Laserfiche WebLink
identified by witnesses as a garage) shown on a photograph in evidence, <br />"would be where there's this clearing in the trees, but there's nothing that <br />shows me that it's a driveway." Despite Frolik's opinion, which misstates <br />the city's definition of a driveway, the substantial evidence in the record <br />supports only a finding that the van is parked on a driveway as defined in <br />the city code. We reject as without merit the city's new theory of the case, <br />asserted for the first time on appeal, that the evidence demonstrates that <br />the van is not parked on a driveway. <br />The evidence supports only a finding that the van is parked on a driveway. <br />And the city implicitly concedes that it would be an error of law to <br />interpret the city code to require that a vehicle must be on a bituminous or <br />cement surface even if it is parked on a driveway in a side or rear yard. <br />Therefore, we reverse the decision that Kiefer violated City Code § 9.11 as <br />unsupported by evidence and based on an error of law. <br />See Attachment B which is a true and correct copy of the Court of Appeals <br />Opinion dated August 25, 2009. <br />48. Kiefer has been damaged by the City of Ramsey's tortious and violative <br />misconduct toward him. <br />COUNT I <br />ABUSE OF PROCESS <br />49. Paragraphs 1 through 49 above are incorporated herein by reference. <br />50. Kiefer alleges the City of Ramsey has abused process by filing and prosecuted the <br />claim based on the gravel driveway parking violation and the special assessment proceeding <br />based on the wrongful abatement. <br />51. The City of Ramsey's legal proceedings against Kiefer were not supported by the <br />law or evidence as noted by the Anoka County District Court and Court of Appeals, respectively. <br />52. The City of Ramsey's legal proceedings were presented for an improper purpose <br />contradictory to the rule of law. <br />12 <br />