A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL: Code Enforcement Officer Steve Magners Deposition In The Racketeering Lawsuits Against The City Of Saint Paul

Custom Search

Monday, June 25, 2007

Code Enforcement Officer Steve Magners Deposition In The Racketeering Lawsuits Against The City Of Saint Paul

Please click onto the comments for the post.

112 Comments:

Bob said...: Friday
January 19, 2006
10:00 a.m.
Appearances.
Whereupon,

STEVE MAGNER,
EXAMINATlON

By: Mr. Shoemaker
after having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:

BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
MR. ENGEL: Matthew Engel, attorney for the Plaintiffs in the third lawsuit. With me today is my
legal assistant Tanya Hoven, Thomas Gallagher, Joe Collins, Sara Kubitschek and Troy Allison.
MS. SEEBA: Louise Seeba on behalf of Defendants. With me is the deponent Mr. Steve Magner, and also Mr. Lippert.

BY MR. SHOEMAKER:

Q. Good morning, Mr. Magner. My name is John Shoemaker and
I've got with me Frank Steinhauser and Steve Johnson
from the first two cases. Matt?
Mr. Magner, what's your full legal name with the full
middle name, please?
A. Steven Richard Magner.
Q. How many times have you given any kind of testimony in

A. I don't have a number.
Q. Does it happen frequently where a homeowner will talk to
you about the financial issues related to the particular
code compliance process?
A. It's happened. I don't have a number for you.
Q. If a homeowner's having difficulty with paying for the
necessary work, paying the contractors for materials,
and they are interested in obtaining an extension of
time, do they talk to you or your staff about that?
A. Extension of what time?
Q. Extension of time in order to get the projects done and
get the certification process completed?
A. They might contact us and inform us of that.
Q. Do you have the ability to grant extensions of time in
your overall policy of trying to move the renovations
ahead?
A. I'm unclear.
Q. My question is, do you' have the ability to grant an
extension to a homeowner that is seeking additional time
to complete the code compliance certification process?
A. I'm unclear about your question in regards to the time
frame.
Q. You mentioned that one of the interests you have in
monitoring buildings that are in the process of the code
compliance certification is to move them along. I can't remember exactly how you said that, but basically, to
make sure there's progress. Isn't that what you're
concerned about is to make sure that there is progress
in the rehabilitation of homes that are in need of code
compliance certification?
A. The City would like to see that the progress was made
and the building brought up to compliance standards.
If the homeowner's having trouble financially, the
homeowner can seek an extension of time from you,
correct?
A. I'm still confused as to this time frame that you're
establishing.
Q. Let's say that there's pressure by neighbors or other
third parties to get a property brought back up to code,
and the homeowner's having financial trouble, can the
homeowner look to you and say, I need some more time
because I'm having trouble financially. I can't pay for
all the work at once. I've got to spread this work
A. We don't put a time frame on category 2 buildings.
Q. So a homeowner could take two, three, four years if they
wanted to get a property through a category 2?
A. It's possible.
Q. As long as you're monitoring the exterior of a property
in compliance with the codes?
A.One of their concerns would be to make sure their
permits do not get voided out for lack of completion,
and the State dictates that to the City because the City
adopts the building code, and I believe the building
code says 180 days.
Q. So when the permits are taken out there's a period of
180 days before the permit will expire, correct?
A. The permit expires if work does not continue during the
180 days.
Q. if you had work started during the 180 days, would the
permit then last longer than 180 days?
A. Correct.
Q. How long could the work last if you had some work
started in the first 180 days, but did not do any work
thereafter?
MS. SEEBA: Speculation. Go ahead and answer,
if you can answer.
THE WITNESS: It's my understanding that the
building department would hold the permit open as long
as work continues and it's not lapsed for 180 days.
BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
Q. Is not lapsed for 180 days?
A. Yes. So provided that the contractor or permittee did
not abandon the project for a period of 180 days, the
permit would remain open.
The permit would remain valid and the homeowner could
continue to at their pace do the renovation that was
requireed?
A. Correct.
Q. During your conversations with homeowners that are in
the vacant building code compliance process, do you at
times learn personal information about the particular
owner?
A.Yes.
Q. How does that happen?
A. They tell me.
Q. So what type of personal information have you obtained,
or what has been disclosed to you by homeowners?
A. How much they paid for the building.
Q. So in addition to how much they paid for the building,
would you also learn how much they paid on any type of
contract work they have already done?
MS. SEEBA: Speculation.
MR. SHOEMAKER:
Q. Have you ever been told that?
A. Yes.
Q. And how much the bid is for a particular part of a
remodeling project -- has that been conveyed to you by
homeowners?
Have homeowners that are in this code compliance
certification process told you about difficulties they
are having paying, let's say, mortgages or liens on the
property?
A. Yes.
Q. Would they also tell you from time to time where they're
at with regard to their property tax situation?
A. They have.
Q. Do homeowners tell you from time to time when they are
in this process that they are having difficulty with
other financial obligations that they have?
A. They have.
Have homeowners confided in you and told you that they
don't have the money to complete the code certification
process?
A. They have.
Have homeowners told you in this process that they're
facing bankruptcy?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever offered any type of assistance to
individuals who have provided information to you
concerning their difficulties as it relates to sources
that they could go to for help?
A. Yes.
From a standpoint where a homeowner has told you that they're having financial difficulty, do you have
referral sources for, let's say, loans for individuals?
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of sources would you have at your disposal to refer a homeowner to in those situations? 5
A. PED. HRA.
Q. Those are city agencies, PED and HRA?
A. Correct. 8
Q. Any other sources other than City sources of funding for
the homeowner that's having difficulty with a code
compliance?
A. Loca' CDCs.
Q. Explain that, would you?
A. Local community development corporations.
Q. And they at times have funding for properties that are
within their jurisdiction?
A. Correct.
Q. How about any other source of funding for a homeowner
that's having difficulty going through a code compliance?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. What have you seen in your work as a vacant building Inspector, Mr. Magner, whether it was as an inspector or as a supervisor from a standpoint of the cost bids that
have been put across your desk as it relates to how much
a code compliance would cost a homeowner? Have you seen
a wide range of numbers?
A. Correct.
Q. What's been the most expensive code compliance plan
that's been submitted to you in your 11 or 12 years as a
vacant building inspector?
A. Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of millions of
dollars.
Q. Dependlng upon the size of the building, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you deal with structures other than single-family
duplexes?
A. Correct.
Q. So you're dealing with even C of 0 buildings, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. How about with regard to single-family homes, what's the
highest dollar value that you can recall a code
compliance bid came in for a homeowner to do a complete
code compliance?
A. Depends on what the owner's going to put into it.
Q. But I'm just talking about, what do you recall from when
they submit plans to you and they've got contractors
that have given them bids -- what's the highest amount
you remember from a single-family code compliance bid?
A. My recollection would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000.
Q. Do you remember a gentleman by the name of Kos Jahangiri
on a *** Farrington property a couple years back?
A. Not offhand.
Q. He submitted -- from what! see in the legislative
hearing documents he submitted some bids to your office
that totaled almost $106,000. Does that ring a bell to
you?
A. Not offhand.
Q. On an older property that would have been built prior to
World War I, can it typically cost $80, $90, $100,000 to
go through a code compliance?
A. It's possible.
Q. How often does that happen?
A. I don't know.
Q. How often do you have properties that you're dealing
with yourself that were built prior to World War I?
A. All the time.
Q. The housing stock in the City of St, Paul has a
significant portion that was built prior to World War
II, correct?
A. The majority of the homes built in the City of St. Paul
were built after World War II.
Q. Let's go back to the year 2002, was that still the case?
A. correct; 2:06 AM
Anonymous said...: 6 Comments - Show Original Post
Collapse comments

Anonymous said...
The Inspector's Song
(Sung to the tune of I've Been Working on the Railroad)

I've been working on condemnations,
All the live long day.

I've been jerking folk of all nations,
Just to pass the time of day.

Can't you hear Lantry's whistle blowin'?

Rise up so early in the morn.

Can't you hear ol' Thune a crowin'
They'll wish they'd never been born.

Moermond won't you blow
Moermond won't you blow
Moermond won't you blow your ^&*(&*%&^$&**(

Moermond won't you blow your horn?

10:50 PM

Anonymous said...
It's pretty obvious from reading this that this guy is not very forthcoming and being as evasive as he can be. People with nothing to hide do not answer questions this way, and people with nothing to hide do not haqve their attorney objecting to things that have no relevance. If it has no relevance, and the city has nothing to hide, why wouldn't this guys attorney want them to spend all day on the subject rather than something that had some relevance? Looks to me like there's a rat in the woodpile!

12:06 AM; 2:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...
Maybe this is why they didn't want to take the Councils deposiiton....if all these people ahve answered the way Magner does, I don't blame them for not taking more depositions. What would be the purpose? To have a bunch of people be evaisve?

12:45 AM

Anonymous said...
I'm afraid the end is closer than I had thought Repke. This looks bad to me, and I would be willing to bet it is going to look bad to the jury too.

1:21 AM; 2:09 AM
Bob said...: Hi All,

I screwed the first post up copying it. That is why you see the comments recopied in this thread..Still maybe some small errors.

Sorry!; 2:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Well this was conclusive. He is testifying that building permits never expire if you pound at least one nail in every 6 months and that from time to time people share their problems with him and like any other human he will at a time offer suggests as to where they might get help.

Sounds like we are all going to prison over these revelations.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: As to the issue of relevance, the issue is something relevant to the RICO case which is that the City of St Paul is accused of being a part of a conspiracy to put private land lords out of business in favor of the PHA.

So, when the attorney starts to ask him about his home in the burbs or his parents home in the burbs, the City Attorney objects and asks what does that have to do with Saint Paul land lords and the Saint Paul PHA, which is the reason for the case.

To this point in what Bob has posted the attorney is suggesting that it might have some relevance to his knowledge about the cost of repairs, so the judge is letting him go there.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 8:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Repke, none of your arguments make any sense. What judge are you referring to? Who would want to take years pounding in some nails on their property and extending the life of their permit besides Thune? Your disections of testimonies, evidence and the truth of witnesses will not pass the sniff test of jurors. They are too smart and will be the backbone and common folk of the community. I think you are really insulting the good sense of the people who post and read here.; 8:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck you showed your hand when you said "sounds like "we" are all going to prison over these revelations". So you are with "them" as in "we"? That was a little slip up and there are more coming and people will notice these. Funny how you jokingly can reveal things you don't really mean to. Over-confidence can be a downfall!; 9:15 AM
Anonymous said...: I am reffering to this exchange:

Q. Is not lapsed for 180 days?
A. Yes. So provided that the contractor or permittee did
not abandon the project for a period of 180 days, the
permit would remain open.
Q. The permit would remain valid and the homeowner could
continue to at their pace do the renovation that was
requireed?
A. Yes

The plantiff's attorneys are establishing that the building department will allow a permit to be renewed forever as long as a project is not abandoned for 180 Days.

It happens all of the time. That is why the inspectors are the ones that move a project towards condemnation and demo, because the permits don't expire as long as one nail is pounded in every 6 months.

The plantiff's attorneys want to show that not doing anything for year after year after year is OK with the permit office as long as the project isn't "abandoned." Like Jesamine 4 years...

Somewhere along the line the are going to suggest that Magner is arbitrary in his actions on one case or another.

As to the exchange with the Judge, Bob appears to have deleted it since I read it last night and since 12:06 wrote the comment about relevance. The City attorney objected on relevance, the plantiff's attorney said something about knowledge of rehab and the judge allowed it... but it has been removed in the the vapors of the internet now...

As to the "we" issue, hell these guys have the conspiracy so big I am assuming that everyone who lives in Saint Paul is who they are after.

Its a joke... they have no conspiracy... there is no RICO case...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 9:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Chuck....does that include Jessamine house when there were people there working and the city showed up and ordered them to stop working because the permit had expired, then had the utilities not only shut off, but removed, and then used the lack of utilities to declare it a hazard?; 10:02 AM
Anonymous said...: I think there is more than enough proof that a permit only is allowed to stay open if it is someone the inspectors would like to allow the permit stay open. If I recall some of the complaints filed showed that permits were closed/stopped while individuals were pounding nails and working on their homes. These homes were not abandoned nor was Jessamine yet Thune has been allowed 30 years compared to what others were allowed.; 10:08 AM
Bob said...: Hi All,

This deposition is very long. I will post more later.; 10:15 AM
Anonymous said...: The devil is in the details. We'll find the devils soon enough.; 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Like I said that is the point of where the plaintiffs' attorneys are going. They want to show that the permits don't expire.

So, yes they want to show that 14 Jessemine took out a permit in July of 2001 and five years later in 2006 the permit was still good.

The suggestions above that some people can work on their houses for five years and no one complains and other people take five years and don't have the work done and the City comes after them, is exactly what the attorneys are saying.

So, they have Magner saying in effect that when Nancy's house wasn't done 5 years after the work started the new owners still had a permit.

Like I said it doesn't mean anything. The issue of an enforcement system that is complaint driven is always going to have diferent results for diferent buildings. It doesn't prove anything about why one person got 50 complaints from neighbors and someone else got none.

Nor does it show a conspiracy or how it benefits PHA.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, Chucky Boy,

How did you get the disposition you speak of in your 9:22 AM post: "As to the exchange with the Judge, Bob appears to have deleted it since I read it last night and since 12:06 wrote the comment about relevance."

Did you read Dave's copy or did you get your copy from your buddy the St. Paul City Attorneys Office?

So Chucky Boy why do you put yourself through all of this for Dave? As a fixer for the DFL, I would like to see you fix this like you fixed so many other campaigns of years gone by. You see Chuck you may not know who I am, but we have worked on many campaign together and what you are doing here for Dave is really something.

Chuck, anything to stay in power I see is your strategy while giving the DFL a black eye in the process.

Thanks Chuck!; 12:42 PM
Anonymous said...: 12:32, Its a complaint driven system all right, and too often the inspectors are the ones making the complaints. Also policies are enforced for political reasons.

This is a black eye for the whole city, and loses huge support when people no longer count.

Chuck wants it to be different, but only talks a good fight. He will not acknowledge or stand up to what's wrong.; 1:15 PM
Bob said...: Q. What other home did they have in Roseville?
A. I believe Irene Street.
Q. Was that the two homes they owned in Roseville? Did
they have other homes?
A. I think they lived in those two.
Q. Do your parents own any other homes other than the home
on Moonlight Bay currently?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. What type of home do you live in, Mr. Magner, as far as
for layout? How many bedrooms?
A. Three.
Q. What's the square footage of your home?
MS. SEEBA: Stop right here. This is
completely irrelevant to your claims against the
defendants. It's not a property in St. Paul. It has
nothing to do with the lawsuit. I'm not gqing to let
you ask questions about his personal home.
MS. SHOEMAKER: I think it is relevant and I
certainly can go to some other questions so you can see
that it's relevant.
MS. SEEBA: Why don't you do that.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Are you instructing him not to
answer this single question or are you instructing him
not on answer any questions about his home?
MS. SEEBA: I guess I'm asking you to tell me why it's relevant. Right now it's clearly irrelevant.
MR. SHOEMAKER: I think it is relevant.
MS. SEEBA: Tell me why and I'll let him answer.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Two of the claims we have here, Louise, deal with racketeering.
MS. SEEBA: I understand that.
MR. SHOEMAKER: And there have been affidavits and statements made by individuals who own properties in
the City of St. Paul who have indicated Mr. Magner has
pressured them into selling their property, that he's pressured them into selling their property to a friendly acquaintance of his, that's he's attempted to buy
properties in the City of St. Paul, and that he has a
working relationship with at least a couple of contractors, one of whom we understand now from the
testimony of Mr. Kalis has done work on his bar. And so
as you know, the discovery scope is very broad and I
think that this is clearly relevant. I have been on
this subject for about two minutes
MS. SEEBA: Stop. I heard everything that you
said and nothing has anything to do with the square
footage of his home outside the City of St. Paul. If contractors, anything that you just said, sure,
appropriate, but I don't know -- you haven't answered my
question on why the square footage of his personal home
in Moonlight Bay is relevant.
MS. SHOEMAKER: Anything to do with his personal residence is relevant. Renovation work he's
done there, who he's had renovation work done with, his
parents across the street, any type of work that
contractors he knows have done any of that work.
MS. SEEBA: If you wantto ask him about contracting work that he's had done on his home, ask
him. I'll allow him to answer that.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Let me do that. If he was living in a 5,000 square foot house versus a 20,000
square foot house, that would be clearly relevant
considering his salary.
MS. SEEBA: I disagree, but go ahead and ask him about contracting work.
BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
Q. Mr. Magner, let me focus on your home in Stillwater.
Have you had any remodeling work on that home in the
last 15 years?
A. No.
Q. Have your parents had any work done on their home across
the street from you in the last four years?
A. Yep.
Q. Have they had to take permits out for that work?
A. Yep.
Q. Did they build that home?
A. Yes.
Q. Brand-new?
A. Yep.
Q. Did any of the contractors that you know have any work
in that property?
A. Yep.
Q. Who would that have been?
A. Mr. Nelson.
Q. Wally Nelson did work on your father's home?
A. I assume so.
Q. What do you mean you "assume so"?
A. It's my understanding that they contracted with him to
do some work.
Q. In building the new home, what kind of work, is it your
understanding that Wally Nelson actually performed on
your parents' new home?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. What type of work does Wally Nelson undertake?
A. Renovations.
Q. Does he also do new builds?
A. Correct.; 1:30 PM
Anonymous said...: No, I have never read anything about the RICO case anywhere but here. That is why I come to the site, I think it is interesting and I have fun debating it (shows you how sick I am).

Read my post again. When Bob reposted this thing he must have deleted that section because I answered the question of 12:06 who clearly read what I had read here too. (It was part of what Bob just posted)

As to who gets a black eye, even if everything anyone has said were true and the City was involved in this grand conspiracy, let's see who was the Mayors during the times in issue???

Norm Coleman and Randy Kelly

The Republican Senator from Minnesota and the Current Employee of the Republican Bush administration. I don't see the DFL connection there.

As to Thune in this, the only thing that anyone has ever accused Thune of in this is that he takes as good of care of his house as Nancy does (sorry Nancy). What we have seen happen is that this guy who his neighbors like and they do like him in his neighborhood, never got any complaints on any of his properties until the landlords decided to go after him.

So, the landlords got the City to write him up, and while they were at it they got the City to write me up too. Fun, fun, fun. The silly thing on that of course was that Thune was/is the best vote on the Council for the land lords getting extensions. If you actually track the number of problem properties and the amount of time given on demo orders nobody on the council cuts the land lords more slack than Thune does. But, that didn't matter they had fun f'ing with him.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 1:34 PM
Bob said...: Hi All,

Once again I apologize for errors in the copy. I notice Mr. Shoemaker was referred to as Ms. at least once. Few other errors but I think you will get the point of what is being said here.; 1:34 PM
Bob said...: I'm am sorry I shed some dark unnecessary shadow on this thread by deleting the previous post.

I had mixed up my documents and copied them out of order.

I hope this clears up any misplaced suspicions of Chuck.; 1:39 PM
Bob said...: 14 JESSAMINE AVE E -- Property Information --
Pin Number Zoning/Use HPC District
302922210160 RT1
Information disclaimer...
Data Disclaimer:-
The City of Saint Paul and its officials, officers, employees or agents does not warrant the accuracy, reliability
or timeliness of any information published by this system, and shall not be held liable for any losses caused by
reliance on the accuracy, reliability or timeliness of such information. Portions of such information may be
incorrect or not current. Any person or entity that relies on any information obtained from this system does so
at his or her own risk.
List of Activity...
NumberAddress Description Details Status
07 097608
TAL 00 CS
14
JESSAMINE
AVE E
Tall grass and
weeds
Complaint Date: 06/18/2007
Initial Inspection: 06/22/2007
Closed on: 06/25/2007
Inspector: 344
Inspection Results (most recent first):
06/22/2007: Grass/Weeds (Work Order)
Closed
07 076656
TAL 00 CS
14
JESSAMINE
AVE E
t g & w Complaint Date: 05/10/2007
Initial Inspection: 05/16/2007
Closed on: 05/17/2007
Inspector: 344
Inspection Results (most recent first):
05/16/2007: Grass/Weeds (Work Order)
Closed
06 042634
RSN 00 SS
14
JESSAMINE
AVE E
PW Sewer Permit
Type: Sanitary
Work Type: Repair
Entered on: 02/17/2006
Active/Issued
06 020571
RES 00 DM
14
JESSAMINE
AVE E
2/15/2006 - OK
to issue Demo
Permit per Tom
Riddering.
Demolition Permit
Type: Demolition Residential Demo
Issued Date: 02/15/2006
Final Date: 05/25/2006
Contractor: Holst Excavating, Inc.
Estimated Value: $12,860.00; 1:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Bob - go to the bottem of the page the first complaint and permits start in July of 2001.

Chuck; 2:06 PM
Bob said...: Thanks Chuck..; 2:15 PM
Anonymous said...: On the Jessamine situation there were also several months of court litigation where at in least two of the occasions it took several months to settle before anyone was allowed to continue working, to the best of my knowledge other than that there was never a time lapse period were work was not being done on the home. In fact if you look at the property record prior to the original incident with law enforcement/code enforcement you will notice that there were no complaints for the Jessamine property.; 2:24 PM
Bob said...: Bob said- Were we left off speaking of Wally nelson the contractor-

Q. Do you know jf he was the main contractor for the home?
A. It was my understanding that my father general
contracted the property.
Q. What kind of work does Wally Nelson do, as far as you
understand it, on new homes that are being constructed?
A. I'm assuming he's a general contractor.
Q. Were you a general contractor on your father's home?
A. My father was.
Q. Do you hold any professional licenses yourself?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever?
A. No.
Q. Do you know how much the contract was between your
father and Wally Nelson's company?
A. No.
Q. Do you know how long he worked on your father's
property?
A. Six months.
Q. Permits would have had to have been taken out in the
City of Stillwater is that right?
A. No.
Q. Where?
A. May Township.
Q.Do you know how much the home cost to construct?
A. Nope.
Q. What size is that home from a standpoint of bedrooms?
A. Three bedrooms.
Q. Do you know the square footage?
2,000 square foot.
A. That's finished?
I believe so.
Q. How much unfinished?
MS. SEEBA: Objection, speculation. If you can
answer.
THE WITNESS: I think 100.
MR. SHOEMAKER:
Q. 100 square feet unfinished?
A. Yes.
Q. When was the last time you were in your parents' home
there in Stillwater?
A. Hours ago.
Q. So you know the layout of it, correct?
A. Yep.
Q. Have you ever had any work done on any of your properties by Wally Nelson or any of his companies? .
A. No.
Q. Did you have an out-building built on your property
recently?
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of out-building is that?
A. It's a pole barn.
Q. Who did the work for you on that?
A. A pole barn company. I don't recall the name.
Q. Do you remember the foundation size on that out-building?
A. It's 39 by 56.
Q. Who's'the building inspector that's responsible for your
area there in the May Township? Do you know?
A. Peter Kugel.
Q. Do you know how to speil that?
1A. K-u-g-e-I.
Q. Do you know how iong Mr. Kugel has been with May Township as a building inspector?
MS. SEEBA: Objection. Again, John, a building inspector in May Township, what does that have to do
with any of your claims?
MR. SHOEMAKER: If he's responsible for code enforcement in the City of St. Paul and he's doing work
on his property, I want to know if he's taking out
permits. It's a double standard --
MS. SEEBA: He isn't doing the work on his property. He's hired a pole barn company.
MR. SHOEMAKER:
Q. The pole barn company, do they have to pull permits on
your property?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know if they pulled the proper permits?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the reason for building the pole barn, Mr.
Magner?
A. To store personal possessions.
Q. If we talk to the building inspector, Mr. Kugel, would
he say that you were the general contractor?
A. He might.
Why would he say that?
A. I don't know. I don't know if I took out the permit or
they took out the permit.
Q. Do you have any brothers or sisters?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me what siblings you have?
A. A sister.
Q. Where does she live?
A. Moonlight Bay.
Q. Does she have her own home?
A. Yes.
Q. Close to your home?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. Has she had any work done on her home by Renovation,
Inc. and Wally Nelson?
A. Not that I'm aware of.; 2:36 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm new hear. Is this Chuck guy the only one on the cities side on this site?

Who are you Chuck? Do you ever get money from the City?; 7:12 PM
Anonymous said...: You will notice that Chuck likes to take a statement he reads and turn it around to reflect a meaning that is in his favor for sticking up for the city in all situations. Give Chuck the test, write something that is against the way the city has been handling anything you would like to write about and Chuck will twist it around and come out writing a reason to why you are wrong. If you read anything Chuck has ever posted it will show you he is Mr.Perfect.; 7:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Bravo 7:33. Your language is good and clear, and you acknowledge the facts.; 8:24 PM
Anonymous said...: For those who are new to the site, I am the excutive director of two small nonprofits, an independent lobbyist, and a real estate agent. I have done politics in Saint Paul for over 30 years and was a staff person for Thune from 1990-1997. And have staffed other public officials political campaigns.

So, you can dismiss what I say out of hand because I too must be a part of tht world wide conspiracy to get you, or you can take my opinion for what it is...

Just My Opinion Not Those Of My Employers Past Present Or Future

Chuck Repke; 9:08 PM
Anonymous said...: chuck is thick skinned. I think chuck is winning the debate and that is why some of you here resort to personal attacks. who cares what chuck has done for a living.; 9:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck and his friends in the city have lost the fight on truth.; 10:09 PM
Anonymous said...: I knew it, this Repke guy is connected everywhere. These lawsuits are really starting to take shape now that we are finding out some of the players behind the scenes; 10:23 PM
Anonymous said...: to 10:23 PM
Lets Play Ball?
Lets get Repke to thou out the first pitch, for the city of St.Paul.
Is there ever been any under handed pitches, by city employees?
When the city gets tough, do they give you the knuckle ball?
They would never give it to Thune and the way his trim looked on his home.
It should have been condemned and torn down.
Then put up a new place for the people that Randy Kelly brought to St.Paul from?; 11:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Chuck, you have avoided an issue that was raised before. Just to remind you and Bob of this important issue.

When Andy Dawkins ran for State Representative during his last three terms, he did not live in his district. It seems Dawkins lived outside of his legislative district with his wife Sen. Ellen Anderson. The property he claimed to live at to get elected to the state house in the Frogtown neighborhood was written up for many violations and mail stacked up. It got so bad the US Postal Service refused to deliver Mr. Dawkins’ mail there anymore because it was too big of a pile.

Bob are you listening here? Mr. Dawkins did not live at this address (Frogtown), but he claimed it on his state filing forms as his place of residence. Had Mr. Dawkins listed his real address with his wife Sen. Ellen Anderson, he would not have been eligible to run for his State Representative seat in Frogtown. By claiming to live at an address that he did not live at Andy could keep his legislative seat and homestead two properties at the same time. Neat trick Chuck wouldn’t you say so.

There was a candidate, Fred Tenson (sp) who ran against Mr. Dawkins in the Frogtown area who even got neighbor’s statements that backed up the fact that Mr. Dawkins did not live at the address he claimed for his legislative seat. Fred even got signed statements from neighbors where Sen. Anderson lived that stated Mr. Dawkins lived outside of his legislative district and only lived at the Frogtown address on paper. Mr. Dawkins only used his Frogtown address to get elected after he married Sen. Anderson. Mr. Dawkins claimed during several election cycles that he lived in his Frogtown address, but actually lived out of his district with his wife Sen. Ellen Anderson. The marriage certificate is on file in Ramsey County along with property records with Andy and Ellen's names on the documents.

This information was given to Joe Mansky (sp), Director of Ramsey County Elections and being the DFL hack that he is, this did not go anywhere. Did you know he was fired from the Secretary of State’s office due to his partisan tendencies? Do you think Susan G. from the Ramsey County Attorney will do anything to bring justice against a fellow DFLer? Answer is simply, NO.

So Chuck, explain your way out of this one. Mr. Dawkins broke the law to keep his legislative seat. His property was written up many times, mail was stopped and he was put in charge of code inspections. Does that make sense Chuck?

I can see your response now, Mr. Dawkins was serving the public good and he was not required to follow the same laws everyone else has to follow because the end justifies the means. Right Chuck?

Bob are you looking into this? Here Mr. Dawkins was put in charge of code enforcement and he had broken the law to get elected and was unable to keep up his own property. This does not make sense.

Tired of the corruption in St. Paul.; 6:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Yes.
The law can be broken by, Jesse Ventura, Dean Barkley, Bill Dahn, James Kane.
Susan Greatner covered for her boy friends pal Barkley.
Explain that if you can.
Is that the way it happened Bill?
Bill did Jesse have the same insulation as you?
We remember Susan Greatner's being involved in that case.; 7:36 AM
Anonymous said...: On the Dawkins and where he lived issue, I supported a young man named Reggie Edwards who lived in the district (and worked for the County) for DFL endorsement in 1998. In fact at the time I was the political director for Ted Mondale who was running for governor and wrote a good part of the speech that Mondale gave for Edwards at the SD 65 DFL convention.

It was a great speech too Ted spoke of the fact that Saint Paul has NEVER sent an Afircan American to the legislature in the history of the state and if HD65A DFL the district that holds the highest consentration of minority members in the city endorsed someone who didn't live in the district over Reggie Edwards they should be ashamed. Mondale, "If not now when? If not Edwards who?"

Dawkins and Pappas were both pissed at me for that one. I had supported Dawkins from when he first was interested in running years before, and have been friends, (and think we still are) but I couldn't support him representing a district he didn't live in.

So, I don't know what you were doing in 1998 about Dawkins representing Summit U and Frogtown while living in Como. but I was trying to do something about it.

PS - Saint Paul still hasn't sent an African American to the legislature...

But, sorry, no law is broken... the court gives great flexibility with addresses, ask Sharron and Bill.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 8:15 AM
Bob said...: We left off with Mr.Shoemaker questioning mr. magner about his sister.

Q. What's her name?
A. Ann Warner.
Q. What is your father's current occupation?
A. Retired.
Q. What did he do when he was working?
A. Machinist.
Q. What company did he work for?
A. American Hoist.
Q. How about your mother, did she work outside the home?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did she work?
A. Peat Marwick.
Q. Was she a professional there?
A. Yes.
Q. What was her profession?
A. Accounting or tax preparation.
Q. Was she a CPA?
A. No.
Q. On your father's new property, do you know if there was
a mortgage taken out on that property?
A. I'm not aware of that information.
Q. Do you know how much the home cost to build?
A. I don't know.
Q. Have your parents ever been involved in the rental
property business?
A. Yes.
Q. What time periods were they involved in the rental
property business?
A. Early '70s, mid '70s through late '90s.
Q. Where did they hold rental properties?
A. City of St. Paul.
Q. In the early '70s how many properties did they have, Mr.
Magner?
A. I don't know. I don't know if I have a number for you.
Q. How about in the late '90s, what number of rental
properties did they hold In the City of St. Paul?
A. I don't know. Maybe one or two.
Q. Did they manage those properties themselves or did they
have someone else manage them for them?
A. Managed them themselves.
Q. What's the highest number of rental proprties that they
owned at any time?
MS. SEEBA: Objection, form, foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't know that I know that.
MR. SHOEMAKER:
Q. Well, in the late '90s you would have been working for
the City of St. Paul, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. When did you start with the City of St. Paul in any type
of a position?
A. 1990.
Q. What was your first position?
A. I was an intern in vacant building.
Q. An intern in the vacant building program of the code
enforcement office?
A. Correct.
Q. And what was your next position?
A. Intern in the regular code enforcement office.
Q. And how long were you an intern in the vacant building
program?
A. Four, five months.
Q. How long were you an intern in code enforcement?
A. Year-and-a-half.
Q. What was your next position?
A. Code enforcement inspector, environmental health
inspector.
Q. How long were you a environmental health inspector/code
inspector?
A. Two, three years.
Q. Then you took the position with the vacant building
inspector position?
A. Correct.
Q. Your parents, do they currently have any other real
estate interests other than their home in Stillwater?
A. I don't know. I'm not aware of it.
Q. They sold off their rental properties by the late '90s?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. What type of properties did they own in the 1990s,
structure-wise?
A. Multi-unit buildings, duplex.
Q. Are you talking about C of 0 buildings?
A. Correct.
Q. How large of a building did they own?
A. I'm not sure the number of units.
Q. More than ten units?
A. Possibly
Q. Do you remember where that property was located that was
the C of 0 building?
A. It was on the west side.
Q. Any cross-streets to reference it?
A.State Street.
Q. And what?
A. Robert.
Q. The other property or properties that they would have
owned at that time in the late '90s before they sold off
would have been what type of structures?
A. C of O multi-units.
Q. So they had more than one C of a multi-unit?
A. Yes.
Q. How many units the did the second C of O property have?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Are these tri-plexes, four-plexes, or are they larger
than that?
A. Larger.
Q. Both of the C of 0 buildings were much larger than
four-plexes?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they have more than two C of 0 buildings?
A. I believe so.
Q. How many did they own during the 1990s?
A. Five or ten. I don't know.
Q. Did you ever have an ownership interest in the any of
the properties that your parents had an ownership
interest in during the 1990s?
A. No.
Q. Have you at any time had ownership interest in any of
their rental properties?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever manage any of their rental properties?
A. No.
Q. Did any of your family or your sister ever manage any of
their properties?
A. No.
Q. Your parents were the ones that managed all of their
rental properties?
A. Yes.
Q. What type of tenants did they have? Do you know?
MS. SEEBA: Objection, foundation.
MR. SHOEMAKER:
Q. Do you have any personal information as to the type of
tenants?
A. I don't have personal information as to the type of
tenants.
Q. Do you have any partnership or corporate interest of any
type, Mr. Magner, as you Sit here today?
A. No.
Q. Have you had any partnership or corporate interest at
any time prior to today?
A. No.
Q. Back when your parents owned these multiple C of 0
buildings, did Mr. Nelson ever do any work in any
fashion for your parents on those properties?
A. No.
Q. When did you first meet Wally Nelson?
A. '96 or '97.
Q. How did you meet him?
A. He used to call on vacant buildings.
Q. He used to call on vacant buildings?
A. Yep.
Q. What was the nature of his calls on the vacant buildings?
A. A contractor looking to purchase buildings.
Q. The first time you ever remember having communications
with Mr. Nelson would have been '96 or '97, and it would
have been regarding his interest in a particular
property on the vacant building list?
A. That's my recollection.
Q. Do you know how often Mr. Nelson actually has been able
to purchase buildings off the vacant building list?
MS. SEEBA: Objection, foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't.
MR. SHOEMAKER:
Q. He appears to have had a good amount of success in
purchasing properties that have been involved with
adverse code enforcement operations. Do you know how
many total properties he's bought off of the vacant
building list in the last five years?
MS. SEEBA: Foundation.
THE WITNESS: I have no idea.
MR. SHOEMAKER:
Q. Have you ever provided Mr. Nelson with information
concerning a homeowner's personal financial situation on
a building that was involved in your program?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Does Mr. Nelson call anymore about vacant buildings that are currently on the list?
A. All the time.
Q. Do you call him about properties on the vacant building
list?
A. No.
Q. Do you have a cell phone, Mr. Magner?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have one cell phone?
A. No.
Q. How many cell phones do you have?
A. I have two.
Q. You have one cell phone that's paid for by the City of
St. Paul?
A. Correct.
Q. What number is that?
A. (651) ***-**** (Bob said I deleted Mr. Magners number).
Q. Who's been the provider for those cell services?
A. City of 5t.Paul.
Q. Who's the actual carrier for the cell services?
A. What do you mean?
Q. Is it T-Mobile or Sprint or what carrier?
A. It's--
Q. Verizon?
A, It's Nextel.
Q. How long has it been Nextel?; 9:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Hmmmm...

Nothing so far...

chuck; 9:45 AM
Bob said...: 9:45, what do you mean nothing so far? We have established Dawkins is less than honest.

We have a long road to go down here. And those phone and bank records of Magners are going to support other information in the plaintiffs possession.

Keep being hopeful there isn't a case. Although, your hope is in vain.

Do you think for one minute the plaintiffs would spend close to a half million bucks on a law suit that wasn't carefully investigated before they dropped their money on the table?

This is all in the bag! Nothing left but the crying game for some.

Don't expect Magner to snitch on himself if that is what you are looking for.; 10:05 AM
Bob said...: Before I forget.

I don't think the whole deposition has been filed with the courts. Only pieces of it. So, I am assuming the parts that have been made public are the parts that will be used against Mr. Magner in future litigation.

So, don't jump to the conclusion there is nothing here in this deposition. There is!

You should probably look at this line of questioning by the plaintiffs attorneys as a snare for future litigation.; 10:34 AM
Anonymous said...: No Bob, I am looking for something that at least starts to resemble what the accusations are in the RICO suit. That the City of Saint Paul has been a partner in a conspiracy to put landlords out of business for the benefit of PHA.

So far what we have seen is, "so when did you stop beating your wife?" questions. Do you own rental property in Saint Paul? Does anyone you know own property in Saint Paul? Has anyone that you have ever met in your professional life ever done business with anyone that you know in your private life?

And this relates to the world wide conspiracy how?

No Bob, my point is excactly that. That these boys have all sorts of money and they are use to getting their way and they are going to mess with the City for messing with them.

How dare the City require them to fix their properties? Why should the City be able to tell them when to get something fixed? What right is it of some neighbor to complain about what goes on in their buildings?

So, yup, half a million bucks to waste all of the City's time. Small change to these boys Bob.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 10:38 AM
Bob said...: Chuck you are still on that PHA kick and that is a very small part of all of this.

We have people who don't even know each other making the same claims against Magner. Go figure.; 10:41 AM
Anonymous said...: I believe in what Chuck is saying.

Amanda; 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...: I always believe Chuck before I'd believe one of these unstable folks even though Chuck is a DFL hack.

Bob, these plaintiffs are just using you to drive public support. They know they have no case but they love getting everyone on this blog worked up and pissed at the city. They will keep these lawsuits going as long as they can and then start new ones just to annoy the city - like gnats at your ankles. They don't care how much they cost the city and the taxpayers of Saint Paul.

Jonathan; 11:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Amanda,what are you thinking? Your first post you try and get a date from Chuck (i think this is the same amanda excuse me if i am wrong)Are you lonely and looking for an ALPHA male? Chuck is not your guy. Gloria his ole lady will rip your head off and sh.. down your throat. This is a town hall meeting not a dating service! Please read the stories here you don't know "who or what" you are supporting. Geeeeeeesh, this blog gets wacky sometimes. Now we're getting Repke groupies. i think i am going to get sick.; 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Bob - go to the law suits and see what the claim is! The claim is just that.

If there was a "new" charge that Magner is making money on the side with some contractor that he pushes deals towards, the City wouldn't defend him. Its not a case against the City. So, the City Attorney would say see ya! If they could prove it, it might even fall under RICO, but it wouldn't be a case against the City of Saint Paul, because the City isn't in the business of making Magner or any of his friends money!

You have nothing to show a meeting of Randy Kelly and Andy Dawkins sitting around going, I wonder how we can make Steve Magner money, I got an idea lets let him give information to private contractors...

Anyone know Randy Kelly? Anyone think that he could pick anyone in the inspections unit out of a line up?

So, Bob that is where the PHA thing is so important. From a City involvement stand point there has to be a conspiracy of someone in power in the City to benefit someone that it at least makes some sense for them to benefit. The claim is that the City created tough housing codes to put landlords out of business so that all renters would have to rent from Public Housing.

That's the claim.

Everything else is just messing with the people who messed with them.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 11:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Amanda and Jonathan must be on their breaks and either this is a spit personality or they are water cooler buds (watch out for that city water by the way) with an agenda handed to them by their superiors over at city hall. Chuck must have a pocket computer hanging around his neck and is tripping over loose carpeting as he makes his way through the hallways over at the DFL HQs. Watch out where you're treading chuck you may just trip over your own boots. It is just soooo transparent. Nobody without an agenda and/or a brown nose would not be at the very least annoyed by what some of the inspectors and other city employees are doing and have done! Most will be outraged and I just don't see that these posters have any merit. chuck never gets anything right and is stuck on the same old tune of PHA housing being the claim for the suits. It goes deeper than that but he can't get deeper because his boots will also get stuck in the murk and mire of the evil mud the city has buried some alive in. I call 'em as I see's 'em and I can't let one person here think that there is all this support out there for the poor city and all their good and careful work for the people. They have willfully destroyed many a people and I won't sit by and watch while they attempt to minimize and use resources that will combat what they have done. They stick up for the city in doing what they label as "legal" to citizens but then condemn those who seek to be justifed by illegal actions through the court process. A process that I might add that is every person's right to seek. Communism comes to mind here as they seek to stifle the voices of those seeking justice. Is this how it happens. Ten years from now how many rights will be stricken from us and will anyone really own property outright or will the government have easements to it and we be given deed restrictions. It's scary and if you think it can't happen, think again. It will get worse because people will let government take over and crumble their spirits to the point that you will submit. With a shaking finger and growling voice they will point to you and say you will submit!; 11:41 AM
Bob said...: Hi All,

NOBODY is using me. This forum's motto is-

"On A Truth Seeking Mission"

Scroll to the bottom of the front page to see this message.

Anyone can come here and speak their beliefs based on fact or opinion. Most often I send out invitations to those we speak of here so they can participate in the discussion or refute the allegations here.

Code Enforcement, the City Council, Mayor, and many more have been invited here. Do you see any comments from any of them? Doesn't this make you wonder why? They all are aware of the popularity of this blog. my opinion, some people fear facing the truth.

If anyone was using somebody I guess I am USING the plaintiffs and associated victims stories to build citizens participation in this TOWN HALL MEETING. This is a good thing. I guess I am using the WINN FAMILY'S story, I am using Bill's story. I am using all kinds of people. I think they appreciate me using them.

We have a phony citizens forum funded with public moneys here in Saint Paul, and the average Joe for many reasons will never ever have a voice there. I want this forum to be a voice of the working man and the down trodden.

I have come to see it is a very difficult task to manage a public forum. I have decided I will not be expressing my personal opinion as often as I have in the past.

I don't want this to be "my" blog. I want it to be the
"citizens blog".; 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: As far as 'tough codes' go, there have always been codes. The number is massive, and no responsible person would or could ever try to enforce them all.

One thing I'm wondering is who was forced out of their jobs, and who was brought in when this developed? Also, what positions of power do the new people hold now?

This has become oppressive. St. Paul used to be a nice place, and 'political' things in the housing area were a call for alarm. It should not be this politicized.; 2:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Some inspectors were given job advancements - if that is what you meant. When what developed? Who would be brought in for what?; 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...: "No Bob, my point is excactly that. That these boys have all sorts of money and they are use to getting their way and they are going to mess with the City for messing with them."

This is a very enlighening statement. When Chuck refers to these people being used to "getting ther way," I wonder if he means that they are used to having their Constitutional Rights respected?

As far as messing with the city cause the city mnessed with them, I have a reality check for you Chuck.....when you start pushing people around illegaly, sometimes people push back. I think these people are heros! Of all the property owners in the city and even the worthless landlords group St Paul has, it was just this small handful who had the courage to stand up to an out of control city and "push back" as Chuck likes to refer to it.; 6:08 PM
Anonymous said...: To Repke

You are right with reapect to the property owners being after everyone who lives in St Paul. These are the people who elect stupid politicans like Lantry and her gang. The people of St Paul support these politicians efforts to have their code inpectors and other break the law in their dealings with certain citizens, and it is most definately the people of St Paul who should and will pay the judgements for the actions and inactions of these Councilmen.; 6:15 PM
Anonymous said...: And what kind of city do they want? Now its often inspectyors filing complaints, but the city encourages citizens all the time.

What we will get is a bunch of busybodys who rat on their fellow citizens over meaningless and frivious issues.; 8:02 PM
Anonymous said...: 11:41 said- It will get worse because people will let government take over and crumble their spirits to the point that you will submit. With a shaking finger and growling voice they will point to you and say you will submit!

My response- They already have pointed a finger at Landlords in public and said- with a stern voice. "You will comply"! Commy s.o.b's.; 11:02 PM
Anonymous said...: It appears to me as though they pointed their finger at the wrong people. The city could not have picked a worse bunch of people to start a fight with, and for what?....some minor deferred maintenance issues and the city's well known position of making it impossible to finish the reapir on time as per the repairs notices sent out to the owner.; 12:49 AM
Bob said...: Magners depo comtinued-

Q. With regard to your home in Stillwater, have you ever
executed a mortgage on that property in the last four,
five years?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times have you done that?
A. Once.
Q. What was the reason for getting a mortgage on your
personal residence?
A. Purchase it.
Q. Was that so you could payoff your parents for the home?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you buy it initially on a contract for deed~
A. Yes.
Q. How much was the amount of the one mortgage that you
gave there?
A. $200.
Q. $200,000?
A. Yes
Q. What year was that that you executed a mortgage on your
property there in Stillwater?
A. 2003.
MS. SEEBA: John, I would like the next question to have something to do with your lawsuit.
Otherwise -- we're not going to go down this road.
MR. SHOEMAKER: He had to have filled out an
affidavit of identity as part of that closing process,
correct?
Louise.
MS. 5EEBA: Tell me on the record why that
relates to your claims?
MS. SHOEMAKER: This all relates to the claims,
MS. SEEBA: I would like to know why. To me it
appears absolutely to have nothing to do with your
lawsuit.
MS. SHOEMAKER: It has to do with who he is,
his credibility.
MS. SEEBA: His credibility?
MR. SHOEMAKER: Right. Isn't that an issue with any witness and any party, Louise?
MS. SEEBA: Tell me how taking out a mortgage to buy a home has to do with his credibility.
MS. SHOEMAKER: Because if he's taken out a mortgage on his home and he's used the funding to
purchase real estate interests or other businesses that he hasn't disclosed, I think that would be clearly relevant.
MS. SEEBA: Ask him that.
MR. SHOEMAKER:
Q. Mr. Magner, have you mortgaged your property in order to purchase any type of business interest or real estate
interest?
A. No.
Q. Your testimony is that you have mortgaged your property
once since you bought the property in Stillwater on
Moonlight Bay?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you know an elderly woman by the name of Lois Jacobs?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. You never met Lois Jacobs who's a realtor in the City of
St. Paul?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Owns JBL Realty?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. About mid 80s -- her age is about mid 80s. A Property
at **** Farrington ( I deleted the address bj ). Does that ring a bell to you?
A. I have been to **** Farrington.
Q. That's owned by Lois Jacobs, correct?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Have you ever been a plaintiff in a lawsuit at any time?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Have you ever been a defendant in a lawsuit other than
in these cases?
A. I believe I have been.
Q. How many times have you been a defendant in any lawsuits other than the cases that are subject to this
deposition?
A. One or two times.
Q. Tell me about the one or two times you've been a
defendant in a lawsuit?
A. I was a named defendant in a lawsuit with the City of
St. Paul in regards to a case in vacant buildings.
Q. When was that, that that lawsuit took place?
A. Late 1990s
Q. Do you remember the name of the plaintiff?
A. Patrick Carlone (phonetic).
Q. What was the nature of his claims against you and the
City of St. Paul?
A. I don't remember offhand.
Q. How did the case end up being resolved?
A. I believe it was dismissed.
Q. Dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff?
A. No. I believe it went to court and it was dismissed.
Q. Was it in state court?
A. I--
Q. Ramsey County District Court?
A. I think it was Ramsey County.
Q. And the City of St. Paul was also a named party?
A. They were a named party.
Q. Did it relate at all to your duties as a city employee?
A. I believe so.
Q. Was it in regards to a vacant building?
A. Yes.
Q. Was the general nature of the claims related to an
attempt by the City to raise the building or demolish
the building?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Was it a vacant building that was demolished?
A. It's possible.
Q. You don't recall that Patrick Carlone was trying to keep
a property from being demolished?
A. My testimony is, I don't recall.
Q. This **** Farrington property, that's currently in the
vacant building program, correct?
A. It's possible.
Q. Wasn't the Patrick Carlone case this year?
A. No.
Q. When was it resolved, as you indicated?
A. 1997.
Q. Now the other case that you indicated where you were a
defendant, tell me a little bit about that one?
A. I don't remember. I vaguely remember there was another
case.
Q. Was it a case where the City of St. Paul was a
co-defendant?
A. Correct.
Q. Similar type of situation where they were claiming you
as an employee were responsible for some type of injury
that the plaintiff was claiming?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't have any recollection as to -
A. I don't have any recollection.
Q. Do you know if it was before the 1997 time frame where
Patrick Carlone had brought suit?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Do you think it was after that?
A. I believe it was after.
Q. How recent was that second suit?
A. Late '90s again.
Q. This home at **** Farrington, who's responsible for
monitoring that vacant building?
A. Mike Kalis.
Q. as he had responsibility for monitoring that building
from the time that it was placed in the vacant building
program?
A. I believe so.
Q. Do you have conversations with Mr. Kalis about that
property on a frequent basis?
A. No.
Q. Do you understand that Ms. Jacobs has attempted to comply with requirement of a code compliance certification on that property?
A. I don't remember the property that much. I don't know
the circumstances around that case.
Q. You don't ever recall meeting Ms. Jacobs?
A. I don't recall meeting an elderly lady at **** Jessamine
--or Farrington.
Q. Do you ever remember being at the legislative hearing at
the -- city council legislative hearing where Ms. Jacobs
was present?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Ms. Jacobs claims that once her home was declared vacant
by your office that a code compliance was demanded. Do
you have any information on that?
A. It's possible. I would have to look at the file.
Q. She indicated that she's had conversations with you on a
repeated basis?
A. It's possible.
Q. You're not saying that she's not remembering correctly,
it's just you don't have any independent recollection?
A. I don't have recall of the property or the
conversations.
Q. She indicated that she has had communications with you
about her frustrations with the code compliance process.
Does that refresh your memory?
A. NO.
Q. And that you said to her all of her troubles would go
away if she would just sell her property. Did you ever
tell her that?
A. That's not something I say.
Q. She says that you told her that every time that you
talked with her. Do you still think that that's not
correct?
A. That's not something I say.
Q. Did, you ever offer to purchase her property?
A. No.
Q. Never had a communication with her that you would buy
her property for $50,000 cash?
A. No.
Q. So you would take the position that Ms. Jacobs is lying
if she said that?
A. Those are your words.
Q. What would you say if she's making those claims that you
were offering to buy her property for cash?
A. They are not correct.
Q. How would they be incorrect?
A. I did not offer Ms. Jacobs $50,000 for her property or
any other property -- did not offer her any money.
Q. Did you offer to have someone else purchase her property
from her?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever tell her that others were interested in
purchasing her property?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone ever expresstheir interest in purchasing her
property in their conversations with you?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Her property's on the vacant building list and you
indicated that you would receive lots of calls about
properties from peopie that were interested in a
property. Do you know if Mr. Kalis has ever had any
conversations with Ms. Jacobs about buying her property?
A. I don't know anything about that.
Q. Do you know if Mr. Kalis has purchased any property in
the City of St. Paul since he sold his bar?
A. I'm unaware of any.
Q. How about any real estate interest that he's purchased
in any location since he sold his bar?
A. You just don't recall anybody telling you that?
Q. I don't recall it offhand.
A. Do you recall that she aiso said Mr. Kalis was mean to
her in his contacts with her in the vacant building
program?
A. I don't have any recall of this.
Q. Have you ever had any compiaints that have come to your
attention as a supervisor about Mr. Kalis in his role as
a vacant building inspector?
A. I may have.
Q. You don't have any recall as you sit here about the
nature of those complaints?
A. Not offhand.
Q. Anything in general that you know about complaints
against him by members of the City of St. Paul -citizens
of the City?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever had complaints made about your actions as
an employee of the City of St. Paul at any time?
MS. SEEBA: Are you asking about compiaints
made directly to him?
MR. SHOEMAKER: About your actual conduct as an employee.
MS. SEEBA: To him or to his supervisors?
Mr. SHOEMAKER
Q. Directly to him?
A. I may have.
Q. Anything stand out in your mind as to a complaint made
against you in your role as a city employee other than
the two lawsuits you talked about?
A. Not that stands out.
Q. Any supervisor of yours ever notify you of any
complaints by citizens of the City of St. Paul about
your actions?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Since the Steinhauser lawsuit was filed in May of 2004,
have any officials or employees that would be your
supervisors ever asked you about any type of improper
conduct?
A. Repeat that question.
Q. Since the Steinhauser case was filed in May of 2004,
have any of your supervisors or superiors, including
city council, the mayor's office, Director Dawkins and
others~ asked you about your conduct as an employee of
the City of St. Paul -- made any inquiry about your
conduct?
A. I guess I don't understand the question.
Q. Has there been any investigation of your conduct at anytime since the Steinhauser case was filed in May of
2004?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. The city council hasn't had a meeting with you about
your conduct -- issues about your conduct?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. Did Mr. Dawkins ever have a meeting with you about the
allegations made in the three lawsuits here at any time
he was a director?
A. Not that I am aware of.
Q. How about Mr. Kessler, has he ever asked you about your
side of the story as it relates to the allegations being
made in the three lawsuits?
A. No.
Q. Where did you go to grade school Mr. Magner?
A. Maternity of Mary.
Q. Where did you go to junior high or middle school?
A. St. Bernards.
Q. Did you graduate there?
A. yes
Q. Can you speak up, please?
A. I have to take a break.
(Short break taken.); 10:43 AM
Bob said...: Hi All,

Two things.

1. Either Mr. Magner has selective memory or he is smoking to much pot.

2. Louis Jacob, these people in code enforcement sure like to pick on defenseless elderly women. Shame on them!

I am sorry to say Louis Jacob is just another name on a very long list of elderly people this City has forced from their homes.

I am working on a story of a elderly woman the City is giving a hard time over her garage.(the garage I am told is in fair shape. I will be going to talk to her and look at the garage).

I may need some volunteers to help me do some minor repairs and painting.; 10:53 AM
Anonymous said...: I am available this weekend Bob if you would like some help with painting, I am not a professional union painter though if that is a city of St.Paul requirement but I do a lot of painting on the complex that I manage and did paint my home on Jessamine so I do have some experience.

Nancy; 11:09 AM
Anonymous said...: And don't forget Betty Speaker. The City of St Paul served "Condemnation Orders" on her while she was on her hospital bed having work done on her kidneys!

You say condmened for what?

A sewer line that the inspector said was broken, but the Speaker family has sewer contractor come out and put a camera in the sewer line and it was not broken!

But it was all OK because they shipped her out to someone with some "Resources" who could help her!

After fighting and raising hell with the city, her son gets a visit from the inspections department and they write him up for a bunch of petty nothings.

No Racketeering here though.....just a callous and ruthless City Council directing their NAZI housing police to rid the city of it's behavior problems.; 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Chuck,

We all have read the many documents here about the code enforcement officers like Manger. Some of us have had personal experience at the ruthless tactics of these inspectors. Chuck, you can put any spin on anything, as you are good at it, as I have seen you in action. The sad thing here is you are trying to blow smoke at the landlords who have brought suit against your fellow DFLers.

Andy Dawkins has a little explaining to do and in your own words here on this blog you stated you knew about Mr. Dawkins not living in the residence he claimed to be living in just to run for office to keep his seat in the State Legislature. Does this make you and all who knew what was going on with the residency issue a partner to the crime. If you knew about Mr. Dawkins residence issue then why didn’t you go to the proper authorities?

Your sign-off at the end of your posts should be:

I Will Do Anything To Keep Democrats In Power

IWDATKDIP; 3:31 PM
Anonymous said...: The sad part is that the landlord plaintiffs are the best friend of real democrats, who are concerned about people.; 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Two things; Bob in an earlier post I said that people like those who have issues with the inspectors think that the insectors did things deliberately or that they were out to get them, but I think Magner's responses are typical these guys see so many of these cases that very few of them are cases that they particularly remember. Its like the judges or lawyers in routine criminal cases who wouldn't remember a defendent from the man in the moon, but i would see those guys in the corrections system and they would go on and on about how the judge or lawyer were out to get them.

Its like going back to the grocery store three years later and saying to the clerk, don't you remember I'm the guy who bought a bottle of coke and a pack of Winstons and you couldn't find the Winstons... remember, I had to keep telling you where they were on the shelf...

So, the clerk must be lying if he doesn't remember.

So, this whole line of questioning with Magner is guessing if he has side business in real estate development or leasing and again bringing up some case from years ago that they think should be important to him.

And, on the Dawkins stuff, just because something is new to you doesn't mean it is NEWS. The issue of where Andy lived or didn't live was in the papers at the time... its a nonissue, eventhough I supported someone else because of it.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 8:17 AM
Bob said...: Hi Chuck,

In this case old news is "viable news". This establishes Dawkins is "LESS THAN HONEST" and it will be used against him in the RICO suits during trial. Just one small piece to establish the credibility of Mr. Dawkins.

I don't think a jury will look as lightly on this issue as you paint it here.

Magner was questioned about Nancy too, and I don't think he remembered much about that either. Now how couldn't he remember much about Nancys home? I don't buy what your saying Chuck.

Magner couldn't even remember if Wally Nelson worked on his dads home, and yet he was witnessed spending an awful lot of time at the residence when many people think he should have been at work on the tax payers dime.; 8:58 AM
Bob said...: Hi Chuck,

In this case old news is "viable news". This establishes Dawkins is "LESS THAN HONEST" and it will be used against him in the RICO suits during trial. Just one small piece to establish the credibility of Mr. Dawkins.

I don't think a jury will look as lightly on this issue as you paint it here.

Magner was questioned about Nancy too, and I don't think he remembered much about that either. Now how couldn't he remember much about Nancys home? I don't buy what your saying Chuck.

Magner couldn't even remember if Wally Nelson worked on his dads home, and yet he was witnessed spending an awful lot of time at the residence when many people think he should have been at work on the tax payers dime.; 8:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Chuck,

Chuck you said, "And, on the Dawkins stuff, just because something is new to you doesn't mean it is NEWS. The issue of where Andy lived or didn't live was in the papers at the time... its a nonissue, eventhough I supported someone else because of it."

No, I did not see this article nor have I seen this topic printed in the Pioneer Press about Dawkins. Having kept up on politics in St. Paul I disagree with your contention this has been brought up before. Do you have any web links to what you talk about (in the papers at the time).

Maybe the Ramsey County Attorney should look into this, oh that is right she is a DFLer. Recently, I had a conversation with the former Speaker of the House when Dawkins was in the legislature. He stated that he did not know anything about the residency issue. Had he known about it he would have called for an investigation on the Dawkins residency issue.; 9:39 AM
Anonymous said...: These people are not going to fool anyone with their "I don"t remember crap." When someone doesn't remember ANYTHING, I think most people would believe that they are just finding another way of invoking their 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination.; 10:01 AM
Bob said...: Bob said;

Hi All,

There several pages missing from my last post to this one. I have know idea why there is missing pages. I am assuming that only parts of the deposition that are filed are the parts that would be used in the jury trial. Read a few lines and you will get up to speed on the line of questioning.

Deposition continued-

Q. Who does the contracting?
A. Ramsey County City of St. Paul joint purchasing.
Q. Who's the head of that program? A. I don't know.
Q. So if you have an order approving the demolition, you
would then make contact with that particular department
to make the contract with the demolition company?
A. Correct.
Q. How does the demolition company get out to a property
within a day to start demolition from the time an order
is Issued? Do you know that process?
MS. SEEBA: Objection, form and foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't know how they would do
that.
MR. SHOEMAKER:
Q. Did you ever,learn that Ms. Osterman had claimed that
you had threatened to demolish her home If she didn't
sell it to Wally Nelson?
A. I have heard that.
Q. Who from?
A. People told me or I might have read it somewhere.
Q. Who would have told you that?
A. I don't know who would have told me. Somebody would
have told me.
Q. Have you ever seen the purchase agreement that was provided to Ms. Osterman by Mr. Nelson?
A. No.
Q. She claims that that was provided to her within the same
day that you had made the threat to her?
A. That is her claim.
I don't know.
Q. Do you have any knowledge about that?
A. I have no knowledge of that.
Q. Did you ever tell her that she should sell the home to
someone you designated?:
A. No.
Q. So you would say that she's not telling the truth?
A. I would say that that is not true.
Q. Do you know at the time that the building was originally
to be demolished how much that property would have been
worth on the market?
A. I don't know.
Q. If a property is subject to a summary abatement order
for tearing it down -- immediate repair or tearing it
down -- how much is a property worth under those
circumstances? Do you know?
MS. SEEBA: Objection, foundation.
THE WITNESS: I guess it's worth what someone
wants to sell it for.
MR. SHOEMAKER:
Q. Is a property value substantially decreased when a city
order to demolish a property is in place?
MS. SEEBA: Foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
MR. SHOEMAKER:
Q. You frequently issue valuation numbers on these orders
to abate where a property is going to be torn down,
don't you?
A. Valuation comes from Ramsey County.
Q. So that particular valuation does not, in your mind,
show any decrease in the value of a property that's
subject to demolition?
A. That's the number that we put on the summary.
Q. And it's the number straight from the county's records?
A. Correct.
Q. And the the figure to demolish a property, who comes up
with that?
A. That's based on the estimates.
Q. By the contractors?
A. By joint purchasing.
Q. Has Mr. Nelson appeared at quite a few legislative
hearings with you on properties that he's acquired?
A. He may have.
Q. And he's also acquired lien positions and mortgage
positions on distressed properties, and the City has indicated that at legislative hearings in front of
Marcia Moermondi is that true?
A. I don't know.
Q. You never heard that?
A. I may have.
Q. Has he helped homeowners that were in financial distress
by providing them with loan funds?
A. I don't know.
Q. You've never come across that?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know if you have?
A. I don't know if he has.
Q. Do you know if he's ever purchased a property and then
rented it out to the former owners?
A. I don't know.
Q. Have you ever provided information to Mr. Nelson about
the personal situation of a particular homeowner that
was Involved In code enforcement under your direction?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Did Mr. Nelson ever tell you he had attempted to buy Ms.
Osterman's property at 14 Jessamine?
A. No.
MR. SHOEMAKER- The code compliance issue I think I'm going to save
until after lunch, Louise. If you want to take lunch
now it's almost four minutes'to 1:00.
STEVE MAGNER,
having been previously duly sworn, was examined
and testified further as follows:
MR. SHOEMAKER: Louise, can we put
this on the record as far as for the switch
here because I want to make sure the record is
clear that I haven't finished with my inquiry.
Ms, Seeba and Mr, Engel and I talked
just shortly before we reconvened here about
trying our fullest efforts toward concluding
Mr. Magner's deposition. But what we have at
least agreed to is to have Mr. Engel finish,
start and finish his inquiry of Mr. Magner
today because he has to leave at 5 o'clock.
And that when he concludes today that I will
re-continue my line of inquiry until the
conclusion when Mr. Engel has to leave. And
then Ms, Seeba and I and Mr, Engel will talk
about trying to reach some agreement on a
further day with Mr, Magner,
Louise, do you have anything to add
to that?
MS, SEEBA: I just have to add is
that the intent is to finish Mr. Magner's
deposition today, I expected that the

Magners Depo continued.

A. I believe he had some part in construction of
the property.
Q. Do you know how much Greg and Ann Warner paid
Mr. Nelson for his assistance?
A. Of what?
Q. For his contracting services?
A. For what?
Q. For assisting with the building of 24 Moonlight
Bay?
A. I have no knowledge about that.
MS. SEEBA: I think, as he testified earlier this morning, I think Wally Nelson did
some work on his parents' home. Is that what
you're --
MR. ENGEL: I thought I just asked
him if he had done work on this one as well and
I thought he had said yes.
THE WITNESS: I testified this
morning that they -- he did work at ** Moonlight Bay.
BY MR. ENGEL:
Q. Oh, not on 24?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Do you know how much your father paid Mr. Nelson for his work?
A. NO I don't.
Q. Do you know if he gave your father a good deal?
A. I don't know.
Q. Does your father know Mr. Nelson?
A. Yes.
Q. How does your father know Wally Nelson?
A. Through me.
Q. Were you ever present during the construction several hours a day dealing with people calling
of your father's home?
A. Yes.
Q. How often were you present during the construction phase?
A. Every day.
Q. Did you act as a general contractor on that?
A. No, they did.
Q. Did you ever pull any permits for that 16 to purchase.
A. I don't believe I did.
Q. Would you be surprised if May Township had your name on record as either being a general or pulling permits?
A. They might have.
Q. Why would they?
A. Because I was the contact person.
Q. So they have listed you as the general contractor.
A. They might have.
Q. Did you perform any duties as you were there every day as a general?
A. Not that I know of.
MS. SEEBA: Misstates facts.
BY MR. ENGEL:
Q. Did you oversee any of the work that was done
on the property?
A. Did I?
Q. Yes.
A. I might have.
Q. Have you ever had lunch with Mr. Nelson?
A. Yes.
Q. When's the last time you had lunch with Wally
Nelson?
A. Six months ago maybe.
Q. Was that at Champps in Maplewood?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Do you recall having lunch with Mr. Nelson at
Champps in Maplewood?
A. I don't believe 50.
Q. Have you ever had lunch with Mr. Nelson and any
other Code Enforcement officers?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. How about Paula Seeley, yourself and Mr. Nelson, is it possible you had lunch with Ms.Seeley as well?
A. No.
Q. Or Mike Kalis?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. I think you stated earlier that you may spend several hours a day dealing with people calling your office for information on vacant
buildings, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Why is that information important and Why are
people seeking that?
MS. SEEBA: Objection, foundation.
THE WITNESS: Interest in a building
to purchase.
BY MR. ENGEL:
A. I don't believe I did.
Q. In your opinion if a building is on the vacant list would it have a lower purchase price?
MS. SEEBA: Objection, foundation.
WITNESS: Not necessarily.
BY MR. ENGEL:
Is the information sought from you several hours a day, does that relate to, some of it relate to the price, the purchase price on the property?
A. I, the City doesn't set the price, I don't set
the price. The price is set by the seller and the buyer.
Q. You currently own your home in stillwater?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you know the fair market value?
A. I believe the appraised value is four hundred
and something.
Q. And I think you stated earlier you have one mortgage on the property. Do you know what the
amount of the mortgage is?
A. Two hundred thousand.
Q. When you make your monthly payment is there
property taxes and insurance included in your
monthly payment?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. What is your monthly payment on your home?
A. $1500.
Q. Is it your testimony that you've only taken out
one mortgage on your property?
MS. SEE8A: Objection, asked and
answered.
THE WITNESS: I believe that's what
I stated.

BY MR. ENGEL:
Q. Do you recall when that was?
MS. SEEBA: Asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: 2003.
BY MR. ENGEL:
Q. About September of 2003, does that sound fair?
A. It's possible.
MR. ENGEL: Let's just mark this one
as an exhibit.
(Magner Deposition Exhibit 1
marked for identification.)
BY MR. ENGEL:
Q. Let's go to, if you can, five pages from the back of what's been marked as Exibit 1.
This looks like a front page of a mortgage which has
been recorded with Washington County from September 25, 2003.
Does that refresh your recollection
on when your mortgage may have been taken?
A. I don't know what that means.
Q. Well, let's look at the next page. In paragraph D it shows a mortgage amount of two
hundred and seventeen thousand. Do you recall taking a mortgage for that amount?
A. That's what it says.
Q. We'll go one more page. Is that your signature
above "Steven Magner"?
A. It looks like it.
Q. Do you recall acting as attorney in fact for
I'm assuming your wife's name is Lora?
A. It's my understanding.
Q. It's your understanding that you did act as
attorney in fact?
A. Correct.
Q. If you go to the last page it shows a satisfaction of mortgage on the 9/25, September
25, 2003. Do you recall satisfying this
mortgage?
A. What's the question? I'm not sure.
Q. Did you satisfy the loan amount of two hundred
and seventeen thousand for the mortgage you
took out on September 25, 2003?
A. Well, I haven't, I haven't read this document.
I guess I'm not sure what you mean.
Q. So you don't know if you paid off a $200,000
mortgage on your home?
A. I don't know what you mean.
Q. This is a document that's been recorded at Washington County which says that the mortgage
by Steven and Lora Magner made 9/25/03. Do you see that?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. And then at the top it says "Satisfaction of
Mortgage. II Do you recall taking out this
mortgage for two hundred seventeen thousand?
A. Which mortgage?
Q. This one dated 9/25/03?
A. If that's what the date says, I don't remember
the dates.
Q. Okay. Let's go to the first page of the
exhibit. This is a document that was also recorded in Washington County. And it looks
like you had made, or given another mortgage on
April 23, 2004. And if you look at page 2 the
amount here is two hundred and sixteen
thousand.
Do you recall taking that mortgage
in April of '04?
A. That's the date, I would assume that's the
date.
Q. Do you recall what you did with the $216,000?
A. No.
Q. You don't recall what you did with two hundred
thousand dollars, two hundred and sixteen
thousand?; 10:29 AM
Bob said...: Chuck if you think all of us reading here are stupid enough to believe this guy isn't singing a song and dance you have lost it.

Your credibility is going to go down hill real fast here along with Magners career.; 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...: I am discussed with the authorities here for not investigating this man and this issue.

Sincerely,

Alex Wendt; 10:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Click the link above.; 12:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Well Chuck how are you going to twist this one around?

We are waiting!; 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: I recognize him it looks like Steve Magner aka Pinocchio!; 12:28 PM
Bob said...: STEVE MAGNER - 01/19/01

deposition continued, we left off where Mr. Engel the plaintiffs attorney was questioning mr. magner about a $200,000 loan that Mr. Magner didn't seem to have a clue about.

The depo-

A. I don't, I don't have the money.
Q. Well, let's look at the third page. It looks like this time your signature, is that your signature above your name, Steven Richard
Magner?
A. Yep.
Q. And does that appear to be your wife's signature?
A. Yep.
Q. Do you recall being at this closing with her?
A. I don't remember it offhand, probably was.
Q. And then the next page is basically a notary
stamp showing that you have signed it. Is it your testimony that you don't recall taking a $216,000 mortgage on your house
in April of '04
A. That's not my testimony.
Q. What did you do with the $216,000 you took on
this mortgage?
A. This was a refinance.
Q. This was a refinance where you took $216,OOO?
A. Right.
Q. Was that money that you used to pay your father
on the contract for deed?
A. I'm assuming so, yes. I believe I testified to that earlier.
Q. Do you recall when you paid off your father, was it when you had the September 25, 2003, two hundred thousand or the April 23, 2004.
A. The last mortgage. 5 the next page it's two hundred and sixteen
Q. When you say the "last" do you mean the most recent or the --
A. Most recent.
Q. SO do you agree that you have taken out more than one mortgage on your property?
A. I have had a contract for deed and a mortgage. 11 then got a lower interest rate?
Q. SO you bought your property on a contract for deed from your father, is that correct?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. And then you took out a mortgage to pay him off?
A. Correct.
Q. How much was the payoff on your contract for deed? 19
A. Two hundred and seventeen thousand I think.
Q. And that was from the September mortgage which we looked at first, the fifth page from the back?
A. I believe so.
Q. SO if you paid him off in September of '03 why did you take out another two hundred and
sixteen thousand in April of '04?
A. I only have one mortgage on the property.
Q. I know, that would be the initial one that you
used to payoff your dad, correct?
A. No, I refinanced the first mortgage. The first
mortgage is the only mortgage on the property.
Q. Well, let's go to --
A. It's -- you might want to have a title company or a lawyer familiar with mortgage documents
explain this. But the sequence of events was I purchased the property on a contract for deed
from my mother and father.
Okay.
Subsequently I went out and obtained a mortgage
to payoff that contract for deed.
subsequently I refinanced that mortgage to receive a lower interest rate, it was a
rollover mortgage. That's why there's discrepancies in those dates which I had to
attend a second closing to obtain the lower interest.
If you have an expert look at that
that's what they'll tell you that says. I have explained it to you now though.

Q. Let's look at the fifth page in from the first page of the exhibit. This appears to be another mortgage from Steven and Lora Magner dated January 16 of 2004. And if you look at the next page it's two hundred and sixteen
thousand.
Was this another refinance?
A. I believe so.
Q. And did you take that money and you say you're stating you paid off your former mortgage and
then got a lower interest rate?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you recall what your closing costs were in
14 A. That's my understanding. 14 these different refinances?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Did you take any money out, extra money when you refi.' d?
A. No.
Q. Was that the full payoff of the contract for deed to your father, two sixteen or two seventeen?
A. I'm assuming it was.
Q. SO in ~April of '04 that's your most recent refinance on the property and that's the mortgage you owe on your house. Is that what you recall?
A. If that's the most recent mortgage in this stack of documents and this is a complete set I would probably say yes. But I haven't reviewed all these documents so I can't assure you of that.; 1:55 PM
Bob said...: Hi All,

I will post the last of Mr. Magners Depo tonight so we can get on with other news.; 2:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Anyone that has refinanced or applied for a mortgage knows what is involved with the process and its not something you would forget doing how many times?

According to the DSM-IV:
http://www.schizophrenia.com/ami/diagnosis/organic.html#diagnosis

These symptoms would fall under several categories such as;

People diagnosed with schizophrenia usually experience a combination of positive (i.e. hallucinations, delusions, racing thoughts), negative (i.e. apathy, lack of emotion, poor or nonexistant social functioning), and cognitive (disorganized thoughts, difficulty concentrating and/or following instructions, difficulty completing tasks, memory problems). Possibly Magner could use this as a defense tactic.; 3:31 PM
Anonymous said...: So what are you saying, thaqt Magner has gone "Skitzo" on us?; 3:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Well Mr. Repke.....by now the plaitniffs Attorneys have eaten the city for luch I would assume.

Today is the day Chuck that the Plaintff Attorneys go to court and argue for those tax returns. The city will their hat handed to them and Magner has to turn over his records.

I'm afraid it's all down hill from here on out Chuck and with no brakes I might add!

This is an end of an era Chuck, the corruption is getting exposed and the end is here.....do you hear me? You guys are all done in this city. It wouldn't suprise me if the landlords took over!; 3:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Mmm what happened to Chuck is he hiding under a rock? Hey Chuck you have had all day to figure out a way to twist this around to defend the City/Magner, whats up?; 5:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Due to a twist of fortune, Magner and his friends will be left twisting in the wind.; 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: No reports yet Repke on the mkagner taxses. Ya wanna know why? The Plaintiiff Attorney's are probably still in Court grinding up that City Attorney into hamburger. I would assume by the end of the night or sometime tomorrow Bob will have this guys taxes posted for us so we can all have a look see. The funding for your illconcieved and discomboobled housing projects is going to come to an end my friend. The curtain is closing on non profits projects Repke. In the future you'll probably be getting your funding from the landlords.; 6:13 PM
Anonymous said...: I think he's constructing some tin foil hats.; 7:06 PM
Anonymous said...: I think Repke left town!; 11:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Do you think it could have been something we said?; 6:09 AM
Anonymous said...: This site fills a gap because there are not checks and balances on the sytem.

As devils advocate, Chuck has been useful to moderate contentions. I can't agree with the attitude of defend at all costs, when the city is simply wrong.; 10:58 AM
Anonymous said...: I find it interesting that Chuck thinks there is not enough evidence to look at this Magner's tax records, etc.

Let's look at the story in a different way. If the Government found out that Magner and this other guy were friends, that the contractor bought many properties which were under Magner's control, and the contractor had built a new house for Magner's family member for $10,000. and then all of a sudden 4 different people who don't even know each other step forward and accuse this guy of trying to use the code enforcement job to be able to buy their property for a song, and pone of them even has the purchase agreement.....what do you think would happen to a common person. I will be eagerly awaiting what other people think would happen in this situation......which happens to be the same situation by the way that Chuck thinks should be swept under the carpet.; 1:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Sorry been away..

But, what we just saw was the plantiff's attorney fishing. What Magner has now testified to is that he took out a mortgage to pay off the contract for deed that was on his property (with his parents) and then the following year he refinanced!

The horror of it All!!!! He refinanced his mortgage to a lower interest rate STOP the Presses! He have uncovered the great scandle of the true reason why we have inspections... So Steve Magner can get a lower interest rate from his bank!

Excuse me, there is nothing in the transcript so far that shows anything...

As to his memory, I am sure that he was expecting to testify about something that has something to do with the case not his personal mortgage payment.

But, then this isn'e a real case its just a chance to give crap to the people who go after the bad land lords.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 10:29 PM
Anonymous said...: It is unclear to me just how far racketeering goes. I do expect in this out of control system that Maggot Magner has serious financial irregularities. It is a shame we have to go to such lengths because of government immunity.

Obviously, Magner and cronies have gone to vicious extremes to build their bureaucratic kingdoms. They beat up on individuals, including elderly and families. Sometimes, they try to hide behind behavior problems. They go far beyond legal grounds in forcing their way into peoples' homes through threats, lies and ingtimidation. Properly they require a court order to enter a persons home.

The "code mandate" they claim is bunk. The fact is that codes are continually written. The big book of codes is several times thicker than the Bible. No one can possibly enforce all codes, and that's a fact.

While we do have alibi artists around the city government, what they really need to do is shut up and fix the problems, becaise they continue to grow.; 10:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Remember, this is suppose to be a case against the City of Saint Paul where its policies or procedures are designed to put private rental property owners out of business for the purpose of advantaging someone else; PHA, housing 5,000 developers, nonprofits like me. That's the case.

If instead what we have is some accusation that someone in the inspections division is dirty (which is where this line of questioning is intended to go) that is a private action and not an action of the "City." As anyone can tell from the questions the plaintiff's attorney is fishing, do you know this guy? What is your relationship with this person? they don't have anything other than they start from the assumption he must be dirty and then they are trying to find something he has done wrong in his life.

Think about where these questions are going... Do you know how much it cost for repair work to your mothers home? Do you know anything about your sisters financial situation? I don't even know the midle names of any of my brother-in-laws or sister-in-laws. I would look damn stupid on the stand if you asked me anything about my brothers, my sisters or my mothers finances, and I don't remember what year I did my last refinance... can I go look it up? No answer the question now Mr Repke how can you not know your brothers financial situatiion you have been brothers for 50 years you must be hiding something!!!

Help me folks. This is like reading about one of those Salem witch trials.

Again, I don't even think Magner I and I have met and I couldn't pick him out of a line up, and if he is dirty I want his ass in jail but, you haven't shown anything yet, other than to show that someone in that position has the potential to abuse the public trust. If he did, I want him in jail, but no one has shown anything.

But, anyone who has served the public knows that it is your number one job to not abuse that trust. We only have to look to Washington and see the corruption in the Bush administration (the prison door is opening and in the next few years there will be dozens going in) to know that there are people who will abuse that trust.

I am a paid lobbyist (that sure is an ugly phrase right now) there are people in my business that are amazingly stupid and amazingly corrupt, but there are thousands who know that the job is to educate and inform elected officials about the possition or concerns of your client and do that well. But, its easy to just say that because I do that work I have to be corrupt, its nuts. It is looking through the world with very angry eyes.

And, if you don't think that the boys paying for this witch hunt wouldn't treat you the same way if you tried to make them follow the law your kidding yourself.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 6:45 AM
Anonymous said...: This "witch hunt" as you say, is only necessary because of the draconian nature of the laws, that make this jerk untouchable otherwise. This breeds arrogance and hate. I hope it will be shown conclusively that he took money, had a $10K house built, etc.

If the RICO requirements are not met, I hope the city realizes that the public trust can still be volated and Magner and friens can still be dirty and bad for business, for all concerned.

I expect there are situations with bad landlords where "code to the max" is necessary. We need to reach a point of agreement between the city and citizens where common sense can prevail. It is certainly a freaky situation now.

The government immunity bypasses our system of checks and balances. With the Pioneer Press and Tribune being gutted, and unwilling or unable to take on issues like this, its a great thing for Bob and ADemocracy to step into the gap and try to provide some measure of accountability.; 7:56 AM
Anonymous said...: If I call Renovations Inc.(Wally Nelson) do you think I can get a home built for $10,000 or does that price tag require being a close friend of Steve Magner? I see that Chuck is starting to somewhat recognize that possibly Magners behavior was not professional and may have caused some distrust within the community.

I would of thought that it would be the city's obligation to take some of theses complaints and/or allegations that have been made by several citizens seriously and do an internal investigations to reassure that there hasn't been any type of misconduct by a public official going on.; 8:30 AM
Anonymous said...: I think it is a little more than a fishing expedition as another poster had suggested.

There was an affidavit from this Nancy Osterman, an elderly woman named Louis Jacobs, and a couple of other people. very seroius allegations.

I am having difficulty as a citizen of Saint Paul understanding why this Magner guy hasn't been investigated and charged with a crime.

Right now I agree with Mr. Repke. This doesn't look like a RICO case. It looks like we have some run of the mill criminals working for the City of Saint Paul.; 10:38 AM
Bob said...: Q. Do you recall who your closing company was on these?
A. No, I don't. Q. Do you recall where you had to go when you refinaced to sign the documents? A. Arden Hills or White Bear Lake. 12 trailer. And I own a water jet ski, Yamaha jet
13 Q. Do you have a loan on your primary vehicle?
A. No,
Q. Do you own your vehicle outright?
A. Yep.
Q. What kind of vehicle is it?
A. It's a Subaru. 18
Q. What year?
A. 06
Q. Do you own any other vehicles?
A. yes
Q. What other vehicles do you own?
A. A Volvo.
Q. What year is that?
2004.
A. Do you own that outright?
A. Yes.
Q. Any other vehicles?
A. Not motor vehicles, no.
Q. Which vehicle did you drive here today?
A. Subaru.
MS. SEEBA: Just for the record here
with this line of questioning I'm just going to let you know that I'm not going to give you a
second day. We've spent all the time from the time that Mr. Engel has taken over on Mr.
Magner's personal financial history down to the
car he drove today. So I just want to put that in the record. And please continue with your
questions.
MR. ENGEL: That wasn't all my time.
I asked him about Dawkins and Martin and -MS.
SEEBA: Okay. The record -MR.
ENGEL: -- Dawkins' testimony.
MS. SEEBA: -- will reflect what it
reflects. But I think for counsel that is pressed for time what he drove today to the deposition does not seem relevant to your
lawsuit.

MR. ENGEL: I think John already
talked about that earlier today, Louise, so --
MS. SEEBA: Okay. Well, the record
will reflect what John said. I just wanted to make the record here for defendants.
BY MR. ENGEL:
Q. Do you own any boats or recreational equipment?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me about your recreational equipment that you own.
A. I own a Polaris ATV and a trailer, utility trailer. And I own a water jet ski, Yamaha jet
ski and a boat, a Novurania boat.
Q. What year is your boat?
A. That's a '93.
Q. How about your jet ski?
A. That's a '91 or '92.
Q. How about your ATV?
A. That's a 1999.
Q. Do you have a permit to carry a pistol?
A. No.
MS. SEEBA: Did you hand this to me because it is an exibit?
MR. ENGEL: Yeah, I'm going to have
you mark this as Exhibit 2.
(Magner Deposition Exhibit 2
marked for identification.)
BY MR. ENGEL:
Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as Magner
Exhibit 2. The front page here has a Bate
number on it of STP 100492. I want to give you
a minute to read this letter on the front here,
if would you, please. Read it to yourself.
A. Just the top letter?
Q. Yeah, do you recall having received this
letter?
A. I must have, I don I t recall it.
Q. Do you remember dealing with Ms. Barbara
Kratzke, any dealings with her?
A. I don't know who that is.
Q. Do you recall dealing with a property located
at 643 Watson?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you recall about that?
A. I believe it was a vacant building, category
three.
Q. Anything else?
A. I believe it went to pUblic hearings.
Q. What does that mean "it went to public hearings"?

(Bob said- missing pages here I assume weren't put on the record as exibits.)

Q. In what respect?
A. As a contractor.
Q. Did you ever see him at your dad's property?
.Yes, I did.
Q. How often would you see Brad Marrow at his property?
A. Once a week.
Q. In your experience with working with Brad and Wally what would you say Brad's role is within renovations Inc.?
MS. SEEBA: Objection, foundation. THE WITNESS: I believe he handles the construction.
By Mr. Engel
Q. And what does Wally handle?
A. IU believe he handles office affairs.
Q. How many times do you think you've had lunch with Wally Nelson?
A. A dozen times.
Q. Over what period?
A. Four to five years.
Q. Why wouldn't Wally or Brad have pulled the permits on your dad's house?
A. My dad was the general contractor.
Q. Do you know anything about a property located at 785 Butternut?
A. Not off hand.
Q. D o you recall anything generally about it?
A. Not off hand.
Q. Do you recall it was a vacant building at some point?
A. It could have.
Q. Do you ever get together with Wally after work hours? .
A. Yes
Q. What do you guys do outside of work?
A. Go to the bar.
Q. What bar do you guys go to, Mike Kalis bar?
A. No it's a Mexican resturant bar in Stillwater.
Q. Does Wally live in Stillwater?
A. Lake Elmo.
Q. How often do you get together with him outside of work?
A. Weekly basis.
Q. What do you guys talk about when you get together?
A. Politics, religion, kids, family, sports.
Q. Have you ever talked about contracting?
A. I have.
Q. Building?
A. I have.
Q. Vacant buildings?
A. Probably have.
Q. Have you ever given Wally any information about vacant buildings?
A. I have.
Q. Has he ever offered you compensation?
A. Nope.
Q. Did you say Wally's your best friend?
A. Nope.
Q. Who's your best friend?
A. Scott Korfgahe.
Q. Is Scott a contractor?
A. No.
MR. ENGEL: That's all I have,
MS. SEEBA: Okay.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Let me sit next to
where you're at.
{Off the record discussion.}
MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. Magner, would
you like a short break, two minutes?
THE WITNESS: I'm good.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Oh, you're good,
okay, all right. You can just mark that.
(Magner Deposition Exhibit 6
marked for identification.)

EXAMINATION
BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
Q. Showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 6 and
just a question there as to on this document
that's provided by the city of st. Paul, Bate
STP 0436, indicates that you were promoted from
environmental health inspector to supervisor.
It looks like the start date was Septemher
11tht '99t is that correct?
A. Yep.
Q. And then over on the right-hand side under
"Comments" at the very bottom it says,
"Transfer to new department created for 2004
bUdget. II
Would that be referring to the NHPI
office?
A. I believe so.
Q. All right. Here it says "grade40" Do you
know what that, at the top of the page, do you
know what that means? Is that --
audit.
A. I don't know.
Q. I know you didn't do the audit but the question is were you interviewed as part of the audit process?
A. And I believe my statement was that I believe I was but I can't say for sure that occurred.
Q. All right. Do you remember having any concerns about political influence being exerted against your office by the City Council, the Mayor's office or the media?
A. I've never had that concern.
Q. All right. So you wouldn't have voiced that concern as part of the audit survey?
A. I don't think I would, no.
Q. Okay. Anyone else you can remember back around '99 to 2000 that would have voiced that concern?
A. Somebody could have, I don't
Q. back in the year 99 and 2000 did you know the personel in the code enforcement office?
A. Yeah.
Q. Did you socialize with the personnel in the office?
A. No.
1 Q. Not with anyone there?
A. No,
Q. Did you work with any of the other inspectors on a daily basis? A. In the code enforcement?
Q. Right?
A. Probably saw them.
Q. Okay. You would have worked with just the vacant Building supervisor employees, right, the employees under your supervision?
A. That and the office staff.
Q. Okay. Now it indicates here that Mr. Nelson had rehabilitated over 20 vacant buildings and had little or no problems. What would be thebasis for you knowing that in your report here to Mr. Strathman?
A. Having monitored the vacant buildings he's rehabilitated.
Q. Okay. So by that point he had already done 19 over 20 buildings in the City of st. Paul were in your Vacant Building program, correct?
A. That's what I stated here.
Q. Okay. From that point on how many rehabilitations has Mr. Nelson successfully gone through in the City of Saint Paul.
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, you knew here at this point it was 20.Why is it that you wouldn't know right nOW how
many additional properties that he's rehabilitated through your Vacant Building program?
A. I would only be formulating a guess at that point at this point in time.
Q. Well, if he had done 20 do you know how long he had been involved in rehabilitation by
February 20th, 2001?
A. I don't know, four or five years I think.
Q. Okay. So if he had done 20 buildings by that four or five years is it fair to say that since
2001, since that's about five years, he would
have done about 20 more, 25 more buildings?
A. l'd say that's a fair assumption.
Q. SO you think maybe he's rehabilitated up to 50
buildings in the City of st. Paul?
A. Very possible.
Q. Do you think it could be more?
A. Possible.
Q. All right. So could it be a hundred?
A. It's possible.
Q. All right. Is there any way that you track in
your Vacant Building section how many particular properties have been rehabilitated by any particular contractor?
A. No.
Q. How many contractors are out there vying for
the business? We've heard of a couple here.
Mr. Engel mentioned EMK, you've got Wally Nelson's group.
A. It's probably a hundred.
Q. Ahundred of them?
A. Hundred of them, yeah.
Q. How many of them actually are players though in
this market that have the strength to do the work and turn around the properties, less than ten?
A. No, I'd say probably about 20.
Q. Twenty players?
A. Yeah, 20 or 30.
Q. Now how does a renovation company obtain the
information in order to get into a position to
have ownership on a property? Do they have to have contacts with realtors, contacts with code
inspectors, contacts with other people or can
just, anybody walk in off the street and
start into the business?; 1:09 PM
Bob said...: MS. SEEBA: Objection, foundation. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Anyone could start off the street.
BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
Q. Do you see many of these larger renovation companies, the players that we talked about, actually picking up properties in foreclosure?
A. I'm assuming they probably have.
Q. Alright. So they would have to have inside information in order to outbid someone at a mortgage foreclosure sale, right?
MS. SEEBA: Objection, form.
THE WITNESS: I guess I wouldn't know that.
BY MR. SHOEMAKER: 16 A. For what?
11 Q. Do people seek that kind of information from you in order to make a bid at a foreclosure sale?
A. They may have, I don't know. 20 this particular property, again the property in
21 Q. All right. In other words, if you had information as to how much a homeowner spent in attempting to comply with a code compliance and you had that information, that would be crown jewel information, would it not, for someone that's trying to bid on a property foreclosure? 2 hearing officer?
3 A. Probably not.
Q. If I was bidding and you were bidding and you had the information on what had been done already by the homeowner, wouldn't you be in a better position than I would be at the bidding?
A. How would, how would you know what's been done?
Q. Well, I'm saying the code inspector, you mentioned to me earlier you said, "well sometimes the individuals that are in the code compliance program tell me where they're at financially, where they're at in the process. A. Mm-hmm.
Q. All right. Do some of those homeowners end up not being able to complete the process and lose the home?
A. No, most of them finish it.
Q. All right. But there are some that go into bankruptcy, correct? A. I suppose they have.
Q. Okay. And as part of this Vacant Building program do you ever do any study as to wheter or not excessive code enforcement being applied on properties has led to abandonment of properties in the City?
A. I haven't.
Q. Okay. Did the City in your involvement with
the mortgage foreclosure stUdy, did they ask you to provide them with any information as to
whether or not the Code Enforcement office's
heavy code enforcement under Mr. Dawkins 'directorship has led to abandonment of properties?
A. Never heard of that before.
Q. Okay. You've never heard "heavy Code Enforcement" as a phrase?
A. No.
Q. Alright. Do you know what a targeted neighborhood is?
A. For what?
Q. Well, I'm going to have you look back at 12316,the bottom of where we were, and you're
responding to Mr. strathman's question about this particular property, again the property in
question 923 Galtier Street. And it indicated there that the City would win no matter what
happened, if the property got demolished the City would win and if the property got
rehabilitated the City would win.
Isn't that what you're telling the
hearing officer?
A. I'd have to read that, I don't know whether you're taking it out of context.
Q. Well, let's look here in the paragraph, second long paragraph at the bottom of the page. It
starts with "in response.
A. Okay.
Q. And can you read that slowly, please, out loud?
A. In response to Mr. strathman's question, what is the prospect of recovering the City costs to maintain the building, Mr. Magner responded"
that "he suspects that if the property is
rehabilitated the expense would be" assessed onto the taxes" -- "assigned onto the taxes.
There is over four thousand due on taxes, this" is probably -- "this probably does not include
any previous summary abatements" for the last six months which would increase the figure to
at least five thousand.
Q. Alright.So the City had been out about $5,000 aiready is what you're te1iing the hearing officer?
A. My understanding from what I read here is that
four thousand was due on back taxes so that's

(This is the end of what was filed as exhibits on Mr. Magners deposition); 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: The sky is about to fall in on all your government cronies Repke. I'll bet those landlords Attorney's are over at Magners house right now digging throught those taxes. It's not gonna be pretty Chuck when Bob starts posting the taxes here. I can't wait to see how this guy can afford so many toys on a city salary.; 2:02 PM
Bob said...: Please excuse the copy errors.

STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
)
Julian Jayasuriya and )
Joseph D. Gustafson )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
)
City of 51. Paul, a Municipal Corporation, )
)
Defendant, )
)
DISTRICT COURT
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No. (copy errors removed)
AFFIDAVIT OF
NANCY OSTERMAN
.I\FFIANT, HAVlNG BEEN DULY SWORN, STATES T..JNDER OATH:
1. I, Nancy Osterman, have personal knowledge ofthese matters.
2. I am a current resident ofAnoka County, Minnesota. I was the prior
owner of a home at 14 East Jessamine in St. Paul. I grew up in the home with my family.
, urc' 1 p. n'ase-U' ..L.,l-lt:-;; ,U~ U-.-lUe =llJ-..l1. Q7UOVA v.....u.... "a". "u"'...u...+u..oa,.V.,+~ ..lf..V...L... ,..:1"",0,1 fi.rlrn .,.."."J TT1~n~t.h._P'-:'T_.
3. As owner of the home at 14 East Jessamine, I started to rehabilitate my
home according to directions from St. Paul City Code Inspectors. My home was
condemned by the City. The code compliance involving me was in 2002 through 2003.
4. I was able to put a new roof on the Property, mortared 'inside the
basement, removed major items the City ordered me to remove, mortared extensively on
the outside of the home, and expended approximately $10,000 or more in meeting the
City Code requirements.
EXHIBIT 2
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 72 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 10 of 51

5. Aller I had completed a great deal of work on the home, the approach
taken by the City toward me changed. I paid and forfeited a bond for code compliance in
2002 through 2003.
6. I was told directly by a law enforcement officer, Joel Johnston & by a St.
Paul City Code Inspector Steve Magner, in approximately Spring or Summer 2003 that
they were determined not to let me complete rehabilitation ofmy home.
7. The City's changed attitude arose when I refused to become a "snitch" on
drug related matters as demanded by the City.
8. In approximately Augu~t 2003, my home was subject to demolition by the
City Code Inspector Steve Magner. ,Mr. Magner sent someone to look at my house and I
was instructed by Magner to sell my home to that person or I would be looking at a hole
in the ground lllstead of my home. The purchase price for my home presented to me was
$40;000. This was drastically under the fair market value ofmy home at the time.
9. Other people witnessed City officials directing Magner to write up my
home so tr.Lat I could not afford to repair it in a timely manJ.1cr.
10. When Magner 1eamed that I was asking Julian Jayasuriya for help to keep
my home, Magner again directed that I had to sell it under the proposed sales agreement
if! wanted to get anything at all out ofmy home, or he would have my home demolished.
Julian Jayasuriya purchased the property from me for approximately $90,000.
2
EXHIBIT 2
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 72 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 11 of 51

FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAY~T.HNOT (] Iu.
'itJ~J~a/C
cy Ost· .
Subscnbed and sworn before me
thiS;~ . dayofJun!t, ,.oZ .
Y'bZ~ ~W;
Notary Public
3; 2:12 PM
Bob said...: Wondering about the $10,000 construction work?

Pin 26.031.20.24.0023
Address ** MOONLIGHT BAY
MAY TWP MN 55082
Class Residential
Plat
Map
Legal
REARR MOONLGHT BAY 2ND ADD OF Lot-
023 REARRANGEMENT OF MOONLIGHT BAY
2ND ADD OAK RIDGE ADD
Prior Year Value Information
Year Land Value Dwelling Value Improvement Value Total Value
2007 360,000 244,000 0 604,000
2006 268,000 158,400 0 426,400
2005 250,000 147,800 0 397,800
2004 250,000 121,100 0 371,100
2003 185,500 105,600 0 291,100
2002 155,800 98,500 0 254,300
2001 148,400 90,200 0 238,600
2000 123,700 83,200 0 206,900
1999 107,600 78,900 0 186,500
1998 93,600 74,900 0 168,500
1997 93,600 70,300 0 163,900
1996 72,000 68,800 0 140,800
Residential Building Information
Occupancy Year Built Total Living Area
Single-Family / Owner Occupied 2006 1,320
Land Information
Lot Basis Square Feet Acres
Sq. Ft. x Rate 10,628 0.24
Sale Information
Sale Date Amount Recording
10/1/2003 425,000
Washington County Assessor - General Parcel Info Page 1 of 2
http://washington.minnesotaassessors.com/basic-parcel.php?parcel=2603120240023

8/8/2003 390,000
Building Permit Information
Date Number Amount Reason
5/8/2006 2006-22 160,000 Single Dwelling; 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Maybe they can relax the laws regarding public hangings, for Magner.; 4:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Is this Magner's house that has the tax records posted? Isn't it interesting that he comes to work from a $600,000.00 house in the suburbs and looks down his nose at poor people living in "starter homes!"; 9:59 PM
Anonymous said...: How much does the city pay Magner?; 10:38 PM
Anonymous said...: It's midnight in the Garden of Evil Repke....in just a little under 8 hours the corruption machine will start up again downtown, but they won't be laughing, they'll be crying cause those Plintiff lawyers will be going over these tax records the city is trying to hide. I'd say that ought to cause some concern for all these people you stick up fro all the time wouldn't you?; 12:47 AM
Anonymous said...: What was the outcome in court last week, did the court federal court order Magner to produce his financial and tax records for the plantiffs in this case? If that was an order by the federal court one would have to believe that there is more to this case than just some landlords that have nothing better to do with their time and money than seek trouble for city officials, I would call it seeking justice. From what I have read on this blog it looks like the city will have some liabilities to pay. The sad part is that in the end it will be at the cost of the tax paying citizens.; 7:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Bob, whose property are you showing there, Magner or his parents?

It appears to be a house that was bought in 2003 for $425,000 dollars that is now (2007) on the tax rolls for $604,000.

The land value during that time it shows as having gone from $105,000 to $244,000.

So, if this building had $10,000 worth of repair work to it during that time, none of this is a surprise.

How much did your house go up in value from 2003 to 2007? There were pleanty of houses in the burbs that doubled.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck what do you get for $10,000? If I recall you stated that it cost you that just to paint your house, you should of called Renovation Inc. you get much more for your money!; 9:14 AM
Bob said...: Hi All,

concerning the property tax statement, Chuck it is his parents house.

I noticed it states year built 2006. Was this a new construction?; 9:37 AM
Bob said...: It states here the house was built in 1960. It was rumoured this was a new construction. If that was the case I can not find a permit to demolish the old house. So I am leaning to the belief this house was built in 1960 and probably needed updating some.

Property ID#: 2603120240023
Property and Owner Information
Property Owner
RICHARD J & MARY E MAGNER
Property Address
** MOONLIGHT BAY
STILLWATER MN 55082
Owner Mailing Address
** MOONLIGHT BAY
STILLWATER MN 55082
REARR MOONLGHT BAY 2ND ADD OF LOT-023
REARRANGEMENT OF MOONLIGHT ...More...
Tax Description
School District
STILLWATER ISD 834
Municipality
MAY TOWNSHIP
Watershed
CARNELIAN MARINE WS
Last Updated:
06/20/2007 at 00:44:35
Taxing Districts
Payable 2007 Taxes
2006 Estimated Total Market Value
(Pay 2007) $426,400
2006 Taxable Market Value
(Pay 2007) $403,200
Payable 2007 Taxes
(Includes Special Assessments ) $2,914.00
Year Built: 1960
Style: 1 STORY FRAME
Class:
RESIDENTIAL
Homestead Status:
FULL HOMESTEAD; 9:50 AM
Bob said...: PROPERTY DETAILS
Print Property Information
Property ID#: 2603120240023
Property and Owner Information
Property Owner
RICHARD J & MARY E MAGNER
Property Address
** MOONLIGHT BAY
STILLWATER MN 55082
Owner Mailing Address
** MOONLIGHT BAY
STILLWATER MN 55082
REARR MOONLGHT BAY 2ND ADD OF LOT-023
REARRANGEMENT OF MOONLIGHT ...More...
Tax Description
School District
STILLWATER ISD 834
Municipality
MAY TOWNSHIP
Watershed
CARNELIAN MARINE WS
Last Updated:
06/20/2007 at 00:44:35
Taxing Districts
Payable 2007 Taxes
2006 Estimated
Market Value
2006 Taxable
Market Value
Property
Status
Payable 2007
Taxes
Land: $268,000 Land: $253,400 Class: Net Taxes: $2,911.00
Bldg: $158,400 Bldg: $149,800 RESIDENTIAL Spec. Asmt: $3.00
Total: $426,400 Total: $403,200 Homestead:
FULL HOMESTEAD
Total Tax &
Spec Asmt: $2,914.00
Payable 2008 Taxes
2007 Estimated
Market Value
2007 Taxable
Market Value
Property
Status
Land: $360,000 Land: $322,000 Class: RESIDENTIAL
Bldg: $244,000 Bldg: $227,300 Homestead:
Total: $604,000 Total: $549,300 FULL HOMESTEAD; 9:55 AM
Bob said...: After reading this I think it was a home improvement and not as new construction.

Property Information
Property ID: R 26.031.20.24.0023
Property
Address:
** MOONLIGHT BAY
STILLWATER MN 55082
Municipality: MAY TOWNSHIP
Tax Description: REARR MOONLGHT BAY 2ND ADD OF
Lot-023
REARRANGEMENT OF MOONLIGHT
BAY 2ND ADD OAK RIDGE ADD
If you believe your valuation and
property class are correct, it is not
necessary to contact your assessor or
attend any listed meeting.
If the property information is not
correct, if you disagree with the values,
or if you have other questions about
this notice, please contact your
assessor first at 651-430-0360 to
discuss any questions or concerns.
Often your issues can be resolved at
this level.
If your questions or concerns are not
resolved, more formal appeal options
are available. Please read the back of
this notice for important information
about the formal appeal process.
Property Classification
2006 Classification for the
taxes you will pay in 2007.
RES HSTD
2007 Classification for the
taxes you will pay in 2008.
RES HSTD
Property Valuation
2006 Valuation for the
taxes you will pay in
2007.
2007 Valuation for the
taxes you will pay in
2008.
Estimated Market Value 426,400 604,000
Value of New
Improvements
N/A 85,600
Limited Market Value 403,200 549,300
Green Acres Value
Plat Deferment
This Old House
Exclusion
Taxable Market Value 403,200; 10:02 AM
Anonymous said...: That's quite a jump from the Maternity of Mary neighborhood into the high living for both Mr. Magner and his parents.

Brace yourselves to watch a spectacular crash, and this will be a chain collision.; 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Looking forward to it!; 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: I hear the old house was demolished and a new home was built.; 4:21 PM
Anonymous said...: I should have this guy over for a bid....maybe i COULD GET A NEW HOME FOR $9,000.00; 6:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Damn I guess when they say it depends who you know they weren't kidding. The city charges a homeowner more then that just to demolish a home that the homeowner didn't even want demolished in the first place. Does anyone have a number for this Renovations Inc.(Wally Nelson) I would like them/him to build me a home for $10,000, I was gonna build a garage but with those kind of deals/prices I might as well build a house too!; 8:12 PM

A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL

Monday, June 25, 2007

Code Enforcement Officer Steve Magners Deposition In The Racketeering Lawsuits Against The City Of Saint Paul

112 Comments:

Previous Posts