City of Saint Paul Attempting To Withhold Evidence In RICO Suits.
Please click onto the comments for the post.
posted by Bob at Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Custom Search
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL HOME
Do you have a topic you want to discuss at the Town Hall? Email your request to A_Democracy@yahoo.com
“A DEMOCRACY” Disclaimer- While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to this forum express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned
THE ROOF GUYS
Mickey's Diner 1950 7th Street West, St Paul, MN
(651) 698-8387
AX-MAN SURPLUS
1639 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel:(651)646-8653
LANDLORD.COM LINK HERE
SHHHH! While we listen to words of wisdom from a wise man.
Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to the righteousness. Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong. A virtuous and courageous person can alone use the instrument of conscience. He or she can alone hear the inner voice of the soul clearly. In a wicked person this faculty is absent. The sensitive nature of his / her conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he or she is unable to discriminate right from wrong. Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and governments should develop this virtue of the ability to use their own conscience. This wisdom of using the clean conscience will enable them to enjoy the freedom.
Dr APJ Kalam, President of India given during the inauguration of the seminar on “THE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Previous Posts
- City of Saint Paul Hiring Freeze.
- Higher priorities than fighting panhandling.
- Real Estate mark downs expected in metro.
- Mayor Host "Fun & Fit" Swimming Party
- Mayor announces launch of 2008 budget cruncher
- New Jail Construction off to a really bad start.
- Deceased Lady Dumped In Trash Can
- Ex-Fire Chief Houlton has parting shots for Mayor ...
- An Example for the City of Saint Paul.. One person...
- ACLU Challenges Saint Paul Inspections Program.
87 Comments:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et. al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. JOINT MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
City of St. Paul, et. al.,
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et. al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et. al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs in Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al., Plaintiffs Sandra Harrilal and Steven R. Johnson in Sandra Harrilal, et al., and Plaintiffs in Thomas J. Gallagher, et al., through their
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 9
2
undersigned counsel, submit this Joint Memorandum of Law in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ counsel conferred on March 12, 2007, regarding the Defendants’ failure to provide answers to interrogatories and responses to discovery requests by discovery due dates of March 1, 2007 and March 2, 2007.
The Court’s Scheduling Order includes a deadline for serving and filing non-dispositive motions of March 15, 2007. Because Defendants’ have failed to provide answers to interrogatories and responses to document requests before the non-dispositive motion deadline, Plaintiffs have filed the present motion in order to preserve their right to enforce the discovery Rules related to Defendants’ failure to comply with the Rules and related to any further non-compliance by Defendants.
FACTS
Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Gallagher, et al., case served Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents via personal service, hand delivery, to Ms. Seeba at her offices on January 30, 2007. Affidavit of Matthew Engel dated March 15, 2007, Ex. A.
Defendants failed to serve Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Document Requests within the 30 day period allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) and 34(b). See Engel Aff., paragraph 3.
Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Steinhauser, et al., and Harrilal, et al. cases served Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents via personal service by hand
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 9
3
delivery, to Ms. Seeba at her offices on January 31, 2007. See Affidavit of John R. Shoemaker dated March 15, 2007, paragraph 2 and Exhibit “A,” thereto.
Defendants failed to serve Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Document Requests within the 30 day period allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) and 34(b). See Aff. Shoemaker, paragraph 3.
On March 9, 2007, Counsel for the Steinhauser and Harrilal Plaintiffs forwarded a letter to Defendants’ counsel by facsimile transmission noting the failure of Defendants to timely respond to the served discovery requests and scheduling a conference to discuss the matter in an attempt to obtain responses without Court involvement. See Aff. Shoemaker, paragraph 4, and Exhibit “B,” thereto.
On March 12, 2007, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(2)(A), counsel for the Plaintiffs conferred in good faith with Ms. Seeba, attorney for Defendants, in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute regarding Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents and interrogatories within the time permitted by the Rules. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 5.
During the meeting on March 12, 2007, Ms. Seeba made clear that Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and answers to interrogatories would not be served on Plaintiffs before the non-dispositive motion deadline of March 15, 2007. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 6.
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 3 of 9
4
Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Ms. Seeba that due to the deadline of March 15, 2007, for filing and serving motions to compel discovery, Plaintiffs found it necessary to prepare a motion to compel for filing by the deadline. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 7.
Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to allow Defendants’ counsel to serve answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production of documents by March 30, 2007, with Plaintiffs seeking to obtain a hearing date on the motion to compel for a date after the middle of April, 2007. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 8.
Ms. Seeba indicated that certain documentation subject to the Plaintiffs’ requests for documents would be available for review by Plaintiffs’ counsel starting March 17, 2007, and additional documentation would be made available for review on a continuing basis over the remainder of March 2007 and into early April 2007. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 8. Plaintiffs agreed to perform interim document review sessions as Defendants’ counsel obtained documents from the various departments within the City of St. Paul. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 8.
On March 13, 2007, for the Gallagher Plaintiffs forwarded a second letter to counsel for Defendants concerning Defendant’s failure to serve complete discovery responses and confirming discussion of counsel during the March 12, 2007 conference. See Engel’s Aff., paragraph 8, and Exhibit “ B,” thereto.
On March 14, 2007, Counsel for the Steinhauser and Harrilal Plaintiffs forwarded a follow-up letter to counsel for Defendants concerning Defendant’s failure to serve complete discovery responses before the non-dispositive motion deadline and confirming the
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 4 of 9
5
discussions of counsel at the March 12, 2007 conference. See Shoemaker Aff., paragraph 9 and Exhibit “C,” thereto.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits discovery into any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Information sought in discovery need not be admissible at trial, so long as it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) (West 2007).
Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under Rule 26(b)(1), and the answers may be used to the extent permitted by the rules of evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(c) (West 2007).
Requests for production of documents may relate to “any designated documents…which constitute or contain matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)…” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a) (West 2007).
ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs in Steinhauser, et al., Harrilal, et al. and Gallagher, et al. seek to compel Defendants to serve Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories. Rule 33(b)(3) provides that answers to interrogatories shall be served within 30 days of service. Rule 34(b) provides that responses to requests for production of documents shall be served within 30 days of service. Fed.R.Civ.P., 33 (b)(3) (West 2007).
Rule 37(a)(2)(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 5 of 9
6
motion the Court for an Order compelling another party to properly respond to discovery requests. Fed.R.Civ.P., 37 (a)(2)(a) (West 2007).
Rule 37 requires certification that the party seeking an order to compel discovery attempted to resolve the discovery dispute by meeting and conferring with the opposing counsel, or at least attempting to meet with opposing counsel to discuss the relevant issues before filing the motion. Local Rule 37.1 also requires the same efforts to resolve the dispute.
Plaintiffs have complied with the requirements of Rule 37. See Aff. of Engel and Aff. of Shoemaker.
The Defendants failed to respond by March 1, 2007, for the Gallagher discovery requests and by March 2, 2007, for the Steinhauser and Harrilal discovery requests. Additionally, Defendants failed to provide answers to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents by the non-dispositive motion deadline of March 15, 2007 set forth in the Court’s Pre-trial Scheduling Order.
As a result, Plaintiffs’ counsel was forced to bring the present motion in order to preserve Plaintiffs’ rights to receive from Defendants written responses to the subject discovery requests and to ensure that those responses comply with the discovery rules.
At this time, Plaintiffs seek from Defendants complete responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests including formal written answers to all interrogatories and formal written responses to each of the document requests.
Because Defendants have not served their answers and responses by the time of the filing of this motion, Plaintiffs’ are unable to address any eventual objection by Defendants or
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 6 of 9
7
the inadequacy of any response. When Defendants do submit their discovery responses, Plaintiffs anticipate that Defendants may present certain objections to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories and document requests.
Plaintiffs submit that Defendants have waived their right to objection to fully answering each interrogatory due to Defendants’ failure to answer the interrogatories and serve any objections they may have had by the deadline for service of their answers under Rule 33.
Rule 33 (b)(3) and (4), provides that the party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve objections within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories and any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party’s failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(3) and (4)(West 2007).
Plaintiffs further submit that Defendants have waived their right to make any objections to Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents by not complying with Rule 34 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.
Rule 34 (b) provides that if a party desires to object to a request for documents, or any part thereof, the objecting party must state the reasons for such objection in its written response within 30 days of service upon that party of such document request. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b) (West 2007).
Plaintiffs’ counsel have made clear to Defendants’ counsel their intent to preserve Plaintiffs’ right to object to Defendants’ answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production of documents when and if Defendants finally serve their discovery responses.
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 7 of 9
8
Rule 37 (a) (4) provides that, “[i]f the motion is granted or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed, the court shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(A) (West 2007). Certain limited circumstances are set out in Rule 37 (a)(4)(A) where the Court is authorized to forgo an award of costs and fees to the movant. Id.
Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the expenses and attorney’s fees incurred herein as a result of Defendants’ failure to comply with the Rules.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs request that their motion to compel discovery be granted. Plaintiffs also request an award of the Court for reasonable attorney fees and costs in bringing this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
THE ENGEL FIRM, PLLC
Dated: March 15, 2007 By: s/ Matthew A. Engel
Matthew A. Engel (Attorney Lic. #315400)
11282 86th Avenue North
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
T: (763) 416-9088
F: (763) 416-9089
Attorney for Plaintiffs Gallagher, et. al.
SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, P.L.L.C.
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 8 of 9
9
Dated: March 15, 2007 By: s/ John R. Shoemaker
John R. Shoemaker (Attorney Lic. #161561)
Centennial Lakes Office Park
7701 France Avenue South, Suite 200
Edina, Minnesota 55435
(952) 841-6375
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Steinhauser, et. al. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Harrilal, et. al.
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 41 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 9 of 9
Moving away from Saint Paul tommarrow. Goodbye to the RACKETEERS.
The City Attorneys should be JAILED for obstruction of justice.
What's going on here? Were they not in court just recently because they were afraid to have their depositions taken? Now they are witholding evidence too? No wonder the city is short by millions of dollars on their budget. If they would stay out of court more they would have more money.
Hi All,
Here we go again. For the second time the City is attempting to withhold information from the plaintiffs in the RICO suits against the City.
What the hell are they HIDING?
The court hearing is on Monday. I will get back to you with the time & location of the hearing.
Just more "urban arrogance" from the elite. Iv'e been following this off and on for a year and the more I see about all these people that don't know each other all saying the same general things and a city that seems to try so hard not to follow the rules it just lends all the more credibility to to the complaint voiced here. Something I learned a long time ago is that it's always the guilty people who want to hide and try and cover things up.
They are hiding the truth! What the hell else could it be?
Sorry folks but let's wait and see what the court says to the request.
The Court has already seen that the plaintiffs in the case wanted the court to compell two current office holders and the past Mayor to testify. As you may recall that was a big deal on this list (What are they afraid of? They must be hiding something!) Well the court gave in on that one and ordered those people to give depositions and the plantiff's attorneys said, oh never mind, I guess we don't have any questions for them.
Kelly, Lantry, Thune and Moermond the plantiff's attorneys have no questions for them... big to-do on this forum though!
So, again I have not idea what were the issues that the plantiff's attorneys were asking for in discovery, but if they were things like... every person that any council member had ever talked to or names and numbers of people who had called in to complain about properties... there may be some reasons why this info is in dispute.
Again - I have no idea what was asked for in discovery.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
With the city keeping hidden agendas and doing everything to avoid reality, every ounce of information is important. If individuals think the city has false information about them, they can look up the Minnesota Data Practices Act on the internet to see for themselves.
If I remember right, the court didn't give into the landlords, they ruled against the city in the city's effort to avoid having their depositions taken. Big difference, the city council are the ones that went to court to try and dodge their legal responsibility. And they lost!
I've heard all I need to hear a long time ago. Folks that are doing the right thing do not need to play games,etc. They sit down there and complain about the budget, but yet they treat the court like their little sanbox to play in. Quit spending our money in court and start hiring the cops you promised.
"GUILTY AS CHARGEED" will be the last sorid chapter in this ordeal. I can't wait.
Dirty and vicious inspectors. It's time for justice.
I know I haven't been posting much do to the few individuals that continue to be in denial that these city officials could do wrong even though much of it is in right in front of their face, I find it very hard to beleive that these individuals that continue to post negative remarks about the allegations could honestly make those remarks, my guess is that most of those remarks are made as security measures for their own self interest.
I can speak facts because I know what type of behavior these city officials used in my situation, it was anything but honest. To be totally honest they were down right playing dirty hard ball with me, just as any type of criminal the longer you get away with it the more careless and greedy you get and then it catches up to you, I beleive that is what finally has happened here.
And yes I do feel if there is any true justice left in our judicial system these officials will be held accountable for their actions just as any other person would be. I know for a fact that they have plenty to hide just from my situation and if it happened to me why would I not beleive that it happened to others when the story is basically the same just different day and location, same city individuals too.
I don't even care so much as for what had happened to me anymore, theres a man up above all of us that knows exactly what happened, just as I do. The way I was threatened was not proper procedure nor was the end results or comment by Mr.Helgen "Good News 14 E. Jessamine is Gone". What I do care about is that it has continued to happen to others and some have been elderly in which I am sure contibuted to the community all of their life to be chased out in the end rather then living the last few years of their life in the home that holds all of their dearest memories. That issue is very difficult to handle, but then maybe thats because I care about others, including those who suffer from the illness of addiction.
Well I must to be honest, minus some of that care about others for these city officials, they are tough to care about.
Nancy
Nancy you poor thing, you have been indoctrinated and brain washed by these rouge landlords. They are just using you for their own purposes.
I wonder if it has ever ocurred to anyone that some day this will all come to an end and the truth is going to be out there for all to see, and all these city officials are going to have to walk and live among all the people they lied to when they said there was nothing to all the allegations being asserted. I see a lot of ruined careers, humiliation, anger and resentment headed toward town, and at election time at that! These idiots should have settled this thing years ago and hung it on the people who created it, but no they like to fight and have this elitest and arrogant attitude toward everyone. Now it will stick to them as they are the ones who made the decision to spend what will probably wind up being millions in just Attorney fees alone and for what?....because they didn't have the integrity to do the right thing and the honest thing years ago when they had the chance. Good luck in court and in the voting booths guys, I think you're going to need it!
Santa isn't coming boy's!
You've been naughty.........
Naughty boys get their butts spanked!
7:52....
I don't need to hear you call me a poor thing, I am doing just great. So thank you for your concern but just so you know I have not been brainwashed or indoctrinated by anyone, what I speak is the truth of an issue that I felt was wrong and know was wrong.
I have since moved on to a much better life that doesn't include the city of St.Paul and am very happy, so let me guess the city was looking in my best interest with what they did to me then...correct? That would seem to be your logic of thinking.
Nancy
Chuck,
Why ask questions to the city and moermond alike. I'm sure the plaintiffs in the 3 lawsuits know the true answers and are just going to wait for them commit purgury during trial. My advice to the city, " Don't bring a bag of lies to court, these attorneys and jury will see right through it".
Chuck I like you but the city is looking more and more guilty. If you keep sticking your head on the chopping block for them it just might get cut off!!
We can't cut off Repke's head, he's the only one who has the guts to argue with us. Where would we be without him?
Look I already got to pay $10,000 to have my duplex painted for defending the City here and on SPIF. The inspectors tagged me for PAINT CHALKING got it PAINT CHALKING on a slate sided building!
I had "friends" of the landlord group stalking my house and turning in complaints to the City. So, I didn't get to ask for an extention like all of your friends get for years and years I had to hire a contractor to paint it before my time ran out.
So, I get, "watch out for my neck" guys, you don't scare me. Heck I sent the web site to look at my nonprofits tax forms to the SPIF list, what else do you want?
Back to the origanal point the landlord lawyers wanted the city council to testify in an effort to harrass them. When the judge order the depositions and required the lawyers to be relevant to the case, the landlords' lawyers had nothing to ask them. Get it. All of that crap about what the city council knew or did or was hiding and the landlords lawyers didn't have a question to ask them.
This is nothing but a bunch of guys with plenty of money and plenty of time giving the city a little pay back for having to follow the rules and they don't like having to follow the rules.
Like I have said they are use to the Golden rule - he who has the gold rules and they don't like the City telling them what to do.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Please the cutting off of the head joke is sick.
Paint don't chalk on slate siding Chuck, and besides, hte code doesn't address looks, just codes, and the code says it has to protect the wood underneath from the elements and it did that just fine.
Chuck it is starting to sound to me like you have the victim of RACKETEERING by some of the city's inspectors. Maybe you can get your $10,000.00 back. Do you have an Attorney Chuck?
Ummm...excuse me, but what I have read here for the past few months, it appears to me that it is the city that doesn't like following the rules!
Bob
I have read your post regarding the city hiding evidence in the lawsuit thing, and I felt compelled to write to you about what is on my mind.
I am completely astonished by the last remark I read where the guy says that these landlords or property owners or whatever are a bunch of guys that don't like being told what to do by the city.
I have been reading here for a few months, and after having spent almost a whole weekend reading the fascinating "archives" you have assembled, I feel I am pretty much up to speed on what the subject matter is most of the time.
With my limited knowledge and "newbish" participation here I immediately had all kinds of different thoughts swirling in my head regarding this gentlemen's post trying to portray these guys as some kind of "authority problem" type people.
Does this guy know the issues or is he just spouting off? In any event, feel free to uses my remarks here as you deem necessary with respect to your blog.
Mr. Anonymous
The guys suing the city maybe don't like being told what to do, but who does now days. The government goes out of it way to make sure everyone has no responsibility and everyone can do whatever they want in order that they "feel good."
What I recall from reading the lawsuits that has been posted online I am wondering if it is possible that instead of not liking being told what to do, they just don't like some of the following:
Could it be that they just don't like being "set up" by dishonest housing inspectors who lied about repairs that did not need to be made in order to condemn the property?
Could they not have liked getting hauled before a sham Legislative Hearing officer and a crooked court system where there is no opportunity for a jury trial, no opportunity to face your accuser, all kinds of hearsay evidence is taken as the the undeniable truth and real facts and evidence is ignored, no extension of time to be able to find an Attorney or prepare their case. The city doesn't even have to serve the court papers on you to notify you that there is a court hearing, and at times they did just that so they could have the advantage of getting into court without the defendant being present?
Could they not have liked having notices deliberately sent to wrong addresses so they didn't get them, and then having warrants for their arrest issued and rounded up like common criminals?
Maybe they also didn't like having criminal charges filed against them for not finishing the painting of a house on time when it rained almost every day in the month during which the work was to have occurred?
OR....and I'm just guessing here, and maybe it's a stretch, but do you suppose they didn't like it so much when the city of St Paul came after all their witnesses with criminal and civil court actions immediately after the lawsuit was filed and the city found out who the witnesses were? If I remember the complaint correctly, the inspector even had notations in the court papers letting the city Attorney know that these were the people suing the city. What's up with that?
Did they not like having the Police who violated the terms of a search warrant and kick in the door of one of them and then hose him down with a fire extinguisher while he lay in bed, and then hauled him out of his house in his underwear and handcuffs (with neighbors watching) to jail, only to be released with no charges filed for anything.
Could it be that they didn't like losing their businesses and that businesses equity that took them years to build?
Maybe they didn't like city officials telling them they should not rent to certain types of people that the city doesn't like.
Could it be that they don't like having their civil rights violated?
Could it be that they don't like the tremendous emotional and financial turmoil the city has put them through if all this is true?
While I believe having a building code enforcing department is not only necessary, but sometimes urgent, if liking some of the above is what it takes to be a good St. Paul resident, maybe it's time for me to sell my house and leave.
So what's really going on Bob? Do you have any inside info that hasn't been made public yet? Something on the city's part just doesn't smell right here. I think this guy that says they don't like being told what to do has a lot more explaining to do if you want my 2 cents worth. And especially with the city trying to dodge depositions and hiding evidence. That makes them look to me like something is sour in their corner of the room.
Anonymous on 3rd St.
i DOUBT VERY MUCH IF THE CITY IS DOING THE THINGS MENTIONED. HOW COULD THEY? IF THESE KINDS OF THINGS WERE GOING ON, WE WOULD BE HEARING ABOUT IT.....DUH!!
OK 3rd Street here is my experience from watching these guys for the last seventeen years.
They get the first notice from the City and they blow it off. They get the abatement notice and then they get an extention. They run the extentions as many times as they can with the inspectors until the inspectors are fed up and they are forced to go to a hearing at City Hall. They reschedule the hearing as many times as they can get away with. The get to the hearing 6-8-10 months from when the problem was origanally writen up and then they get time from the hearing officer to get the work done. They don't pay any attention to that dead line and then it ends up on the council agenda for demo. They go to the council (now over a year after the complaints were first writen up) and claim that the City is picking on them and being unreasonable. The council then orders demo in 90 days - 6 months. Or they may get several extentions on the demo by "selling" the property to one of their friends. "I am sorry council members that nothing has been done to fix this mess for the last year and a half but I just bought it."
Then maybe they do the work or maybe not.
That is the way it happens all of the time and with most of the boys who are bankrolling the law suits for property after property not just here but all over the metro.
This isn't just a Saint Paul thing as they would have you believe the laws in many of the suburbs around rental are much tougher than they are in Saint Paul.
Like I have said these are boys with enough bucks to pay lawyers to piss around with the City, wasting your tax dollars.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Hi All,
I find it disturbing the plaintiffs have to compel the City for information that maybe related to the case. I would think the City would be anxious to give up any information they have. What are they hiding?
After all aren't they proud of their efforts? They have run elections on how they were going to use code enforcement to fight crime.
That neighborhood meeting at the Bruce Vento Elementary seemed more like a campaign pitch for Lee Helgen of how they were going to screw the so called nuscient property owners and renters and use code enforcement to do it.
And Eric, you say get involved, go to the neighborhood meetings, ya sure, and if you say something at these meeting the City doesn't like, they will try and shout you down. Call you names and try and make you look stupid. Isn't that what Eric & Chuck do here also? It isn't any different at a neighborhood meeting. They tell others your lying without providing any substance to back it up. Then they try and kick you out of the meeting. These people only want one message out there to the public, their message, and they have NO respect for opposing views. Councilman Helgen tried to kick me out of a neighborhood meeting. I told him to take a flying fuck in so many nice words. The nerve to attempt to kick a citizen out of a neighborhood meeting because he didn't like what I had to say. I had more right to be there than he did! He even ended the meeting abruptly. Didn't want me and Bill M to inform people of the truth.
Are you a citizen of Saint Paul? Couldn't you just see Eric calling names and wanting to fight you for not agreeing with him at a neighborhood meeting. Couldn't you see Chuck telling you in front of all kinds of neighbors you wear a tin foil hat.
I will remind everyone the City relies heavily on Gladys Cravats types and the powers that be treat the information they get from these nosey neighborhood do gooders as if it were gold.
I will refer you all to my archives to a post titled Gladys Cravats. Do a search of this blog.
I caught one of the City's very own in some Gladys Cravats type behavior that I proved was malicious.
Are they hiding evidence? They were sure reluctant to give depositions too. If they done no wrong why not come to court and brag about their efforts in deconcentrating poverty? Is it an embarrassment to the City? I'd say so. They are acting like they feel very small about now, and are trying to minimize their profile as not to be seen on this issue.
Folks I have a lot more on this subject. It is REAL bad!
The City has no choice but to fight. There is careers that are going to go down the toilet. The moneys to pay for these damages caused by a rogue code enforcement are going to bankrupt this City.
Well Chuck....
Well Bob....
I have seen some examples of what both of you are saying so who is a person to believe? Every time I start believing one side, the other side has a convincing argument that sways me the other way!
I want to believe all of you. What a mess.
I'd say if half the things the 3rd St yahoo has to say are true that the city is a lot of trouble and it is certainly understandable why they would not want to give up any more information than they have to. That's just smart business as they are looking out for the taxpayers.
Eric, I agree with my Dad.
My Dad has body guards. Myself and my friends.
I hope when we meet in the future at public functions you control your temper. We can diagree and still get along.
Chuck,
You are confused. How many people know a landlord that is filty rich due to rental in the city? Yeah, none!!!Now Chucks saying that these landlord boys are bank rolling these lawsuits to stick it back at the city. Lets think who has more money the government or private landlords? The government does. So if St.Paul is innocent then they should have sqaushed these landlords like bugs. But it seems as if theres something here Chuck. Lawsuits without merit don't hang around this long.
So what is it Chuck?I'll make you a side wager that the city pays.
Buddy, first of all, you've never met me in any public setting but, I know you're writing for effects and not facts. That's cool. Too bad your dad think he needs body gaurds. It was here that he had people go to Thunes and Repke's place. Did their family ask for that?
I have sat over meetings for the last three years over here on the East side.
First, I have never tossed anyone out, or asked them to leave, or threatened them physically. I know its hard to beleive for some of you that a black man can debate passionately without getting violent but, I've done it for years.
Second, I have given the floor to everyone who requests, even those who don't and show up late. They say whatever they want and many times, its not about how fantastic my haircut looks. I do allow us to veer from meeting procedures to debate and hear complaints and out them on record. My biggest critics will tell you that while I'm not silent, I'm fair on the public process and after the meeting you will see me talking to them or them talking to me, at length.
Third, city officials and representatives have been under the heat too. All of those complaints and anger that come to the district council are passed to the city/county for execution. When its not done, the district council gets kicked around- so we do go after the city/county partners for results all the time.
Fourth, Democracy is not easy or rosey all the time. Thats America. My District Council has the most geography and highest population, more kids and diversity than any other, yet funding was behind some of the others in the more 'tony' neighborhoods so issues could not be addressed properly. Its tough on the East Side here and we aren't always MN Nice with each other but, we know we all stand.
And in those years the numbner one complaint is CRIME. A very close second that never fails is the problem properties issues and absentee landlords. When the new rental agreement ordinance went into effect, these neighbors in Arlington Hills, Lower Payne and Railroad Island were very, very happy.
Whatever your issue with code enforcement and city is, you've done a horseshit job of getting it to the public as they beleive, like I do, that it more helpful than hurtful.
Any of you are welcome to come to our meetings and express your viewpoint, and even propose a solution for us to support. I gotta let you know though, you may want to wait for the room to clear first.
Bob your welcome to find any news to contrary on what I wrote above.
Eric M.
Eric said- Buddy, first of all, you've never met me in any public setting but, I know you're writing for effects and not facts. That's cool. Too bad your dad think he needs bodygaurds. It was here that he had people go to Thunes and Repke's place. Did their family ask for that?
Bob's response- Now Eric, my son can call you a LIAR too. I NEVER had anyone go to Repkes or Daves house. I stated many times publically I didn't approve of this. I DO NOT KNOW WHO TOOK PICTURES OF THOSE HOMES. PERIOD. Talk about distorting the facts.
I never told my son I needed protection. You must have given him that impression over the months here of debating me.
Eric stated- I have sat over meetings for the last three years over here on the East side.
First, I have never tossed anyone out, or asked them to leave, or threatened them physically.
Bob's response- Eric we had one of your neighbors state right here some months ago you were intimidating and a bully. And I believe it the way you call people names here and it doesnt seem you can control your anger.
Also, it is common knowledge across the City the liberal dominated neighborhood committees do all they can to silence a conservative. We have heard this from people here and from notable people like Mitch Berg and others.
I think we should start our own neighborhood committes. Oh hell that wouldn't work either huh Eric.. Didn't Pat harris say he didn't have to listen to the Highland council taken over by Conservatives?
Eric your bull doesn't wash here.
Eric said- Any of you are welcome to come to our meetings and express your viewpoint, and even propose a solution for us to support. I gotta let you know though, you may want to wait for the room to clear first.
***Eric I was at the meeting when Bill M. of the Watchdog and Bob brought these issues up. The neighbors were very interested in what Bob and Bill had to say.
You are wrong I think the City would have big problems if these guys went to all neighborhood meetings.
Some of the guys financing the law suits have to be millionaires folks. Many of these rental properties have been bought for little or nothing down and spun with 50%, 100% price increases in less than two or three years.
Anyone want to go through the MLS and see what some of these problem properties were bought for and then sold for and then bought for and then sold for???
Bob isn't defending the average guy here, he is defending the rich and powerful that is who is paying for the law suits.
I will admit that there are people who have lost their homes because they were not able to keep them up to code and my heart goes out to them, but that isn't who is paying for the lawsuits. Its the guys who bought houses in Frogtown for $30,000 and sold them for $75,000 and then bought houses on Payne Ave for $50,000 and then sold them for $100,000 and then bought houses on Dayton's Bluff for $75,000 and sold them for $150,000. All in a year or two...
They screem like stuck pigs when the City says slow down big boy you have to at least do minimum maintence on the building on your way to becoming a multi-millionaire and they don't think that the little old lady "Gladys" as Bob likes to call her, has any right to call the City and complain that they don't have any trash service in the building next door so they are dumping it in her garbage can or it is piling up in the kitchen.
She's got no right to want to live in peace when it comes to the rights of these guys to make their millions.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
JMONTOMEPPOF
12:29
That was a Helgen called meeting not a district meeting. It was Helgen's office who called the town hall and made the phone calls. The District Councl wasn't involved in that. So, Helgen was not in the wrong when asking you to leave. The Dstrict Council meetings are open to all who live or have a concern in the district. Like I said, in over three years I have not thrown anyone out for attempting to speak.
Bob, your son has not run into me in public or you so you have no idea of what I'm like. Besides, he's a grown man. Hewrote what he wrote and I responded. Let him repond. I didn't call him a liar, just that I'm doubtful you went out and hired bodyguards. I stand corrected on you sending people to Thunes and Repke's house. I do stand by my statement that this site encourages that kind of activty. I've seen you comment more than four times on NOT publishing people's address. Yet your readers tend to think its ok. That's nothing but an intimidating Nazi move. If they have an opposing view, some think its OK to go after their family and homelife.
That neighbor said a lot of stuff and when asked to back it up, admitted the he liked poking at me. I control my temper very well, especally considering . I sit over a board that is divided politically. Nobody's been removed. When I first got there Martin Owings and the 'conservatives' wanted a flag and the pledge said before each meeting. It was one of the few things I agreed with Martin on. The East Side is not like the rest of the city and its the only place I've lived in Saint Paul.
I enforce and loosen Roberts Rules of Order so that there is some faint standard of order. Everybody gets their shouting time, we just have to do it in order and not over each other.
Liberal/Conservative leaning don't apply to my council as we are concerned about crime and shitty properties, businesses that invite more problems (ie 'hood' stores), opportunities for young people, vacant properties, etc. If there is a liberal or conservative way to handle those things, I haven't received the talking points yet. There ain't enough liberals over her to fill a 20 person board.
Mitch may be right about his District Council but, there are 16 other ones in the city. Even in Mitch's DC my good friend, an Iron Ranger who is as liberal as Ronald Reagan, just got elected to the Council. And this is in Benanav's Ward! He took the time to convince just a couple of dozen people and he was in without a problem or pledge blind liberalism.
Don't drag me into your RICO bullshit. As I tell you all the time, its not my issue or priority. My experience is that you won't get more than a dozen supporters from over here in support of that. On this side of 35E, you guys have let the shitty landlords run wild and they've left a bad impression with most.
Don't take my word for it, come on down to a meeting and voice your viewpoint. You are welcome there, though it does get hot.
Eric M.
Eric and Chuck,
You guys are awsome the way you sugar coat dog excrament. These spins don't change the truth.
Just for "3rd Street" here are the sale prices on two duplexes one in the 800's and the other in the 900's on 3rd street
8xx 3rd
1999-$62,500 owner occupied
2000- $138,300 "cash flow" duplex
2005 - $275,000
9XX 3rd single home converted to duplex
1994 - $55,900
2001 - $127,900
2003 - $147,000
2005 - $184,000
Smells like somebody is making money.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Excrament?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excretion
Eric M.
Chuck,
Is there something wrong with making money? Oh thats right you work for a non-profit and it doesn't matter if you make money or not. The taxpayers finance your shabby business practices. We private (real) business owners have to actually make $$ with our business. Chuck, you amaze me at your one sided thinking. Simpleton, Simpleton, Simpleton...
While I am not going to defend the people bringing the lawsuits, I do know some of them and what I will say is that Check & Eric are not telling the truth about these people and who they really are. Don't listen to them folks, they are leading you down the garden path and trying to use the truth of other related issues make what they are saying about these poeple seem truthful.
I doubt very much if the landlords bringing the lawsuits are buying and selling propeties one after another. I believe the things I have read in the complaints because of some of the tactics I have seen with the city on the lower East Side. I also know that most of the landlords in my neighborhood have sold out and never want to return because of the city's code boys, and none of these 4 are in the lawsuits. They maintained their properties too by the way. the code boys are not about getting the houses fixed up, but rsther they are being used to address behavior issues on and around Payne Ave. I know, I live here and have seen it with my own eyes.
Chuck Repke is just a mouth that has had his lips firmly planted on the ass of the city of St. Paul for years and years. In my opinion he is hoping someday he will run for a position on the council or even for Mayor. My God imagine that....
His sarcasm and inability to understand or even look at another's opinion will haunt him all the days of his would be wanted political career. I have watched Good old Chuck for years and I find him so narrow minded that he is easily dismissed.
Besides this city does not vote for pit bulls. No one likes viscous pit bulls. I am not involved with the law suit not a plaintiff....Just someone who sees a butt kisser for what he is. Only an opinion.
Another thought, has Mr. Repke ever helped anyone out? I mean ever.? Seems he just flaps his gums and keeps his a nose in money slop pails of city programs. Shows up on the form to the point I had to leave it because of his continual butt kissing.
He will always fall in the shadow of another, because he just does not have it.
THAT is justice.
Hi All,
Chuck stated- Bob isn't defending the average guy here, he is defending the rich and powerful that is who is paying for the law suits.
My response- Chuck I am defending CIVIL RIGHTS. Thank the good Lord the bureaucracy screwed the wrong people (the plaintiffs of the RICO suits)and all of this is coming out because of it.
The outcome of these suits against the City will open the door for all the victims of code enforcement, many of which were to poor to defend themselves against rogue policies and arrogant City officials.
Chuck would like you folks to believe this is only happening to some slumlords as Chuck likes to refer to them as, the reality is many elderly people have lost their homes also.
This blog represents 2 other interest groups also. I don't appreciate it when Eric suggest I am looking to gain some kind of recognition for myself. By nature I am a very reclusive person. These issue forced me to take a stand. I do not know any of the people involved with any of the interest groups who post or comment on this blog.
I do not consider this blog MY BLOG. It is the citizens of Saint Paul's "Town Hall Meeting". I am merely a host and I put forward controversial subjects in hopes that with community participation we will find the truth.
Kick me around, belittle me, try and discredit me, the truth will always prevail. This site right here is the best thing going for the citizens of this City to become informed and participate in their local government. This blog will insight people to vote and get them involved in local issues.
If the arrogance of the local leadership takes no stock in the voices that speak here they will pay at the voting booth. It is that simple.
Eric and Chuck,
1st Chuck didn't you or don't you own rentals? So 10,000 to paint is a piss in the bucket. Also doesn't your district council own real estate? You guys must be millionaires.
-And lets see how much condos were on the eastside in:
1994-30,000
1998-75,000
2003-140,000
2007-? (how much are they now?)165,000+
Does your district council need a wheel barrel for the money?
2nd for Eric yeah great results on the ramped up code enforcement. The only thing you have to show is 1,000+ vacants. Keep up the good work maybe will run out all the low income people.Black being the majority.You being a black man Eric and not standing up for your brothers and sisters is appauling!
4:57, Bob was upset over Chuck getting written up in the way he did. Bob offered to bring equipment and volunteers to help Chuck paint his house.
Chuck refused the offer. My point is Chuck did not have to spend $10000. All he had to buy was paint.
Did you get a grant or something to paint that house Chuck? Maybe one them there loans like Dave. hey did Dave ever pay that loan back?
This is how document requests work in the City of St Paul:
First, if the wording is correct, they are super polite.
Second, they send everything you request that is obvious. On some of the other things, they withhold or cleanse it, if they think it is important and can get away with it.
Eric if you are using:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excretion
as a sort of reference to what you state I am very surprised that you would have credibility at all, wikipedia is known to be nothing more than a resource blog that does not hold facts in any type or way being that any one on the net can make changes to the information found there.
As far as the situation with Chuck having to paint his house? My question is why was it in the condition it was reported to be found in the first place? Here we have a man degrading people for the condition of their home yet his house is not up to standards? Same goes for Mr.Thune, so what who reported the issue the fact is how can you write up multiple homes for the same violations that your home has taken 30+ years to repair?
Maybe I do have some issues, because I don't see how these individuals can complain that they had to do these minor repairs, well in Thunes situation I guess it would be more than minor if he were the average citizen but I am sure if we were to check out his property today things most likely haven't changed a lot. Yet is ok for the city to write up and even lie about conditions of the private homeowners property in order to get the property either sold to an associate of the city or torn down?
This is the picture I see, please correct me if I am wrong. This information is facts that can and will be backed up with sworn affidavits.
Chuck, think about your code compliance. Now think about what Gladys Kravitz could do to a neighbor she doesn't like.
I find this blog hard to read. I like the fact that people can post and not have to worry about gov’t retaliation, but question why posts that are purely personal are allowed. Can’t we discuss the issues in the thread?
I am confused by the some of the recent posts out here. I thought St. Paul believes they have done nothing wrong. Isn’t that the claim? Is the claim now changing to “the landlords are rich (and crazy), so they deserved the ire of the city.” Is that the new argument? If not, then the point of wealth is tangential.
Someone asked “has Mr. Repke ever helped anyone out? I mean ever.?” The answer is yes. He has helped me and I know of many others. But, that is beside the point.
Government does a lot of good. Unfortunately, I think they did a lot of bad here too. I honestly think the city should hope this case remains in the civil courts. From what I have seen, some of this stuff could be criminal. Many St. Paul employees have been told not to worry as they will be protected by the city and the city attorney. I doubt that is true if the case becomes criminal. The evidence, and destruction of docs is only part of the story, is vast. I think some people who have carried out the actions of the city should seek individual counsel. At least I would. Of course, sometimes I am a little paranoid.
Bill Cullen (I signed annonymous only because I don't have a google login and don't want one)
Hi Bill,
Some people come here and intentionally make it personal to distract from the debate. One person attacks someone personally and it just goes on from there.
I just don't have the time to monitor this blog 24/7.
Most the time people are respectful of each other.
Also, I have to be careful about moderation since it hinders free speech.
I could apply restrictions like E-Democracy than I probably would have NO traffic.
This is one of the most popular blogs in Saint Paul, thanks to the people who post here.
I should also say Bill has let the cat out of the bag. It is rumoured the plaintiffs have the evidence to prove the City has destroyed documents in the RICO suits.
This is how bad it is folks.
They often come hee and try to use our "spelling" to distract the subject and discredit us, but I have noticed a certain few people that this crowd loves to take to task on the issues have had several spelling errors and everyone here was kind eough to let it go without mention.
OK back to the point. This is a RICO suit a case in Federal Court where what one has to prove is that a group of people conspired to financially hurt someone to the financial benefit of someone else.
The plantiffs in this case are a group of wealthy property owners. There may be other people who lost their homes do to condemnation during the years who play some role in this, but they aren't the ones paying for the attorneys.
So, as I have said here over and over again. There may be mean inspectors, there may be unfair inspectors, there may be inspectors who didn't like someone, and you might even be able to prove any one of those things but it has nothing to do with a RICO suit.
There has to be a conspiracy (people who have talked about doing this act) and there has to be someone who they are trying to benefit (someone who gets the dough)and you don't even have any conspiracy. The court is suppose to believe that Mayor Kelly sits around with the inspectors and figures out people to get.
As to who benefits, we don't quite know yet, sometimes its suppose to be PHA sometimes it is unknown developers involved in housing 5000. We don't know but if we can make the City spend thousands of hours going through all of its paperwork somewhere in there is got to be all of the answers that these guys think is a RICO suit.
So, like I said I got no problem with people making money, I just think these guys are jerks who are doing this for fun and spite.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
While chuck taks about all the money these landlords are making by selling property, what he doesn't tell you is about the early 90's when these landlords couldn't sell their properties for anywhere near what they owed on them.
That's a fact. Did they walk away? No they did not, they hung onto them and would have continued to keep those properties had it not been for the NAZI tactics of the City of St Paul and their inspections atrocities. It was the new people buying those properties that were the ones getting into trouble and causing the vacant building mess the city has right now. So start telling it like it really is Chuck and stop trying to give us this Government coverup spin. The city did not , has not and never will have the political courage to tackle this behavior issue thing at the level it should be taken care of at. So they use the landlord as a scapegoat and blame him for everything, and all the little Government Minions" like you and Eric fall in step because you are either too ignorant or intellectually lazy to see the real core issue. The city wanted to move these problems out of the neighborhoods and they did. They wanted to force the landlords out of their business and they did. What they got was the "unintended consequences" of those actions that bit them in the ass. Now they have a whole side of town empty, forclosed abd boarded up and continuing to grow and the property values....i.e tax collections heading for the sewer. The city had their party and they got what they wanted, now it's time to pay, and pay dearly you will when the property taxes wind up being half of what you were expecting. You reap what you sew.
What bothers me is the city employees who claim to be trying to do good, through destroying people and property.
These folks were nowhere to be found in difficult times in the past when we needed them.
Now they will just leave everything a smoking mess and walk away, although some, I'm sure will end up in prison.
I've researched this issue a lot and if these people prove their case and win, it just isn't logical that the Feds are going to let the people involved just walk away with no consequence. Not with todays political climate and all the corruption going on everywhere else.
To 10:03
I am not a yahoo sir and I resent your insinuation that I am less qualified to have an opinion here than anyone else.
Thank you for the info Chuck
3rd St yahoo
The Defendants are hereby remanded to the custody of the landlords and sentenced to live on Case and Edgerton for 3 years for their crimes against slums. No time off for good behavior.
Bill you bring up s scary point. If it did turn criminal at some point in the future, I doubt the city attorney would be able to represent more than one of the defendants because it would be a conflict of interest. So lets see, there's how many defendants? There's so many I am thinking 12 to 15, so let say 15 minus 1 makes 14 that needs an attorney now. 14 attornies at lets say $200. an hour makes $7,000. an hour or $56,000. a day for all these attornies to pour over all the evidence it has taken the lnadlords years to collect? And don't forget the fact that they will all be pointing the finger at each other trying to beg themsleves a deal. This could be a real circus if it ever came to fruitation.
Chuck Stated- OK back to the point. This is a RICO suit a case in Federal Court where what one has to prove is that a group of people conspired to financially hurt someone to the financial benefit of someone else.
Civil rights advocate- Sorry to disappoint you Chuck, but they did conspire and there is overwehlming proof of it.
How are you privy to who is paying the legal fees in this case? The poor people you mention will get their Attorneys for free after the landlord mop the floor with the city.
Chuck- So, as I have said here over and over again. There may be mean inspectors, there may be unfair inspectors, there may be inspectors who didn't like someone, and you might even be able to prove any one of those things but it has nothing to do with a RICO suit.
Civil right advocate- This isn't about "mean inspectors" and "inspectors who don't like someone," it's about inspectors who violated the civil rights of people and in doing so committed criminal offenses under Federal Law.
Chuck- There has to be a conspiracy (people who have talked about doing this act) and there has to be someone who they are trying to benefit (someone who gets the dough) and you don't even have any conspiracy. The court is suppose to believe that Mayor Kelly sits around with the inspectors and figures out people to get.
Civil rights advocate- The conspiracy can and will be proven, and you're going to be surprised at who got the dough, but having getting the dough is not a requirement Chuck. It's only a requirement that they tried to get it or a "benifet." The no brainer would be pay raises and promotions, but it goes a whole lot deeper than that.
So far you have mentioned conspiracy and someone benifetting and those 2 things are in the bag many times over.
You have forgotten the other 2 prongs of a RICO requirement Chuck. That would be "Mail Fraud" and "Wire Fraud."
The people involved satisfied the "Wire Fraud" statute when their illegal actions caused funds to be transferred out of a Federal Institution to pay for the false repairs that were not needed, among other things.
The "Wire Fraud" statute is met when they used the US mail to carry out their illegal schemes.
Santa Claus is coming Chuck, but not with riendeer and a sled, he'll be coming in an "Armoured Car," and there will probably be a big bus in back of him with bars on the windows to scoop up all these "Racketeers."
Chuck
others lost everything they own for standing up to You, Thune, Councilman Chris Coleman, Mayor
Norm Coleman and
Jesse "The Bummer" Ventura.
So Chuck why does city government treat Elderly, Disabled, Minorities,
and the POOR with such disrespect?
Nancy tried hard to save her home from the wrecking ball, then they laugh at her misery caused by the city inspectors.
The city council and their aides that helped cover up anything in the past, making seat in government the
"HOT" seat that they call their thrown.
Look at my case of misuse of federal money, RAP still is on the hot seat and look at the BAD Furnaces that
NSP aka EXCEL donated to RAP aka RAMSEY ACTION PROGRAM, NSP received a BIG Tax Credit for the furnaces.
NSP Company bought out a company that went bankrupt. gave all the furnaces to RAP and CH. 5 News did a story on the bad furnaces RAP installed in peoples homes for freeeee $$$$$.
We all see, you get nothing for nothing from the government and their agencies.
Did anyone here about the
FREE insu---- that RAP installed FREE $$$$$$$$.
CND: Chemical Sensitivities
THINK ABOUT "IT" !
Enough IS Enough !
The Dahn Of A New Era
Bill Dahn
http://www.billdahn.blogspot.com
WWW.BILLDAHN.COM
To 1:11 PM
Chuck Repke
JMONTOMEPPOF
The city is getting what they deserve, they have been taking from the poor for years.
You made money, and now you call the wise investors a crook.
I will show St.Paul how these Democratic Party works.
I lost everything I ever had in my life on 9-11-2001, because I stood up to the Flow of Democrats that ran St.Paul.
Now that I have produced evidence over the years of my battling, with the vermin in city, county, state, and federal government and their agencies.
I am 1 person who helped destroy the nice look of government and how they thought they could cover up for the misuse of tax dollars.
We out here as regular people that buy a home to have till we die, are being "screwed" by the code inspectors.
In my case they cover up for RAP destroying my home and YOU, were in on it.
But > I am only 1 of the 200,000 homes in Minnesota, that received that bad insulation for FREE.
This election has already brought out more trash on the Democrats and will continue to do so.
I have nothing to lose, but all the conspirators that helped conceal the truth about anything might lose more then money.
They just might lose their "freedom", and some might go to the big house where there can call home.
Remember all out there reading Bobs Blog, FREEDOM of SPEECH
freedom of speech, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States , to express information.
To the so called Christians, Follow the 10 commandment and not the greed for money.
"Vote Bill Dahn Ward 2 City Council"
Bill Dahn
http://www.billdahn.blogspot.com/
www.billdahn.com
Bill, I'm for you, but this is getting too broad.
There are a number of strange and dangerous people running around doing inspections. They are backed up to the hilt by moermond and the thugs and quislings on the city council.
It will be like the Nurenburg trials, with sobbing people pleading "I was just following orders", as the Alley Gestapo gets taken to task.
OK Civil Rights advocate, tell the people what is the "Mail Fraud" allogation is. My understanding is that the allogation is that notices were mailed to wrong addresses. So in their world that would constitute mail fraud... get it? They think that a wrong address equals fraud and since it was on the mail = mail fraud. Oh my God they must by tin foil by the semi truck.
I'm sorry mail fraud is when you use the mail to have some kind of a sales gimmick or promotional offer that people send money in and get little or nothing in return.
Again, the guy or gal in the mail room is a part of this conspiracy to I assume? So, the conspiracy stretches from the Mayor and Council writing policies that pick out these guys to Dawkins and the inspectors chatting about how they are going to write them up to the kid in the mail room putting the wrong address on... and they were all doing this to benefit who?
Getting someone a promotion? Is that the new benefactor? The Mayor and the mail room kid conspired to get a promotion to somebody by rewarding him for writing up somebody who didn't do something wrong? Where in the heck are we going here? Couldn't the Mayor just give this guy a raise? Why would the Mayor and the mailroom kid need to conspire with him to get him a raise?
Pallets and Pallets of tin foil.
Help me, when this thing started wasn't the idea that Kelly and Dawkins conspired to put landlords out of business for the benefit of PHA wasn't that the City's grand conspiracy? I mean eventhough there was a waiting list for PHA they wanted to make the list longer right? Wasn't that the deal?
Now the City as an entity is in the business of trying to promote someone from within and they need to conspire against landlords to be able to promote this guy or gal, they can't do it on their own?
Hold the phone I'm buying stock in Reynald's Wrap.
Look if there turns out to be any inspector who did anything against the law, no one wants him in jail more than me. If there was any inspector who did anything unethical no one wants him fired more than me, but folks there is no conspiracy that involves the City. It just doesn't make any sence.
Reynald's Wrap...that would be Alcoa Aluminum right? Anyone know if that is a multinational?
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
I think that there has been enough speculation of evidence against the city. The dynamics of the case will play out in the courtroom. I don't know about the rest of participants here, but I've had enough of Mr. Repke, City-Attorney-Want-To-Be. Remember what happens when one assumes anything?
For mail fraud to be mail fraud, all you have to do is cause the US mail to be used as one of the tools in your scheme you idiot. If your going to hold yourself out as an expert, why don't you study the subject you are going to lecture about.
Mail Fraud - Mail fraud is a federal crime set forth at Title 18, section 1341 of the United States Code. Generally speaking, one engages in mail fraud whenever a person uses the U.S. Postal Service to advance, conceal, perpetrate, or further a scheme to defraud.
When an inspector lies about a violation that doesn't exist and then uses the force of law to make you repair it, that sounds like fraud to me.
Those two comments ae even funnier.
How can any rational person be expected to believe any of this.
Chuck Repke
The end is drawing near Repke! You has better slither on down to the public troff and have one last feast cause I don't think they are going to have much money left for you or your organization after these landlords get done with them.
THE WATCHDOG ISSUE 55 2007
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE DEFENDS
RIGHTS OF MINNESOTANS
A National Libertarian law firm has chosen
Minnesota as one of the three states in the nation
that needs help in defending the rights of it’s citizens.
The Institute of Justice call themselves a merry
band of litigators. They specialize in taking
from the government and giving back to the citizens.
They have picked Minnesota because it
over-regulates. Lee McGrath, director of the
I.J.’s Minnesota chapter, has kicked off the battle
by challenging the city of Red Wing’s rental
inspection policy. The suit is a basic violation of
the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable
searches.
Minneapolis has and now St. Paul has adopted
policy’s that require rental inspections. Under
the cloak of health and safety a city can do just
about anything and have it sound legal.
John Baker, an attorney representing the City of
Red Wing in the rental inspection case maintains
that without inspections the city can’t ensure
that fire alarms are functioning or that the sewer
lines are being maintained. He goes on to say
that the I.J. concludes that people have constitutional
rights that do not exist.
Mr. Baker’s comments are fatally flawed.
Anyone who has been a landlord has seen smoke
detectors routinely deactivated by tenants wilfully
removing their batteries. No tenant is
going to pay the rent if the sewer system is not
in working order either.
Who in America doesn’t know that he has a right
against warrantless searches? This is an excellent
opportunity for the courts to put a stop to
cities thinly veiled attempts to strip away
America’s freedom.
The Institute of Justice came to national attention
with the eminent domain case of Susette
Kelo vs. New London, Conn. The city cited
blight and took a large area of New London for
a private developer. This was done to rebuild
and raise the city’s tax base.
The Supreme Court in a controversial decision
sided with the city. This made literally everyone’s
home up for sale when government wanted
it.
This decision so angered Americans that by the
end of 2006, 30 states had changed eminent
domain laws. Minnesota is one of the 30 who
chose to protect property owners from cavalier
cities that have a hunger for more taxes.
To further understand why I.J. is vital to
America’s freedom, look at the city of Richfield.
Former state politician and now U of Mn law
school professor, Myron Orfield, believes that
the city of Richfield was justified in the use of
eminent domain. This law was used to take the
most successful car dealership in America.
Several acres of residential property were also
taken so that Best Buy could build a home office
complex.
The purpose of eminent domain’s original intent
was to improve and benefit the community. It
was to be used for building roads or hospitals -
not for beating up on one corporation to help
another.
Orfield, maintains that Richfield had poverty
and blight at 77th and 35W and that it’s schools
were segregated. None of his opinions have
been proven.
What has been proven, is the poor judgement of
Richfield’s politicians. The intersection of 494
and 35W was the busiest one between Chicago
and Los Angeles. Then, the city added over
5,000 Best Buy employees and it just got much
worse!
~Jim Swartwood
DAMN COMMIES! Maybe we should have housing inspections for every home in Saint Paul. Wouldn't this then be equal protection?
Renters DO NOT WANT YOUR GHESTAPO BUTTS IN THEIR HOMES. INSPECT THE RENTERS HOMES WHO WANT THESE BOGUS INSPECTIONS. This way we can save some money for the budget and lay off some inspectors since they won't be needed.
Well this law firm has certainly come to the right place! There's enough work here for them to keep em busy that they'll be passing the cases on to their kids when they die from old age.
What we need to do is get the politics out of everything because it is ruining everything. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING works any more because the damn politicians have politicized everything
These problems have been simmering for years. It's a refreshing relief that finally someone is taking the city to task for it. I got out of the rental business years ago because of the way the city treats landlords. I haven't regretted it one day since!
But now they are extending their "successes" to private residences, also.
Let em keep talkin their shit, they have no idea the mountain of evidence and the number of people that are prepared to come and tesify about the things these landlords are alleging.
So when does all of this evidence becomes public? Right now, there has been nothing to prove your case that's come forward.
You're so right.....absoloutly nothing at all. Keep thinking that buddy. While nothing amy have been made public, what is public is the fact that the city council is afraid of ahving their depositions taken, and non the heels of that, the city is getting hauled into court tomorrow because they will not produce documents. My lifes experiences have taught me that when someone doesn't have anything to hide they are willing to talk. Those same life experiences have taught me that people with nothing to hide do not try and play games by not producing documents. That's a Republican tactic and it's a "guilty" tactic.
Follow the money. At the end of the money trail you will find one of these inspectors or a city council member.....Guaranteed!....it's the way it always works, and they always think they are going to get away with it, but they don't. In city after city these people have tried the things that have being talked about here and one by one they all wind up going to jail or paying huge settlements.
Look at their homes they live in, someone is getting free work done, that's how these money grubbers get their kickbacks.
You'll never see any facts as it will all eventually get covered up. I talked to one of the guys in the lawsuits a while back and what he had to say was very telling, especially now with the city council squirming to get out of having their Depositions taken and more recently the city having to be taken back to court because they won't produce documents. What this guy had to say was when they took Deposiitons of the code inspectors, evry single one of the "higher ups" in the department came in and for the whole time answered questions with "I don't know, I don't remember, I don't talk to anyone, I don't keep anything, I don't ever hear anything from other inspectors, they don't know any demographics of any neioghborhood in the city, hell they wouldn't and couldn't even recognize their own damn emails they sent out. It's funny they remembered their names! Anyone but a moron can see that the city is covering up, but yet the other bunch of morons are worried about when the facts are going to come out.
Chuck said:So, like I said I got no problem with people making money, I just think these guys are jerks who are doing this for fun and spite.
I ask: Chuck do you know any of the landlords in the suits and can you name any?
Do you know Steve Magner? Do you think he should still be employed by the city?
Magner is not a pleasant individual. Some of the names keep coming up. They may be perpetrators, or sleazy hacks.
I also wonder if organized crime may be trying to get a foothold in this part of the country.
That Chuck must be a real cool guy, these guys lose their businesses, get their pockets picked and have their civil rights violated all over the palce and Chuck just thinks they are suing for fun and spite!
Hi All,
The court hearing was canceled. I don't know why. While I was there I picked up some more information. I will make a new post of it shortly.
Post a Comment
<< Home