Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Gene Rechtzigel, Petitioner v. City of Apple Valley, Minnesota

Supreme Court briefApr 29, 2019

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No.l'e

3m Tbe,

'upremt Court of the Nuiteb 6tatto

GENE RECHTZIGEL,

Petitioner,

FILED

CITY OF APPLE VALLEY,

APR 29 2019

OFFICEOF THE CLERK I

SUPRI

EME CO UT U S

Respondent.

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

To The Minnesota Court Of Appeals

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

GENE RECHTZIGEL

Pro Se

6533 160th Street West

Apple Valley, MN 55124

(612-618-0780)

RECEIVED

MAY 1- 2019

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

U.S. I

SUPREME COUR T,

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Did the Government deprive Petitioner of Liberty,

without Due Process of Law?

Did the Government deprive Petitioner of Property, without Due Process of Law?

Did the Government deprive Petitioner of a Trial

by Jury, without Due Process of Law?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................i

OPINIONS BELOW.............................................1

JURISDICTION...................................................2

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................5

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

CONCLUSION.....................................................39

APPENDIX

Minnesota Supreme Court, Order, January 29,

2019 ..................................................................App. 1

Minnesota Court of Appeals, Order Opinion,

November 13, 2018...........................................App. 2

Dakota County District Court, Findings of Fact,

Order and Memorandum, October 3, 2017.....App. 10

Dakota County District Court, Order and Memorandum, January 19,2018 ........................... App. 15

Petition for Review in the Minnesota Supreme

Court, December 13, 2018..............................App. 24

111

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Adam v. Hoover, Docket No. 114847, Michigan

Court of Appeals, November 2, 1992 ........................8

Amati v. Haraden, 280 Minn. 399, 159 N.W2d

907(1968) ..................................................................7

C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States L Stradley,

818 F.2d 696 (1987) .................................................25

City of Mankato v. Hilgers, 313 N.W2d 610

(Minn. 1981) ............................................................38

City of Minneapolis v. Wilkin, 30 Minn. 140, 14

N.W. 581 (1883) .......................................................17

City of St. Paul v. Nickl, 42 Minn. 262, 44 N.W.

59(1890) ..................................................................17

Curtis v. St. Paul S & T F RR, 20 Minn. 28 (Gil.

19)(1873) .................................................................21

Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 79 S. Ct. 1400,

3 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1959)...........................................27

In re Improvement of Third Street, St. Paul, 185

Minn. 170 (Minn. 1932)...........................................18

Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota,A16-0360 (May 24, 2017)................................22

M.C.D.A. v. Golden Spike, Inc., 536 N.W2d 30

(1995).................................................................36,37

Mary Elizabeth Jackson v. Samuel William

Bownas, et al., No. E2004-01893-COA-R3-CV,

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Knoxville,

Filed June 21, 2005...................................................8

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Continued

Page

Minneapolis St. PR & D Elec. Traction Co. v.

Goodspeed, 128 Minn. 66,150 N.W. 222 (1914).......21

Mohrman & Kaardal, PA., Plaintiff v. Gene

Rechtzigel individually, Gene Rechtzigel as

Personal Representative for Estate of Frank

Rechtzigel and as Trustee of any Trust thereunder, Gene Rechtzigel as Trustee for the Evelyn I. Rechtzigel Trust; Gene Rechtzigel as

Trustee of the Frank H. Rechtzigel Charitable

Trust Remainder Unitrust and Rex RentalsFR.R., Defendants...................................................24

Mulkey v. Reitman, 64 Cal. 2d 529, 50 Cal. Rptr.

881, 413 P.2d 825 (1966),judgment affd, 387

U.S. 369, 87 S. Ct. 1627, 18 L. Ed. 2d 830

(1967).......................................................................26

State ex rel. Doerrler v. District Court, 44 N.W.

59, 42 Minn. 262 (1890) ..........................................18

State v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70, 108 N.W.2d 769

(1961).......................................................................38

State v. Jude, 258 Minn. 43, 102 N.W2d 501

(1960)...........................................................22, 31, 32

State v. McAndrews, 286 Minn. 115,175 N.W.2d

492(1970) ................................................................ 38

State v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477, 110 N.W.2d 206

(1961).................................................................21,38

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Continued

Page

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Const. Amend. I ......................................................3, 35

Const. Amend. IV..........................................................3

Const. Amend. V ...............................................3,251 35

Const. Amend. VII ..................................................4, 35

Const. Amend. XIV ...............................4, 24, 25, 26, 35

Minn. Const. Art. I, Sec. 2.............................................4

Minn. Const. Art. I, Sec. 4.................................4, 25, 35

Minn. Const. Art. I, Sec. 7.............................................5

Minn. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8.............................................5

STATUTES

Minn. Stat. 117.086 ....................................5, 6, 7, 8, 18

Minn. Stat. 117.115 ..............................................18, 28

Minn. Stat. 117.145 ............................................ passim

Minn. Stat. 117.165 ....................................................19

Minn. Stat. 117.175 ....................................................18

Minn. Stat. 559.25 ........................................................7

Minn. Stat. 645.17 ........................................................5

OPINIONS BELOW

The Decree of A18-0493, entered on January 29,

2019, by the State of Minnesota Supreme Court stated

that Petition for Review of Decision of Court of Appeals

for further review be, and the same is, denied.

The Decree of A18-0493, entered on Nov. 13, 2018,

by the Minnesota Court of Appeals stated that the district court's order is affirmed and Petitioners appeal is

a second appeal on the same case; which is a misrepresentation of law and facts, because this instant appeal

is a new appeal of Minn. Statute 117.145 which never

was appealed before. The truth of the matter proves

this to be a new appeal concerning only the commissioners' award, and the only issue in trial de novo before the jury is the amount of damages, and the jury

must measure the damages to the same land that the

commissioners did. The appellate court should not be

substituting its own judgment for that of the jury! The

appellate court is stating that the law of the case, res

judicata, or collateral estoppel bars an appeal concerning the constitutional right of having a trial by jury to

grant "just compensation" concerning the amount of

damages the condemnation "taking" caused. This issue

of damages has never been up on appeal before and is

a constitutional granted right to Petitioner (Rechtzigel) concerning a trial de novo trial by jury of amount

of damages.

The Trial Court Order of 19HA-CV-14-1763 entered on Oct. 3, 2017 which stated that the City of Apple Valley's motion to dismiss is granted, the "notice of

appeal" is hereby dismissed for failure to properly

serve all respondents as required by Minn. Stat.

117.145, claims are dismissed, motion for change of

venue is moot, and motion to dismiss is denied. The

trial court order misrepresents the law and facts as after the filing and mailing of the Notice of Appeal,

Rechtzigel is the Plaintiff and the City of Apple Valley

is the Defendant as is stated in "common law." It appears the court rubber stamped the City of Apple Valley motion to dismiss without requiring any burden of

proof, without any testimony, without any evidence of

proof from the City of Apple Valley a constitutional

right to a trial de novo before a trial by jury concerning

the amount of damages of "just compensation" was

denied Petitioner, Plaintiff Rechtzigel.

The Trial Court Order of 19HA-CV-14-1763 entered on Jan. 19, 2018 stated that Respondent Rechtzigel's motions are hereby denied in their entirety.

Petitioner's Petition for Review of Decision of

Court of Appeals in No. A18-0493, Dated December 13,

2018.

JURISDICTION

The judgment/order of the Minnesota Supreme

Court was entered on January 29, 2019 (the entry

date) from which a timely 90 days for petitioning a Review on Certiorari is by April 29, 2019. The jurisdiction

of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV

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

Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or

things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the

land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual

service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any

person be subject for the same offence to be twice put

in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any

criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be

deprived of life, liberty, or property. without due process

of law; nor shall private property be taken for public

use, without just compensation.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy

shall exceed twenty dollars, the, right of trial by jury

shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be

otherwise re-examined in any court of the United

States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the

United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

are citizens of the United States and of the State

wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce

any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without

due process of law; nor deny to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Minnesota Constitution, Article I, Bill of Rights, Sec. 4

Trial by Jury says that, "The right of trial by jury shall

remain inviolate, and shall extend to all cases at law

without regard to the amount in controversy." Also in

Sec. 2 Rights and Privileges, "No member of this state

shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights

or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by

the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

Minnesota Constitution, Article I, Sec. 8 Redress of Injuries or Wrongs says that, "Every person is entitled to

a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs

which he may receive to his person, property, or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and

without delay, conformable to the laws."

Minnesota Constitution, Article I, Sec. 7, says that, "No

person shall. be deprived of life, liberty, or property

without due process of law."

Minnesota Statute 645.17 Presumptions In Ascertaining Legislative Intent says that, "(3) the legislature

does not intend to violate the Constitution of the

United States or of this state."

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Notice of Appeal

Please take notice that the above-named Respondents, Gene Rechtzigel, individually and as trustee of

Evelyn I. Rechtzigel Trust, as trustee of the Frank H.

Rechtzigel trust, and as P.R. of the Estate of Frank H.

Rechtzigel, serves, all who are shown in the petitioner's affidavit of mailing (as required of petitioner

in Minn. Stat. 117.115), on all parties, and files a Notice of Appeal, on July 5, 2017, to the district court

of Dakota County, Minnesota, within 40 days, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 117.145 and 117.086 from

the mailed notice of the report of the commissioners

that was filed on May 26, 2017 with the court.

This Notice of Appeal specifies the particular

award of $47,000.00 as a failure to award damages

to the owner of the property herein described as Gene

Rechtzigel, individually and as trustee of Evelyn I.

Rechtzigel Trust, as trustee of the Frank H. Rechtzigel

trust, and as P.R. of the Estate of Frank H. Rechtzigel.

This Notice of Appeal specifies that the nature is

for damages that occurred, such as "to reimburse the

owner for the land taken," and including "the

amount of the award of damages" "to reimburse

the owner for damages to the remainder tract

not taken whether or not described in the petition" under Minnesota Statutes 117.145, under Minnesota Statutes 117.086, and under Minnesota

Statutes 117.175 and as granted under the United

States and Minnesota Constitution and bill of rights.

1. This Notice of Appeal specify the "nature" and

"amount of the claim" to be:

A. To reimburse the owner for the land taken:

a. AREA: 46,888 Square Feet (1.08 Acres,

Not a Retracement Survey of Historical

Farm Property Line, as is required by

Minn. Statutes 559.25, [legal irons of

Retracement Survey of Historical Farm

Property Line were pulled up illegally by

Fischer according to the Minnesota Appeals Court Decision of A13-1661, Peter

Wells Fischer vs. Gene A. Rechtzigel, Filed

August 25, 2014, Reversed, Kirk, Judge,

stated, "Because the HRO had expired

and the district court did not find

Rechtzigel in contempt for violating the

HRO, it did not have authority in the

HRO proceeding to allow Fischer to remove the iron monument from his

property] but an illegal [in violation of

Minn. Statutes 559.251 theoretical survey laid down on land that Rechtzigel

owns both sides of, without Fischer or the

City being in possession of for the Statutory 15 years), multiplied by $400,000.00

Per Acres, equals an reimbursement of

$432,000.00 that the City of Apple Valley

owes to the Rechtzigels, according to area

by Bolton & Menk, Inc. hired by City of

Apple Valley to do the fraudulent Survey.

b. See B., a., for correct legal Sq. Feet and

Acres according to "common law" and

Minnesota Statutes 559.25, for real Retracement Survey.

B. To reimburse the owner for damages to the

remainder tract not taken whether or not described in the petition. and giving herein additional notice required in Minn. Statutes

117.086:

$172,209.80 for: AREA: 53,582 Sq. Feet =

1.23007 Acres, the legal amount of Acres

that is in compliance with Minn. Statutes 559.25, Amati vs. Haraden, 280

Minn. 399, 159 N.W.2d 907 (1968) ("evidence of acts and conduct of parties and

their predecessors in interest over a period

of at least 38 years was sufficient to warrant establishment of boundary line by

practical location by trial court"), Mary

Elizabeth Jackman vs. Samuel William Bownas, et al., No. E2004-01893COA-R3-CV, Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Knoxville, Filed June 21, 2005

("the court found the boundary to be the

fence line that had been in existence for 60

years. We affirm."), Adam vs. Hoover,

Docket No. 114847, Michigan Court ofAppeals, November 2, 1992, 10:05 A.M.,

("The Daley Court held that long established occupational lines are not

to be disturbed by recent surveys and

that settled boundaries shall be allowed repose and shall not be disturbed. "), and the Minnesota Appeals

Court Decision of A13-1661, Peter Wells

Fischer, vs. Gene A. Rechtzigel, Filed August 25, 2014, Reversed, Kirk, Judge,

stated, "Because the HRO had expired

and the district court did not find

Rechtzigel in contempt for violating the

HRO, it did not have authority in the

HRO proceeding to allow Fischer to remove the iron monument from his

property"], multiplied by $400,000.00

Per Acres, equals an reimbursement of

$172,209.80 for land strip of Rechtzigels.

(This section of this notice [I., B., a.]

serves both to fulfill the notice contents of

both Minn. Statutes 117.145, and 117.086)

$1,530,305.79 (100% damage) to remainder 3.8257 Acres multiplied by

$400,000.00, equals $1,530,305.79, for

land under road that connects the farm

land strip (that city is condemning) to

the farm land builds site that all together

totals 10.11 acres in Apple Valley Rechtzigel Farm site, that qualifies the farm for

"green acres" and for being a "farm" under Apple Valley City Code. The Condemnation of the Rechtzigel land Strip kills

the need of the Rechtzigel road acres to

connect to the condemned strip of land

"taken" kills the land building site because the 10.11 acres that qualifies it as

a farm and for purposes of future green

acres is a part of City's "taking," due to

this case of Eminent Domain Condemnation Quick Take by the City of Apple Valley.

$518,112.37 (25% damage to remainder

5.181 acres remaining of and around

farm buildings property site) that City of

Apple Valley created of injury,hardships,

loss, and damages to Farm Property Classification, loss of land use, and damage to

Farm Fence and much higher property

taxes from the "taking" of past years, present years and future years, due to this

case of Eminent Domain Condemnation

Quick Take by the City of Apple Valley.

$135,420.87 for unjust enrichment of going to Court to stop fraudulent adverse

possession by Fischer Market LLP in February 8,9, 2012 Hearing, Judgment Filed

April 6, 2012, and June 25, 2012 Hearing

for the Amended Judgment Filed on August 22, 2012, and subsequent hearings

and hours for an expense of 135,420.87 by

Mohrman and Kaardal, P.A. on the Fisher

Market LLP land case, due to the City's

direct attendance at and due to this case

of Eminent Domain Condemnation Quick

Take by the City of Apple Valley that the

City was planning on doing.

$20,847.76 for the City of Apple Valley

• sponsored Fischer Market Harassment

Proceedings that an Apple Valley Police

Officer and Mr. Fischer told city residents

(that Mr. Rechtzigel witnessed from 20

feet away) to file against Mr. Rechtzigel

because Mr. Rechtzigel drove on his own

strip of property to defend the Rechtzigel

East Property Line from illegal take of

property on or about April 7, 2012, which

hearing the City of Apple Valley attended

and were involved in due to this case of

Eminent Domain Condemnation Quick

Take by the City of Apple Valley that the

City was planning on doing.

$50,000 estimated for the hardship of the

destruction of Mr. Rechtzigel's farm business as damage to his ability to run his

farm business effectively as the land being reclassified as "residential" and having to fight numerous repeated legal

battles with the City of Apple Valley's malicious. prosecution, due to them claiming

he was no longer a farm because of the

land being less than 10 acres, with the

unknown expense of the take causing 3

present alleged unjustified misdemeanor

charges currently pending and unresolved because of the malicious prosecution from the City of Apple Valley towards

Mr. Rechtzigel, due to this case of Eminent Domain Condemnation Quick Take

by the City of Apple Valley.

$8000 for the hiring of attorney Ronald B.

Sieloff to defend Mr. Rechtzigel in this

proceeding due to the malicious prosecution from the City of Apple Valley towards

Mr. Rechtzigel, due to this case of Eminent Domain Condemnation Quick Take

by the City of Apple Valley.

$100,000 for the hiring of attorney Mark

Olson to defend Mr. Rechtzigel in these

and other various proceedings related to

this condemnation due to the malicious

prosecution from the City of Apple Valley

towards Mr. Rechtzigel, due to this case of

Eminent Domain Condemnation Quick

Take by the City of Apple Valley.

$7500 for the hiring of attorney Dirk

Schwieger to defend Mr. Rechtzigel from

an accusation of an alleged misdemeanor

resulting from the malicious prosecution

from the City of Apple Valley towards Mr.

Rechtzigel, due to this case of Eminent

Domain Condemnation Quick Take by

the City of Apple Valley.

$5000 for the hiring of law firm Chandler

and Brown to defend Mr. Rechtzigel from

an accusation of 3 alleged misdemeanors

resulting from the malicious prosecution

from the City of Apple Valley towards Mr.

Rechtzigel, due to this case of Eminent

Domain Condemnation Quick Take by

the City of Apple Valley.

k. $50,000 for the emotional, mental, and

physical damage of being jailed for walking on his own land, the proof of ownership being found in Judge King's

November 12, 2013 Filed Judgment stating, "Despite all of the issues surrounding

ownership of the gap, the Court is convinced that Rechtzigel owns the gap. The

Court reaches this conclusion because

Rechtzigel's predecessors farmed the gap

for over 15 consecutive years up until the

time of the sale to Pulte". The Apple Valley

City Attorney and police officers under

their control are directly connected to this

damage due to this case of Eminent Domain Condemnation Quick Take by the

City of Apple Valley.

$25,000 for the emotional, mental, and

physical damage of being jailed a second

time in relation to this case, because of

the malicious prosecution by the City of

Apple Valley against Mr. Rechtzigel, due

to this case of Eminent Domain Condemnation Quick Take by the City of Apple

Valley.

This Notice of Appeal specify "the land to which

it relates" is:

The West one-half of the Southwest Quarter (W ½

of SW 'A) and the West 30 acres of the East

one-half of the Southwest Quarter (E ½ of SW 1/4),

all in Section 35, Township 115, Range 20, Containing 110 acres, more or less, according to the

Government Survey thereof. Except the plat of

REGATTA, Dakota County, Minnesota; And except the plat of REGATTA 2ND ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota. Subject to all easements

recorded and unrecorded. This land described

above contains 10.11 acres. Said above described

land is more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the Southwest Corner of said Section

35; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 54 seconds East, assumed bearing, a distance of 90.00

feet along the west line of said Section 35; thence

South 89 degrees 57 minutes 42 seconds East, a

distance of 50.00 feet to a point on the north line

of the Dakota County Right of Way Map No. 160;

thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 50 seconds

East along the east line of Flagstaff Avenue as

shown on said plat of REGATTA 2ND ADDITION;

thence continuing along said east line of Flagstaff

Avenue a distance of 172.73 feet, along a tangential curve concave to the west, radius of 1050.00

feet; thence continuing along said east line of Flagstaff Avenue a distance of 3.15 feet, along a tangential curve concave to the east, radius 950.00

feet; thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 820.69 feet, along the

south lines of said plats of REGATTA 2ND ADDITION and REGATTA; thence South 00 degrees 07

minutes 51 seconds West, a distance of 275.00 feet

along the west line of said plat of REGATTA;

thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 42 seconds

East, a distance of 968.36 feet along the south line

of said plat of REGATTA, to the southeast corner

of REGATTA; thence North 00 degrees 02 minutes

18 seconds East, a distance of 2564.98 feet along

the east line of said plat of REGATTA, to the

northeast corner of REGATTA; thence North 89

degrees 57 minutes 33 seconds East along the

north line of said Southwest Quarter of section 35,

a distance of 15.95 feet; thence South 00 degrees

02 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 650.82

feet; thence South 00 degrees 16 minutes 56 seconds East, a distance of 2004.22 feet to the south

line of said Southwest Quarter of Section 35;

thence North 89 degrees 57 minutes 42 seconds

West, along said south line of said Southwest

Quarter of Section 35, a distance of 1851.67 feet,

to the point of beginning.

This Notice ofAppeal specifies the "grounds of the

appeal" to be:

A. That the City of Apple Valley, the Condemning

Authority, did not follow the Minnesota Statutes in fulfilling the legislature's intent that

the condemning authority act in "good faith"

to secure all safeguards of the procedures of

the condemnation proceedings which the City

of Apple Valley has failed at doing as some examples of the City's failure is:

(a) The Report is false, because none of the

undersigned commissioners "met at the

time and place appointed by the Court

thereof, to-wit, in the office of District

Court, in the City of Hastings, State of

Minnesota" and all the Commissioners

failed to each to take the oath prescribed

bylaw.

The Report is inadequate, incomplete

without any foundation as who the owner

is of the property, and to the size of the

property?

The Report omits that Rechtzigel is sole

ownership of the property in question

as stated by the District Court (Point 39,

Page 14, Nov. 12, 2013 Judgment by

Judge Robert R. King Jr., Court File No.

1911A-CV-09-5476) "Despite all of the issues surrounding ownership of the gap,

the Court is convinced that Rechtzigel owns the gap. The Court reaches this

conclusion because Rechtzigel's predecessors farmed the gap for over 15 consecutive years up until the time of the sale to

Pulte. The Court is convinced of that due

to the testimony of Dorene Nepsund, who

testified consistent with that claim and

Thus, after the sale,

was credible

Rechtzigel still owned the gap." that

was submitted at the commissioner's

hearing.

The Report is full of misrepresentations

and in denial of the fact that the Judge

Robert R. King Jr. Judgment of Nov 12,

2013 is controlling, quote, "To the extent

there are any inconsistencies between

these orders, the following Findings, Conclusions, and Order controls" ("Filed Dakota County, Carolyn M. Remm, Court

FINDAdministrator NOV. 12, 2013

INGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF

LAW AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT

...

INS

Court File No.

AND JUDGMENT

19HA-CV-09-5476"), which clearly states

that Rechtzigel owns the entire property

in this condemnation action and". Mr.

Rechtzigel can still proceed with his separate registration action filed on February

22,2012."

...

The Report misrepresents and omits the

fact of the "Land Boundary Survey,

Rechtzigel Farm Land" by State Engineering & Surveying Inc., Professional

Land Surveyor James Bridell, (Minnesota License No. 23266) and that the size

of damaged property from the taking is

10.11 acres, that was submitted at the

commissioner's hearing.

The Report misrepresents and omits what

was submitted at the Commissioner's

Hearing by the Rechtzigel's, it was submitted that the area of the strip of land

extending from the South line of SW '/

Section 35 to the North line of SW 1/4 Section 35 (full strip of land): 53,582 Sq. Feet,

1.23007 acres, as area was surveyed and

a written report, that was submitted to

the commissioner's Hearing, gave proof,

of area, of strip of land, dated July 5, 2013

(State Engineering & Surveying Inc., Jim

Bridell, RLS, Minnesota License No.

23266 Registered Land Surveyor. (Land

Boundary Survey, Rechtzigel Farm Land,

also submitted).

The Report misrepresents and omits the

fact that adjacent properties are valued at

$400,000 according to the County Appraiser, from the many Appraisals submitted at the Commissioner's Hearings

on May 16, 2017 at the Apple Valley City

Hall.

The Report omits who the parties were at

the Commissioner's Hearing.

Rechtzigel & Zachary Stadem (P. of A.),

made objections to your proposed report

to the Court and to your Proposed Award

of Commissioners Form in a letter dated

May 24, 2017, stating that the Report of

the Commissioners is inaccurate, incomplete, and biased, not impartial.

Mr. Rechtzigel fully objects and rejects

the Commissioner's Report as partial, unfair, and the procedures and process unstatutory and Unconstitutional.

B. The grounds are Statutory, Constitutional,

Factual and Common Law in seeking good

faith in the Court to set aside the award and

the commissioners because the commissioners were not guided by the rules of evidence

and misapprehended the principles on which

they were bound to make the assessment

(City of Minneapolis v. Within, 30 Minn.

140,14 N.W. 581 (1883); City of St. Paul v.

Nichl, 42 Minn. 262,44 N.W. 59 (1890)) from

the start of not taking the oath as stated as a

shall in the court's order of when, where, and

who.

INII

'Si

The grounds are factual and of law to justify

the setting aside of the award of the commissioners as being grossly inadequate and disproportionate to the value of the land taken

and to the damages to remainder tract not

taken whether or not described in the petition

(Minn. Stat. 117.175; 117.086; and Minn.

1929, In re Improvement of Third Street,

St. Paul, 185 Minn. 170 (Minn. 1932)).

The grounds that the commissioners were not

guided by the rules of evidence and misapprehended the principles on which they were

bound to make the assessment is incorporated

in this Notice to Appeal and lays a foundation

for the court to find the Commissioners inadequate, unfair, and the proceedings should

be set aside and a new appraisement made

before new commissioners (State ex rel.

Doerrier v. District Court, 44 N.W. 59, 42

Minn. 262 (1890)).

The grounds incorporate this entire Notice of

Appeal and the evidence given and stated by

Rechtzigel at the Commissioner's Hearing on

May 16, 2017 at Apple Valley City Hall. This

condemnation has done the Rechtzigels irreparable harm to both the land the City is taking under Minn. Statutes 117.115 by failing to

pay Rechtzigel the full amount of damages

that the Rechtzigels are entitled to. Rechtzigel

is entitled under Minn. Statute 117.115 to full

and just compensation for the land that was

taken, and the damages incurred as a result

of this taking. Under Minn. Statute 117.086

and Minn. Stat 117.175 sub 1 & 2 Rechtzigel

is also entitled to the full and just compensation from the damages to his remaining land;

the value lost in reduction in size and appeal;

the value and rights lost in reduction to less

than 10 acres, thus not able to qualify for

Green Acres farm rights and protections.

Rechtzigel has the right under Minn. Statute

117.165 subd. 1 that "when an appeal is

taken from the commissioner's award to

the district court, the parties are entitled

to a jury trial." Rechtzigel also has the right

under Minn. Statute 117.145 that "A party

who is not satisfied with the commissioner's

award may appeal the award to the district

court." Therefore he has the full right by law

to appeal and ask that the award be set aside

and given new commissioners, acting fair and

impartial and willing to give a just and impartial compensation assessment.

Since 2011, the City of Apple Valley has been

indirectly and directly planning, preparing,

and working on condemning the Rechtzigel

strip of land through malicious prosecution,

for the City of Apple Valley was involved in attending the Fisher Market Case Court File

No. 19HA-CV-09-5476 trials by Court on February 8,9, 2012, "MR. DONELY: Your Honor,

Thomas Donely, D-o-n-e-1-y, on behalf of the

City of Apple Valley."; June 25, 2012 Hearing,

"MR DONELY: Thomas Donely, Assistant Attorney for the City of Apple Valley."; July 2,

2013 Hearing, "MR. WISDORF: Ryan Wisdorj'

W-i-s-d-o-r-f city of Apple Valley."; July 9th

2013, Hearing, "Mr. Wisdorf, W-e-s-d-o-r-j for

the city of Apple Valley."; August 2, 2013

Hearing, "MR. WISDORF: Brian Wisdort City

of Apple Valley."

The City was and is involved in bringing

the strongest wall of prejudice against

the Rechtzigel strip of land, that has been

farmed for generations, included in the

farm by possession with proof of historic

fence line and plow line that never moved

but honored the fence line always.

•

This wall of prejudice against Rechtzigel

unjustly calls the Rechtzigel strip on land

the "Gap."

•

The Commissioners decided to be partial

and bias like the City of Apple Valley.

•

The City of Apple Valley attended my Determination of Boundary hearing, and got

the lawful action to be dismissed out of

fear of having a jury trial that would

honor the common law historic fence line.

• Thomas Ross Donely, Severson, Sheldon,

Doughtery & Molenda, 7300 West 147th

Street, Suite 600, Apple Valley, MN 55124

was on the court Notice of Filing of Order

with Gerald S. Duffy, and Christopher

Raymond Grote of an Court Order Filed

February 7, 2012, Court File No. 19HACV-09-5476 known as "STIPULATION

AND ORDER REGARDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AND CONSENT TO

RIGHT OF WAY RIGHTS OF MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY L.P.", an order that brought strong prejudice against

the Rechtzigel Historic Farm Fence Property Line, wasted my valuable time and

wasted my finances to an attorney who

betrayed me and my family into the

hands of the City of Apple Valley to destroy the farm's east property line and to

create a Gap when there never was a gap.

The malicious prosecution and illegal legal plunder of the Rechtzigel farm land

strip by the City of Apple Valley is a disgraceful, wrongful act of a governmental

crime being conducted even in this Condemnation Action which should be dismissed, because the City of Apple Valley

has corrupted itself.

G. The Plaintiff (Respondent) is asking that this

Condemnation Action by the City of Apple

Valley be Dismissed and/or moved to a different County of Venue (Minneapolis St. PR &

D Elec. Traction Co. v. Goodspeed, 128

Minn. 66,150 N.W. 222 (1914); Curtis v. St.

Paul S & T F RR, 20 Minn. 28 (Gil. 19)

(1873)). Plaintiff (State v. Pearson, 260 Minn.

477, 110 N.W.2d 206 (1961)) (Rechtzigel) is

also demanding a Jury Trial, and incorporates

all facts and law of this Notice of Petition and

prays for Dismissal of this Condemnation Action to remove the strong prejudice and hate

the City of Apple Valley has against the

Rechtzigel.'

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

I. Did the Government deprive Petitioner of

Liberty, without Due Process of Law?

The Government deprived Petitioner of Liberty,

and Due Process of Law by denying Petitioner's

legal right to invoke the Minnesota anti-SLAPP

statutes. (Judge Robert R. King's Judgment of

November 12, 2013 states "Rechtzigel owns

the Gap." App. 29). The purpose of using the

anti-SLAPP statutes in this case is to force

Respondent (City of Apple Valley) to show

there is no other parties to the proceedings

having an interest in any parcel described in

this instant appeal who are shown in the petitioner's (City of Apple Valley) affidavit of

mailing except Respondent (City of Apple Valley and Petitioner (Rechtzigel) individually

and as trustee of Rechtzigel Trusts. Respondent (petitioner, City of Apple Valley) listed

many non-parties to the proceedings that

have no interest in any parcel described in

this appeal. It appears that Respondent (City

of Apple Valley, condemnor) by technical

means has attempted to defeat the landowner's right to his day in court. Condemnor

has intentionally created this hardship, a deception of adding names of people who do not

have an interest, and never had a interest in

any parcel described in this instant appeal.

(See State v. Jude, 258 Minn. 44, Supreme

Court of Minnesota (April 22, 1960)).

In Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of

Minnesota, A16-0360, Minnesota Supreme

Court, Filed May 24, 2017, it found "the court

of appeals determined that mere allegations in

a complaint could satisfy the anti-SLAPP

law's requirement that the responding party

show by clear and convincing evidence that the

moving part's acts are not immune" but in this

instant case the district court and the court of

appeal fail to grant Petitioner Rechtzigel the

same Equal Protection under the 14th

Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Government deprived Petitioner of Liberty, and Due Process of Law by not being required to meet any burden of proof that

Petitioner failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Minn. Stat. 117.145

(2016). The City presented no witnesses, no

documental proof, but only empty conclusions

without foundation.

The Government deprived Petitioner of Liberty, and Due Process of Law by denying Petitioner (Rechtzigel), also a trustee (again the

real party in interest, a non-attorney, sole

trustee, sole beneficiary) the right to appear

in propria persona in his own behalf, a privilege that is personal, a non-fiduciary trustee

to petition the government. For Petitioner's

trusts are personal trusts, and his relationship with the trusts are non-fiduciary (No fiduciary duty), and that fact is in the record.

Petitioner should have been allow to selfrepresent his personal trusts as the trial

court has previously allowed when Petitioner

was a defendant (See Minnesota First

Judicial District, Dakota County Court File

No. 19HA-CV-13-4181 (Mohrman & Kaardal,

PA., Plaintiff v. Gene Rechtzigel individually,

Gene Rechtzigel as Personal Representative for

Estate of Frank Rechtzigel and as Trustee of

any Trust thereunder, Gene Rechtzigel as Trustee for the Evelyn I. Rechtzigel Trust; Gene

Rechtzigel as Trustee of the Frank H. Rechtzigel Charitable Trust Remainder Unitrust and

Rex Rentals-FR.R., Defendants.). As shown

above, when Petitioner was a defendant, the

trial court allow Petitioner as a trustee in a

separate unrelated case to this instant case,

to self-represent his personal trusts, but when

Petitioner is a plaintiff, and Respondent is the

defendant, as in this instant case, then an objection is made, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the

United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. The 14th Amendment of

the United States Constitution states, "No

state shall make or enforce any law which

shall abridge the privileges or immunities of

citizens of the United States; nor shall any

state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to

any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws." It is a double standard

and a violation of the equal protection clause,

a violation of due process of law to deprive the

rights of life, liberty, and property when the

trial court only objects to my personal trusts

when Petitioner is the Plaintiff, but allow Petitioner as a defendant in those cases to selfrepresent his personal trusts, which is a clear

double standard and a violation of the 14th

Amendment of the United States Constitution. For Petitioner has a constitutional right

under the Judiciary Act of 1789, Sec. 35, 1

Stat. 73, 92 (1789) which provides that "in all

the courts of the United States, the parties may

plead and manage their own causes personally

Whereas 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1654 states, "In

all courts of the United States the parties may

plead and conduct their own cases personally

or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein." As stated in C.E. Pope

Equity Trust v. United States L Stradley, 818

F.2d 696, United States Court of Appeals,

Ninth Circuit, Decided June 2, 1987.

Minnesota Stat. 117.145 is unconstitutional

under Minn. Const. Art. I, & 4 and under the

5th and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it violated Rechtzigel's constitutional right to a trial by jury.

The non-parties on the City of Apple Valleys

affidavit of service should have been locked

out of having interest in the land by Res Judicata by the Final Judgment ofjudge Robert R.

King Jr. dated November 12, 2013 on court file

No. 19HA-CV-09-5476 on pages App. 22, App.

23, App. 24, and App. 40 in the Petition for a

Writ of Certiorari, in the Supreme Court of

the United States No. 15-247, received August

28, 2015, and App. 29 of this Petition, where it

was found that the only parties of interest to

the same identical land parcel was and is

Rechtzigel and no one else as of November 12,

2013. For it would take at least 15 years from

November 12, 2013 for all those non-parties

the City of Apple Valley intentionally listed on

its Affidavit of Service to become ripe to gain

interest to make a claim on the theory of

adverse possession or any other theory. Petitioner Rechtzigel is not required under

117.145 to serve them (but did anyway) on the

same parcel of identical land as they are nonparties with no interest in the legal description in the notice of appeal of the report of the

commissioners.

G. The Government deprived Petitioner of Liberty, without Due Process of Law by denying

Petitioner the right to possess, enjoy, protect,

and dispose of his land in violation of the

Equal Protection Clause, of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and

Minnesota Constitution.

II. Did the Government deprive Petitioner of

Property, without Due Process of Law?

Respondent, City of Apple Valley, deprive Petitioner the rights to enjoy, own and dispose of

the property for "just compensation" at a fair

market price, which rights are protected by

the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th

Amendment of the United States Constitution as stated in Mulkey v. Reitman, 64 Cal. 2d

529, 50 Cal. Rptr. 881, 413 P.2d 825 (1966),

judgment affd, 387 U.S. 369. 87 S. Ct. 1627, 18

L. Ed. 2d 830 (1967)

Respondent, City of Apple Valley, deprived Petitioner of property (just compensation) and

due process of law by discriminatorily applying Minn. Statutes 117.145 in a unreasonable,

unjust, arbitrary fashion that creates unauthorized actions of government officials which

substantially impairs Petitioner's property

interests which is prohibited under Greene

v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 79 S. Ct. 1400, 3

L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1959).

Respondent, City of Apple Valley, as petitioner (condemnor) under Minn. Statutes

117.145 made an unauthorized (by the

statutes of the Minnesota Legislature) list

of parties (App. 10 and App. 15), that do

not have any interest in any parcel

described in this appeal of the commissioner's award, as a way to railroad Petitioner (Rechtzigel) out of, from getting

"just compensation" and denying Petitioner (Rechtzigel) the Due Process right

of obtaining "just compensation" from

having a Trial by Jury, under Minn. Statutes 117.145. Respondent (City of Apple

Valley) is defrauding Petitioner of "just

compensation" and the due process right

of having a Trial by Jury to establish full

and fair "just compensation" by one's

peers in creating a unreasonable, unjust,

arbitrary petitioner's (City of Apple Valley) affidavit of mailing where, except for

Petitioner (Rechtzigel individually, and

his trusts), all other parties (App. 10 and

App. 15), listed never had, and do not

have any interest in any parcel described

in the appeal of the report of the commissioners award.

Minn. Statutes 117.145 states, "At any

time within 40 days from the date that the

report has been filed, any party to the proceedings may appeal to the district court

from any award of damages embraced in

the report, or from any omission to award

damages, by: (1) filing with the court administrator a notice of such appeal, and

(2) serving by mail a copy of such notice

on all respondents and all other parties to

the proceedings having an interest in

any parcel described in the appeal

who are shown in the petitioner's affidavit

of mailing, required by section 117.115,

subdivision 2, as having been mailed a

notice of the report of the commissioners. . . ." Petitioner (Rechtzigel) complied

with Minn. Statutes 117.145, in fulfilling

all of its requirements and going beyond

the Statutory requirements by serving all

people on the condemnor's (City's) affidavit of mailing who have no interest in any

parcel described in the appeal and are not

a party to the proceedings of this instant

eminent domain case either before, during, or after this Minn. Statutes 117.145

appeal of the report of the commissioners.

Minn. Statutes 117.145 states, that Petitioner, (Rechtzigel), as the party to the

proceedings serve all respondents, and

other parties to the proceedings "having

an interest in any parcel" described in

the appeal who are shown in the petitioner's affidavit of mailing.

4.61

As in baseball condemnor "City"

never made it to second base.

As in baseball condemnor is first required that all people listed as a

party have "an interest in any parcel

described in the appeal." Except for

Petitioner (Rechtzigel) and Respondent (City of Apple Valley) all of the

people on condemnor's list fail to get

past first base, because they all have

no "interest in any parcel described in

the appeal" in this instant case of the

appeal of the report of the commissioners, and App. 29 this Petition,

and App. 40 in Petition Supreme

Court United States, No. 15-247, August 28, 2015.

As in baseball only condemnor "City"

and Petitioner "Rechtzigel" made it

to second base and are authorized by

legislature of the Minnesota to be

served the notice of appeal and affidavit of mailing which Petitioner

"Rechtzigel" fully did and complied

with Minnesota Statutes 117.145 completely.

d. Petitioner (Rechtzigel) served the notice

of appeal, including Petitioner's (Rechtzigel's) affidavit of mailing on respondent,

on all parties and nonparties having "interest in any parcel describe in the appeal

who are shown in the petitioner's affidavit

of mailing."

Petitioner (Rechtzigel) filed the notice

of appeal and Petitioner's (Rechtzigel)

affidavit of mailing with the court administrator of Dakota Court First Judicial

District within the 40 days that Minn.

Stat. 117.145 requires.

Petitioner (Rechtzigel) has in possession

a few original returned, unopened, untouched notice of appeal and affidavit of

service contained within, returned because

of being undeliverable by the United

States Post Office as proof that Petitioner

(Rechtzigel) fully complied with Minn.

Statute 117.145 and Petitioner (Rechtzigel) has photo copy of the original receipt

from the U.S. Post Office of the payment

made by Petitioner (Rechtzigel) and

served on all the people on condemnor's

(City's) affidavit of service.

Again, let it be remembered, that Petitioner, (Rechtzigel), fully complied with

the statutory requirement of Minn. Statutes 117.145 by serving not only the parties having an interest in any parcel

described in the appeal (which is Petitioner Rechtzigel plus his trusts and the

City of Apple Valley), but also serving all

the people listed in condemnor's (City's)

affidavit of mailing, which have no interest in any parcel described in the appeal

of the report of the commissioners.

Petitioner (Rechtzigel) is the only party to

the proceedings under Minn. Statutes

117.145 who can appeal to the district

court from any award of damages

embrace in the report, or from any omission to award damages.

C. The Trial Court erred in allowing the City to

falsely claim service was insufficient without

any evidence, without having an evidentiary

hearing or requiring a positive showing of bad

faith or error on behalf of Petitioner Rechtzigel. The City simply pointed out that the record, when scanned in at the Court by the court

administrator, does not show the 2 pages that

were attached to Petitioner Rechtzigel's Affidavit of Service, but somehow were not

scanned in correctly by the court administrator and somehow was replaced by the "scheduling order". The City never actually stated at

ANY point that they were not served with the

full Affidavit of Service. To deprive Petitioner

of his rights under the Minnesota and United

States Constitution for a simple and unforeseeable mistake by the court administrator is

clearly in error, and should be reversed. State

v. Jude, states, "The decisions in this state

have never unduly restricted the owner's constitutional right to just compensation where

there has been a taking of private property for

public use under the powers of eminent domain. Attempts on the part of a condemnor by

technical means to defeat the landowner's

right to his day in court have never been

viewed with favor. Every owner is constitutionally entitled to a just and equal application of

the rule that what he owns shall not be taken

from him or destroyed or damaged for public

use without just compensation." ((State v.

Jude, 258 Minn. 43 (1960) 102 N.W. (2d) 501)).

The Trial Court erred in failing to ask the

court administrator if the Affidavit of Service

was, or could have been, scanned incorrectly,

and failing to ask the signer of the document,

and process server, Zachary Stadem, who was

present at the motion to amend hearing and

also submitted an Affidavit stating that all

parties, and non-parties, were served under

Minn. Stat. 117.145, for everyone was served.

The Trial Court erred in failing to allow Petitioner Rechtzigel to correct the alleged defect

(App. 16), at the motion to amend hearing,

which is the correct course of action in this

matter, as State v. Jude states, "The proper

course in this situation is to allow appellant to

amend his notice of appeal to comply with the

statute within a specified reasonable period of

time unless the state can show substantial

prejudice thereby" ((State v. Jude, 258 Minn.

44 (1960) 102 N.W. (2d) 501)), and "In this

state it has long been said that amendment of

pleadings should be allowed with much liberality in furtherance ofjustice." ((State v. Jude,

258 Minn. 45 (1960) 102 N.W. (2d) 501)).

The Appellate Court erred in A18-0493 opinion filed November 13th, 2018 when stating

"Appellant asserts that a notice of appeal with

an attached list of respondent's names satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of section

117.145" (App. 8 at 12.) as that is not what Appellant did, and is not even what the City alleged Appellant had done, and is in error and

misrepresenting the record. The Trial Court

record clearly shows that an affidavit of service

was filed, and signed under penalty of perjury

stating all parties and non-parties were

served, and that the list of names served was

carefully attached to the back of the affidavit

of service, deemed effective by first class mail,

under Minn. Statutes 117.145, which Petitioner fully did.

G. The Government deprived Petitioner of the

property through misrepresenting the facts of

ownership falsely, which thereby denied Petitioner Due Process of Law.

a. Respondent "City" intentionally misrepresented the facts by representing court

order, filed April 6th, 2012, file number

19HA-CV-09-5476 as the final judgment;

which is a misrepresentation, for the filed

November 12th, 2013 judgment is the final

judgment, which "the City" should be representing, but is not. The Court specifically

states on page App. 40 in the Petition for a

Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court

of the United States, No. 15-247, received

August 28th, 2015 that,"Despite all of the

issues surrounding ownership of the gap,

the Court is convinced that Rechtzigel

owns the gap. The Court reaches this conclusion because Rechtzigel's predecessors

farmed the gap for over 15 consecutive

years up until the time of the sale to Pulte.

The Court is convinced of that due to

the testimony of Dorene Nepsund, who

testified consistent with that claim and

was credible" (App. 28, 29, 30), and on

page App. 24 the court further stated

"Mr. Rechtzigel can still proceed with his

separate registration action filed on February 22, 2012." These two factual findings of the Court that no other parties

have any interest in the Remainder Strip

(Gap Parcel) does in fact exclude all alleged parties listed on Respondent

"City's" Affidavit of Service, of the report

of the Commissioners, providing clear

and convincing evidence that Respondent

"City's" alleged parties are in fact nonparties, and have no interest in any parcel described in the notice of appeal.

Petitioner "Rechtzigel" states that all of

the alleged parties, on Respondent "City's"

Affidavit of Service, were never a party

and had no interest in the same identical

parcel described in 19HA-CV-09-5476 of

Judge King's final judgment dated November 12th, 2013 shown on App. 22 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the U.S.

Supreme Court No. 15-247.

There cannot be any parties claiming an

interest with a theory of ownership for 15

years after Judge Robert R. King Jr's final judgment dated November 12, 2013,

stating in his findings "The Court is convinced that Rechtzigel owns the gap"

"Rechtzigel can still proceed with his separate registration action." (App. 22, 24,40

of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the

Supreme Court of the 'United States,

No. 15-247, received August 28th, 2015).

(App. 29).

III. Did the Government deprive Petitioner of a

Trial by Jury, without Due Process of Law?

Petitioner did comply with Minn. Statutes

117.145 by filing with court administrator a

notice of such appeal within 40 days, served it

by mail (first class mail with postage prepaid)

to all respondents on City's (petitioner's affidavit of mailing) as having been mailed a notice of the report of the commissioners, and

included proof of service of notice of appeal on

the court and to respondents listed on the

city's affidavit of mailing; thus Petitioner

(Rechtzigel) deserves restoration of Due Process and Trial by Jury under the 1st, 5th, 7th,

and 14th Amendment of the United States

Constitution; and Article I, Section 4 of the

Minnesota Constitution.

Respondent (petitioner [city of Apple Valley])

has failed to provide any evidence that Petitioner (Rechtzigel) did not comply with Minn.

Statutes 117.145, in fact City of Apple Valley

has never actually stated on the record

whether or not they were indeed served, with

a full Affidavit of Service containing the front

page, plus the two back pages which listed

all parties who were served with Petitioner

Rechtzigel's Appeal of the Commissioner's

award, and has never presented even one single piece of evidence that City of Apple Valley,

nor any other party contained on the list, was

not served. The fact remains that it is very

clear that the only error that occurred in this

instant case is a simple clerical issue that was,

and still is, easily remedied.

The Appellate Court erred in claiming that anyone besides Petitioner has interest in the

subject property, on November 13th, 2018,

"Appellant's argument that he did not need to

serve respondents because he was the only remaining party also fails" (App 8), it is clear

from the Trial Court record that at each and

every hearing since the City of Apple Valley

filed their petition to condemn the property in

2014, the only party participating is Petitioner Rechtzigel, and the City of Apple Valley,

as Golden Spike states,"Although all the other

prior tenants and owners may have been 'parties of record' by virtue of the fact that they

were named in the condemnation proceeding,

none of them, except Golden Spike, have an interest in the land any longer." Again, as in

Minneapolis Community Development Agency,

Respondent v. GOLDEN SPIKE, INC., Appellant, 536 N.W. 2d 30 (1995) all other parties in

this instant case have no property interest in

this matter as has already been pronounced

by Judge Robert R. King Jr.'s Final Judgment

on the subject property sets up a bar of Res

Judicata against all others, stating that Petitioner Rechtzigel is the owner of the strip.

Since that order, all others cannot be parties

of record, for they never had an interest, do

not have an interest in the subject property,

and never did, therefore, as nonparties they

do not require notice being given to them under Minn. Statutes 117.145. As the Court of

Golden Spike stated, "A 'party' under section

117.145 is 'one who is a participant in a legal

proceeding as opposed to a nonparty or person

who is not", which is exactly what all other

"parties of record" have become non-parties

the moment Judge Robert R. King Jr. declared

that Rechtzigel is the owner of the same identical strip description in this instant appeal of

the report of the commissioners.

The Trial Court and Appellate Court

erred in not applying the precedent set in

"Golden Spike" that reaches this instant

case of circumstances relating to service

on parties who no longer have an interest

in the subject property, as MCDA v.

Golden Spike states, "We see no reason to

invalidate the district court's subject matter jurisdiction in this case simply because

the parties did not serve notice on those

who no longer had any interest in the

land, were no longer participating in the

action, and could not have taken any action even if they had received notice of the

appeal." Petitioner Rechtzigel did in fact

serve all "parties of interest", as was the

case in MCDA v. Golden Spike, Inc., 536

N.W.2d 30 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, August 22, 1995).

It does not matter whether or not they

were served as they were no longer "participating in the action" and therefore

could not take part in this matter.

ME:

Petitioner (Rechtzigel) on appeal from the notice of the commissioners' award should be

granted a trial de novo before a trial by jury

for the amount of damages as stated in City of

Mankato v. Hilgers, 313 N.W2d 610 (Minn.

1981); State v. McAndrews, 286 Minn. 115,175

N.W2d 492 (1970).

Petitioner (Rechtzigel) on appeal from the notice of the commissioners' award should be

granted a trial dë novo before a trial by jury

for the amount of damages and "an appellate

court should not substitute its own judgment

for that of the jury even though it may be of

the view that the evidence submitted would

justify a substantially larger verdict." (See

State v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70, 108 N.W2d 769

(1961)).

Petitioner (Rechtzigel) on appeal from the notice of the commissioners' award should be

granted a trial de novo before a trial by jury

for the amount of damages and "the owner has

the burden of proving and establishing his

damages, thus occupying the position of plaintiff with the petitioner occupying the position

of defendant." (See State v. Pearson, 260 Minn.

477, 110 N.W2d 206 (1961)).

CONCLUSION

No greater honor can the United States Supreme

Court partake in than that of coming to the rescue of a

Pro Se litigant where the government is stripping

away one's Liberty and Property without Due Process

of Law? Greatness at work is the greatest, when one

helps the helpless in time of need, in being a servant of

impartial justice to all, especially unto a Pro Se litigant

walking among financial giants, big name law firm

players, and big government with endless money to

steam roll it's way over the rights, liberty, property, and

due process of a Pro Se litigant farmer that seems forgotten in a world where government usurps have become acceptable behavior.

Petitioner's prayer of hope is that a sign will be

given from the United States Supreme Court, that

when state courts do fail at providing full and fair impartial justice, that the promised rights and protections of United States Constitution can still be relied

upon to defend and relief one of a government that for

the most part only goes where the big money flows.

Petitioner's prayer is:

1. United States Supreme Court Reversed and

Remanded the Court of Appeals of Minnesota and trial

court grant a trial by jury on providing "just compensation" concerning the amount of damages in trial de

novo.

Accordingly, the United States Supreme Court

should review the decision of the Minnesota Court of

Appeals.

Respectfully submitted,

GENE RECHTZIGEL, Petitioner

Dated: April 29, 2019

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.