St. Paul Racketeering Lawsuit #1, Victim Steve Johnson
2 19. City Code Enforcement Officer, Dick Lippert, under supervision of Dawkins and
6 2.Kelly and working with other City Code officials and employees, also participated in furthering
the discriminatory code enforcement action directed at members of the “protected class” by
targeting Steve Johnson, another St. Paul landlord providing housing to those individuals. About
ninety (90) percent of Johnson’s tenants are members’of the protected class. Johnson receives
many tenant referrals from Project Hope.
220. Commencing on January 30,2003, and continuing to present, housing inspectors
and officials, including Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen, Dick Lippert and Mike Kalis, and Attorney
D&n, have harassed Johnson on his rental properties in an effort to shut down Johnson’s rental
business. Said Defendants’ illegal, discriminatory and malicious actions have forced Johnson to
sell off many of his rental properties that he was renting to members of the protected class.
221. Even though Johnson’s rental properties had no abnormal history of code
violations during his ownership prior to 2003, commencing in early 2003, most of his rental
properties in St. Paul were discriminationly targeted by said Defendants for code inspections.
Thereafter, Defendants repeatedly harassed Johnson by selectively enforcing the City housing
code in a very strict and, most times, petty manner, while at the same time Defendants looked the
other way on serious housing code violations at adjacent properties not owned by Johnson.
222. On January 30,2003, City Code Enforcement Officer, Mike Kahs, supervised
by Dawkins, commenced the illegal harassment against Johnson by posting a “Vacant Building”
sign on his occupied property located at 469 Whitall Street. The property was in fact occupied
6 3.by Johnson’s son as his home. Kalis ignored the obvious occupancy of the home. Because of
the Vacant Building posting and order prohibiting occupancy of the home, Johnson’s son was
forced to leave his home in the middle of winter.
i 223. Following Johnsons’ successful appeal of the illegal vacant building posting on
469 Whitall, on February 10,2003, the City rescinded the “Vacant Building” status after the
City’s Nuisance Building Unit reinspected the home.. Within a few days, Martin retaliated
against Johnson by conducting an exterior inspection of the Johnson home at 469 Whitall and
thereafter issuing and mailing to Johnson and the occupant a Correction Notice dated February
10,2003. Martin informed Johnson that she would reinspect on February 24,2003, and that the
Code “deficiencies” must be corrected by that time or a criminal summons may be issued.
224. Before the February 24,2003, reinspection deadline, Martin made a second
inspection of the Johnson home on February 19,2003, and then prepared and mailed to Johnson
and the occupant a Revised Correction Notice dated February 2 1,2003, that noted additional
“deficiencies” to be corrected by the original February 24,2003, deadline.
225. About one month later, Lippert and Dawkins prepared and mailed to Johnson
and the occupant a “Notice of Condemnation As Unfit For Human Habitation And Order To
Vacate” dated March 3 1,2003, wherein they deliberately and maliciously condemned Johnson’s
469 Whitall home for no valid reason. Although the Notice was dated March 3 1,2003, it
ordered that Johnson’s home was to be vacated by March 28,2003, three days earlier. Lippert
6 4.and Dawkins also demanded a full code comnliance before Johnson could reoccupy the home,
226. The written Notice of Condemnation dated March 3 1,2003, on Johnson’s
home, was based solely on three joists on the porch being slightly cracked. Johnson already
knew of this problem and he had previously discussed the repair with other City inspectors who
informed him that it was a minor repair that only required “crutching” of the three slightly
cracked joists. Based solely upon this minor problem on the porch of the home, the
condemnation and order to vacate the property issued by Lippert and Dawkins prohibited
Johnson’s son from re-occupying his home.
227. Lippert, Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen, and other inspectors from Defendant
City, continued to retaliate against Johnson by condemning another of his rental properties
located in St. Paul that he had just purchased in December 2002. This property was located at
941 Cypress. Johnson leased the home to a tenant he received from Project Hope who was
disabled, confined to a wheel-chair and receiving Social Security Disability Income assistance.
228. In February 2003, Dawkins’ Housing Department commenced harassment
against Johnson’s 941 Cypress property and its tenant by repeatedly citing the disabled tenant
with Vehicle Abatement Orders and Summary Abatement Orders, and by issuing a criminal
misdemeanor housing code citation to the tenant.
229. Said Defendants were able to condemn Johnson’s 941 Cypress rental property on
March 13,2003, after a questionable warrant and police “drug raid” into the disabled tenant’s
6 5.home. On information and belief, no charges were ever filed against the disabled tenant.
Inspector Lippert and Dawkins promptly condemned Johnson’s building at the end of the “drug
raid” forcing the disabled tenant from his home.
?
230. The raid at Johnson’s 941 Cypress rental home for alleged drugs; the arrest of the
disabled tenant, the subsequent failure to charge the tenant and the issuance of a condemnation of
the home as a result of the raid, was similar to Brisson’s experience in October 2003.
231. As part of the condemnation of Johnson’s 941 Cypress property, Lippert and
Dawkins prepared and mailed to Johnson a Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated
March 13,2003. The sole basis for the condemnation of Johnson’s 941 Cypress rental property
was listed as “excessive storage of combustible materials “throughout” the home. Lippert and
Dawkins falsely and maliciously stated the condition of the home. The tenant was simply
repairing his snowblower in his kitchen. Instead of allowing the tenant to remove his
snowblower and gas can from his kitchen, Lippert and Dawkins took the most drastic action in
condemning the property and prohibiting anyone from living in the home. This illegal and
malicious action by Dawkins and Lippert and the Housing Department caused injury to
Johnson’s tenant and to Johnson’s rental business and property.
232. Martin prepared and mailed to Johnson a written Correction Notices on Johnson’s
rental properties wherein she made malicious false statements about claimed code violations;
many of the entries in the written Correction Orders issued by Martin to Johnson were false and
6 6.calculated to make Johnson’s properties look bad.
233. For example, Johnson received in the mail from Inspector Martin a Correction
Notice dated January 16,2004, regarding his rental property located at 606 Edmund Avenue, St.
Paul, that listed 12 items as being in violation of City code. Five claimed code violations related
to a toilet seat,’ cabinets, carpet, roof and sanitation that were listed by Inspector Martin were
deliberately false and those conditions did not in fact exist. These deliberately false allegations
were malicious, in that Martin and Koehnen had personally been present, witnessed and
inspected this exact property at 606 Edmund in June 2003, when Martin and Koehnen, with no
prior notice, came to the property uninvited. At that time, Johnson was almost completed with
an extensive renovation of the home which included the items specifically listed by Martin and
Koehnen, and more. Martin and Koehnen personally toured the premises, including the interior
of the building, and expressed amazement of the quality of the materials and workmanship and
time and effort being expended by Johnson on renovation of the building.
234. As a direct result of the constant discrimination treatment that Johnson received
from Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen, as well as from other inspectors from the City as identified
above, Johnson was thereafter forced to sell nineteen (19) of his rental properties totaling twenty
four (24) rental units in the City of St. Paul. Of these nineteen (19) rental properties, sixteen
(16) properties had tenants who were members of the “protected class”. Said Defendants’
discriminatory actions against Johnson and his tenants continues at present.
6 2.Kelly and working with other City Code officials and employees, also participated in furthering
the discriminatory code enforcement action directed at members of the “protected class” by
targeting Steve Johnson, another St. Paul landlord providing housing to those individuals. About
ninety (90) percent of Johnson’s tenants are members’of the protected class. Johnson receives
many tenant referrals from Project Hope.
220. Commencing on January 30,2003, and continuing to present, housing inspectors
and officials, including Dawkins, Martin, Koehnen, Dick Lippert and Mike Kalis, and Attorney
D&n, have harassed Johnson on his rental properties in an effort to shut down Johnson’s rental
business. Said Defendants’ illegal, discriminatory and malicious actions have forced Johnson to
sell off many of his rental properties that he was renting to members of the protected class.
221. Even though Johnson’s rental properties had no abnormal history of code
violations during his ownership prior to 2003, commencing in early 2003, most of his rental
properties in St. Paul were discriminationly targeted by said Defendants for code inspections.
Thereafter, Defendants repeatedly harassed Johnson by selectively enforcing the City housing
code in a very strict and, most times, petty manner, while at the same time Defendants looked the
other way on serious housing code violations at adjacent properties not owned by Johnson.
222. On January 30,2003, City Code Enforcement Officer, Mike Kahs, supervised
by Dawkins, commenced the illegal harassment against Johnson by posting a “Vacant Building”
sign on his occupied property located at 469 Whitall Street. The property was in fact occupied
6 3.by Johnson’s son as his home. Kalis ignored the obvious occupancy of the home. Because of
the Vacant Building posting and order prohibiting occupancy of the home, Johnson’s son was
forced to leave his home in the middle of winter.
i 223. Following Johnsons’ successful appeal of the illegal vacant building posting on
469 Whitall, on February 10,2003, the City rescinded the “Vacant Building” status after the
City’s Nuisance Building Unit reinspected the home.. Within a few days, Martin retaliated
against Johnson by conducting an exterior inspection of the Johnson home at 469 Whitall and
thereafter issuing and mailing to Johnson and the occupant a Correction Notice dated February
10,2003. Martin informed Johnson that she would reinspect on February 24,2003, and that the
Code “deficiencies” must be corrected by that time or a criminal summons may be issued.
224. Before the February 24,2003, reinspection deadline, Martin made a second
inspection of the Johnson home on February 19,2003, and then prepared and mailed to Johnson
and the occupant a Revised Correction Notice dated February 2 1,2003, that noted additional
“deficiencies” to be corrected by the original February 24,2003, deadline.
225. About one month later, Lippert and Dawkins prepared and mailed to Johnson
and the occupant a “Notice of Condemnation As Unfit For Human Habitation And Order To
Vacate” dated March 3 1,2003, wherein they deliberately and maliciously condemned Johnson’s
469 Whitall home for no valid reason. Although the Notice was dated March 3 1,2003, it
ordered that Johnson’s home was to be vacated by March 28,2003, three days earlier. Lippert
6 4.and Dawkins also demanded a full code comnliance before Johnson could reoccupy the home,
226. The written Notice of Condemnation dated March 3 1,2003, on Johnson’s
home, was based solely on three joists on the porch being slightly cracked. Johnson already
knew of this problem and he had previously discussed the repair with other City inspectors who
informed him that it was a minor repair that only required “crutching” of the three slightly
cracked joists. Based solely upon this minor problem on the porch of the home, the
condemnation and order to vacate the property issued by Lippert and Dawkins prohibited
Johnson’s son from re-occupying his home.
227. Lippert, Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen, and other inspectors from Defendant
City, continued to retaliate against Johnson by condemning another of his rental properties
located in St. Paul that he had just purchased in December 2002. This property was located at
941 Cypress. Johnson leased the home to a tenant he received from Project Hope who was
disabled, confined to a wheel-chair and receiving Social Security Disability Income assistance.
228. In February 2003, Dawkins’ Housing Department commenced harassment
against Johnson’s 941 Cypress property and its tenant by repeatedly citing the disabled tenant
with Vehicle Abatement Orders and Summary Abatement Orders, and by issuing a criminal
misdemeanor housing code citation to the tenant.
229. Said Defendants were able to condemn Johnson’s 941 Cypress rental property on
March 13,2003, after a questionable warrant and police “drug raid” into the disabled tenant’s
6 5.home. On information and belief, no charges were ever filed against the disabled tenant.
Inspector Lippert and Dawkins promptly condemned Johnson’s building at the end of the “drug
raid” forcing the disabled tenant from his home.
?
230. The raid at Johnson’s 941 Cypress rental home for alleged drugs; the arrest of the
disabled tenant, the subsequent failure to charge the tenant and the issuance of a condemnation of
the home as a result of the raid, was similar to Brisson’s experience in October 2003.
231. As part of the condemnation of Johnson’s 941 Cypress property, Lippert and
Dawkins prepared and mailed to Johnson a Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated
March 13,2003. The sole basis for the condemnation of Johnson’s 941 Cypress rental property
was listed as “excessive storage of combustible materials “throughout” the home. Lippert and
Dawkins falsely and maliciously stated the condition of the home. The tenant was simply
repairing his snowblower in his kitchen. Instead of allowing the tenant to remove his
snowblower and gas can from his kitchen, Lippert and Dawkins took the most drastic action in
condemning the property and prohibiting anyone from living in the home. This illegal and
malicious action by Dawkins and Lippert and the Housing Department caused injury to
Johnson’s tenant and to Johnson’s rental business and property.
232. Martin prepared and mailed to Johnson a written Correction Notices on Johnson’s
rental properties wherein she made malicious false statements about claimed code violations;
many of the entries in the written Correction Orders issued by Martin to Johnson were false and
6 6.calculated to make Johnson’s properties look bad.
233. For example, Johnson received in the mail from Inspector Martin a Correction
Notice dated January 16,2004, regarding his rental property located at 606 Edmund Avenue, St.
Paul, that listed 12 items as being in violation of City code. Five claimed code violations related
to a toilet seat,’ cabinets, carpet, roof and sanitation that were listed by Inspector Martin were
deliberately false and those conditions did not in fact exist. These deliberately false allegations
were malicious, in that Martin and Koehnen had personally been present, witnessed and
inspected this exact property at 606 Edmund in June 2003, when Martin and Koehnen, with no
prior notice, came to the property uninvited. At that time, Johnson was almost completed with
an extensive renovation of the home which included the items specifically listed by Martin and
Koehnen, and more. Martin and Koehnen personally toured the premises, including the interior
of the building, and expressed amazement of the quality of the materials and workmanship and
time and effort being expended by Johnson on renovation of the building.
234. As a direct result of the constant discrimination treatment that Johnson received
from Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen, as well as from other inspectors from the City as identified
above, Johnson was thereafter forced to sell nineteen (19) of his rental properties totaling twenty
four (24) rental units in the City of St. Paul. Of these nineteen (19) rental properties, sixteen
(16) properties had tenants who were members of the “protected class”. Said Defendants’
discriminatory actions against Johnson and his tenants continues at present.
posted by Bob at Thursday, November 09, 2006
7 Comments:
Reading this stuff makes you so damn mad you wanna go down there and spit on one of them. I read a court ruling from another juristiction in the Federal Courts, and in ruling for the property owner, the judge said people have a right to expect fair and honest treatment from the government. If that's a consideration, then St. Paul is in big big trouble. Even if it comes out that these guys were really bad lanlords, the city shouldn't be using some of the tactics I am reading about here. I certainly know what i would think if I were on the jury.
Hi All,
I was wondering if others are seeing the same pattern of behavior by code enforcement exhibited time and again. Different victims, same old story.
These people should be ashamed of themselves.I for one want to see these people in JAIL. Especially Dawkins, Kelly & Code Enforcement Officers Lisa Martin and her obeast St. Paul police officer side kick Koehen.
Looks like this Dicky Boy Lippert should be in JAIL too!
Looking back at the North East Neighborhood Company story, I guess you can be a fuck up if you have friends in the right places.
All the landlords in these federal suits, didn't have their nose up anybodies ass.That was their mistake.
Advice to the landlords here, if you had been putting your poor uneducated bottom of the barrel tenants to work removing asbestos without protective clothing you would have gotten grant money like Murph Dawkins. And a pat on the back telling you there is more money where that came from.
I personnally know St.Paul is going to get what they deserve real soon.I happen to know there is a couple of turn coats close to this case that want to clear their name.Soon these people will talk.
Bob magner just might be the first.You might have forgot him because he's a guarentee!
Well, look at the city council. They have no problem with facing a person and telling them that their property isn't good enough to house you, but you can be homeless because that's better than a home with peeling paint or a torn screen! Yah, let us not forget Magner. He's right along side Kelly, the most arrogant, self-righteous and evil-deed doer of the bunch.
I must say that the spelling has really been improving here and the city supporters have been getting screwed over without that little fact to keep them posting here.
Brighter and equitable days are coming to the one's that fix and solve and the one's who destroyed the one's that fix, present and past,in angst will watch them restored and renewed.
Now for the one who posts the everso vague remarks, try to figure out the meaning of the above.
Vagueness: ambiguity, dimness, hazy, uncertainty, doubt. These are all words that can be used to describ the regulations and law by which the code enforcement and the city council uses to enforce violations and to condemn houses. The laws are all vague and the city council knows this and in doing so becomes liable for damages. Some of these vague laws were written by Andy Dawkins.
The city doesn't get it. They are so busy trying to ignore the situation that they don't see right under their noses that their own people are giving the proof to the lanldords and telling them what rocks to look under. They have more than enough proof! How the hell the city thinks they are going to get out of this one is beyond me.
The City gets it!
It's cheaper to disperse poverty, compared to the cost of addressing social ills within the City limits.
Who cares about an underclass having their civil rights violated. Most of them don't vote, they have no money to pursue litigation. The City didn't feel there was a threat in performing these civil rights violations. They were WRONG!
Many people care, I CARE!
Post a Comment
<< Home