A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL: The Citizens Of Saint Paul -vs- The City Of Saint Paul Part 1 "Testimony of Debbie Doolittle"

Custom Search

Monday, December 15, 2008

The Citizens Of Saint Paul -vs- The City Of Saint Paul Part 1 "Testimony of Debbie Doolittle"

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

80 Comments:

Anonymous said...: THE WATCHDOG ISSUE 60 2008
REPORT ON ST. PAUL RACKETEERING LAWSUIT

BY BILL McGAUGHEY

Three St. Paul landlords are suing the city of St. Paul for real-estate racketeering under the RICO
act. The suit was filed in 2004; it’s still in the discovery phase. Part of the problem, plaintiffs
allege, is that city attorneys have destroyed evidence
that they need to prove their case.

A hearing was held in U.S. District Court on
Monday, April 14, 2008, to consider a motion by the plaintiff to impose sanctions on the city for
violating court rules.
John Schumaker was attorney for one of the plaintiffs, Frank Steinhauser. In his lead statement,
Schumaker discussed withholding of documents pertaining to St. Paul’s Public Housing Authority. The purpose was to see if St. Paul
city inspectors treated public housing differently than private-sector landlords with respect to
“problem properties”. This is defined as an
“intersection between code violations and landlord
or tenant misconduct.” By that standard, St.Paul public housing was known to include
numerous “problem properties”.
Yet, city inspectors took no action against them.
There were no condemnations or code compliances required of public-housing units as there
would have been against private-sector landlords in the same situation.

The City of St. Paul took the position that the Public Housing Authority was not part of St.
Paul city government and therefore it had no responsibility for producing documents of that
agency. In practice, plaintiffs were able to learn
about practices relating to that agency only if they were mentioned in other documents. If a
contract mentioned PHA, then plaintiff’s attorneys
were able to locate the related document. If not, they would be none the wiser.

Schumaker and his colleagues learned, for instance, that the St. Paul PHA has a separate
call-in center to handle complaints. There were
contracts for “special (security) services”.
Obviously, the city was inconsistent in the way
criminal behavior was handled in the public housing and in privately owned rental units.
Standard practice was to throw the book at the bad (private sector) landlords” and wink at the
public agency.
Another set of documents hard to obtain were
the so-called “Tish” or truth-in-housing reports.
The City of St. Paul took the position that these
were not relevant to the plaintiffs inquiry. The
plaintiffs were trying to establish, among other
things, that the city’s selective enforcement of
housing code was racially motivated. Certain
whites wanted to drive their black neighbors out
of town; and the politicians accommodated
those requests. Because the Tish reports did not
ask for the race of persons involved, the city
attorney took the position that they could not be
useful in the plaintiff’s inquiry. Therefore, these
reports were destroyed for the years of the
alleged racketeering.
A Freedom of Information request filed by another landlord had produced a memo from the
head of St. Paul’s regulatory services to the effect that 60 percent of St. Paul homes had code
violations. The individual also mentioned political
influence in the decision whether or not to inspect housing. He mentioned attempts to
“bend the rules”. This was precisely what the
plaintiffs were trying to prove. In particular, they wanted to try to find memos or documents
of this sort that mentioned Steinhauser and the
other landlords who were plaintiffs in this case.
They were, of course, not to be had. According to attorney Schumaker, the city released only
those documents that would benefit its side of the case. Documents favoring the plaintiffs
apparently did not exist.
The plaintiffs needed such documents for the
discovery process. At one time, it had all the Tish reports in one place and it would have been
easy for attorneys to go through all of them to find information useful for the case. Since the
city’s reports had been destroyed, the plaintiffs’
attorneys might have to subpoena all the inspectors to see if they had retained copies.
Schumaker estimated that this alternate procedure
would increase attorney fees (his own and others) by $13,000 and another such sum might
be required for photocopying costs. But perhaps
the city’s strategy was precisely that: Stretch out
the process, make it as difficult as possible, and expensive as possible for the landlord plaintiffs.
Eventually these people might run out of money to pursue the case, while the City of St. Paul had
endlessly deep pockets - a win/ lose situation if
there ever was one.
Another attorney, Matt Engel, presented the
plaintiff’s arguments with respect to emails.

After a meeting with the city’s attorney, the
plaintiffs had agreed to limit their requests for
emails sent after 2005 to ten individuals. The
City of St. Paul was claiming that this meant it
was OK to delete all emails that were sent prior
to 2005. And that’s what it did in many cases.
The city violated its own email retention rules
when it came to messages that the plaintiffs
might find useful in their lawsuit.
Former state representative and head of St.
Paul’s housing services, Andy Dawkins, was a
case in point. Dawkins had stated that he had
not deleted any of his emails. Yet, the emails
that the city had retained from him were mainly
those relating to activities after he left government
service on December 21, 2005. There
were some auto replies and a few emails pertaining
to loans for which his approval was sought.
Two or three emails remained for the entire year
of 2003; and the same for 2004. Engel knew
that Dawkins had written many more emails
than this because he had found references to
them elsewhere. Yet, the city of St. Paul took the
position that the Dawkins emails did not exist -
and perhaps never had.
The plaintiffs also sought emails from Susan
Kimberly, director of the city’s Planning and
Economic Development department, after they
came across an email from Council Member
Thune to Kimberly referring to quick ways that
the city might take property away from certain
individuals. Had any of the other Council members
made a similar request? Alas, Ms.
Kimberly’s emails were no longer available.
She left city employment in January 2006; and
her emails were deleted in April.
Another persons of interest, still with the city,
was St. Paul City Council President Kathy
Lantry. In her case, the bulk of emails were in a
giant folder marked “trash”. Within this folder
were a number of named files. Could we please
see some of the folders - say, those marked
“RICO case” - the plaintiff’s attorneys had
asked? It was not so easy. The attorneys were
informed that Ms. Lantry’s file was too large to
access - even though there was another folder
with more files belonging to Council Member
Thune which was accessible. St. Paul’s IT
department was simply unable to comply with
that request.
With respect to Susan Kimberly, someone had
mentioned that the City of St. Paul maintains
backup tapes. If Kimberly’s emails had been
deleted in April 2006, could the city not go to the
backup tapes to retrieve the requested information?
Apparently not, the attorneys were told:
All the email documents pertaining to Kimberly
had been deleted. Was that standard practice
with backup tapes? Who knows.; 10:42 AM
Anonymous said...: There is copy errors

THE WATCHDOG ISSUE 61 2008

“ Court rules: Cities violating State Law.”

Someone forgot to tell Michael Sax that one should “never fight city hall.” He is a small
landlord that took on the city of Morris Minnesota. The dispute came because Morris required that Mr. Sax install smoke detectors, GFIs, a bath fan and a plastic cover over a basement window well. Mr.
Sax, who seems to understand state law better than the cities attorneys, fought the
orders. Mr. Sax lost in district court and appeals court by a 3-0 decision. Mr. Sax considered giving up until his attorney, Rick
Stermer, convinced him to take it to the states highest court.

The State Supreme Court recognized
Minnesota State Legislatures goal to enact a “uniform set of building standards to lower
costs and make housing more affordable.”

The court quoted the State Building Code:

The State Building Code applies
statewide and supersedes the
building code of any municipality.
A municipality must not by ordinance or through development
agreement require building code
provisions regulating components
or systems of any residential
structure that are different from
any provision of the State Building
Code.

The Supreme Courts ruling said Morris's municipal ordinances “differ impermissibly
from the State Building Code, and that these provisions are therefore prohibited by
state law.” Mr. Sax beat city hall.
The Morris city attorney, Charles Glasrud, opined that “the Supreme Court took a very
strict interpretation of state law which left little
room for effective regulation of residential
rental housing in Minnesota,” and that
“this ruling has gutted cities ability to
enforce many important safety standards,
particularly in older buildings.
What? I must wonder what part of “A
municipality must not .. require .. provisions
.. different from .. the State Building Code”
Mr. Glasrud thinks should be read less
strictly? I also take exception to Mr.
Glasrudʼs argument that the city cannot
“enforce important safety standards.” He
can still enforce all of the safety standards
allowed by State Building Codes. Since
owner occupied housing exists under the
same law, does Mr. Glasrud think owner
occupied housing is unsafe too?
Many landlords were pleased and even celebrating
this ruling. On HYPERLINK
“http://www.ademocracy.blogspot.com”
www.ademocracy.blogspot.com, one landlord
wrote “Sue, Sue, Sue! Anyone who's
been ordered to do one of those illegal code compliance deals should get an attorney
and sue the crap out of (St. Paul).”

St. Paul city officials, who are facing multiple
lawsuits for amazingly similar actions,
seem undeterred. At a recent city council
meeting, multiple property owners presented
the Morris v Sax case to the council.
Council President Lantry asked legal council
for an opinion on the lawsuit and he recommended
that each and every correction
order be reviewed to assure it is within the
State Building code. The entire city council
appeared to ignore the recommendation
and continued to take action against property
owners!
Our local municipalities do not seem to
understand the ramifications of this lawsuit.
The cities have no right to regulate beyond
the State Building Code. By violating this
case law, they are exposed to a lawsuit from
every landlord they have damaged.
Continuing without at least considering this
case law seems, well negligent.
But it appears the battle is not over. Morris
City attorney Charles Glasrud is gearing up
for round two. He promised to ask the legislature
to change State law regarding building
codes for rental property. Mr. Glasrud
stated that this is very important because
“People have been killed in substandard
rental housing in Minnesota.” Really?
Who? When?
In 1972 our state legislature created a state
wide building code to enact a “uniform set of
building standards to lower costs and make
housing more affordable.” If the city of
Morris successfully exempts rental housing,
then either the entire reason for the State
Building Code is a farce, or our legislature
appears willing to lose all market rate affordable
rental housing.
I recommend that you talk with your legislator.
I suspect Morris will not be the only city
seeking this exemption.
~Bill Cullen; 10:50 AM
Bob said...: Hi All,

To sum it up. What we have in the City of Saint Paul is a FAILED crime strategy policy using building code enforcement officers to condemn a home to rid the neighborhood of citizens deemed by others in the community as less than desirable neighbors.

Often, a home that the neighbors have been complaining about will be raided by the police with a building code compliance officer tagging along with the very "intentions" of condemning the home to put the tenants on the street and rid the neighborhood of the citizens deemed less than desirable.

Most of the time no arrest or convictions are made. But one thing for sure, a family in which many of the members maybe total innocent of any wrong doing, are made homeless and put out on the streets with no assistance.

There is those instances where there is the likelihood of criminal activity at a residence. However, like I said rarely is there any arrest on these raids and the outcome in using a code enforcement officer to condemn the home is only spreading crime to other areas of the city. These folks condemned out of their homes move down the block, across town.

An example of a neighborhood going bad right now is the west 7th. street neighborhood. AKA the West End. Renamed "Meth End" by citizens who live the street life. Robberies and aggravated assaults are way up on west 7th. street due in part to the crime strategy used in Frogtown and the East Side of condemning entire families from their homes due to the inability of our police to make arrest on the individuals who are committing crime.

Who is made to pay for renters crimes, landlords. Their investment properties are written up as Dawkins would say "code to the max" if the property investor cannot afford the repairs he or she loses the home. IF, the investor can afford the onslaught of demands by the city for repairs, the home is no longer affordable housing after it has been brought up to modern day code.

Simply put or city leaders are embarrassed to tell you they have an all out attack going on to rid the city of as many low income folks as possible and bring our housing stock up to a point in which the city will be less affordable to low income folks. They don't care if they violate the citizens rights who have been deemed less than desirable. They feel they have their ass covered on this one because they have the support of the ignorant masses who haven't a clue of the nature of things they support and the damage it can lead to long term.

Today they want to look into renters homes. With the growing bureaucracy in DSI and this cities leadership's desire to look into all of our homes, well you private home owners will be the next citizens the city ask to see inside your home for a housing inspection.

Then you folks who are aware of what is going on and turn a blind eye will be screaming to high heaven, "your not coming in my house" only it will be to late a precedence will have been set, you sat by and watched as your fellow neighbors rights were violated and you said nothing.

As a renter I do not want the city in my house period! EVER! I have nothing to hide. I just want to freely exercise my right to privacy. Most renters if given the opportunity would waive a city housing inspection.; 11:37 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm wondering what role Susan Kimberly has used after she left city employment. When my property was condemned, I saw Susan Kimberly meet with two other people in front of the property for some time. She came directly from her car and went straight back to her car afterwards.; 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...: About time you back, Isn't there a hearing Jan10th 09
Let us know if this is correct,for research

http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=Steinhauser&search=Search&stateorcourt=state-mn&lawsuittype=&documentfilter=allcases&cases=mostrecent&min-day=1&min-month=1&min-year=2004&max-day=15&max-month=12&max-year=2008; 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Moriss vs. Sax decision seems to support the Amish.

Jeff Matiatos; 2:43 PM
Anonymous said...: OK two things, first, I love how Bill spelled out the racketeering case in a nut shell... "Documents favoring the plaintiffs
apparently did not exist.
The plaintiffs needed such documents for the discovery process."

Got it, we have no evidence, there is no evidence, that proves the City is hiding it...

You have to love these guys.

Second, we have had the Sax case out there for 6 months. One would have expected by now if there was anything, ANYTHING, in the City Code that wasn't a part of the state building code that we would have seen a challenge by now. NO Case anywhere.

The difference between Morris and Saint Paul is that they had created a new building code. Saint Paul just enforces the State Code... and that is what you all have problems with.

And Jeff, Morris/Sax is over the City going beyond state code when the state has prohibited cities from going beyond state code. That has nothing to do with the Amish...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 3:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Well Chuck, you seem to be flip flopping on the issue of code compliance.

You take the view on one hand that the Amish should be able to be exempted from the code even if it means others have to comply with it so long as the Amish live 100 miles out of town and in the woods.

At least Eric seems to agree with this so long as local government approves it.

If its a matter of public safety like you say, then no government should allow it because one unsafe out of code Amish home next to another Amish home is just as unsafe as if the Amish home were next to a home in compliance with the code.

Double standard and hypocritical.

Jeff Matiatos; 3:31 PM
Anonymous said...: When local governments make exceptions for the Amish not to be code compliant, that city violates state law if the state law doesn't provide for exemptions for the Amish.; 3:34 PM
Anonymous said...: You seem to be a little mis-informed Chuck. Those msising documents favoring the plaintiffs did exist because they found reference to them in other emails, etc., but the city destroyerd those emails didn't they Chuck? When someone destroys evidence, that means they have something to hide and that is exactly how I think the jury is going to see it.

City officials admitted in Depositions that certain city council members had a hit list of peoperty owners they were after.

City officials admitted that they fixed the courts in the city's favor prior to going after these guys

City officials admitted that these landlords were GOOD landlords Chuck.

City officials said there was political pressure from the city council put onto the housing inspectors with respect to certain owners.

There was a policy within the city complete with documents (city documents CHuck) to back it up that the city was trying to force the sale of certain owners properties.

There are emails where city officials are falt out admitting that the city uses the police on housing inspections to intimidate people......but no emails at all from the city for years, even though the city was requireed to keep them. Required by court rules Chuck!

The city admitted to shredding inspection records and destroying emails.....years worth of them and all of them right in the time frame when the city was targeting these landlords.

With all these FACTS & EVIDENCE, I find it highly unlikely that the city's destruction of evidence was not innocent. It was deliberate and well thoguht out, and it was for one reason and one reason alone. The destroyed evidence was favorable to the plaintiffs and harmful to the city of St. Paul. How could anyone think otherwise?

Only Chuck and Eric would not see something wrong with this. If it was the landlords that had acted in this way, then Chuck and Eric would be all for the city getting what the landlords want now form the city.

You guys are so biased you shouldn't even have an opinion.; 4:35 PM
Anonymous said...: The constitution provides for exceptions for these people because of the religon deal.; 4:36 PM
Anonymous said...: This is not the citizens versus the city. The citizens elected the city officials who represent us in this and the city attorney advocates on behalf of the citizens of Saint Paul.

Most of your landlords are not citizens of saint paul.

This is the Citizens of Saint Paul versus the Bad Landlords.

Eric; 6:13 PM
Bob said...: Eric said;

This is not the citizens versus the city. The citizens elected the city officials who represent us in this and the city attorney advocates on behalf of the citizens of Saint Paul.

Most of your landlords are not citizens of saint paul.

This is the Citizens of Saint Paul versus the Bad Landlords.

My response; No Eric, you are wrong. This is the citizens of Saint Paul -vs- the City of Saint Paul. When one citizen among us has his or her civil rights violated it is an attack on all of us.

Next I will be posting depositions from tenants, renters in Saint Paul condemned from their homes by policies Adolf Hitler would have supported.

I want everyone to be aware there is a tenants civil rights lawsuit being contemplated, and if you are reading here and was condemned to the streets by this city I suggest you contact Attorney John Shoemaker and Matt Engel to see if you have a case.; 7:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, Bob if you believe that it is a right to live in substandard housing. A right to be taken advantage of by thieves that would rent unsafe fire traps. A right to be exploited and to not have any level of the government watch out for you.

Yes, it is an interesting Civil liberties case if you believe that people end up in substandard housing because the desire to live in substandard housing.

And, of course to make that a class action case you have to believe that it is the communities of color that don't want their landlords to repair the properties they live in. That their right to live in buildings with poor plumbing and bad electric systems is being infringed on by the City's safety and health standards.

You got a great case.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 8:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Eric didn't we cross this bridge before about bad talking these landlords.I invite you to tell us just how bad the Dadders guys were.We saw their website and their buildings.They are home grown from the city of St.Paul.I'll be waiting for some examples of how they are bad landlords.For cripe sakes their website is better then your buddies at city hall.

Waiting..................

Jim; 9:32 PM
Anonymous said...: When those citizens elected the city officials Eric they elected them to uphold the law and the constitution, all the laws Eric. They're not supposed to break the law and they have been for years.; 12:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Yeah they are bad landlords all right. The city inspectors testufied that they were good landlords. Tenants testified that they were good landlords. Lots of tenants! Lots of inspectors! Keep talking your shit boys.....you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.; 12:22 AM
Anonymous said...: I am shocked by how short sighted some people here are.; 3:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Dadders is not the only one in the suit which is mainly why it will continue to go nowhere. You remember another RICOman by the name Frank Steinhauser don't you?

His own testimony in this RICO case he said that he deserved the write-up on violations. He said he had utilities turned off while people were living there. He said his place was infested with rats. He testified that his own tenants called the cops on him. He testified that most of his tenants are not minorities (protective group). We also found out that his tenants had filed reports on him and he according to police records, had some real derogatory statements about HIS tenants.

This is one of your main RICOmen who says he fighting for the rights of his tenants.

Three years ago I asked, where are the landlords who stood against this kind of landlord. No answer from none of you. Why? Because you really didn't and still don't give a damn. If these tenants move into HUD housing or other low-income housing, its money out of your pocket and that's the bottom line.

In three years you haven't produce any evidence of a coordinated effort on behalf of the city to target just these guys. Don't get mad at me, talk to your 'super-lawyers', I'm sure they're cashing the checks.

Eric; 10:30 AM
Anonymous said...: 4:35 said...
City officials admitted in Depositions that certain city council members had a hit list of property owners they were after.

I say... and this surprises you? Or, is in anyway problematic? If someone has been for some time not keeping up there property and the City Council member is getting complaint after complaint, don't you think that they are going to learn the name of the owner of the problem property? Don't you think that at some point they are going to say to DSI STOP GIVING THAT sob Joe Shmoe a brake. Quit giving him any more slack. If that is a "hit list" you have nothing...

8:45 said... City officials admitted that they fixed the courts in the city's favor prior to going after these guys

I say... What the City admits doing is explaining to the judge the impact of problem properties on neighborhoods. OOOOwww that is "fixing the courts," well, no judge in this or any other country is going to buy that.

8:45 says... City officials admitted that these landlords were GOOD landlords Chuck.

I say... all the more proof that the issue was the buildings! Which is the entire point. The people aren't the target the property is!

8:45 said...City officials said there was political pressure from the city council put onto the housing inspectors with respect to certain owners.

I say... as above, if the council member has had numerous complaints about a property at some point they are going to say to DSI quit giving any more slack to your buddy Joe Shmoe and write the dang place up if there is a problem! If that is "political pressure" that is what we pay our council members to do. Its called constituent services.

8:45 said...There was a policy within the city complete with documents (city documents CHuck) to back it up that the city was trying to force the sale of certain owners properties.

I say...as above...either fix it or sell it but we aren't going to let it sit like a pile of crap anymore... is a legitimate public policy in dealing with nuisance properties. What's the problem?

8:45 said... There are emails where city officials are falt out admitting that the city uses the police on housing inspections to intimidate people......but no emails at all from the city for years, even though the city was required to keep them. Required by court rules Chuck!

I say... "intimidate" meaning what? Getting easier access to inside the building? No crime there. You are the one that make the assumption that it is "intimidation," rather than confidence in that the law is coming in rather than someone with a fake City badge.

As to the emails...you have already lost that part of the case. State law allows how records are to be destroyed. What was in dispute was should the City of Saint Paul be required to keep every email and every scrap of paper sent to or from every employee every time the City is sued? And the answer is...NO! Your guys have no evidence that suggests that there is anything in any missing email. The courts will not assume that just because there are no emails, they must be bad. You have to have at least one bad one. You have none. That part of the case is over. You lost.

8:45 said...The city admitted to shredding inspection records and destroying emails.....years worth of them and all of them right in the time frame when the city was targeting these landlords.

I say... same as above... the TISH reports that were "shredded" weren't the City's in the first place! It was normal to destroy them after a set period of time. Government does not keep everything forever.

8:45 said...With all these FACTS & EVIDENCE, I find it highly unlikely that the city's destruction of evidence was not innocent. It was deliberate and well thought out, and it was for one reason and one reason alone. The destroyed evidence was favorable to the plaintiffs and harmful to the city of St. Paul. How could anyone think otherwise?

I say... well, the court already threw that part of your case out. The lawyers asked for summary judgement based on the "destroyed evidence." What the court said is that you first have to have some EVIDENCE that something exists before you can claim that whatever has not been found MUST BE THE SMOKING GUN. You don't even have a bullet, or the sound of a shot. You can't ask the court to assume as you do that because you have no evidence at all that the City must be hiding it.

So, what you have spelled out here is that:

The City targeted properties that had repeat problems.

That it didn't matter to the City if the landlords had other good properties.

That the City educated the court on the impact of problem properties.

That the City was interested in acquiring habitual bad properties to get them into better management.

That the City followed state data practices on destroying data.

That the plaintiffs after 4 years of discovery have nothing and are now resting their case on the notion the communities of color would rather live in distressed than quality housing.

Good Case.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 11:27 AM
Bob said...: Hi All,

This is the deposition of Debbie Doolittle, renter, citizen of Saint Paul witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in the federal fair housing lawsuits against the city of Saint Paul. This deposition will be in several parts.

There maybe copy errors.

John Shoemaker attorney representing the plaintiffs is questioning Ms. Doolittle.

Q. Tell me a little bit about where you live and how long you've lived there currently.
A. I am currently at 1879 East Seventh Street and I have been there for about, approximately about five or six months.
Q. Where did you live prior to that, Ms. Doolittle?
A. Prior to that I lived at, oh, God, I cannot think of the house number itself, but on Van Buren.
Q. How long did you live at the Van Buren address?
A. Not quite a year.
Q. And prior to that did you reside in the City of St. Paul?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember where that was?
A. Before that I lived on, it was the address on Sherburne.
Q. Was it with Mr. Johnson?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it 390 Sherburne?
A. 390 Sherburne, that's what it was.
Q. How long were you residing at the 390 Sherburne address that was owned by Mr. Steve Johnson.
Oh, my goodness! About a year and a half maybe, year and a half, two years.
Q. Okay. And then prior to that what was your address in the City of St. Paul, was that the 941 •.
A. Cypress--
Q. -- cypress?
A. 941 Cypress.
Q. Did you grow up in the Twin Cities?
A. Yes.
Q. Whereabouts did you grow up, which city?
A. Rice Street.
Q. So in the City of St. Paul?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have parents that lived here as well --
A. Yes.
Q. -- for most of your life?
A. (Nods head affirmatively.)
Q. Do you have any relatives that currently live in the City of st. Paul?
A. Yes.
Q. How many relatives do you have in the City of St. Paul?
A. Two or three.
Q. Are you currently employed?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. When was the last employment that you can recall that you had that would have been full-time employment?
A. It was about six or seven months ago at Burger King.
Q. How long did you work there, Ms. Doolittle?
A. About six months.
Q. Tell me a little bit about the educational background that you had. Did you attend grade school in the City of St. Paul?
A. South St. Paul I went to grade school and here in st. Paul I finished out.
Q. Through high school?
A. Junior high school and, yeah.
Q. okay. So you went through junior high school in St. Paul as well as --
A. South St. Paul.
Q. South St. Paul?
A. And I finished out high school, junior high and high school here in St. Paul.
Q. okay. If I wanted to reach you through a relative which would be a relative that would know typically where you're residing and where you live?
A. That would be my oldest son Kenneth.
Q. What's his last name?
A. His last name is Guillette.
Q. Can you spell that, please?
A. G-u-i-l-l-e-t-t-e.
Q. And where does he live?
A. He lives in White Bear Lake.
Q. Do you have an address for him?
A. No, I don't have his address.
Q. Do you know where he works?
A. He is a part owner of a New Look Remodeling.
Q. And they're located in White Bear Lake, are they?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. What was the date of your birth?
A. 1/8/61.
Q. Have you been married at any time?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Do you have any children?
A. Three.
Q. How old are each of your children?
A. My oldest is 27, my middle is 17, and my youngest is 15.
Q. Where do your children currently live?
A. My oldest is on his own in White Bear Lake, my daughter is, she just got a place with her girlfriend, and my son is staying with a couple of friends of his until I can get into a two-bedroom place.
Q. Prior to renting from Mr. Steven Johnson at the 941 Cypress home what had been your rental experience for homes or for apartments prior to that?
A. Can you rephrase it?
Q. Had you rented before you rented with Mr. Johnson at the 941 Cypress property?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times had you rented a home or an apartment prior to that, quite a few times?
A. Yeah, yeah.
Q. When you graduated from high school what did you do that you recall first, did you take employment?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you first work?
A. I was working at Bird and Cronin Medical supplies.
Q. Okay. Where were they located?
A. They're located on 2900 Trapp Road.

MR. JERSKEY: What was the name, ma'am, of the employer again, please?

THE WITNESS: Bird and cronin,

C-r-o-n-i-n, Medical Supplies.

BY MR. SHOEMAKER:

Q. How long did you work there?
A. I was with that company for ten years.
Q. What was the reason that you left employment there?
A. I got laid off.
Q. Did you have any further errployment that was of substantial duration like that?
A. No, no long period work like that, no.
Q. What type of work were you doing there at the
medical supply company?
A. Silkscreen operator.
Q. What was that?
A. Silkscreen operator.
Q. Oh, okay. So you have so~e experience with sit kscreening?
A. Yes.
Q. That's kind of hard to say, a tongue twister.
A. Tne work that you did after you left that company, tell me the general nature of the type of employment that you had.
A. Restaurant.
Q. Restaurant type work?
A. Yep.
Q. Any other type of emloyment that you can recall after that?
A. Worked at Mystic Lake casino, St. Paul Technical college, that's about it.
Q. Have you ever been a party to a lawwsuit where you were either a defendant or a plaintiff?
A. No.
Q.Have you ever been arrested that you can recall ?
A. Never.
Q. Tell me about when you met David Lindorf.
A. Oh, my goodness! I met him when, I just can't remember what year, but when I was living up on Rice Street.
Q. Were you in an apartment then?
A.Yes, I was living in an apartment on Rice and Front.
Q. Now I understand that when you were renting from Steve Johnson at the 941 Cypress rental property that David Lindorf was also renting there at that property, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you married to Mr. Lindorf?
A. No.
Q. Was he a significant other?
A. Yep.
Q. Okay. How long had known him prior to first renting from Mr. Johnson?
A. Oh, I've known David for, God, about, since I was like 18, 19. I've known him almost all my life, yeah.
Q. Did you know his parents as well?
A. I didn't meet his parents until I started going out wlth hlm but I did go to school with his sister.
Q. Now is Mr. David Lindorf, is he deceased?
A. Yes.
Q. When did he pass on?
A. He passed away January lOth of last year, '06.
Q. Had you rented an apartment with Mr. Lindorf prior to renting from Mr. Johnson at the 941 Cypress rental home?
A. Did I rent an apartment?
Q. Or a home with Mr. Lindorf prior to being a renter from Mr. Johnson?
A. No.
Q. Were you a tenant at 941 Cypress when Mr.Johnson bought that property in Noverrber, December of 2002?
A. Yes.
Q. So you had been renting from the previous owner for some time?
A. Yes.
Q. How long had you been renting from the previous owner of that property?
A. I'm really not sure.
Q. Do you think it might have been more than a year?
A. No.
Q. Okay. The previous owner of that property, do you remember his or her name?
A. David Baudette.
Q. Mr. Baudette. Did you ever meet him at any time while you were renting from him?
A. Yeah, I've met him.
Q. You met him when you were looking at the apartment, do you recall that, to decide whether you wanted to rent? I should say the home, not the apartment but the home.
A. No, David, David handled most of that.
Q. Okay. He handled the actual dealing with Mr.Baudette for the lease?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. But at some point you indicated that you
recall meeting Mr. Baudette?
A. Oh, yeah, he, he came over quite a bit. He came over to pick up the rent and stuff.
Q. Okay. What other reason would Mr. Baudette come over to 941 cypress to your home that you remember?
A. Well, I can't say he was there to make repairs.
Q. What was it like from a standpoint of having Hr. Baudette as a landlord from a standpoint of any rental repair, or I should say any repairs that you were concerned about?
A. He was just, he would only come
around when the rent was due, when I -- when the repairs needed done we would call him and he wouldn't, he'd just leave us hanging.
Q. Okay. So you weren't satisfied with Mr. Baudette's response to your requests for repairs on the 941 Cypress home?
A. No.
Q. Did he at some point get the repairs finished or did he never respond to calls for repairs by you?
A. If he ever did then it had to have been when I was at work because I never recall him cominq out and doing repairs.
Q. Did you have to call him more than once when you would have a repair issue before you would be satisfied that he understood what you wanted?
A. Oh, I'Ve left numerous messages
on his machine alonq with David, we both did.
Q. Okay. So Mr. Lindorf as well would make requests to Mr. BaUdette for repairs?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's your understanding that if any repairs were done they were while you and Mr. Lindorf were not present at the home?
A. Well, Mr. Lindorf was.
Q. He was present?
A. But I was at work.
Q. Okay. Do you know if any repairs were not completed by Mr. Baudette that you made observations of.
A. No, actually I just gave up on it.
Q. Okay. Do you have any recollection that any type of certain repair was never done by
Mr.Baudette?
A. The back door.
Q. Okay. There was an issue with the back door that you had notified Mr. Baudette needed do
repair?
A. And the locks on the windows.
Q. And the lOCKS on the windows as well?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's your recollection that those repair concerns were never addressed properly by Mr. Baudette?
A. No.
Q. Tell me a little bit about what you recall when you first met steve Johnson as the new owner of the rental home at 941 Cypress.
A. He seemed nice, cooperative.
Q. Did you meet any of his family at the time that you were looking at the rental home?
A. I met his daughter.
Q. How often did you from that point on have contact with Mr. Steve Johnson while you were living at 941 Cypress?
A. Whenever, whenever the rent was due or whenever I had complaints or needed something. Or if he needed something we always, he was in touch and I was able to get in touch with him and return my calls.
Q. Do you remember what type of a phone number Mr. Johnson had, was it a cell phone or a --
A. I believe it was an office phone.
Q. Office phone. Was it easy to get ahold of Mr. Johnson?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Did you ever have to leave messages for him?
A. Oh, yeah, there was, there was a couple times I left messages.

Q. How was he in responding to your messages?
A. If not later that day he would contact us by the next morning.
Q. Did you have repair concerns at any time on the 941 cypress rental home while Mr. Johnson owned the property and you were renting there?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Lindorf ever tell you that he had some concerns about any repair issues while Mr. Johnson was the owner of that property?
A. No.
Q. What was the condition of the property when you first moved into 941 cypress when it was owned by Mr. Baudette?
A. The only thing that I seen that waS,that was new in the whole place was the kitchen tile, he had just laid kitchen tile in the kitchen. Other than that nothing.
Q. Nothing was new?
A. No.
Q. General condition of the property when you moved in while it was owned by Mr. Baudette, how would you describe the general condition of the property?
A. Fair.
Q. Fair condition?
A. (Nods head affirmatively.)
Q. And that would be both the interior as well as the exterior?
A. mm hmm
Q. Describe the home for me at 941 Cypress as best you can remember
A. Describe it?
Q. How many bedrooms were in the home?
A. There was two bedrooms upstairs and one bedroom downstairs.
Did you have access to a basement at that property?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you get access to the basement if you were on the inside of the home?
A. The basement was, outside the kitchen door was the basement door. You had to go outside and then into basement {indicatingl.
Okay. So you had to go outside of the home and then go through a door to the basement?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the back door issue that you had an issue with with Mr. Baudette, was that ever fixed?
A. Yes, actually David fixed it.
Q. Okay. Before Mr. Johnson purchased the home?
A. Yes.
Q. How about the locks on the windows that you mentioned, were those ever installed or fixed, whatever you wanted done on the lock issue?
A. Actually I don't recall, I don't recall.
Q. Was that concern about locks on the windows, was that on the main floor of the home?
A. Yes.
Q, Tell me about what the basement layout was. I assume there was a stairs there. Then can you describe the rest of it?
Q. It wasn't a full basement, it was only like a half a basement.
But you go down the bottom of stairs there was the, the water heater, the furnace, and then the space for the washer and dryer and just empty space beyond that (indicating) .
Q. Did you have your own washer and dryer that you owned?
A. Yes --
Q. -- into the building?
A. -- we did.
Q. While you were renting from Mr. Johnson did you have a refrigerator in the home?
A. Yes.
Q. was that there when you moved in with Mr. Baudette as a landlord?
A. Yes.
Q. While you were renting from Mr. Johnson did the refrigerator work?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it work the entire time that you were living there?
A. Yes.
Q. How about a stove, I assume there was a stove in the kitchen?
A. Yes.
Q. While you were renting from Mr. Johnson did the stove work?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any other appliances at all that
you remember in the kitchen area?
A. No.
Q. No microwave?
A. Oh, yeah. Well, I had my microwave but --
Q. And did you have outlets in the kitchen where you could plug in a microwave?
A.Yes.
Q. Did you have electrlcity the entire time that you were renting from Mr.Johnson?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the outlets wotk in the home?
A. Yes.
Q. How about the conditicn of the floors in the home, what do you recall about the condition of the floors while you were renting from Mr. Johnson?
A. The floors were fine.
Q. Can you describe what type of flooring was there in the home?
A. Well, there waS,there was carpeting through the living room, the downstairs, up the stairs, and the two bedrooms upstairs all had carpeting.
Q. Okay. What was the condition of the carpeting when you were renting from Mr. Johnson?
A. It was, it wasn't new carpet but it was in decent shape.
Q. How about the bathroom that you had on the main level, can you describe that for me, did it have a sink with a mirror?
A. Yeah, yeah, just the tub, shower, sink, toilet.
Q. While you were renting
from Mr.Johnson did the; 7:06 PM
Anonymous said...: I know Steinhauser and what Eric is saying completely out of context. I don't think the issue is wether he had code violations Eric. One of the issues is that the there were violations that didn't exist. Inspector Lisa Martin lied about some of those violations in order to condemn the property so the city could persue the start of their illegal war on landlords.

Anyone who is in the rental business had code violations. They are a part of life. They alway exist. Some people fix them and some people don't. Just because this guy had some code violations doesn't mean anything.

As far as his tenants filing police reports I don't know anything about it, but what strikes me as very odd is Eric and his kind are acting like these renters are the pillars of the community when at the same time the city is saying they are problems and doing anything and everything to get rid of them......including breaking the law to do it. But now there's a chance to use a renter statement against a landlord and all of a sudden every word they speak is the honest to God truth. Bullshit...I heard there was one tenant after another testify at Depositions that Steinhauser and the other plaintiffs were good landlords and they didn't ahve any issues with him.

I also don't remember anywhere that anyone was said to be fighting for the rights of tenants. I thought they were fighting because their civil rights were illegaly violated.

Your full of crap Eric.; 8:42 PM
Anonymous said...: "
I say... What the City admits doing is explaining to the judge the impact of problem properties on neighborhoods. OOOOwww that is "fixing the courts," well, no judge in this or any other country is going to buy that."

Why don't you say the rest of it Chuck? You are a godamn liar!

Tell us about the part where the city asked that only certain judges hear those case against landlords.

Tell us about the part where the city asked that certain Judges would never be allowed to hear those cases Chuck.

Tell us about the part where there's sworn Deposition testimony that when asked why the city didn't want certain Judges to hear those cases, the person said the cases were too important to lose.

I was shown that part in the Deposition papers and read it with my own eyes.

Can you get it Bob. Why don't you post here for all to see how Reoke only include half the story and then tries to use it to minimize what the situation really is?; 8:49 PM
Anonymous said...: 8:49 - the city went to the Ramsey county bench and said that as long as all housing cases are bounced around the court house, they will never be taken seriously and we might as well never bring charges. If the courts are ever going t bring any relief to the property owners being victomized by owners who refuse to take care of their properties, we need a housing court.

Just like there are judges assigned to juvenile cases and judges assigned to family court cases because before then those cases were minimized by the bench, we need a judge assigned to housing court that can hear these cases on a regular basis and understand the issue.

The bench agreed and assigned a judge to housing court.

That is the facts Jack.

What you jerks don't care about is that your problem property owners reduce the value of neighboring properties. You steal the life savings of the neighboring property. And to you that is a good thing, because you can buy their house cheeper as you build your slum.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 11:11 PM
Anonymous said...: No ex-parte communication is permitted by the rules of court.

Lots of Ex-Parte communication here !

Jeff Matiatos; 11:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck, you say we need a judge that understands te Issues of housing ?

Prior to this Ex-Parte communication, these judges have plenty of experience with housing issues and I am willing to bet these plaintiff litigant landlords understand alot more than the judges hearing these cases.

If these St.Paul and Federal Judges need to learn anything about understanding housing issues, they can wait for the attorneys to brief them in court memorandum, not illegal Ex-Parte communication.

Jeff Matiatos; 11:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Jeff - that isn't Ex Parte. This is the government of the City approaching the bench and saying forget it there is no point in us prosecuting housing cases if you don't develop a housing court.

The bench has limitted experience with the issue and are viewing the entire issue as minor victomless offences. With a housing court the bench will hear enough of the cases to understand how many people are victomized by bad property managers.

That is exactly what happened. Once there was a housing court the bench began to understand that these ass holes were costing their neighbors money. That they were exploiting their renters. That they had little or no interest in keeping up their properties.

People who were use to getting away with violations in Saint Paul that they would never get away with in Mpls were finally get repair orders and fines.

It was good public policey.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 11:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Another observation Chuck, if the city is going to have these rigging sessions, why not invite the other side ?

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

One side cannot have Ex-parte communication with the court and if it were me and I was the attorney, I would have the case removed from the jurisdiction of these judges even in the middle of the case.

Someone tell me, why bother bringing it up if your not going to do anything about it ?

I have alot of respect for these landlords, but you have to do something about this kind of court rigging ? And now !

Carry on.

Jeff Matiatos; 11:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Chuck, it isn't illegal for a landlord to by property and try to make a living off it.

Farmers do it, just in another way.

It's true what someone said, all landlords fall short of the citys expectations.

Look around your house and you'll see that you to fall short.

Parking enforcement can issue tickets all day long and police could pull 90 % of all drivers over for speeding because even 1 mile per hour could get you pulled over and a ticket.

Make the fine for 1 mile over $ 75
and you will be rolling in the dough.

Good way to solve the budget deficit.

Hear that Pawlenty ?

I understand what you saywhen you accuse these plaintiff landlords of being all out for themselves, but who isn't.

Doesn't mean they don't care about the tenants.

Fact is, alot of tenants don't pay rent on time so landlord can't raise the money to make excessive and trumped up repair brought on by DSI.

Thats what their beef is !

Isn't it ?

Jeff Matiatos; 12:03 AM
Anonymous said...: 8:42
Don't come down on me. I'm reading the court record. I don't know if the tenant was a pillar of society or a drag on mankind, I just know what Bob posted as testimony.

Your panties are up in a bunch whatsamatta, nervous?

Frank Steinhuaser is a drag on this RICO case because he is an example of the worst of landlords- taken from his own testimony.

Oh yeah, rat infestation and lack of plumbing are not things that just randomly happen when renting property. It takes a form a neglect to get to both.

Being able to be a Landlord is not a civil right or civil liberty. 8:42 does not understand the case. He is saying something different than the suit is saying. I suggest he read up on the case before confirming stupidity.

Eric; 12:09 AM
Anonymous said...: So since these Judges are so stupid that they cannot hear a case without the city first coming in and putting their spin on it, why don,t we have seperate courts for each and every different offense and have the city come in explain theri side to the Judge ahead of time just so the Judge can hear the case fairly! Are you nuts Repke? You don't see anything worng with this? Move to China, thats the way they do it there. We still have rights here, and one of those rights is to have a fair and honest court hearing. How can it be fair when the other side has been in there ahead of time and poisoned the well? I agree with Jeff. He also seems to know a lot more about the law than you Chuck. I think you'r eout of your class here.; 12:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Jeff and 12:48 - First 12:48 we damn near do have separate courts for separate cases. We created a special court to hear juvenile cases, so that one judge would become aware of the services available to juveniles and with that knowledge be able to make better decisions about what to do with the offender. We for almost a century had a separate misdemeanor and felony court so that the judge sitting on the misdemeanor bench wouldn't have just heard a murder case and look at the guy that got punched in the nose and think, you're lucky you didn't get killed. We have a separate family court to handle divorce and custody so that those judges get educated about services available to people in divorces and get a better feel of the issues people are facing.

So, yes the City went to the bench and said... with there being random judges hearing housing cases there is no empathy for the victim. The bench is seeing this as a victimless crime and dismissing tags like water when the perpetrator simply says, I'll get around to fixing it someday. If the bench doesn't create a housing court we will simply not prosecute the cases anymore because it is a waste of time and money.

And, Jeff, who is the other side? There is no other side. There was no case in front of the bench to discuss, which would be Ex-Parte, only the City asking the bench to review how it handles a certain kind of case.

Because once there became a housing court and a judge could take two minutes to look at the impact these problem properties would have on neighboring properties, the tune from the bench changed. They realized that the victim wasn't the City code, but the neighboring property. That the offender wasn't just ignoring a repair order, he was costing his neighbors real dollars in the value of their properties, either for resale or for rental themselves. Not to mention, all of the quality of life issues they were impacting.

See, that is the part of the story that A Democracy wants to hide. The fact that bad property owners hurt neighboring properties and bring their values down.

I support good landlords. I work with good landlords, some who I know have post to this list. There is nothing wrong with someone wanting to make a buck, but there is something wrong when he tries to make a buck by stealing it out of my (or his neighbors) pocket.

If his property costs his neighbors money, than he is a thief just like any other crook.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 9:06 AM
Bob said...: Eric, I will be posting testimony from inspectors and Frank Steinhauser's tenants he was a good landlord. The rat issue is a farce. A freckin lie, as you will hear from a professional exterminator on Franks behalf concerning this issue of rats.

Give me an hour or so and I will have more of Debbie Doolittle's testimony proclaiming plaintiff Steve Johnson is a good landlord. I think you folks will be shocked at what she has to say.; 9:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Rigged courts Repke. That's al they are! Crooked and rigged in favor of the powers that be. If the city cannot come in and put on a case so the Judge or the jury understands all aspects of the case, then the people need to hire better Attornies, not pull some back door bullshit behind the scenes with the judge. You find me one person who thinks it's fair for the city to go put their spin on the deal before the court hearing and then go in like they have clean hands. You belong in jail Repke. In my opinion you are just a profressional liar and a scally wag.; 9:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Eric just because you think one landlord is a slumlord don't think they all are.Just like Chuck said there could be some prick inspectors breaking the rules don't throw the whole department under the bus.

Slumlord or not violate someones rights and you lose.You could violate a criminals rights and in the end the criminal wins.

Jim; 10:02 AM
Bob said...: Plaintiff's witness testimony Debbie Doolittle continued.

There maybe copy errors.

25 Q. While you were renting from Mr. Johnson did the
1 faucets work in the sink in that bathroom?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you have hot water?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And that was during the entire time that you
6 were renting from Mr. Johnson?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did you have cold water as well?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did your shower fixtures work during the time
11 that you were renting from Mr. Johnson?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And that's in that main level --
14 A. Mm-hmm.
15 Q. -- bathroom, is that correct?
16 A. (Nods head affirmatively) Yeah.
17 Q. You'll have to say "yes" or "no" instead of
18 nodding your head because Cheryl --
19 A. I'm sorry.
20 Q. -- will have --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. -- some difficulty there. Thank you.
23 So the faucet handles in the
24 bathroom, in the bathtub and shower, those
25 worked the entire time that you were renting
1 from Mr. Johnson?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you have another bathroom in the home?
4 A. No.
5 Q. So there was one bathroom that was on the main
6 level?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. How about the condition of the walls in the
9 home at 941 Cypress during the time that you
10 were renting from Mr. Johnson, can you tell me
11 the general condition of the walls?
12 A. They were all in good condition.
13 Q. Was there any holes that you observed in the
14 walls?
15 A. No.
16 Q. And I'm talking about other than, let's say, a
17 nail hole where you put a picture up or
18 something like that?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Okay. How about the condition of the ceilings,
21 do you remember anything out of the ordinary
22 there?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you have any broken windows during the time
25 that you were living at 941 Cypress during the
1 time Mr. Johnson owned the property?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Not that you can remember?
4 A. No.
5 Q. In the summertime did you have an air
6 conditioner unit in the window that you would
7 install, do you remember that?
8 A. No, no.
9 Q. It didn't have an air conditioner unit?
10 A. No, not that I can recall.
11 Q. Were there screens on the windows, do you
12 remember that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. Do you remember what the condition of
15 the screens were?
16 A. They were good.
17 Q. Anything out of the ordinary now that we've
18 talked about the interior of the property,
19 anything out of the ordinary that comes to mind
20 as being something that was of a concern to you
21 about the condition of the interior during the
22 time you rented from Mr. Johnson?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you have heat that worked in 941 Cypress
25 while you lived there?

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And this would be the case during the time you
3 rented from Mr. Johnson as well?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you had electricity to the home the entire
6 time that you rented from Mr. Johnson?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did you have to pay the utilities?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. That was part of your lease?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you remember how much you paid in rent? I
13 know that's some time ago but --
14 A. Oh, goodness! I can't remember how much it was
15 to be honest, no, I can't remember.
16 Q. Did you have contact with Mr. Johnson's family
17 from a standpoint of any issues that you had on
18 the property at any time? You mentioned that
19 you had met his daughter.
20 A. Yes, I met his daughter when her and Steve came
21 over to do the lease when they took over the
22 property. Other than that any -- I don't
23 recall meeting his son until, until we moved on
24 to Sherburne.
25 Q. Okay. How would you describe your rental
1 relationship with Steve Johnson then overall at
2 the 941 Cypress property?
3 A. Good.
4 Q. The relationship that you had with Mr. Lindorf,
5 would you consider that a boyfriend-girlfriend
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Tell me a little bit about Mr. Lindorf. I
9 understand that he had some physical
10 difficulties while he was alive.
11 A. Yeah, he, he was diagnosed with cancer three
12 years before. He had broken his back at work
13 and then he was diagnosed with M.S. as well.
14 Q. You mentioned that he was hurt at work. Where
15 was he working that you know of?
16 A. He was working at Northwest Packaging.
17 Q. Do you remember learning as to how he was
18 injured?
19 A. He fell off a ladder and hit the tailbone first
20 on the concrete ground.
21 Q. Did he end up with any type of a disability
22 rating that you know of or workers'
23 compensation, that type thing?
24 A. Yes, he totally paralyzed.
25 Q. Was he able to use his legs at all to move
1 around?
2 A. They did not expect him to when he had the
3 accident but he was able, he was able to walk
4 again but he had to have, walk with canes.
5 Q. Did he use a wheelchair at any time then after
6 the accident?
7 A. Yes, because he could only walk for so long and
8 then he couldn't be on his legs anymore so he
9 had his wheelchair.
10 Q. Do you understand that he had some type of a
11 workers' compensation award?
12 A. Yes, he was supposed to, yes.
12 A. Yes, he was supposed to, yes.
13 Q. Did he ever apply for Social Security
14 disability, do you know that?
15 A. I believe he applied for Social Security.
16 Q. Do you know if he was successful in obtaining a
17 Social Security disability award?
18 A. I'm not sure.
19 Q. You're not sure. Okay. Is his mother still
20 alive?
21 A. Yes, she is.
22 Q. What is her name?
23 A. Dorothy Schlie.
24 Q. Could you spell that, please, if you know how
25 to spell it?
1 A. S-c-h-l-e-e (sic) I believe.
2 Q. Where does she live?
3 A. *** Blair.
4 Q. In the City of St. Paul?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. How long has she lived there that you know of?
7 A. Oh, my goodness! I'd say a good twenty, thirty
8 years. She bought the house when it was first
9 built.
10 Q. Did she have any other sons besides David?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Tell me what their names are.
13 A. Richard Lindorf and John Lindorf.
14 Q. Where does John Lindorf live, do you know?
15 A. I'm not sure where John is living.
16 Q. And I understand that the other brother is
17 incarcerated, is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you know the situation that led to his
20 incarceration?
21 A. No, I don't.
22 Q. Did David have any children?
23 A. Yes, he did.
24 Q. Tell me about what you know about his children.
25 A. He had two kids, he had a boy and a girl, a
1 daughter Nicolle which he didn't have much, he
2 didn't get to know until she was about 16, 17.
3 And he had a son James that was 17 when he
4 passed away from -- he got shot.
5 Q. I understand that that was a situation where
6 someone had shot him at a grocery store or
7 something?
8 A. Yes, outside of SA on Rice and Front Street.
9 Q. In the City of St. Paul?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And he passed away because of his injuries?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I understand that those were the only two
14 children that David had, is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you know where his daughter currently lives?
17 A. No, I don't.
18 Q. Now do you recall that you were required by the
19 City of St. Paul to move from the 941 Front
20 home during the spring of 2003?
21 A. Cypress?
22 Q. Right, from 941 Cypress.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. The situation that led to your having to
25 leave your home, do you remember that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you remember that pretty well?
3 A. Unfortunately it will be a day I'll never
4 forget.
5 Q. A day you'll never forget?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. Is that what you said?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. From my review of the City documents that were
10 prepared by an inspector and the director of
11 the Code Enforcement the City indicates on the
12 notice of condemnation to Mr. Johnson that it
13 occurred, that is the inspection occurred on
14 March 12th, 2003. Does that seem to jibe with
15 what you recall?
16 A. I can't remember the exact date.
17 Q. Okay. Tell me who was living at 941 Cypress on
18 the day that the code inspector condemned the
19 home.
20 A. Me, Dave Lindorf and my two kids.
21 Q. Which of your two children were living with
22 you?
23 A. My two youngest, Josie and Robert.
24 Q. Okay. How old were they at that time? That
25 would have been about almost four years ago
1 now, so your son would have been about eleven
2 at the time?
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. And your daughter would have been about 13?
5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. Because you mentioned now that they're 17 and
7 15, correct?
8 A. Right.
9 Q. Okay. Anyone else that was living there the
10 day that the inspector condemned the 941
11 Cypress home?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Were all of you, that is Mr. Lindorf and your
14 two children and yourself, in the property when
15 the inspector came to the property to condemn
16 the property or at least to condemn it as a
17 result of his inspection?
18 A. It was late at night. I don't remember if, if
19 David was still there or not.
20 Q. Now you're talking about the son?
21 A. No, David Lindorf.
22 Q. Okay. Was there a law enforcement raid that
23 started the process that led to the
24 condemnation?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Was Mr. Lindorf there at the start of the law
2 enforcement raid?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. So at some point he was led away by law
5 enforcement officers?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Was he arrested that day?
8 A. He was.
9 Q. Okay. How long was he in jail or at least
10 incarcerated?
11 A. About 24 hours, he was released the next day.
12 Q. Oh, he was. Okay. What time of the day was he
13 released that you recall?
14 A. I'd say it was early afternoon.
15 Q. Were any charges ever brought against him that
16 you know of?
17 A. No.
18 Q. No charges at any time against him?
19 A. No, not that I'm aware of.
20 Q. That would have resulted from the particular
21 law enforcement raid?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. What do you remember about what you were
24 doing at the time that you learned that the law
25 enforcement officers were intending to come
1 into your property at 941 Cypress?
2 A. I had just put my son to bed. It was about
3 9 o'clock at night.
4 Q. Where was his bedroom?
5 A. His bedroom was upstairs.
6 Q. Was your daughter's bedroom upstairs as well?
7 A. My daughter's bedroom was upstairs also.
8 Q. Okay. And then you and Mr. Lindorf had a
9 bedroom on the main floor?
10 A. Right.
11 Q. Okay. What else do you remember then after
12 just putting your son to bed that night?
13 A. I put my son to bed. Mr. Lindorf was in the
14 bed. He was, he was not feeling good and in a
15 lot of pain, he was already sleeping. I had
16 put my son down. I went and got a cup of tea,
17 came down. I was going to sit and watch TV for
18 a half hour --
19 Q. Do you remember what time that was?
20 A. That was about between 9:00 and 9:30.
21 Q. And what were you going to do, you were going
22 to sit down --
23 A. I was --
24 Q. -- with your tea?
25 A. -- I was going to sit down, drink my cup of
1 tea, watch a half-hour program and go do my
2 dishes.
3 Q. Okay. And what do you remember happening next?
4 A. No sooner than I put the cup of tea in front of
5 me I heard a bang and, "St. Paul Police. This
6 is raid." And they grabbed me and threw me to
7 the ground and held a gun at my head. And I
8 was petrified. I mean there was like 15, 20 of
9 them that came in.
10 Q. Okay. You said you heard someone say
11 something?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What did you hear?
14 A. They, they, they pushed the door open or kicked
15 it open and screamed, "St. Paul Police. This
16 is a raid."
17 Q. Do you remember anything else being said during
18 that initial, let's say, minute or so by the
19 police?
20 A. (Nods head negatively.)
21 Q. They came to you, did they?
22 A. I was the first one, I was the first one. They
23 came in the back door. And right when you come
24 in the back door if you go straight you go up
25 the upstairs. And then the living room is
1 right here. I was sitting right there on the
2 chair.
3 They grabbed me and they threw me
4 down and they threw -- the cup of tea fell on
5 top of me. And, I mean, it was, there was
6 officers all over going through every, every
7 direction in the house (indicating).
8 Q. Okay. So when you were thrown down what type
9 of surface was on the living room where you
10 were at, was it carpet?
11 A. Just the carpet.
12 Q. Okay. And tell me what position you were in
13 when you were thrown down.
14 A. Face down.
15 Q. Okay. Did you get up then?
16 A. No, I couldn't, they had a gun to my head.
17 Q. Okay. How long were you on the carpet then in
18 that position that you remember?
19 A. Until they let me up.
20 Q. Do you know how long it was?
21 A. It was, it was a good half hour, 45 minutes.
22 Q. Okay. Did you say anything to any of the
23 officers that were right around you while you
24 were on the carpet?
25 A. Yes, I can -- I told them, "My son, my son. My
1 baby's upstairs. Don't, don't scare him." And
2 they just kept screaming at me, "Shut up, shut
3 up, shut up."
4 Q. Do you remember anything else that you said to
5 any of the law enforcement officers?
6 A. I seen two officers go toward the bedroom and I
7 made the comment, "Please don't hurt him,
8 please don't hurt him. He's got a broken
9 back." And they just grabbed him out of bed
10 and dragged him out of bed and threw him on the
11 floor right there (indicating).
12 Q. Next to you?
13 A. I was this way and they threw him on the floor
14 facing this way (indicating).
15 Q. Okay. So you're saying that they would have
16 placed him almost like the letter "T" --
17 A. Right.
18 Q. -- with regard to you?
19 A. Right.
20 Q. Okay. Do you remember saying anything else to
21 the police officers as far as for the issue of
22 Mr. Lindorf and his health?
23 A. Yes, I just, I screamed, "Please don't hurt
24 him, he's got a broken back. He's paralyzed.
25 Don't" -- and they just kept screaming at me at
1 the top of their lungs. I said, "Shut up, shut
2 up, shut up."
3 Q. Could you see them, from your position on the
4 carpet could you see them in how they
5 transported or got Mr. Lindorf from his bedroom
6 to where he ended up on the carpet next to you?
7 A. Yeah, my head was facing the bedroom
8 (indicating).
9 Q. Okay. So what did you see as far as for how
10 they transported him from the bedroom to the
11 carpet?
12 A. They just, one of them had him by the back of
13 his shirt and the other one was just like had
14 him by his arm. And no sooner than they got
15 him at the doorway of the bedroom into the
16 living room they just threw him on the ground
17 (indicating).
18 Q. Okay. How far were you from the bedroom door
19 where you were laying on the carpet?
20 A. Oh, the living room's only like ten by ten.
21 Q. Okay. So it wasn't too far from the bedroom
22 door to where you were at?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Ten feet or so from there?
25 A. Yeah, not even.
1 Q. Did the police call you any names at any time?
2 A. No.
3 Q. No. Did they call Mr. Lindorf any names?
4 A. I don't recall.
5 Q. Do you remember them being rude to you?
6 A. Oh, yes.
7 Q. Were they rude to Mr. Lindorf as well?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. How would you describe that other than what you
10 have said so far?
11 A. Just, they just, screaming at the top of their
12 lungs and I'm trying to tell them, "My son is
13 up there. Don't scare my son."
14 Q. Did they bring your son down from upstairs?
15 A. Not until they had, not until they had me in
16 handcuffs sitting on the couch.
17 Q. How long before they put you in handcuffs?
18 A. As soon as they said -- I don't know, they made
19 some comment and then they grabbed me. They
20 had me, they put plastic, like plastic
21 enforcements behind my back while I was laying
22 on the ground.
23 Q. Okay. While Mr. Lindorf was next to you?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And then what --
1 A. They put me in plastic and put him in plastic
2 things. And then after everybody was done
3 running around doing what they were doing they
4 got me up and they sat me on the couch and sat
5 David on the couch. And then they finally let
6 my son come downstairs.
7 Q. Okay. Were you still in the plastic restraints
8 when you were sitting on the couch?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And so then your son finally came down
11 the stairs?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did he make any comments at all that you
14 remember?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What did he say?
17 A. "Are you taking my mom to jail?" (Witness
18 crying.)
19 Q. Okay. This is difficult for you.
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. SHOEMAKER: Should we take a
22 little break? Do you want to take five minutes
23 or so?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 MR. SHOEMAKER: Let's do that.
1 (Whereupon, a brief recess was
2 taken.)
3 MR. SHOEMAKER: Let's go back on the
4 record here.
5 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
6 Q. Just before the break we were talking about the
7 law enforcement raid at 941 Cypress. And I
8 recall that you were talking about your son
9 coming downstairs or the police bringing your
10 son downstairs. And from what I could tell
11 from your testimony is it's difficult
12 emotionally for you to recall that day, is that
13 right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And we took a break because you were crying, is
16 that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Let's just, I want to ask you just a few more
19 questions about that day and try not to upset
20 you on that. But was Mr. Lindorf positioned
21 next to you on the couch at some point then in
22 restraints?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So the police took him off of the floor and
25 placed him on the couch?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Was he also in the physical, or I should say
3 the plastic handcuffs behind his back?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then your son was brought down. And he
6 made the comment I think you said about, "Are
7 you taking my mother to jail," something like
8 that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you remember anything else that your son
11 said at that time?
12 A. I can't remember, I just know he was so
13 devastated it took me till like 2:30 the next
14 morning to get him to lay down and go to sleep.
15 Q. How long were you on the couch that you
16 remember that evening in the restraints behind
17 your back?
18 A. Until they took David and placed him in the,
19 they took him out to the car and then --
20 Q. To a police car?
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. Were you on the couch when they came and took
23 him out of the house?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. How did they transport him out of the house,
1 did they lift him up?
2 A. One of them on each arm just helped him off the
3 couch and walked him out the door.
4 Q. Okay. So he was able with their help to walk
5 to the door?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did you get up then and watch them transport
8 him or help him get to the car?
9 A. I wasn't able to get up.
10 Q. Did anyone tell you to continue to sit on the
11 couch?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Who was that?; 11:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Eric just because you think one landlord is a slumlord don't think they all are.Just like Chuck said there could be some prick inspectors breaking the rules don't throw the whole department under the bus.

Jim, I don't disagree. I have said that there are surely some bad players on the City's payroll but, a suit that implements the entire department and the council and courts as co-conspirators is a bit much to take seriously. That's exactly what this suit is about.

When you have a legit case, as some think the RICO folks do, then you don't put someone as a party to your suit- or on the stand with the issues of Steinhauser. It blows your case out of the water.

Eric; 12:02 PM
Bob said...: Doolittle tesimony continued.

There maybe copy errors.

14 A. One of the officers.
15 Q. Did you see any non-police officer but a City
16 employee there that night in your home?
17 A. After they had taken David and released me from
18 the handcuffs another gentleman came in,
19 introduced himself, I can't remember, something
20 about an inspector. And then they took me out
21 of the handcuffs and told me, "Unlock the
22 basement."
23 Q. Okay. You were sitting on the couch with the
24 plastic restraints around your hands with your
25 hands behind your back, correct, is that right?
1 A. Right.
2 Q. Okay. Did this inspector come in and talk to
3 you while you were on the couch?
4 A. I believe I was still on the couch, yes.
5 Q. At some point though after you met the
6 inspector you were released out of the
7 handcuffs so that you could get a key for the
8 door to the basement?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Were you talking to the inspector after the
11 initial contact with the inspector while you
12 were on the couch?
13 A. I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
14 Q. How many conversations do you remember having
15 with the inspector?
16 A. Just one.
17 Q. Where were you at when you had that
18 conversation?
19 A. I was seated on the couch.
20 Q. Okay. Did at some point someone ask you to
21 unlock the basement?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Who was it that asked you to do that?
24 A. I don't recall.
25 Q. Okay. Do you remember what the inspector said
1 to you while you were on couch?
2 A. I don't recall.
3 Q. Okay. Do you remember what the inspector said
4 to you while you were on the couch?
5 A. I don't recall. All I know is he came in there
6 to do some stuff. They took me out of the
7 restraints and then they, about ten minutes
8 later they came and said, "We need the basement
9 door opened."
10 Q. Did you assist them then in getting the
11 basement door open?
12 A. I went and grabbed the keys. And he said,
13 "Which key is it?" And I showed him. And he
14 said, "Where is the basement?" I pointed out
15 the back door and showed him where the basement
16 door was.
17 Q. Was this a police officer that you were
18 showing?
19 A. No, it was an inspector.
20 Q. Okay. So when you just described what you were
21 doing with the keys, that was in relationship
22 to an inspector that was talking to you?
23 A. Right.
24 Q. Before the police arrived that night what was
25 the condition of the main floor of your home
1 there at 941 Cypress from a standpoint of was
2 it clean, was it cluttered, that kind of thing.
3 What do you remember about that before the
4 police got there?
5 A. My dishes needed to be done but other than that
6 the house was clean.
7 Q. So you could walk around the main level of the
8 home without any difficulty?
9 A. Mm-hmm (nods head affirmatively).
10 Q. Is that true?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you have any clutter in any of the rooms on
13 the main floor of the 941 Cypress home before
14 the police got there that night?
15 A. No.
16 Q. The hallways were uncluttered?
17 A. Yep.
18 Q. Did you have anything stored in the hallways
19 prior to the police coming that night?
20 A. There was no hallways and, no, we didn't.
21 Q. Okay. So you didn't have anything stored in
22 the living room?
23 A. Nope.
24 Q. How about anything stored in the kitchen before
25 the police got there?
1 A. No, not to my knowledge.
2 Q. Was there anything stored in the bedroom on the
3 main floor that you recall other than clothing
4 and that type of thing?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Describe the bedroom for me, how was the bed
7 positioned before the police got there?
8 A. Well, the bedroom ain't very big. The bed took
9 up most of the room. The bed was like here and
10 then there was a dresser on this side of the
11 bed and there was a dresser at the end of the
12 bed (indicating).
13 Q. Okay. So there were two dressers in the
14 bedroom?
15 A. Mm-hmm.
16 Q. Is that right?
17 A. Mm-hmm.
18 Q. You have to say "yes" or "no" because --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- that way Cheryl will be able to get it.
21 Thank you.
22 And the bed itself took up most of
23 the floor space in the bedroom?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. Were you able to, before the police got there,
1 able to get around the bed so that you could
2 access the bed on both sides of the bed?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You could walk through the bedroom without any
5 difficulty?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Were all of the drawers in the dressers?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Were the clothes hanging on the, in the closet?
10 Was there a closet there?
11 A. Not on the main floor, no.
12 Q. Okay. Where did you store your clothing?
13 A. In the, in the drawers.
14 Q. Oh, in the drawers. Okay.
15 How about upstairs, what was the
16 condition from a standpoint of clutter or being
17 clean of the upstairs of your home there before
18 the police arrived?
19 A. There was no clutter.
20 Q. Okay. So there --
21 A. A bed.
22 Q. -- were two bedrooms up there. Were you able
23 to get access to those bedrooms without having
24 to climb over anything?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Were there any boxes stored in either of those
2 bedrooms upstairs?
3 A. I believe my son had a toy box in his room.
4 Q. Where was that located in his room?
5 A. Top of the stairs is the first room and then
6 you had to go through that room to the second
7 room. My son's room was the second room
8 (indicating).
9 Q. But you don't recall any boxes having been
10 stored up there prior to the police arriving?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Okay. And you could walk into both of the
13 bedrooms without any difficulty?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Were the clothes picked up up there before the
16 police raid?
17 A. No, I wouldn't say the bedrooms were clean,
18 they were my kids' rooms.
19 Q. Okay. Typical kids' rooms?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right. How about the basement, when would
22 have been the last time that you would have
23 been in the basement before the evening of the
24 police raid?
25 A. I was down there around 5:30, 6:00 o'clock that
1 evening, I was doing laundry.
2 Q. Describe the basement from a standpoint of any
3 storage that you had down there prior to the
4 police arriving.
5 A. The storage that we had was all on a back wall.
6 Q. Was that away from the stairway?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Where was the hot water heater located in
9 relationship to the stairway?
10 A. The hot water heater was at the bottom of the
11 stairs. Here's the staircase going down here
12 (indicating).
13 Q. Was it next to the stairway like --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- under the stairway or close to the stairway?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. How far away was the back wall where you
18 had boxes stored from the hot water heater?
19 A. It was --
20 Q. In feet if you can remember.
21 A. I'd say between ten and fifteen feet.
22 Q. Okay. From the hot water heater to the boxes
23 where you had storage --
24 A. Right.
25 Q. -- inside of them. How many boxes did you have
1 in the basement approximately prior to the
2 police raid?
3 A. Oh, God! I hadn't even finished unpacking all
4 the stuff that was down there, there was stuff
5 that I still hadn't unpacked.
6 Q. Did you have boxes stacked on top of each
7 other?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. How high were the boxes stacked?
10 A. I'd say about three or four high.
11 Q. Three or four high. So how high would that be
12 approximately from a standpoint of like feet,
13 about five feet?
14 A. I'd say about three to four feet.
15 Q. High?
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. How wide were the boxes stacked --
18 A. Well, they were --
19 Q. -- against that wall?
20 A. -- they were different sizes.
21 Q. Okay. But when they were stacked against the
22 wall there how wide were the boxes in total
23 that were stacked along the wall, more than ten
24 feet wide of boxes?
25 A. Between five and eight.
1 Q. Five and eight feet wide?
2 A. (Nods head affirmatively.)
3 Q. How deep did you have the boxes stacked, did
4 you have more than one box from the wall where
5 you stacked up double boxes or three boxes
6 deep? Tell me a little bit how that looked to
7 you.
8 A. Well, it was all nice and neat. It was all up
9 against one wall. And I had like, like I said,
10 four high and maybe two rows.
11 Q. How tall are you, Ms. Doolittle?
12 A. I am four eleven.
13 Q. Were the boxes taller than you against the
14 wall?
15 A. Not by much.
16 Q. Were you able to grab a box that was on the top
17 of the stack --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- of boxes?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Would you have to move any boxes in order to
22 get to the back row of the boxes against the
23 wall?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. How many rows would you have to go
1 through in order to get to the back row?
2 A. Just one.
3 Q. Just one. So you'd have a double row of boxes
4 away from the wall?
5 A. (Nods head affirmatively.)
6 Q. Is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. So could you reach the wall from where
9 you were positioned at the front of the boxes
10 or was that just a little bit beyond your
11 reach?
12 A. Just a little bit beyond my reach.
13 Q. How far was it from the wall to your washer and
14 dryer where you had the boxes stacked?
15 A. Oh, that was a good ten, twelve feet.
16 Q. Okay. To those appliances?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. From the last box away from the wall?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. How about the furnace, where was that
21 positioned from a standpoint of where your
22 boxes were located?
23 A. Again, ten, twelve feet. The furnace, the hot
24 water heater and then the sink for the washer
25 and dryer (indicating).
1 Q. And then you would have the boxes beyond that?
2 A. The boxes were on the others, the other side
3 (indicating).
4 Q. Okay. So on one side of this half basement you
5 had the stairs, correct?
6 A. Yep.
7 Q. And you also had the hot water heater, is that
8 right?
9 A. Yep.
10 Q. And then you had the furnace close to the hot
11 water heater?
12 A. Yep.
13 Q. And you had the washer and dryer?
14 A. Yep, that was close to the stairs.
15 Q. Okay. And then how far did you have to walk
16 before you would get to where your boxes were
17 located from that location where you had the
18 furnace, the hot water heater and the washer
19 and dryer?
20 A. Ten to twelve feet.
21 Q. Okay. Did you have anything on the floor other
22 than the boxes in the basement before the
23 police officers arrived?
24 A. I believe Mr. Lindorf had his tools and stuff
25 down there, his toolboxes.
1 Q. How many boxes do you remember seeing in the
2 basement that night when you were doing
3 laundry?
4 A. Boxes?
5 Q. Yeah, toolboxes, that kind of thing that you
6 described that he had?
7 A. He had about two or three toolboxes and an air
8 compressor.
9 Q. He had an air compressor well?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Where were they located?
12 A. At the bottom of the stairs.
13 Q. Okay. Were they in the way of getting down to
14 the basement or getting out of the basement?
15 A. No.
16 Q. How were they positioned in the basement?
17 A. Up against the wall (indicating).
18 Q. Okay. Away from the stairway?
19 A. At the bottom of the stairs there's about,
20 between the bottom of the stairs and the wall
21 there's about another five to eight feet before
22 you hit the wall. And then he had those lined
23 up right there (indicating).
24 Q. Could you see the walls in the basement even
25 though you had his tools lined up on that one
1 wall and you had boxes on the other wall?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. So what portion do you think of the walls in
4 the basement were actually covered by boxes or
5 toolboxes?
6 A. I'd say about four feet.
7 Q. Four feet of the wall?
8 A. (Nods head affirmatively.)
9 Q. Okay. What kind of wall surface was in the
10 basement, do you remember that?
11 A. Cement.
12 Q. A cement type wall surface?
13 A. Mm-hmm (nods head affirmatively).
14 Q. Was it a finished wall at all?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Do you remember if Mr. Johnson had been inside
17 of your home doing any type of improvements to
18 the main level of your home while you were
19 living there?
20 A. I don't really recall.
21 Q. You don't remember that?
22 A. (Nods head negatively.)
23 Q. He may have, you just may not have been present
24 when he was doing that?
25 A. Yeah
1 Q. Did your living conditions improve after Mr.
2 Johnson took over as owner and landlord of the
3 property from Mr. Baudette?
4 A. Oh, yeah.
5 Q. Tell me how your living conditions improved.
6 A. Well, it was just that the main thing is he
7 stayed in touch with us. He was always, we
8 were always able if we had concerns or
9 questions or anything we were always able to
10 contact him.
11 Q. Did the police at any time tell you why they
12 were there, why they came to your property?
13 A. They just came in and said, "St. Paul Police.
14 This is a raid."
15 Q. So they didn't tell you anything other than
16 that as far as for why they were there?
17 A. (Nods head negatively.)
18 Q. You're shaking your head in a negative manner.
19 A. They, they said that, from what I understood
20 they, they were supposedly looking for guns and
21 drugs.
22 Q. Okay. Now you say you understand that. How
23 did you come to that understanding, was that
24 during the night that they were raiding your
25 home?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And tell me why you believe that.
3 A. They left, because they left the paperwork with
4 me.
5 Q. Are you talking about the warrant?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And you read the warrant while you were
8 sitting on the couch or when did you read it?
9 A. I read the warrant after they left.
10 Q. Okay. When did they give you a copy of the
11 warrant?
12 A. Before they left.
13 Q. Okay. Was there any resistance on your part
14 when the police came in and made their first
15 physical contact with you?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did you put up any physical resistance at any
18 point to the police?
19 A. No, I was too petrified.
20 Q. When you observed David Lindorf being brought
21 out of his bedroom did you observe that he was
22 resisting in any way?
23 A. No.
24 Q. He was not resisting that you could see?
25 A. No; no, he wasn't.
1 Q. Did he seem to resist at all at any time that
2 you were observing him during the raid?
3 A. No.
4 Q. How you about your son, did he resist in any
5 way that you could see?
6 A. No.
7 Q. You were going to say something about Mr.
8 Lindorf. I'm sorry, I cut you off.
9 A. He was, he was, when they came in Mr. Lindorf
10 was sleeping.
11 Q. Okay. When the police came into your home --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- at the start Mr. Lindorf was sleeping?
14 A. Yes, he was asleep.
15 Q. Okay. Did the inspector ask for the key to the
16 basement while you were in handcuffs?
17 A. No, I think it was after they took the
18 handcuffs off.
19 Q. Okay. Then you went and located the key?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did the inspector ever ask you for permission
22 to inspect your home?
23 A. I really don't recall.
24 Q. You don't recall that he did that?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Did the police ever ask you for permission for
2 the inspector to inspect your home?
3 A. I don't recall.
4 Q. Tell me what your emotional state was like
5 while you were on the floor for the period that
6 you were with the gun pointed at your head.
7 A. I was petrified, I was crying, I was literally
8 paralyzed. I had never been through anything
9 like this and I was so petrified that I
10 literally peed my pants. I'd never been
11 through this before. I was just, I was scared
12 to death.
13 Q. When you were then placed on the couch can you
14 tell me what your emotional state was during
15 that time on the couch during the raid?
16 A. I was in shock.
17 Q. Okay. So this feeling that you had come over
18 you on the floor continued while you were on
19 the couch?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you have conversations with Mr. Lindorf
22 while you were on the couch?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Okay. Did the police tell you not to talk
1 A. No. I recall David, they put me on, sat me on
2 the couch first and sat David next to me. And
3 I can remember David looking at me and saying,
4 "Deb, it's okay. It will be all right. It's
5 okay. It will be all right."
6 Q. Did the police officers tell you to be quiet
7 when you were talking with Mr. Lindorf?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. They did?
10 A. They kept telling David, "Shut your mouth, just
11 shut your mouth."
12 Q. That's what you would describe as being rude to
13 him?
14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. Okay. Did you have any trouble prior to the
16 police raid when you were down in the basement
17 doing laundry, did you have any trouble getting
18 in and out of the basement to do the laundry
19 that night?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did you have to walk over anything in order to
22 get down and back up from the basement?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Were there baskets full of laundry down in the
25 basement at the time the police officers came
1 into the property?
2 A. I had one hamper of dirty clothes down there
3 that I was washing.
4 Q. Did the police officers tell you why they took
5 Mr. Lindorf away that night?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Did they ask you or Mr. Lindorf anything about
8 what kind of medications he was on?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Did anyone seem concerned that his medications
11 should be taken with him to wherever they were
12 going to take him?
13 MR. JERSKEY: Foundation,
14 speculation. Go ahead.
15 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
16 Q. Did you hear anyone express a concern about
17 making sure that his medications were with him
18 when he was taken away from the home?
19 A. No.
20 Q. No?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Were you concerned for the safety of your
23 children?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Was your daughter there that night?
1 A. No, thank God! She stayed at a friend's house
2 that night.
3 Q. Okay. So you were concerned about the safety
4 of your son during the raid?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Why is that?
7 A. Because he, he's never been through anything
8 like this either.
9 Q. Were you concerned about his safety because of
10 how you saw the police physically handle
11 Mr. Lindorf?
12 A. And me.
13 Q. And you as well?
14 A. Yes (witness crying).
15 Q. Do you believe the police were unduly rough in
16 handling you considering there was no
17 resistance on your part?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you believe the police were unduly rough in
20 handling Mr. Lindorf from what you observed
21 considering you didn't see any physical
22 resistance from him?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did he make any comment to you at any time
25 about any injuries that he may have suffered as
1 a result of the way they handled him that
2 night?
3 A. I can just remember him saying, "My back, my
4 back. Ow! My back, my back," as they brought
5 him out and threw him on the floor.
6 Q. Okay. So as they were bringing him out of the
7 bedroom and throwing him on the floor he was
8 making those comments?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did you believe he was expressing comments of
11 pain?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Was anybody that was present there that night
14 in your home, your son, Mr. Lindorf or
15 yourself, ever charged with a crime as a result
16 of the law enforcement raid?
17 MR. JERSKEY: Foundation Go Ahead
18 THE WITNESS: No.
19 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
20 Q. Your son wasn't charged with a crime as a
21 result of that raid, was he?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Were you charged with a crime as a result of
24 that raid?
25 A. No.
1 Q. And you say that Mr. Lindorf was released about
2 a day later?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you know if he ever had to go to court as a
5 result of that raid?
6 A. I really don't recall.
7 Q. All right. Did he ever say he was charged with
8 any type of a crime as a result of that raid?
9 A. They said that they were releasing him, they
10 were releasing him upon further investigation.
11 Q. Okay. Now did someone tell you that evening
12 that you were not going to be allowed to
13 continue to live in that home?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Who was it that told you that?
16 A. I believe it was a health inspector.
17 Q. You're talking about the inspector that you --
18 A. Yeah, or the --
19 Q. -- talked to about the basement access?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. Tell me what happened after you provided
24 the key to the basement, what happened next
25 that you remember?
1 A. Well, he went and he went in the basement, he
2 went upstairs, he went through the whole house.
3 I mean they had my whole house tore apart.
4 They, they --
5 Q. You're talking about the police had your house
6 tore apart?
7 A. The whole house, drawers, all over. They took
8 my TV and threw it off of the entertainment
9 center. They destroyed every room in the
10 house.
11 Q. Okay. You're talking about the police did
12 this --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- during the search?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- of your home?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. On the evening of the law enforcement raid that
19 you've been --
20 A. Right.
21 Q. -- talking about, is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And when you were referring to "he went into
24 the different rooms," you're talking about the
25 inspector from the City went into the different
1 rooms?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Where were you located when the inspector was
4 making the inspection of your home that night?
5 A. I gave him the key, showed him where the
6 basement door was, went back in the living room
7 and sat on the couch and waited.
8 Q. Okay. How long was it before the inspector
9 came back and had apparently concluded his
10 inspection?
11 A. Not even ten minutes.
12 Q. Was it more than five minutes before he
13 finished his inspection and came back and
14 talked to you?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. It was more than five?
17 A. About five to ten minutes, yeah.
18 Q. Did the inspector talk to you then at that
19 point?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What did the inspector say to you?
22 A. He told me, "We're shutting the house down.
23 You have 24 hours to be out of here. After
24 that we don't want to see you in here except
25 during daylight hours and you better be moving
1 stuff out of this, out of this house. We're
2 closing the house down."
3 Q. Did the inspector say anything about too much
4 storage in the house?
5 A. He didn't say why.
6 Q. He didn't say why he was shutting the house
7 down?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did he say there was any kind of a fire hazard
10 in the house?
11 A. Not that I recall. I don't recall. I just
12 remember him saying, "You have 24 hours to be
13 out."
14 Q. When you heard that you were going to have to
15 leave your home did you understand that that
16 meant your son was going to have to leave the
17 home as well?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And Mr. Lindorf would not be allowed to live
20 there, is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you wouldn't be allowed to live there, is
23 that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What went through your mind when you heard the
1 inspector tell you that you, that you were not
2 going to be allowed to live within 24 hours,
3 you'd have to be out?
4 A. I, I was dumfounded. I was just, I was
5 shocked. I was, "Why?"
6 Q. Had you ever been forced out of a home before?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Had you ever been evicted before by a landlord?
9 A. No.
10 Q. And you had never been in a home that the City
11 had condemned at any time that required you to
12 leave?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Had you ever been in a rental property that had
15 been condemned before?
16 A. No.
17 Q. So this was something completely new to you?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Where was your son at when the inspector told
20 you that he was shutting down the house?
21 A. On the couch next to me.
22 Q. Okay. And Mr. Lindorf had already been taken
23 away by the police?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did your son make any comment that you remember
1 in response to what the inspector said?
2 A. No, he just sat there and cried.
3 Q. All right. Was there anyone else around you
4 besides the inspector when he was talking to
5 you and your son was sitting next to you on the
6 couch?
7 A. David's niece.
8 Q. Where was she located?
9 A. She was upstairs but when the police came in
10 she was upstairs with my son laying down with
11 him trying to get him to go to sleep.
12 Q. Okay. So there was someone else in the home
13 besides your son and you and Mr. Lindorf?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. When the police arrived?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And that was David's niece?
18 A. David's niece.
19 Q. How old was she?
20 A. I would say about 18, 19.
21 Q. Was there anyone else in the home besides the
22 police at the time of the raid and yourself,
23 what you've described; in other words, let me
24 retract that.
25 At the time the police entered you
1 said Mr. Lindorf was sleeping in the main-floor
2 bedroom, your son was upstairs, David's niece
3 was upstairs, and you were just getting ready
4 to sit down with your tea. Was there anyone
5 else in the home before the police arrived?
6 A. Yes, David -- or Lynell, David's niece's
7 boyfriend, showed up about three minutes before
8 the police came.
9 Q. Where was he located at the time the police
10 first entered the home?
11 A. I think he was upstairs with Lynell. He was
12 going upstairs to get Lynell. He was her ride
13 home.
14 Q. Okay. He was her ride home?
15 A. Yeah, he came to pick her up.
16 Q. How long had she been there that night?
17 A. She was there for about 45 minutes.
18 Q. Can you give us the spelling of her full name?
19 A. I'm not sure on how to spell her name.
20 Q. Give us at least how you would pronounce her
21 first and last name.
22 A. Lynell Lopez.
23 Q. Do you remember what address she was living at?
24 A. She was staying at 394 Blair.
25 Q. Was she renting there?
1 A. No, she was living there with her grandma.
2 Q. Does her grandma still live there?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you know what her grandma's name is?
5 A. That's David's mother.
6 Q. Okay. So we could get ahold of her you think
7 through David's mother?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And then you mention her boyfriend.
10 What was his name?
11 A. David, what's the last name?
12 Q. Would David's mother have ever met her, or met
13 him I mean?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So she would know what his name is, do you
16 think?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. Anyone else that was in the home before
19 the police arrived?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did you see what the police did, if anything,
22 with regards to Ms. Lopez and her boyfriend at
23 the time the raid was being conducted?
24 A. They handcuffed all of us. They, they, they
25 took David and David -- oh, Nelson, that's the
1 other David's name, last name, Nelson.
2 Q. Is that with an s-o-n at the end?
3 A. I believe so.
4 Q. Okay. So they handcuffed everyone that was in
5 the home?
6 A. Yes, they took both Davids out.
7 Q. Of the home?
8 A. Whether David Nelson was arrested I have no
9 idea. I just know both, they walked, both
10 Davids were escorted out of the house. Me and
11 Lynell and my son were the ones left sitting in
12 the house.
13 Q. Okay. Did Lynell hear the inspector making
14 comments to you about needing to get into the
15 basement?
16 A. I couldn't tell you.
17 Q. Was she sitting on the couch when you had your
18 first conversation with the inspector?
19 A. I believe so.
20 Q. Was she there when the inspector came back and
21 said that he was shutting down the home?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So she may have been heard the inspector's
24 comments to you?
25 A. She may have, yes.
1 Q. Let me just ask you this question: When did
2 the police leave, because they came sometime in
3 the evening that day and conducted the raid.
4 How long were they in the property that you
5 remember that evening?
6 A. I believe they left it was about 12:30, 12:00
7 o'clock, between 12:00 and 12:30.
8 Q. All right. So midnight, half an hour after
9 midnight --
10 A. Mm-hmm.
11 Q. -- is when they left?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Were you allowed to sleep at your home that
14 night?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did you sleep that night?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Was your son allowed to stay in the home that
19 night?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Describe what happened after the police left.
22 A. I spent most of my time trying to get my son to
23 go to sleep. I got him to sleep around 2:00,
24 2:30. And then me and Lynell tried to pick up
25 the mess that they left. And all I could do
1 was cry. I really wasn't much help to Lynell.
2 If it wasn't for her I would have, I don't
3 know, I just --
4 Q. Do you remember how old she was at that time?
5 A. Lynell?
6 Q. Right.
7 A. Yeah, she was about 17, 18.
8 Q. And describe what the living room looked like
9 after the police left that night.
10 A. Destroyed. I mean they, after they had taken
11 David out of the house they had brought things
12 of David's into the living room, set them on
13 the table in front of the couch and was opening
14 things up and going through them.
15 They took all of his titles to his
16 vehicles. They were just -- I mean the living
17 room was a disaster. You couldn't walk through
18 any place in the house.
19 Q. What type of things had they brought out into
20 the living room besides the titles and, can you
21 describe that for me?
22 A. I can't remember what it was but they brought
23 out --
24 Q. From the bedroom?
25 A. Yeah, I think it was like a suitcase or
1 something. And his strongbox, he had a
2 strongbox with all his titles and keys in it.
3 Q. For his vehicles?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did he have a number of vehicles?
6 A. He had, he had two vehicles there. The other,
7 the other keys and titles were to vehicles that
8 he before that he never got rid of.
9 Q. Okay. But he wasn't storing those other
10 vehicles at 941 Cypress at the time of the
11 raid?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did he own any motorcycles?
14 A. Not when we were on Cypress, no.
15 Q. So there was a strongbox and a suitcase. Were
16 the police officers able to open up the
17 strongbox?
18 A. They, they used bolt cutters or something to
19 get the lock off and they just took all the
20 titles and everything.
21 Q. Okay. So you saw them take possession of the
22 titles?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And the keys as well?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Anything else that you recall them bringing out
2 of the bedroom and placing in the living room?
3 A. I can't recall.
4 Q. But you remember at the end of the raid that
5 the living room was full of things that they
6 had been looking through?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Could you walk through the living room without
9 stepping on things that they had brought out of
10 the bedroom?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Was it a mess?
13 A. Total.
14 Q. What was in the living room before the police
15 raid? Did you have a TV there?
16 A. I had my couch, a rocking chair, a coffee table
17 in front of the couch, my entertainment center
18 with my TV on it.
19 Q. Okay. Did they look in any part of the
20 entertainment center as part of the raid?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Tell me what they looked at.
23 A. They, there's two bottom doors at the bottom of
24 my entertainment center. They opened that up.
25 They drug everything out of there. They --
1 Q. And you mentioned the TV was knocked off the
2 entertainment center?
3 A. Yes, they, they took the TV and they went to
4 pull it forward and it's a 47-inch color TV.
5 Well, when they went to pull it forward it
6 almost landed on them and pulled my whole
7 antenna thing right off the back of my TV.
8 Q. Okay. So were you able to use the TV after
9 that?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Was the TV destroyed, in your opinion, as part
12 of the raid?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Were you ever able to repair it at all?
15 A. I didn't have the money to repair it.
16 Q. Okay. So you weren't able to watch that TV any
17 further?
18 A. I just -- no.
19 Q. Okay. Anything else that was destroyed in the
20 living room as part of the raid?
21 A. I really --
22 Q. Any furniture that was destroyed or at least
23 damaged in any way?
24 A. No, not to my knowledge.
25 Q. Okay. What about the kitchen, was there
1 anything there that looked like the police
2 officers had gone through after the raid when
3 you went there?
4 A. They, they dumped out, they opened up the
5 drawers in the kitchen, they dumped out my
6 silverware, they --
7 Q. Onto where?
8 A. Onto the table.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. They --
11 Q. How about any cupboards that you had any food
12 stored in --
13 A. Yes --
14 Q. -- did they take those out too?
15 A. -- they had, they opened up boxes that weren't
16 even open, perishable food that weren't even
17 open and ripped them open. They had stuff torn
18 out of my bathroom. My towels, everything that
19 I had put in there, they had that all torn
20 apart, everything.
21 Q. In a linen cabinet you had some towels and
22 other things stored in there?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. They tore all of that out of there and put it
25 where?
1 A. They just threw it on the floor.
2 Q. Okay. Describe what you observed in the
3 main-floor bedroom after the raid. Did you
4 turn the lights on and look at what the
5 condition was there after the raid?
6 A. You couldn't walk in, they had the drawers from
7 both dressers were all over the floor, all over
8 the bed. The stuff was, that were in the
9 drawers were now on the floor. It was just a
10 scattered mess.
11 Q. Had they tore the bed apart as well?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So they had taken the mattress and the box
14 spring and kind of changed its position?
15 A. They picked it up and put it back down before
16 they took all the drawers and started pulling
17 them out, they just --
18 Q. So that everything that was in the drawers had
19 been --
20 A. On the floor and on the bed.
21 Q. -- put on the floor and on the bed. Okay.
22 How about upstairs? Did you go
23 upstairs after the raid and make any
24 observations up there?
25 A. Yep.
1 Q. Okay. How long were you upstairs initially
2 looking at what the condition was up there
3 after the raid?
4 A. I was up there for about 20 minutes to a half
5 hour trying to just pick stuff up so my son
6 could, so I could lay him back down and give
7 him some --
8 Q. Okay. And then you mentioned that Lynell
9 assisted you in trying to pick things up?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. How long did it take you and anyone else to
12 kind of put your house back to order before you
13 had to leave the house? Did you ever get it
14 back to order before you had to leave?
15 A. No. The very next morning Lynell had her,
16 called her grandma and her grandma came and
17 took her to go get a bunch of boxes. And we
18 just put together boxes and started packing
19 stuff in boxes instead of trying to put it back
20 in the drawer 'cuz we knew we had to be out
21 anyway.
22 Q. Did the inspector tell you you had a right to
23 make an appeal of his determination on
24 condemning your home?
25 A. I don't recall.
1 Q. Did the police remove any of the trim molding
2 around the floor and the wall that you
3 remember?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Do you remember if they removed any of the
6 smoke detectors?
7 A. No.
8 Q. You don't remember that they did?
9 A. No, I don't remember.
10 Q. What kind of smoke detectors did you have in
11 the apartment, do you remember that?
12 A. Just the little round ones.
13 Q. Little battery-operated ones?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Where were they located?
16 A. There was one in the kitchen, one in the middle
17 or at the ceiling of the staircase going
18 upstairs, and one right above the bedroom door
19 on the main floor.
20 Q. Was there any upstairs that you remember?
21 A. And there was one in the far bedroom, in my
22 son's bedroom.
23 Q. Okay. Did they dump the refrigerator contents
24 out of the refrigerator and onto the floor?
25 A. No, they took my bag of sugar and dumped it
1 into one of my pans and sifted through that and
2 just left it.
3 Q. What did you have in your refrigerator before
4 the raid, do you remember? Did it contain food
5 that needed to be refrigerated?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. What did they do to your refrigerator
8 contents that you remember?
9 A. They didn't, they didn't dump any of my milk or
10 anything out, just, you know, anything that I
11 had. Like leftovers, they opened it up, looked
12 through it and just left it on the table.
13 Q. All right. Where were the drawers from the
14 dressers located after the police raid, did
15 they put them back into the dressers?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Where were they located?
18 A. On the floor and on the bed.
19 Q. Did you see the inspector check any of these
20 smoke detectors?
21 A. No.
22 Q. You didn't observe that?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you hear any beeping sound that would
25 indicate that a smoke detector was being
1 tested?
2 A. No.
3 Q. When the police left that night did they leave
4 you with a back door that could be closed or
5 was that broken so it wouldn't be able to be
6 secured?
7 A. No, it was able to be closed.
8 Q. It was able to be closed?
9 A. I didn't have the door locked when they came.
10 Q. When they came in the door was not locked?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Okay. So they didn't have to break the door --
13 A. No, they --
14 Q. -- to get in?
15 A. No, they didn't have to break it, they just
16 opened it up and came in (indicating).
17 Q. At the time that you were doing laundry in the
18 basement just before the police officers
19 arrived was there anything piled around the
20 furnace or water heater in the basement?
21 A. No.
22 Q. There was nothing that was around that?
23 A. No.
24 Q. How far was the nearest item that was stored in
25 the basement from the water heater?
1 A. Ten to twelve feet.
2 Q. How about the closest item that was stored in
3 the basement from the furnace before the police
4 arrived that night?
5 A. Well, there was eight to ten feet was his
6 toolboxes and the air compressor, that was at
7 the bottom of the steps up against the wall.
8 That was, that was the closest thing to the
9 furnace. Everything else was up against the
10 very back.
11 Q. Okay. Did you go down in the basement after
12 the police left that night?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. What did you observe in the basement that was
15 different from when you were down there doing
16 laundry that night?
17 A. I didn't go down. All I did was go, after they
18 were done I went to lock the door back up
19 because they just left the door open and gave
20 me back the keys. And I just went to pull the
21 door shut. And there was boxes, everything was
22 just all laying at the bottom of the steps.
23 Q. So where were you positioned when you were
24 going to close door and lock the door?
25 A. I was at the top of the, right there at the top
1 of the stairs. I was just --
2 Q. So the door --
3 A. -- pull the door shut and lock it.
4 Q. All right. So the door was open when you
5 arrived at that particular door to the
6 basement?
7 A. After they gave me the keys back.
8 Q. Right. Is that true?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. Were the lights on in the basement?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So you could see from the top of the stairs
13 part of the basement?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And what did you see at the bottom of the
16 stairs?
17 A. That they had left it a total mess.
18 Q. Okay. How far could you see into basement from
19 the top of the stairs?
20 A. All way down to the back wall and over to where
21 the main beam was (indicating).
22 Q. Okay. And you said that there was what that
23 you observed there?
24 A. They had boxes and everything, I mean all of my
25 boxes that were packed, they just opened them,
1 threw stuff around and just left it.
2 Q. Now could you see the water heater from the top
3 of the stairs?
4 A. No, the water, the water heater was over here
5 (indicating).
6 Q. Behind you so you couldn't --
7 A. Right.
8 Q. -- see that?
9 A. Well, the top of the stairs is the water heater
10 is --
11 Q. Was under --
12 A. -- right here on this wall (indicating).
13 Q. Yeah, behind and almost underneath the stairs?
14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. Okay. So you couldn't see the hot water heater
16 from the top of the stairs when you were going
17 to lock the door?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay. Could you see the furnace from the top
20 of the stairs?
21 A. No.
22 Q. When did you go down and look again in the
23 basement for what had been done to the basement
24 contents and boxes and that kind of thing?
25 A. Not until David came, when they released David
1 the next day and he came and when he got out
2 and was going to help me start packing
3 everything from the basement that's when --
4 Q. You and he went down there?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. What did you then see in the basement?
7 A. Just a total mess.
8 Q. But you had described what you saw the night
9 before on part of the basement that you could
10 observe from the top of the stairs. When you
11 went down the stairs what else did you see the
12 next day?
13 A. That they had almost, almost all of my boxes I
14 had packed still, I had not unpacked, they had
15 almost all of them opened and dug through and
16 just left.
17 Q. Okay. Had they taken things out of the boxes?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Where were those things that they had taken out
20 of the boxes?
21 A. On the floor.
22 Q. All right. Was there anything that you
23 observed that they had taken out of boxes that
24 were thrown or placed close to the hot water
25 heater?
1 A. I really don't recall, I just know everything
2 was all over.
3 Q. Okay. Was there anything that they had placed
4 and thrown around that was close to the
5 furnace?
6 A. The boxes after they emptied them, they just,
7 they took everything out and they just threw
8 the box and went to the next one.
9 Q. All right. So was it hard for you to walk
10 through the basement after the police had left
11 and you were there the next day?
12 A. Well, yeah, I had him move all the boxes and
13 stuff from the bottom of the stairs just to get
14 to the landing.
15 Q. Okay. And then once you moved those boxes did
16 you have to move any further boxes in order to
17 get back to where the boxes used to be on the
18 wall?
19 A. No, I just took all boxes and stacked them up
20 next to the stairs and pushed them over to
21 where all the stuff was that was in them and
22 started repacking them.
23 Q. How long did it take you to clear a path in the
24 basement the next day in order for you to start
25 doing the packing, are you talking about a few
1 minutes or did it take you longer to clear a
2 pathway to have access down there?
3 A. It was about 15 to 20 minutes.
4 Q. Okay. How long did it take you to repack
5 everything?
6 A. Quite awhile because my boxes were all ripped
7 up.
8 Q. All right. So if you hadn't had ripped-up
9 boxes how long would it have taken you to
10 repack the boxes?
11 A. I'd say about a half hour, 45 minutes.
12 Q. All right. How long did it take you to repack
13 the boxes because your boxes were torn?
14 A. A good two and a half, three hours.
15 Q. Did you use some type of tape to --
16 A. Duct tape.
17 Q. -- repair the boxes?
18 A. Duct tape.
19 Q. Okay. And then I assume that sometime later
20 that next day that you and others that were
21 helping you would have moved the boxes out of
22 the basement, is that right?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. Did you have a truck that you could use to move
25 the items --
1 A. -- my --
2 Q. -- from your home?
3 A. David's stepfather let us use his truck to
4 start moving stuff.
5 Q. Now Mr. Lindorf, was he able to help in moving
6 any items due to his condition?
7 A. He was able to go down there and kind of say,
8 "Okay. Put this here, put that there," but,
9 you know, he wasn't able to do any lifting.
10 He had his brothers and nephews come and help
11 us --
12 Q. Okay. So you had some --
13 A. -- start packing.
14 Q. -- additional people that --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- were relatives that could assist you in
17 moving from home?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Where did you think that you were going to go
20 when you had been told by the inspector the
21 night before that he was going to shut down
22 your home?
23 A. I had no idea until the next morning when
24 Lynell called her grandma and her grandma told,
25 said, "Let Debbie know, you know, it's okay,
1 you guys can come here, stay here until you get
2 into another place."
3 Q. And which grandma is this now, this is --
4 A. This is David's mother.
5 Q. David's mother. Okay. So she was saying to
6 you that she would allow you to move there?
7 A. Yeah, she would allow me and my two kids and
8 David to go stay there until we got into
9 another place.
10 Q. Okay. How big of a home did she have at that
11 time?
12 A. She's got a two-story place.
13 Q. Do you know how many bedrooms that she had at
14 that time?
15 A. She's got three bedrooms upstairs and one
16 bedroom I believe downstairs.
17 Q. Who was living with her at the time that she
18 was telling you that she was going to allow you
19 to live there, do you remember that?
20 A. Her, her husband, Lynell, my two nieces that
21 she was, had custody of, and her brother.
22 Q. Okay. So she had a pretty full house --
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. -- at that time, didn't she?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. But she was willing to allow you and David and
2 your two children to live with her as well?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did you move into her home?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you start moving into there then the next
7 day after the police raid?
8 A. Well, we didn't bring everything with us, we
9 went and got a storage. She paid for us to get
10 a storage started so we could put most of our
11 stuff there and we were able to have a box or
12 two there with us.
13 Q. So David's mother paid for the storage for you?
14 A. She borrowed us the money to get the storage.
15 Q. Okay. If she hadn't borrowed you the money for
16 that would you have been able to pay for
17 storage?
18 A. Not until his, his next check came.
19 Q. How long would it have been do you think before
20 his next check would have come?
21 A. Well, he got one check a week.
22 Q. So it might have been a few days before he
23 would have got his check?
24 A. Yes, but we had to have the stuff out of there.
25 Q. Yeah, so you put some belongings in storage.
1 Did you take some belongings with you over to
2 his mother's house?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And did you have a bedroom that you and David
5 had there or not?
6 A. No, we took my daughter's futon mattress off of
7 her bed and we laid that on the floor and
8 that's what we slept on.
9 Q. Which room did you put the futon on?
10 A. Down in the rec room.
11 Q. Okay. Is that in the basement?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. And how about your two children, where did they
14 stay then?
15 A. They slept on the futon with me.

NOTE: more to come on this issue.; 12:47 PM
Bob said...: I have a statement before I continue on with Debbie Doolittle's testimony.

I know the Lindorfs. I knew David Lindorf. He was a friend of my brother. I hadn't seen any of the Lindorfs in years, and I was totally shocked to learn of the troubles they have had. This isn't the first time I learned of the demise of someone I knew through my research of these housing lawsuits. David wasn't an angel, but, he was no threat either.

My activism has brought me enlightenment, sorrow, and a sense that our city has gone to hell!

I will finish up Debbie Doolittle's testimony before the day is over.; 1:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Bob, Bob, BOB!!!!!

Its a drug raid!!!!

The cops aren't going in there and saying good evening sir and mam, would you mind if we take a look around?

They are going in with a warent and probable cause. Do you have the rap sheet on Lindorf? Will you post that so we can see what the cops thought they were walking in on? How many sales and distribution charges?

You bet they trash places when they are looking for drugs. That is the "cost of doing business" in the drug world, Bob.

If this was a raid on an inocent family and there was nothing found and he is a vestile virgin, I hope they were compensated for their losses, but if this is a guy with a rap sheet and they found him holding...

Turn off the water works.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 3:01 PM
Bob said...: The rest of Debbie Doolittles testimony.

16 Q. So you and Mr. Lindorf and then the two
17 children all slept on the futon together?
18 A. Yep.
19 Q. How many nights did you have to live there at
20 his mother's home?
21 A. We were there for about three, three and a half
22 weeks.
23 Q. Did you have any communications with Mr.
24 Johnson the night of the police raid?
25 A. I can't remember if it was that night but I

1 believe it was the following morning.
2 Q. The following morning you think you had a
3 conversation with Steve Johnson?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you remember what was discussed as part of
6 that conversation?
7 A. He said, "Don't worry about it," you know,
8 "we'll find somewhere to go and as soon as I
9 can I'll get you another place."
10 Q. Okay. So Mr. Johnson was telling you that he
11 was going to try to find another home for you
12 to rent?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did he indicate to you how long that might take
15 him before he could find another home for you
16 to rent?
17 A. He said as soon as he heard something he would

18 let us know. He said, "It shouldn't be long."
19 He figured by the first.
20 Q. Okay. How long was it before you were able to
21 get another place to live other than with
22 David's mother?
23 A. About three, three and a half weeks.
24 Q. Okay. And then where were you able to move to
25 then?

1 A. Then we moved over to the house on Sherburne.
2 Q. That was owned by Mr. Johnson?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 390 Sherburne?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Okay. Prior to the police arriving and doing
7 the raid at your home the night we've been
8 talking about did you feel safe in your home?
9 A. No.
10 Q. You hadn't felt safe in your home before the
11 police arrived?
12 A. Oh, before the police arrived? Yes, I felt
13 safe.
14 Q. Okay. So before you had the raid by the Police
15 Department that night you had felt safe in your
16 home when you lived there on a daily basis?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. After the police raided the 941 Cypress
19 property did you feel less safe in your
20 mother's house than you had felt in your home

21 before? I'm not saying your mother's house, in
22 David's mother's home.
23 A. I don't know, it was, it took me about a week
24 and a half to get over the initial shock.
25 Q. Did you have some difficulties with the

1 overcrowding in David's mother's home?
2 A. No, not really.
3 Q. How about with the use of the bathrooms there,
4 was that --
5 A. She had a bathroom on the basement floor and a
6 bathroom on the upstairs floor.
7 Q. So there wasn't too much difficulty with regard
8 to having a lot of people wanting to use the
9 bathrooms at one time?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you remember at the time that the police
12 came in that there was something stored in the
13 kitchen that was owned by Mr. Lindorf, a
14 snowblower or some type of thing like that?
15 A. A weed wacker.
16 Q. There was a weed wacker that was in the
17 kitchen?
18 A. Yeah, he was working on a weed wacker.
19 Q. Okay. Did he have the weed wacker apart?
20 A. No, it was just --
21 Q. Where was it?
22 A. It was sitting right by the back door there.

23 Q. Okay. So was it propped up against the wall?
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. So that when you opened the door it would be

1 behind the door?
2 A. No, it was between the door and the bathroom
3 (indicating).
4 Q. Do you recall having a snowblower that was
5 accessible to you and David while you were at
6 the 941 Cypress property?
7 A. No.
8 Q. You don't remember a snowblower at all?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Okay. Do you remember having any gas cans
11 around on the property or in the house or in
12 the basement?
13 A. He might have had a gas can that was stored in
14 basement but --
15 Q. You don't remember anything in the kitchen?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Had you had any contact with City inspectors
18 before the day of the police raid?
19 A. No.
20 Q. None that you recall?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Had Mr. Lindorf ever talked to you about any
23 contact that he had with City inspectors at the
24 941 Cypress property before the police raid?
25 A. No.

1 Q. When you were sitting on the couch and you
2 first had a discussion with the inspector did
3 you feel that you were in a position to tell
4 the inspector that you didn't want the
5 inspector to do an inspection of your home?
6 A. No, because at the time the inspector came in I
7 just, I was so confused and shook and I, I
8 really didn't know what was going on, I was
9 just, I was in awe.
10 Q. And the police were also present in the home
11 while the code inspector was there talking to
12 you initially?
13 A. I don't recall.
14 Q. But the police hadn't left by the time the code
15 inspector got there, had they?
16 A. No. I do believe there was, there was still
17 some officers running around.
18 Q. Do you remember how long it was after the
19 police announced that it was a raid before the
20 inspector talked to you?
21 A. It was about, between 11:30 and midnight I
22 believe.
23 Q. But as far as for time-wise was it a half hour
24 after the police had come into your property
25 that you saw the inspector or was it more time

1 than that or less time than that? What do you
2 remember in that regard? I'm trying to see if
3 you remember how long it was after the police
4 officers entered your property before you first
5 talked to the code inspector.
6 A. I just remember it being after they had taken
7 David Nelson and David Lindorf out of the house
8 in handcuffs, it was sometime after that they
9 came in.
10 Q. Okay. Did the inspector ask if he could
11 inspect your home?
12 A. I do not recall.
13 Q. Do you believe that at the time the police
14 conducted the raid, that is at the time that
15 they first entered your home, was there
16 excessive storage of materials throughout your
17 home in your mind?
18 A. Could you rephrase that?
19 Q. Well, when the police announced that this is a
20 raid, at that time frame were there in your
21 home what you believe to be excessive storage
22 of things in your home?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Do you think that anyone that wanted to do an
25 inspection of the interior of your home would
1 have had access to every room in order to do an
2 inspection at that time?
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. Is there anything else that you can tell me as
5 to the effect on you and your family the
6 condemnation and order to leave your home had
7 on you that you haven't told me this morning?
8 A. Could you rephrase that?
9 Q. You've told me about how you felt and what
10 happened as a result of the raid and during the
11 raid and your having to move. Is there
12 anything else that you remember that was an
13 effect on you that you believe was negative in
14 some way because of being forced out of your
15 home?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What would that be?
18 A. The next day I got my son up, I got him off to
19 school. And by 3:30 he was supposed to be
20 home. He was going, he was attending Phalen
21 Lake which is right up the street from our
22 house like three blocks. And he didn't come
23 home after school.
24 And I ended up calling the school.
25 And they told me, "Yeah, we've got Robert.
1 He's here in the office. He doesn't want to
2 come home. He's scared."
3 Q. Okay. Did you have a car?
4 A. No (witness crying).
5 Q. You didn't have a car. They had him at the
6 school then in the principal's office, did
7 they?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Did you go over and meet your son there
10 and talk with the school officials?
11 A. I talked to the principal and I told him, "I'll
12 walk up there and get him." And he told me,
13 "Mom, I was afraid to come home. I was just
14 too afraid. I didn't know I was going to -- if
15 you were going to be there or" -- he was just
16 too petrified to even come home the next day
17 from school. (Witness crying.)
18 Q. Did he then go over to his grandmother's home?
19 A. (Nods head affirmatively.)
20 Q. He did. Okay. This is difficult.
21 Let's late take a short break. This
22 is difficult for you to talk about, isn't it?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. You're saying yes, it is?
25 A. Yes.

1 MR. SHOEMAKER: Okay. Do you want
2 to take a short break? We're getting to about
3 11:15 here and I dont think I'm going to take
4 much longer here, Jim. But I want to just ask
5 a few follow-up questions if you'd be agreeable
6 to take a short break. Okay. Let's do that.
7 (Whereupon, a brief recess was
8 taken.)
9 MR. SHOEMAKER: Well, let's get
10 started here.
11 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
12 Q. We had a short break to give you, Ms.
13 Doolittle, a little chance to compose yourself
14 again. I apologize. This is a difficult
15 subject area for you but I want to just ask a
16 couple follow-up questions about your situation
17 following the condemnation and how this, in
18 addition, affected your son.
19 You mentioned that he did not want
20 come to home the next day from school and that
21 he went to his grandmother's place that evening
22 to stay, is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did he ever have to seek any counseling at all
25 that you recall?
1 A. I wanted him to but he, he's not one to open
2 up.
3 Q. Okay. Did you observe any difficulties that
4 you believe he had as a result of his
5 experience with the police raid?
6 A. Yes, he had nightmares.
7 Q. He would tell you about that?
8 A. He would wake up screaming.
9 Q. Was this while you were living with David's
10 mother?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did that continue after you moved into 390
13 Sherburne?
14 A. For about another two or three weeks.
15 Q. Okay. Let's just go back, I've got one or two
16 more questions about the basement prior to the
17 raid by the police that night.
18 When you were carrying your hamper
19 down the stairs to do the laundry did you have
20 any difficulty carrying the hamper down the
21 stairs with regards to anything that would have
22 been on the stairs?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Was there anything stored on the stairs at all
25 before the police raid?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Was there any difficulty that you had in
3 carrying the hamper from the bottom of the
4 stairs to over where the washer and dryer were?
5 A. No.
6 Q. So you could without any difficulty move that
7 hamper over to the washer and dryer?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. How about after the police had raided
10 the home and had done their search in the
11 basement, were you able to walk through the
12 basement without stepping on things?
13 A. After picking up the stuff that I had packed,
14 excuse me, after picking up the stuff that I
15 had packed and putting it back in boxes I left
16 the rest of David and his nephews to finish it
17 up.
18 Q. Okay. To finish packing?
19 A. Yeah, he just, yeah, he just wanted me to put
20 everything back in boxes and he said he'd take
21 care of the rest.
22 Q. Did the stairs have a handrail in the stairs
23 going to the basement?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Was it a solid handrail?

1 A. It was a wooden one.
2 Q. Was it one that you used from time to time in
3 going up and down the stairs?
4 A. Oh, yeah.
5 Q. Was it solid?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. Okay. Do you have any general thoughts as to
8 whether you think the City was interested in
9 your safety or were they interested in just
10 getting you out of the home based upon what
11 observed and heard during the raid?
12 A. I think they were just interested in getting us
13 out of the home.
14 Q. Why do you believe that?
15 A. Because there was no reason for them to shut
16 the house down. I mean it was just, there was
17 no reason.
18 Q. How long did it take you to clean up the things
19 that had been tipped over and unpacked and
20 thrown around both the main floor and the
21 upstairs and the basement, were you able to do
22 that within about 24 hours?
23 A. No.
24 Q. How long did it take you to clean up?
25 A. About a week and a half to get everything
1 repacked, refolded and packed up in boxes.
2 Q. Okay. And that's because of the way that the
3 police did their search?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Is there anything else that you can tell me
6 that you recall as far as for difficulties that
7 you and your family experienced as a result of
8 having to be forced out of your home there at
9 941 Cypress that you haven't told me about here
10 this morning?
11 A. Could you rephrase that?
12 Q. Yeah, I'm sorry, it was a long question. Is
13 that anything else you remember that you
14 experienced and your family experienced as far
15 as for difficulties from having to leave your
16 home?
17 A. It's just a bad experience, I'd never want to
18 have to go through it again. I just, I don't
19 think I'd be able to go through it again.
20 Q. Did any of the police officers ever admit that
21 they had made a mistake in searching your home,
22 wanting to search your home?
23 A. Not to my knowledge.
24 Q. Anybody ever apologize to you from the City as
25 a result of doing the raid on your home?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did you ever have any conversations with any
3 police officers after the raid about why they
4 had raided the home?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you have any conversations with the
7 inspector after the night he was at your home?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did the inspector say anything to you about
10 having some type of resources for you and your
11 family to find an alternative place to live
12 while you were talking --
13 A. No.
14 Q. -- to him that night in your home?
15 A. No.
16 MR. SHOEMAKER: Let's take a break
17 here for just a second off the record.
18 (Whereupon, a brief recess was
19 taken.)
20 MR. SHOEMAKER: Let's go back on the
21 record after that interruption by my cell phone
22 there.
23 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
24 Q. Ms. Doolittle, do you know if Mr. Lindorf had
25 ever been convicted of any crime prior to the
1 police raid that we've been talking about this
2 morning, had he ever told you that?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Okay. Had he ever been arrested before that
5 you knew of?
6 A. He was incarcerated. Before I first started
7 dating him he was, he got, he was incarcerated
8 but I don't know what it was for.
9 Q. Okay. Do you know where he was at when he was
10 in custody?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Was it in the State of Minnesota?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. Did his mother ever tell you anything about
15 that?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Now, I understand that at some point Mr.
18 Johnson was able to find a place for you to
19 live and it was at 390 Sherburne, is that
20 right?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And then did you sign a lease with Mr. Johnson
23 to rent that place?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And that was rented by you and Mr. Lindorf?
1 A. Right.
2 Q. Did your son live there as well?
3 A. My son and daughter.
4 Q. Your son and daughter. So the four of you
5 lived at 390 Sherburne?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. Did you have any further contact at that
8 property with any inspector from the City of
9 St. Paul?
10 A. Many times.
11 Q. Tell me what you remember about contacts with
12 the City inspectors after you had moved to 390
13 Sherburne in the City of St. Paul following the
14 condemnation of 941 Cypress. Let's start
15 generally first and then we'll go into
16 specifics.
17 A. They would, they came and complained if my
18 kids' bikes were in yard. They came and towed
19 three, three of David's running vehicles out of
20 the parking lot. They said, "Well, if you
21 don't have room in the garage for these bikes
22 that you need to get a shed or something." So
23 David had his brothers and nephews come and
24 help him build a shed on the side of the
25 garage.
1 Well, then that wasn't good enough.
2 They said, "If you're going to have that it's
3 got to have shingles." So then he went out and
4 he bought shingles and his nephews and them
5 came back and shingled it. I mean every time
6 there was something in the yard, it was just
7 they'd nitpick about everything.
8 Q. This is the City code inspectors that you're
9 talking about?
10 A. (Nods head affirmatively.)
11 Q. Is that true?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The vehicles you talked about that were towed,
14 were they three automobiles that were towed?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Tell me about what you remember the day that
17 those were towed.
18 A. David was in the hospital, he was having
19 complications with his back and me and his
20 sister were there. And we had just left the
21 house to go down to the hospital and bring him
22 something.
23 And we drove past the alley and we
24 seen a tow truck there. And they started, they
25 were pulling one of David's vehicles out. And
1 we pulled into the alley. And at the time we
2 pulled in from one way Steve's daughter came
3 from the other direction and we're both yelling
4 at this guy, "You can't tow his vehicles.
5 They're all running vehicles. They're all
6 tagged. They've all got good tabs. And why
7 are you doing this?"
8 Q. When you say "they're all tagged" you meant
9 they all have --
10 A. They all --
11 Q. -- state motor vehicle tabs so that they're
12 properly licensed?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And they had current license registration?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So tell me what else you remember about that
17 situation.
18 A. It didn't, they didn't care, they towed them
19 anyway.
20 Q. Now who do you remember from the City being
21 there? You said there was a City inspector?
22 A. I don't know if it was a, it was, I just, it
23 was a female. She was around like every other
24 week complaining about anything and everything.
25 Q. Did she ever say what her name was?
1 A. I don't remember.
2 Q. Did she ever say her name was Lisa Martin?
3 A. That could very well be because I believe she
4 was the same one that was giving David's mother
5 trouble too.
6 Q. Did she have dark hair?
7 A. I can't remember.
8 Q. Was she ever with a very tall gentleman
9 accompanying her?
10 A. I believe so.
11 Q. A police officer? Did you ever make that
12 observation?
13 A. I don't know if it was a police officer or,
14 but --
15 Q. Someone that was much taller than she was --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- was usually with her?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. When she came to your property?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. Did this individual ever identify
22 himself to you at all?
23 A. No, David usually went out there and dealt with
24 them.
25 Q. Okay. The day that the vehicles were towed,
1 where were those automobiles located before
2 they towed them?
3 A. They were in our parking lot.
4 Q. In the back?
5 A. Right beside the garage.
6 Q. Okay. In the alleyway?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. Or I should say in the parking area next to the
9 alley?
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. Okay. And tell me what kind of cars they were,
12 do you remember that?
13 A. I can't remember what kind they were. I know
14 one of them had a, David was, David had his
15 brother working on the flat tire on one of
16 them, so one of them was up on a jack, the back
17 tire was up on a jack.
18 And they said, "Well, this one is
19 inoperable, it's not running, it's up on jacks,
20 you can't" -- "It wasn't on jacks last night.
21 We just took the tire off. We're getting
22 another tire and putting it on there." I got
23 in, I start -- "Nope, nope, nope."
24 Q. So the car started when you got in?
25 A. Yes, all them cars ran.

1 Q. Okay. So did you start all of the cars there
2 while the code inspector was there?
3 A. I -- no, they told me, "Don't even bother, we
4 don't care if they're running or not."
5 Q. Okay. So the one had a tire that was going to
6 be replaced?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And how long before you were expecting that
9 tire to be put on the car again?
10 A. Probably within the hour or two. I was waiting
11 for his brother to come back with another tire.
12 Q. Okay. And that car then with the tire would
13 have been able to drive up and down the street
14 if you wanted to use it?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. How about the other two vehicles, were they
17 operable? They had a motor that would work and
18 a battery that would start the motor?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did they have good tires on the vehicle?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And this was all at the time that they were
23 going to tow these other two vehicles as well?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did the inspector tell you why they were going
1 to tow the vehicles?
2 A. I don't recall why he said but he, I mean --
3 Q. You're saying "he" now, was --
4 A. Well, it was the tow truck driver. He's, "I
5 was just told to come get these vehicles."
6 Q. Okay. Was the inspector still there when the
7 tow truck driver got there?
8 A. I didn't see the inspector. When we went
9 through the alley all we seen was the tow truck
10 driver loading the car onto the flat-bed.
11 Q. Okay. He had already got one car on the
12 flat-bed?
13 A. He had it, he was bringing it up, he was just
14 starting to pull it up on the flat-bed when we
15 seen him and we pulled in the alley.
16 Q. And he said that he had orders to take the
17 three cars away?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Had you or David talked to the inspector at
20 that time or prior to that time about this tow
21 issue?
22 A. I hadn't, maybe David had.
23 Q. Okay. So that the tow truck driver continued
24 then to take the cars away?
25 A. Yes, even as me, David's sister and Steve's
1 daughter sat there telling him, "You can't take
2 these, they all run."
3 Q. Did Steve Johnson come to the property then
4 shortly thereafter?
5 A. I believe so, yes.
6 Q. And then were police called to the property and
7 ended up coming to the property?
8 A. Yeah, I believe so, yes.
9 Q. Were you still out in the yard then when the
10 police got there?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you see anything or make any observations
13 as to any contact that Mr. Johnson and his
14 daughter had with the police while you were
15 standing in the yard?
16 A. I don't remember what confrontation they had
17 but I know Steve and his daughter were talking
18 to them and, you know, we were all telling
19 them, "You can't, there's no reason for you
20 guys to tow these vehicles and" --
21 Q. So you think that based upon your observations
22 that Mr. Johnson and his daughter were telling
23 the police that there isn't a reason to tow the
24 vehicles that Mr. Lindorf owned --
25 A. Right.
1 Q. -- that were there on your property?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. Okay. You heard Mr. Johnson and his daughter
4 say that to the police?
5 A. I heard him say something about, "You ain't got
6 no, you have no reason to tow these vehicles."
7 Q. Okay. But did the tow truck driver get all
8 three of the vehicles off of the property that
9 day by towing them?
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. Okay. So what happened then to those vehicles,
12 did you ever get them back?
13 A. I think we might have gotten one back, we
14 didn't have enough money to get them all.
15 Q. All right. So you had to pay money in order to
16 get them out of the impound?
17 A. Right.
18 Q. And you didn't have enough money to get all
19 three of the vehicles back, correct?
20 A. Right.
21 Q. Did you just get one of them back then you
22 believe?
23 A. I believe we got one of them back.
24 Q. Was that upsetting to Mr. Lindorf?
25 A. Very.
1 Q. Do you remember anything that he said or how he
2 reacted to that?
3 A. He was upset. He said, "I'm sick and tired of
4 these people messing with me, they ain't got no
5 reason to be doing this."
6 Q. Did the police or the tow truck driver ever
7 allow you to drive the vehicles off of the
8 property to someplace else?
9 A. No.
10 Q. The didn't allow you to do that?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did they offer you that opportunity?
13 A. No.
14 Q. How often prior to that day had you been in the
15 back alleyway and walked up and down the alley?
16 Do you ever go back there?
17 A. No, I've walked through the alley to go to work
18 and stuff but --
19 Q. Okay. When was the last time that you could
20 recall being in the alleyway prior to the day
21 that they towed the three vehicles from your
22 property?
23 A. Oh, probably every day.
24 Q. Were there any other vehicles that were parked
25 in neighbors' parking areas just off of the
1 alley that you remember?
2 A. Oh, yeah.
3 Q. Do you remember any vehicles that were covered
4 in snow that were in properties that were near
5 your house?
6 A. Oh, yeah.
7 Q. What do you recall about that?
8 A. Well, the house right next to ours he was
9 renting the building, the apartment right there
10 on Sherburne, but in the back he had another,
11 another, like another little house back there
12 like, but it was totally all boarded up.
13 Q. So there weren't any glass windows in that --
14 A. No, there was --
15 Q. -- in that structure?
16 A. -- all, they were all, they had all wood
17 panelings over all the windows. There was
18 garbage throughout. I mean they had two
19 garbage cans out there. There was garbage all
20 over their yard.
21 The house over there was just, it
22 wasn't being kept up by that landlord. The
23 screens were torn out. The kids ran wild. It
24 was just a mess over there but yet we were
25 getting harassed.

1 Q. By the City inspectors?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. And were you feeling that the City inspectors
4 were also bringing the police in to further
5 harass you?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. Were there any vehicles stored at that
8 particular neighbor's property that you
9 observed?
10 A. Not right next door but the house beyond that
11 one there was, there was vehicles always
12 outside there. They were --
13 Q. Did they look like they had, did it look like
14 they were any different from your vehicles?
15 A. No. I mean they sat out there, they worked on
16 their vehicles, they --
17 Q. Did you ever see any of those vehicles in that
18 particular yard that were not in an operable
19 condition?
20 A. Oh, a lot of them.
21 Q. Where maybe wheels were off or the hood was up
22 and work was being done on it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You made those observations?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did you ever see any vehicles that looked like
2 they had been stored there a long period of
3 time without being moved?
4 A. Oh, one in particular that David inquired about
5 several times. He went down and talked to the
6 neighbors and said, "Well, I've noticed this
7 been sitting here for three or four months.
8 Are you guys selling it or are you restoring it
9 or what are you doing?"
10 Q. Was David interested in fixing up vehicles?
11 A. Yes, because he was handicapped he, he had
12 nothing else to do. He, you know, that's how
13 he kept his life fulfilled by trying to get
14 things and fix them and --
15 Q. So he didn't have any employment?
16 A. Nope.
17 Q. So this was a hobby for him as well?
18 A. Yeah, it was to keep him busy, occupied. He'd
19 put bicycles together for the kids in the
20 neighborhood.
21 Q. Would you and David have wanted to be allowed
22 an opportunity to start the cars and drive them
23 off your property so that you wouldn't have had
24 them impounded and lost them that way because
25 you couldn't pay for the fees?

1 A. If they would have let us, yeah, I definitely
2 would have.
3 Q. Okay. Yeah, you would have wanted to be able
4 to drive them to a friend's house or a
5 relative's house so you could save them, right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. But you weren't allowed that opportunity?
8 A. No.
9 Q. And you believe that if you would have been
10 allowed the opportunity that all three of the
11 cars would have started and you could have
12 moved them within a short period of time off
13 the property?
14 A. Yep.
15 Q. The two bikes you were talking about that were
16 subject to some complaints by the inspector
17 because they were stored outside of the home,
18 did you eventually give those bikes to a
19 neighbor?
20 A. Well, they were my daughter and son's bikes.
21 My daughter's eventually she left at a
22 girlfriend's yard and it got stolen. My son's,
23 he would take it, he would take his down to his
24 friend's house and leave it in their garge
25 because we couldn't leave it in ours.

1 Q. Okay. You don't know if the City inspectors
2 were talking to the neighbors that had these
3 conditions that you saw, do you?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Did you see any change in the neighbors'
6 conditions of their property?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Over how long of a period of time did those
9 conditions continue to exist there?
10 MR. JERSKEY: Vague, vague.
11 THE WITNESS: The whole time we
12 lived there.
13 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
14 Q. The whole time you were there those questions,
15 or I shouldn't, excuse me. The whole time that
16 you lived at the 390 Sherburne you saw those
17 conditions on the neighboring properties that
18 you've described?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. How long were you at 390 Sherburne residing
21 there?
22 A. I'd say about a year, maybe a year and a half.
23 Q. The cars that you had there on the day they
24 were towed, tell me what kind of a surface the
25 cars were parked on.

1 A. When we moved in there Steve had came and he
2 laid some, some white rocks and I don't know
3 what it's called.
4 Q. Like a gravel?
5 A. Yeah, like a gravel. He laid that down there,
6 had it all raked out because it wasn't like, it
7 didn't have a cement driveway. So he came in
8 with a truck and dumped that and had his son
9 and everybody put it all out so that it was a
10 good surface to put the thing on because it was
11 just entered.
12 Q. Okay. Before it had just been dirt there where
13 the cars would be parked before he put the
14 gravel in, it was just dirt, is that right?
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. Okay. So when you --
17 A. But he did that right after we moved in.
18 Q. Okay. So he added the gravel there so that you
19 could park vehicles on the gravel --
20 A. Right.
21 Q. -- and not on the grass?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. Or the dirt that was there?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. Was it a combination before he put the gravel
1 in, was it a combination of gravel or of grass
2 and dirt or not?
3 A. No, it was just dirt.
4 Q. Just dirt, okay. So he added gravel on top of
5 the dirt?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. Was there enough gravel there where you could
8 park the three cars all on gravel?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. The morning that they were going to tow these
11 vehicles were all three of the vehicles parked
12 on gravel?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did any of the other properties in the alley
15 where they had parking surfaces have dirt
16 parking surfaces?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I'm sorry, what was that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. They did. How many of the other properties had
21 parking surfaces that just had dirt at the time
22 that the City was towing the three vehicles
23 from your property?
24 A. Another two or three houses.
25 Q. Had the dirt for parking spaces?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. Okay. Any of the other properties that had
3 just grass for parking spaces that you
4 remember?
5 A. No.
6 Q. No. Okay. How was Mr. Johnson and his family
7 as landlords and managers of your rental
8 property at 390 Sherburne from your experience
9 with him there?
10 A. Excellent.
11 Q. Did he change in any way from how he was an
12 owner of the rental property at 941 Cypress?
13 A. No.
14 Q. So he continued to be responsive to any calls
15 that you would make to him?
16 A. Oh, yes.
17 Q. Did you have to have any repairs done on the
18 390 Sherburne where you had to call Mr.
19 Johnson?
20 A. Not to my knowledge.
21 Q. What do you remember about 390 Sherburne from a
22 standpoint of the move-in condition when you
23 first got into the property with you and your
24 son and daughter and Mr. Lindorf?
25 A. Well, we moved in on I believe the 15th so --
1 Q. Of the month?
2 A. Yeah. So he, he, he informed us, "I didn't,"
3 you know, "If you guys don't want to wait till
4 the first I haven't got a, I haven't got it
5 repainted. And I haven't got the carpet
6 shampooed yet but we're in the process of
7 shampooing the carpets right now. But if you
8 can move the stuff in, just leave everything
9 away from the walls, you know, we can get in
10 there and paint."
11 Q. Okay. So did --
12 A. Yeah, he, he, he was real good.
13 Q. And you wanted to get into a place by earlier
14 than the end of the month?
15 A. As soon as possible.
16 Q. Okay. So did you move in then at the 15th of
17 the month?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. And that was under the agreement with Mr.
20 Johnson that you would make sure that you would
21 assist him so that he could get the place
22 painted?
23 A. And he would assist us, yes.
24 Q. And also assist in cleaning the carpet?
25 A. No, they took care of the carpeting.

1 Q. Oh, before you moved in?
2 A. And the painting, yes.
3 Q. So how soon did they take care of cleaning the
4 carpeting, was that before you moved in?
5 A. Yeah, they, they, he asked for an extra day to
6 get the carpet shampooed. And then when we
7 started bringing the stuff in the following day
8 to keep everything toward the middle of the --
9 or don't bring the big stuff in and just leave
10 everything in the middle so they can get the
11 rest of the walls done.
12 Q. All right. So did he and his people then get
13 the walls all painted out?
14 A. Oh, yeah.
15 Q. Anything else you remember that he needed to do
16 before or shortly after you moved in?
17 A. Nope.
18 Q. Okay. Did you have to have any repairs during
19 the time you lived at 390 Sherburne?
20 A. Not to my knowledge.
21 Q. Did you have all of the electrical outlets
22 working while you were there?
23 A. Yep.
24 Q. And you had a refrigerator there that worked?
25 A. Yep.

1 Q. A stove that worked?
2 A. A stove that worked.
3 Q. You had electricity the whole time you were
4 there?
5 A. Yep.
6 Q. So you --
7 A. As a matter of fact that, I'm sorry. The frig.
8 quit working like three or four months after we
9 moved in. I noticed it started getting warm
10 and I contacted him. And it was within a day
11 and a half he came and moved the other frig.
12 and brought us a brand-new frig.
13 Q. Okay. So you were happy about that?
14 A. Oh, yes.
15 Q. Did the stove and appliances in the kitchen
16 work the entire time that you were renting
17 there except for this refrigerator issue?
18 A. Yep.
19 Q. Did all of the plumbing work for you the entire
20 time that you rented from Mr. Johnson at 390
21 Sherburne?
22 A. Yes, it did.
23 Q. So didn't have anything that was lacking as far
24 as someone that was living in a home during the
25 time you were there at 390?

1 A. Never.
2 Q. Hot and cold water the entire time you were
3 there?
4 A. Yep.
5 Q. And you mentioned that when you left 390
6 Sherburne that you moved to a property on Van
7 Buren?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. Do you remember now what the address of that
10 was? I know I asked you that earlier this
11 morning.
12 A. No, I don't remember the address.
13 Q. Was the home at 390 Sherburne a better
14 combination for you and your family than 941
15 Cypress had been?
16 A. Oh, yeah.
17 Q. It was an improved home?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. Tell me why you would reach that conclusion.
20 A. Just because of the sizes of the rooms. It was
21 more, more roomy.
22 Q. So larger rooms?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. Did you have a basement there?
25 A. Yep.

1 Q. Did you reach any conclusion in renting from
2 Mr. Johnson in two properties that he had a
3 concern about you as a person more than just
4 being a landlord?
5 A. Could you rephrase that?
6 Q. Yeah, did you ever reach a conclusion that Mr.
7 Johnson was more than just a landlord, that he
8 had a concern for you and your family?
9 A. Oh, yeah; yeah. If there was ever a problem
10 and I called him he was, you know, more than
11 willing to work with us and, you know --
12 Q. I want to ask you just a couple of questions
13 that may be a little difficult for you. Let's
14 talk just in ending my initial questions here
15 about Mr. Lindorf and his pain issues with
16 regard to his back.
17 Can you tell me a little bit about
18 that prior to his passing away?
19 A. Oh, my goodness! Where do you start? Well, he
20 was in pain twenty-four/seven. He was on 15
21 different medications pill-wise. He had
22 codeine or, yeah, codeine patches that he wore
23 on his chest. And then he had another, another
24 foam, kind of like, what was it, Novocain, like
25 Novocain patches that he would put on his back.

1 Q. This is to manage the pain that he had from his
2 back condition?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. How long had he been on the significant number
5 of medications that you've indicated before his
6 death?
7 A. Three or four years.
8 Q. And you said that he passed away just this last
9 year?
10 A. Yeah, January 10th of '06.
11 Q. So during the time that he was living at 941
12 Cypress he was on lots of pain medications?
13 A. 941 Cypress and Sherburne.
14 Q. Okay. That's yes that he was on those
15 medications --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- during those times?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. How did he pass away, do you know that?
20 A. I don't know. I just know that he called me
21 the night before and I was working a double
22 shift at Burger King. And he was begging me,
23 "Please come over, Deb, please come and see me,
24 please." And I couldn't, I just couldn't, I
25 had to work two shifts. And when I got there
1 the next morning he was gone.
2 Q. Were you living together at that time?
3 A. No, we were, we were separated.
4 Q. Okay. How long had you been separated at that
5 time, do you remember that?
6 A. For about two months, two and a half.
7 Q. Did he ever express his frustration with the
8 City with regard to contacts he had with the
9 inspectors other than what you mentioned
10 recently here this morning?
11 A. Could you rephrase that?
12 Q. You mentioned that he was saying to you that,
13 "Why is the City or why are the inspectors
14 coming after me all the time?" What do you
15 remember him saying, if anything additional,
16 about any concerns he had with how the City was
17 treating him?
18 A. He just wanted to know why. I mean I can
19 remember times when, when him and Steve would
20 get together. I mean after the City would,
21 would come out and lay all this stuff on us and
22 Steve coming out and, you know, and him and his
23 son working with us to try and make it right
24 what the City was saying was wrong.
25 And Steve said, you know, "I just
1 don't understand it, Dave. I don't know why
2 they keep messing with you."
3 Q. What would David say in response to that?
4 A. He's, "I don't know either."
5 Q. Now you mentioned all these medications that
6 Mr. Lindorf was on while he was living at 941
7 Cypress in order to deal with his pain. Do you
8 know if the police or anyone else from the City
9 took any of those medications with Mr. Lindorf
10 when they took him and arrested him and took
11 him to jail?
12 A. No, they didn't.
13 Q. Did Mr. Lindorf indicate when he got released
14 that that was difficult for him not having his
15 medications?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What do you remember him saying?
18 A. Well, I can remember him calling home and
19 saying, you know, "I wish they would have let
20 me take my med.'s," because he was in constant
21 pain the whole time he was in jail.
22 And I said, "Well, why wouldn't they
23 let you take them?" He said, "Because they
24 said I'd have to have, they wouldn't let me
25 take the partial open bottles. That I'd have
1 to have a brand-new prescription before they'd
2 let me have them in there."
3 Q. When they were searching the place did the
4 police indicate that they had come across his
5 med.'s during the raid on 941 Cypress?
6 A. Oh, they were, all his med.'s were right there
7 on top of the dresser.
8 Q. In his bedroom?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In your bedroom I should say.
11 A. (Nods head affirmatively.)
12 Q. Okay. Did you see what had happened to those
13 medications after the police had conducted the
14 raid?
15 A. They were all over the bedroom.
16 Q. What do you mean "all over the bedroom?"
17 A. They were on the floor, they were on the bed,
18 they were under the bed. I was picking up pill
19 bottles all over.
20 Q. Were any of the pills out of the bottles --
21 A. No.
22 Q. -- after the raid?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Just the bottles were strewn around?
25 A. Yep.

1 Q. Okay. When's the last time you talked with
2 David's mother, do you remember that?
3 A. Oh, maybe about two, three weeks ago.
4 Q. Okay. How often do you talk to her?
5 A. Every now and again.
6 MR. SHOEMAKER: Jim, I think
7 that's all the questions I've got. I may have
8 one or two more but then when you have your
9 questions I may have a few follow-ups to that.
10 We're at about ten after 12:00 and
11 maybe we should just for a minute go off the
12 record talk about what do you think. I know
13 you've been taking copious notes so I'm not
14 trying to shorten you up here. But I kind of
15 want to get an idea as to whether we should
16 have a short lunch break for the witness and
17 the court reporter or if we can maybe just take
18 a short break at some point --
19 MR. JERSKEY: Let's take a break,
20 let's take ten minutes.
21 (Whereupon, a brief recess was
22 taken.)
23 MR. SHOEMAKER: We're going to go
24 back on the record here, and we just changed
25 positions. But I've got one exhibit for Ms.
1 Doolittle that I had not introduced and we've
2 had it marked.
3 And I'm just going to show you, Ms.
4 Doolittle, what's been marked as Doolittle
5 Exhibit 1 which is the subpoena, a copy of the
6 subpoena that you had brought with you here
7 this morning.
8 You were subpoenaed to attend the
9 deposition today, is that correct?
10 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
11 MR. SHOEMAKER: Okay. Good. That's
12 all the questions I've got, Jim.
13
14 EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. JERSKEY:
16 Q. Okay. Ms. Doolittle, I was sitting over there
17 on your right this morning. I told before we
18 got going that I'm an attorney for the City of
19 St. Paul. And I'm just going to follow up on
20 some questions that Mr. Shoemaker asked you --
21 A. Sure.
22 Q. -- about the things that you testified to,
23 okay?
24 The first thing I want to ask you is
25 I want to make sure I got it clear on where
1 you've been living, okay? So I'm just going to
2 make sure my notes are correct.
3 You're currently on Seventh Street?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Okay. And you've been there for about five or
6 six months now?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Prior to that you were living on Van Buren?
9 A. Right.
10 Q. In the City of St. Paul?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You don't recall the street number, or do? The
13 house number I should say.
14 A. No, I don't.
15 Q. Okay. Can you tell me what the nearest
16 intersection was?
17 A. Mackubin; Mackubin and Van Buren.
18 Q. Okay, very good. And you were there for less
19 than a year?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And Mr. Shoemaker asked you why you moved out
22 of Sherburne. That was the residence you had
23 before Van Buren, correct?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. Okay. And what was the reason why you moved
1 into the Van Buren address?
2 A. I moved out of the Sherburne before Mr.
3 Lindorf did, we separated.
4 Q. Okay. Was that the reason then that you moved
5 out and into Van Buren?
6 A. Yes, that was the reason I left, yes.
7 Q. And Mr. Lindorf continued to live at 390
8 Sherburne?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Until he passed on a year ago?
11 A. He passed on at Van Buren address.
12 Q. At the Van Buren?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. So you had, the two of you had split?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. You moved into the Van Buren address before he
17 did?
18 A. No, I was, I was staying at my friend's before
19 that.
20 Q. Okay. Then the two of you got back together
21 again?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Reconciled?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. And he moved, the two of you moved in at the
1 same time?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And so how many people were living at
4 the Van Buren address then?
5 A. Me, Mr. Lindorf and my two kids.
6 Q. Okay. And your children's names are Josie
7 and --
8 A. Robert.
9 Q. Robert. Very good. And who is the owner of
10 the Van Buren address?
11 A. Oh, my goodness! His name is, I can't remember
12 his name. I believe it's, I can't remember his
13 name offhand.
14 Q. Well, who did you deal with when you paid your
15 rent at the Van Buren address?
16 A. The landlord, I just can't remember. I think
17 his name was Jim.
18 Q. And the landlord is the same as the owner?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Who introduced you to the owner or did you just
21 -- well, who introduced you to the owner?
22 A. He introduced him -- well, I was calling around
23 for places.
24 Q. Okay. And that's how you met the owner?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay, very good. Now at 390 Sherburne you were
2 there for one and a half to two years?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And that's a property owned by Mr. Johnson?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Okay. And you were living at Sherburne with?
7 A. David Lindorf and my kids.
8 Q. Okay. And then before that was 941 Cypress?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And you were there for how long, ma'am?
11 A. I'd say about a year and a half, two years.
12 Q. Okay. And you moved out as a result of the,
13 following the police raid?
14 A. Right.
15 Q. Okay, okay. I want to ask you about Mr.
16 Lindorf. First of all, his son was shot and
17 killed?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Did you know his son?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And he was 17 years old?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. What were the circumstances of his death if you
24 know?
25 A. He was sitting in a car and he got caught in
1 cross fire. There was a shooting out there and
2 he just, he ended up getting shot.
3 Q. You said he was in the cross fire. Was his car
4 being, was he in a car that was being robbed
5 or --
6 A. I, I don't know the circumstances. I just know
7 he was sitting in a passenger seat and he was
8 shot.
9 Q. Okay. And what was his name?
10 A. James.
11 Q. James Lindorf?
12 A. Yep.
13 Q. Now at 17 years old do you know if he was going
14 to school?
15 A. I believe he was still in school; yes, I
16 believe so.
17 Q. Do you know if he had any arrests?
18 A. I'm not sure.
19 Q. Do you know if he was attending school or out
20 of school?
21 A. I really couldn't tell you.
22 Q. Okay. How long did you know James Lindorf?
23 A. He was, he was friends with oldest boy.
24 Q. Did you meet James Lindorf when you met his
25 dad?

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. So how many years was that?
3 A. When I started dating his dad. About ten,
4 eleven years ago.
5 Q. Okay. So if Mr. Lindorf died a year ago you
6 knew James for about ten, nine or ten years?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. Okay. And how well would you say you knew
9 James?
10 A. Not real good.
11 Q. Well, who had custody of James if he was under
12 18?
13 A. He was, his dad had custody.
14 Q. And did he live with his dad?
15 A. He was living with his grandma.
16 Q. Okay. The whole time?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you know why he was living with his grandma?
19 A. No, I don't.
20 Q. Was it because Mr. Lindorf had been
21 incarcerated at some points?
22 A. I don't know, I never asked.
23 Q. Okay. And I want to ask you about that
24 incarceration. Was he at Stillwater?
25 A. I'm --
1 Q. I just want to know if you visited him when he
2 was incarcerated?
3 A. I visited him once and I don't think it was,
4 was it -- I think it was Moose Lake.
5 Q. Okay. And Moose Lake is what kind of facility,
6 is it a federal jail?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. Okay. So have you ever gone to a jail to visit
9 somebody before?
10 A. Nope.
11 Q. Okay. How many times did you visit
12 Mr. Lindorf?
13 A. I think I visited him once or twice.
14 Q. Okay. A couple of times?
15 A. That was just before he got out.
16 Q. All right. And how long was M
17 incarcerated then?
18 A. I don't know, he didn't, he didn't, I didn't
19 ask and he didn't say.
20 Q. Was this before, during or after you dated Mr.
21 Lindorf?
22 A. I was visiting him before I started dating him.
23 Q. Okay. And when did you start dating him?
24 A. After he got out and was working.
25 Q. Okay. I'm just trying to get a ball park

1 figure here. Was he incarcerated for two
2 years, three years?
3 A. I don't know, I really don't know.
4 Q. Well, let's try it this way: If you visited
5 him a couple of times how much time elapsed
6 between the time you first visited him and the
7 time you started dating after he got out?
8 A. We started dating about three or four months
9 after he got out.
10 Q. Okay. And he wasn't at the workhouse, right?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Okay. Did you know whether or not he had a
13 criminal record prior to the time that he was
14 incarcerated?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Do you know why he was incarcerated?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Would you tell me if you knew why he was
19 incarcerated?

20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. Was he a good man? Was he a good man,
22 ma'am?
23 A. He was, he was.
24 Q. Whether he was incarcerated or not?
25 A. Yeah, I guess we all have our problems but,
1 yeah, he was a good man.
2 Q. Did he have issues with, did he hang out with
3 the wrong people? How did he get incarcerated?
4 A. I don't know how he got incarcerated. He had
5 issues from, from the time his, his son got
6 shot he had a hard time coping with that.
7 Q. Did he turn to drugs to relieve that stress?
8 A. No, he was on enough medication to keep him
9 high forever.
10 Q. Did he own guns?
11 A. Nope; not my knowledge, nope.
12 Q. Well, you indicated that you had some belief
13 that the warrant was looking for guns when the
14 warrant was executed on the house in March of
15 2003, right?
16 A. That's, that's what David said when he read,
17 when he got out and he read it he said they
18 were looking for guns and drugs.
19 Q. Guns and drugs. Do you know what kind of
20 drugs?
21 A. (Nods head negatively.
22 Q. You're shaking your head "no."
23 A. No, I don't.
24 Q. Okay, no problem. Ma'am, you told Mr.
25 Shoemach, Mr. Shoemaker, excuse me, that they

1 handed you the warrant when they were leaving,
2 correct?
3 A. No, they had it on the kitchen, they had it on
4 the kitchen table. They said, "There's the
5 warrant."
6 Q. Okay. Did you ever look at the warrant?
7 A. I have too upset to even look at it.
8 Q. So you never looked at it?
9 A. I looked at it when David got out the prior
10 day, the next day when he was looking at it. I
11 didn't look at it but he sat there and read
12 over it.
13 Q. Now I know this was a very upsetting experience
14 for your son. And one of the things that I was
15 wondering about as you were describing how
16 upset he was, I guess I never learned how old
17 your son was.
18 A. He was, I believe he was about eleven at the
19 time.
20 Q. Okay. Is he the youngest?
21 A. Yes, he's the youngest.
22 Q. Okay. Because we've got some ages here and I
23 just didn't know who was who. So he was a
24 15-year-old at the time or, no -
25 A. He's 15 now.

1 Q. -- he's 15 now? I'm sorry. Okay. And again
2 his name is?
3 A. Robert.
4 Q. Robert. Forgive me. I know there was a
5 Kenneth and he -- no?
6 A. Kenneth is my oldest, he's 27.
7 Q. Then your daughter's name is Josie and she's
8 17?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Okay. So let's get Robert. He was in bed at
11 the time of the search warrant?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now given the fact that you never looked at the
14 warrant, we know that they were looking for
15 drugs and it could have been any kind of drugs
16 for all you know, correct?
17 A. Yep.
18 Q. And it could have been cocaine or crack
19 cocaine, correct?
20 A. Could have been anything I guess.
21 Q. And crack cocaine and cocaine, they're small,
22 aren't they, they can be small?
23 A. I guess.
24 Q. Yeah. And they can be hidden just about
25 anywhere, can't they?

1 A. I suppose.
2 Q. As far as you know. You're not a cocaine user,
3 are you?
4 A. Nope.
5 Q. Okay. But, you know, it's in the news a lot
6 and it's my understanding, I don't use it
7 either, but it's my understanding it's pretty
8 small and it fits just about anywhere?
9 A. Yeah.
10 Q. Is that your understanding?
11 A. Yep.
12 Q. So that could be hidden anywhere, behind a TV,
13 in a box of cereal, right?
14 A. It could be anywhere, yes, it could.
15 Q. Okay. Now, ma'am, you don't have a problem
16 with the police enforcing the law as far as
17 drugs are concerned, right?
18 A. No, I don't.
19 Q. I think, and tell me if I'm right or wrong
20 here, the problem that you had with what
21 happened that night was that it scared the heck
22 out of you?
23 A. It, yes, it did. I've never been through that
24 before and it was just something I wouldn't
25 want my worse enemy to have to go through this.

1 Q. And I sympathize with you. As far as you know
2 they didn't find any drugs?
3 A. As far as I know, no.
4 Q. But we have no reason to believe that the
5 officers had any bad purpose in coming there
6 that night. Do you understand the question?
7 MR. SHOEMAKER: Objection,
8 foundation.
9 THE WITNESS: No.
10 BY MR. JERSKEY:
11 Q. For all you know the officers truly believed
12 when they entered the place that, well, they
13 had a valid warrant --
14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. -- for all we know. I mean we assume they did.
16 We have no reason to believe they didn't have a
17 valid warrant. Do you agree with that
18 statement?
19 A. Yeah.
20 Q. Okay. And so they searched the house as if
21 they were looking for drugs or guns, correct?
22 A. Yep.
23 Q. They looked in a strongbox that Mr. Lindorf
24 had, correct?
25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And that's a place where drugs or guns could be
2 kept as well, correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And then they looked in the basement?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. Are you saying, or let me just ask you:
7 Mr. Lindorf never discussed with you the fact
8 that he had either used drugs or sold drugs?
9 And I'm talking about illegal drugs.
10 A. No.
11 Q. Okay. And you don't use drugs yourself, ma'am?
12 A. No.
13 Q. And I understood you to say that you've never
14 been arrested?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Okay. Now you've described the condition of
17 the home at the time you moved in as fair,
18 that's the home on Cypress, is that correct?
19 A. Yep.
20 Q. Fair condition?
21 A. Mm-hmm.
22 Q. Now when you say "in fair condition," what do
23 you mean by that?
24 A. I mean it, it was in fair condition. It
25 wasn't, it wasn't unlivable, it wasn't
1 something that I would have went in, looked at
2 and said, "No, I'm not going to take."
3 Q. So, in other words, if a City inspector came
4 along at the time you moved in and said, "This
5 house isn't livable," you would have disagreed
6 with that?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. So in your opinion it was livable?
9 A. Yeah.
10 Q. In fact, you lived there for almost two years?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. As far as you're concerned whatever problems
13 the City found were okay with you because they
14 weren't problems in your mind. Is that a true
15 statement?
16 MR. SHOEMAKER: Objection,
17 speculation, foundation. Go ahead.
18 THE WITNESS: I didn't see anything
19 wrong with it.
20 BY MR. JERSKEY:
21 Q. Okay. So for all the problems that the City
22 inspector finds those weren't problems for you.
23 Fair statement?
24 MR. SHOEMAKER: Objection, form. Go
25 ahead.
1 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
2 BY MR. JERSKEY:
3 Q. Mr. Shoemaker didn't exactly list off what
4 items that the inspector found wrong and so I'm
5 wondering if you'd be able to tell me what your
6 understanding is as to all the things that the
7 City inspector found as reasons for you to get
8 out of there.
9 MR. SHOEMAKER: Counsel --
10 THE WITNESS: I wasn't told.
11 BY MR. JERSKEY:
12 Q. You weren't told?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Okay. Did you ever find out from Mr. Lindorf
15 why?
16 A. (Nods head negatively.)
17 Q. No?
18 A. No.
19 Q. You're shaking your head "no."
20 A. No.
21 Q. Okay. Did Mr. Johnson ever tell you why the
22 City justified, or how the City justified
23 having you move out of the house in 24 hours?
24 A. No.
25 Q. No. So is that a mystery to you as to why you
1 had to move out in 24 hours to this day?
2 A. They just said, "We're shutting the house
3 down," no reason given. I mean bottom line
4 that's, that's it, "You've got 24 hours." They
5 didn't specify to me what the reason was
6 except, "You've got 24 hours to be here and
7 after that you come during the day you're
8 moving stuff in and out and that's it."
9 Q. All right. Did you ever try to call anybody
10 from the City to say, "Hey, why am I being
11 required to move out of the house here?" Did
12 you ever do that?
13 A. No, because at the time that was like I really
14 wasn't thinking about that right then and
15 there, I was thinking about, you know, I was
16 told by the City, "Get out." I mean I was
17 thinking, "Where am I going to go with my
18 kids?"
19 Q. You know, Ms. Doolittle, that sounds very
20 unreasonable to me to have somebody move out in
21 a 24-hour period. That's why I'm asking you if
22 you felt that way I'm wondering what steps you
23 took to find out exactly how unfair or
24 justified it was?
25 A. I didn't.

1 Q. Okay. Are you aware of whether or not
2 Mr. Lindorf did?
3 A. I really couldn't tell you, I do not know.
4 Q. Okay. If somebody had told you that, "All you
5 need to do is fix this, this and this in order
6 to stay here," would you have done that?
7 A. Of course.
8 Q. But you never found out whether or not, but you
9 never learned what needed to be fixed, is that
10 correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Okay. So then you moved in with your mom --
13 his mom. I'm sorry.
14 A. There you go.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I got that. It sounds like there were a lot of
18 people at that house. Can you tell me how many
19 people were there?
20 A. There was --
21 Q. It was you --
22 A. Me, my two kids, David, Mr. and Mrs. Schlie.
23 Q. I'm sorry, who is that?
24 A. David's mother and father.
25 Q. Can you say their name again for the court

1 reporter?
2 A. Mr. and Mrs. Schlie.
3 Q. Oh, yeah, that's S-c-h-l-e-e?
4 MR. SHOEMAKER: L-i-e I think it is,
5 Jim.
6 MR. JERSKEY: L-i-e, okay.
7 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
8 BY MR. JERSKEY:
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. And my two nieces, which David's mother had
11 custody of at that time.
12 Q. Okay. And two nieces. Okay. So that's eight
13 people. Pretty tight quarters?
14 A. She had three bedrooms upstairs, one bedroom
15 downstairs.
16 Q. It was so tight though that you and your two
17 children had to sleep on the floor?
18 A. Yep.
19 Q. Okay. Ma'am, you're not familiar, are you,
20 with the St. Paul City code, the housing code,
21 all the regulations regarding houses and rental
22 units?
23 A. Pretty much so, yeah. I've been in apartments
24 and I've had, you know, they'd come and do
25 their annual inspection.
1 Q. Have you been present during annual inspections
2 in the past?
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. And when were you present at inspections in the
5 past?
6 A. When I lived on York, when I had the apartment
7 over on York, when I had an apartment up on
8 Rice Street.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. I mean they did their yearly inspection and --
11 Q. Okay. Now when you say "they did a yearly
12 inspection," who is "they"?
13 A. When they, they had the inspectors. I don't
14 know who "they" is but they, they -- there's an
15 annual inspection. You got to make sure
16 there's nothing in front of the windows,
17 they're fire, you know, they're exits in case
18 of fire, you know, stuff like that.
19 Q. Okay. So you're talking about fire
20 inspections, annual fire inspections done by a
21 fire inspector?
22 A. Well, not only a fire inspector, it's just
23 something they do every year.
24 Q. Okay. So it's an annual inspection that you
25 were familiar with in the past?

1 A. Mm-hmm (nods head affirmatively).
2 Q. And would it be the same people?
3 A. I have no idea.
4 Q. Okay. Well, you say you had inspections at
5 York Avenue and Rice Street. How many
6 inspections would you say that you had?
7 A. One per year.
8 Q. In each of these places?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. For a total of how many inspections?
11 MR. SHOEMAKER: That she was at?
12 MR. JERSKEY: Yes.
13 THE WITNESS: One, two; three. Two
14 at York and one at the Rice Street, one per
15 year.
16 BY MR. JERSKEY:
17 Q. Okay. So those were just regularly, those were
18 routine inspections?
19 A. Yep.
20 Q. Okay. Now this wasn't a routine inspection
21 that occurred in March of 2003, was it?
22 A. Didn't seem like it to me, no.
23 Q. Okay. It was an inspection that was performed
24 in connection with a police search warrant?
25 A. Yep.

1 Q. Correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. You're not familiar, are you familiar or
4 let me put it this way: You're not familiar
5 with what would justify condemning a home, are
6 you, the grounds for condemning a home?
7 A. Well, yeah, I can say yes to that.
8 Q. Do you think you are?
9 A. Yeah.
10 Q. Can you give me a list of what reasons you
11 believe are grounds to condemn a home?
12 A. Oh, my goodness! Can we just say unlivable
13 conditions?
14 Q. Okay. And do you know what makes an unlivable
15 condition?
16 A. Clutter, filth, mice, cockroaches, just an
17 unkept house.
18 Q. Okay. And if the City inspector on the night
19 of March was it 12th, 2003?
20 A. I guess, I can't remember the correct --
21 Q. Okay. If the night of the warrant was March
22 12th, 2003, and the City inspector says that
23 there are unlivable conditions here, do you
24 have any reason to believe that the unlivable
25 conditions that the inspector wrote down were
1 not valid reasons to condemn a home?
2 A. No, I don't.
3 Q. Did you ever see the piece of paper documenting
4 the inspector's reasons for condemning the
5 home?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Okay. And you had never met that inspector
8 before?
9 A. No.
10 Q. And you have no reason to believe he would
11 treat you differently than anybody else, do
12 you?
13 A. No.
14 Q. And do you have any reason to believe that the
15 police would treat you any different than
16 anybody else if they had a valid search
17 warrant?
18 A. I suppose not.
19 Q. I know that it really scared you and shocked
20 you but it doesn't surprise you, does it, that
21 when they execute a search warrant they
22 handcuff people? That doesn't surprise you,
23 does it?
24 A. No, it doesn't surprise me. It's just that
25 I've never, I've never been through it before,
1 that was the first time in my life I've ever
2 been through it.
3 Q. And I totally understand when say that you were
4 surprised and shocked, I understand all of
5 that. But what I'm trying to get at is, but it
6 doesn't surprise you that during a search
7 warrant they handcuff people?
8 A. No, I suppose not.
9 Q. Okay. And it doesn't surprise you that they
10 come in the door without asking?
11 A. No.
12 Q. And it doesn't surprise you that they have
13 their guns drawn, does it?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay, all right. The walls didn't have any
16 holes in them?
17 A. No.
18 Q. I'm talking about the Cypress property?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Okay. Hadn't been painted, but that's not a
21 big deal, right?
22 A. The Cypress house was painted.
23 Q. Yeah, but had it been painted?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did it have peeling paint?

1 A. No.
2 MR. JERSKEY: Okay. One second off
3 the record.
4 (Off the record discussion.)
5 BY MR. JERSKEY:
6 Q. So, ma'am, I'm sorry, we were talking about
7 boxes being stored in the basement and how you
8 had those all off to one wall.
9 A. Right.
10 Q. Now I was writing my notes and I think I recall
11 you saying something about you hadn't had a
12 chance to unpack these boxes, they were still
13 down in the basement, is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So they had been boxes that were packed from a
16 prior address?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. Was there no room to unpack these things
19 upstairs?
20 A. Yep.
21 Q. Okay. You're saying that there was no room,
22 that's correct?
23 A. There was no room, that's why I left them
24 packed and sealed.
25 Q. Okay. And if I understood correctly the
1 basement is only about half the size of the
2 main floor of the house?
3 A. Right.
4 Q. Okay. You know, I'm going to, my curiosity is
5 getting the best of me, ma'am, and I'm going to
6 ask you to draw me a little diagram. Is that
7 okay with you?
8 A. Mm-hmm (nods head affirmatively).
9 Q. I'm going to give you a pencil. Why don't you
10 just sketch out what the layout of the basement
11 would have been, or the house, right? And then
12 show me what size the basement would be in
13 comparison.
14 So, for instance, draw a box of
15 whatever shape of the house, main floor is, and
16 then I'll have you tell me how much smaller the
17 basement would have been. And take your time,
18 please.
19 A. (Witness drawing.)
20 Q. Okay. It looks like you drew the, is this
21 the --
22 A. This is the house. This is the front door.
23 And you step out the front door and go this
24 way, this is the basement door (indicating).
25 Q. Okay.

1 MR. SHOEMAKER: Jim, do you want to
2 have her maybe label that too?
3 MR. JERSKEY: I will.
4 BY MR. JERSKEY:
5 Q. Stand by, ma'am. Continue to explain to me and
6 then we're going to mark it up a little bit.
7 So go ahead. You showed me the basement door.
8 A. Yes, this is the basement door. You go --
9 here's the basement stairs, goes down
10 (indicating).
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. Over here, right here where the top of the
13 basement stairs is is where the sink and washer
14 and dryer, the furnace and the water heater
15 (indicating).
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. Okay. Right here is the support beam, okay,
18 for the upstairs (indicating).
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. Okay. Beyond the support beam from here back
21 is the rest of the basement, it does not go the
22 full length of the house (indicating).
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. Okay. Over here is where I had my boxes
25 (indicating).

1 Q. Okay. Now stand by for a second, ma'am, okay.
2 I'm going to take this piece of paper from you.
3 I'm going to point to a couple of things here
4 on the diagram and I'm going to ask you if I'm
5 correct, okay?
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. So what we have in this big box, and I'm going
8 to put a red bracket around the big box, okay.
9 That's the house --
10 A. Right.
11 Q. -- am I right?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. Is there any basement below what I put the
14 brackets around; in other words, is the
15 basement under here at any point under here --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- where I'm putting the red lines?
18 A. The basement goes under but it doesn't go all
19 the way to the back.
20 Q. I understand.
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. Now would you do me a favor, ma'am? I want you
23 to draw a little dotted line here to show me
24 how big the basement is because --
25 A. Okay, I understand --

1 Q. Hang on a second now.
2 A. -- what you're saying.
3 Q. Okay, thanks so much. As it appears right now
4 as far as I know this little box here looks
5 like it's the only part of the basement, okay?
6 So I want you to show me where the basement
7 extends to the right under the house.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. Thank you. Little dotted lines. Okay, solid
10 line works for me too.
11 A. (Witness drawing.)
12 Q. Excellent. Okay. So now here's what I'm going
13 to do, I'm going to draw a line this way for
14 the box that you just drew.
15 Now is this part of the basement
16 (indicating)?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. This whole --
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. SHOEMAKER: The diagonal red
21 lines?
22 BY MR. JERSKEY:
23 Q. Yeah. Now what we have basically is we have
24 crisscrossing lines in the box that you just
25 drew under the house, then we have diagonal
1 lines right here for the part that was already
2 written by you. This also is the basement too,
3 correct, ma'am?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. Now let the record reflect that I've,
6 and, Mr. Shoemaker, tell me if I'm right or
7 wrong here, I'm actually coloring in in red
8 then the basement.
9 Is that the basement, ma'am
10 (indicating)?
11 A. Yes.

12 Q. That's the whole basement?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. There's no more basement?
15 A. No.
16 Q. All right. Let me ask you this now: The door
17 to get into the basement is outside the front
18 door of the home?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You walk out the front door, you make a right
21 and then there's the basement door?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. And it apparently has a lock on it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And walk down the stairs. Are the stairs, do
1 the stairs go in the direction of the arrow
2 that I just drew?
3 A. No. The door's right here (indicating). The
4 stairs go straight down.
5 Q. All right. Now I'm going to color in my arrow,
6 so it's no longer an arrow. Are you saying the
7 stairs go like this where the new arrow is
8 (indicating)?
9 A. Yes, the stairs go down.
10 Q. Okay, very good.
11 A. Oh, wait, wait, wait.
12 Q. Yes, ma'am.
13 A. Hold on. The door (indicating).
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Okay. Nope -- yep, the stairs go straight down
16 this way, yep (indicating).
17 Q. Okay; okay, no problem. And I'm going to color
18 in this arrow. Okay. Now there's no arrows on
19 this, right? Now there's a new arrow?
20 A. Yes, the stairs go that way, straight down --
21 Q. Okay, very good.
22 A. -- and a door.
23 Q. Very good. And as you were telling Mr.
24 Shoemaker before the water heater was behind
25 the stairs. Draw a circle for me, ma'am.
1 A. The sink (indicating).
2 Q. Draw a circle for the water heater, please.
3 One of these boxes I assume is the water
4 heater.
5 A. This is the water heater, that's the furnace
6 (indicating).
7 Q. Okay. I've got a colored-in circle for the
8 water heater and right next to it is the
9 furnace which is --
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. -- a colored-in red box. And you already
12 showed me the support beam for the basement.
13 And you told me that this square right here
14 that I'm coloring in now were your stacked
15 boxes (indicating).
16 MR. SHOEMAKER: The rectangular red
17 section?
18 BY MR. JERSKEY:
19 Q. Is that right, ma'am?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Very good. So what was in this part of the
22 basement, ma'am, that goes underneath the
23 house? What was being stored over here, ma'am?
24 A. There was like a table that was built onto the
25 wall over here. There was a table here and I
1 think David might have had a couple odds and
2 ends up here on the table (indicating).
3 Q. Okay. When was the last time that you were in
4 this basement prior to the night of the search
5 warrant?
6 A. I was down there 5:00 or 6:00 o'clock that
7 evening doing laundry.
8 Q. Okay. And how often did you go into the
9 basement?
10 A. Whenever I had to do laundry.
11 Q. Which was how often?
12 A. Two or three times a week.
13 Q. Okay. Fair enough, ma'am. All right, thank
14 you for that.
15 You didn't accompany the inspector
16 as the inspector went through the house
17 inspecting the house, did you?
18 A. No.
19 Q. So you didn't watch the inspector making a list
20 of things that he or she believed was wrong?
21 A. (Nods head negatively.)
22 Q. By the way, you're nodding your head "no,"
23 right?
24 A. No, I didn't.
25 Q. Just so we know. No, you didn't accompany the
1 inspector?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Okay. And you never saw the sheet of paper
4 that the inspector was making notes on?
5 A. No, I didn't.
6 Q. Okay. A male inspector as opposed to female?
7 A. Yes, it was.
8 Q. Okay. And if I understood you correctly he
9 introduced himself to you?
10 A. I believe so, yes.
11 Q. And he told you who he was?
12 A. Yep.
13 Q. In terms of name and the fact that he was an
14 inspector for the City of St. Paul?
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. By the way, at these other inspections that you
17 had, you know, these annual inspections that
18 you've previously described --
19 A. Mm-hmm.
20 Q. -- did the inspectors ever introduce themselves
21 to you?
22 A. No, they, they usually came up with the
23 landlord or the owner themselves and walked
24 through, the owner walked through with the
25 inspectors.

1 Q. And they didn't have contact with you?
2 A. They would notify me 24 hours in advance to let
3 me know that an inspector was coming in case I
4 wasn't home, that could they let themselves in.
5 And I told them yes.
6 Q. But they, when they were there if you -- were
7 you ever present when they did inspections?
8 A. Only once.
9 Q. Okay. And on that one occasion did the
10 inspector come up to you and introduce himself
11 to you like this man did?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Okay. How many police would you say there
14 were?
15 A. Oh, my God! I'd say between 12 and 15.
16 Q. Okay. And they were all identified as police?
17 A. Yeah, they all had the army, cocky (sic) army
18 green outfits on.
19 Q. The khaki-green outfits?
20 A. Yeah.
21 Q. Okay. And they were clearly identified as
22 police?
23 A. Mm-hmm (nods head affirmatively).
24 Q. Were there no closets -- you said "mm-hmm"
25 which means "yes"?

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay, no problem. Were there no closets on the
3 first floor of the house?
4 A. On the first floor?
5 Q. Yes, ma'am.
6 A. Yes, there was, in our bedroom there was one
7 small closet I believe.
8 Q. Okay. Now the reason why I ask you is, maybe
9 I'm mistaken but I thought you told Mr.
10 Shoemaker that there weren't closets or, hang
11 on a second here. Let's see --
12 A. Yes, I think I did say that. My fault. Yeah,
13 I think there was one small closet in our
14 bedroom.
15 Q. All right, that's good. We want to make sure
16 that we get it cleared up if there's any
17 mistakes.
18 So there was a small closet in the
19 bedroom. If I got it right there was a large
20 bed, it took up most of the room, correct?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. Okay. So there wasn't any room to store stuff
23 in the bedroom?
24 A. No.
25 Q. No?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. And did you have a dresser in the
3 bedroom for clothing?
4 A. Two.
5 Q. Okay. Was that enough room for you to store
6 your clothes in?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Was there a front closet for you to
9 store jackets or other things in by the front
10 door, for instance?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Okay. Was there a closet by the back door? Is
13 there a back door?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. Was there a closet by the back door?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Was there any kind of storage in the kitchen
18 area or the back door area?
19 A. For clothes and things? No.
20 Q. Right. I assume there were pantries? Was
21 there a pantry?
22 A. No, there wasn't a pantry.
23 Q. No pantry?
24 A. Just cabinet space.
25 Q. Was there enough cabinet space for your foods,

1 your canned goods, et cetera?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. If the raid occurred in March what was a
4 weed wacker doing in the kitchen in March, do
5 you know?
6 A. He was working on it.
7 Q. Okay. Getting it ready for the season? You
8 don't know?
9 A. It was just what he did. He was paralyzed. He
10 did all kinds of stuff trying to keep himself
11 busy and keep his mind out of pain.
12 Q. Did he have a garage to work in at this
13 address?
14 A. No.
15 Q. So there's no garage?
16 A. The garage, he -- there was a garage there but
17 there was somebody else renting the garage out.
18 Q. So you had no access to the garage?
19 A. No, no.
20 Q. Okay. And before I ask you the question I was
21 going to ask you: What about the upstairs,
22 what sort of storage facilities were there
23 upstairs?
24 A. The first bedroom you walk into, I can't
25 remember if there was a closet in the first one
1 or not. But the second one there was a closet.
2 I can't remember -- yeah, there was a closet in
3 both the bedrooms I do believe.
4 Q. Okay. Were they big enough to store things?
5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. Okay. Now if the inspector said the house was
7 cluttered it's your opinion that it wasn't
8 cluttered, right?
9 A. Right.
10 Q. Okay. But if they told you that they have a
11 definition for what they believe is cluttered
12 you wouldn't have a reason to disagree with
13 that?
14 A. What good was it going to do me?
15 Q. No, I'm just saying in general, I'm not talking
16 about that day.
17 A. No, no.
18 Q. I mean for all we know the housing code's got a
19 definition for what cluttered is?
20 A. Yeah.
21 Q. I don't know what is it. Do you know what it
22 is?
23 A. No.
24 Q. It might be different than what you consider
25 cluttered, right?
1 A. Right.
2 Q. Bear with me, ma'am.
3 A. Mm-hmm.
4 Q. Thank you. Were the police ever at the house
5 before that?
6 A. No.
7 Q. How did you get along with your neighbors?
8 A. Good.
9 Q. Did you know your neighbors?
10 A. The people right across from us, yeah, my kids
11 played with their kids. Other than that
12 everybody else, all the other neighbors pretty
13 much kept to themselves.
14 Q. You mentioned something about the TV, the
15 antenna got pulled away from the wall when they
16 were searching in the area of the TV set?
17 A. No, when they pulled the TV out of the
18 entertainment center they pulled the, where the
19 antenna hooks up in the back of the TV --
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. -- they snapped it right out.
22 Q. Now are we talking like for cable TV, is that
23 what you're talking about?
24 A. Yeah, where you screw in the antenna.
25 Q. Into the wall or into the TV?
1 A. Into the TV. I mean the whole thing. I mean
2 the metal piece that goes into the TV for you
3 to screw it in --
4 Q. Yeah.
5 A. -- the whole thing got ripped up.
6 Q. I see. Other than that there was nothing wrong
7 with the TV, just -
8 A. No.
9 Q. -- the reception?
10 A. Yep.
11 Q. Okay. So you didn't read a copy of the search
12 warrant?
13 A. You know, I was pretty upset, I wasn't -- no.
14 Q. I don't doubt you, ma'am. You never did read
15 the warrant yourself?
16 A. (Nods head negatively.)
17 Q. You said "no"?
18 A. No.
19 Q. And you never did see any letter sent by the
20 City of St. Paul regarding the inspection that
21 night?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. Now one thing that sort of stood out in
24 my mind. You made a comment about the, I think
25 Mr. Shoemaker asked you if you had an opinion
1 as to what the police were really interested in
2 that night. And, if I'm not mistaken, I think
3 you said something about you got the impression
4 that they were more interested in getting you
5 out of the house than anything else.
6 Do you think that's true?
7 A. Yeah, because I, I just seen no reason for them
8 to come in, to do the raid or to shut the house
9 down.
10 Q. Okay. Now we know that it was the inspector
11 who inspected the house for violations, or do
12 we not, do we know that? It wasn't the police,
13 was it?
14 MR. SHOEMAKER: Foundation. Go
15 ahead.
16 THE WITNESS: Well, I would suppose
17 so but how would the inspector know to even
18 come there if the police hadn't informed them?
19 BY MR. JERSKEY:
20 Q. Right. But what I'm trying to get at is I just
21 want to sure that we don't unnecessarily say
22 something about the police that may not be
23 true.
24 If I told you that the police had,
25 the police were not the ones who found code
1 violations, it was the inspector, okay, would
2 that change your opinion about what the police
3 were doing that night?
4 A. Could you rephrase that?
5 Q. Yeah, and I'm sorry about that.
6 It was really the code inspector
7 that determined whether or not the house was
8 going to be shut down, correct?
9 A. Yeah.
10 MR. SHOEMAKER: Foundation.
11 BY MR. JERSKEY:
12 Q. Okay. As far as you know it was the code
13 inspector that made the determination the house
14 was going to be shut down?
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. Okay. The police never said the house was
17 going to be shut down, did they?
18 A. Not to my knowledge.
19 Q. Okay. They just searched the house, they just
20 took your boyfriend into custody --
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. -- right? And then they left after leaving the
23 warrant on the table?
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. Okay, all right. So if you, other than what
1 you've told me already when you say that you
2 believe that the police were interested in
3 getting you out of the house, you've told me
4 all the reasons why you believe they wanted you
5 out of the house, or is there something you
6 haven't told us yet?
7 A. I don't -- no, I don't know why they wanted us
8 out.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. Bottom line, I don't.
11 Q. You don't know if they wanted you out?
12 A. I don't know why anybody wanted us out.
13 Q. Okay. You don't know why the police executed
14 the warrant?
15 A. No, I don't.
16 Q. Okay. I mean actually you do know it was for
17 drugs or guns, right, but you don't know how
18 they got that information, is that what you're
19 saying?
20 A. There you go.
21 Q. Okay. But you agree that the warrant did say
22 they're looking for guns and drugs?
23 A. That's, that's what David read.
24 Q. Okay. And if we were to try to come up with a
25 reason why they believed there were drugs in
1 that house there we'd be guessing, wouldn't we?
2 A. I know I would.
3 Q. Okay. Now if we go to 390 Sherburne. So Mr.
4 Johnson found you a place to live in?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. Did he ever ask you to come back to
7 Cypress saying, "Hey, you know, we got the
8 cluttered issue all fixed up. Come on back"?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Okay. You don't even know that it was for
11 clutter that you had to move out, do you?
12 A. I really don't know why we had to leave, I just
13 know we had to leave.
14 Q. Okay, fair enough. So you go to 390 Sherburne.
15 How far away is that from Cypress?
16 A. Consider the east side to Frog Town area.
17 Q. A few miles?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. Okay. Were you familiar with that part of
20 town?
21 A. Yeah, I grew up on Rice Street, yes.
22 Q. In the area of Sherburne?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. So that was a comfortable area for you?
25 A. Yeah.
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. Not unfamiliar territory.
3 Q. Very good. So apparently three vehicles get
4 towed at some point while you're living there?
5 A. Yep.
6 Q. Okay. Now just to review: How long were you
7 at Sherburne?
8 A. About a year and a half.
9 Q. Okay. And would you say that was towards the
10 middle, the beginning or the end that the
11 vehicles got towed?
12 A. Between the middle and the end.
13 Q. Okay. Now those vehicles were not yours?
14 A. No.
15 Q. None of them?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Do you have a driver's license, ma'am?
18 A. No.
19 Q. So you don't drive at all?
20 A. I had a driver's license, I no longer have one.
21 Q. Oh, okay. Did you have a driver's license back
22 when these cars were there?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Did you ever use any of these cars?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Okay. So wouldn't be able to say as a driver
2 you were familiar with how the cars operated?
3 A. I seen them all operate.
4 Q. Well, I know, but I mean as a driver you
5 wouldn't be able to tell me one way or the
6 other how they operated because you never drove
7 them, right?
8 A. I guess not. I know they were running.
9 Q. Okay. So Mr. Lindorf owned them all?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And as far as you knew there was nothing wrong
12 with them other than the one car that was up on
13 the jack?
14 A. Right.
15 Q. Okay. And you never found out why they were
16 towed?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Okay. And are you aware one way or the other
19 whether Mr. Lindorf was ever notified that they
20 were going to be towed?
21 A. No.
22 Q. You don't know one way or the other?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Okay. So as far as we know he may have gotten
25 one, two or three letters saying, "FYI, we're
1 going to tow these cars." You have no way of
2 knowing that?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Okay. So he may have or he may not have been
5 advised in advance that he was about to have
6 his cars towed?
7 A. I wasn't aware of any of this.
8 Q. Okay. What about this gravel in the backyard,
9 do you have any idea whether it's appropriate
10 or proper or allowed by the City to make a
11 homemade driveway in your backyard? Do you
12 have any idea?
13 A. I don't see why it wouldn't be. I've seen
14 plenty of driveways that are graveled.
15 Q. Sure, and I have too. But I'm just wondering
16 you don't know for yourself whether or not
17 there's a rule in favor of it or against it, do
18 you?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Yeah, I don't either. Now about this female
21 inspector that came to the house. This, I hope
22 I'm not confused here. Was that, we're talking
23 about the 390 Sherburne property?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. And a female inspector came to the house?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. On one occasion?
3 A. On many occasions.
4 Q. Okay. Did you know this woman other than
5 seeing her do inspections at your house?
6 A. No, I didn't know her.
7 Q. Did you ever see her before?
8 A. Seen her all the time when she was out there
9 strolling through the alleys.
10 Q. Okay. So she works that area?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. Okay. Did you personally talk to her?
13 A. No, I didn't personally talk to her.
14 Q. So you never had a conversation with her?
15 A. No. Mr. Lindorf did.
16 Q. Okay. And was she alone when you saw her, not
17 when Mr. Lindorf had contact with her but on
18 any occasions that you personally saw her was
19 she alone?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Okay. Was she with somebody?
22 A. She was.
23 Q. Was she always with somebody?
24 A. Not always.
25 Q. Okay. So on occasions that you saw her she was
1 alone?
2 A. On occasion she was alone and on other
3 occasions she wasn't.
4 Q. Okay. Do you have any recollection at all as
5 to who she was with?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Now I know that --
8 A. I just know it was, it was a guy.
9 Q. It was a man?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Could have been a police officer, maybe
12 not though, right?
13 A. I really didn't pay attention, I just knew she
14 was out there and so was the guy.
15 Q. So as far as you know it could have been
16 anybody?
17 A. Could have been.
18 Q. If I showed you a picture of the guy would you
19 be able to recognize him?
20 A. Probably not.
21 Q. Okay. African-American man?
22 A. No, he was white.
23 Q. Asian man?
24 A. He was white.
25 Q. Okay. Latino?
1 A. White.
2 Q. Okay, very good. Now this woman, did you get
3 the impression that she didn't like you or the
4 property that you lived at because of the way
5 she did her job or was it just that she took
6 her job very serious?
7 A. I felt like we were being targeted. I mean
8 there was plenty of other properties on the
9 street that, you know, she could have been, you
10 know -- I didn't see any improvement on anybody
11 else's yard or anything else but constantly in
12 our face.
13 Q. Of course as far as we know she may have been
14 requiring people up and down the street to make
15 repairs inside the home and we wouldn't know
16 about that though, right?
17 A. Possible I guess.
18 Q. Okay. And you did see her walking in the alley
19 on the occasions that she wasn't at your house,
20 right?
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. Okay. So that tells us that she was working
23 the neighborhood, fair statement?
24 A. I guess.
25 Q. Okay. So she may have been targeting you and
1 your neighborhood, is that the deal?
2 A. She could have but we had to keep making
3 improvements on our yard and the outside and

4 vehicles but nobody else in the neighborhood
5 seemed to, had, had to be doing any of this.
6 Q. At least on the outside, right?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. Okay. Now it's a pain in the neck to have
9 somebody coming back all the time telling you
10 to fix something, right?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. Okay. But let me just ask you this, ma'am, you
13 tell me what you think of this: Do you think
14 it's fair that if there's a law that says it
15 has to be this way that people enforce the law?
16 A. No, that's fine.
17 Q. Is that fine with you?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. Okay. Now this may sound unreasonable but if I
20 told you that there was a law for everything
21 that she told you to fix would you be okay with
22 that? I mean in terms of her doing her job?
23 A. I'd be fine with that.
24 Q. All right, I was just wondering.
25 Now you met Mr. Shoemaker for the
1 first time when?
2 A. Today.
3 Q. Okay. And you talked to Mr. Shoemaker for the
4 first time when?
5 A. God! I can't remember.
6 Q. A long time ago?
7 A. No, no. About a week ago.
8 Q. Okay. Did Mr. Shoemaker tell you why he wanted
9 you to come out here today?
10 A. He informed me that he wanted to know if I
11 would come out here on Steve's behalf and I
12 said yes.
13 Q. Steve Johnson?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. And had Steve given you a head's up that
16 his attorney was going to be giving you a call
17 to talk to you about when you were living at
18 Steve's properties?
19 A. No, he asked me if he could, if his lawyer
20 could contact me.
21 Q. Yeah, I guess that's what I meant. And you
22 said that would be fine?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. Did Steve give you anything or say he'd do you
25 a favor or anything in return for cooperating?
1 A. No.
2 Q. So you're no longer living at one of Steve's
3 homes, right?
4 A. No, I'm not.
5 Q. So why when Steve calls you up were you so
6 agreeable?
7 A. Because the things that I went through, the
8 agony and all the troubles that we went
9 through, if this is going to help somebody else
10 not have to go through this I'm all for it.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. You know?
13 Q. Okay. So it was that negative experience that
14 you had with the police raid that sort of
15 inspires you to be active in this case?
16 A. It has nothing to do with the police raid.
17 Q. Well, you had a negative experience, right?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. Was there more than one negative experience?
20 A. It doesn't take more than one negative
21 experience, it's just nobody should have to go
22 through what I went through.
23 Q. And you're talking about the police raid?
24 A. I'm talking about the police raid, the
25 harassment from the City, everything. I mean
1 it's just when my own kid, I can't put -- my
2 own kids can't park their bikes in the yard
3 that's getting pretty ridiculous.
4 Q. Yeah, okay. So it's those feelings that made
5 you decide that you want to speak up in this
6 case?
7 A. Yeah, nobody, nobody should have to go through
8 this.
9 Q. Okay. You were served a subpoena or did
10 somebody hand that to you? Do you know that's
11 a subpoena right there, by the way
12 (indicating)?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. Okay. How did you get that?
15 A. It was brought to my door.
16 Q. And who brought it?
17 A. I don't know, a gentleman brought it to me.
18 Q. A stranger? Was it Steve or --
19 A. I never, I never seen --
20 Q. -- one of his relatives?
21 A. -- him before.
22 Q. Okay, okay. Are you being paid to come here
23 today, did they give you money?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Okay.

1 MR. SHOEMAKER: Counsel, I think the
2 process server should have given her a witness
3 fee and mileage check.
4 BY MR. JERSKEY:
5 Q. Did they tell you that, ma'am?
6 A. Pardon?
7 Q. Did they tell you that you'd be given a check
8 for coming today?
9 A. Yeah, yeah.
10 Q. Okay. And how did you get here today?
11 A. My boyfriend.
12 Q. Okay. Is he waiting you?
13 A. No, he left a long time ago, he couldn't wait
14 any longer, he had to get to work.
15 Q. Okay, sorry for keeping you here.
16 All right, fair enough. I'm almost
17 done with my questions and maybe Mr.
18 Shoemaker's going to have a couple more, I
19 don't know.
20 That's it for me.
21 MR. SHOEMAKER: I just have one
22 follow-up question.
23
24 EXAMINATION (continuing)
25 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
1 Q. Regarding the garage that was in the back of
2 the property did Mr. Johnson ever tell you when
3 you were looking at that house to rent or
4 sometime thereafter that the former landlord
5 had that rented out to someone else?
6 A. On Cypress?
7 Q. Right.
8 A. Yeah, he -- when we, when we started renting
9 the place from David Baudette he told us, he
10 told David the garage doesn't come with it
11 because someone, someone is renting it out and
12 restoring a car in there.
13 Q. Okay. So you weren't able to rent that garage
14 even at the time that you first rented from Mr.
15 Baudette?
16 A. No.
17 Q. And did that continue throughout the time that
18 you rented the --
19 A. The whole time.
20 Q. -- home from Mr. Baudette that you were not
21 able to rent that garage?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. Because it was rented to another individual?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. Did Mr. Johnson ever say that he was going to
1 try to get that lease broken so that you could
2 have the garage, do you ever remember that?
3 A. He might have talked about it with David, I --
4 Q. You just don't remember it yourself?
5 A. Huh-uh (nods head negatively).
6 MR. SHOEMAKER: Okay. That's all
7 the questions I have. And again I just want to
8 remind you that you have a right to read the
9 transcript. And if you want to take that
10 right, exercise that right you can just tell
11 Cheryl and she can send it to you whenever she
12 finishes it. She's going to send us a copy
13 automatically and she would send you some
14 correction sheets. She can kind of describe
15 how to fill those out afterwards. So you tell
16 her if you want to do that.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do, please.
18 MR. SHOEMAKER: Oh, were you going
19 to make that an exhibit, Jim?
20 MR. JERSKEY: Yeah.
21 MR. SHOEMAKER: Let's make sure we
22 do that.
23 MR. JERSKEY: Okay. So why don't I
24 just, tell you what --
25 MR. SHOEMAKER: Do you want to
1 clarify that or --
2 MR. JERSKEY: Yeah, I'm just going
3 to do a couple things on the record.
4
5 EXAMINATION (continuing)
6 BY MR. JERSKEY:
7 Q. Ma'am, with respect to the diagram that we
8 drew --
9 A. Mm-hmm.
10 Q. -- we're talking about which property here?
11 A. Cypress.
12 Q. And the address is what, the house number? Was
13 it 391?
14 A. 391, yes.
15 MR. SHOEMAKER: Now we're talking
16 Cypress was 941.
17 THE WITNESS: Or 941, you're right.
18 MR. JERSKEY: How do we spell
19 Cypress, C-y-p-r --
20 MR. SHOEMAKER: E-s-s.
21 MR. JERSKEY: Okay. That's it.
22 We'll make that Exhibit 2.
23 (Doolittle Deposition Exhibit 2
24 marked for identification.)
25 MR. JERSKEY: Thanks so much, ma'am.
1 THE WITNESS: All right, thank you.
2 MR. SHOEMAKER: Yeah, thank you, Ms.
3 Doolittle. Appreciate it.
4 (Whereupon, the deposition was
concluded at 1:20 p.m.)

NOTE: I will move this topic to the top of the front page tomorrow with more testimony from witnesses.; 3:04 PM
Anonymous said...: OK - reread this section again. It is great. Debbie was your boyfriend Lindorf ever incarcerated?

I don't know...

Well did you ever visit him in prison?

Yes a few times...!!! ???

20 Q. Was it because Mr. Lindorf had been
21 incarcerated at some points?
22 A. I don't know, I never asked.
23 Q. Okay. And I want to ask you about that
24 incarceration. Was he at Stillwater?
25 A. I'm --
1 Q. I just want to know if you visited him when he
2 was incarcerated?
3 A. I visited him once and I don't think it was,
4 was it -- I think it was Moose Lake.
5 Q. Okay. And Moose Lake is what kind of facility,
6 is it a federal jail?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. Okay. So have you ever gone to a jail to visit
9 somebody before?
10 A. Nope.
11 Q. Okay. How many times did you visit
12 Mr. Lindorf?
13 A. I think I visited him once or twice.
14 Q. Okay. A couple of times?
15 A. That was just before he got out.
16 Q. All right. And how long was M
17 incarcerated then?
18 A. I don't know, he didn't, he didn't, I didn't
19 ask and he didn't say.
20 Q. Was this before, during or after you dated Mr.
21 Lindorf?
22 A. I was visiting him before I started dating him.
23 Q. Okay. And when did you start dating him?
24 A. After he got out and was working.
25 Q. Okay. I'm just trying to get a ball park

1 figure here. Was he incarcerated for two
2 years, three years?
3 A. I don't know, I really don't know.
4 Q. Well, let's try it this way: If you visited
5 him a couple of times how much time elapsed
6 between the time you first visited him and the
7 time you started dating after he got out?
8 A. We started dating about three or four months
9 after he got out.
10 Q. Okay. And he wasn't at the workhouse, right?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Okay. Did you know whether or not he had a
13 criminal record prior to the time that he was
14 incarcerated?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Do you know why he was incarcerated?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Would you tell me if you knew why he was
19 incarcerated?

Go on Bob more please, more...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 3:48 PM
Anonymous said...: She makes about as much sense as you do Repke!; 5:48 PM
Bob said...: Chuck is preaching the city gestapo party line. Orchestrated by past Commandants Kelly, Dawkins, Magner and Lippert.

David Lindorf was deemed a less than desirable citizen. The raid on his home had every intention of condemning the home before they ever even looked inside. We will hear testimony to come, as we did here, the police go out of their way to destroy the home during their search to help the inspector along with his condemnation orders.

Whether David committed a crime or not, some in this city feel they have a right to violate his and any one's rights who may associate themselves with folks like David who have been deemed less than desirable citizens. David, and others deemed less than desirable in the minds of progressive socialist should be condemned from their homes along with innocent woman and children, without due process of law, because a neighbor said so, or a cop couldn't get a bust on a suspect like David.

And in Chuck's world this is perfectly acceptable behavior by our police department and code enforcement.

In the progressive socialist gestapo's minds (our city's leaders)the owner of the home David rented should be punished and code to the max as Dawkins would say. the home has to be remodeled to the point the owner can never rent it to another low income person in this city. Or due to the excessive code compliance lose the home all together.

It isn't just folks suspected of crime losing housing. We will hear testimony from elderly and I will speak on behalf of the deceased who have fell victim to an out of control city government.; 8:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Eric if these claims are bogus why has it been 3 months or more for them to throw it all out?You'd think that if he judge was as smart as your are on this case it would have been over months ago.I think I'll wait till the Judge send down her order instaed of listening to anyone here.Must be something to this case though for my point of view.

Jim; 8:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Bob, I know nothing of the case, nor do I know these people, but what we appear to have here is a raid on a drug house. There were warrents to go after drugs and guns in a home occupied by a felon who is not allowed by law to own a gun. What she explains they did is normal in a drug bust.

The issues of the state of the house was totally incidental to the drug raid and as she said and you have said appear to absolutely nothing to do with the landlord.

Now this woman's credibility is pretty lame. ...I went and visited him in prison, but I had no idea what his offense is!!!

Are you F'ing kidding me Bob?

She is either lying or shouldn't be trusted to have kids in the house. Don't you think she might have wanted to check and see that he wasn't a child sex offender???

So, this is your example of a good citizen that was an victim of the nazi code enforsement in Saint Paul...

Bob, I worked in corrections for 15 years I believe that people can turn their lives around, but they has a warrent for drugs and weapons, HIS SON WAS SHOT OUTSIDE THE HOUSE. You think that code issues were why the cops raided the place?

Wow Bob, this case is toast.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 8:50 PM
Anonymous said...: "So, this is your example of a good citizen that was an victim of the nazi code enforsement in Saint Paul..."

So is it your idea Chuck that if people do not measure up to normal standards then they shouldn't be afforded the constitutional protections as the rest of society? That seems to be where you go all the time. Eric too. The first thing you guys do is try to disparage the character of the people you disagree with so that gives you the advantage when you start piling on the BS.

WE ALL HAVE RIGHTS......it's time this city starts recognizing them.; 9:10 PM
Bob said...: Chuck, how does anything you say justify condemning them from their home?

Now you will attempt to tell us the police and code enforcement liked Dave and his family so much they just couldn't bare to see them living in that house. SO, they throw them out onto the streets.

Why even bring a code enforcement officer on a raid unless the intention is to condemn the residence out of their housing.

Only in your minds (Chuck and his friends in the city) it is OK to remove innocent woman and children from their homes.

All of you involved with this issue are very sick and should seek mental health assistance.; 9:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Bob, it is pretty simple, because when the police raid a drug house where there are kids and the city finds that there are problems with the property and they don't take immeadiate action...the City get's sued.

The City acquires an obligation to do something when they find children in substandard living conditions.

I don't make the laws and I am not an attorney but I sure could write the headline on the story if the place burned down after the City had been there on a drug raid and did nothing about the living conditions.

So, bitch all you want, but the City has no choice but to take action anytime they are in the property.

...and talk about sick...this it the family out there shootig each other...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 10:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Is this the right guy, Bob?

62-K0-03-000725 LINDORFF, DAVID LANCE
06/20/1960 02/27/2003
Ramsey Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown Felony
Converted Closed POSS METH 5TH DEGREE
62-K6-95-002416 LINDORFF, DAVID LANCE
06/20/1960 07/27/1995
Ramsey Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown Felony
Converted Closed POSS METH 5TH
62-K8-97-001482 LINDORFF, DAVID LANCE
06/20/1960 05/07/1997
Ramsey Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown Felony
Converted Closed POSS DANG WEAPON IN COURT
62-T4-00-089264 T00089264
00252509 LINDORFF, DAVID LANCE
06/20/1960 10/27/2000
Ramsey Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown Non- Traffic Misdemeanor
Converted Closed TAMPER WITH AUTO
(TCIS Amended Charge) ATTEPTED THEFT

This is the victim of the evil City trying to protect kids.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 10:59 PM
Anonymous said...: So what5 does this mean Repke? Not much of anything. SO he has a record that the Government is not thinking is a a big enough deal to incarcerate him for and now you come along and try to incinuate that he some how is something less than the rest of us, and because of that the kids should be thrown into the streets to be protected from him or this so called substandard house. What's your idea of substandard?; 12:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Chuck I remember seeing a house kill a couple of people that was in shambles on Carroll.This house was across the street from a Allison property that the city put the screws to.Allisons property was immaculate compared to this one.Why didn't the city protect these residents when it was Right under their noses?

Name me one property that that has hurt a person and the city got sued?Chuck your full of hot air!

Brian; 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...: 12:49 - who cares what is my idea of substandard? There is one code and that is the state building and fire code and the city is required to enforce it.

As to this guys record, Bob is making this witness out as a saint who was forced out of her wonderful house by the evil City for no reason. What we had was a NORMAL DRUG bust and her partner and his friend taken into custody. We have our saintly witness talking about how mean the police were to her poor victimized boyfriend who they grab and cuffed and carried downstairs for no good reason; what the rap sheet shows is a habitual felon that even has a conviction of bringing a weapon into the court room damn straight the cops weren't going to let him twitch without having four hands and a set of cuffs on him.

I don't have chapter and verse around the required reporters laws, but all I know is that when I worked in the business we were required to report any suspected abuse of kids and when you are a cop and you come upon an unsafe living situation with kids there you are required to do something about it. So, having the inspectors in hand when you expect that you are going to be busting a meth lab (which I will assume the warrant must have been since this guy has multiple meth convictions) is nothing unusual and is designed to cover your ass about reporting any child endangerment issues. Remember they were thinking they could have found crap that would blow up.

...and yes it is always easy to show where the City didn't do something, but give me some details, like this one and it doesn't take long before you can see that there are other much more rational reasons for the City's actions.

This case has NOTHING to do with the landlord and everything to do with the conditions they found in the property when doing a drug bust.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 9:12 AM
Bob said...: Chuck said;

Bob, it is pretty simple, because when the police raid a drug house where there are kids and the city finds that there are problems with the property and they don't take immediate action...the City gets sued.

My response;

Issues the police created during the raid Chuck. You won't be able to spin anything here. I could careless if David was a serial killer. The city had NO RIGHTS to put this woman and her children on the street.

And Chuck, show us even one case where the city was sued under these circumstances you speak of. It is insane what you are saying.

Debbie Doolittle said she had no record, she said her children had no record. They are clean Chuck. And it wouldn't matter if they weren't. The city has no right to condemn a home because they don't like the occupants. It is that simple Chuck.

Folks, we have a hidden city ordinance. IF, you have any kind of record no matter how old the record, this city's leadership think they have the right to run you out of your home. The folks in city government past and present will be made responsible for these actions.

I will also remind citizens reading here. The city isn't just condemning folks they deem to be criminals from their homes. They have gotten so use to this kind of abuse of civil rights they have spread these policies to home owners they deem can not afford to take care of their home. SO, if you are elderly and reading, do all you can to improve the appearance of the outside of your home, or these city ass wipes will be knocking at your door looking to get in to condemn you to the streets. And IF code enforcement shows up at your door, tell them to go fuck themselves.

Sure it is easy for some of you to support the city violating a persons civil rights who has been deemed criminal. Condemn them to the streets without due process to chase them out of a neighborhood. There is a whole lot of problems incurred practicing these policies.

In the instances where there is criminal activity at a residence, the city condemns a family to the streets and the family just moves to other parts of the city to raise hell there. Then the city gets to come in, violate the families rights again and condemn them to the streets a second time, now the city looks good to 2 different sets of neighbors and they haven't done shit but spread crime around.

How bout, getting the police out of the donut shops, make them do their job, investigate crime, arrest the perps, and quit spreading crime around the city you morons.; 9:30 AM
Bob said...: Chuck said;
This case has NOTHING to do with the landlord and everything to do with the conditions they found in the property when doing a drug bust.

My response;
It has everything to do with a landlord. Debbie Doolittle is claiming Steve Johnson her landlord is a good landlord, the city said he isn't. Who in the hell do you think had to go through the bogus code compliance Chuck? The owner of the home Steve Johnson.

Chuck, you also claim I am making Lindorf out to be a Saint. NOT TRUE, I have said very little about Lindorf. Dave had problems. This in no way justifies what the city is doing in their crime strategy of using code enforcement to rid a neighborhood of residence deemed less than desirable.

I am going to do my best to organize renters to sue the shit out of this city for these moronic policy's.; 9:39 AM
Bob said...: One more thing Chuck... Who's business suffered when these ass wipes put this woman and her children on the street?

STEVE JOHNSON the LANDLORD. He lost his rental income and had to do repairs to the home.; 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Bob, I don't have any information on the conditions that they found in the house THE HABITUAL FELON and his GIRLFRIEND THAT CLAIMS SHE HAS NO IDEA THAT HE HAD A CRIMINAL RECORD WHILE SHE WAS VISITING HIM IN PRISON.... are saying that the conditions were caused by the police.

Star witnesses Bob.

I don't have all the data on when the City is sued for what, because they get sued all of the time. But, I do know that police are required reporters in abuse and neglect cases and allowing a child to live in substandard housing is neglect.

I DON'T MAKE THE LAWS BOB.

I just try to explain that your insane rants don't make what you want to believe true.

What the City was trying to do here appears to be to bust a meth head who was dealing meth from this house. That would seem to be what the warrant was about.

What is crazy is that you think that the idea was to get into the house to inspect it. We have a habitual criminal that there is probable cause is running a drug house and they do a bust and aren't able to find him holding.

NOBODY WANTS TO MOVE HIM ALONG!!!

They wanted to catch him Bob!!

They wanted to put his sorry ass in jail for dealing and they missed.

The fact that this woman would chose to put her kids in this situation doesn't bother you in the least does it Bob. You have no compassion at all for these kids that are growing up in that situation. You think the bad guys are the police that are trying to arrest this poor meth head and that he should get some relief if he is chosing to use while the kids are with him. The cops should leave him alone to use in peace with the kids.

Great Bob, just great.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Again Chuck.....what's your idea of substandard? You want to blow my queston off because your use of the word substandard seems to have an inference that the city's actions are OK because of the substandard condition. I know some of the landlords and asked them about this very situation. What I was told was that the reason Lindorff was condemned was becasue there was a gas can with gas in it inside the house! This could have been rectified very easy by removing the gas can, but the city had another agenda didn't they? They wanted to spread the crime around not look out for anyones saftey or anything else.; 11:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Substandard to Chuck is anything that does not meet 2008 codes for new construction.

In every other community this is OK.; 12:00 PM
Anonymous said...: 11:25 - I don't have any of that information. But, on the face of it, it makes no sense at all.

You chose to believe that the only thing wrong with the property was that is was messy and there was a gas can down stairs.

I think that sounds so insane that it is BS.

If someone has the report, post it. Let's see it.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: And, then again it is interesting that the evil landlord that did not take care of the property before the good landlord (according to the witness) did end up taking our saintly witnesses to conciliation court. I am sure that had nothing to do with our witnesses view of her prior landlord.

DAVID BEAUDET VS DEBBIE ANN DOOLITTLE AND DAVID LINDORFF 08/12/2002
Ramsey Housing Conciliation Conciliation
Converted Closed

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 12:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Sorry, to go on about this, but by comparing the event dates, you have:

Feb 27, 2003 Lindorff is busted for posession of meth

March 12, 2003 the police do a raid on his house with a warrant for drugs and guns

May 29, 2003 Lindorff pleads guilty and gets 13 months in the workhouse

Right Bob, the cops should be out there busting the bad guys instead of hanging out at the doughnut shops...

Right Bob, they were harrassing this poor inocent victim that some time long ago had done something wrong and changed his ways.

And our star witness has no idea why they would be raiding the house.

Right Bob... Right.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 12:51 PM
Anonymous said...: "You chose to believe that the only thing wrong with the property was that is was messy and there was a gas can down stairs."

What I choose to believe Chuck is that city housing inspectors flat out lie about violations that do not exist so they condemn and move problem people out of the neighborhood. That is what the evidence and testimony has shown consistently. That is what all kinds of people that do not even know each other have been saying for years now. I believe the landlords Chuck.....NOT YOU....or Eric.; 12:58 PM
Bob said...: Chuck, like I said, I don't care if David Lindorf was a serial killer. It is obvious he has had some difficulties in his life.

That doesn't justify condemning this woman and her kids from the home.

I will post the affidavit for the search warrant when I get back from a job.; 1:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Bob - the cops had just busted this guy for meth on 2/27/03. Two weeks 3/12/03 later they get a warrant to do a raid on his house. Our poor young lass, has no idea why they would be there.

The cops bring the inspector along because they think they are busting a potential meth lab. When the inspector goes through the house he finds enough to cause him to give 24 hour notice to evict. FIND THAT REPORT - BOB.

Not her story of what was wrong because we already know that she never thinks anything is wrong... including anything wrong with the guy she is living with...

But, there is something wrong with the landlord that sued her, the cops who were picking on her boyfriend, and the inspectors that wrote up the house...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 1:16 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't condone meth, but it looks like the city is up to its old tricks 'the end justifies the means'. This has disturbing ramifications when they can pick anybody (since just about everyone has code violations) and tromp all over their rights - kick them out, abuse them, etc.

That's a big part of what the housing issues are about. Nazi tactics against anyone who isn't perfect is not OK to most of the readers here.; 3:07 PM
Anonymous said...: The city routinely uses the civil approach rather than criminal because it's much mcuh easier and has a much lower burden of proof needed in court. Community Policing at it's best!; 4:00 PM
Bob said...: Due to copy and paste errors I cannot post the affidavit.

Chuck suggested they brought the code inspector along because the police suspected a meth lab.
No where in the search warrant does it say the police were looking for anything needed to manufacture meth. The cops used a snitch to get the warrant to search the home. No where in the SNITCH'S report to the police officer does he say David manufactured meth.

Chuck would want you folks here to believe the police only bring a code inspector along under those types of circumstances. It isn't true. The code inspector tags along on raids whenever the city (usually driven by politics)desires a citizen deemed undesirable vacated from a home.

Tell everyone what you would like to say Chuck. Debbie Doolittle in your mind and like minds who design the policies of this city think Debbie Doolittle got what she deserved for loving a poor sap like David Lindorf.

Folks, the police used a snitches false information to get a warrant to search Dave Lindorfs house. They were looking for 4 ounces of meth, From what I can tell they may have found Dave Lindorfs personal stash of dope. The report is vague in regards to quantity and even if it is drugs. A sawed off shotgun the snitch claimed Dave kept loaded at all times where he could immediately access it. NOT FOUND.

Let me tell you folks something about informants. They are usually low life scum of the streets allowed to get away with more crime than the very citizens they are snitching on. And why is it this way, because the cops are to damn lazy to work the streets themselves for the information they need to make arrest.

I will do a story in the future about the use of informants. I have a lot to say on this subject.; 4:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Bob, BOB, BOB!!!!

The guy had just been busted for meth 13 days earlier. THIRTEEN DAYS!!

Don't bury your head in the sand talking about the bad guy being the snich. The cops were following up on a guy they had just busted for meth.

...and you were making out that the cops had no reason to go in there hot and heavy - THE SNICH SAID THAT THE KNOWN FELON, CURRENTLY OUT ON BAIL HAD A SHOTGUN!!!

What part of that don't you get Bob?

You bitch about the cops, but it appears that they thought they were going in to a life and death situation and all of your sympathy is with this woman... who has her kids living with a meth head, whose own son got killed in back of the house.

Man Bob, I get why you would prefer that the City doesn't enforce any laws.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke; 10:07 PM
Bob said...: Chuck said;

...and you were making out that the cops had no reason to go in there hot and heavy - THE SNICH SAID THAT THE KNOWN FELON, CURRENTLY OUT ON BAIL HAD A SHOTGUN!!!

my response;

first of all Chuck show me where I said the police had no reason to go in there hot and heavy. It was a raid for God sake.

I do not put much stock in anything a snitch has to say. I feel like posting this snitches name and record to show the folks what a piece of shit he is!

The snitch obviously was lieing as they often do. Dave was not caught with a gun or a large quantity of meth.

And one other thing Chuck, it is my understanding James Lindorf, Dave Lindorfs son, was killed at the old SA gas station on Front and Rice street.

It is no secret many white collar folks like a little coke and some smoke. Chuck, how many of your egg head friends toot a little coke? Or smoke some weed? Don't lie come on now. Are they bad parents when they hide their candies from their kids? Are the white shirts who provide them with their product dirty rotten scoundrels?; 10:23 PM
Bob said...: The fact that this woman would chose to put her kids in this situation doesn't bother you in the least does it Bob. You have no compassion at all for these kids that are growing up in that situation. You think the bad guys are the police that are trying to arrest this poor meth head and that he should get some relief if he is chosing to use while the kids are with him. The cops should leave him alone to use in peace with the kids.

Great Bob, just great.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

My response;

No Chuck you are wrong. I have bountiful compassion for my fellow man.

You and your sick demented friends in city politics have punished this woman without due process for being in a relationship with a man the city has deemed less than a desirable citizen. Debbie Doolittle said under testimony that Dave Lindorf in her opinion was a good man. Folks with drug addictions are capible of being good people Chuck.

Lindorf broke his back on the job and was paralyzed. He didn't break his back slinging dope. His son was murdered and he didn't get any justice from the system. The killer was set free after a very short period of time in prison. Good thing Lindorfs brother the kids uncle filled the son of a bitch full of holes after the guy was released from prison. To bad he didn't kill the prick a life would have been saved over on Jessamine last week.

This city with little regard for the well being and safety of Debbie Doolittle and her children went to this home with a search warrant with the intentions of throwing this woman and her kids out on the streets. I have other stories like this to tell.

The Tenants Union threaten suit against the city for bringing a code enforcement officer along on a raid. The city stopped the practice until the tenants union disbanded. The ACLU has warned the city a renters rights to privacy.; 10:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Cops and investigators often turn to people in the crimminal world with rap sheets a mile long, for information about there own kind.

These snich / stoolys have alot to offer and get rewarded when they work with the cops and give info.

Informants, which Bob says he knows how they work.

Your not going to get a law abiding citizen to lie for the cops to get a warran which is usually how it's done.

Cop gets thug to lie in search warrant that is sealed.

Judge signs it.

Cops enforce it.

Break down the door and look for evidence of other crimes not related to what they pretend to be looking for.; 11:06 PM
Anonymous said...: 11:06 pm
Is right.

Cops are the peoples worst enemies.
We often give our enemies the means of our own destruction. ...; 1:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Guive it up, Bob. Whatever governmetn says, Komissar Repke supoprts.

Zig hail Repke; 8:07 AM
Bob said...: Good Morning Saint Paul,

Jennifer Hobbs a former resident of Forest Street, said to me in regards to a police raid on her home. "The police were kicking holes in the walls, and said we are going to make sure this house stays condemned". Jennifer and her 2 young son's were put out on the streets that night.

I will be telling this story at some point. I believe Jennifer will join us. We have a lot of shocking evidence to go through.

Chuck, will have the honors of telling all these women and children the city was looking out for their security and well being when they threw them out onto the streets.

NOTE: I said in a previous post
"maybe I should post this snitches name and criminal history" I won't do that. I was only trying to stress a point.

Note to the snitch;

Didn't your mother ever tell you not to be a tattle tale? Jeeesh, this country is losing it's moral fiber. It is the governments job to investigate crime, not yours. The police look at you just like the rest of us. You are nothing but a snitch to them.

Quit leading an anti social life style before you get hurt or bring trouble to people close to you. Think back to the recent past and there is instances of innocent family members of snitchs being killed. Coppage family for one. There is NUMEROUS dead snitchs. It's never to late to lead a good life.

I am not suggesting citizens not call the police for help. This Confidential Reliable Informant stuff is a bunch of shit.; 9:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Bob, you're worst than Jesse Jackson.
You are willing to ignore criminal behavior just to meet your agenda. Just like Jesse used to do when he would roll in front the cameras some 'misunderstood' person who was wronged by the cops. He never says this guy was a drug dealing thug and had people who lived near him in fear.

I've been reading this site off and on for a couple of months and this is the worst thing I've seen.

You're telling people NOT to call the police. You're telling us that using criminal informants is not part of normal investigative police work. You are wrong and a sick, sick individual.

The answer for some landlords who may have been fucked over by the city is not to fuck over the citizens. I want the cops to talk to everyone. Here on the North End the problem is people who witness crimes don't say a word. They'd rather support the criminal, then help the police. Those of us who are living in terror some weeks out of the year HATE THAT. All you're doing is promoting that.

If some stupid broad is laying up with a criminal and brought her kids in the situation, she gets what she deserves. Those kids pick up that lifestyle and by the time they're 13, they're repeating the cycle. Get them out of that house and away.

People go to jail for being an accessory to crime all the time, from robbery to murder. If all these dumb women lost is their house, they should count themselves lucky.

Oh, outing an informant will land your ass in jail.

Tell you what Bob, why don't you come live over here on the North End and I'll move over in Highland where you are. Maybe if you actually owned your property, you would be so open to ignoring crime.

Unbeleivable. Defending scum drug dealers to make a point to favor landlords.

You guys make me sick.; 10:27 AM
Bob said...: 10:27 said;

You're telling people NOT to call the police. You're telling us that using criminal informants is not part of normal investigative police work. You are wrong and a sick, sick individual.

my response;

First of all you are twisting my words. I did not tell anyone not to call the police.

THIS IS WHAT I SAID;

>I am not suggesting< citizens not call the police for help. This Confidential Reliable Informant stuff is a bunch of shit.

Since you started the name calling, I will give you my opinion of yourself. You are one ignorant fool. Educate yourself on the destructive nature of the use of informants before you run rampant stupidity from your mouth here.

I was a "VOLUNTEER" UNDERCOVER REGISTERED CONFIDENTAL RELIABLE INFORMANT for the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and a number of other law enforcement agency's for close to 8 years. I worked violent crimes, homicides. I have taken murderous scum bags off the street. My resume out shines most cops on the beat. Take it from someone that has been there, untrained citizens have NO business doing investigative work for the police. This is a subject we will get into in the future.

Do you think it is OK the government puts citizens in situations that may endanger the citizen or his or her family's life?

I bet you do as long as it is happening to some citizens who has at least one criminal residing in the home. This way you can say all of them got what they deserved in terms of retaliation from some thug who didn't appreciate getting snitched on. You dumb callous thoughtless mindless son of a bitch, you and like minded folks are the sick fucks!

Listen I don't live in Highland anymore. I live in the heart of Dfl country in this city. However, in my life time I have lived all over this city. I have friends all over this city. I grew up in the early 70's in the Selby /Dale area. 721 Laurel. I later moved to 984 Hague. I attended what for the most part was an all black school. Marshall Junior High. I also graduated from the school of HARDKNOCKS! I know this city and I know this city's under belly. I can tell citizens with an honest heart we are on the wrong path in the crime strategy this city has under taken.

10:27 said,
People go to jail for being an accessory to crime all the time, from robbery to murder. If all these dumb women lost is their house, they should count themselves lucky.

my response;
You are right citizens go to jail all the time. Only they have due process of law! These women and children don't. What law did they break to constitute condemnation to the streets?

I do not defend criminals you ignorant fool. I defend civil rights. And you are one of those assholes OK with the most vulnerable of us having their rights violated. So it is not a popular quest to defend folks deemed by rightous eggheads as less than desirable citizens. BIG DEAL. I am here and I am not going away.

I would live in any part of this city. I fear no one and get along with everyone who I meet. And if someone doesn't like me I won't be heart broken. I could stand in a crowd of 100 people and disagree with all of them on principle.

10:27, if you have a neighbor you are not getting along with, no matter how much they frighten you invite them over for a drink, coffee, or a barbeque. Tell them your concerns. If that doesn't get you results. Call the cops.; 1:47 PM
Anonymous said...: So, now I know why Bob is such a bad mood - The Federal Court has thrown out the three cases against the City of Saint Paul. Summarry Judgement.

CASE CLOSED

Chuck Repke; 4:59 PM
Bob said...: Chuck, you took the wind out of my sails.

This story will be in the paper tomarrow. So, listen up, you all will hear this breaking news here first.

The case isn't over until the FAT LADY sings!

I have been informed the federal fair housing lawsuits will be appealed to a higher court. Morris -vs- Sax lost in the lower courts then appealed to the higher court and won.

I had expected this outcome so did many others who are close to this subject.

I will make a title post of this news.; 5:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Bob, its not a higher court, its THE highest court. There is not enough water in the bucket for the Supremes to even look at this.

The fat lady is not going to sing because she never even made it to the concert hall.

Eric; 8:47 PM

A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL

Monday, December 15, 2008

The Citizens Of Saint Paul -vs- The City Of Saint Paul Part 1 "Testimony of Debbie Doolittle"

80 Comments:

Previous Posts