Custom Search

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Saint Paul RICO NEWS/ TRICKY DICKY deposition.

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story. (New here? To gain understanding of this deposition read the RICO suits against the City of Saint Paul. They are linked to the right of the screen under the Scales of Justice.)

posted by Bob at Thursday, April 17, 2008

17 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

*
There maybe copy errors.

Richard Lippert Page 84
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
84
1 mileage. That document is only to be
2 reimbursed for mileage.
3 Q. All right. So if there was agreement that a
4 supervisor could take an hour lunch and the
5 supervisor decided to go to Minneapolis for a
6 hamburger potentially the supervisor is not
7 going to look at that as a mileage deal unless
8 there's some kind of City business connected
9 with it?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. All right. Otherwise City business where the
12 inspector is seeking reimbursement there would
13 be the indication on the particular daily log
14 of the mileage as well as the locations,
15 correct?
16 A. There should be.
17 Q. All right.
18 A. Sometimes it's vague.
19 Q. All right. Who maintains those logs?
20 A. The inspectors.
21 Q. All right. Are they maintained in their
22 personal offices or how are they maintained, do
23 you know?
24 A. What do you mean by "maintained"?
25 Q. Do they submit those mileage reports to anyone
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 84 of 264
Richard Lippert Page 85
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
85
1 within your department?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Who do they submit them to?
4 A. Now?
5 Q. Right.
6 A. Me.
7 Q. Okay. In the past where have they been
8 submitted?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. Okay. So since you've been a director after
11 Dawkins left they've been submitted to you?
12 A. They are now.
13 Q. All right. When you first became director
14 after Mr. Dawkins left where were those mileage
15 reports submitted to?
16 MR. LARSON: Object, Counsel, I
17 appreciate you promoting him to director but
18 he's not director.
19 MR. SHOEMAKER: I apologize.
20 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
21 Q. All right. Manager of code enforcement or
22 chief enforcement officer, whatever the title
23 is, the head of the code enforcement. Where
24 were those reports by supervisors for mileage
25 reimbursement submitted prior to them being
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 85 of 264
Richard Lippert Page 86
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
86
1 submitted to you recently?
2 A. I don't know.
3 Q. All right. Do you know if those documents are
4 maintained after the payment is made in
5 reimbursement to the supervisor? Are they
6 maintained in some kind of a printed form,
7 paper form?
8 A. You mean do we have a record?
9 Q. Right.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. How long do you maintain those records?
12 A. I don't think we have a policy.
13 Q. I'm sorry, what's that?
14 A. I don't think we have a policy.
15 Q. All right. Let me focus you on the first page,
16 Mr. Lippert, of this January 10th, 2001, memo
17 from yourself to Fred, do you pronounce it
18 Owusu?
19 A. It's Owusu.
20 Q. Owusu. All right. And at the time that you
21 were sending this memo to him was he your
22 supervisor?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Look down on the third paragraph, you're
25 indicating that you had met with Dave Thune --
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 86 of 264
Richard Lippert Page 87
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
87
1 A. Mm-hmm.
2 Q. -- regarding the Dayton's Bluff project. Can
3 you describe for me in summary fashion what the
4 Dayton's Bluff project was that you're
5 referring to here?
6 A. I'm not sure I understood it at the time, let
7 alone five, six years later.
8 Q. Am I correct in saying that it was kind of a
9 test type project to see whether or not code
10 enforcement results would be improved by having
11 some type of neighborhood involvement in the
12 process, whether it was through district
13 councils, by themselves or with neighbors in
14 conjunction with district councils?
15 A. I don't know that I recall it being a test.
16 Q. Well, wasn't there some discussion that if it
17 was successful that it could be used as a
18 system city-wide?
19 A. I don't remember that.
20 Q. What do you remember about this particular
21 project that you were writing to your
22 supervisor about in January of 2001?
23 A. Let me reread this, maybe it will help. Okay.
24 And your question is?
25 Q. My question is what was the nature of the
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 87 of 264
Richard Lippert Page 88
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
88
1 Dayton's Bluff project in January of 2001?
2 A. I think like I already said, I'm not sure I
3 totally understood it at the time, that's why
4 we were requesting information from him through
5 this document.
6 Q. Okay. Did you ever get a response to your memo
7 that you used as a basis for an understanding
8 about the project?
9 A. I never did.
10 Q. All right. But do you understand at least
11 generally that it was a project to try to clean
12 up the Dayton's Bluff area?
13 A. I think so.
14 Q. All right. And that there was an attempt that
15 was going to be made by Council Member Thune to
16 rally the community to try to get some, some
17 movement forward with regards to that cleanup?
18 A. I think he was advocating for cleanup for the
19 community.
20 Q. Do you remember how long that particular
21 project was in existence?
22 A. I don't.
23 Q. Do you know if there was ever any summaries or
24 written reports of how that project worked and
25 do you know its activities?
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 88 of 264
Richard Lippert Page 89
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
89
1 A. I don't know if there were any.
2 Q. Do you know who headed that particular project?
3 A. Well, it appears Dave Thune but I don't, I
4 guess I don't know.
5 Q. Do you recall attending any meetings at any
6 time about the Dayton's Bluff project?
7 A. I may have. It's a long time ago, I don't
8 remember.
9 Q. Nothing that stands out in your mind?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Next paragraph down, the fourth paragraph.
12 Would you read that, please, to yourself --
13 A. Thank you.
14 Q. -- once again? The reason why I'm asking for
15 you to read that is that you've used the phrase
16 "problem properties" twice in quotes. Do you
17 see that?
18 A. I see that.
19 Q. All right. And then you've used "problem
20 property inspector" an additional two times in
21 quotes, correct?
22 A. I see that.
23 Q. And then without quotes at the very end of the
24 sentence you've indicated, you used the phrase
25 "problem properties"?
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 89 of 264
Richard Lippert Page 90
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
90
1 A. I see that.
2 Q. All right. Now does that refresh your
3 recollection as to what your definition of
4 "problem properties" is?
5 A. Not necessarily one of these, maybe what it
6 was.
7 Q. What it was as of January of 2001?
8 A. And I may have been using other people's
9 terminology, not necessarily one that I
10 believed.
11 Q. And I see that because you've got quotes in
12 four of the five instances where you're using a
13 phrase similar to "problem properties,"
14 correct?
15 A. Mm-hmm.
16 MR. LARSON: Is that a "yes"?
17 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, yes.
18 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
19 Q. And at the very end you don't use quotes on the
20 phrase "problem properties." So are you still
21 saying that you never had a working definition
22 of a problem property?
23 A. You mean because there aren't quotes on the
24 last --
25 Q. Yeah, I want to know in reviewing this
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 90 of 264
Richard Lippert Page 91
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
91
1 particular paragraph of this memo from yourself
2 to your supervisor where you use the phrase
3 "problem property" in a couple of different
4 contexts were you in January of 2001
5 understanding what constituted a problem
6 property within any working definition used by
7 the City?
8 A. I think what you're referring to is probably
9 more of an issue of typing than it is
10 philosophy. And the terminology was probably
11 someone else's terminology because that's what
12 other people believed.
13 Q. All right. So, first of all, in that paragraph
14 it talks about on the horizon there was some
15 discussion about reinstating a quote "problem
16 property inspector," correct?
17 A. It says that.
18 Q. Okay. Do you recall any discussions about that
19 particular issue regarding attempts to
20 reinstate that type of an inspector?
21 A. I don't remember discussions I had five years
22 ago, I'm sorry.
23 Q. All right. It looks like from your memo that
24 the problem property inspector role was put on
25 hold while the PP2000 was allowed to be
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 91 of 264
Richard Lippert Page 92
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
92
1 implemented, is that what you're saying here?
2 A. That's what it says.
3 Q. And your previous memo, Exhibit 3 I believe it
4 was, indicated that you thought that Problem
5 Property 2000 was a success, at least that's
6 how you defined it in your memo to three of the
7 inspectors that were working on that program?
8 MR. LARSON: I'm going to object.
9 The document speaks for itself and I don't
10 believe that's what the document says. But
11 again Exhibit No. 3 does speak for itself.
12 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
13 Q. So did you have by January of 2001,
14 Mr. Lippert, did you have any reservations
15 personally as to whether or not it was a good
16 idea to reinstate a problem property inspector?
17 A. I don't remember my reservations.
18 Q. You don't remember any reservations about that
19 issue?
20 A. This is five years ago, I don't have a real
21 good memory of this.
22 Q. You indicated there that it was your intention
23 to put less emphasis on PP2000 and more on
24 individual problem properties. Do you recall
25 your reasoning behind that statement?
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 92 of 264
Richard Lippert Page 93
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
93
1 A. I don't.
2 Q. You see the next sentence where it says, "While
3 PP2000 does deal exclusively with problem
4 properties," is that a true statement that it
5 did, in fact, deal exclusively with problem
6 properties?
7 A. Well, I presume I wouldn't have written
8 something I didn't think so I -- it says I, I
9 admit that it says PP2000 doesn't deal
10 exclusively with problem properties.
11 Q. All right. And apparently your determination
12 at that time and your recommendation was that
13 there needed to be both the PP2000 type program
14 along with the problem property inspector
15 program, a blending of those two approaches,
16 correct?
17 A. That's that this says.
18 Q. The next two sentences there where it talks
19 about PP2000 dealing with owners that had
20 numerous properties that had experienced
21 numerous problems, how was that different than
22 the problem property inspector that was dealing
23 with just individual problem properties as you
24 recall it?
25 A. Well, I guess I can only pretty much repeat
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 93 of 264
Richard Lippert Page 94
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
94
1 what this says. This appears to, this appears
2 to speak for itself. I guess I don't know what
3 you're asking me beyond this.
4 Q. Well, if a property owner such as Mr.
5 Steinhauser was in the PP2000 because he had
6 numerous properties how was the problem
7 property inspector's role to be different than
8 whoever was the inspector assigned to assist
9 Mr. Steinhauser with his numerous properties?
10 A. Well, this says that PP2000 deals with people
11 with numerous properties, and this says that a
12 problem property inspector would deal with
13 individuals I presume with, that don't have
14 numerous properties.
15 Q. All right. So can you take it from your memo
16 here in reviewing it that it was your
17 recommendation to keep the PP2000 in its form
18 working forward from January of 2001?
19 A. I guess I'll have to read it again to see if
20 that's my conclusion. Well, this says, it
21 doesn't say it was going to eliminate PP2000,
22 it says we're going to put less emphasis on it.
23 So if you can infer something from that.
24 Q. All right. So the program was at least you
25 wanted it to continue but with less emphasis?
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 94 of 264
Richard Lippert Page 95
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
95
1 A. I'm not sure that's what this says but this may
2 say that.
3 Q. Did you take part in the CSO audit that was
4 published in 2000 that looked at one of the
5 areas, anyway it looked at was the code
6 enforcement section of CSO at the time?
7 A. What do you mean by "take part"?
8 Q. Well, were you interviewed as part of the audit
9 of CSO?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And that was published in a City document in
12 2000, correct?
13 A. I don't remember that but --
14 Q. Do you ever remember reviewing the audit
15 report?
16 A. I may have at the time, I don't remember it
17 now.
18 Q. Do you remember, Mr. Lippert, that the audit
19 indicated comments by code enforcement
20 personnel that they were particularly
21 susceptible to outside political influence?
22 A. I don't remember the document saying that.
23 Q. All right. Do you remember any discussion
24 amongst the code inspection staff that that was
25 an issue that was of concern to them?
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 95 of 264
Richard Lippert Page 96
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
96
1 A. Specifically what's the issue?
2 Q. Well, the issue is were the code enforcement
3 staff members particularly subject to
4 influence, outside influence from sources such
5 as the mayor's office, City Council and others?
6 A. I don't know remember discussions to that
7 effect.
8 Q. Do you remember any comments about that?
9 A. Not specifically.
10 Q. How about generally?
11 A. There's always that generally.
12 Q. All right. So tell me what you recall
13 generally about comments about any type of
14 outside influence that was exerted in any way
15 against or directed towards the inspection
16 staff in your department.
17 A. I don't remember comments.
18 Q. Well, you're telling me that this particular
19 audit, the audit statements, that code
20 enforcement seems particularly susceptible to
21 outside influence is not something that was
22 ever discussed with you?
23 A. I'm telling you I don't remember any
24 discussions.
25 Q. And do you recall any comments or discussions
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 96 of 264
Richard Lippert Page 97
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
97
1 about the overly meddlesome and often motivated
2 by something other than public good where
3 there's outside influence?
4 A. I don't remember anything like that.
5 Q. Do you remember if there was any attempt to
6 make changes in code enforcement as a result of
7 the audit that was performed on CSO?
8 A. I have no recollection of that.
9 Q. Do you ever recall as an employee of the City
10 of St. Paul ever having a City Council member
11 direct you in any kind of a fashion with
12 regards to a particular property?
13 A. Directly? No, I don't think so.
14 Q. How about make a request of you about a
15 specific property?
16 A. I think that's fair to say.
17 Q. Okay. Do you have any examples of when that
18 happened?
19 A. Specific ones, no.
20 Q. Well, how about generally? Any recollection
21 about any time a City Council member or a
22 member of the City Council staff raised an
23 issue with you about a specific property in the
24 City?
25 A. Generally speaking it's not uncommon for
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 97 of 264
Richard Lippert Page 98
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
98
1 Council people to have, to file complaints with
2 us the same way a citizen would regarding a
3 property. The citizen calls them, they call us
4 with that same concern.
5 Q. All right. When the Council member lodges or
6 notifies you of that particular concern or
7 complaint how is that documented in code
8 enforcement?
9 A. Complaints go into AMANDA.
10 Q. All right. And that system is initially
11 monitored or the complaint is taken down by CSO
12 staff?
13 A. Well --
14 Q. Is that the main source of calls from the
15 outside world?
16 A. Generally complaints are entered by CSO staff
17 into AMANDA.
18 Q. All right. And then complaints can be made
19 directly to Council members, correct?
20 A. Sure.
21 Q. All right. And complaints can be made directly
22 to inspectors?
23 A. Generally not.
24 Q. But at times they do?
25 A. I can't think of any time.
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 98 of 264
Richard Lippert Page 99
RICHARD LIPPERT - 12/19/06
99
1 Q. And then there can be also complaints generated
2 by the co-agency personnel in the City, for
3 example, somebody from fire who does a referral
4 complaint to your office?
5 A. Essentially anybody can make a complaint and it
6 ends up in AMANDA, it doesn't make any
7 difference who or what their affiliation is.
8 Q. All right. Some clerical staff at some point
9 will enter that into AMANDA, correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And is that clerical staff at CSO that does
12 that initially?
13 A. That's one place.
14 Q. All right. Where is another place where those
15 complaints can be entered into the AMANDA
16 system?
17 A. Our clerical staff will.
18 Q. All right. So from NHPI?
19 A. Yeah, but now our clerical staff is also CSO.
20 Q. All right. So you share clerical staff with
21 CSO?
22 A. We absorb CSO.
23 Q. All right. And when did that occur?
24 A. Recently.
25 Q. All right. Prior to that absorption were they
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 169-12 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 99 of 264

11:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

click above

11:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This guy is the worst liar I can imagine. The stupidest person in the world has a better memory than this. Send this over to the jury along with the fact that they're destroying evidence and violating court orders and see what you get!

1:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks to me like his name should be "Slippert."

2:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This fellow is certianly making every use of the plausability that time provides a claim to weak recollection.

He's obviously been well coached.

11:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The following is what I could find on "Racketeering" in just a minute or so. Given the plain meaning of the words and the evidence we have seen so far about the city of St. Paul, I think the city is screwed and Chuck hasn't done his homework.

Racketeering is the act of operating an illegal business or scheme in order to make a profit, perpetrated by a structured group.

Racketeering encompasses many criminal acts. It includes theft and fraud against businesses or individuals.

Racketeering/RICO
Federal and state racketeering, profiteering, and RICO (Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization) laws make it illegal for criminal organizations to profit from any legitimate business operations. Many of these laws allow for the confiscation and seizure of the criminal organization's legitimate enterprise assets, and are typically used against known "organized crime" groups. The goal is to cripple the operation financially, and cut off sources of cash that support ongoing criminal activity.

Racketeering/RICO
Federal and state racketeering, profiteering, and RICO (Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization) laws make it illegal for criminal organizations to profit from any legitimate business operations. Many of these laws allow for the confiscation and seizure of the criminal organization's legitimate enterprise assets, and are typically used against known "organized crime" groups. The goal is to cripple the operation financially, and cut off sources of cash that support ongoing criminal activity.
Racketeering/RICO
Federal and state racketeering, profiteering, and RICO (Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization) laws make it illegal for criminal organizations to profit from any legitimate business operations. Many of these laws allow for the confiscation and seizure of the criminal organization's legitimate enterprise assets, and are typically used against known "organized crime" groups. The goal is to cripple the operation financially, and cut off sources of cash that support ongoing criminal activity.

By far the most useful and common civil RICO claim is found under section 1962(c), which makes it unlawful for a person to manipulate an enterprise for purposes of engaging in, concealing, or benefiting from a pattern of racketeering activity.

Section 1962(c) prohibits any defendant person from operating or managing an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. So long as a civil RICO plaintiff is injured by reason of the defendant's operation or management of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering, the plaintiff is entitled to treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs under section 1964(c) (commonly referred to as RICO's civil liability provision).

11:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swiftee is right, but now he's backed himself into a corner because if this turns into "criminal" after the civil part is done, then this dummy has the choice of sticking with his story or lying to Federal agents which is a crime in itself.

11:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One other thought.

It's no secret that I despise Dave Thune, so take my observation for what it's worth but why is it that Thune's name consistently pops up when ever there is a question of misuse of authority or general incompetence?

Dayton's Bluff borders Lantry's ward, why wasn't she involved in this scheme? Did she even know about it, or was this just a special "Bucky" project?

11:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think it's any secret with anyone that Kathy Lantry was actively involved with the city's aattck on housing providers. It's one of her favorite things to talk about.

4:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This Lippert is a slippery one. Anyone who's had the dis-pleasure of having to work with him will tell you all kinds of stories about him and his antics.

1:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am sure Dave Thune was once a honest person, then he was elected
to the city council.
Then we had two Coleman's running St.Paul as mayor, witch of these people would make a good governor or president.
All three of them sound like Bush.
Nancy was at the capital all week trying to get the citizens right back to what the constitution says we have.
Thank you Nancy.

8:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:04 I'd take Norm Coleman back at mayor in a second.He brought in the Wild and this city was on a good road.He also didn't support Nazi code enforcement and duplex and single family inspections.And another thing if you want to bash Bush go to ademocracy.He was the only president willing to throw his image in the toilet to take the fight to Islamic extremists to keep people like you safe.


I see Nancy and Bush have something in common.Everybody thinks your crazy for the things you do without understanding the longterm benefits.




Charlie

8:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We definitely need a sequel to the fishy movie "The Incredible Mr. Lippert", but where do we find the appropriate actor?

10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since the beginning of time, the guy who blows the whistle for what's right is always beat up on, disparaged, slandered, sometimes even killed to cover uo the bad deeds. I've been reading here about a year and it seems as if teh more facts and evidence that comes out about this lawsuit thing, the more people like Chuck and Eric try to poo poo it with distraction tactics like someone not posting their names. spelling errors, drinking cool aid, etc.

11:57 PM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

The majority of the people that read and post on this blog had NO BALLS.

Okay, before I get all the comments about what I just said, let me qualify that statement. The "landlords" have put their money, their livlihood, on the line, defending EVERYONE'S rights.

There are a "few folks" other than the landlords that have actually spoken out and fought for ALL of us. Yet, the majority of the people just gripe about the problems and DO NOTHING.

PLEASE do not align me with Bush, he does not respect the People, nor our constitution.

Lippert is trying to "cover up". Guess what folks. The ONLY ones that are responsible to "fix the mess" are the Citizens.

Get off your dead butts and act like the People of the sate of Minnesota.

Instead of making the "landlords" and the very few other Citizens that care about YOU and YOUR rights carry the load.

Okay..let it rip..Nancy's preaching at people again.

Let's hear all the excuses.

Nancy Lazaryan

12:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bitching goes through the grape vine like wild fire. Bitching effects voter outcomes. SO KEEP ON A BITCHIN!

11:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bitching aslo spreads the word around about what'a going on in the city and has a round about way of putting people in touch with each other and also with attornies that sue cities! When the word becomes more widely spred, there will be all kinds of people suing the city for their actions.

8:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home