Minnesota Statutes, §645.08, Canons of Construction:

In construing the statutes of this state, the following canons of interpretations are to govern, unless their observance would involve a construction inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature, or repugnant to the context of the statute:

(1) words and phrases are construed according to ... their common and approved usage; but technical words and phrases and others as have acquired a special meaning; or are defined in this chapter, are construed according to such special meaning or their definition;...
(2) General words are construed to be restricted to their meanings by proceeding particular words;...
Minnesota Statutes, §645.16, Legislation Intent Controls: The object of all interpretation and construction of law is to ascertain the effectuate the intentions of the legislature. Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all of its provisions.

When the word of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursing the spirit.

When the words of a law are not explicit, the intention of the legislature may be ascertained by considering, among other matters:

(1) The occasion and necessity for the law;
(2) Circumstances under which it is passed;
(3) The mischief to be remedied;
(4) The object to be attained;
(5) The former law, if any, including other laws upon the same or similar subjects;
(6) The consequences of a particular interpretation;
(7) The contemporaneous legislative history; and
(8) Legislative and administrative interpretations of the statute

Minnesota Statutes, §645.17, Presumptions in Ascertaining Legislative Intent: In ascertaining the intention of the legislature the courts may be guided by the following presumptions:

(1) The legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable;
(2) The legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain;
(3) The legislature does not intend to violate the constitution of the United States or this state;...
(4) The legislature intends to favor the public interest as against any private interest.

Minnesota Statutes, §645.26, Irreconcilable Provisions: Subdivision 1. Particular controls general. When a general provision of a law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or another law, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both. If the conflict between the two provisions are irreconcilable, the special provision shall, prevail, and shall be constructed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision shall be enacted at a later session and it shall be he manifest intention of the legislature that such a a general provision
shall prevail...

Subd. 4 Laws passed at different legislative sessions. When the provisions of two or more laws passed at different legislative sessions of the legislature are irreconcilable, the law latest in date of final enactment shall prevail.

For several years repeated incidences of:

1) attempts by groups of West St. Paul Police to break into 1144 Ottawa on the pretense of seeing if occupant, Mary Jane Duchene was "OK".

2) giving Ms. Duchene citations when she was in the process of doing improvements or clean up on premises, to interfere with the work and make ordinary maintenance and upgrades impossible or extremely difficult.

3) Given general impression in the community that there will be no prosecution of criminal wrongdoing against Ms. Duchene and that there is a green light for such activity, by WSP police and government.

1994, February - WSP police filed charges that premises at 1144 Ottawa Avenue did not have a kitchen and bathroom, notwithstanding that the police had seen the tenancy agreement which stated that the tenant agreed to share the kitchen and bathroom in the house. Dismissed by the court in 1995 for failure to demonstrate probable cause.

        In 1997, with about 10 inches of solid ice still on the ground, the City of West St. Paul demanded that Ms. Duchene remove the ice an snow be broken up, necessarily with a jack hammer, at a cost of about $1500.00, so that yard clean up, premature to that effected by other residence of the city with dogs, was effected. The city had sent a crew numbering between 10 and 12 people, with a front end loader and a tow truck, to Ms. Duchene's home to remove the ice and snow, for the purposes of causing Ms. Duchene to be ridiculed and .

       The city issued a citation for an alleged misdemeanor criminal offense. The legal result was that the City Attorney, Korrine Larson Land, was chastised by the Judge of Dakota County District Court for about 20 minutes, before a full court inclusive Ms. Land's peer attorneys and several witnesses for Ms. Duchene. THE JUDGE AGREED WITH ATTORNEY JOHN REMINGTON GRAHAM, SEE MOTION BELOW. The substance of the judge's comments were that Ms. Larson Land knew that no offense had been committed and was therefore unable to write a long form complaint stating what offense Ms. Duchene had committed. The complaint consisted of one word, that word was "litter." The complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The city of West St. Paul was unable to make a financial claim against Ms. Duchene for the absurd "abatement" that represented a high cost to the taxpayer, which they had already attempted.

       It is probable that the City would have done the same abatement every winter in which there was a significant snowfall, had Ms. Duchene not hired legal counsel to point out Supreme Court Case Law to Ms. Larson Land.

       Ms. Larson land and the City have not taken heed of the judge's comments and have continued to act without probable cause, in a manner that constitutes torts and crimes since. There were many similar incident prior to this event inclusive of several incidents in which officers came to Ms. Duchene's home and attempted to break into the home. Windows of the home were damaged in these attempts. In the early break in attempts, Ms. Duchene had a well trained Rottweiler dog, named Charles, who assisted in thwarting these break-ins.

      This has involved significant cost for Ms. Duchene in defending legal cases, successfully, and taken significant amounts of time and away from her establishment of her business, OpusArts LLC. Over the years these legal and administrative costs incurred by Ms. Duchene, total to an amount in excess of $100,000.00.

       Ms. Duchene has a BFA degree from the Minneapolis College of Art and Design, lived in Europe from 1969 through 1986, and is a member of the Honorable Society of Grays Inn, one of the four Inns of Courts for English Barristers (lawyers). In her career as an artist, Revlon International was included in her client list.

       Ms. Duchene is also the founder of Diabetics/Disabled Anonymous, a non profit charity, for the purpose of advancing the rights of disabled, senior and low income members of the community in respect to medical, legal and official abuses, as Ms. Duchene knew what it meant to be a victim of such misconduct, see: www.MurderbyDiabetes.org.

1998, August - Building inspector complaining awning and trellis work erected was “carport” and demanding that it be taken down - issue dropped by WSP City.

1998, August - WSP City Inspector came onto property and ordered HRA authorized contractor to leave before he could install replacement entry doors - City of WSP reversed position and desisted from bothering contractor. HRA staff advised and concerned.

1998, September through October - leaves collected and bagged by volunteers from Council of Churches volunteers on another (in black plastic bags) and placed against fence for storage until spring, where they remain, so that the leaves would not blow around in winter and would act as a wind barrier from northeasterly winds. Occupant, Mary Jane Duchene allergic to leave mold and therefore obtained help with leaves.

       Notwithstanding that in 1997, the City Attorney, Korrine Larson Land, was chastised by the Judge of Dakota County District Court for about 20 minutes, before a full court inclusive Ms. Land's peer attorneys and several witnesses for Ms. Duchene (the substance of the judge's comments were that Ms. Larson Land knew that no offense had been committed and was therefore unable to write a long form complaint stating what offense Ms. Duchene had committed), in January of 2000, Ms. Larson Land again legally sanctioned the frivolous criminal complaints made by the City, against Ms. Duchene, while Ms. Duchene was remodeling her kitchen, and donating old appliances to the needy.

       When forced to dismiss this charge because state law prohibits placing appliances in the garbage, and requires recycling, Ms. Larson Land instigated another criminal charge about leaves, and intended to cause significant litigation to dispute the meaning of compost. This was removed to federal court, whereupon Ms. Larson Land finally dismissed the charges.