpose of examination, after proper consent from the occupant or owner or pursuant to an administrative search warrant.  Mr. Juntunen readily admits he had no consent and no evidence of an administrative search warrant.  Without either, this is clearly illegal entry.

Problems with Jeffrey Juntunen’s taped statement to Officer Rule

q       Page 2 of 3:  “… my concern when I stopped at the property was they were taking lath from the old lath and plaster and throwing it out a window.  And it was piled all the way up to the second floor right against the building and as fire chief my concern was anybody could have light [sic] that on fire and ah, we could have had fire throughout or in the building it would have entered the windows so I stopped there to try and find Mr. Pirila the doors were open and they were not locked and I went inside and all I could find at the that time was contractors who were working in the building, Mr. Pirila was not present so I did tell one of the contractors ah, why I was on sight and asked em if they would relay that to Mr. Pirila.”  This is yet another contradiction to their statements. 

q       Page 3 of 3:  Officer Russ Rule asks, “…But as a fire chief do you have the right to go into a building?” to which Jeffrey Juntunen responds, “Ah, when the doors are open you know.”  This is clear admission that rules of entry pursuant to Minn. Stat. 299F.09 were violated.  There is no provision under the law allowing entry given the circumstances.  Mr. Juntunen tries to justify his position, “A situation like that I guess it’s no different than any other building ah, you know knocking on the door and asking for permission ah, wasn’t you know, wasn’t an option because contractors were running power tools and, the building was very large.”  Mr. Juntunen is suggesting that if knocking and requesting permission isn’t possible, he has no choice but to enter the private property.  This would mean that every unlocked door in the community is legally permissible to enter if no one answers to knocking.  In this particular case, he admits that knocking wasn’t an option so he just took it upon himself to enter.  He made this choice knowing he never attempted to call the owners, never tried writing a letter, never tried leaving a note, nothing.  This was a deliberate action with the full knowledge of entry procedures.

Problems with John Gulland’s taped statement to Officer Rule 

q       On page 1 of 10, John Gulland states,’ …you know as far as a specific date or whatever you know I don’t have any other records or whatever that was, to you know to just answer you totally honestly.”  If Mr. Gulland had been on an authorized inspection there would have been an inspection log on site and in the Thomson Township files, but there were none.

q       On page 1 of 10, Officer Rule asked, “…did you have permission to go there or is it for inspection do you need permission to go in there?”  Building Inspector John Gulland replied, “Well um when you have an open building permit ah building inspector is allowed to go there and make inspections…”

q       Mr. Gulland was obligated to follow Subp. 7, Right of entry, under Minn. R. 1300.0110 regarding entry procedures.  If it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce the code or if the building official has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in a structure or upon a premises a condition contrary to or in violation of the code that makes the structure or premises unsafe, dangerous, or hazardous, the building official or designee may enter the structure or premises at reasonable times to inspect or to perform the duties imposed by the code, provided that if the structure or premises is occupied, credentials must be presented to the occupant and entry requested.  If the structure or premises is unoccupied, the building official shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other person having charge or control of the structure or premises and request entry. If entry is refused, the building official shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry.”  Mr. Gulland made no such attempts.

q       Mr. Gulland admits to being a construction inspector for 25 years.  Obviously, he would have knowledge of proper entry procedures.

q       If Mr. Gulland felt limited in his capacity to infringe upon the private property rights of Mr. Pirila and Ms. Francette, he would have rigidly followed his ministerial and operational level duties.  He did not.  There was not a single entry on the on-site inspection card, and just one record of an inspection kept at Thomson Township.

Collusion between Thomson Township Office Tom Foldesi, Thomson Township, Carlton County Thom Pertler, FDL Officer Russ Rule, Assistant County Attorney Jesse Berglund, and Judge Dale A. Wolf

q       Mr. Foldesi failed to attempt any interview outside of the two perpetrators

q       Thomson Township participated in wrongdoing by failing to conduct any internal inquiry.  There were no records applicable to these illegal entries.

q       Thom Pertler refused to investigate in the least until the lawsuit was officially over.

q       Russ Rule failed to interview anyone other than the accused and when given specific testimony admitting trespassing, disavowed it.

q       Jesse Berglund said they wouldn’t waste county resources to argue the case because it was a misdemeanor he thought he couldn’t win.  County attorneys pursue misdemeanor cases every single day.

q       Page 5 of 10 of Officer Russ Rule’s taped statement with John Gulland.  When Officer Rule commented, "Yeah, yeah well (AI) it sounded like nobody wanted to give statements until the law suit was finished" Gulland replied, "Well I think that's, I think kinda what we were instructed to do and that's why I kinda wanted to just make sure that I wasn't making a mistake and I'm not trying to..."  It was more than unethical, unprofessional, and unwarranted of the Carlton County Attorney's office to simply wait out the lawsuit; this is undeniably an illegal suppression of evidence that was pertinent to the lawsuit and clearly prejudicial.

q       John Gulland's taped statement clearly shows the closeness between Officer Tom Foldesi, Jeffrey Juntunen, and John Gulland.  A person doesn't easily speak of others in a first name basis as Mr. Gulland did without close affiliation.  This relationship was downplayed significantly during the lawsuit.

Additional Evidence 

q       Admissions from Defendants Thomson Township, Thomson Township Fire Department, John Gulland and Jeffrey Juntunen's Response to Plaintiffs' First Request for Admissions (Revised):  Admission #46.  Jeffrey Juntunen admits he made entries without consent into plaintiff's property.  Response:  Admit Jeffrey Juntunen entered Plaintiffs' property to enforce fire code regarding large pile of debris.

q       Fire Chief Jeffrey Juntunen's Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories:  Interrogatory #22.  Did you seek the consent of the owners prior to entering the premises at 1 N Cloquet Rd W?  Answer:  Objection, this Interrogatory is argumentative and contains facts not in evidence.  Objection, this Interrogatory is vague.  Notwithstanding said objection, no. 

            1.  If not, why?  The doors were open.

            5.  Why did you neglect to contact the owners after your visits?  I was sure the                   
                 contractor would pass my concerns along to the owners.

            7.  Why didn't you leave a note that you had visited?  Objection, this                           
                 Interrogatory is argumentative.

            Unlike his claim to Officer Russ Rule, Jeffrey Juntunen simply assumes the contractor will  
             pass along the fact he had visited.  There was no message relayed to them.

q       Interrogatory 23:  How did you gain access to the inside of the Old Washington School?  Answer:  When I entered the property to request the owner remove the large pile of debris from the exterior, I entered through the unlocked east entry door.

Failures of the Carlton County Attorneys Office

q       Failing to conduct an impartial investigation where all witnesses were interviewed, not just the perpetrators.

q       Failing to uphold the statutes, rules, and constitutional provisions that apply.

q       Failing to perform any investigation for 24 months and then only a sham one after that.

q       Failing to conduct an immediate investigation because they, according to Thom Pertler, did not want to benefit the plaintiff’s lawsuit against Thomson Township.  Mr. Pertler’s very words.

Admission by Carlton County Attorney's office as to what building inspectors/fire chiefs must do to gain entry

The August 17, 2011, letter from County Attorney Thomas Pertler to Chief Foldesi, item 2, states, "By law, I believe they [Inspector and Fire Chief] are required to maintain a record of each visit/inspection regarding the date, nature, and result of the visit/inspection."  These required records do not exist and exemplify the legitimate entry of either Gulland or Juntunen.

Mr. Todd Milosevich, Victim/Witness Services, Carlton County, obtained an email from on July 28, 2011 at 8:54 AM with an attachment regarding Minnesota State Fire Code 104.  Section 104.3 and 104.3.1 apply.  Both of these references make it clear that trespassing occurred.  Similarly, official records, approvals, and inspections are governed by Sections 104.6, 104.6.1, and 104.6.2, respectively.  Again, Fire Chief Jeffrey Juntunen failed to keep these mandated records.

All evidence, delays, statements, and omissions from the record show that you have failed to investigate this matter professionally.  You have personally withheld any action for “political” as well as “personal” reasons. 

When we (Marvin Pirila and Gail Francette) had a pending lawsuit against Thomson Township and the individuals mentioned herein, you said you would not investigate until the case had been decided.

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.  There is no legal authority in your defense that allows you to withhold an investigation because of a pending lawsuit.

You had previously stated that you would do nothing that might benefit us in our case.  No one was asking for prejudicial treatment, but only a fair and justified investigation, and charges if warranted.  You effectively positioned yourself and Carlton County against us by doing nothing and making this a “political stand.”  You essentially aided the defense of Thomson Township, Fire Chief Jeffrey Juntunen, and Building Inspector John Gulland by failing to do your required duties.  You were asked to perform your professional duties and chose not for personal reasons. 

This case was supposed to be based on the laws of this state, not the laws, individuals, and situations you decide to pursue.  I believe, as many others, that it is this failure of appointed officials to honestly pursue legal justice that greatly emboldens others under their umbrella, such as the building inspector and fire chief, to willfully and wantonly trample the rights of private citizens.

Mr. Pertler, you have continued a dangerous trend of public officials, highly evident in Carlton County, to play judge and jury on matters explicitly stated by law, but enforced according to personal reasons.

You are an appointed individual by the public, not special interest groups, and individuals.  How can anyone possibly feel that you and your office is fair and just with all individuals in Carlton County, and not turn a blind eye to those that work for Carlton County.


Marvin Pirila

Below is a summary of the correspondence previously share and yet ignored by you and your office.


Thomson Township residents Marvin Pirila and Gail Francette filed trespassing charges against building inspector John Gulland and current fire chief, Jeffrey Juntunen of Thomson Township in 2009.  Two contractors reported finding Mr. Juntunen inside the locked building upon their arrival in September of 2008.  On yet another day, he entered the locked building while they were working.  The contractors, Jake Fjeld and Mark Blomquist, said he did not introduce himself and simply wandered about at will.  They saw he was wearing a uniform and guessed he must have been a firefighter.  A letter from Thomson Township attorney was the first time the residents learned who had been entering their building, Jeff Juntunen.  Based on his entries, Mr. Juntunen alleged fire code violations.  Common property rights prevail, rendering it illegal to enter private property without the consent of the owners.  “No trespassing,” signs were posted throughout the property and were ignored.

This was not just a simple trespass; it was trespassing that involved entering the private building of another.  This was a non-emergency situation where no consent was sought beforehand.

The contractors were sure the building was locked each time, leaving one to wonder how he managed to get inside.  It turns out that Thomson Township had no key policy and didn’t know who had keys to the Old Washington School.  As there were still old doors in place from the time Thomson Township owned the building, it was possible that was how entry was made.  The residents bought this same building from Thomson Township.

John Gulland tagged along with Thomson Township Plumbing Inspector Paul Sandstrom on a plumbing inspection on August 1, 2008, without seeking consent of owners.  In March of 2009, John Gulland was found inside the locked building when Marvin Pirila, Gail Francette, and Nick Perfetti showed up for a scheduled inspection.  Mr. Gulland would not explain how he entered the building when it was locked and refused to answer. 

In the spring of 2009, Mr. Gulland began making unauthorized weekly inspections, even when there was little or no work, being completed.  This was done at least three times before Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry investigator Barry Greive contacted Mr. Gulland.  Mr. Gulland claimed that architect Alan Adams had invited him to attend, but after Mr. Pirila contacted him and told him (Adams) he did not need to attend, Mr. Gulland was obligated to stop.  He did not until Mr. Greive intervened.

Any entry, particularly on a non-emergency basis, must be after the consent of the owners is obtained.  If an inspection is requested and refused, the building inspector or fire chief has to obtain a warrant.  In the absence of either, no inspection is to take place.  In our case, consent was not sought, not granted, and no warrant served.

Jeffrey Juntunen’s Trespasses (2 Counts)

Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 541.05 Subd. 1 (3) Jeffrey Juntunen has committed trespass.

On or about September 5, 2008, Jeffrey Juntunen was witnessed by contractors Mark Blomquist and Jake Fjeld, on two different days, inside the building at 1 N Cloquet Road W in Thomson Township.  Mr. Juntunen was inside the locked building upon their arrival one day, and entered on his own yet another day, through a locked door.  Mr. Juntunen did not identify himself and simply wandered about the building at will.  He neither had the consent of owners, nor requested it.  There was also no notice of his visit either by phone or in writing.  The first official notice that he had been in the building was via a letter by David Pritchett on September 5, 2008, stating that “There are large piles of demolition materials both within and outside the building, in violation of state fire code.”  It is believed that Jeffrey Juntunen possessed his old key for the Old Washington School and used it to grant himself access these days.

John Gulland’s Trespasses (Multiple)

Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 541.05 Subd. 1 (3) John Gulland has committed trespass.

1.                  On 2/15/07 John Gulland entered premises illegal and later based a “Stop Work Order” on this trespass.

2.                  On 8/1/08 John Gulland accompanied Paul Sandstrom on a plumbing inspection without consent from owners.

3.                  In March of 2009 John Gulland was found inside the locked building when Marvin Pirila, Gail Francette, and Nick Perfetti showed up for a scheduled inspection.  Mr. Gulland would not explain how he entered the building when it was locked when confronted by Gail Francette.

4.                  John Gulland confessed to Marvin Pirila on the phone that he had let himself in.

5.                  Between April and June of 2009, John Gulland accompanied Alan Adams on two to three building inspections without consent of owners.

6.                  On 4/30/09 John Gulland accompanied Alan Adams on an inspection he knew was without consent from owners.

7.                  On 5/7/09 John Gulland accompanied Alan Adams on an inspection he knew was without consent from owners.

8.                  On 6/4/09 John Gulland accompanied Alan Adams on an inspection he knew was without consent from owners.

MARVIN PIRILA & GAIL FRANCETTE allege trespass and harassment by

John Gulland and Jeffrey Juntunen criminally harassed property owners Marvin Pirila and Gail Francette.  Both Mr. Gulland and Mr. Juntunen engaged in intentional conduct which they knew or had reason to know would cause the owners, under the circumstances, to feel threatened, oppressed, persecuted, and intimidated; and caused this reaction on the part of the owners. These are violations of Minn. Stat. § 609.749, Subd. I. Mr. Gulland and Mr. Juntunen both engaged in conduct that included returning to owners property without consent.

The intentional and reckless act by Jeffrey Juntunen and John Gulland has caused harm by entering Mr. Pirila and Ms. Francette’s property without their permission (trespass), and dangerous conduct (intentional infliction of emotional distress).

Property owners have suffered tremendous familial, financial, and emotional distress from ongoing harassing conduct from Mr. Gulland and Mr. Juntunen.

The acts of the Mr. Gulland and Mr. Juntunen, including trespassing and allegations based on trespass, showed deliberate disregard for the rights of property owners.

These violations require no proof of specific intent (Minn. Stat. § 609.749, Subd. 1a)

609.605 TRESPASS.
Subdivision 1. Misdemeanor. (a) The following terms have the meanings given them for
purposes of this section.

(i)                  "Premises" means real property and any appurtenant building or structure.
(ii)               "Dwelling" means the building or part of a building used by an individual as a place of  residence on either a full-time or a part-time basis. A dwelling may be part of a multidwelling or multipurpose building, or a manufactured home as defined in section 168.011, subdivision 8.

(iii)             "Construction site" means the site of the construction, alteration, painting, or repair  of a building or structure.

(iv)              "Owner or lawful possessor," as used in paragraph (b), clause (9), means the person on whose behalf a building or dwelling is being constructed, altered, painted, or repaired and the general contractor or subcontractor engaged in that work.

(v)                "Posted," as used:

(A) in clause (9), means the placement of a sign at least 11 inches square in a conspicuous place on the exterior of the building that is under construction, alteration, or repair, and additional signs in at least two conspicuous places for each ten acres being protected. The sign must carry an appropriate notice and the name of the person giving the notice, followed by the word "owner" if the person giving the notice is the holder of legal title to the land on which the construction site is located or by the word "occupant" if the person giving the notice is not the holder of legal title but is a lawful occupant of the land; and

(B) in clause (10), means the placement of signs that:

(I) state "no trespassing" or similar terms;

(II) display letters at least two inches high;

(III) state that Minnesota law prohibits trespassing on the property; and

(IV) are posted in a conspicuous place and at intervals of 500 feet or less.

(vi)              "Business licensee," as used in paragraph (b), clause (9), includes a representative of a building trades labor or management organization.

a.       "Building" has the meaning given in section 609.581, subdivision 2.

(b) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person intentionally:

(1) permits domestic animals or fowls under the actor's control to go on the land of another within a city;

(2) interferes unlawfully with a monument, sign, or pointer erected or marked to designate a point of a boundary, line or a political subdivision, or of a tract of land;

(3) trespasses on the premises of another and, without claim of right, refuses to depart from the premises on demand of the lawful possessor;

(4) occupies or enters the dwelling or locked or posted building of another, without claim of right or consent of the owner or the consent of one who has the right to give consent, except in an emergency situation;

(5) enters the premises of another with intent to take or injure any fruit, fruit trees, or vegetables growing on the premises, without the permission of the owner or occupant;

(6) enters or is found on the premises of a public or private cemetery without authorization during hours the cemetery is posted as closed to the public;

(7) returns to the property of another with the intent to abuse, disturb, or cause distress in or threaten another, after being told to leave the property and not to return, if the actor is without claim of right to the property or consent of one with authority to consent;

(8) returns to the property of another within one year after being told to leave the property and not to return, if the actor is without claim of right to the property or consent of one with authority to consent;

(9) enters the locked or posted construction site of another without the consent of the owner or lawful possessor, unless the person is a business licensee; or

(10) enters the locked or posted aggregate mining site of another without the consent of the owner or lawful possessor, unless the person is a business licensee.

Subd. 2. Gross misdemeanor.  Whoever trespasses upon the grounds of a facility providing emergency shelter services for battered women, as defined under section 611A.31, subdivision 3, or of a facility providing transitional housing for battered women and their children, without claim of right or consent of one who has right to give consent, and refuses to depart from the grounds of the facility on demand of one who has right to give consent, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

    Subd. 3.[Repealed, 1993 c 326 art 2 s 34]

    Subd. 4. Trespasses on school property.  (a) It is a misdemeanor for a person to enter or be found in a public or nonpublic elementary, middle, or secondary school building unless the person:

(1) is an enrolled student in, a parent or guardian of an enrolled student in, or an employee of  the school or school district;
(2) has permission or an invitation from a school official to be in the building;
(3) is attending a school event, class, or meeting to which the person, the public, or a student's family is invited; or
(4) has reported the person's presence in the school building in the manner required for visitors to the school.
(b) It is a misdemeanor for a person to be on the roof of a public or nonpublic elementary, middle, or secondary school building unless the person has permission from a school official to be on the roof of the building.
(c) It is a gross misdemeanor for a group of three or more persons to enter or be found in a public or nonpublic elementary, middle, or secondary school building unless one of the persons:
(1) is an enrolled student in, a parent or guardian of an enrolled student in, or an employee of the school or school district;
(2) has permission or an invitation from a school official to be in the building;
(3) is attending a school event, class, or meeting to which the person, the public, or a student's family is invited; or
(4) has reported the person's presence in the school building in the manner required for visitors to the school.
(d) It is a misdemeanor for a person to enter or be found on school property within one year after being told by the school principal or the principal's designee to leave the property and not to return, unless the principal or the principal's designee has given the person permission to return to the property. As used in this paragraph, "school property" has the meaning given in section 152.01, subdivision 14a, clauses (1) and (3).
(e) A school principal or a school employee designated by the school principal to maintain order on school property, who has reasonable cause to believe that a person is violating this subdivision may detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable period of time pending the arrival of a peace officer. A school principal or designated school employee is not civilly or criminally liable for any action authorized under this paragraph if the person's action is based on reasonable cause.
(f) A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe the person violated this subdivision within the preceding four hours. The arrest may be
made even though the violation did not occur in the peace officer's presence.

Subd. 5. Certain trespass on agricultural land.

(a) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor if the person enters the posted premises of another on which cattle, bison, sheep, goats, swine, horses, poultry, farmed cervidae, farmed ratitae, aquaculture stock, or other species of domestic animals for commercial production are kept, without the consent of the owner or lawful occupant of the land.

(b) "Domestic animal," for purposes of this section, has the meaning given in section 609.599.

(c) "Posted," as used in paragraph (a), means the placement of a sign at least 11 inches square in a conspicuous place at each roadway entry to the premises. The sign must provide notice of a biosecurity area and wording such as: "Biosecurity measures are in force. No entrance beyond this point without authorization." The sign may also contain a telephone number or
a location for obtaining such authorization.

(d) The provisions of this subdivision do not apply to employees or agents of the state or county when serving in a regulatory capacity and conducting an inspection on posted premises where domestic animals are kept.

History: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.605; 1971 c 23 s 62; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1976 c 251 s 1; 1978 c 512 s 1; 1981 c 365 s 9; 1982 c 408 s 2; 1985 c 159 s 2; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 307 s 3; 1989 c 5 s 9; 1989 c 261 s 5; 1990 c 426 art 1 s 54; 1993 c 326 art 1 s 14; art 2 s 13; art 4 s 32; 1993 c 366 s 13; 1994 c 465 art 1 s 60; 1995 c 226 art 3 s 48; 2004 c 254 s 46; 2005 c 136 art 17 s 41,42


Trespassing - Background

Trespassing is a legal term that can refer to a wide variety of offenses against a person or against property. Trespassing as it relates to real estate law means entering onto land without consent of the landowner. There are both criminal and civil TRESPASS laws. Criminal trespass law is enforced by police, sheriffs, or park rangers. Civil trespass requires that the landowner initiate a private enforcement action in court to collect any damages for which the trespasser may be responsible, regardless of whether a crime has been committed.  Traditionally, for either type of trespass, some level of intent is required. Thus, the trespasser must not simply unwittingly traverse another's land but must knowingly go onto the property without permission. Knowledge may be inferred when the owner tells the trespasser not to go on the land, when the land is fenced, or when a "no trespassing" sign in posted. A trespasser would probably not be prosecuted if the land was open, the trespasser's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property, and the trespasser left immediately on request.

The existence of consent may be implied from the landowner's conduct, from custom, or from the circumstances. Consent may be implied if these factors exist: the landowner was unavailable to give consent and immediate action is necessary to save a life or prevent a serious injury. Additionally, some states may extend this protection to animals.  While the phrase "forgive us our trespasses" if oft repeated, it is important to note that trespassing is generally not forgiven.  This is because trespassing is often a very serious offense that the law does not look lightly upon. However, many assume that trespassing is "no big deal". One reason for this is that media depictions of individuals with "No Trespassing" signs are that of curmudgeonly, miserly individuals who embody a whole host of misanthropic traits. Often, the conclusion of a feature will see such an individual learning the error of his ways and removing the no trespassing sign.

Depictions such as this are psychologically damaging because they demean the importance of trespassing laws. These laws are there for very good reasons. When a person enters into restricted territory a great safety risk is posed to both the trespasser and the person on the property. Again, that is why trespassing laws exist and that is why they must always be taken seriously.

By definition, criminal trespass is the instance of willfully entering and remaining unlawfully in an enclosed dwelling such as a home or business; willful entering or remaining in an enclosed and restricted area that is obviously designed to exclude unauthorized entry; entering any property (enclosed or open) when the property owner has explicitly told the individual they are not welcome on the property. It is important to note, however, if an individual is unaware that entry to an area is restricted then he might be exonerated of criminal trespass.

Civil trespassing lawsuits are generally brought forth when property damage has occurred. Actually, the laws surrounding civil trespass laws are fairly all encompassing. There is precedent for civil trespass actions to be taken against those liable for car accidents. (For a more detailed explanation as to whether or not a potential civil suit falls under the category of trespassing, it would be best to discuss the specifics of the case with an attorney) In terms of civil liability, a person who commits trespass may be held liable for damages that have been inflicted as a result of the trespass. Therefore, the trespasser may be sued for damages. Actually, the trespasser can be both criminally charged and sued in civil court.

It is also important to point out that the criminal prosecution and civil litigation of trespass, like many other criminal and civil offenses, is subject to the statute of limitations defined by the Pennsylvania judicial code. Specifically, the law states that the statute of limitations on both criminal and civil trespassing is two years.


Subdivision 1.  Definition.

As used in this section, "harass" means to engage in intentional conduct which:

(1) the actor knows or has reason to know would cause the victim under the circumstances to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated; and

(2) causes this reaction on the part of the victim.

Subd. 1a.  No proof of specific intent required.

In a prosecution under this section, the state is not required to prove that the actor intended to cause the victim to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated, or except as otherwise provided in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (4), or paragraph (b), that the actor intended to cause any other result.

Subd. 2.  Harassment and stalking crimes.

(a) A person who harasses another by committing any of the following acts is guilty of a gross misdemeanor:

(1) directly or indirectly manifests a purpose or intent to injure the person, property, or rights of another by the commission of an unlawful act;

(2) stalks, follows, monitors, or pursues another, whether in person or through technological or other means;

(3) returns to the property of another if the actor is without claim of right to the property or consent of one with authority to consent;

Subd. 5. Pattern of harassing conduct.

(a) A person who engages in a pattern of harassing conduct with respect to a single victim or one or more members of a single household which the actor knows or has reason to know would cause the victim under the circumstances to feel terrorized or to fear bodily harm and which does cause this reaction on the part of the victim, is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both.

(b) For purposes of this subdivision, a "pattern of harassing conduct" means two or more acts within a five-year period that violate or attempt to violate the provisions of any of the following or a similar law of another state, the United States, the District of Columbia, tribal lands, or United States territories:


Subdivision 1.  Definition.

For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them in this subdivision.

(a) "Harassment" includes:

(1) a single incident of physical or sexual assault or repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the relationship between the actor and the intended target; 

609.605 TRESPASS.

Subdivision 1. Misdemeanor.

(a) The following terms have the meanings given them for purposes of this section.

(1) "Premises" means real property and any appurtenant building or structure.

(2) "Dwelling" means the building or part of a building used by an individual as a place of residence on either a full-time or a part-time basis. A dwelling may be part of a multidwelling or multipurpose building, or a manufactured home as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 16.

(3) "Construction site" means the site of the construction, alteration, painting, or repair of a building or structure.

(4) "Owner or lawful possessor," as used in paragraph (b), clause (9), means the person on whose behalf a building or dwelling is being constructed, altered, painted, or repaired and the general contractor or subcontractor engaged in that work. 

(5) "Posted," as used:

(i) in paragraph (b), clause (4), means the placement of a sign at least 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches in a conspicuous place on the exterior of the building, or in a conspicuous place within the property on which the building is located. The sign must carry a general notice warning against trespass;

(ii) in paragraph (b), clause (9), means the placement of a sign at least 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches in a conspicuous place on the exterior of the building that is under construction, alteration, or repair, or in a conspicuous place within the area being protected. If the area being protected is less than three acres, one additional sign must be conspicuously placed within that area. If the area being protected is three acres but less than ten acres, two additional signs must be conspicuously placed within that area. For each additional full ten acres of area being protected beyond the first ten acres of area, two additional signs must be conspicuously placed within the area being protected. The sign must carry a general notice warning against trespass; and

(iii) in paragraph (b), clause (10), means the placement of signs that:

(A) carry a general notice warning against trespass;

(B) display letters at least two inches high;

(C) state that Minnesota law prohibits trespassing on the property; and

(D) are posted in a conspicuous place and at intervals of 500 feet or less.

(7) "Building" has the meaning given in section 609.581, subdivision 2.

(b) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person intentionally:

(4) occupies or enters the dwelling or locked or posted building of another, without claim of right or consent of the owner or the consent of one who has the right to give consent, except in an emergency situation;

 (9) enters the locked or posted construction site of another without the consent of the owner or lawful possessor, unless the person is a business licensee;


Subdivision 1.Misdemeanors.

Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a misdemeanor:

(3) with the intent to abuse, disturb, or cause distress, repeatedly mails or delivers or causes the delivery by any means, including electronically, of letters, telegrams, or packages.

Attn:  Tom Pertler

In addition to state statutes regarding trespass, these rules apply regarding entry for fire marshals/fire chiefs and building inspectors. 


Marvin Pirila


Subdivision 1. Immediate entry. In the performance of the duties imposed by the provisions of this chapter, the state fire marshal and subordinates, during and within a reasonable time after a fire has been extinguished, may enter any building or premises where a fire has occurred and other buildings and premises adjoining or near thereto to investigate and gather evidence. In determining whether a search is reasonable within the meaning of this subdivision, the need for investigatory search for the cause of the fire shall be balanced against the privacy rights of the occupant or owner of the building or premises.  This does not apply to Jeffrey Juntunen in this incident.

Subd. 2. Administrative search warrant. (a) After the reasonable time prescribed by subdivision 1 for an investigatory search has expired, subsequent entries to the building or premises to investigate and gather evidence may be made only if there is consent from the owner or occupant of the building or premises or pursuant to an administrative search warrant issued by a judge.

(b) In determining whether to issue an administrative search warrant for the purposes of this subdivision, the judge, in conforming the decision to constitutional doctrine governing warrant procedures for administrative searches, shall consider but not be limited to the following factors:

(1) scope of the proposed search;

(2) number of prior entries by fire officials;

(3) time of day when the search is proposed to be made;

(4) lapse of time since the fire;

(5) continued use of the building; and

(6) the owner's or occupant's efforts to secure the building against intruders.

Subd. 3. Criminal search warrant. If during the course of an investigatory search under an administrative search warrant issued in accordance with subdivision 2, the fire marshal or subordinates find probable cause to believe arson has occurred and require further access to the building or premises to gather evidence for possible prosecution, a criminal search warrant must be obtained from a judge.


The state fire marshal, chief assistant, deputies, and subordinates, the chief of the fire department of each city where a fire department is established, the mayor of a city where no fire department exists, or the clerk of a town in territory without the limits of a city, at all reasonable hours may enter into all buildings and upon all premises within their jurisdiction for the purpose of examination, after proper consent from the occupant or owner or pursuant to an administrative search warrant. If the examination occurs subsequent to a fire, entry into a building or premise is governed by section 299F.08.  History: (5960) 1913 c 564 s 11; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1981 c 106 s 3; 1986 c 444  As discussed no consent was sought.


Sec. 10. Unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.

1300.0110 DUTIES AND POWERS OF BUILDING OFFICIAL, Subp. 7. Right of entry.  If it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce the code or if the building official has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in a structure or upon a premises a condition contrary to or in violation of the code that makes the structure or premises unsafe, dangerous, or hazardous, the building official or designee may enter the structure or premises at reasonable times to inspect or to perform the duties imposed by the code, provided that if the structure or premises is occupied, credentials must be presented to the occupant and entry requested.  If the structure or premises is unoccupied, the building official shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other person having charge or control of the structure or premises and request entry. If entry is refused, the building official shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry.  Mr. Gulland made no such attempts.