A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL: Saint Paul RICO Update/ Plaintiffs motion in opposition to city's motion to Strike

Custom Search

Saturday, March 08, 2008

Saint Paul RICO Update/ Plaintiffs motion in opposition to city's motion to Strike

Please click onto the Comments to read the motion.

103 Comments:

Bob said...: *
**
Hi All,

I deleted some junk to get to the meat and potatoes of these motions. If you want a full copy contact me and I will see you get one.

There maybe copy errors.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. AFFIDAVIT OF
MATTHEW ENGEL
City of St. Paul, et al., IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Matthew A. Engel, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as follows:
1
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 154 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 1 of 11
1.
I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Minnesota and admitted to practice in District Court. I am the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in Thomas J. Gallagher, et. al., v. Magner, et. al. This affidavit is submitted on behalf of all of the Plaintiffs in the above captioned matters in opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike.
2.
Plaintiffs filed a Joint Motion for Sanctions on August 6, 2007, (05-CV-1348, ECF Document No. 73), Joint Memorandum of Law setting forth the applicable cases on the issues of spoliation and non-production (05-CV-1348, ECF Document No. 85), and affidavits and exhibits (05-CV-1348, ECF Document Nos. 86 and 87). The Court heard argument from counsel on August 20, 2007.
3.
Plaintiffs are renewing their identical motion for sanctions and relying on the same law and same memorandum in support of their motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs are doing exactly what the Court requested in its November 13, 2007 Order: they are submitting evidence by affidavit and exhibits to show the Court that Plaintiffs suffered prejudice resulting from the loss of alleged relevant evidence.
2
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 154 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 2 of 11
4.
Defendants first gave Plaintiffs’ counsel clearance to use 4,952 pages of emails and other documents at 4:40 p.m. on Friday, February 22, 2008, one business day before the deadline to file Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for sanctions. Moreover, Plaintiffs submit that Defendants have not yet completed production of all of the emails, or other documents subject to the Court’s order and therefore have no basis to complain to the Court about a claimed filing delay.
5.
In the Court’s November 13, 2007 Order denying Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice, the Court ordered the parties to complete discovery before renewing the issue of sanctions, and ordered the Defendants to restore production of emails and other evidence before Plaintiffs could renew their motion for sanctions (05-CV-1348, ECF Document No. 105).
6.
Ms. Seeba claims that it is clear that the stipulation and order contemplated non-dispositive motions followed by dispositive motions, not the reverse. See Defendants’ Memo in Support of Motion to Strike at p. 2, footnote 1. However, what was not contemplated by Plaintiffs in entering into the stipulation with Defendant, which the Court then incorporated as its scheduling Order on February 1, 2008, was Defendants’ failure to comply with the Court’s order that Defendants complete production of the subject documents within a sufficiently reasonable amount of time to allow Plaintiffs to process that evidence and prepare their renewed motion. 3
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 154 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 3 of 11
7.
It was not until Friday, February 22, 2008, that Defendants’ counsel finally cleared 4,952 pages of e-data for use by Plaintiffs in their renewed motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs’ counsel was then faced with incorporation of the redacted pages into the 4,952 page database, review of the produced data to make sure there were no inadvertently disclosed private data, analysis of said redactions and the 4,952 pages of data, incorporation of selections from 4,952 pages into Plaintiffs’ renewed motion, and preparation of affidavits and exhibits in support of the renewed motion – and filing of same – all in one day. Ms. Seeba does not mention a word about this in her affidavit or her Client’s Memorandum of Law. Moreover, Plaintiffs submit that Defendants have not yet completed production of all of the emails, or other documents subject to the Court’s order.
8.
At the time of the signing of the Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order on January 31, 2008, and at the time of the Court’s February 1, 2008, Order, not only had Ms. Seeba not provided Plaintiffs with any redacted and cleared emails to analyze and use as evidence (Plaintiffs submitted 1,573 pages for redaction on January 11, 2008, and 1,987 pages on February 1, 2008), she had not produced all of the City’s documents related to the City’s relationship with PHA that were subject to Plaintiffs’ original motion and the Court’s order (228 pages of annual PHA crime reports prepared by the St. Paul Police Dept. were produced on February 12, 2008).
4
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 154 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 4 of 11
9.
It was implied in the Court’s order that Ms. Seeba was to conduct a diligent search for City documents related to PHA. The Court stated, “But if Defendants have such documents in their possession, custody or control, Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain them elsewhere does not preclude Defendants’ obligation to produce any such relevant documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests”. See Order at p. 10.
10.
Ms. Seeba had an obligation to conduct a diligent search of her clients’ documents for “City documents related to PHA” that were under her clients’ “possession, custody or control”. That obligation had commenced long before the August 20, 2007 hearing, and the Court was merely reminding Ms. Seeba of that obligation when the Court so instructed Ms. Seeba at the August 20, 2007, hearing. When the Court issued its November 13, 2007 Order, it emphasized the obligation of Ms. Seeba and her clients to search for and produce the PHA documents in the city’s possession by making not just one statement of that obligation, but two statements of that obligation. Order, pages 5-6, fn. 3, and page 10. The Court emphasized the duty of Ms. Seeba and Defendants to produce these documents independent of PHA’s potential production. 5
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 154 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 5 of 11
11.
After such egregious delay by Ms. Seeba and Defendants, she and her clients now come to this Court, with unclean hands, demanding that the Court strike Plaintiffs’ non-dispositive motions so that she and her clients are not held to account for their discovery abuses.
12.
The parties entered into a Protective Order governing production of email data by Defendants to Plaintiffs for potential use as evidence in this case. This Protective Order was approved by the Court on December 10, 2007, which provided the following email production process: A) Defendants’ production of unredacted emails containing “private data;” B) Plaintiffs’ review of said unredacted emails; C) Plaintiffs selection of unredacted emails for delivery to Defendants; D) Plaintiffs delivery of selected unredacted emails to Ms. Seeba; E) Review by Ms. Seeba and her staff of the selected emails for redaction of “private data”; F) Defendants’ delivery of the “redacted” emails to Plaintiffs; G) Plaintiffs selection and organization of the cleared evidence for use before the Court; H) Submission to the Court of the evidence by way of affidavit.
13.
This email production process outlined in the paragraph above actually unfolded as follows. After the Court’s protective order was signed, I provided Defendants’ counsel with a CD containing unredacted City emails selected by Plaintiffs’ counsel and labeled STP 211355 – 212928 (1,573 pages) under letter dated January 11, 2008.
6
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 154 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 6 of 11
On January 17, 2008, six days later, Ms. Seeba responded that the emails had been reviewed and there was nothing redacted from any of the emails. On February 1, 2008, I provided Defendants’ counsel with a second CD containing selected unredacted City emails labeled STP 212929 – 214916 (1,987 pages) to be redacted by Ms. Seeba or her staff. On February 11, 2008, I provided Defendants’ counsel with a third CD containing unredacted City emails labeled STP 214917 – 216307 (1,390 pages) to be redacted by Ms. Seeba or her staff. The selected emails totaled 4,952 pages of potentially attorney-client privileged or data protected documents.
14.
On February 19, 2008, contrary to her January 17, 2008 letter, I learned from Ms. Seeba that the first set of emails consisting of 1,573 pages that were submitted and reviewed by Defendants’ counsel, had actually not been reviewed for “private data” protected by the Minnesota Government Data Privacy Act. This was surprising as the main emphasis of the protective order was redaction of “private data.”
15.
The Stipulation to Amend the Scheduling Order dated January 31, 2008 (05-CV-1348, ECF Document No. 126), and the Order approving the amendment dated February 1, 2008 (05-CV-1348, ECF Document No. 126), required the Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions to be filed on February 25, 2008. Plaintiffs’ obtained a hearing date and filed their detailed Motion and Notice of Hearing on February 25, 2008. (05-CV-1348, ECF Document Nos. 132 and 133).
7
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 154 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 7 of 11
16.
The Courts’ Order dated February 1, 2008, states as follows: “2. All non-dispositive motions, including any motion for discovery sanctions, shall be filed by 2-25-08; 3. Dispositive motions filing deadline shall be extended to March 11, 2008, which is 45 days prior to the rescheduled dispositive motion hearing date of April 25, 2008” (emphasis added).
17.
The Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order was drafted with specific reference to Defendants’ 45 day time period as required under LR 7.1, as Defendants had previously scheduled their dispositive motion, having filed the Motion for Summary Judgment on December 5, 2006 (05-CV-1348, ECF Document No. 27), with subsequent amendments to the scheduling order.
18.
At the time of the Stipulation and Order during the week of January 28 through February 1, 2008, Plaintiffs could not have known the exact nature or full extent of what evidence would be finally cleared by Ms Seeba as “redacted” copies of emails under the Protective Order, what additional “City documents related to PHA” would not yet be produced by the City, what the produced City documents related to PHA would reveal relevant to the renewed motion for sanctions, or what “City documents” would be discovered in PHA files.
19.
Defendants’ delay in not providing Plaintiffs’ counsel with cleared, “redacted emails” for use in this motion until 4:40 p.m. Friday, February 22, 2008, resulted in Plaintiffs’ counsel being unable to file their supplemental affidavits in support of sanctions by Monday, February 25, 2008 or a supplemental Memorandum of Law. 8
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 154 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 8 of 11
Without knowing which or how many of the 4,952 pages of unredacted emails and documents would be subject to the attorney client privilege or the Minnesota Data Privacy Act, Plaintiffs’ counsel was put into a position of having to wait for redacted versions before fully analyzing their renewed motion for sanctions.
20.
Ms. Seeba now claims that Plaintiffs’ counsel should have incorporated the redacted pages into the 4,952 page database, removed attorney-client privileged documents and any inadvertently disclosed “private data,” conducted an analysis of said 4,952 cleared emails, incorporated selections from 4,952 pages into Plaintiffs’ renewed motion, and prepared affidavits and exhibits for the Court in support of the renewed motion, all in one business day. This is an outrageous claim especially when Ms. Seeba takes no responsibility for her egregious delay in prejudicing Plaintiffs and their counsel in their efforts to make presentations of evidence to the Court of Defendants’ other discovery abuses. When all the facts are reviewed, Defendants’ motion to strike is another of the discovery abuses and further prejudices Plaintiffs due to the costs, fees, and loss of time that Plaintiffs’ counsel could have devoted to other more immediate tasks in this litigation. Once again, that prejudice was the goal of Defendants.
9
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 154 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 9 of 11
21.
Ms. Seeba’s conduct in first producing 4,952 pages of emails and other documents cleared for use under the data privacy act at the last minute on February 22, 2008, essentially “tied the hands” of Plaintiffs’ counsel in preparation for the renewed motion for sanctions. As a consequence, Mr. Shoemaker and I were forced to file a detailed renewed motion for sanctions on February 25, 2008. Our options were limited: we could return to the Court once again with one more motion in a “sea of motions” due to the delay tactics of Defendants and their discovery abuses, but such a motion would have again delayed the proceedings, and taken more of the Court’s valuable time and limited resources; or we could do the best under the circumstances by obtaining a court hearing date, preparing a detailed Motion and a Notice of Motion and filing and serving those documents by February 25, 2008, and then submitting the affidavits and exhibits to the Court in an expedited manner. We chose to not take the Court’s time when we believed the conduct of Defendants and Ms. Seeba was so outrageous as to be in violation of Rule 11.
22.
Plaintiffs’ counsel made every possible effort to file their affidavits and exhibits in support of their renewed motion for sanctions in an expedited manner in response to Defendants’ motion to strike. Plaintiffs’ counsel were able to provide the Court with the evidence it requested in its November 13, 2007 order, just nine days after February 25, 2008, when Ms. Seeba claims the memorandum of law was due, and just 12 days after February 22, 2008, when Ms. Seeba first gave clearance to use 4,952 pages of redacted electronic data.
10
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 154 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 10 of 11
11
23.
For these reasons, and because Defendants’ lack of “fair play” as detailed in this affidavit and the affidavit of John R. Shoemaker in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike, Defendants should not be allowed to profit by their litigation tactics and last minute production of redacted emails, and the Court should deny Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ Non-Dispositive Motions from the calendar and award Plaintiffs their attorneys fees and costs in having to defend this motion that was entirely unnecessary except for Defendants’ intent to continue to hide their wrongdoings, keep evidence from the Court, and to continue to victimize the Plaintiffs by using litigation tactics designed to bleed the Plaintiffs dry.
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYTH NOT.
Dated: 3/8/08 s/ Matthew A. Engel__
Matthew A. Engel
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 8th day of March, 2008.
s/ Bradley A. Kirscher
Notary Public
Under Seal
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 154 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 11 of 11

11:07 PM

Bob said...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN R. SHOEMAKER
IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
City of St. Paul, et al., MOTION TO STRIKE
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
John R. Shoemaker, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as follows:
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 187 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 1 of 23
1.
I am the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in Frank J. Steinhauser, et al., v. City of St. Paul, Magner, et al. and for Plaintiffs Sandra Harrilal and Steven R. Johnson in Sandra Harrilal, et al. v. Magner, et al.
2.
I am submitting this affidavit in opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ joint renewed Motion for Sanctions against Defendants in all three of the consolidated cases.
3.
Plaintiffs originally filed their Joint Motion for Sanctions on August 6, 2007 (Doc. No. 102 – Steinhauser, et al.; Doc No. 79 – Harrilal, et al.; and Doc. No. 73 – Gallagher, et al.), with supporting affidavits of Plaintiffs’ counsel and exhibits (see for example, Affidavit of John R. Shoemaker, Doc. No. 114, Steinhauser, et al hereinafter referred to as “First Shoemaker Aff.”), and their Joint Memorandum of Law (Doc. No.116, Steinhauser, et al.).
4.
On August 20, 2007, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ joint motion. On November 13, 2007, the Court issued its Order ruling on the joint motion (see Doc. No. 134, Steinhauser). The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice finding that Plaintiffs had not yet established prejudice from the lack of access to any evidence they alleged was destroyed. Order, p. 9. The Court determined that Plaintiffs’ motion could be renewed if and when Plaintiffs could demonstrate that they were prejudiced by the destruction or non-production of responsive documents. Order p. 10.
2
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 187 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 2 of 23
5.
Most importantly for purposes of Defendants’ motion to strike, the Court outlined the process that the parties were to use before the Plaintiffs’ could renew their motion for sanctions: “a motion for sanctions based upon any alleged improper destruction of such e-mails must await (1) the completion of that recovery process, and (2) a showing of prejudice resulting from the loss of any relevant e-mails that could not be recovered.” Order, page 8 (emphasis added). The Court stated that “any finding of prejudice must await a showing of the contents of any documents that remain missing (or otherwise not produced) once discovery is complete.” Order, p. 6, fn. 4 (emphasis added).
6.
The Court in its Order, p. 9, went even further in providing directions for the parties and their counsel on the procedure to follow prior to any renewal of Plaintiffs’ sanctions motion. The Court stated, “With respect to the ongoing production of documents, either pursuant to the City’s recovery of deleted e-mails or otherwise, the parties shall meet and confer to establish a protocol governing the production of evidence…”. “Once all of the remaining documents are produced, the parties shall meet and confer regarding any additional depositions that need to be taken in light of any such new evidence. If they are unable to agree, the Court will entertain an appropriate motion.” Order pp. 9 and 10 (emphasis added).
3
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 187 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 3 of 23
7.
The Court and the parties determined that there needed to be an intermediate process between Defendants’ data “recovery process” and the final process of Plaintiffs’ presentation of evidence showing the “prejudice resulting from the loss of any relevant e-mails that could not be recovered.” That intermediate process included a number of phases: a) Defendants’ review of the restored email data for attorney-client privileged information; b) the production of restored e-mails under a protective order, c) “attorneys’ eyes” only review by Plaintiffs’ attorneys of the “raw unredacted emails” d) selection of emails by Plaintiffs’ attorneys for evidence including in any renewed motion for sanctions, for further discovery, and for trial, e) delivery of these selected emails to Defendants’ counsel, f) review by Defendants’ counsel of the selected emails and redaction of any “private data,” g) delivery of the redacted emails to Plaintiff’s counsel who then were “cleared” to use the selected emails as “evidence” in the renewed motion. The parties agreed that due to the large volume of e-mail data to be produced by the City, Plaintiffs would continue to forward selected emails to Defendants’ counsel once every two weeks and Defendants would continue to conduct redactions of “private data” as needed with delivery of the redacted emails to Plaintiffs for their review of the data as required under the protective order.
4
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 187 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 4 of 23
8.
A number of final steps in this overall process of moving toward presentation of evidence on the issue of prejudice to the Court included: a) Plaintiffs’ analysis of whether such data (finally “cleared” under the protective order) actually had all private data removed, b) whether such data supported Plaintiffs’ renewal of their sanctions motion, c) preparation of the renewed motion, and d) submission of such evidence and arguments related to the evidence to support their renewed motion by way of affidavits of counsel. Under the Protective Order, paragraph 23, Plaintiffs are to notify Defendants of any inadvertent disclosure of “private data” discovered by Plaintiffs in the redacted emails. Once Plaintiffs received from Ms. Seeba any redacted, cleared email data, Mr. Engel and Affiant had to ensure as best we could that Ms. Seeba and her staff had made proper redactions.
9.
In summary, the Court’s November 13, 2007, Order required the following ordered steps: (1) Defendants’ production of all the remaining evidence, e-mail or otherwise, (2) followed by completion of a meet and confer regarding additional depositions that needed to be taken in light of the new evidence, (3) either agreement on those depositions or a court motion regarding same, and (4) then Plaintiffs’ presentation of their renewed motion for sanctions.
5
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 187 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 5 of 23
10.
Defendants now claim that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the deadline in the Amended Scheduling Order on renewed motions for sanctions and discovery issues by failing to file a Memorandum of Law and any documents supporting their renewed motion for sanctions and other discovery motion by the February 25, 2008 deadline in the Court’s Scheduling Order. However, Plaintiffs did file their Memorandum of Law in August 2007 and in Plaintiffs’ detailed Motion for Renewed Sanctions, Plaintiffs expressly stated that their renewed motion was based upon all motion documents originally filed in August 2007. Defendants also seek to have Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for sanctions dismissed for claimed failure of Plaintiffs to timely support their motion with evidence.
11.
Defendants have again come before this Court with “unclean hands” seeking relief while failing to disclose their significant wrongdoing during this litigation. In fact, Defendants have failed to tell the Court that it was Defendants outrageous conduct which led to Plaintiffs’ inability to meet the deadline claimed by Defendants. Shortly before filing their motion to strike, Defendants had withheld 4,952 pages of selected emails from Plaintiffs until 20 minutes before the last day they claim Plaintiffs were required to submit such data with arguments to the Court in support of the renewed motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs had properly and timely submitted their selection of unredacted emails to Ms. Seeba as required under the protective order.
6
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 187 Filed 03/08/2008 Page 6 of 23
12.
Moreover, Defendants have failed to tell the Court that they are not in compliance with the Court’s November 13, 2007 Order requiring Defendants to produce all email and other evidence that was subject to Plaintiffs’ original motion. Defendants may once again claim that that’s news to them. However, when the Court reviews the entire record including this affidavit, the affidavit Mr. Engel has filed in joint opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike, and the affidavits of Mr. Engel and Affiant with exhibits supporting Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for sanctions, the Court will clearly see the overall picture of serious abuses by public officials and employees and their attorneys before the Court in this litigation.
13.
While it appears on the surface that Defendants completed production of evidence on February 12, 2008, with their much delayed production of City Police Department Crime reports related to Police Statistics on the rental properties owned by St. Paul Public Housing Agency (“PHA”), many documents and reports related to the Police Department’s policing of PHA have not yet been provided to Plaintiffs and were within the scope of documents the Court ordered Defendants to produce independent of Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain PHA documents. See Contract for Supplemental Police Services, attached to Shoemaker Affidavit in Support of Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 183 – Steinhauser, et al), Exhibit 10, p. 4, Section 1, para. B – “targeted areas,” para. C – communications with residents

– crime prevention programs within public housing communities – “storefronts,” “Door Watch programs” and “block clubs”; para. D – police workload data; para. E – police as witnesses in PHA’s evictions or other civil or criminal actions; para. F – meetings between Police and PHA at least quarterly; para. J.1 – police and security reports; para. J.2 – communication between Police Commanders and other police personnel; para. J.3 – prepare progress reports and evaluations of services for review by the PHA, Police Chief, appropriate Deputy Chiefs and Police Department commanders; para. J.7 – reporting non-emergency criminal activities – reports including calls for service [Note: calls for service summaries, SITS, were provided by Defendants]; para. K. 4 – efforts between PHA, SPPD, attorney, and courts, to expedite solutions to specific problems (illegal tenant behavior, violence, etc.) within PHA; para. K.7 – Hi-Rise patrol and response to requests for police services; Section 2, para. A – police department training of residents; para. C – assessments, evaluations or statistical measures showing results achieved by ACOP police services; para. E.5 – substantiated complaints from PHA residents or management concerning police officers behavior; para. F – PHA rules and regulations provided to police officers; Section 4, para. A –communications – incident reports, arrest reports or other public documents; para. B – Reporting – police department will provide reports – may include monthly, quarterly or otherwise as requested by PHA of a wide range of information listed; para. D – evaluations of the program [some reports were
provided by Defendants]; Section 5 – plans of operation; Section 8 – audits on an annual basis.
14.
These additional police documents have not been produced by Defendants to Plaintiffs except for the police service call summaries and certain annual crime reports. Plaintiffs do not have an obligation to repeatedly ask Defendants to finally produce all of these documents because the Court ordered Defendants and Ms. Seeba to produce all such documents.
15.
The City’s documents related to PHA, especially related to the City’ provision since 1991 of supplemental police services to PHA – all above and far beyond the “baseline police services” that every citizen and business receives - relate directly and significantly to Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ claimed defenses and thus should have been produced in full to Plaintiffs years ago. Defendants have consistently claimed that due to alleged behavior problems at Plaintiffs’ properties, Defendants were authorized to target Plaintiffs and others with heavy-handed code enforcement operations designed to “get inside” the properties, apply a “heightened code standard,” cite the properties with “code to the max” violations, condemn and thereby shut down the properties forcing the tenants with “bad behavior” from their homes, remove the grandfathering protections on these rental properties and demand expensive code compliances inspections to modern day codes. Plaintiffs submit that Defendants have selectively targeted Plaintiffs’ scattered site properties using behavior as a pretext or cover for a racist agenda designed to reduce the affordable housing
opportunities in the City primarily for African-Americans thereby frustrating integration and enlargement of African-Americans into the community at large, furthering segregation within the City, and in the end, reducing the number of African-Americans that are willing to stay in the City or even move here from other states. The City’s provision of special police services to PHA is directly related to these claims as PHA has a history of serious tenant, guest and third party behavior problems at its rental properties, in significant volume that even with a platoon of City police officers solely tasked to police PHA rental properties on a daily, weekly, monthly and year after year basis, behavior at PHA properties does not differ significantly from alleged behavior problems in the privately owned low-income rental market. Yet Defendants do not apply the same heavy-handed code enforcement operations on PHA rental properties to shut down and force sale of PHA’s rental properties.
16.
Defendants are in violation of the Court’s November 13, 2007 Order in other respects. Defendants have not produced the large volume of emails Council President Lantry referred to “Rico trash” that one of her emails stated would take her four days to look through. See Engel Affidavit in Support of Renewed Motion for Sanctions. Defendants have not produced all the remaining emails of Councilmember Dan Bostrum.
A review of the representations of Ms. Seeba and her clients in early December 2007 is necessary in order to understand the exact nature of Defendants lack of production of all the subject documentation and the other wrongful conduct by Defendants since then.
18.
Ms. Seeba represented to Plaintiffs’ counsel during the meet and confer on December 7, 2007 and subsequently to the Court and counsel during the December 10, 2007 hearing, that all of the emails of 68 City officials and employees had been restored and were contained within an external hard drive ready for delivery to Plaintiffs (Ms. Seeba had the hard drive in the courtroom for all to see).
19.
Those representations were false. Ms. Seeba and her clients failed to tell counsel during the December 7, 2007 meet and confer, and failed to tell the Court and counsel during the December 10, 2007 hearing that: (a) she and her clients were at that time only producing 14% of the emails of Council President Lantry (hard drive contained a mere 360 megabytes of Lantry’s email data when over 2.5 megabytes was actually available as Plaintiffs subsequently learned); (b) were planning on converting the remaining 86% of Lantry’s emails to a format that would be in violation of the protective order; (c) that Defendants would delay production of that data for over one month even under the tight timelines of the Court’s scheduling order; and (d) that Defendants’ goal was to produce the 86% of Lantry’s emails late and in different format that would certainly prejudice Plaintiffs in reviewing and analyzing such data. That was the plan of Defendants as Council President Lantry has for many years been the primary council member actively involved in all code enforcement matters and who was actively involved in targeting a number of the Plaintiffs.
20.
I learned of this deception only after Mr. Engel inquired of Ms. Seeba as to the identity of a large volume of unexplained data on the January 9, 2008 batch of email data; on February 7, 2008, Ms. Seeba stated that the second batch of emails actually contained further Lantry emails.
21.
As troubling to affiant and Mr. Engel was our discovery that the hard drive held by Ms. Seeba during the December 10, 2007 hearing, contained only 367 megabytes of email data for Councilmember and former Council President Bostrum. It was clear to us that 367 megabytes of email data was not a full production of Bostrum’s emails to Plaintiffs.
22.
Our conclusion that Defendants failed to fully produce all of Bostrum’s emails is supported by a review of the total final production (without counting the “Rico Trash”) of Lantry emails, totaling over 2.5 gigabytes of e-data, as well as by comparing the size of e-data produced by Ms. Seeba and her clients for all seven of the council members.
23.
Defendants delivered the restored email boxes of each of one of the City’s seven council members on December 10, 2007. In that production, Council President Lantry’s restored email box consisted of 360 megabytes of e-data and Councilmember Bostrum’s restored email box consisted of 367 megabytes of e-data.
24.
In the same delivery on December 10, 2007, Defendants produced other officials’ restored email boxes: Councilmember Dave Thune, 2.43 gigabytes; Councilmember Deborah Montgomery, 2.22 gigabytes; Councilmember Jay Benanav, 2.09 gigabytes, Councilmember Lee Helgen, 1.29 gigabytes; and Councilmember Pat Harris, 1.13 gigabytes.
25.
It is reasonable to conclude that former Council President Bostrum would naturally have generated and received a volume of email consistent with his colleagues, Lantry, Thune, Montgomery, Benanav, and Harris and certainly not such a small fraction of the e-data of a less senior council member, Helgen.
26.
The motivation of Defendants not to produce all of the email data of Councilmember Bostrum to Plaintiffs for their review and use in these cases is similar to their motivation to withhold 86% of Lantry’s emails and all of her “Rico trash”.
27.
The City’s definition of a “problem property” has been stated by Defendants as the intersection of behavior and housing code violations. Councilmember Bostrum as a former police officer, with a family member as part of the City’s police department who formerly headed the City’s code enforcement, plays a key role on the City Council on issues related to behavior of city residents and others visiting the City, including at PHA properties, other low-income properties, and Plaintiffs’ former rental properties.
28.
The first batch of Lantry emails produced on December 10, 2007, for review by Plaintiffs’ counsel, was in the format required under the protective order – labeled and in the “plain text or html format in which they were originally sent.” Protective Order, para. 17. One month later, on January 9, 2008, Ms. Seeba and her clients slipped 86% of the remaining Lantry emails into the second batch of e-data produced for the ten employees’ restored email boxes. This was done without any notice to Plaintiffs.
29.
As significant as that deception and non-disclosure, with resulting prejudice – 86% of Lantry emails were thus not available for counsels’ review for one month - Defendants and their counsel also changed the format of Lantry’s emails to further prejudice Plaintiffs.
30.
When Plaintiffs reviewed the remaining 86% of Lantry emails, Plaintiffs discovered that those emails had been changed from the required format as set forth in the protective order, and the format of the first batch of Lantry emails, to an unlabeled format that while searchable was not easily accessible or reviewable as a whole, or in reviewing any individual email. Thus, Plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to conduct any meaningful review of this data.
31.
Logging of any email selected from this second Lantry email batch, as required by the protective order, was virtually impossible under the time constraints of the scheduling order – see para. 19, Protective Order.
32.
Ms. Seeba and her clients purposefully withheld the remaining 86% of Lantry’s emails that Defendants intended to produce – only producing those emails on January 9, 2008, and then without informing Plaintiffs that 2.2 gigabytes of e-data from Lantry was hidden in the data that Ms. Seeba had represented only contained the Kroll Ontrack recovered emails of the ten employees whose emails had been on the police or fire servers.
33.
Once we discovered that Defendants had clandestinely produced 86% of Lantry’s emails (2.2 gigabytes) a month late and in different format, we naturally concluded that Defendants and their counsel were purposefully deceiving both Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court, and had produced the remaining 86% of Lantry’s emails in an unauthorized format to prejudice Plaintiffs, and that Defendants were withholding a great deal of other e-data from production.
34.
Ms. Seeba had informed Mr. Engel and Affiant on December 7, 2007, that the reason all emails could not be delivered to Plaintiffs was that the email boxes of ten employees could not be recovered by City IT personnel because two computer servers, the police server and the fire department server, were damaged. Ms. Seeba identified the ten employees as follows: (1) Defendant Lisa Martin, code inspector, Problem Properties; (2) Jackie Girling, code inspector; (3) Pat Fish, fire inspector, head of City’s Problem Properties Task Force; (4) Defendant Mike Urmann, senior fire inspector, supervisor; (5) Defendant Barb Cumming, fire inspector; (6) Police Officer Lucia Wroblewski – Problem Properties; (7) Police Officer Mark Wiegel, Problem Properties; (8) Police Officer Mike Carroll – Problem Properties; (9) Ruth Ann Eide, Police Crime Prevention Officer; and (10) Officer Joel Johnson, former driver for Defendant Mayor Randy Kelly.
35.
All of these ten employees that Defendants have claimed had email data that could not be restored by the City’s IT department (and thus such data had to be restored by Kroll Ontrack), had a central role in the “problem properties” operations of the City or were defendants herein. All of their restored emails were delivered a month after the Court hearing of December 10, 2007, and nine days after the Court’s deadline for such production, and produced in a format different from that required under the protective order, making it much more difficult to process as set forth above
Three of the ten employees were defendants herein. Officers Wiegel, Carroll, Wroblewski and Eide were actively involved in the City’s heavy-handed code enforcement policies leveled against low-income housing properties: Officer Wroblewski had written a highly unusual and uncharacteristic report on one of Steinhauser’s rental properties, Officer Wiegel had worked with Officer Keohnen in Dawkins’ Problem Property Unit (“PPU”) where Keohnen was used to gain entry for Dawkins’ inspectors, Lisa Martin was a member of the PPU and was the inspector illegally targeting the rental properties owned by Steinhauser, Meysembourg, Brisson, Harrilal, Johnson, Vues and many other low-income landlords. Pat Fish was the most senior code enforcement officer dealing with claimed “problem properties, and as Chair of the City’s Problem Properties Task Force, was the central leader in the City’s internal communications on such properties.
36.
Officer Johnson as driver for Defendant Mayor Kelly, would have been intimately involved in acting as a conduit of information to and from Mayor Kelly and the Police Department related to behavior issues and police involvement in code enforcement. Additionally, Officer Johnson would have overheard or been an active participant in conversations with the Mayor and certain officials, including Andy Dawkins, and employees and third parties.
37.
Plaintiffs submit that with all of the other wrongful conduct by Defendants herein, it’s no coincidence that the emails of these key players were produced late to Plaintiffs and in a format different from the protective order.
38.
Finally, concerning the emails of Defendant Martin and Jackie Girling, both were members of the Department of Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement (NHPI) until approximately March of 2007 when NHPI was dissolved and the City created the Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI). At that point, inspectors Martin and Girling were transferred to DSI to work under the newly expanded Certificate of Occupancy program that for the first time covered all single family and duplex homes in the City. Defendants have claimed that they had disaster back up tapes for 36 months starting in December 2005. They claim they were able to restore the emails of 78 officials and employees from 35 of 36 of those backup tapes.
39.
Defendants have not explained why the emails of Martin and Girling that would have been on the NHPI server up until they were transferred to the City’s Fire Preventions Department in early 2007, were not on all of the disaster recovery backup tapes from December 2005 until their transfer. All other NHPI employees and officials on the list of email boxes to be restored, had their emails restored in the format required by the protective order – but not the emails of inspectors Martin and Girling. Their emails were produced in an unlabeled format different from 17 other NHPI inspectors and officials.
40.
Additionally, Ms. Seeba failed to disclose to Plaintiffs for months that the City had deleted all the emails of City employee Susan Kimberly shortly after she left employment with the City in early 2006. Plaintiffs only recently discovered that Ms. Kimberly was actively involved in housing issues for the City’s PED, and working in the Mayor’s office. Her name was on the list of requested email box restoration for an extended period of time yet Defendants failed to disclose that her emails had been destroyed.
41.
Once again, the most recent egregious conduct by Defendants that has prejudiced Plaintiffs was Defendants late delivery of the 4,952 emails to Plaintiffs counsel at 4:40 p.m. on Friday February 22, 2008, just 20 minutes before Plaintiffs’ last day to file their motion for renewed sanctions, Monday February 25, 2008. Twenty minutes before the last day Plaintiffs had to renew their motion, Ms. Seeba finally gave Plaintiffs “clearance” to use any of the 4,952 emails. Until she provided clearance to Plaintiffs under the Protective Order that those 4,952 emails no longer contained any “private data or attorney-client privileged material, those emails were not evidence for Plaintiffs’ renewed motion, could not be considered by Plaintiffs to yet be evidence for their motion, could not be incorporated into the renewed motion with any certainty, and could not be organized for exhibits in support of the renewed motion.
42.
As soon as Plaintiffs received the redacted emails, Plaintiffs diligently worked to review the “cleared emails” for private data, conducted analysis of emails that supported the renewed motion, assembled the evidence, and prepared the affidavits for the renewed motion. Mr. Engel and Affiant filed and served Plaintiffs’ detailed Joint Renewed Motion for Sanctions, and Notice of Motion for Sanctions on February 25, 2008, the date of the deadline in the Court’s recent Order. Plaintiffs’ counsel were unable to file these supplemental affidavits in support of sanctions by Monday, February 25, 2008, because Defendants purposefully delayed providing Plaintiffs’ counsel with the “redacted emails” for use in this motion.
43.
Defendants’ alteration of the evidence, deceptive tactics, false representations, material non-disclosures, purposeful delays in producing evidence, non-production of other key evidence, violations of the protective order and Court’s November 13, 2007, Order, were all designed and carried out in order to further prejudice Plaintiffs at the 11th hour of this extended litigation, shortly before deadlines for filing Plaintiffs’ non-dispositive discovery and renewed sanctions motions. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was designed to also have maximum adverse impact on Plaintiffs ability to oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and to further deny Plaintiffs evidence for trial purposes.
Plaintiffs submit that Defendants motion to strike is further evidence of their abusive litigation tactics, their misuse of the Court’s time and resources, and attempts to continue to avoid a full accounting for their illegal behaviors.
45.
Mr. Engel and I are continuing to review the remaining “email data” provided to us on December 10, 2007 and on January 9, 2008. Due to extremely large volume of this email data (79 gigabytes – approximately 1 ½ million documents, including emails, photo files, miscellaneous other electronic files and duplicates) with over one-third of the data in unlabeled format, we need further time up to 14 days prior to the April 14, 2008, hearing date on the renewed motion for sanctions, to conduct our review, prepare analysis for written submissions to the Court, select the emails to be redacted, wait for Ms. Seeba and her staff to complete redactions and delivery of the emails for our use and then to process the redacted emails for use in this renewed motion. Plaintiffs request a modification of the protective order requiring counsel for Defendants to turn around the selected emails with haste so that Plaintiffs are not met with additional prejudicial delay.
46.
As part of Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motion to strike now before the Court, Plaintiffs incorporate the Affidavits of Mathew Engel and Affiant submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for sanctions.
Plaintiffs request that the Court look at the overall conduct of Defendants and their counsel and pursuant to Plaintiffs renewed motion for sanctions, incorporate the Court’s finding herein for further sanctions against Defendants for their conduct that necessitated this motion before the Court and Plaintiffs’ response to said motion, and for Defendants actions purposefully causing delays, material non-disclosures, significant alteration of key evidence, deceptive conduct in this litigation.
47.
I am also requesting leave of the Court to file further supplemental affidavits in support of Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for sanctions up to 14 days prior to the April 14, 2008 hearing scheduled on the renewed motion.
48.
Finally, Plaintiffs’ second non-dispositive motion also scheduled for hearing August 14, 2007, relates to a request by Plaintiffs for authorization to update the liability opinions of the parties’ experts as a result of almost 50 depositions that occurred following the deadlines for submission of said expert reports by the parties in 2006. Additionally, Plaintiffs were able to discover hundreds of thousands of pages of significant documents and inspection records since those initial reports were prepared. Those expert reports should be updated. Expert damage reports should also be updated within a reasonable period prior to trial in this matter.

There maybe copy errors.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et. al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. JOINT MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
City of St. Paul, et. al.,
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et. al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et. al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et. al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs in Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al., Sandra Harrilal and Steven R. Johnson in Sandra Harrilal, et al., and Plaintiffs in Thomas J. Gallagher, et al., through their undersigned
counsel, submit this Joint Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Non-Dispositive Motion Hearing from the Court’s Calendar.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the scheduling order on February 11, 2008, and a renewed motion for sanctions on February 25, 2008. Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ non-dispositive motion hearing from the Court’s calendar, on the grounds that Plaintiffs have not filed a memorandum of law in support of either motion, or, in the alternative, that the Court consider the matter submitted without oral argument, and deny Plaintiffs’ motions with prejudice.
Plaintiffs submit that a memorandum of law has already been filed in relation to the renewed motion for sanctions, a memorandum that fully briefed for the Court and parties the applicable law on Plaintiffs grounds for sanctions and the issue of prejudice as set out by the Court in its November 13, 2007 Order and set out Plaintiffs’ arguments related to the law and facts. The Court directed that at the completion of Defendants’ production of all documents subject to the original sanctions motion, Plaintiffs could then renew their motion for sanctions and present evidence by way of affidavits to show evidence of prejudice.
Plaintiffs were unable to file supplemental affidavits by February 25, 2008, as a direct result of Defendants’ deliberate delay in “clearing” 4,952 email documentation of “private data” under the protective order, redacted emails that Plaintiffs would need to use as part of their renewed motion for sanctions, and deliberate failure to deliver the email evidence until
20 minutes before the last day Defendants’ claimed Plaintiffs were required to file all their motion papers and supporting documents.
Defendants should not be allowed to profit by their abusive litigation tactics and last minute production of redacted emails, and the Court should deny Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ Non-Dispositive Motions from the calendar and award fees and costs in favor of Plaintiffs.
The Court’s November 13, 2007 Order controls this dispute and requires that the Court deny the Defendants’ motion. The Court should consider all the evidence Plaintiffs have submitted in support of their renewed motion for sanctions and allow Plaintiffs to file further submissions as appropriate in light of the Affidavits submitted by Plaintiffs herein and in support of Plaintiffs’ renewed Motion for Sanctions.
Most significantly to this motion, Defendants are in violation of the Court’s November 13, 2007 Order requiring them to complete production of the all of the restored emails and to produce all of the City’s documents related to PHA, before Plaintiffs would be required to file their renewed motion for sanctions.
Plaintiffs have not completed production of all relevant evidence subject to the Court’s November 13, 2007 Order requiring such production and therefore Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for sanctions has actually been improperly forced ahead of schedule by Defendants baseless motion, all to Defendants’ advantage in their summary judgment motion filings next week.
Plaintiffs submit that under the circumstances, when considering all of the directions set forth by the Court in its November 13, 2007 Order and the serious and repeated discovery abuses by Defendants as outlined more fully in the affidavits of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the filing of the renewed motion for sanctions on February 25, 2008 was timely, and the subsequent filings by Plaintiffs of supporting affidavits and exhibits proper in light of all the circumstances.
Moreover, Defendants have suffered no prejudice by the timing of Plaintiffs’ filing of their motion papers.
Finally, Plaintiffs are seeking in their second non-dispositive motion to obtain permission to have the liability experts opinions supplemented in light of the almost 50 additional depositions that were taken following the Court deadlines in 2006 for submission of those initial opinions. Hundreds of thousands of pages of documents have been discovered by Plaintiffs since 2006 and produced to Plaintiffs and copied to Defendants. Plaintiffs also request that the Court set a reasonable deadline for supplementation of expert opinions related to damages so that those experts’ opinion are up to date prior to trial.
FACTS
Plaintiffs filed a Joint Motion for Sanctions on August 6, 2007, (05-CV-1348, ECF Document No. 73), memorandum of law setting forth the applicable cases on the issues of spoliation and non-production (05-CV-1348, ECF Document No. 85), and affidavits and exhibits (05-CV-1348, ECF Document Nos. 86 and 87). The Court heard argument from counsel on August 20, 2007. (Engel Aff. para. 2).
Plaintiffs are renewing their identical motion for sanctions and relying on the same law and the same memorandum of law in support of their motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs have
done exactly what the Court requested in its November 13, 2007 Order. They have submitted evidence by affidavits and exhibits to show the Court the prejudice suffered by Plaintiffs resulting from the loss of alleged relevant evidence and the evidence of more recent discovery abuses and further spoliation since the August 2007 hearing. (Engel Aff. para. 3) (Shoemaker Aff. paras. 12-40).
Defendants first gave Plaintiffs’ counsel clearance to use 4,952 pages of emails and other documents at 4:40 p.m. on February 22, 2008, one business day before the deadline to file Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for sanctions. (Engel Aff. para. 4). Plaintiffs were not responsible for this delay in any respect as Plaintiffs properly and timely submitted email evidence to Defendants’ counsel following belated delivery of the email evidence to Plaintiffs. (Shoemaker Aff. para. 11).
What the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel did not contemplate at the time of the February 1, 2008 Order revising the scheduling deadlines herein, was Defendants’ continued failure to comply with the Court’s order to complete production of all City documents related to PHA and all email documentation in redacted format within a sufficiently reasonable amount of time to allow Plaintiffs’ to renew their motion. Given how the email production process has unfolded in this case, under Ms. Seeba’s analysis, after she finally cleared for use 4,952 pages of e-data on February 22, 2008, Plaintiffs’ counsel would have been forced to incorporate the redacted pages into the 4,952 page database (no simple or quick task), review all that data for any inadvertently disclosed “private data,” conduct an analysis of said redactions and evidence for use in the renewed motion, incorporate selections from 4,952 pages into
Plaintiffs’ renewed motion, prepare affidavits and exhibits in support of the renewed motion and file the entire motion all in one day. (Engel Aff. para. 6).
Furthermore, at the time of the Stipulation and Order setting new deadlines for filing motions, Plaintiffs could not have known the exact nature or full extent of the final cleared, “redacted” copies of emails under the Protective Order, or what additional “City documents” would not have been produced by the City, or would be produced by the City, or discovered in PHA files. (Engel Aff. para. 17).
Defendants have failed to tell the Court that they are not in compliance with the Court’s November 13, 2007 Order requiring Defendants to produce all email and other evidence that was subject to Plaintiffs’ original motion. (Shoemaker Aff. paras. 12, 13-15 (City documents related to PHA not fully disclosed), 16 – 26 (Councilmember Lantry’s and Bostrum’s email data not fully disclosed), 40 (destruction of all emails of City employee Susan Kimberly and non-disclosure of same).
After such egregious delay by Ms. Seeba and Defendants, she and her clients now come to this Court, with unclean hands, demanding that the Court strike Plaintiffs’ non-dispositive motion and renewed motion for sanctions and evidence that shows a long standing, deliberate policy and practice in this litigation of discovery abuses that have prejudiced the Plaintiffs over the past year. (Engel Aff. para. 10).
ARGUMENT
1. Plaintiffs filed their motion and notice of hearing on the February 25, 2008 filing deadline, Local Rule 7.1(a)(1) allows the moving party to file and serve the affidavits and exhibits at least 14days prior to hearing.
Local Rule 7.1(a)(1) applies to non-dispositive motions and states:
(1) Moving Party; Supporting Documents; Time Limits. No motion shall be heard by a Magistrate Judge unless the moving party files pursuant to LR 5.2 and serves the following documents at least 14 days prior to hearing: (A) Notice of Motion; (B) Motion; (C) Proposed Order; (D) Affidavits and Exhibits, and (E) Memorandum of Law (emphasis added).
The 1999 Advisory Committee’s Note to LR 7.1(b)(2) states:
“Supporting Affidavits. Rule 7.1(b)(2) specifically contemplates that the factual basis for a dispositive motion will be established with affidavits and exhibits served and filed in conjunction with the initial motion and the responding party’s memorandum of law.”
No such notation in the Advisory Committee notes is made to this effect as applied non-dispositive motions.
The Courts’ February 1, 2008 Order reads as follows: “2. All non-dispositive motions, including any motion for discovery sanctions, shall be filed by 2-25-08; 3. Dispositive motions filing deadline shall be extended to March 11, 2008, which is 45 days prior to the rescheduled dispositive motion hearing date of April 25, 2008” (emphasis added).
The Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order was drafted with specific reference to Defendants’ 45 day time period as required under LR 7.1, as Defendants had previously scheduled their dispositive motion, having filed the Motion for Summary Judgment on December 5, 2006 (05-CV-1348, ECF Document No. 27), with subsequent amendments to the scheduling order.
At the time of this Stipulation and Order, Plaintiffs could not have known the exact nature or full extent of the final cleared, “redacted” copies of emails under the Protective
Order, or what additional “City documents” would not be produced by the City by the time the non-dispositive motion deadline came, or what additional “City documents related to PHA” would be discovered to have been in City files and not produced.
Defendants claim that it is clear that the stipulation and order contemplated non-dispositive motions followed by dispositive motions, not the reverse. See Defendants’ Memo in Support of Motion to Strike at p. 2, footnote 1.
However, what Plaintiffs and the Court did not contemplate at the time of the February 1, 2008 Order was Defendants’ continued failure to comply with the Court’s order to complete production of all email data, all City documents related to PHA, and all email reviewed under the protective order restrictions within a sufficiently reasonable amount of time to allow Plaintiffs’ to renew their motion.
The reason the Stipulation and Proposed order were drafted without the 14 day calculation for non-dispositive filings, and contrary to the drafting of the dispositive motion deadline that expressly provided for a deadline of filing 45 days prior to hearing date, was that both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ counsel knew that obtaining a hearing date for a renewed motion for sanctions prior to the completion of the email production process and completion of discovery would be a shot in the dark and would most likely lead to rescheduling and serious inconveniences to the Court in calendaring hearings in all cases.
2. Because Plaintiffs’ motion for sanction is a renewed motion and a memorandum of law is already on record with the Court, Plaintiffs’ are allowed to file affidavits and exhibits in support of their renewed motion for sanctions especially when Defendants’ conduct prohibited Plaintiffs from being able to meet the deadline.
Local Rule 7.1(d) addresses “Failure to Comply” and states:
(d) Failure to Comply. In the event a party fails to timely deliver and serve a memorandum of law, the Court may strike the hearing from its motion calendar, continue the hearing, refuse to permit oral argument by the party not filing the required statement, consider the matter submitted without oral argument, allow reasonable attorney's fees, or proceed in such other manner as the Court deems appropriate (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs filed a Joint Motion for Sanctions on June 20, 2007, (05-CV-1348, ECF Document No. 73), memorandum of law setting forth the applicable cases on the issues of spoliation and non-production (05-CV-1348, ECF Document No. 85), and affidavits and exhibits (05-CV-1348, ECF Document Nos. 86 and 87). The Court heard argument from counsel on August 20, 2007.
Plaintiffs are renewing their motion for sanctions and relying on the same law and same memorandum in support of their motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs are doing exactly what the Court requested in its November 13, 2007 Order; they are submitting evidence by affidavit and exhibit to show the Court prejudice to Plaintiffs resulting from the loss of alleged relevant evidence.
Defendants’ counsel did not “clear” for use 4,952 pages of e-data until February 22, 2008, just twenty (20) minutes before the last day to file. This is uncontested by Defendants’ counsel. Under Defendants reading of the rules, Plaintiffs’ counsel would then have been forced to incorporate the redacted pages into the 4,952 page database, review all 4,952 emails for any inadvertent disclosures of “private data,” conduct an analysis of said redactions, incorporate selections from 4,952 pages into Plaintiffs’ renewed motion, and prepare affidavits and exhibits in support of the renewed motion and file all motion papers in one day.
3. Because of the nature of the restoration and production of email process and the City’s delay in producing redacted emails, the Plaintiffs’ March 5, 2008 filings should be allowed.
Defendants’ purposeful delay in providing Plaintiffs’ counsel with the cleared, “redacted emails” for use in this motion until 4:40 p.m. Friday, February 22, 2008, resulted in Plaintiffs’ counsel being unable to file their supplemental affidavits in support of sanctions by Monday, February 25, 2008.
Ms. Seeba’s conduct in finally producing 4,952 pages of emails and other documents cleared for use under the data privacy act at the last minute on February 22, 2008, essentially “tied the hands” of Plaintiffs’ counsel in their final preparation for their renewed motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs’ counsel made every possible effort to file their affidavits and exhibits in support of their renewed motion for sanctions in an expedited manner.
Plaintiffs’ counsel were able to provide the Court with the evidence it requested in its November 13, 2007 order, just nine days after February 25, 2008, when Ms. Seeba claims the memorandum of law was due, and just 12 days after February 22, 2008, when Ms. Seeba first gave clearance to use 4,952 pages of redacted electronic data.
Moreover, Defendants cannot point to any prejudice that they suffered from a short alleged delay in said filing, especially when they were responsible for the delay and they have been in violation of the underlying Order of the Court from November 2007.
Finally, the Court’s November 13, 2007 Order controls this dispute and requires that the Court deny the Defendants’ motion. The Court should consider all the evidence Plaintiffs have submitted in support of their renewed motion for sanctions and allow Plaintiffs to file further submissions as appropriate in light of the Affidavits submitted by Plaintiffs herein and in support of Plaintiffs’ renewed Motion for Sanctions.
Because of the nature of the restoration and production of email process and the City’s delay in producing redacted emails, the Plaintiffs’ March 5, 2008 affidavits and exhibits should be allowed and considered by the Court in Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for sanctions.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, and because of Defendants’ consistent discovery abuses, misrepresentations, material non-disclosures, violation of the protective order, continued failure to produce the evidence that was ordered produced, all as detailed in the Affidavit of Matthew A. Engel and the Affidavit of John R. Shoemaker in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike, Defendants should not be allowed to profit by their abusive litigation tactics, illegal conduct and last minute production of redacted emails all to Plaintiffs’ prejudice.
The Court should deny Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ Non-Dispositive Motions from the calendar and award Plaintiffs their attorney’s fees and costs in having to respond to this motion.
Plaintiffs request that the Court deny Defendants’ motion to strike. Plaintiffs also request that the Court accept Plaintiffs’ recent filings in support of the renewed motion for sanctions and motion to amend the scheduling order to allow Plaintiffs’ to file supplemental expert opinions.
Plaintiffs also request that that the Court allow Plaintiffs to continue to file all motion
documents supporting the motion related to supplementation of expert opinions and further affidavits in support of the renewed motion for sanctions, up to 14 days prior to the April 14, 2008 hearing, and that the Court hear Plaintiffs’ non-dispositive motions on April 14, 2008.
Finally, Plaintiffs request that the Court allow Plaintiffs to supplement the liability experts’ opinions and that the Court set a reasonable deadline for supplementation of expert opinions related to damages so that those experts’ opinion are up to date prior to trial.
Respectfully submitted,
SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER; 11:59 PM
Anonymous said...: As much of a job that it is, if you really take the time to read through all these carefuly, it's obvious as heck that the city is trying very hard to hide and destroy evidence. It's also obvious that some city officials have been caught telling lies while they are presumably under oath. I didn't look at the exhibits, but if they back up what this Shoemaker and Engel are saying, I don't see a way in hell that the city is going to prevail in this mess.

Equally upsetting is the fact that with respect to the city's PHA, it would appear to me that it is the city of St Paul who is the slumlord.....and a huge one. They have thousands of the PHA units around the city. I guess that fits right in though....people accuse others of what they themselves are doing and in this case it appears the city is the slumlord, but yet accusing others of being slumlords. Then to top it off, they go out and start destroying evidence. I wonder what would have happened if it was discovered that the alleged slumlords bringing the lawsuits had destroyed evidence? Given the fact that this email issue and destruction of records is pretty hot converstaion around the whole country right now and also the general dislike by most people for the government, I don't think I'd want to be the city of St Paul. Fascinating, yet troubling and puzzling as to how the city could be so lacking and inept in their so called defense of this action.; 3:44 AM
Anonymous said...: This is like I said pretty much what the case has become.

The City had a policy of after a certain period of time destroying all data (following the state data privacy laws).

The plaintiffs sued - the City is required to protect all relevant data.

The plaintiffs started depositions.

The plaintiffs asked for all emails ever written from city employees that the city didn't think had reletive information.

Those emails had been deleted.

The City had to pay outside agencies to do through the rescue tapes to pull back up those emails (that is the girl talk we read on another thread).

The plaintiffs now want money because the city hasn't been able to pull all of those back up fast enough.

There is still no evidence of any kind of RICO only the accusation that if one piece of paper is missing that must be the one that explianed why and how and what this "racket" was suppose to be. So you have to believe that with no evidence out there and no reason to believe there is any evidence that any missing emails must be the evidence.

JMONTOMEPPOF; 9:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Maybe in the end the plaintiffs
wont prevail under RICO, but this
whole legal proceedings will expose alot of other corruption and
affect alot of peoples careers.

Steve from maplewood; 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't understand where your coming from Chuck. I really don't! Eamil is the way the modern world communicates today. A compnent of lawsuits is the discovery period Chuck and as you go through that discovery period, there is evidence that comes to light. Some of that evidence is emails and I just can't for the life of me thionk that the city od St Paul is that stupid that they thought it was OK to destroy those emails regardless of what their policy was. Whatever your policy may be, that doesn't overide the obligation to keep those emails. Nor does it allow you to duck the responsibilti of producing those emails. Same thing for documents. I don't know how anyone with even minimal amount of intelligence can come to the conclusion that the city is trying to hide something. As someone earlier said, if those emails were not harmful to the city, then why did they destroy them? When you put that together with the fact that they refuse to produce documents (even under court order) and now we see the information that some of those documents contain, it sure causes doubt in my mind.....especially since there are still documents they will not produce. There's no doubt in my mind that the city is trying to cover something up and one has to conclude that it's not something in the city's favor. What else can one think?; 10:26 AM
Anonymous said...: I would tend to agree with the speaker who just posted .
Why would the city destroy E-mails ?
Someone said before that someone in the city only got one E-Mail ?
I Find that very hard to believe.

I sure would be interested in knowing what the city policy is about whether city employees in general have the authority to delete anything on government equiptment.

The lawyers should be asking these city workers whether anyone told them to delete the E-mails and why?

How about more depositions like one for the city employee who only got one E-mail.

Steve from maplewood.; 10:49 AM
Anonymous said...: There is a rat in this wood pile. It's unfair to characterize this as people wanting money just because 1 piece of paper is missing. First off, it looks like there's a lot moe than 1 piece missing. Secondly, from what plaintiffs say was contained in the ones they do have it's pretty obvious as to the type of things that would've been contained in the other ones that they got rid of. According to what I've read here, all the paper was missing. Then the city goes to court and say they have all the paper and the court orders them to produce it by a certain time. Then the city plays games and refuses to produce it. When they finally do produce it at the 11th hour then it turns out that they don't have what they say they did. The city of St. Paul lied to the court for starters, and they have now gotten caught at it. It doesn't stop there either. There's also apparantly many other things they refuse to turn over. This puts them in violation of a direct court order! This has been going on for over a year???? What are they trying to hide? Unlike Chuck who just makes up excuses to make the story fit his agenda, this looks to me like the desperate acts of someone trying to cover up and hide something they've done wrong. If a big corporation was doing this I wonder if Chuck would be as generous with his assessment of the situation?; 10:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck said,"The plaintiffs now want money because the city hasn't been able to pull all of those back up fast enough."

Ciani says,"Its been 4 years since the first suit was filed.Isn't that long enough?"

Chuck said,"There is still no evidence of any kind of RICO only the accusation that if one piece of paper is missing that must be the one that explianed why and how and what this "racket" was suppose to be. So you have to believe that with no evidence out there and no reason to believe there is any evidence that any missing emails must be the evidence.

Ciani says,"Your right Chuck,the judge can instuct the jury that the deleted emails can be interpreted as the smoking gun evidence that the city distroyed.The judge can do this as a result of sanctions"; 11:04 AM
Anonymous said...: I think the city knows its been had, at least in terms of being guilty of the destruction of evidence and contempt of court.

Not being a legal expert, I couldnt reallly speculate whether
the city is guilty as charged but,
its like if your going to murder someone and soend the rest of your life in jail, you might as well murder someone famous.

The city hastaken this approach with regards to evidence destruction.

They have been caught doing it and their going to pay.

They might as well keep doing it they feel because us tax payors are picking up the bill and paying the price.

I believe that some jobs will be lost though.

Steve from maplewood.; 11:05 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't think it's a secret that the city comes out and fabricates violations so they can order budget busting code compliances. Which they make money on by the way. Now we find out the city council is scamming with PHA for ways to pay the private landlords less money (sp the PHA can keep more of the money)at a time when PHA is hurting for money and having funds cut by congress. While this is going on there are people writing to the city council complaining that the inspectors are being used by neighbors to target african american people and PHA's own tenants are writing emials and complaining that they won't take care of their property. The city's response? They think they are going to hide it all by just destroying all the evidence and saying it isn't so. Call everyone else a liar while you destroy all the evidence. And call the other side a slumlord while you're at it. NOT!!!! This is going to look like racketeering to most people, but what the hell, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, just call it a dog. I wonder if the jury will be that dumb?; 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Scorched earth, burn it all and let them try and prove it cause it won't cost that much more in the end anyways.; 11:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Has there been anything that
looks like anyone has resigned, been fired, or moved to other departments as a result of all this?; 11:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck the city had to pay outside agencies to go through the rescue tapes to pull back up those emails because officers of the court (city attorneys) failed to put a litigation hold on them in the first place several years ago when the first case was filed. The court ordered the city to put a litigation hold on them and the city destroyed them. Simple fact here Chuck and well documented.

Chuck you contest that the plaintiffs now want money because the city hasn't been able to pull all of those emails back up fast enough. If you were to read these posted documents that Bob has provided us, there were several deadlines that both the defendants and plaintiffs were required to meet. The failure by the city to be an active member in the discovery process is shocking. The behavior of the city attorneys to hide, refuse to give evidence (emails, PHA reports, police reports and contracts in a TIMELY manner is deplorable. The city attorneys office produced some of these required documents just 20 minutes before the deadline to do so. The city was over nine days late with others. These delays caused the plaintiffs great harm as there was no way possible for the plaintiffs to review these documents. Then the city has the audacity to say; well we gave them the documents in a form that was not agreed to by the court and at the last minute. It is not the responsibility of the city to be an active member of the discovery process. Chuck, you darn straight the plaintiffs want money, because of the hide and seek games of the city attorneys and their refusal to follow the rules of the court as officers of the court is really telling of the mind set of our city employees. This hide and seek actions by the city attorney have caused great harm for the plaintiffs and is only a tacit to bleed the plaintiff's of their money.

Chuck you contend that there is still no evidence of any kind of the RICO laws, only the accusation that if one piece of paper is missing that must be the one that explained why and how and what this "racket" was suppose to be. This answer is simple as my youngest child can figure it out. The defense (city attorneys) have failed in their job as officers of the court to produce discovery documents in a timely manner and in a format that was agreed upon by the court. Slipping in 86% of Kathy Lantry’s emails into another unlabeled file and in a format that is unreadable is really telling. Hide and seek game Chuck. Putting a redaction hold on all emails until they are redacted and then at the last minute say oh, they are ok without ever looking at them is also revealing. Purely game playing by the city attorney's office.

Yes, the city comes into these proceedings with unclean hands.

Chuck still no posting over at E-Democracy, why?

Chuck, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. The hide and seek game that the city is playing is going to bite them, mark my words.

T. S. R.; 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Jane Prince states: “The issue of how a complaint-based system may unfairly target people of color is a huge one, and I'm not sure what we do to get at it."

Ciani says,"This is right from the city mouth.What has the city done to address this problem?And Eric do you see that there is concern about targeting people of color or is it damn those landlords?"

Eric now that we know that discrimination is happening shouldn't we thank the landlords who brought these suits?Without them this wouldn't ever change.Stand up and be a man.

Folks lets stick to the edvidence and hit Chuck and Eric with it.

Tim Ciani; 1:18 PM
Anonymous said...: If the City thinks like Chuck no wonder why they will lose in court.Chuck my friend the city best last hope is summary judgement and if they lose there what will be yours and the citys excuse?; 1:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Has summary judgement been filed for and by who ?

Was an immunity defence been put forth and was this issue decided?

Anybody know ?

Thank you; 1:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Send Eric's post to the backyard.; 3:46 PM
Anonymous said...: OK two issues; first: "(city attorneys) failed to put a litigation hold on them in the first place several years ago when the first case was filed."

As I have been saying that is the issue here, in 2007 the plaintiffs asked for emails that had been deleated years before. I am no attorney but when I have read here what the City says their defence to most of this that until the plaintiffs ask for something other than everything ever written, the City doesn't know what to keep. What the plaintiffs argue is that once they filed their suit in 2004 the City should have stopped deleating everything that they normally deleat. So, they say the City should still have every emai and every piece of paper sent to or recieved by the City since 2001.

And second, this post..."Jane Prince states: “The issue of how a complaint-based system may unfairly target people of color is a huge one, and I'm not sure what we do to get at it."

Proves that the City is aware that some complaints can be racially motivated and hey have to be aware of that. Just like Thune's quote in a diferent thread this is a good thing for the City. It shows they are concerned and conscience of the issue and watching.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 3:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck, you know and we all know that people write and say things that could be harmful to us in many aspects of our live and you want to convince us here that Government, of all entities doesnt know the difference about what information is damaging ?

The legal resources within St.Paul are vast and corruption is nothing new in St.Paul or any other metropolitian city.

The legal beagles in city hall have mastered the they supress and
hide from the public what they don't want them to know.

Do you know anything about history ?

Like corruption in Chicago, new York, and so forth where the mob were running those cities and buying off the unions.

We still have it today.

Chuck you need to realize that corruption continues.

Tell me when somebody declared that corruption no longer exists and I will stop posting forever.

Jeff Matiatos; 4:18 PM
Anonymous said...: The mob also Bought off Judges and politicians Jeff.; 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: The mob may not be the force that it once was but it does exist in some form or another.

The difference today is that government has taken over the mob and replaced it with itself.

Instead of bumping you off, you get run out of town, shut down or financially ruined in a way that seems legal but isn't.

Thats not to say that actions of St.Paul city Hall hasn't driven some people to their deaths because in one such case it seems like they have.

A new kind of murder.

This is the mob of the new milleniuem and it has spread like wilfire.

The landords will for sure impact the way St.Paul Government operates, but City Hall will just find new ways to fill in the loopholes and schemes uncovered by the RICO plaintiffs.

Jeff Matiatos; 4:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Jeff is right, it became to expensive to buy off the politicians, so they just run for office now and take over. It's cheaper that way.; 5:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Speaking from a legal standpoint,
the plaintiffs position on sanctions might not work this time either.

It appears that the defendants had complied with the deadline even though plaintiffs didnt get the
E-Mails until the last hour.

While this seems highly unfair, its legal and the plaintiffs attorneys should have anticipated such a move and have asked the court to permit x amount of days following RECEIPT of the E-Mails and discovery for which to respond.

What can you do now but ask the court to give more time to disect the E-Mails and pad the case.; 6:53 PM
Anonymous said...: When the first case was filed lats say 2007, the city had a policy to keep emails for three years. This would bring the oldest email to 2004. When the court issued a litigation hold, all emails, TISH reports and other documents should have been saved back to 2004.

Chuck, this is basic attorney 101 information.; 7:32 PM
Anonymous said...: zblcftxiThe city has put the court in a very tough position.

The court already heard the argument that the city was supposed to put a litigation hold on.

If an outside entity cant restore old e mails, then what then ?

You still have to show that any potential missing e mails actually existed and how do you prove that ?

I would depose the employee that said she only had one and then get some other employees to say that they e mailed her many times.

You get them to lie under oath then hit them with perjury.

Ms.Seeba is crafty and don't think that she is defending this thing all by herself.

They have every current and former city attorney working on this and preparing the defence.

The defendats are limited.

I am for the plaintiffs to win.; 7:48 PM
Anonymous said...: March 9, 2008

The Honorable Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of the United States
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
451 7th Street S.W.
Washington,DC20410

Dear Honorable Alphonso Jackson,
I am writing this letter to you about the Sec.08 rents and the lawsuit against the City of Saint Paul..

I have been a landlord for 12 years , and I have not been able to raise rents on my houses for four years. But everything else has gone up in price. These prices are such as property taxes, gas , electric and trash services. Its is extremely hard to rent to sec 08 at the same rate starting back in 2003. Can you explain to me why there is no adjustment to the increasing rent from four years ?

This is exactly the reason why so many houses are foreclosed at this time of the year. I now have a
-$1562.32 per month due to a ‘no rent increase‘. And now because of this, there was a developmental series of lawsuits against the City of Saint Paul. In the most major lawsuit, claims were that the Saint Paul Public
Housing Agency has a “very special relationship” with the City of Saint Paul. A relationship such as trying to force a landlord out of business and accumulating higher rents to some landlords and developing lower rents to the rest of the landlords. Also, the very well known fact that the city is not requiring the Public Housing Agency to go thru the same type of inspection as the rest of us landlords . The landlords, such as I myself, were forced to be inspected by the city fire and safety department .

Now another thing I don’t exactly understand is how the city can take away our houses, and then giving it to the Saint Paul Housing Agency to rent out. Is this what the federal government wants to do with our society?
To put landlords out of business? And to even more tenants in different parts of the city and state?
There are officials out there, coming from the Public Housing Agency, that has knowledge of this substantial information. And yet they do absolutely nothing about. Is the Public Housing Agency taking part in the city or are they taking part on the federal government‘s behalf? If available, I would like to know exactly how many lawsuits have been filed against Public Housing Agency in Saint Paul, MN.

I would like thank for your taking time in reading this letter . I will also be sending copies of this letter to Senator Norm Coleman, Senator Amy Klobchur and congresswoman Betty McCollum.

I hope to hear back from you soon.
Sincerely,

Leslie K. Lucht; 8:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck,

Because the City of St Paul have deleted, destroyed, got rid of, call it what you want... The Fact is they cannot produce important information that has been requested by the three Federal Lawsuits is a BIG problem for them. Because the City of St Paul is represented by "Junior" attorneys who are less than qualified to work for credible firms is the reason they are in Deep shit............. That is it. As I see it, it is irresopnsible council that has caused a very big problem for the City of St Paul.; 8:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Eric,

The tone of your comments tells me you must have little man's syndrome. Do You? I have read almost all of your posts in the last few weeks, do you have a point to make? Other that coming on this blog and harrassing people trying to give their opinions.; 8:41 PM
Anonymous said...: 8:41 Eric is friends with all of these criminals @ City Hall. They are his friends--- he is very mad because their bad behavior is going to be brought into the public eye. He would rather it stay buried in the halls of the court house; 8:44 PM
Anonymous said...: You mean the halls where all the paper shredding took place !!!!; 9:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Where is Ollie North when you need him?; 9:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Think I saw him on a tv rerun.

Reagen is watching St.Paul from his grave.; 9:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck, I have not seen you for years but I have always thought you had good sense. In 1981, I to worked with you on Jim Scheibels campaign (what a great man he was). My initials are AW.
I just think you are way out of touch with the times now. Chuck, there is scandal's going on in small town, large town government everyday-- everwhere. You seem to think it doesn't occur. Come on, you know as well as I it does.
Don't get so wrapped up in saying wrongdoings can't happen in my town with my friends. Guess what, before you know it, you will be the only one singing your tune.

Take care Chuck

AW; 10:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck said,"As I have been saying that is the issue here, in 2007 the plaintiffs asked for emails that had been deleated years before. I am no attorney but when I have read here what the City says their defence to most of this that until the plaintiffs ask for something other than everything ever written, the City doesn't know what to keep. What the plaintiffs argue is that once they filed their suit in 2004 the City should have stopped deleating everything that they normally deleat. So, they say the City should still have every emai and every piece of paper sent to or recieved by the City since 2001."

Ciani says,"The first suit was filed in 2004 and emails were asked for then which should have triggered a litigation hold."

Eric watch your mouth.Your mommy should wash it out with soap.

If your such a big man and think there is nothing to this evidence I dare you to post it on edemocracy for me Tim Ciani and see what your buddies say.I don't think you will because your buddies in city hall control you.

I come here with facts just like I did at edemocracy.Thune had life safety issues with his properties so I made them public.I interviewed an elderly man whos house was stolen by the city.I HAVE FACTS-YOU HAVE NOTHING.

Watch your tone with me.I'm not affraid of you.People threaten when they feel beat.So quit it,you lose credability.

Have a nice day Eric.I love you.God bless!

Tim Ciani; 10:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Ms. Girling states: “Apparently Pam from Crime Prevention requested that you go out there ‘because of the size and influence that you would have over the owners’ (according to what Betsy told me). There was no reason for Crime Prevention to be involved in this case, as there was no danger of a potential crime taking place over there…Dean, please in the future, if you are going out on a property where I have pending orders, I would appreciate a heads up. There was no need for you to go out there other than (what sounds to me like) Pam from Crime Prevention hoping that you could strong-arm these people with your "size and influence."

Ciani says,"A city employee making the same case plaintiff are.Chuck do you know code inspector Girling and why she would feel the same way plaintiff do?"

Tim Ciani; 11:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Al Hester said,“Since we protect all of the information about Section 8 applicants, participants and addresses as private data under the state law, most of the information out there is probably from word of mouth, and much of it may be incorrect…This reminds me of our long-ago discussions of "graded" C of O inspections. We thought then that a City system that rated marginal properties lower than very good ones would give the PHA more clout to lower voucher rent subsidies under the "rent reasonableness" requirement."

Ciani says,"Why is PHA influencing housing code in St.Paul?If properties were graded lower would this allow PHA to pay out less and keep more for their unregulated rentals?THIS IS RICO!!!!"

Tim Ciani; 11:05 PM
Anonymous said...: The resident writes in an email to Dawkins(Head of NHPI): “I am looking at the "Vacant Buildings" section of the St. Paul Legislative codes. In Sec. 43.02 Definitions, #(5) it reads: "Unoccupied: A building which is not being used for a legal occupancy as defined in the Saint Paul Legislative Code." Would you please tell me where I can find the definition of "legal occupancy" in the St. Paul Legislative codes? Please let me know ASAP.” Dawkins responds: “I am not sure if it appears anywhere. I would interpret this to mean not over-occupied and not trespassers” (emphasis added).

Ciani says,"How in the heck is the average Joe property owner going to know how to avoid a Code Compliance Vacant Building if Dawkins the head of NHPI doesn't know and is enforcing?VAGUE!You can't enforce rules or laws without clear interpretation."

Tim Ciani; 11:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Tim that will be the issue on the data. Should the city have assumed that it should never delete anything ever because it is always being sued?

Keep every letter ever sent to the City all of the junk mail all of the spam? Every note pad, telephone message?

Because in 2004 it wasn't clear what was going to be asked for in 2007. The newest thing is every contract ever writen between the City and PHA. Same thing ask for it in 2008 and want everything back to 2001 under the blanket you should have kept it because we started suing you in 2001.

Ultimately, the plaintiffs will still have to show the court that there is something that has at least a tiny, itsy bitsy, potential chance of being Rico somewhere before there would ever be a sanction.

And Tim accusations and assumptions are not evidence.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 11:33 PM
Anonymous said...: You people bicker so much about these e-mails like its the only thing the RICOMEN have.

They have much more than that so lets talk about it.; 11:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck just what is it that the RICOMEN are looking for in the
E-Mails ?; 11:48 PM
Anonymous said...: I talked to one of the guys suing the city Chuck and they have a whole lot more than documents back to 2001. This guy told me that they sent a team into PHA with high speed copiers and took every document they ever looked at. He was laughing as he said they even had the very first document they signed back in 1950 when the PHA was organized. PHA saves eberything Chuck, why can't the city?; 12:45 AM
Anonymous said...: What in the world is a matter with you Chuck? This is not about wether the city can produce every single email they ever wrote.

The city of St Paul rigged the courts and also rigged the Legislative Hearing process so they could obtain their desired outcome for their plan of levying a slew of charges against property owners.

They then created lists of people they didn't like and sent out inspectors accompanied by Police to force their way into people's homes without their consent and without a Search Warrant. Once inside they lied about code violations that didn't exist so they could then railroad these people through their crooked courts to obtain illegal code complaince demands that held owners to the much higher illegal code standard than the city's code allows for.

At the same time, the city was plotting with PHA to rig the inspection process of private rental property so PHA could pay less in rent to those owners.

They're destroying emails and evidence to hide their involvment in this criminal activity Chuck and these people have a perfect right to go after them for it.

I also think you are wrong about the city having free rein to destroy things just because the other side hasn't asked for it yet. Once you have notice that someone is going to sue you, there is a duty to keep everything relevant to that case. That means EVRYTHING!! It is not the right of the person being sued to determine what is relevant and what isn't and the city's Attorneys is surely smart enough to figure out that the only way you can prove you didn't destroy relevant information is to keep it all so the other side can see for themsleves.

Who in their right mind would put themselves in that position? We destroyed all the evidence and you can just take our word for it that it was nothing helpful to you? NOT....are you nuts Chuck? Who do you know that would buy that argument? You couldn't fool a 6th grader witht that kind of BS!!

Now that I am this far, some other things have occured to me form past subjects here. It doesn't seem that long ago that Bob was posting stories about the city trying to thwart the landlords from taking the Depositions of the City Council members. Next they were going to court because they didn't want to give up the tax returns of someone.

People with nothing to hide do not use every legal maneuver they can think of to delay the proceedings and hide inforamtion from the public while they are at the same time shredding documents, deleting emails and turning what emails they have into "fuzzy mail."

I think with the destruction of this evidence and the city's refual to produce documents that the case is almost certain to go trial and for the citys sake Chuck, I hope they have a whole lot better denfense than your trying to portray here. I think most people of reasonable inteligence can imagine what a jury is going to think about it.; 2:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Well said 2:37! I think the city beauracracy has been doing this stuff for so long that they really believe in their heart that there's nothing wrong with it. I doubt very much the jury is going to see it that way. The destroying of evidence bought them an automatic appearance before the jury.; 7:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Where's the city employee with his immunity been hiding out? Cat got your tounge buddy?; 7:16 AM
Anonymous said...: To 2:37 A.M.

You forgot something. The city also never ever did any kind of investigation into these wrong doings, even though there were signed affidavits by several people and also stories and photographs in that Watchman newspaper about shady things going on. Now we know why.

Don't ya just love em? There's wide spread corrupttion from the city council all the way down to the low level inspectors and the city thinks nothing of it, but let a landlord a bag of trash laying next to the barrel or a tire laying in the yard and they act like rabid dogs on a mission!; 7:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck the city deleting E-mails may have hurt their case in defense.Where in the E-mails does it state they were doing anything to investigate or make sure people were getting a fair shake.

I also believe this Ciani guy makes some good points with the evidence.You guys should just stick to the evidence in E-mails to make your points.Its overwhelming.

Brian in Saint Paul; 8:02 AM
Anonymous said...: 7:24 AM,

You said, "The city also never ever did any kind of investigation into these wrong doings, even though there were signed affidavits by several people and also stories and photographs in that Watchman newspaper about shady things going on. Now we know why."

I have brought up this point several times before and I have gotten NO RESPONSE from anyone on this list.

I saw the pictures of the red truck and Steve Manger and stuff from Nancy's garage in the back of it.

I also saw the pictures and complaints on Thune's rental property and the fact that he did not get building permits (roof, remodle) for the work he did on this property. I also read that there was follow up by several individuals of the concerned public, but the city did not require Thune to get these basic permits that you and I have to get when we do this work on our buildings.

Nothing by the city has been done to investigate these folks.; 9:02 AM
Anonymous said...: There will never be a trial. The city doesn't have the guts for a real fight that's fair and based on facts. On the eve of the trial they'll pull out the taxpayers checkbook, settle the case with a confidentiality agreement, blame a few inspectors and burn them and call it a day.; 10:15 AM
Anonymous said...: What about the Manger and Thune investigations?; 10:26 AM
Bob said...: Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:19 PM
To: Theresa Heiland
Cc: Carol Broermann; Benanav, Jay; Nancy Homans; Tyrone Terrill; Stiles, John; Carter, Toni;
Tatiana Petefish TPetefish@yahoo.com
Subject: 1615 Marshall Block Meeting and Problems with the complaintbased system.
Theresa,
I just got off the phone with Tatiana Petefish, **** Marshall, whose home was accidentally posted
as a vacant building this week. That issue has been straightened out; the vacant building is at
1617 Marshall.
However, in talking to Tatiana, and looking at the city data on each of her neighboring properties,
there are a high number of complaints being called into the city on certain properties. Tatiana and
I think it would be good to organize a block meeting on this block in January.
Tatiana is also concerned from the apparent pattern of complaints to CSO that whoever is making
these calls is targeting neighbors of color. For that reason, we're thinking it makes sense to invite
both Tyrone Terrill from the Human Rights Office and Bob Kessler, the new LIEP/Code
Enforcement director, so that they can help us think through the very real possibility that people of
color are unfairly targeted by the city's complaint based system. I am also copying Ramsey
County Commissioner Toni Carter and her aide John Stiles, who will want to be kept in the loop on
this issue.
Carol Broermann in our office will work with you to coordinate a date with the city staff people, if
you could work with Tatiana on a date and time and neighbor notification for this meeting.
Thanks for all your hard work. We can take time needed to put together a productive meeting;
just sometime in January. Thank you for your consideration,
Jane Prince, Legislative Aide, 651/266-8641; 11:49 AM
Anonymous said...: "The city of St Paul rigged the courts and also rigged the Legislative Hearing process so they could obtain their desired outcome for their plan of levying a slew of charges against property owners."

If that's the case, then the city is up to its neck in the greatest length of corruption in the history of the United States. Why aren't we being swooned in with countless federal and private attorneys looking for the magic case to boost their political career? Why haven't any elected official higher than the po-dunk city level stepped to highlight this?

Because the only people that care are a group called landlords? These landlords who can't read or write, are the only ones that see this corruption?

Looking through U.S. History, there has never been a conspiracy or public official corruption that came to the forefront without inside help. Not one blog, newspaper, magazine, trade journal, weekly shopper or grocery store rag has decided to run with this.

Oh, $100 million is the number that will be laughed out of court. You don't get 100 million for city employees losing emails. Doesn't matter what you think was on those emails. Without proof, only the charge of mishandling government property is appropriate. That may be a $500 fine, if that.

Since you are accusing the courts of being corrupted, you may not get the judge's nod (why should he support a suit that puts him in the unwarranted crosshairs?) and no fine awarded. So, whomever is footing the bill for your RICO will be out of money and soon out of more property.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!

HA!; 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: 9:02 I feel for your problem but don't expect Anyone in City hall to do anything about your situation.

Sure, they will listen to you and even invite you down.

These city hall folks get their orders from the city attorney and the mayor.

Look what its taken the RICO guys to get as far as they have.

Sorry if I havedampened your spirits but those are the facts.; 12:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Looks like jerkface city employee is back!!!

Get on him.

Someone get Sgt.Slaughter.; 12:12 PM
Bob said...: Hi All,

Here is an email that clearly shows the city was having trouble with behavior issues at a residence and could do little about it so they USED code enforcement to go after the home owner.

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Jamie,
Mark Wiegel
Thursday, March 29,20077:03 PM
Jamie Sipes
Re: Code En!.
1 1m forwarding this to Dean to see ~L we can geL aninspec~ion and have an impact.
Mark
»> Jamie Sipes 3/29/2007 11:54 AM »>
Hey Mark,
I need to sick you and yoursona property. 1011 Burns is a singl family home/owner
occupied by Vickie. I am not sure of her last name.. The address as been a problem for:
well over a year but we haven't been able to do much. It is up of of the street and they
do not actually sell drugs from there. The problem is more about the conduct at the house
and the type of people that visit. Vickie is 19 or 20, owns the home and has a large
income from the casino.
5 sru with the Gang Uni t has worked the proper::y as the owner has strong ties to
the Natlve Mob Gang. Vick.1.e is Native Amer,ican and has had boyfriends arrested off an on.
I believe one is s~ill in prison. Just before Christmas she had a baby die of possible
SIDS. She is a chronic alcoholic and the occupants of the home are rarely cooperative
with police. We have had some battles at the house but I usually can ~alk them down.
JI..nyway, the area is predominately owner occupied single family homes. It is a good
neighborhood that is frustrated with the issue. Gangs, FORCE and I have all dealt with it
to no avail. frustration and complaints to Lantry' 5 office. One or
the neighbors, has been a good source of information. He owns
the two houses next to ~e _ update might involve Code. Apparently the dogs
at the property have been pooping on the main floor porch which is raised off of the back
at the address and garbage has been piling up lothe yard. - tol~I would pass it
on the units top watch dog. If an inspector goes over there tney~~now ~hat drug
activity is usually in the basement which is a walk out but you can never see in the
windows.
The property can also be accessed through the dead end which is West on Suburban from
Earl, last house to the South. Thanks Mark.
Officer J. Sipes
East District Tour 3
651-266-5565
STP; 12:14 PM
Bob said...: Here is another email suggesting code enforcement is used for more than building code compliances.

From:Mark Wiegel
Sent:Monday, August 16, 20042:25 PM
To:Lisa Martin
Subject:

Re: New Potential
It came from a citizen through Thune's office and has some police issues, but not
enormous.
»> Lisa Martin 08/14/04 01:06PM »>
Sure, but why are we checking it then?
»> Mark Wiegel 08/13/04 10:22AM »>
Can you check 348 W. Winona. No dangerous police issues and no current open code.
Thanks, Mark; 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Can anyone respond, has Thune or Manger been investigated for their misuse of their office or position.

What are the results?

Did the city do anything?

If the city did nothing, then isn't this another example of the city's Racker activities. Pattern here Chuck. I know Thune is your friend, but some of us are tired of the double standard.; 12:43 PM
Anonymous said...: I ment RACKET not Racker in my last post.; 12:44 PM
Anonymous said...: 12:43, as far as anyone knows there hasn't been any investigations into any of this.

Bob, Leslie Lucht, and others have talked to the FBI, HUD and anyone who would listen.; 1:05 PM
Anonymous said...: 1:05

WTF is this. How come Thune and Manger get away with this?; 1:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't any of you see how silly this stuff is? 2:37 what is the crime that is suppose to be in the missing emails?

The crime is suppose to be a racket to make money for PHA by putting people out of business. But, people going out of business doesn't make PHA more money and not enough landlords were ever "targetted" that would have ever made a dent on the housing market.

On the civil rights issues bob has now posted 3 emails one by Thune and two by Prince that shows that the City wasn't targeting minorities but instead was concerned about the potential of abuse and working to stop abuse.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: "If that's the case, then the city is up to its neck in the greatest length of corruption in the history of the United States. Why aren't we being swooned in with countless federal and private attorneys looking for the magic case to boost their political career?"

Well that is the case Chuck. It's nice to see you coming around to our side on this. Why don't you call the FBI, HUD, and the U.S. Attorney's office to see why they haven't answered the complaints of many who have gone to them for help? We'd appreciate all the help you can give us in exposing this corruption.; 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Please why haven't Thune and Manger been investigated?

Why is the city protecting them?

Better question, what do they have against the city?; 2:33 PM
Anonymous said...: 2:33 investigage thune and Magner for what?

Chuck; 8:50 PM
Anonymous said...: The city refuses to do an investigation for the same reason they wouldn't do an investiagtion on the minority contractor affair....the city knows what they're doing and any type of investigation would just give ammunition to the people suing them, so they remain silent and let people continue to get hurt.; 9:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Kinda quiet.The evidence speaks for itself,I guess.

Linda; 10:30 PM
Anonymous said...: I hear some rumblings; 10:39 PM
Esfandiar khodaee said...: hi
recently in Iran we do not access to blogger. may be it is poltical
my new address: http://www.lorna.ir/
Esfandiar Khodaee; 11:39 PM
Anonymous said...: So how is the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Did you know Iran's relationship with the United States deteriorated rapidly during the revolution. On 4 November 1979, a group of Iranian students seized US embassy personnel, labelling the embassy a "den of spies", a violation of diplomatic immunity.

The legislature of Iran (also known as the Majlis of Iran) is a unicameral body. Before the Iranian Revolution, the legislature was bicameral, but the upper house was removed under the new constitution. So hows that working out for you?

Hows the N-Bomb program?; 12:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Linda,

Your right about the evidence, but this subject has been beaten into the ground and rehashed .

Let the cards fall where thet may, let the courts and attorneys figure this thing out.

Time to move on Bob.; 6:48 AM
Bob said...: Esfandiar khodaee, Please email me at

a_democracy@yahoo.com

When you didn't respond to my request and I seen your blogs not being used I became concerned for you.; 7:45 AM
Anonymous said...: 6:48 thats what I was getting to.I don't know why everybody was fighting this and that.The evidence speaks volumes.There is no need to argue for the evidence.I agree.The courts will be the judges.Pardon the pun.

Linda; 7:48 AM
Anonymous said...: No matter how much it gets beaten into the ground, there are still a fair number of people who will refuse to see anything wrong with what the city is doing to people. It's really tragic that government can step on one group after another with no respect for civil rights at all and no one gives a damn with the exception of a small group of people. We are handing everything over to the government without even so much as an argument. What a bunch of cowardly citizens.; 7:50 AM
Bob said...: 6:48, this subject has been beaten into the ground for 4 years. Were going to pound this subject to the depths of hell.

I am neck deep in allegations and facts over this case. Most folks are very interested. There is a few people who would rather NONE of this came to light EVER. To you folks who would of rather not had ever seen this subject come to light, we have a long road ahead. I have been assured ALL these cases like this one will go all the way to the Supreme court if need be. So we're looking at possibly 2 more years of this stuff.

A Democracy is here to the very end on this issue. When the RICO's are settled one way or the other we will be moving onto another big subject of corruption concerning non-profits. I'm a little tired of folks who claim to help low income people when in reality they are helping themselves to a salary at the tax payers expense and doing very little for the people the funding was intended for.

Remember the Mike Taube letters? Stuff like that.; 8:13 AM
Anonymous said...: 7:50 a.m. this Blog is read by the idiots and civil rights abusers in city hall, and resassured people like Chuck, Eric, and a hole city employee are spreading the word.

To bad we can't get the media behind this but their needs to be a BIG protest at city hall.

Instead of al the repeticious rehashing going on here, I suggest Bob finding a way that every one tuned in here oraganize and protest at city hall.

That would move em for sure.

Anyone else agree ???

Power in numbers baby.; 8:19 AM
Bob said...: 8:19, we are making plans for the Republican Convention to get the word out.; 8:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Responding to your TOTAL conviction to this rico case Bob,
I dont know if the people here can take much more of Chuck and Eric.

Those two are never going to listen to reason and I guess I tend to believe in the feelings of another poser that there will be a
no fault settlement within 6 months.

Like the Sheriff employees case that settled for $750.000.00 a couple weeks ago, albeit different circunstances, one has to wonder
" When does is start to get to expencive " and the city puts it down ?

I think though to many heads could roll if it goes to trial.

I think it will settle this way in six months.; 8:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Ideas about an offencive move on the RICO case during the convention will be so far behind the attention of the presidential
election and security won't let you get near downtown.

Whats the plan Bob ?

Does it involve people here ?

Is it the kind of move that will
really get the word out ?

We will be lucky if the peach paper
gives us the attention we need.

It is encouraging though and thanks.; 8:36 AM
Bob said...: 8:36, I want it to be a surprise.

I will say it involves the
A Democracy Newsletter. :-)

I agree the interest will be focused on the Presidential election, however, be rest assured these conventioneers will be leaving Saint Paul with the truth of what kind of failed leadership we have here.; 8:51 AM
Anonymous said...: I will be looking foward to it Mr.Johnson.; 9:23 AM
Anonymous said...: About that news letter, are they
being distributed at the courthouse downtown ?

City Hall?; 9:28 AM
Anonymous said...: This case will never settle. The city council is too stupid to settle them for one thing, and secondly the ego Lantry won't allow any settlement. They'll continue what they've been doing until there are a lot more lawsuits of the same nature, and there will be! As soon as word of the evidence starts getting out, there's going to be a lot of people who have been hurt by the city come forward to sue. In the end, they'll pay through the nose, affordable housing for the poor will be nearly destroyed in the city, the Feds will start an investigation resulting in some people going to jail, and the people sitting on the council are going to have their political careers ruined. Who wants to wager on it?; 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: My guess is that the city council will do what Bush did.

He got us into this war with lies and deception just like the city
did .

They will draw this thing out until
their terms are about up, the won't run again and they will dump the problem into the hands of newly elected members and they will be the ones who settle it.

You the the New York Govenor is going to jail over this prostitution thing ?
NOT.

Marty; 9:49 AM
Anonymous said...: As we've seen so far, the longer they drag it out the more people that come forward and sue. All of these lawsuits didn't start at the same time, they were the result of "word of mouth," and that will continue at an accelerated pace as the evidence is revealed and this moves toward trial. At one point they could have settled it with a simple meeting with the plaintiffs and some compromise. The city decided they had nothing to say.; 10:15 AM
Anonymous said...: How many different current lawsuits are ongoing right now ?; 12:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Maybe you should get some facts Marty before shooting off. If you don't know how many lawsuits, then you can't have the facts of the suit before and therefore you must just be shooting from the hip on this one.

The gov of NY is resigning unlike the Republican Senator from Idaho caught in our Minneapolis airport looking for other men to 'play' with. Or the bible thumping Republican Senator from Louisiana who admitted to seeing multiple hookers. Those two are still being paid by us to pass laws.

There is no federal law against using a prostitute.

Spitzer will be facing charges of the Mann Act (taking a prostitute across state lines), money laundering (he tried to hide the trail and mean in which he paid), local Washington DC laws against prostitution, the ethics board over the bar in New York.

He's toast and had a last shred of decency to leave office and not hang around.; 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Sorry 1:41, I guess I am new here and I didnt guite finish reding every posting since 2004 when I guess all this started.

You will excuse me then from shooting from the hip.

Spitzer is saving face abd resigning so he wont get impeached.

He tried to fight prostitution and got caught up in it to his own demise.

The constitution gave the states the right to create their own prostitution laws and the ones Spitzer was using in New York are now going to be used against him.

He is pathetic.

Marty; 2:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Marty

Just go on ahead and feel free to shoot from the hip here. This city is so dirty and coruupt, even shooting from the hip you won't be too far off the mark. If you think I'm off base, have your grade school children read a little bit as I did and see how long it takes them to figure out that something stinks! You won't wait too long.; 3:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Ok 3:15, Spitzer spent $4.300.00 in his participation in the prostitution sting,which is a federal crime.

Learn it,know it, believe it.

Yours truly .

Marty; 5:10 PM
Anonymous said...: FINALLY....

We have a Senate COMMITTEE HEARING on JUDICIAL CORRUPTION!

THURSDAY (March 13)...6PM....

We are ON THE LIST as presenters...I need YOUR name and commitment that you will be speaking...

Email me...ASAP at: nancylazaryan@gmail.com !!!

SEND this EMAIL to EVERYONE!!! Even if you do not want to speak, it is important for you to attend and let the Senate know that we WILL NOT allow the judges to continue in their corruption.

Nancy THURSDAY (March 13)...6PM
Add to Calendar
Leslie K. Lucht; 8:08 PM
Anonymous said...: What is the topic again? Oh, right, RICO update.

Chuck, the reason why Thune should be investigated is he received favorable treatment from city employees. Not having to get a permit for the work he did on his property, saved him money as he did not have to spend money on a licensed contractor as required by city code and not had to pay for the permit.

Is this not showing favor like a bribe to a city official?

Now if Norm Coleman did this, you would be all over them, but if Dave Thune did this it would be ok. Difference is one is a Republican and the other is a Democrat.

How about Manger trying to set up his friend with Nancy's house. How about all of the stuff he took when houses that he had a hand in were torn down. Manger was even photographed doing this, but the pictures were doctered right Chuck.; 11:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck - Taube was an idiot. Everything he wrote was exaggerated and out of context. He was just a disgruntled employee who was fired for not doing the job he was hired to do. How can anyone believe someone who has no support from anyone he worked with or worked the jobs he said were out of compliance? No one at that organization corroborated his claims. There are plenty of people who have left the organization who have nothing to lose who could easily verify what he said but they have all said he's nuts.

Jonathan; 12:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Well Johnathan if Taube was lying why didn't these people you speak of come here and say so?

Bob invited them. I will tell you why Johnathan. These idiots who run the non-profit had children from a trade school removing asbestos from homes. And there is a lot more allegations that are very believable.

They didn't like Taube because he was constantly questioning his co workers and superiors about things they shouldn't of been doing.; 1:47 PM
Anonymous said...: We've all seen what happens to people in theis city who question anything or try to assert thier rights now haven't we!; 1:50 PM
Anonymous said...: The syatem just gets rid of them.; 2:42 PM
Anonymous said...: But they didn't get rid of the "ricomen!"; 3:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Sgt.Slaughter,

Well said!; 5:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Looks your 'hearing' has been kicked off of the agenda. I just looked at the judiciary schedule and your 'corruption' issue is not listed.

What are you? Kids on a field trip? I guess someone must have sent a link to this website over to the committee members.

Friday is first deadline and if its not passed a committee by Friday, well, see you next year.; 9:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Where are my two platoon grunts Eric and Chuck.

Couldnt handle all this and went AWOL !!!

Your asses are mine platoon soldiers.

Sgt.Slaughter; 9:27 PM
Anonymous said...: No bastard ever made a city respect people's rights by by saying please or expecting them to do the right thing. They made them change by suing them all the way to hell and back.

Americans love lawsuits. Americans love the sting of a good fight.

Americans love a winner. They will not tolerate corruption.

These St Paul NAZIs are the enemy and I want you gentlemen to know that I would be proud to lead you into lawsuits against any city any time and anywhere.

Dismissed

General Patton; 10:32 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 1:18 PM
Anonymous said...: 1:47 and Bobbie -
Jesus, Bob, thought you allowed some free expression on the blog.

Okay - I don't think anyone can call the people idiots who can't read the post above and spell the name correctly.

As for the non-profit hiring children - if that was done, it was the FOR profit development company that was working with city - not the non-profit Taube was working for. Taube was again reporting his own company for something they had no control over.

Jonathan; 2:34 PM
Bob said...: Johnathan, the 1:18 post was nothing of value. Just a bunch of fowl language.; 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Geez - Bob even you can't do me the courtesy of spelling my name right? Or was that a shot?

Jonathan; 2:41 PM

A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL

Saturday, March 08, 2008

Saint Paul RICO Update/ Plaintiffs motion in opposition to city's motion to Strike

103 Comments:

Previous Posts