St. Paul Racketeering Lawsuit #1, Victim Leroy Miller
67.235. Martin and Dawkins also participated in similar discriminatory action directed at
St. Paul landlord Leroy Miller at his rental property located at 12 Oakley Avenue in the City in
an attempt to further their discriminatory attack on members of the “protected class” living
within the City of St. Paul and those landlords renting to them.
236. On March 8,2002, Miller purchased a duplex rental property located at Oakley
Avenue. This duplex was Miller’s first rental property.
237. On or about April 10,2002, housing code enforcement inspectors
conducted an inspection of Miller’s rental property and noted deficiencies in the state of repair of
his property including that the roof needed to be repaired.
23 8. On May 2 1,2002, a building permit was issued by the City for roof repair on
Miller’s duplex. The new roof was completed July 30,2002 by American Building Contractors.
239. During 2002 and most of 2003, the main floor rental unit was rented by Miller
to an Hispanic woman and the upstairs unit to two Caucasian college students. The college
student renters left the upstairs unit at the end of August 2003. Miller had an agreement with an
African-American male for rental of the upstairs unit to him after August 3 1,2003.
240. On or about May 16,2003, Dawkins and an Assistant City Attorney prepared,
and subsequently filed, an action for the City in Ramsey County District Court against Miller’s
duplex; this discriminatory lawsuit was against the prior owners of Miller’s property, which
included Muhannah Kakish.
6 8.241. As part of the City’s court filings, Dawkins signed a sworn, verified Complaint
for relief wherein he,claimed supervision of inspections and inspectors within the Department
Housing. The Complaint, Verification and City inspection records were mailed by Dawkins to
Kakish and a prior owner of the property. ‘,
242. In Dawkins’ Verification and the City’s court papers, Dawkins made false
representations as to facts presented to the court and parties. Dawkins falsely stated in Paragraph
No. 5 that the violations listed in the City’s April 10,2002, written Correction Notice regarding
the property, “remained unabated as verified by an inspection done by Saint Paul Property Code
Enforcenient”. Paragraph No. 3 stated that the “Main roof [was] in need of repair or
replacement.” This sworn statement by Dawkins was completely false as the 12 Oakley roof had
been completely replaced under City permit on July 30,2002, over nine months before Dawkins
was preparing his sworn statement to the court.
243. The false claim by Dawkins that Miller’s building needed roof repair was the
most serious claimed deficiency regarding Miller’s building and a necessary component in order
for Dawkins to maliciously file his discriminatory court action against Miller’s property.
Dawkins attached to his verified Complaint a letter dated April 10,2002, from his department
listing the roof as needing repair. This letter was over one year old.
244. Dawkins and his office served the Summons and Complaint with attachments
and Verification for the City’s discriminatory court action against Kakish and Miller’s 12 Oakley
6 9.property by mail to Kakish at 12 Oakley Avenue where Miller received it. At that time, Kakish
was Miller’s property manager. After it was pointed out to the City Attorney that Kakish and the
other Defendant were no longer owners of the property, the City dismissed the court action on
June 19,2003. .
245. Thereafter, Martin claimed in a July 10,2003, written Correction Notice sent
through the mail to Miller addressed to his 1491 3ti Street East, St. Paul residence, that she
inspected his 12 Oakley rental property on July 9,2003 and made the following determination:
“The roof is deteriorated, defective, or in a state of disrepair.” Martin demanded that Miller,
“Repair or replace the roof covering to a sound, tight and water impervious condition” and
informed him that a “Permit may be required.” The statement in the written Correction Notice
by Martin that the roof was in disrepair was deliberately false as the roof had been completely
replaced, and Martin’s statement was maliciously made for the purpose of interfering with
Miller’s rental property business and his protected class tenants or potential tenants.
246. Martin listed in the Correction Notice of July 10,2003, additional claimed
violations at Mill’er’s 12 Oakley property that were deliberately false including false claims that :
refuse, garbage and junk were improperly stored by Miller or accumulated on his property and
that vehicles were not properly licensed, operable or on an improved surface.
247. Following Martin’s July 9,2003, inspection of Miller’s property and issuance of
her Correction Notice, Dawkins once again prepared a Verified Complaint against Miller’s 12
7 0.Oakley rental property this time naming Miller as the correct owner and filed the court papers,
Dawkins once again falsely swore under oath that the roof on Miller’s building was in state of
disrepair. During this court action, Attorney Dolan, a member of the PPU, represented the City
against Miller. The Complaint, Verification, and City mspection records were mailed by said
Defendants and Dolan to Miller.
248. The Verified Complaint by Dawkins and Dolan in this second court action stated
that an inspection of Miller’s property had been conducted on July 9,2003, and that multiple
code violations were found. The Verified Complaint once again deliberately, and maliciously,
falsely stated that the roof was deteriorated: The Complaint also falsely stated additional code
violations: refuse and garbage were improperly stored or accumulated on his property; vehicles
were not properly licensed, operable or were abandoned; lack of proper ground cover in the yard.
Dawlcins provided a sworn Verification that the code violations listed in the Complaint had not
been remedied. This was once again a deliberately false statement and was made for the purpose
of damaging Miller’s interests in the property and to interfere with tenant rights.
249. On or about August 13,2003, Miller appeared in court with his property
manager, Kakish. During this court appearance, Kakish and Miller had conversations with Dolan
and Martin. Miller assured the court and Dolan and Martin that he was attempting to complete
all necessary repairs and informed them that he needed to keep the building rented in order to
have funds to make repairs. In fact, Miller had made substantial investment into renovation of
71.the property of which said Defendants had actual knowledge.
250. During this court meeting, Dolan and Martin asked Miller to agree to allow the
City to conduct a “code comnliance” inspection of the. 12 Oakley rental property.. Dolan’and
‘/
Martin assured Miller and Kakish that they wanted to continue to keep tenants in the rental
property in order for repairs to be made. Dolan and Martin also made mention of the short
housing supply in the City and made assurances that Miller and Kakish would be able to continue
to rent the rental property during rehabilitation.
25 1. Neither Miller nor Kakish had experience with code compliance inspections
before and they did not know at that time that in order for a code compliance inspection to be
conducted by LIEP, Miller’s rental property would either have to be condemned or vacant. At
the time, Miller’s property was not condemned or vacant. Based upon the assurances of Dolan
and Martin fraudulently made to coerce and induce Miller and Kakish to settle, Miller and
Kakish agreed to the code compliance inspection. Miller was ordered to reappear in court
September 4,2003.
252. Kakish and Miller attempted to file for a code compliance inspection at the LIEP”
office but LIEP would not approve such an inspection without a condemnation or a vacant.
building. On August 21,2003, Miller obtained a building permit for remodel work at 12 Oakley
that included the items listed by the City in its court action, including removal of the back porch,
rebuilding the back stairs and moving the prefab stairs into place at the front door.
7 2.253. On or about August 21,2003, without Miller or Kakish’s knowledge or consent,
Martin gained entry to the inside of the 12 Oakley rental property and conducted an interior
inspection of the upper and the lower units. Martin made an illegal entry and search of the main
floor apartment unit occupied by Miller’s Hispanic tenant without the consent of Miller or the
tenant and without an administrative warrant or existence.of an emergency.
254. After this illegal entry and search of Miller’s building, Dawkins and Martin
prepared and mailed to Miller and the occupants of the rental unit a written Notice of
Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated August 25,2003. This discriminatory action by
Dawkins and Martin shut down Miller’s rental building and forced his Hispanic tenant from her
home and prohibited Miller from renting to the African-American tenant ready to occupy the
upstairs rental unit.
255. During a code compliance inspection that occurred after the condemnation,
City inspectors from the LIEP office stated to Miller that they did not feel that the conditions at
Miller’s building warranted that the building be condemned by Martin.
256. Because of the discriminatory condemnation and order to vacate, Miller lost
tenants and rental income to pay for maintenance and repairs, utilities, mortgage payments and
other expenses of the subject property, lost his investment in the home, and is now forced to sell
his home.
St. Paul landlord Leroy Miller at his rental property located at 12 Oakley Avenue in the City in
an attempt to further their discriminatory attack on members of the “protected class” living
within the City of St. Paul and those landlords renting to them.
236. On March 8,2002, Miller purchased a duplex rental property located at Oakley
Avenue. This duplex was Miller’s first rental property.
237. On or about April 10,2002, housing code enforcement inspectors
conducted an inspection of Miller’s rental property and noted deficiencies in the state of repair of
his property including that the roof needed to be repaired.
23 8. On May 2 1,2002, a building permit was issued by the City for roof repair on
Miller’s duplex. The new roof was completed July 30,2002 by American Building Contractors.
239. During 2002 and most of 2003, the main floor rental unit was rented by Miller
to an Hispanic woman and the upstairs unit to two Caucasian college students. The college
student renters left the upstairs unit at the end of August 2003. Miller had an agreement with an
African-American male for rental of the upstairs unit to him after August 3 1,2003.
240. On or about May 16,2003, Dawkins and an Assistant City Attorney prepared,
and subsequently filed, an action for the City in Ramsey County District Court against Miller’s
duplex; this discriminatory lawsuit was against the prior owners of Miller’s property, which
included Muhannah Kakish.
6 8.241. As part of the City’s court filings, Dawkins signed a sworn, verified Complaint
for relief wherein he,claimed supervision of inspections and inspectors within the Department
Housing. The Complaint, Verification and City inspection records were mailed by Dawkins to
Kakish and a prior owner of the property. ‘,
242. In Dawkins’ Verification and the City’s court papers, Dawkins made false
representations as to facts presented to the court and parties. Dawkins falsely stated in Paragraph
No. 5 that the violations listed in the City’s April 10,2002, written Correction Notice regarding
the property, “remained unabated as verified by an inspection done by Saint Paul Property Code
Enforcenient”. Paragraph No. 3 stated that the “Main roof [was] in need of repair or
replacement.” This sworn statement by Dawkins was completely false as the 12 Oakley roof had
been completely replaced under City permit on July 30,2002, over nine months before Dawkins
was preparing his sworn statement to the court.
243. The false claim by Dawkins that Miller’s building needed roof repair was the
most serious claimed deficiency regarding Miller’s building and a necessary component in order
for Dawkins to maliciously file his discriminatory court action against Miller’s property.
Dawkins attached to his verified Complaint a letter dated April 10,2002, from his department
listing the roof as needing repair. This letter was over one year old.
244. Dawkins and his office served the Summons and Complaint with attachments
and Verification for the City’s discriminatory court action against Kakish and Miller’s 12 Oakley
6 9.property by mail to Kakish at 12 Oakley Avenue where Miller received it. At that time, Kakish
was Miller’s property manager. After it was pointed out to the City Attorney that Kakish and the
other Defendant were no longer owners of the property, the City dismissed the court action on
June 19,2003. .
245. Thereafter, Martin claimed in a July 10,2003, written Correction Notice sent
through the mail to Miller addressed to his 1491 3ti Street East, St. Paul residence, that she
inspected his 12 Oakley rental property on July 9,2003 and made the following determination:
“The roof is deteriorated, defective, or in a state of disrepair.” Martin demanded that Miller,
“Repair or replace the roof covering to a sound, tight and water impervious condition” and
informed him that a “Permit may be required.” The statement in the written Correction Notice
by Martin that the roof was in disrepair was deliberately false as the roof had been completely
replaced, and Martin’s statement was maliciously made for the purpose of interfering with
Miller’s rental property business and his protected class tenants or potential tenants.
246. Martin listed in the Correction Notice of July 10,2003, additional claimed
violations at Mill’er’s 12 Oakley property that were deliberately false including false claims that :
refuse, garbage and junk were improperly stored by Miller or accumulated on his property and
that vehicles were not properly licensed, operable or on an improved surface.
247. Following Martin’s July 9,2003, inspection of Miller’s property and issuance of
her Correction Notice, Dawkins once again prepared a Verified Complaint against Miller’s 12
7 0.Oakley rental property this time naming Miller as the correct owner and filed the court papers,
Dawkins once again falsely swore under oath that the roof on Miller’s building was in state of
disrepair. During this court action, Attorney Dolan, a member of the PPU, represented the City
against Miller. The Complaint, Verification, and City mspection records were mailed by said
Defendants and Dolan to Miller.
248. The Verified Complaint by Dawkins and Dolan in this second court action stated
that an inspection of Miller’s property had been conducted on July 9,2003, and that multiple
code violations were found. The Verified Complaint once again deliberately, and maliciously,
falsely stated that the roof was deteriorated: The Complaint also falsely stated additional code
violations: refuse and garbage were improperly stored or accumulated on his property; vehicles
were not properly licensed, operable or were abandoned; lack of proper ground cover in the yard.
Dawlcins provided a sworn Verification that the code violations listed in the Complaint had not
been remedied. This was once again a deliberately false statement and was made for the purpose
of damaging Miller’s interests in the property and to interfere with tenant rights.
249. On or about August 13,2003, Miller appeared in court with his property
manager, Kakish. During this court appearance, Kakish and Miller had conversations with Dolan
and Martin. Miller assured the court and Dolan and Martin that he was attempting to complete
all necessary repairs and informed them that he needed to keep the building rented in order to
have funds to make repairs. In fact, Miller had made substantial investment into renovation of
71.the property of which said Defendants had actual knowledge.
250. During this court meeting, Dolan and Martin asked Miller to agree to allow the
City to conduct a “code comnliance” inspection of the. 12 Oakley rental property.. Dolan’and
‘/
Martin assured Miller and Kakish that they wanted to continue to keep tenants in the rental
property in order for repairs to be made. Dolan and Martin also made mention of the short
housing supply in the City and made assurances that Miller and Kakish would be able to continue
to rent the rental property during rehabilitation.
25 1. Neither Miller nor Kakish had experience with code compliance inspections
before and they did not know at that time that in order for a code compliance inspection to be
conducted by LIEP, Miller’s rental property would either have to be condemned or vacant. At
the time, Miller’s property was not condemned or vacant. Based upon the assurances of Dolan
and Martin fraudulently made to coerce and induce Miller and Kakish to settle, Miller and
Kakish agreed to the code compliance inspection. Miller was ordered to reappear in court
September 4,2003.
252. Kakish and Miller attempted to file for a code compliance inspection at the LIEP”
office but LIEP would not approve such an inspection without a condemnation or a vacant.
building. On August 21,2003, Miller obtained a building permit for remodel work at 12 Oakley
that included the items listed by the City in its court action, including removal of the back porch,
rebuilding the back stairs and moving the prefab stairs into place at the front door.
7 2.253. On or about August 21,2003, without Miller or Kakish’s knowledge or consent,
Martin gained entry to the inside of the 12 Oakley rental property and conducted an interior
inspection of the upper and the lower units. Martin made an illegal entry and search of the main
floor apartment unit occupied by Miller’s Hispanic tenant without the consent of Miller or the
tenant and without an administrative warrant or existence.of an emergency.
254. After this illegal entry and search of Miller’s building, Dawkins and Martin
prepared and mailed to Miller and the occupants of the rental unit a written Notice of
Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated August 25,2003. This discriminatory action by
Dawkins and Martin shut down Miller’s rental building and forced his Hispanic tenant from her
home and prohibited Miller from renting to the African-American tenant ready to occupy the
upstairs rental unit.
255. During a code compliance inspection that occurred after the condemnation,
City inspectors from the LIEP office stated to Miller that they did not feel that the conditions at
Miller’s building warranted that the building be condemned by Martin.
256. Because of the discriminatory condemnation and order to vacate, Miller lost
tenants and rental income to pay for maintenance and repairs, utilities, mortgage payments and
other expenses of the subject property, lost his investment in the home, and is now forced to sell
his home.
posted by Bob at Saturday, November 11, 2006
7 Comments:
It is obvious this Martin lady is with the St. Paul Gestapo.
253. On or about August 21,2003, without Miller or Kakish’s knowledge or consent,
Martin gained entry to the inside of the 12 Oakley rental property and conducted an interior
inspection of the upper and the lower units. Martin made an illegal entry and search of the main
floor apartment unit occupied by Miller’s Hispanic tenant without the consent of Miller or the
tenant and without an administrative warrant or existence.of an emergency.
I remember reading in the Mvsemberg deal where they went in without a search warrant also. And in another instance the tenant told them they were not welcome , but they just barge in anyways. Aren't these people supposed to know what the law is and abide by it. If they don't have to follow the law, why do we have to follow the law?
Who besides the landlords in the city try to follow the law? The cops don't do it, the inspectors don't do it, the City Council condones it and knowingly looks the other way while they campaign to be Judges. Some of these city officials let their houses deteriorate to the point that they should be demolished. The gangs are shooting up the city so bad the cops have to go out and raid a bunch of their houses. Who the hell follows the law in St. Paul?.....just the stupid or what?
If this were any private enity acting anywheres near this kind of behavior, the FBI would be all over them in a heartbeat. Could it be possible that the city has the FBI in their pocket also? There was that scandal with the Mayor's aide a while back supposedly taking bribes, and they just swept that under the rug also. It looks to me like that is what they are trying to do here also.
2:38 the FBI is watching they usually do 1-2 years of investigating before anyone has a clue.Believe me they are here and not in St.Pauls pocket.
We'll see....I think the FBI is just as crooked as the rest of the city. They are all one big happy family. It has been well over 3 years since the deal with the Mayor's aide came to light, and supposedly they had an email from the guy or to the guy soliciting the bribe. What takes 3 to 4 years? This is a big joke....the city can shake down the whole damn town and nothing, nadda, no one gives a hoot, but try to steal a secret from Coca Cola and the FBI will turn your life upside dowm in no time at all. Besides, this has been going on for almost 3 years and people have been complaining to the FBI. The FBI won't even call them back from what I have heard. Before that, someone else took all the evidence over and left it at the U.S. Attorney's office for them to look at, and they lost it! I'm not going to believe in any justice in anything until I see these cover-ups stop going on.
To all in these law suits.
Bill Dahn saying my fight with all the city was small compared to yours.
Forgive me.
What you all are doing with these suits are helping all the others that own rental properties, and just trying to make a living.
They want the smaller rental owner to go out of business, they are building new places all over town.
I am sure that most of there rentals sit empty.
So if they stop you and tear down the affordable living, they might rent out more of theirs.
Bill Dahn
Post a Comment
<< Home