Plaintiffs of RACKETEERING lawsuits seek sanctions against City
Please click onto the TITLE of this post for the motion.
posted by Bob at Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Custom Search
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL HOME
Do you have a topic you want to discuss at the Town Hall? Email your request to A_Democracy@yahoo.com
“A DEMOCRACY” Disclaimer- While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to this forum express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned
THE ROOF GUYS
Mickey's Diner 1950 7th Street West, St Paul, MN
(651) 698-8387
AX-MAN SURPLUS
1639 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel:(651)646-8653
LANDLORD.COM LINK HERE
SHHHH! While we listen to words of wisdom from a wise man.
Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to the righteousness. Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong. A virtuous and courageous person can alone use the instrument of conscience. He or she can alone hear the inner voice of the soul clearly. In a wicked person this faculty is absent. The sensitive nature of his / her conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he or she is unable to discriminate right from wrong. Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and governments should develop this virtue of the ability to use their own conscience. This wisdom of using the clean conscience will enable them to enjoy the freedom.
Dr APJ Kalam, President of India given during the inauguration of the seminar on “THE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Previous Posts
- Mayors News Release On Budget
- Mayor Coleman Sacrificing his political career for...
- Battle at Kruger
- Another lawsuit against code enforcement/ More lie...
- Prayer Request
- Cracking down on nuisance properties.
- HAAS/ Home Ownership and Vacant Properties
- SAINT PAUL RICO UPDATE/ Plaintiffs determined to r...
- Video of 35W Bridge collapse.
- DIVAS BAR UPDATE
24 Comments:
Below you will find the motions in support of sanctions linked.
Click Above
Click Above
This doesn't look too good for the city in my opinion. No wonder they have not any investigations on this matter.
I haven't heard about these lawsuits in the local media.
Great blog! Thanks for the link at twincities.com
This will be the more interesting thing to watch is in a bogus law suit can the plantiffs extract money from the City on a technicality.
The question here is when did the discovery process start? I have no clue but the plantiffs argue that the City should have saved all emails starting at the date when the plantiffs first file suit (meaning keep the 3 years worth of old emails they normally keep starting on that date 3 years before 2005). We don't see the City's response but one would guess that they will say that they are only required to produce the info available at the time that discovery started (2004 on - 3 years before 2007).
No idea who wins that arguement, but that is the issue.
FYI - the City does not keep everything forever (nor does private business or other governments) standard practice is to keep 3 years worth of stuff.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Sarbanes - Oxley says you better keep things, and it better be forever if you are incorporated or you are going to be in for a lot of trouble.
So using your theory Chuck, if someone get sued today for something that happend last week, they just destroy all the evidence prior to today and don't create any new evidence and everything is A-OK huh? Some how I just do not buy into that one.
4:45 No what I am saying is that the plantiffs are saying that the City should have held on to everything in their possession in every office in the City from the moment they were first contacted by any of the plaintiffs about any issue (3 years worth of stuff from that date). What the City is saying is that they only held on to everything that they had from the moment a judge said, give them the stuff (3 years backwords from then).
It sounds like the plaintiffs are saying the City should have reasonably assumed that when we first started to have issues with the City they should have known that we might sue them 4 years later and two years after that the judge might rule that we can see everything in every office of the City.
I am not a lawyer, so I have no clue as to how the courts will go on something like that, but as I said this looks to me like what I always said the landlords were after, create a bogus law suit and find a technicality that you might get some money out of.
Sounds like the best place they have had to cash in yet. Everything else has been either total BS or the actions of indevidual staff members, this is the first thing I have seen in the case where there is either a right or wrong proceedure of the City. Like I said it will be interesting to see if the proceedure was correct or not. I don't know the answer.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Santa Claus is on the way Repke!
The lawsuits were filed some years ago, maybe 2002 or 2003. I am sure the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs served papers on the city for "Production of Documents" soon after that. If those Attorneys asked for this stuff back then and the city destroyed it since then, the city is screwed. You cannot destroy evidence.
It sure seems funny that when they give you a criminal ticket, code violation or you go to a Legislative Hearing, they seem to know everything about the property all the way back to day one and have all the records to support it, but now when it's not to their advantage, they fall back on this 3 year rule? I'm not that stupid!
7:32 that isn't the information they are talking about. The information that has anything that was written up about the property is all there from the start. The issue is now the attorneys will say something like... give us all emails received by the City from Bob Johnson. And the City goes well we have the last 3 years and the plaintiffs say nope he emailed someone ten years ago and we want you to produce it.
So that is the question for the judge. Should the City have kept every email and every letter that Magner, Dawkins and Kelly ever wrote since 1999?
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Well it appears that when someone refers to an investor as a broker St.Paul has brought on a whole new meaning to that term of language "BROKER or BROKE" period. Because thats what you will be when St.Paul is finished with you.
Nancy O.
Hi All,
Chuck, this is the straw that will break the camels back.
I am afraid the destruction of evidence will catapult this case into a jury trial. If that happens it is curtains big time for the city and us tax payers.
The stories are too damaging and will strike the core of human decency in any juror.
The rumour going around is the plaintiffs are seeking $100,000,000. You see all those zeros that isn't a mistake.
I am sorry to say this money is insignificant to the trust in government that has been lost to this bunch running our affairs now.
Maybe I should rephrase that earlier post to state that is what the city of St.Paul will be when the plaintiffs are finished.
Nancy O.
Mr. Repke, there is some very damaging information in totality with these RICO suits.I am not an attorney, I couldn't say one way or the other if this is a RICO case.
The fact there has not been an investigation in to these allegations suggest there is deep seated corruption in our city.
Very disturbing.........
John Hoffman
East side
These lawsuits are an example of how the abuse of power with these inspectors has transcended into our courts. Individual freedoms are cast away by chivalrous acts that backfire. For me I just don't understand this chivalrous attitude where the system goes right to the extreme of personal violations of ones individual rights. These new home code compliances are not justified. Not here, not in the court room and definitely not in our politics. We want our personal freedoms back where a cop has to ask before they bolt right in and not get offended when someone say's, "Excuse me, get the f*$% out of our lives!" If you don't agree that is your right, this is also my right and you need a history lesson because this is exactly how our country was formed.
Accountability isn't something we should bargain with and neither should these officials.
Members of my family died in world war 11 for the freedoms we have today and I am not about to turn them over to some shit sucking bunch of city politicians who respect nothing but their own damn agendas. I hope the landlords cleans your clocks good despite the fact that I live in one of these god forsaken neighborhoods on the lovely East Side.
Like I said I have no idea where a judge will come down on the documentation issue. I would guess it would depend on how relevant to the case, but as we have seen there realy isn't any direction to the case so the plaintiff's could claim that almost anything "might" have helped them since they still have not yet showed any kind of a conspiracy.
Again, I always thought this was the goal to have a bogus case and hope that you can steal some money on a technicallity.
We still have no idea what the conspiracy is that these folks are claiming in the RICO case and in fact some of the stuff that we see on the forum here directly dispute that last thing you see.. First its a conspiracy between Magner and Kelly and then the next thing you see is a letter from someone that claims to be an employee saying Magner and Lippert were trying to be put in charge and kelly wouldn't meet with them... so everybody is a conspiracy with nobody proving that anyone might have done something to no one but all of the should be arrested... or something...
Who knows...
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
I have an idea Chuck.....maybe these landlords are trying to cunfuse evryone so much that we will pay them in the end to tell what the conspiracy is! Dumber things have happemed you know! With this roller coaster, nothing would suprise me.
Hi All,
Here is a motion from a case unrelated to the RICOs. The motion is telling of what the RICO plaintiffs have been up against.
The courts are FIXED! There is no justice for the citizens of Saint Paul unless you can get into federal court.
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Nancy C. Lazaryan,
Victoria C. Marchetti, and
Evelyn C. Wallace,
and “Other Similarly Situated Persons”
all proceeding in propria persona, in summo jure
Plaintiffs,
v.
The City of St. Paul, a municipal corporation
Mike Kalis, individually and as a code enforcement officer
for the City of St. Paul,
Steve Magner, individually and as a supervisor for the
City of St. Paul department of
Neighborhood Housing and Improvement,
Robert (Bob) Kessler, individually and as director for
the City of St. Paul department of
Neighborhood Housing and Improvement,
ReMax Resources, of Stillwater, Minnesota,
Phad Rich, individually and as broker for ReMax Resources,
Thomas (Tom) Sawyer, individually and as agent for ReMax Resources,
Wells Fargo Mortgage, an Iowa corporation, doing business in the state of Minnesota,
Marcia Moermond, individually, and as Legislative Hearing officer for the City of St. Paul,
Defendants Case type: Civil
Court file #______________
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs hereby move the court for a CHANGE OF VENUE.
FACTS
Plaintiffs are in possession of certain evidence that has been used in the federal RICO
lawsuit against Defendant City of Saint Paul and the employees of said Defendant (also named in
this case).
MOTION
for
Change of Venue
2
Said evidence proves that Defendant City of Saint Paul manipulated the Ramsey County
district court by meeting and conspiring with former Chief Judge Mott of the Ramsey County
district court. In said meetings with Judge Mott, the City of Saint Paul convinced Judge Mott to
assign only a certain judge and certain alternate judges to cases that concerned the City of Saint
Paul. Judge Mott also agreed that a list of particular judges would never be assigned to hear
cases involving the City of Saint Paul.
The City of Saint Paul then conducted private “seminars” with the “selected” judges, and
instructed said judges on how the judges would rule in the cases brought before them.
This so-stated evidence is currently on the public record in the federal RICO case that has
been brought against the City of Saint Paul.
Given the fact that the City of Saint Paul has effectively manipulated the Ramsey County
district court, Plaintiffs’ right to a fair and impartial trial would be violated by having Plaintiffs’
case heard in the Ramsey County district court.
As such, Plaintiffs move for a Change of Venue…preferably at a location that is very far
away from Saint Paul, Minnesota.
In the alternative, Plaintiffs ask that they can “choose a judge” from the list of judges that
the City of Saint Paul had agreed with Judge Mott, “would never hear a case concerning the City
of Saint Paul.”
Plaintiffs rest.
August_____, 2007
Hi All,
This issue will be heard today at-
3 P.M.
Room 9E
US Courthouse
300 S 4th St.
Minnesapolis, MN.
Post a Comment
<< Home